In this week's The Reason Roundtable, editors Matt Welch and Nick Gillespie welcome not just one but two special guests from The Dispatch. In this convivial Roundtable crossover episode, Jonah Goldberg and Kevin D. Williamson ruminate on Kamala Harris' veep options, identity politics, and drug legalization. 04:54—Kamala Harris' potential running mates 20:09—Identity politics across both major parties 36:40—Weekly Listener Question 56:16—This week
In this week's TheReason Roundtable, editors Matt Welch and Nick Gillespie welcome not just one but two special guests from The Dispatch. In this convivial Roundtable crossover episode, Jonah Goldberg and Kevin D. Williamson ruminate on Kamala Harris' veep options, identity politics, and drug legalization.
Send your questions to [email protected]. Be sure to include your social media handle and the correct pronunciation of your name.
Today's sponsors:
We all carry around different stressors—big and small. When we keep them bottled up, it can start to affect us negatively. Therapy is a safe space to get things off your chest—and to figure out how to work through whatever's weighing you down. If you're thinking of starting therapy, give BetterHelp a try. It's entirely online. Designed to be convenient, flexible, and suited to your schedule. Just fill out a brief questionnaire to get matched with a licensed therapist, and switch therapists any time for no additional charge. Get it off your chest, with BetterHelp. Visit BetterHelp.com/roundtable today to get 10 percent off your first month.
During an interview on a podcast, MAGA Party Vice Presidential candidate JD Vance discussed his parenting style, which includes telling his 7-year-old to "shut the hell up" when the child is speaking about something that interests him.
Here's the clip:
I'm like, "oh no."
— Read the rest
The post JD Vance brags that he told his 7-year-old to "shut the hell up"about Pokemon when Trump called him (video) appeared first on Boing Boing.
During an interview on a podcast, MAGA Party Vice Presidential candidate JD Vance discussed his parenting style, which includes telling his 7-year-old to "shut the hell up" when the child is speaking about something that interests him.
Vice-presidential nominee J.D. Vance's book, Hillbilly Elegy, came out in 2016—a few months before Donald Trump won a surprising presidential victory thanks in part to widespread support from within the Appalachian hollers that Vance wrote about. Although he grew up in southwestern Ohio, Vance's family was from the mountains of hard-scrabble eastern Kentucky. "Elegy" offers a thought-provoking account of the difficulty poor people face as they tr
Vice-presidential nominee J.D. Vance's book, Hillbilly Elegy, came out in 2016—a few months before Donald Trump won a surprising presidential victory thanks in part to widespread support from within the Appalachian hollers that Vance wrote about. Although he grew up in southwestern Ohio, Vance's family was from the mountains of hard-scrabble eastern Kentucky.
"Elegy" offers a thought-provoking account of the difficulty poor people face as they try to transcend their circumstances. "How much of our lives, good and bad, should we credit to our personal decisions, and how much is just the inheritance of our culture, our families, and our parents who have failed their children?" he asked. The movie was less compelling, but it reinforced that point.
Trump recently said the book was about society's unfair treatment of working class men and women, but that suggests he never read it. Actually, the book focused on the ways poor people often sabotage their fleeting opportunities and blame others for their predicament. Vance went on to become a Marine, attend Ohio State, and earn a law degree from Yale.
My wife devoured the book—and was particularly moved by Vance's depictions of his awkward attempts to fit in among his classmates. She also grew up in a small coal town in Appalachia. Her lumberman father died young, leaving a wife and six daughters to subsist on government aid. Like Vance, she received a scholarship. When I met her at George Washington University, she had never taken a taxi, been in an elevator, or dined at a fancy restaurant.
Unfortunately, author Vance seems far different from vice-presidential nominee Vance. Power is tempting, but Donna and I have nevertheless cringed as he has espoused positions that seem at odds with his book's central point. Instead of recognizing that the American Dream is alive and well—and all of her sisters have lived successful lives—he now blames outsiders for the plight of the working class.
Vance also pitches big-government economic "populist" ideas and engages in nativism. His critics have pointed to his apparent hypocrisy. After all, he's a middle-class Midwestern suburbanite who attended an Ivy League school, married the daughter of immigrants, and is backed by Bay Area techies. I suspect his embrace of an ideology explains this shift more than raw ambition.
Tell-tale signs come from his speech at the Republican National Convention: "America is not just an idea. It is a group of people with a shared history and a common future. … (W)hen we allow newcomers into our American family, we allow them on our terms." He said that generations of Kentuckians died in wars and are buried in his family's cemetery, noting that, "People will not fight for abstractions, but they will fight for their homes."
I've read myriad critiques on some of Vance's statements, including noxious ones blasting childless cat ladies. That's basically right-wing edge-lording. But the fiercest critique comes in an Atlantic column addressing Vance's "insult to America." Writer Jessica Gavora recalls her dad's harrowing escape from Czechoslovakia after Soviet forces overran it: "My dad came here for a reason, and it wasn't the dirt of a graveyard."
I agree with Gavora, but then again my dad fled Nazi Germany and my maternal grandparents fled Russian pogroms. Almost all of the immigrants I meet—around here they're mostly from Latin America, Russia, and India—are among the most patriotic people I meet. My wife's Appalachian ancestors hailed from Poland before heading to work in the Pennsylvania coal fields. And what's this about requiring them to submit to "our terms"?
Vance's statement defines the central dividing line between paleo-conservatives such as Patrick Buchanan—and classical liberals such Ronald Reagan. The former believe America is a nation built by and for a specific people. They dislike free markets, which are corrosive of their cultural preferences. They want to vastly limit immigration. They have no problem with big government as long as they control it.
By contrast, classical liberals believe America is based on the universal idea of freedom and economic opportunity. They focus on reducing the size and power of government—and creating opportunities for everyone wherever they or their ancestors were born. Classical liberals may want an orderly immigration process, but they're more interested in turning immigrants into Americans than sending them home.
Classical liberals—and I count myself among them—view free trade as a wonder, not a threat. And while I'm a long-time critic of America's endless foreign interventions and wars, I care (unlike Vance) about what happens in Ukraine. We believe in liberty for everyone, not just members of our clan.
The Democratic Party is hostile to freedom and progress in its own unique and terrifying ways. But I wish the Vance who wrote "Hillbilly Elegy"—rather than paleo-conservative changeling we now see on display—were the one on the GOP ticket to make that case.
This column was first published in The Orange County Register.
Is the future of the GOP more libertarian, nationalist, or, somehow, both? Joining us today is Vivek Ramaswamy, entrepreneur, author, and former presidential candidate. He's been making a hard pitch for what he's called a "libertarian-nationalist alliance" for the past several months. He was at the 2024 Libertarian National Convention where he tried to convince libertarians to vote Republican. Reason's Zach Weissmueller also saw Ramaswamy at the
Is the future of the GOP more libertarian, nationalist, or, somehow, both?
Joining us today is Vivek Ramaswamy, entrepreneur, author, and former presidential candidate. He's been making a hard pitch for what he's called a "libertarian-nationalist alliance" for the past several months. He was at the 2024 Libertarian National Convention where he tried to convince libertarians to vote Republican. Reason's Zach Weissmueller also saw Ramaswamy at the Republican National Convention, where he was trying to convince MAGA supporters to be more libertarian. Reason's Stephanie Slade saw him make his case for "national libertarianism" at the National Conservatism Conference. That event was also attended by vice presidential candidate J.D. Vance, who has a different vision for the conservative movement. Those dueling visions are the subject of today's episode.
Note:This episode is plagued by technical issues due to a software malfunction. With the exception of an approximately nine-minute section (which is marked in the episode), the full conversation is intact.
Watch the full conversation on Reason's YouTube channel or the Just Asking Questions podcast feed on Apple, Spotify, or your preferred podcatcher.
Pictures of Vivek Ramaswamy, Donald Trump, Liz Wolfe, and Zach Weissmueller with the Reason logo, the Just Asking Questions logo, and the words "Libertarian or nationalist?" all in white
Republican vice presidential nominee J.D. Vance has been in the news for an old clip of him talking about how the tax code should punish adults without kids. While Vance's proposal probably aims to address demographic concerns, it represents a misguided approach that contradicts fundamental principles of economic freedom and fairness. And you know what? That's precisely what our tax code already does, in this case and many others. Using the tax c
Republican vice presidential nominee J.D. Vance has been in the news for an old clip of him talking about how the tax code should punish adults without kids. While Vance's proposal probably aims to address demographic concerns, it represents a misguided approach that contradicts fundamental principles of economic freedom and fairness.
And you know what? That's precisely what our tax code already does, in this case and many others.
Using the tax code to "reward" parents and "punish" nonparents is at odds with the idea of a neutral, efficient tax system. In an ideal and fair world, the tax base would be broad but taxed at a low rate. People making the same income should be paying the same level of taxes no matter how they choose to live their lives.
Unfortunately, the tax code is neither fair nor neutral. It punishes and rewards all sorts of behaviors based on what government officials decide is good or bad.
For instance, the tax code does, in fact, treat people with kids more favorably than it treats those who do not have kids.* There's the child tax credit, of course. Then there's the earned income tax credit, which is more generous for families with children than those without. And there is no shortage of other provisions, such as a very significant deduction for heads of households and another for dependent care, which do the same thing.
It's hard to know what Vance's proposal really entails. Does he want another surtax on childless parents? Does he want to expand the child tax credit and make it a universal basic income like many conservatives and progressives want? It's also unclear whether he is simply failing to see that our tax code already delivers on his wishes and punishes childless adults. Either way, I assume he is well intentioned and that he is rightfully concerned about the decline in fertility we are witnessing not just in this country but across the world.
Unfortunately, punishing childless parents with additional taxes wouldn't boost fertility. For one thing, we've had a child tax credit since the 1990s, and the tax break has been regularly extended. That hasn't encouraged people to have more kids.
That's not unique to the child tax credit. Lots of evidence exists showing that government programs of all sorts meant to encourage, reward, or stimulate the supply of babies usually fail. One of the most dramatic examples is South Korea. The country has spent over $200 billion on such policies over the past 16 years, and fertility rates are still falling.
There isn't any doubt that more people, and hence more babies, are a boon for our lives and our economy. But that alone isn't a good reason for government subsidies. And while raising kids is expensive, that's no justification for a government tax break, either.
Besides, careful studies have shown the cost of raising a child in America has been decreasing for six decades. In the end, rather than rewarding families with lesser taxes at the expense of childless adults, I would encourage advocates to focus on removing existing government barriers—like overzealous policies that make child care more expensive without making kids measurably safer—that make life more complicated for families.
Ultimately, these are only secondary aspects of a much bigger debate. Our tax code is incredibly unfair. It's not just childless adults that face a surcharge compared to parents. Tax breaks for homeowners mean that renters pay more money for the same amount of housing. Households which include a college student pay less in taxes. People who can afford an electric vehicle can secure a tax break that others cannot.
These tax breaks for some are not just unfair to the taxpayers who don't get them—they also turn our tax code into a complicated mess that requires many millions of collective hours to comply with. Instead of adding more complexity and bias, we should be moving in the opposite direction—toward a simpler, flatter, and more neutral code that treats all taxpayers equally.
Using the tax code as a tool for social engineering is misguided. It leads to economic inefficiencies and infringes on individual liberty. Rather than doubling down on the problematic aspects of our current system, we should be working toward comprehensive reform. Only then can we hope to see taxes as something that truly serves the interests of all Americans, regardless of their personal choices.
New slur just dropped: Perhaps it started with the online meme, which was semi-believable but untrue, that Sen. J.D. Vance (R–Ohio) wrote of humping a couch in his coming-of-age memoir, Hillbilly Elegy. Or perhaps it started with the most normal, almost boring politician in the world, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, who has been using this talk track for months but is only just now going viral. But the Democrats' new strategy is to call their Republican
New slur just dropped: Perhaps it started with the online meme, which was semi-believable but untrue, that Sen. J.D. Vance (R–Ohio) wrote of humping a couch in his coming-of-age memoir, Hillbilly Elegy. Or perhaps it started with the most normal, almost boring politician in the world, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, who has been using this talk track for months but is only just now going viral.
But the Democrats' new strategy is to call their Republican opponents—particularly J.D. Vance, former President Donald Trump's vice-presidential pick—"weird." ("Elegant in its simplicity," said one Democratic party strategist of Walz's invention.)
"People kept talking about, look Donald Trump is going to put women's lives at risk. That's 100 percent true. Donald Trump is potentially going to end constitutional liberties that we have and voting. I do believe all those things are a real possibility, but it gives him way too much power," Walz said on CNN. "Listen to the guy. He's talking about Hannibal Lecter and shocking sharks and just whatever crazy thing pops into his mind. And I thought we just think we give him way too much credit."
Walz, a former public school teacher in Mankato, Minnesota, is aggressively earnest and plainspoken, and "actually knows how to fish" and hunt, according to an approving former senator from nearby North Dakota. He looks like he shops at Costco and doesn't know what boba tea is.
Meanwhile, Vance—the frequent target of Walz's line—has had some damning comments resurface (naturally) from a Fox News interview in 2021 in which he said the nation was run by "childless cat ladies" who are "miserable."
"How does it make any sense that we've turned our country over to people who don't really have a direct stake in it?" he asked.
Out of this soundbite and Walz's frustration, a slurwasborn. Here's a supercut of Democrats calling Republicans "weird" from the last week, in case you don't believe me. More here and—enjoy this Fox News chyron—here.
Does the "weird" line make any sense? Admittedly, it is a little weird for Vance and some of his fellow Republicans to express such blatant contempt for other people's life choices—particularly childless and single women, not their male counterparts who are surely also to blame (unless they're busy with the couches, in which case: ride on). But I wonder whether Democrats are taking a premature victory lap, claiming the schoolyard insult is effective, when they're not exactly the party of normal, well-adjusted people like Walz.
It's the Democrats who can claim Sam Brinton, the crossdressing, gender-fluid, lipstick-wearing Biden administration Energy Department official who kept stealing suitcases (containing clothes and makeup) from luggage conveyor belts at airports. It's the Democrats who currently have gentle-parenting Instagram lady experts using kindergarten-teacher talk to condescend to people worried about big-government regulatory policy. It's the Democrats who have spent a LOT of the last decade holding drag queen story hours at public libraries and expecting everyone to stay really calm about it, and who have promoted an awful lot of gender-doesn't-exist/gender-isn't-binary talk. It's the Democrats, in the form of teachers unions, who held protests with coffins to combat school-reopening plans during COVID-19, implying that they would die if expected to go to work (while schools stayed open in much of Scandinavia, to great effect). Don't even get me started on the fixation with white-lady tears, or the literal Hamas headbands detected on some college campuses this spring.
For right now, though, people seem fired up enough about Vance's rude comments to accept and promulgate the "weird" insult.
Sometimes it backfires, though. The X account for the Nevada Democratic Party posted this, quote-tweeting an image of the two politicians: "You can't make this up: Sam Brown and JD Vance are claiming to be champions for hardworking Nevadans—from a private jet. They're not only hypocrites…they're just plain weird."
Unfortunately for them (and for him), Sam Brown, who is running for the Republican nomination for a U.S. Senate seat in Nevada, sustained heavy facial scarring from burns that came from an improvised explosive devise explosion while he was serving in Afghanistan in 2008. It took him three years of rehab and 30 surgeries to get to where he is today, but his face doesn't look, well, normal. (Brown gracefully pivoted away from the insult.)
But therein lies the problem with this schoolyard taunt approach: It looks not only low and mean, but it denies the reality most voters (especially the double-haters) know to be true.
American politics is full of terribly weird, thoughtless, and impulsive people, reflecting exactly who we are as a nation. The Tim Walzes and the Sam Browns are actually the exceptions, not the rule. Former President Bill Clinton had sex with his intern, featuring a cigar as a sex toy. Former President George W. Bush declared "mission accomplished" when it just…wasn't. He flew over Katrina-devastated New Orleans on his way back from vacation instead of actually visiting. The Kennedys, that political dynasty that just won't go away, seem to have a hereditary philandering problem. Trump was just convicted of falsifying business records related to hush-money payments to porn star Stormy Daniels, with whom he had an affair. It's not just politicians, but the political periphery as well: January 6 saw the introduction of another wild character, the QAnon shaman, who after being sentenced for his role in the Capitol riot was granted a special organic food prison diet. Of course.
It's no wonder people want to tune out.
One last reason why the "weird" taunt might backfire: Though Vance is wrong to speak about childless people in such terms, his family…looks like a lot of American families nowadays. Three (biracial) young kids, two working parents, one of whom is a striver who came from a hardscrabble background. Just as thrice-married Trump, who pays lip service to the idea of the church but barely attends, is representative of the social values of a portion of the country, Vance appears to be representative of another chunk: Those who are upwardly mobile, who care about providing for their young families.
Scenes from New York: Inside the Shujun Wang trial. Wang stands accused of being a spy for the Chinese Communist Party. If he is convicted, he will face up to 25 years in prison.
QUICK HITS
MSNBC contributor Molly Jong-Fast claimed on the air that Republican vice-presidential candidate J.D. Vance wants only "white children" in America, which is an odd thing to say about a man who has three biracial children with his wife, Usha.
Israel killed Ismail Haniyeh, a top Hamas leader, as he was visiting Tehran.
Interesting developments with Project 2025:
NEWS: Project 2025 director Paul Dans has stepped down at Heritage Foundation after pressure from Trump campaign leadership, ongoing power rift over staffing control for potential second Trump admin, per internal email. This suggests Project 2025 will likely shut down. Story TK.
— Roger Sollenberger (@SollenbergerRC) July 30, 2024
"My cover story in the new Aug/Sept issue of Reason Magazine explores the paradox that the faster the federal debt accelerates towards a debt crisis, the less voters seem to care," writes Brian Riedl on X.
Stunning:
The Democratic Socialists of America @dsa_intl_comm congratulated Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro for stealing the election, then deleted their post pic.twitter.com/rHdA2otLUA
Přihlásit se
