Tag: liberal

Why Term Limits Are Needed in America

Jack Shields @Jack_Shields20

Beginning this Congressional term, Senator Cruz (R-TX) proposed a constitutional amendment creating term limits. He did this at the beginning of the last congressional term. Although 82% of Americans support the idea of congressional term limits, it is a mostly symbolic proposal. Reaffirming Cruz’s principles to his supporters, the amendment has no chance of even making it to the floor for debate. People don’t enjoy banning themselves from their own job it turns out. Despite there being no practical path to term limits at the moment, it is worth examining and debating. We should explore the libertarian idea that people should have their freedom to elect authority kept intact. After all, 18% of Americans are not in favor of term limits.

Continue reading “Why Term Limits Are Needed in America”

Advertisements

How to Win Any Argument in Politics: A Complete Guide

Ian Brzeski | @ianbrzeski

Are you struggling to convince your friend on why Donald Trump is the worst and most racist president alive? Or maybe you want to convince them on why he is our Lord and Savior. Whatever the case, this article will prepare you on how you can win those arguments and convince all your close family and friends to see things from your point of view. No more stupid liberals blowing up your twitter feeds, no more Hitler-esque MAGA supporters walking around the streets. With these tips on how to beat any political opponent across the spectrum, you will become unstoppable.

How to Win Any Argument as a Conservative

Preparation

To beat somebody in an argument, you are going to need a couple of weeks to prepare. The first step when preparing to argue with somebody who is not conservative is to look in your mirror every morning and tell yourself that everybody else is a liberal snowflake. When arguing with a liberal snowflake, they are going to cry 100% of the time. It is pretty much guaranteed. Doing this will give you the motivation and confidence you need to destroy that liberal.

Furthermore, to continue your preparation, you have to listen to Ben Shapiro every night before you go to bed. Make sure to memorize every single one of his lines in every video you watch. I recommend watching the videos titled “Ben Shapiro DESTROYS Crazy Libtard” or similar.

In the Debate

Now that you have prepared for your argument, you are ready to seek out somebody to destroy. Upon finding a person, make sure the first thing you mention is how great of a president Donald Trump is. This is going to trigger and shock them. To illustrate this, their hands will be sweating, they will be profusely shaking, and their first reaction will be to call you a racist. This is precisely the kind of response you want. You now have the upper hand and are ready to obliterate them in any argument.

Some other things you may want to mention:

  • Liberalism is a disease.
  • If you are pro-choice, you are a baby killer. Therefore, any other argument you make is invalid.
  • If you do not support Israel, you hate the United States. Oh, and you also hate Jews too.
  • ISIS will take over the United States if we do not relentlessly bomb the Middle East to find our freedom.
  • If you do not stand for the flag, you are quite literally the worst person in the world and deserve to die.
  • Facts don’t care about your feelings.
  • Back the blue.
  • If you aren’t with us, you are against us.
  • It is your duty to die for your country.
  • Transgender people are mentally ill.
  • Illegal immigrants are murderers and rapists.
  • Allowing refugees into the country is the same as allowing Isis into the country.
  • The Confederate flag is not racist.
  • If you hate the government so much, why don’t you just leave?
  • Guns don’t kill people. People kill people.

Closing the Debate

After presenting all of these facts, you want to hit them with the “libtard.” There is no recovery for them once you call them a “libtard.” After calling them that, walk away and do not pay attention to any single word they say. You have won. Congratulations. Go home and celebrate by grabbing a beer and putting on some Fox News in your trailer home.

How to Win Any Argument as a Liberal

Preparation

First, educate yourself, learning that both conservatives and libertarians are two sides of the same coin. After all, libertarianism and conservatism are both alt-right political ideologies that resemble fascism. Once you recognize this, it is easily assumed at this point that you are morally a better person than everybody else. Libertarians and conservatives are the most hateful and racist people out there. To make it even worse, they hate poor people. You want people to have affordable healthcare and a stable social safety net; they don’t. They honestly do not even exist outside of the internet. How could they? You have never associated with them in your life.

After you realize that you are better than everybody else is when you can start listening to comedians reuse the same Donald Trump jokes over and over again. God damn, those jokes are so funny. They never get old. When you are around your buddies, make sure to repeat those jokes because they are so damn hilarious. It is not like they watched the same John Oliver episode you watched last night.

In the Debate

Things to say in a debate:

  • Climate change will kill everybody within the next 36 hours.
  • Donald Trump is racist.
  • Hillary won the popular vote so she should be president.
  • Donald Trump is orange.
  • Russia hacked the elections.
  • Donald Trump is sexist.
  • Kavanaugh is a rapist.
  • Donald Trump is misogynistic.
  • End the wars except when Donald Trump wants to, then blow up Muslims.
  • Donald Trump is a murderer.
  • Abolish the electoral college.
  • Donald Trump is literally Hitler.
  • Making at least $30 an hour is a fundamental human right.
  • Donald Trump is a Nazi.
  • My body my choice.
  • Donald Trump is a baby.
  • Hate speech is murder.

Closing the Debate

The simplest way for you to win and effectively close out the debate is to call your opponent a racist and to start crying immediately. They will be taken aback, and be at a loss for words. They also may make fun of you, but that is further proving your point that you are the better person. Never forget that you should tune out anything points they try to make. After all, those points are inherently racist and have no real value.

How to Win Any Argument as a Libertarian

Preparation

As you scratch your neckbeard with “Liberty Defined” by Ron Paul in your hand, you have realized that everybody is a statist, even other libertarians. Libertarians are not libertarian enough, and some libertarians are too radical (@ ancaps). “Everybody is an NPC except for me,” is what you tell yourself as you look at your diverse collection of literature ranging from Murray Rothbard all the way to Milton Friedman. You have all the answers already. You do not even need this article to know how to win an argument. Friedrich Hayek taught you everything you need to know, thus, you are prepared.

In the Debate

I know you already know everything, but here are some things you may want to mention in your debate in case you forget:

  • Taxation is theft.
  • End the Fed.
  • Legalize all drugs.
  • No victim no crime.
  • Make fun of people who say “But who will build the roads?.” This is an effective and hilarious tactic because you know deep down that the private sector will be able to handle the roads. God, you are so funny.
  • Gun control is literally murder.
  • The free market will solve all problems.
  • Libertarianism is an objective and moral truth.
  • If somebody ends up leaving libertarianism, they were never a true libertarian in the first place because they must not have read Murray Rothbard. The words of Murray Rothbard will convert anybody to the one true objective truth.
  • The only good communist is a dead communist.
  • Socialism kills.
  • There is no such thing as a good cop.
  • We live in a police state.
  • But what if the child consents?

Closing the Debate

At the end of the day, you want people to do as they please as long as they are not directly hurting somebody. Your opponent obviously does not agree with this, however, so the last thing you need to do to ensure your victory is it call them “statist scum.” Statists are parasites that leech off others through the power of the state. Statists want to take away your freedoms and are the equivalent to Satan. Thus, make sure your opponent knows what kind of filth they are.

How to Win Any Argument as a Socialist

Preparation

“From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” Repeat this phrase over and over in your head. Repeat it until that is all you can think about. These words will transcend your mind to an intellect never seen before. Let’s be honest here; you can’t just be a socialist. You have to go all the way and hit some more radical levels. Become an anarcho-communist, an anarcho-syndicalist, or even an anarcho-primitivist. Embrace more radical ideas than socialism. You are weak if you don’t. This is like when a libertarian is too afraid to become an anarcho-capitalist. Like seriously, stop being a wimp and just go full communist. Communism or nothing is what I like to say.

In the Debate

Things to mention in a debate:

  • Capitalism kills.
  • The world sucks because of capitalism.
  • Capitalism is quite literally the worst.
  • Real socialism has never been tried.
  • Scarcity is a hoax.
  • Antifa stands for anti-fascist, so they must be good and do no wrong.
  • Kill the 1%.
  • Israel deserves death.
  • Noam Chomsky’s word is the true word of God.
  • All cops are bastards.
  • Sex work is exploitation and is a direct result of capitalism.
  • Kill people who kill people because killing people is wrong.

Closing the Debate

The easiest way for you to win an argument here is to beat the living hell out of your opponent. You see this tactic with Antifa and kids on college campuses, and they always seem to face little to no repercussions. You can’t lose the argument if your hateful opponent is incapacitated.

 

The following subsections will show how you can beat unconventional political ideologies.

How to Beat a Fascist in an Argument

Look, if you can’t beat a fascist in an argument by yourself, then there is no hope for you. Just get out of politics and never look back.

How to Beat a Maoist/Stalinist in an Argument

Mao Zedong and Stalin both killed millions upon millions of people. Again, if you can’t win this argument, get out of politics. Losing here is almost as embarrassing as losing to a fascist.

How to beat an Anarcho-Primitivist in an Argument

Bring up the famed anarcho-primitivist, Ted Kaczynski. With that, your argument has been won. You’re welcome.

How to beat an Anarcho-Communist in an Argument

Tell these commies that anarchy and communism can’t go together. It is impossible. Communism=big government. Anarchy=no government. Therefore, anarcho-communism is an oxymoron. Congratulations, you just made an entire political ideology obsolete.

Guaranteed Victory

Sticking to the outline on how to win an argument while maintaining a specific political ideology as well as adhering to the framework on how to beat obscure ideologies, you will become unstoppable. There is not a single political argument that you can lose. This outline will work in every single circumstance. Want to run for president? I can guarantee that if you follow the steps I laid out for your debates, you will get at least 99% of the votes.

Thank you for coming to my Ted talk. Now you know how to obliterate and shatter anybody in an argument about politics. If there is one thing you can take away from this article, I want it to be this:  if you ever feel like you are losing an argument, cover your ears, call your opponent an idiot, and walk away. It works like a charm. It is a cheat code that works on every single argument, even non-political arguments. Now, go out there and destroy some idiots.


71 Republic takes pride in distinctively independent journalism and editorials. Every dollar you give helps us grow our mission of providing reliable coverage. Please consider donating to our Patreon.

Featured Image Source

Andrew Yang Is On Fire

By Spencer Kellogg | @Spencer_Kellogg

Who saw this coming? Andrew Yang is the dark horse candidate for 2020 and the internet loves him. Hell, as a left of center libertarian – I love him. Though the mainstream media is doing their best to keep him in the dark, Yang is gaining clout and credibility every day.

His laid back demeanor and outsider brand of politics have made him a captivating story that simply cannot be ignored. Namely, his call for a Universal Basic Income and his tech forward platform proves that Yang has a new vision for America that seems both plausible and exciting.

Continue reading “Andrew Yang Is On Fire”

The Only “National Emergency” We Face is a Potentially Unchecked Executive

Shiam Kannan | United States

President Donald Trump has never been a steadfast proponent of Constitutional conservatism, but on Friday, February 15th, 2019, he issued a full-fledged assault on American constitutional principles, declaring a National Emergency at the southern border in order to gain access to billions of dollars for the construction of a border barrier. While a strong case can be made on the merits of a border wall, the issue at hand goes further: our nation is at a Constitutional crossroads, and at this moment, we must decide whether the President has the power to spend money without Congressional consent.

The Constitution clearly addresses this issue, and the answer, according to the document, is a firm “no.” Article 1, Section 9, Clause 7 of the Constitution states that “[n]o Money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.” In other words, if there is no appropriations bill passed by Congress delegating money for a specific purpose, then money cannot be spent on that purpose. This means that Trump does not have any authority under the Constitution to unilaterally fund his border wall, or anything else, for that matter, using taxpayer dollars, unless Congress passes a funding bill which explicitly authorizes it.

Continue reading “The Only “National Emergency” We Face is a Potentially Unchecked Executive”

Book Review: The Great Delusion: Liberal Dreams and International Realities by John Mearsheimer

Kevin Doremus | United States

The Great Delusion: Liberal Dreams and International Realities by John Mearsheimer challenges progressive liberalism to its core.  Through his most recent book, Mearsheimer argues that progressivism is the root problem in the United States foreign policymaking.  The ideology encourages a messianic state to spread its values across the world or to remake the world in its image.  This ideology is the foundation of what is known as liberal hegemony, which Mearsheimer and other realist international relations scholars claim has resulted in instability throughout the world and is destined to fail.  He argues that realism and nationalism will overcome liberalism because liberalism does not take into consideration how the world actually operates thus it lends itself to foreign policy failures which the US has experienced since the end of the Cold War.

About the Author and The Great Delusion

John Mearsheimer is a professor of international relations at the University of Chicago.  His literature primarily focuses on international security and politics from a realist perspective.  He has written books like The Tragedy of Great Power Politics and co-authored controversial books such as The Israeli Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy.  He and his co-author Stephen Walt argue that pro-Israeli lobbying firms have influenced the US to serve Israel’s interests instead of its own.  This book sparked numerous accusations of antisemitism from foreign policy establishment.  Robert Merry in his review of The Great Delusion documents the verbal insults between Mearsheimer and Robert Kaplan over policy differences and the role of their universities.  Mearsheimer considers that Kaplan teaches at a “government policy shop” and Kaplan says that the University of Chicago is for “oddballs.”  This outspoken manner allows Mearsheimer to present an indictment of progressivism.

The book structure builds a case for a restrained US foreign policy.  The first chapter defines what liberal hegemony means, then it follows a bottom-up method, starting with the discussion on what human nature is and builds upwards towards the international system.  The book has dedicated four chapters critical of liberal hegemony with the conclusion presenting a case for a foreign policy of restraint.

When Mearsheimer discusses liberalism he acknowledges that there are two variants which are modus vivendi and progressivism.  Mearsheimer argues that it is the progressive variant that goes beyond the negative rights promoted by modus vivendi liberals.  Progressives advocate positive rights that would require government intervention and activism to solve injustice in society.  When it comes to foreign policy, a progressive liberal state would attempt to spread its values across the world.  In international relations, the liberal theory is heavily influenced by progressive ideals.  Progressive foreign policy is known as liberal hegemony or primacy.

Liberal Hegemony

He defines Liberal Hegemony as a grand strategy in which a liberal nation-state attempts to spread liberal values throughout the world.  A liberal “state aims to turn as many countries as possible into liberal democracies like itself while also promoting an open international economy and building international institutions.”  Liberal societies embody universal values like unalienable rights.  If universal rights exist and an illiberal society does not honor those rights, liberals make the case for intervention in the name of justice.

As Mearsheimer points out, this universal logic leads towards advocacy of regime change. Liberal states are “likely to end up fighting endless wars, which will increase rather than reduce the level of conflict in international politics and thus aggravate the problems of proliferation and terrorism.”  Liberal hegemony is a contradiction of liberalism. It is intolerant of differences in societies and cultures.  Social structures that do not embrace liberal values and democracy should be socially engineered out of their backward ways.

On the surface, a liberal hegemonic policy appears good since it promotes protection for open markets, universal human rights, and tolerance.  Advocates for liberal hegemony are known as primacists, who argue that liberal hegemony is the best method for protecting liberal societies from illiberal ones.  Primacists fear that as China rises it will seek to upend the liberal norms of trade.  In their minds, China needs to be counterbalanced.  However, the US attempts to isolate China and also Russia, have both been a colossal failure.  The attempts to spread US influence abroad has resulted in “chaos, bloodshed, an intractable refugee crisis besetting the Middle East and Europe, increased tensions among major powers, [and] curtailment of civil liberties at home…”

Human Nature

The negative results represent liberalism’s underestimation of human nature and nationalism.  Realists have a Hobbesian view of human nature which is considered egoistic and self-interested.  Progressives instead believe that human nature can be perfected through a top-down approach by an activist state.  Mearsheimer notes that elites in Western societies do not speak of communities in a localized context but in a global context.  In a globalized world, societies have become more interconnected.  No longer are societies isolated by geography, technology allows people to travel and communicate at incredible speed.  As Mearsheimer correctly points out, no single global culture has been formed, “There is an abundance of distinct cultures in the world, and they underpin a wide variety of societies. Heterogeneity, not homogeneity, is the prevailing state of the global culture. Thus global society and human society are not useful terms.”  Liberal internationalists are challenged by the diversity of the world.

Mearsheimer presents his assumptions on human nature.  The first is that there are limits to reason.  He notes how enlightened ideas reinforce the thought that humanity is perfectible.  This is a delusion in his mind because there is disagreement on what is universal.  He uses religion as an example to illustrate how universal ideas do not agree with one another.  If the world cannot agree on a true religion, how can one believe that liberalism can encompass the world?

Nationalism

Human beings are not just individuals but also social beings.  When people are brought into this world, they are socialized into particular groups.  Mearsheimer argues that nationalism presents a problem for liberalism.  Liberalism underestimates the power that particular groups have on creating group loyalty.  Through his theory of nationalism, he argues that a nation has six features which are a sense of oneness, a distinct culture, a sense of superiority, a deep history, sacred territory, and sovereignty.  These six features distinguish a particular group of people from another.  He makes references to distinguished nationalist scholars such as Benedict Anderson and Ernest Geller to build his definition.  He contends that liberalism ignores these features instead it is focusing on an abstract idea of universal rights.

In a world of nation-states, liberalism has to operate with nationalism in mind.  In fact, Mearsheimer claims that liberal hegemony is in fact nationalistic.  Former Secretary of State Madeline Albright statement that the US is an “indispensable nation” is an example of US nationalism.  “American exceptionalism” is a similar phrase, both present the United States’ identity as a distinct and superior nation because of its liberal tradition.  American liberalism has become a contradiction of itself.  Liberal hegemony is the exact opposite of what liberalism means.  It is in fact illiberal.

The Liberal Failings

The nationalistic component of the US identity combined with progressive liberalism created the idea that the US was a “city on hill” and “an indispensable nation.”  Mearsheimer argues that the belief in liberal ideals and the American nation has created an unhealthy hubris. This was compounded by the fact that after the Cold War the international system was unipolar.  There was only a single power that reigned supreme over the system.  Unipolar powers have no real opposition to their actions.  The Soviet Union no longer existed to counter-balance against the US.  In Mearsheimer’s speeches, he argues that the US operated the Cold War through a realist worldview.[12]  The US was balancing against the Soviet Union.   Once the threat of the Soviet Union was gone, the US abandoned realism and adopted a liberal foreign policy.

This liberal foreign policy has left havoc and instability across the Middle East and North Africa.  Liberal foreign policy advocates argued that if the US was to bring democracy to Iraq, democracy would spread throughout the region.  In Eastern Europe, the expansion of the European Union and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization meant to solidify emerging democracies.  The integration of China into the global market was in hopes that with economic liberty, the Chinese Communist Party would transition their government towards liberal democracy.  This liberal dream has not worked as promised due to the fact that liberals ignored human nature and the power of nationalism.

Society can be socially constructed from the top, but it also can be done from the bottom.  In response to the US spread of democracy, local resistance has formed along ethnic lines.  In the Middle East, Islamic nationalism rose to create an environment ripe for the Islamic State.  The Middle East and North Africa are now more unstable and vulnerable to terrorism than before democracy.  In Asia, the Chinese created a historical narrative of “never forget national humiliation” in which China needs to be strong and look out for its national interest.  In Eurasia, Russia, sees its enemy creeping to its borders.  Russia understands that it needs to balance against the US expansion of influence.

Conclusion

Realists argue that the US should be more restrained. Thus, it should not seek to spread liberal values across the world. For a safe and secure world, a realist foreign policy is ideal because it respects that nature of humans which progressives need to learn.  It entails understanding the local context of different societies.  There are limits to human’s understanding of the world.  In attempts to form foreign policy, ideological biases will be at the base of the policy assumptions. It is difficult to assume how one perspective will perceive another nation’s actions.  Unintended consequences will arise.  In the case of the West’s policy towards The Great Middle East, no one expected the rise of the Islamic State and a mass influx of refugees creating instability in Europe. The national interest of the United States should take priority over global dreams.

As the world becomes multipolar the US will have to consider the interests of Russia and China before acting.  This means rejecting liberalism because now great powers can challenge the liberal order.  Nation-states seek power for their security as there is no global police force to protect their interests.  Deterrence is a way to check the power of other states.  Imperialist have to consider the cost of expanding outside their territory if their opponent has similar capabilities.  In addition, expansion into the so-called third world provides little benefit.  Mearsheimer uses the example of Vietnam in which the war was not salient in the global balance of power. This is true for the Middle East as well where there has been no strategic benefit for the United States’ presence in the region.

A progressive-liberal foreign policy hoped to create an ideal world with no threats to democracy.  Instead due to its assumptions of human nature and nationalism, it has left the Middle East and Ukraine in a state of war.  A progressive-liberal state then becomes illiberal.  In the quest for spreading liberal values, the US has slowly become a police state.  Critics to Mearsheimer will argue that the world is becoming safer and that conflict is on its way down.

However, these critics look at the world from a broad perspective.  As a result, they are not willing to look solely at the results of a US progressive-liberal foreign policy.  To do so they would have to admit that an activist state can cause great harm to many in the world.  John Mearsheimer focuses more on the philosophical causes of Liberal Hegemony.  Another realist Stephen Walt wrote a book with a fitting title, The Hell of Good Intentions, which analyzes Liberal Hegemony on policy grounds.  John Mearsheimer’s latest book will help educate readers on why a progressive-liberal foreign policy is dangerous.


71 Republic is the Third Voice in media. We pride ourselves on distinctively independent journalism and editorials. Every dollar you give helps us grow our mission of providing reliable coverage. Please consider donating to our Patreon.