Firehose #182: Attack of the Sourpatch Kidz

Also: Interviews with various libertarian-adjacent politicians

As longer-time listeners know, but some more recent guests need to be reminded of, The Fifth Column (unlike, say, The Reason Roundtable) does not self-identify as a “libertarian” podcast, but rather as a whatever-the-hell-it-is, all-are-welcome rolling conversation and occasional tickle-fight with co-hosts who happened to have traveled in and out of the libertarian universe(s) over the years. We over-index for the stuff, yes, but do not fly that flag, and are perfectly happy/amused that some of our most loyal listeners think libertarians are dottier than RFK Jr. after a cocaine & toilets party.

Throat thus seasonally cleared, 2026 is a political moment not terribly dissimilar to 2014 and 2006 – the last midterm year in the second leg of a consequential if fading presidency. The governing party is leaking loyalty in advance of an unhappy November, with ambitious pols/strategists/yakkers jockeying for position in the succession battle and trying out new ideological clothes. The opposition is also feeling ideology-curious, while fighting the usual battles over moderation vs. radicalism. In other words, ‘tis the season for the professional political class to notice that libertarianism is a thing.

Yes, that happened, featuring a whole host of Fifdom-familiar characters (we interviewed the author in Episode #380). The answer to the headline question, per custom, turned out to be “no;” Rand Paul (seen around these parts this past Tuesday) did not curly-hair his way into the White House, and the two-party system delivered its quadrennial message to marginal groupings: It do be like that, Mr. Stancil! Less remembered, though also overrepresented in the prestige political media (I shamefacedly confess to contributing my fair share), was an equally doomed 2006 boomlet about “libertarian Democrats,” or (God help us all) “liberaltarians.” Unsurprisingly, a philosophy that critiques government power looks most attractive to those who don’t currently possess the Ring.

These ideological trial balloons, when inflated enough to float into mainstream airspace, get pitilessly gunned down on sight by people already predisposed to be annoyed by libertarians (like, most everybody within professional politics). Though there’s always an especially sour subset of scoffers among current or former libertarians themselves, because have you met these people?

Enter 2026. On Sunday, Katherine Mangu-Ward (#75, #395), my successor as Reason editor in chief and (more importantly) the namer of this podcast, published a 1,900-word piece in The New York Times under the headline, “Libertarians: We Told You So.” My favorite bits:

The Department of Homeland Security arose with very little opposition in the wake of Sept. 11, an enormous new agency charged with counterterrorism that quickly absorbed a variety of functions, often decoupled from traditional oversight. The libertarians and others concerned with civil liberties (there weren’t many) who objected were accused of indulging in paranoia or siding with the terrorists.

As the years went on, Homeland Security — and especially Immigration and Customs Enforcement within it — got comfortable operating under a series of exceptions to the Constitution, particularly concerning the Fourth Amendment and its protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. Such exceptions then became the norm for huge swaths of the country. […]

[The “fusionist” conservative-libertarian] relationship crumbled when many conservatives embraced a politics of emergency. “The Flight 93 Election” essay in 2016 by Michael Anton (an early MAGA intellectual and a former member of both Trump administrations) captured a new ethic: Procedure is for peacetime, and we are at war. Restraint began to look like unilateral disarmament, and libertarians’ insistence on it became inconvenient. […]

But it would be a mistake to treat President Trump as the origin of the ultrapowerful presidency. He is merely picking up the weapons that previous administrations left lying around and waltzing through the loopholes they opened. […]

Instead of a winner-take-all approach to power, it’s time to consider working toward a system in which there is much less power for the winner to take.

We talked about the piece & related contentions on Monday’s Reason Roundtable:

Meanwhile, the kind of people who abandoned libertarianism because libertarians weren’t libertarian enough, and/or experienced embittering (if generally well-earned) career disappointments over the past decade, were Heap Big Mad that the libertarian EIC of the leading libertarian publication made a libertarian argument against Donald Trump in a prominent newspaper. Why, Reason had one whole staffer (of 25) who voted for Trump in 2024! (The staff votes of critics, as ever, are unknown.) And, the magazine of “Free Minds and Free Markets” had the temerity over the years to cover campus illiberalism and Trump’s awfulness! (Which in 2026 means a lot of articles about right-wing censorship, FWIW.)

Anyhoo, let’s hope that we don’t get a second term of anyone anytime soon, unless it’s President Peter Meijer’s Hair.

* Speaking of our Rand Paul One-Hitter, those of you who aren’t paying subscribers might have missed this after-the-paywall bit about the Kentucky senator (who we also interviewed last June) maybe talking Trump out of bombing Colombia:

* The other Republican office-holder name-checked in Mangu-Ward’s piece was excitable boy Rep. Thomas Massie (#51), also of Kentucky. (We should do a live show there this year, yeah?) Massie, the main congressional GOP mover on all things Epstein, got sassy this week with my Reason colleague Zach Weissmueller:

* For an alternate view of Epstein Island, here’s a conversation between Coleman Hughes (#121, #144, #181, #188, #201, #379, #412 & #442) and Michael Tracey (#105):

* Let’s pivot out of libertarian adjacency with an unnervingly accurate Ryan Long portrayal of a libertarian date.

* Do you feel like you’re not getting enough Kmele Foster commentary on race? Well, let’s fix that. From Tangle News: “The conversation begins with Donald Trump’s recent video that sparked widespread outrage and renewed debate over racism, political messaging, and whether intent matters when evaluating public figures. The hosts explore how the controversy reflects a broader pattern in American politics, where interpretation, context, and partisan assumptions often shape reactions as much as the facts themselves.”

* Pal Jamie Kirchick (#55, #347 and #394) is now the Washington Columnist for Commentary. His first piece in that role, taking aim at the enabling of right-wing conspiratorial anti-Semitism, is headlined “The Chutzpah of Yoram Hazony.” For others interested in a critical view of the Postliberal Right, a must-follow is Jason Hart, who had a big essay on the topic this week.

* America’s very own reporter Nancy Rommelmann (#79, Special Dispatch #27, S.D. #30, #198, #203, S.D. #34, S.D. #50, S.D. #64, S.D. #111) this week brought out a long Real Clear Investigations article (which any y’all can repost for free on your websites) headlined “Caring for Mom Is an Education in Scams and Fraud: Scammers, check forgers, unscrupulous caregivers, and an elderly woman who believes she’s sending money to her text-only lover, Richard Gere.” Learn it, live it, don’t love it.

* New Moynihan-reaction face just dropped!

* Time for … Producer Jason’s Video Vault!

One of the things we’ve lost since moving away from linear television is the joy of stumbling into a film with zero expectations. Who’s in it? Dunno. What’s it about? Dunno, let’s see. Is this supposed to be funny? Dunno! In that spirit, let me suggest that you read no further, skip the trailer, and just dive head on into Winter Kills, which you can stream on the Criterion Channel or buy on Blu-Ray for a song. You won’t be disappointed.

For those more risk averse, let’s just say that our current climate of near-permanent conspiracy theory mania has inspired this week’s pick – a 1979 fever dream that’s one part 1970s paranoid thriller, one part spoof of 1970s paranoid thrillers, and one part an encapsulation of how the majority of the people on the Internet these days think the world works. Packed to the gills with talent (Jeff Bridges! John Huston! Eli Wallach! Toshiro fucking Mifune!), and has more twists than a snake with an itch. Trailer:

* Comment of the Week comes from Jeff B.:

Resident professional track and field coach here.

Yes, there is a drug “free for all” games coming. It’s called the Enhanced Games.

https://www.enhanced.com

The guys funding it were on Rogan about 18 months ago.

It’s gaining traction with track and field athletes, mainly sprinters, that have been popped for doping.

As to Russian exclusion, Bolton was correct, it’s based solely on Russian state sponsored doping, mainly from Sochi Olympics – highlighted in the Icarus documentary Michael referenced. It’s really good.

World anti doping, WADA, has laid out guidelines that Russia must admit to and adhere to. They have not.

There is some ability for athletes, at least in track and field, to participate at global championships. Basically by showing that they don’t live or train in Russia.

This week’s Sendoff (re-christened after last week’s conceptual tweak) is the biggest hit from a jealous kinda fella who was discovered by a BBQ magnate whilst singing in a pool room, then later won a talent show whose prize was opening for the great Lou Rawls. RIP to Garland Green, who, to be clear, filmed this video a decade or four after recording the song: