OPINION: When ‘Owning the Libs’ Comes With a Price Tag: A Cautionary Tale from the Digital Trenches

The digital town square, as it’s often charitably called, recently served up a potent cocktail of schadenfreude and economic reality. A small shoe business owner had once proudly declared his vote for Donald Trump. He said it was motivated by “the economy.” He also wanted “to own the libs.” He found himself lamenting the demise of his enterprise. He claimed it was a victim of tariff policies. “Well there went my shoe business,” he tweeted. He questioned why “government punish[es] small businesses” by eliminating the de minimis exemption on tariffs. He noted that this move would leave behemoths like Nike unscathed, while wiping out smaller players like himself.

Cue the online peanut gallery and a particularly pointed YouTube reaction from a “Coach D,” who gleefully framed it as another “fuck around and find out” (FAFO) moment. Coach D’s commentary was less a sober analysis of trade policy and more a torrent of vitriol. He wished upon the beleaguered entrepreneur mortgage defaults, car repossessions, and marital strife. Coach D extended this ill will to his entire family. “I hope it’s the worst for his entire family,” he declared, arguing the businessman deserved it for voting for someone “hateful, bigoted and a predator” purely for the satisfaction of antagonizing liberals.

The raw anger is, perhaps, understandable in a deeply polarized nation. For four years, many felt subjected to relentless taunting from the MAGA contingent. This, for Coach D and others, is payback, a moment to watch the other side “suffer.” Yet, after observing Coach D’s tirade, I rightly questioned: Is this cathartic rage truly the most productive path forward?

Therein lies the rub. While the irony of a “vote for the economy” leading to personal economic ruin is stark, the ensuing pile-on—however emotionally satisfying for some—risks obscuring valuable lessons. My plea for “political rehabilitation” over pure, annihilating scorn touches on a critical point. If the goal is a more informed electorate and better policy outcomes, then simply exulting in an opponent’s misfortune may be a Pyrrhic victory.

It’s true, the shoe merchant’s initial motivations were hardly high-minded. His follow-up tweet, after being asked “Didn’t you know what you were voting for?”, referenced trans kids—a bewildering and misinformed justification. It was likely gleaned from partisan media onslaughts.

It paints a picture of a voter swayed more by cultural grievances and misinformation than by a nuanced understanding of economic policy. The right-wing media obsession with trans issues—funded to the tune of hundreds of millions—served as a powerful wedge. It overshadowed even core economic arguments for many.

However, the unbridled desire for total familial destruction—including children or apolitical relatives—treads perilously close to the very intolerance being condemned. Do you really want to fight fascism with fascism? That’s what happens when you mirror the perceived sins of the other side. Such an approach offers no off-ramp for those who may have genuinely erred, been misled, or are now experiencing buyer’s remorse. It pushes them further into echo chambers, radicalizing them rather than encouraging reflection.

The truth is, political decisions have real-world consequences, often unintended or disproportionately affecting certain groups. The elimination of the de minimis tariff exemption, for instance, is a classic example of how a broad policy can have sharply different impacts on businesses of varying scales. Small businesses, often operating on thinner margins and with less capacity to absorb new costs, are invariably more vulnerable.

Instead of solely indulging in the “I told you so,” a more constructive approach might involve dissecting why these policies fail certain constituencies and how voters can become better inoculated against misinformation. There’s a space for accountability, certainly. But after the initial (and perhaps deserved) period of “shame and embarrassment,” there should ideally be a path toward understanding and, yes, even a form of political rehabilitation. If not, we risk a permanent state of trench warfare where the only victors are those who thrive on division.

The desire to see one’s political adversaries stumble is a human, if not always admirable, instinct. When the policies themselves create widespread economic pain, the focus should shift. It should move from celebrating individual ruin to demanding better governance and fostering a more discerning electorate. Otherwise, we’re all just owning ourselves. One failed business and one vitriolic Youtube video at a time.