Political branding has now reached alcohol. On the rights, we have Tears of the Left, which is a bourbon, and on the left, we have Fascist Tears, which is a vodka.  Distilling the tears of the other side seems to be a draw.

The Fascist Tears people bill themselves as being "women-owned, queer-led," and say part of their earnings helps “fund the resistance,” for example promoting abortion.  So far as I can tell, the Tears of the Left people are only interested in making a little money and having a little fun.

Curious to know whether these political potions are drinkable or just a way to cash in on political identity, I looked up a few reviews.  Tears of the Left is much more well known.  Most reviewers didn’t actually review the bourbon itself, but only vented their spleen against its politics.  On the other hand, a Fascist Tears customer who did like its taste was especially pleased with the organic packaging, commenting “I will recycle the entire package.”

I couldn’t help but smile when one spirits reviewer declared that although Tears of the Left marketing “thrives on antagonism” (he meant it makes fun of snowflakes), Fascist Tears marketing is “slightly less combative.”  It’s hard to see how calling people fascists is less combative than calling them snowflakes, or how it isn’t antagonistic to say “We prefer our ICE crushed.”  Was he not listening to himself?

He added that political marketing ruins the experience of drinking together, because people do it -- wait for it -- for “diversity and inclusion.”

So now we know why people really drink.  You learn something every day.