Review: Tax the Rich Bourbon and Felon Vodka

There is a certain expectation that whiskey should remain whiskey, that a bottle ought to concern itself with what is inside it and leave politics at the door. I understand the appeal. For many people, bourbon is an escape from the daily arguments of American life, and the idea of keeping politics out of the glass has an obvious draw.

There is just one problem with that idea: American beverage alcohol has never really been separate from politics.

From whiskey and bourbon to beer, wine, vodka and brandy, alcohol has repeatedly found itself caught up in the political arguments of the day. The issues have changed, but the relationship has remained. Taxes, trade, immigration, religion, race, gender, public health, consumer protection, urbanization, rural life and the role of government have all found their way into debates over what Americans drink, who may sell it, how it should be made and what should appear on the bottle.

The history of temperance alone makes that difficult to dispute. The movement that eventually helped bring about national Prohibition was not a brief campaign against drinking. It developed over roughly a century, beginning with early nineteenth-century temperance societies and gradually moving from calls for moderation toward total abstinence and, eventually, government prohibition. The American Temperance Society was founded in 1826, and by the late 1830s the movement was advocating abstinence from all alcoholic beverages. By the middle of the nineteenth century, prohibition had become a legislative issue, with at least 14 states adopting prohibition laws in some form by 1855.

Temperance was also tied to the major political and social divisions of its time. Protestant religious reform was central to much of the movement, while women became some of its most active organizers at a time when most women could not vote. Immigration and anti-Catholic sentiment became part of the debate as reformers criticized drinking customs associated with Irish, German, Italian and other immigrant communities. Industrialization and urbanization brought another set of arguments, with reformers attacking the saloon as a source of disorder, while employers sometimes supported temperance in the name of workplace productivity and safety. African American reformers and organizations also participated in temperance campaigns, although their reasons and political goals were not always the same as those of white prohibitionists.

Race was particularly ugly territory. In the post-Civil War South, anti-alcohol rhetoric was frequently intertwined with white-supremacist politics and the mythology surrounding Black men, sexual violence and white women. Temperance advocates and other political figures sometimes portrayed alcohol as a force that supposedly made Black men dangerous, while whiskey and the saloon became part of a larger argument about race, voting rights and social control. Frances Willard, one of the most prominent temperance leaders of the era, made racist claims about Black voters and drinking in an 1890 interview, linking whiskey, Black political participation and threats to white women.

The rhetoric also appeared in alcohol advertising and political imagery. The Library of Congress holds nineteenth-century whiskey advertisements and labels featuring caricatures of African Americans, among other subjects. In the South, temperance literature and liquor advertising could intersect with the poisonous racial mythology that portrayed Black men as sexually dangerous when drinking. Historical research has documented liquor advertisements that were attacked by white temperance advocates precisely because they depicted white women in ways those advocates claimed would incite Black men.

So political imagery on a whiskey bottle is hardly a new development. Neither is the use of alcohol as a vehicle for arguments about American identity.

The politics also reached the federal government and the regulation of what went into the bottle. The Bottled-in-Bond legislation of 1897 is a useful example. The law grew out of disputes involving adulteration, consumer confidence, taxation, American whiskey’s competition with imported spirits and the interests of distillers, rectifiers and wholesalers. Its passage followed extensive debate in Congress and lobbying from competing segments of the liquor trade. The resulting system placed bonded whiskey under federal supervision and provided consumers with a way to identify spirits made under prescribed conditions.

The Pure Food and Drugs Act of 1906 brought another major political fight over what Americans were entitled to know about the products they purchased. The law prohibited interstate commerce in adulterated and misbranded foods, drugs, drinks and liquors. It was the result of more than two decades of legislative attempts, public agitation, scientific investigation and political pressure. The House of Representatives passed the measure 240 to 17, and President Theodore Roosevelt signed it on June 30, 1906.

Alcohol was therefore not merely sitting on the sidelines while American consumer law developed. Whiskey producers, liquor dealers, temperance advocates, politicians, scientists and reformers were all arguing over what should be sold, how it should be labeled and how much authority the government should have over the marketplace.

And then there was Prohibition itself.

The Eighteenth Amendment and the Volstead Act represented the culmination of decades of political organizing, religious activism, lobbying and electoral campaigning. Prohibition was not simply a referendum on whether Americans should drink. It was bound up with arguments over morality, immigration, race, gender, religion, federal power and the proper role of government. During the 1920s, the Ku Klux Klan also became an important force in Prohibition enforcement, using political pressure and, at times, vigilante methods. Historians have documented the relationship between the Klan and the broader dry movement, even as the Anti-Saloon League maintained its own political organization and denied some of the connections attributed to it.

Political cartoons, newspaper illustrations, advertisements, bottle labels and promotional material provided another outlet for those arguments. Alcohol appeared again and again in the visual record of American political life, whether the subject was temperance, immigration, race, urban vice, public morality, taxation or consumer protection. The bottle was often more than a container. It could also serve as a small billboard for a set of ideas.

That history matters when considering two contemporary bottles that make no attempt to hide their politics.

Blue State Spirits describes itself as a proudly progressive spirits company built around progress, conversation and political satire. Its stated mission centers on community, diversity, accountability and forward thinking, with the bottles intended to say something about the world around them as well as the liquid inside.

That puts Tax the Rich Bourbon and Felon Vodka squarely within a very old American tradition. Tax the Rich features the words “No Kings” alongside its political branding. Felon Vodka goes even further, placing an image of Donald Trump in an orange prison jumpsuit behind bars, a reference to his status as a convicted felon.

There is no real mystery about what either bottle is trying to say. The politics are right there on the label.

Blue State Spirits provided Drinkhacker with a bottle of Tax the Rich Bourbon and Felon Vodka for an unbiased review. Both bottles are likely to attract attention because of their political branding. The more interesting question, at least for the purposes of a spirits review, is what happens after the bottle is opened.

That is where the politics stop and the liquid gets its turn.

Tax the Rich Bourbon Review

Tax the Rich is a six-barrel blend distilled by Bardstown Bourbon Company from a mash bill of 68% corn, 20% wheat, and 12% malted barley. All six barrels come from Lot #20H11, filled on August 11, 2020, and dumped for blending on June 4, 2026, giving the bourbon a total maturation of 5 years, 9 months, and 24 days. The barrels were coopered by Independent Stave Co. with a #4 char and aged in palletized storage.

The nose opens with butterscotch hard candy discs, followed by juicy, ripe peaches with the peach fuzz intact. Waxy honeycomb and almond butter add to the sweet side of the profile. Spice is not a major factor here, with the nose favoring moderate sweetness instead. It is not an especially intricate nose, but it should appeal to a broad range of bourbon drinkers.

On the palate, vanilla pudding skin and toffee arrive first, followed by salted butter and almonds through the mid-palate. The mouthfeel falls just short of medium viscosity, with very little ethanol burn.

The finish brings a bit more going on, starting with light cinnamon before white pepper increases the heat. White pepper remains the primary note through the finish, mingling with honey graham crackers and light oak.

There is nothing off-putting about this bourbon. It is not an especially intricate pour, but it is enjoyable and serves its purpose. Those inclined to purchase Tax the Rich are probably not doing so in anticipation of a top-shelf bourbon. The appeal is largely tied to the story and the conversation that surrounds the bottle, and that comes with a bourbon that is more than capable of holding up its end of the bargain.

At $40, the price also works. Many political-theme bourbons currently on the market come with considerably higher price tags and less time in the barrel. If the goal is to spend $40 on a bottle that provides plenty to talk about while delivering a perfectly serviceable bourbon, there is little reason for regret. 92 proof. B / $40

Felon Vodka Review

Felon is distilled from a 100% corn mashbill by Golden Triangle in Craig, Missouri, with fermentation reaching 17 to 18% abv. A three-column system is used to distill the spirit, which reaches 190 proof. The vodka is Kosher certified at distillation, although Blue State Spirits did not maintain that certification through proofing and bottling.

The nose is light and clean, offering vanilla bean, toasted marshmallow, and faint grain. A slight floral note develops beneath the sweetness, accompanied by a small thread of ethanol.

The palate is soft and slightly sweet on entry, with a relatively neutral profile that gives way to faint grain and black pepper. For vodka, the mouthfeel is surprisingly full, with a slightly oily quality and medium body. A modest alcohol warmth develops through the mid-palate without becoming too hot.

The finish is short to medium in length, with mild warmth, dry grain, and a touch of sweetness reminiscent of candy corn. The alcohol gradually fades without leaving a harsh or bitter note.

Overall, Felon is a clean, approachable corn vodka that favors softness and sweetness rather than complexity. Vanilla, marshmallow, and grain give it more personality than the “neutral” designation might suggest. It is not an especially complex or memorable vodka, but its clean distillation, pleasant mouthfeel, and relatively soft finish make it considerably more enjoyable neat than its price point might suggest. 94 proof. B / $25

The post Review: Tax the Rich Bourbon and Felon Vodka appeared first on Drinkhacker: The Insider’s Guide to Good Drinking.