Populist left has become vulnerable to the populist right

Post Reply New Topic

Since the mid-2010s, the rise of the populist left and the populist right has shaken up the American political spectrum. Both movements have maneuvered to pressure and persuade the political establishment to adopt their objectives. But in recent years something unusual has been happening. We’re seeing the formation of a pipeline that circumvents the center altogether — and directly connects left-wing to right-wing populism.

A group of journalists and media personalities who once were at home on the far left has formed a niche but influential political subculture that encourages leftists to abandon leftism for the populist right. Its most recognizable faces are former icons of leftist discourse who have millions of diehard fans: Glenn Greenwald, a co-founder of The Intercept, known as one of the most powerful critics of the “war on terror” in the Bush era. Matt Taibbi, a former Rolling Stone writer, who was famous for excoriating defenders of neoliberalism and likening Goldman Sachs to a “great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity.” Tulsi Gabbard, formerly a Democratic House member and 2020 presidential candidate, was aligned with the Bernie Sanders wing of the party.

But in recent years their focus has changed. These commentators had never hesitated to criticize Democrats alongside Republicans. But now they've pivoted to targeting liberals nearly exclusively, while forming ties with the authoritarian right.

The free speech fallacy
One of the most prominent strategies of anti-lib populists is casting liberal media as the biggest threat to free speech in America. Taibbi and Greenwald spend a lot of energy warning about cancel culture and opposing deplatforming and speech regulation on internet platforms OKed by a liberal worldview. Some of it is legitimate — I, too, worry about opaque internet censorship and certain aspects of cancel culture like self-sabotaging groupthink and targeting people's jobs for misbehavior. But what’s odd about the anti-lib outlook is its singular focus on liberals.

On issues such as free speech, the war in Ukraine, and social inclusivity, this group’s commentary has garnered tremendous attention and plaudits from right-wingers, and some of them have grown fond of using conservative media platforms to spread their message. In 2022 this trend appeared to reach new heights. Gabbard served as a guest host for Fox News’ white nationalist-in-chief, Tucker Carlson. Taibbi became right-wing Twitter CEO Elon Musk’s go-to stenographer for a series of leaks from Twitter’s internal documents meant to make Musk’s takeover of the social media platform look necessary. Greenwald attended the premier of a documentary about right-wing disinformation mogul Alex Jones and conducted a shockingly sympathetic interview with him.

Collectively, these and other lesser-known pundits push a political position that could be called “anti-lib populism.” (“Lib” as in the pejorative slang term for a liberal, in currency among leftists and the right.) Like all populisms, it purports to oppose elitism and speak on behalf of the people. But as a practice, it funnels people toward the snake-oil populism of the right.

Anti-lib populism may not necessarily convert leftists into MAGA activists en masse. But it could still do damage by generating cynicism that could divide the left. That's why the left must be vigilant about its rise.

The populist right is not antiwar
Another example of how anti-lib populism tries to nudge the left to come to mistaken conclusions about the nature of the right is the war in Ukraine. Now, Gabbard and other anti-lib populists have correctly pointed out that the Democratic Party has been overly blasé about nuclear escalation with Russia, and has stigmatized even minor dissent over the issue of how the U.S. should approach vital diplomacy with Moscow. That concern overlaps with the leftist antiwar posture of groups like the Democratic Socialists of America.

But the anti-lib populists focus almost all their energy on the Democrats, despite the fact that most Republican lawmakers share the Democrats' position. Gabbard cited Ukraine policy as the primary reason she left the Democratic Party and slams it as controlled by "warmongers"; Greenwald trumpets MAGA dissent on Ukraine aid as a sign of the GOP's politico-intellectual health.

More worryingly, they implicitly imply the MAGA right is antiwar when it's anything but. While it’s true that the MAGA wing’s increasing hesitation to involve itself in Ukraine has the effect of calling for a less hawkish position than many Democrats, the actual ideology underlying the position isn’t fundamentally antiwar.

Trump and MAGA Republicans are nationalists interested in militarizing domestic American life. They’re in favor of aggressively securing the borders, supporting armed vigilante formations and emboldening militarized police. And while Trump isn’t interested in the kind of nation-building that both parties supported during the war on terrorism, he exhibited no lack of appetite for war when he torpedoed the Iran nuclear deal, played chicken with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, requested colossal defense budgets, continued drone warfare but with less transparency, called for military parades in the streets and employed strategists such as Steve Bannon who enjoy saber-rattling about the prospect of war with China.

The reality is that Democrats and Republicans today are hawkish in different ways, and anybody who cares about making America less bellicose — both at home and abroad — should be angling to pressure both parties. But the anti-lib populists focus all their energy on disparaging the Democrats.

How anti-lib populism inverts left-wing populism
It is not unusual for leftists activists and thinkers to focus a significant amount of energy on criticizing Democrats, since Democrats are, theoretically, more likely to be receptive to or susceptible to left-wing ideas, and are more realistic bargaining partners on a number of policy issues like expanding the welfare state. Meanwhile, the right is often seen as a lost cause. (Or sometimes the right is seen as indistinguishable from Democrats, depending on the issue.) But in anti-lib populism, liberal politics is portrayed as irreversibly corrupt, and the populist right is hinted at as an idyllic alternative.

A skeptic of my schematic might say that I'm simply describing right-wing populists. Well, not exactly. First of all, these commentators don’t fit neatly into any conventional ideological box (and, complicating things further, never really did very neatly fit on the left). Greenwald’s stated normative views are decidedly not conventionally right-wing; Gabbard identifies as an independent and has declined to join the Republicans (at least for now); Taibbi calls himself a “run-of-the-mill, old-school ACLU liberal” who likes Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt.

Moreover, as discusser earlier, they still hold some views that overlap with a leftist sensibility, and it’s reasonable to assume they still have many left-wing followers. And that's why their interventions matter. Anti-lib populists can do something doctrinaire right-wing populists can’t — use their cred in leftist circles to issue critiques that act as a crowbar to crack open fissures on the left.

I can't say I understand the origins of this phenomenon, or that there's a single explanation for it. Part of it could be a reactionary response to the the rise of "woke politics," a preoccupation of almost all anti-lib populists. Part of it could be growing fed up with the Democratic establishment, particularly after it fended off the Sanders insurgency in two presidential primaries, and resolving to go to war against it. Part of it could be the economics of provocation and contrarianism — anti-lib populists are almost always in independent media, and might find it financially rewarding to relentlessly own the libs. Part of it could be based on their commonly articulated (and misguided) belief that media — and mostly liberal media — is the single greatest source of power in society. Part of it could be naivete about what the populist right really stands for. Whatever it is, the result is an orientation that's adept at generating cynicism.

The authoritarian right loves the chaos
The authoritarian right has delighted in the emergence of anti-lib populism. It knows that even if disillusioned leftists don’t join the right, it’s worth destroying their faith in the possibility of building a mass movement including Democrats. Yarvin, one of the most influential intellectuals of the “new right,” has said a key strategy for his movement is to “sow acorns of dark doubt” in the minds of the left and pounce when its “conviction and energy flag.” Put more simply: divide and conquer. This is why Yarvin and a number of influencers on the right mingle with anti-lib populists, help them with exposure and seek to work with them on media platforms.

Greenwald has recently launched a show with what he describes as a “cable news budget” on Rumble, an independent alternative to YouTube. (Greenwald did not respond to a request for comment on the source of his budget for the show.) Rumble is backed by Peter Thiel, a Silicon Valley tycoon who has funded ultranationalist political candidates for the Senate, such as the recently elected Republican J.D. Vance of Ohio, and has said he doesn’t “believe that freedom and democracy are compatible.”

It’s too early to identify how this scene could be reshaping political identity and behavior. But it should be taken seriously. This scene has lots of followers and citizens take ideological cues from leaders.

We live in an era of ongoing ideological rupture. Political axes are being scrambled. Strange bedfellows roam the streets and the halls of power. For leftists, this is a time for discipline and clear-eyed appraisals of possibility and peril. If we are to have a civilized, democratic society, the populism pipeline must flow the other way.

This is a great article. People who disavow conservatism while railing against "wokeism", "cancel culture", "BLM riots", etc. are the MAGA crowd's useful idiots.

Yep....moderation.

If the US didn't have "moderation" in 1962----God knows what might have happened.....

I'm talking about the United States not taking the "nuclear option."

We weren't close to a "race war" in 1962.

Don't listen to the Turner Diaries.

Racial tensions were high.....it doesn't mean there was the possibility for a nationwide "race war."

Charles Manson believed in the "race war" crap, too.

You're probably right......that's why I choose to only react to what I actually see from people.