The State of the American Right (w/ Daniel Denvir)
Added 2022-06-23 15:44:02 +0000 UTCToday we're sharing a special "Dig Your Enemy" crossover event, as Daniel Denvir of Jacobin magazine's The Dig podcast puts Matt and Sam in the hot seat. We answer all of Dan's excellent questions about the state of the American right, including: the return of isolationism, the New Right, Peter Thiel, Curtis Yarvin, Blake Masters, Doug Mastriano, the prospects for a multi-racial conservative majority, the "groomer" panic, masculinity and gender politics, MAGA, authoritarianism, NYC's new reactionary "downtown scene," and the bad dialectic between racial liberalism and the anti-woke reactionaries. Enjoy!
This episode was originally posted by The Dig; find the rest of their excellent podcasts here: https://thedigradio.com/
...and don't forget to subscribe to Know Your Enemy on Patreon for access to all of our bonus episodes!
Comments
Regarding cringe vs earnestness, I can't remember where I first heard this, but it's true: don't kill the part of you that is cringe, kill the part of you that cringes.
Laura
2022-10-17 04:23:50 +0000 UTCI'd be more motivated and inspired by the democratic party if they stopped acting like losing gracefully was actually winning.
Laura
2022-10-17 04:16:09 +0000 UTCI agree that a cult of personality such as Mastriano is stoking is served by the leader in question being able to resolve various paradoxes inherent in the audience's fervent beliefs. This was the case in the 1930's and at many occasions since.
Mark K
2022-07-06 20:07:33 +0000 UTCExcellent, if depressing, discussion. The frog may not be boiling yet, but the water sure is getting hotter.
TheRick
2022-06-29 19:10:13 +0000 UTCHi there, thanks for the episode, great as usual. In particular I did like the discussion about how the present realities of American life--inflation/gas prices, a barrage of media playing up just how fragile and besieged our democracy is, etc.--sets the political stage in a way that favors the right much more so the left. Building the things we want to build is only possible if, at baseline, people actually believe we can and that it will do any good. I also appreciated the discussion of Barstool conservatives/hypermasculine insecurities as really important piece of the animus behind a lot of the trends in that wing of conservatism. In a weird way, that and the Barstool thing are all about disempowerment and grievance in a way that's completely consistent with the political trends of American history and history anywhere for that matter. However, I'm getting a little tired of the "Democrats had a chance and they blew it"/"if they just articulated a clearer vision for the future they'd be less politically pathetic." I worked in institutional Democratic politics for a while and yes, it is undeniably true that we are way to beholden to polls and finding and promoting norms rather than trying to lead. However, I don't think any "chance" predicated on Joe Manchin's and Kirsten Sinema's cooperation was ever a real "chance" at all. Tempting as it is to think that this was an opportunity to get more done, I'm just skeptical that it ever was, and that what we got is honestly pretty good. (I do think Sam's earlier criticism about Biden not going out to sell it all a lot more to give more life to the possibility of more ambitious work is a good one though.) More importantly though, I'm not sure we can drive meaningful change to policy if we don't actually believe we can--both among all Americans broadly, who may be thinking lately that the whole system is broken, has been for a long time, and the best thing I can do is to hold on to what I have, etc. etc.; and among and within the left where I think this skepticism takes on a different character. I do think there is a tendency, well founded, on the left to be skeptical of the institutions that hold power and their use of that power to perpetuate oppression and delay justice, but it's not like the whole enterprise has been illegitimate. It does move and can work to remedy inequities if it's given the direction to do that, which, in my view, requires trust. The answer can't just be to burn it all down. I haven't heard the thing that threads the needle here: a compelling political narrative on the left that convinces people everywhere to see a reality beyond what's failing and about the urgent need to build something together. Rather the dominant threads have been about how everyone else is fucking everything up. I'm not really an optimistic person and I have no idea how you motivate people to trust in an optimistic version of the future. I think about it a lot, and I think one of the circumstances that helps is a major, alignment-shifting event (or even existential threat) that drives a lot of change quickly (war, the Depression, etc.). Is there another way to drive that through political narrative? I'm not sure yet, but I don't think it's as simple as centralizing under a more-left policy agenda or a policy agenda of any kind for that matter, center-left or centrist. That alone doesn't seem sufficient to vouchsafe a majority--if it were, the fact that when polled individually on issues the left position takes the win almost every single time. In theory people believe the things we want them to, but they seem to lose all hope that universal healthcare, a radically more progressive tax system, a significantly expanded social insurance system the moment it becomes a political possibility rather than an idea. I just think we should stop holding out hope that by committing to any one policy agenda and really pushing it forcefully and unanimously we could overcome people's skepticism. We're fighting on shakier ground than they are right now; we probably need to do something more fundamental, whatever it is, to make people believe that--as in the past--what we're offering is not only possible but necessary.
Ryan Erickson
2022-06-28 14:01:03 +0000 UTCI'm currently reading a collection of essays by C. Wright Mills called 'Power, Politics & People,' and in it is a review of Burnham's 'The Managerial Revolution' which I found interesting, especially since Mills' own thinking also had a background in Italian elite theory. Not having read Burnham I can't be sure, but it seems Mills draws on a broader intellectual palette than does Burnham (e.g. Weber and Veblen). That said, Mills uses as much Marx as Veblen to undercut Burnham's arguments. Since Mills was so influential on the New Left and Burnham on the New Right, I'd be interested in hearing your takes on his review.
DC
2022-06-27 04:04:44 +0000 UTCWas that “certain podcast” a nod to RedScare? To me, that podcast is just a series of “new right” talking points, based on the episodes I listened to. I don’t see how it’s “left” in any way. There’s a point where the dirtbag left or so-called “post left” becomes the new right. The line between them is thin indeed. The post-left seems to be disillusioned leftists who realize wokeism is consuming mainstream leftism and thus have given up on it to the point where they just become authoritarian right. I can understand their disillusionment, and I can understand artists feeling smothered by the top-down browbeating of the woke left who find so much artistic content “problematic”. But moving right doesn't seem like the only solution and I agree they don’t seem to be producing anything of worth, unless you consider a podcast where two airheads call everything "gay", "art". As for the post-left “tradcath” fad (and the alt-right conversions to Eastern Orthodoxy), I think there’s a desire among these disillusioned souls for a type of Christianity that is heavily ritualistic, sufficiently ancient, and in which becoming a practitioner resembles gaining a membership to a club in a manner that American Protestantism doesn’t offer.
Axel Herrera
2022-06-26 19:54:54 +0000 UTCIf we are really going to do a deep dive and know our enemy then half this show should be about the historical and material roots of nationalism and why it beats liberal universalism and socialist universalism every time.
Dan
2022-06-26 14:29:35 +0000 UTCImportant to remember when talking about the dueling downtown scenes: People find irony or some commitment to type of removed artistic space is a way to attain that catharsis. Sometimes it becomes more about being ironic, or focused on their let’s say ‘mindset’ rather than true catharsis. The Post left is all about that feeling or being bitterly ironic, even turning to anger to let out those repressed emotions once felt as catharsis— that’s what the ‘artistic’ right responds to. That’s the marriage of tucker and greenwald. And really what’s at the heart of the impotence of a lot of leftists Chris hedges- who can’t really develop and lead from a place of irony or anger.
Dan
2022-06-26 14:27:43 +0000 UTCGreat discussion! As always, I learned a lot. I'm a Cognitive Psychologist, and I cringe a bit when you talk Freud and Psychoanalysis. It's like stopping an analysis of Conservatism at Burke; you can and do make good points, but it can only take you so far because so much has developed since then. You have a really insightful discussion about how abuse and shootings are more common at home and link this to family. I think that more recent concepts from Psychology (though still classic) clarify the link. Since The Family and traditional family values are central to social conservatism, recognizing that the family is the source of these horrible acts would be an identity threat that causes cognitive dissonance. Attributing these threats externally to schools allows people to preserve these values and also attack institutions that they see as threatening traditional values (e.g., supporting DEI). Thanks for another great episode!
Quackiavelli
2022-06-25 17:56:44 +0000 UTCThis was an excellent discussion. Thank you!
Susan Rebecca White
2022-06-25 03:15:37 +0000 UTCFwiw the whole downtown new right pose seems pretty clearly like a way to feel politically transgressive while remaining fundamentally frivolous in your attitudes and actions. It’s just owning the libs for Swarthmore grads.
Rob R
2022-06-25 03:02:40 +0000 UTCThat was great! Thanks!
History Chick
2022-06-24 21:39:11 +0000 UTCAn underexamined element of the "downtown scene" thing is that it's clearly a reaction against Brooklyn cultural hegemony and insularity. It's notable that this so-called scene is associated so strongly with Manhattan even though many figures actually live in Brooklyn (e.g. Gasda who wrote the Dimes Square play). Brooklyn, like Twitter, is a space that often has a very hard time seeing outside of itself, and it's also a place that has in recent years been the center of power in New York City. (We're currently in the ninth year of Brooklyn mayoralty, and the city council speaker, comptroller, and public advocate are all from Brooklyn, and Brooklyn is clearly where cultural power is concentrated.) It's not surprising to me that people are reacting to that.
Eli Naeher
2022-06-24 13:28:43 +0000 UTC
