Discussion about this post

User's avatar
R. Riddle's avatar

I’ve seen several pundits and consultants on the left fret about “messaging” and the need for “a leftist Joe Rogan” and doing endless handwringing about audience numbers of right-wing versus left-wing politically-oriented talk influencers.

My background is in studying media history and, frankly, I think that’s hogwash that is just a knee-jerk reaction to what’s appearing on the surface.

If you look back over the past few decades, politically oriented talk shows have never found an audience with the left. Anyone remember Air America? It was a well-funded and produced left-oriented radio talk network that was supposed to be the answer to Rush Limbaugh and the proliferation of extremist right-wing talk on the airwaves. It just died after five or six years because it just couldn’t get listeners.

There are liberal talkers that can get an audience, like Rachel Maddow, but I think there’s a fundamental difference, probably based on psychology and philosophy, that separates the media consumption habits of self-identified liberals and conservatives.

Right-wing influencers are really based around a very specific world-view based on victim-hood and affinity with people that are like themselves. It’s about feeling good about being white, or male, or “traditional values”, or Christianity or a conspiracy theorist. It’s a kind of “secret handshake” club where you can get validation for being a bigot or a racist or extremist and seeing everyone else as an enemy. Right-wing talk, whether it’s Joe Rogan, Alex Jones, or evangelical types is the center point for reinforcing your world view.

And the media the right-wing shows interest in branches out from that. If you’re a “bro” and get into Rogan, you’ll probably watch MMA and other sports and be interested in areas like sports-betting. If you’re evangelical, you’re going to be interested in religious shows or those faith-based movies that flood cineplexes from outfits like Angel Studios.

Liberals and progressives are much more diffuse as an audience, reflecting a wider range of interests and curiosity about the world. If you’re a woman, or LGBTQ, or Black, you’ll be attracted to talk shows about your affinity group. But, outside of that, you’re going to get your news and entertainment from a wider range of sources - everything from Marvel movies to British “cozy” mysteries to rap or hip hop and pop music or horror movies or popular rom-coms or science shows.

Generally, I think you could demonstrate, with some research, that conservatives are focused on the self and see the outside world as a threat and that liberals see themselves as part of a community and world and have empathy and curiosity about others.

The right wants to exist in a long-gone world that doesn’t exist anymore (or never existed at all) and see that world in very limited ways (themselves, their immediate family, their church, etc). Liberals and progressives want to actively shape the future and world they live in and make it better for themselves, their kids, their neighbors, and the country or world.

There can never be a “Joe Rogan of the left” - the left is too diverse and interested in the outside world for something like that to work. And I don’t think leftists showing up on right-wing talk will go anywhere - it’s just an opportunity to give right-wing audiences an “other” to get angry about.

Just advertising to the left isn’t going to work either - people on the left are generally more educated and skeptical about the media and advertising. They look at multiple sources for news and opinion and can spot “fake” or pandering a mile away.

What would work, in my opinion, is some hard work to reach out to the many influencers that are already out there producing non-political content for left-leaning audiences and to look at ways to be a more natural part of the conversations that are going on.

That also means listening to affinity groups and progressives, looking at their interests and needs, and not just pumping out talking points from “on high”.

Unfortunately, the Democrats are still trapped in the Bill Clinton era, looking at mass media advertising and “messaging” as the be-all and end-all of motivating voters. We haven’t lived in that world for thirty years.

The right-wing engaged with and listened to their grassroots and have responded by catering to their every whim and giving them a feedback loop of what they want to hear.

The left needs to look at engagement as an ongoing process that makes the grassroots feel a part of the process.

To me, the engagement, diversity, and involvement of a wide range of liberals during the Democratic National Convention was a starting point for the kind of “many voices”/positive future that can work to bring liberals and progressives together and working together towards change.

Even though Trump’s victory was extremely narrow, the lessons of the Harris campaign and the DNC have been swept aside by pundits and consultants in favor of attitudes and approaches of the past that just have no relevance anymore. And that's a huge mistake.

Expand full comment
Doug's avatar

Success is within reach, but it depends on electing a leader who tackles the nation's challenges with intelligence and foresight. The term "woke" has been co-opted as a political tool, diverting attention from the real issue—effective governance. Under Biden, the economy flourished, the stock market remained strong, and unemployment among active job seekers was a mere 2.1%. By contrast, under Trump’s leadership, that rate has surged to 4.2%, leaving many frustrated with his decisions and their consequences.

Countless Americans have seen their 401(k)s diminish, international relations are strained, and most economists warn of an impending major recession this summer—triggered by Trump's reckless tariff policies. Any attempt to pin these economic struggles on Biden is a distortion of reality, propagated by those unwilling to face the facts. As Proverbs 12:15 states, "The way of fools seems right to them, but the wise listen to advice."

James Carville’s famous declaration, "It's the economy, stupid," still holds true today. Market volatility and plummeting retirement accounts reveal dwindling confidence in Trump’s economic leadership. The recent downgrade of the U.S. credit rating from Aaa to Aa1 underscores concerns over mounting national debt and financial instability. Trump's proposal to add $2 trillion to the debt—primarily benefiting billionaires through tax breaks—threatens to further strain the country’s economic foundation.

Beyond fiscal concerns, significant questions linger over his handling of classified information, cryptocurrency dealings, and dubious real estate transactions in the Middle East. Meanwhile, Republican lawmakers remain divided over budget negotiations, highlighting deep fractures within the party. Those committed to constitutional values must unite behind a leader capable of steering the nation through these challenges. This election isn’t about preference, it’s about necessity.

Expand full comment
17 more comments...

No posts