JVL, this weekend Triad tickled my erogenous zones something awful this morning, thanks for a great write up!
The deplorable vs demagogue question is a bit like the chicken vs the egg question in the sense of trying to find out which is the more important. For me, the answer is easy in both questions and they operate on understanding how…
JVL, this weekend Triad tickled my erogenous zones something awful this morning, thanks for a great write up!
The deplorable vs demagogue question is a bit like the chicken vs the egg question in the sense of trying to find out which is the more important. For me, the answer is easy in both questions and they operate on understanding how deplorables and eggs work:
Just as eggs cannot develop or hatch without the incubation of the mother's warmth resting on their shells and keeping their temperature zones in the proper range so that the zygote can develop, the online communities of resentment cannot explode off of the internet and into reality absent the incubation of demagogues in the presence of a like-minded audience. That is the incubation that lets the eggs (deplorables) develop and eventually hatch (radicalize). Absent this provision of warmth by the mother, the eggs simply do not develop.
With "deplorables"--anti-liberal individuals with low trust in American institutions--they cannot "develop" (group-radicalize) without the environment that a demagogue cultivates. When it was Rush Limbaugh, his listeners were joined and group-radicalized via common ideology (Ditto Heads). This audience was like a proto-cult to what eventually became MAGA (with the Tea Party as an intermediate waypoint). What really accelerated this incubation/group-radicalization was the advent of social media. Now the Rush Limbaughs of the world are sent *to you* should the social media algorithms detect senses of institutional mistrust or a love of guns via who you're friends with or what kind of media you consume. Social media now brings the incubator to eggs in waiting. It brings the cult to the individual via the algorithms at the slightest sense of the individual being susceptible to the ideology of the cult.
In this sense I blame the deplorables less than the demagogues, because the demagogues unite the individuals and create a cult audience. Inside of that cult audience is where folks who don't trust institutions and hate liberals take their next steps into ideological bubbles of bias confirmation and eventually onto radicalization. It also gives these radicalized individuals an audience to impress, which sometimes leads to mass-shooters doing what they do to impress online communities of resentment brought together by *the combination of* algorithms and demagogues.
To tie the thread between Alex Jones, deplorables, algorithms, and Malcolm Gladwell, take a look at Gladwell's book "The Tipping Point" that discusses "Mavens". Mavens are key influencers that drive the direction of the crowd. For online communities or resentment and institutional distrust, the Tim Pools and Alex Jones' of the world are the Mavens, the algorithms are the accelerant that keep the cult growing, and the social media interfaces are the glue that holds it all together and provides a platform (YouTube, Discord, FB, TikTok, etc.). The Maven, the algorithms, and the platform lead to what becomes a "deplorable" cult.
To bring this question home to us, would the Bulwark audience/community exist absent the Never-Trumpers of 2015 starting this website? The chicken comes first because the egg doesn't hatch without the incubation. Gladwell's Law: The Mavens Matter.
It doesn't. So long as their is class-based social and economic inequality in society, there will be communities of resentment coming together online. Once a social resentment block forms, a Maven (demagogue) eventually comes in to make money off of them and gain social prominence. Once these Mavens have their cults formed, it is only a matter of time before some politician trying to capitalize off of those grievance comes around and starts virtue-signaling to get their support. This dynamic can exist on the left or the right but is most prominent on the right because the left is more likely to socially exclude people on the right from their lives and so social grievances tend to pop up more on the right due to the exclusion, but in theory this dynamic could go either way.
I remember before the internet and Rush Limbaugh was becoming a thing restaurants that catered to business lunch crowds would broadcast his noontime program over the PA system. They even promoted this with "Lunch with Rush" ads on the stations that carried Limbaugh. I think this faded because in the end they saw this as a money loser...kind of like Rush's very brief foray into late night TV. But for a time it was hot.
This was before Newt Gingrich credited Rush for the Republican sweep of 1994.
I bring this up to illustrate your point about incubation. A discreet collection of white men listening to Rush over lunch doesn't have the amplifying effect of current social media platforms.
Yup. Tucker Carlson/Steve Bannon are the new Glenn Beck/Alex Jones who were the new Rush Limbaugh/Lou Dobbs. That's the demagogue progression. The demagogues know that the audience/eggs are there, and if the demagogues provide the right incubation via messaging, they will become powerful beyond their wildest dreams in the form of wealth and influence. The incentives sort themselves out for both sides. The demagogues get rich and powerful and the resentful audience finally finds a *community* of confirmation bias (like-minded individuals). That's the mutual agreement between both parties. GOP politicians capitalize off of these cults because they know these people are motivated voters, so as long as they get some red meat tossed their way via campaign virtue-signaling they will be a high turnout voting block for said politician.
Trump and most MAGA pols/candidates understand this new rule well: virtue-signal on conservative grievances and the incubated cults will turn out in high volumes for you. The demagogues capitalize off of the cults of grievance *they* build for money and influence, and the politicians capitalize off of the cults that the *demagogues* build for votes and donations. That's the GOP Grift Venn Diagram.
I'll say this again as I've posted elsewhere, the "near enemy" vs "far enemy" dynamic is important to understand. MAGA's far enemy is China and immigration while their near enemy are liberals who they see as giving aid and assistance to their far enemy which is constantly growing closer to the gates in their minds.
JVL, this weekend Triad tickled my erogenous zones something awful this morning, thanks for a great write up!
The deplorable vs demagogue question is a bit like the chicken vs the egg question in the sense of trying to find out which is the more important. For me, the answer is easy in both questions and they operate on understanding how deplorables and eggs work:
Just as eggs cannot develop or hatch without the incubation of the mother's warmth resting on their shells and keeping their temperature zones in the proper range so that the zygote can develop, the online communities of resentment cannot explode off of the internet and into reality absent the incubation of demagogues in the presence of a like-minded audience. That is the incubation that lets the eggs (deplorables) develop and eventually hatch (radicalize). Absent this provision of warmth by the mother, the eggs simply do not develop.
With "deplorables"--anti-liberal individuals with low trust in American institutions--they cannot "develop" (group-radicalize) without the environment that a demagogue cultivates. When it was Rush Limbaugh, his listeners were joined and group-radicalized via common ideology (Ditto Heads). This audience was like a proto-cult to what eventually became MAGA (with the Tea Party as an intermediate waypoint). What really accelerated this incubation/group-radicalization was the advent of social media. Now the Rush Limbaughs of the world are sent *to you* should the social media algorithms detect senses of institutional mistrust or a love of guns via who you're friends with or what kind of media you consume. Social media now brings the incubator to eggs in waiting. It brings the cult to the individual via the algorithms at the slightest sense of the individual being susceptible to the ideology of the cult.
In this sense I blame the deplorables less than the demagogues, because the demagogues unite the individuals and create a cult audience. Inside of that cult audience is where folks who don't trust institutions and hate liberals take their next steps into ideological bubbles of bias confirmation and eventually onto radicalization. It also gives these radicalized individuals an audience to impress, which sometimes leads to mass-shooters doing what they do to impress online communities of resentment brought together by *the combination of* algorithms and demagogues.
To tie the thread between Alex Jones, deplorables, algorithms, and Malcolm Gladwell, take a look at Gladwell's book "The Tipping Point" that discusses "Mavens". Mavens are key influencers that drive the direction of the crowd. For online communities or resentment and institutional distrust, the Tim Pools and Alex Jones' of the world are the Mavens, the algorithms are the accelerant that keep the cult growing, and the social media interfaces are the glue that holds it all together and provides a platform (YouTube, Discord, FB, TikTok, etc.). The Maven, the algorithms, and the platform lead to what becomes a "deplorable" cult.
To bring this question home to us, would the Bulwark audience/community exist absent the Never-Trumpers of 2015 starting this website? The chicken comes first because the egg doesn't hatch without the incubation. Gladwell's Law: The Mavens Matter.
I just had the thought — am I in a Bulwark cult?
So, Travis, in your opinion, when will this cycle end?
It doesn't. So long as their is class-based social and economic inequality in society, there will be communities of resentment coming together online. Once a social resentment block forms, a Maven (demagogue) eventually comes in to make money off of them and gain social prominence. Once these Mavens have their cults formed, it is only a matter of time before some politician trying to capitalize off of those grievance comes around and starts virtue-signaling to get their support. This dynamic can exist on the left or the right but is most prominent on the right because the left is more likely to socially exclude people on the right from their lives and so social grievances tend to pop up more on the right due to the exclusion, but in theory this dynamic could go either way.
Thanks for this!
I remember before the internet and Rush Limbaugh was becoming a thing restaurants that catered to business lunch crowds would broadcast his noontime program over the PA system. They even promoted this with "Lunch with Rush" ads on the stations that carried Limbaugh. I think this faded because in the end they saw this as a money loser...kind of like Rush's very brief foray into late night TV. But for a time it was hot.
This was before Newt Gingrich credited Rush for the Republican sweep of 1994.
I bring this up to illustrate your point about incubation. A discreet collection of white men listening to Rush over lunch doesn't have the amplifying effect of current social media platforms.
Yup. Tucker Carlson/Steve Bannon are the new Glenn Beck/Alex Jones who were the new Rush Limbaugh/Lou Dobbs. That's the demagogue progression. The demagogues know that the audience/eggs are there, and if the demagogues provide the right incubation via messaging, they will become powerful beyond their wildest dreams in the form of wealth and influence. The incentives sort themselves out for both sides. The demagogues get rich and powerful and the resentful audience finally finds a *community* of confirmation bias (like-minded individuals). That's the mutual agreement between both parties. GOP politicians capitalize off of these cults because they know these people are motivated voters, so as long as they get some red meat tossed their way via campaign virtue-signaling they will be a high turnout voting block for said politician.
Trump and most MAGA pols/candidates understand this new rule well: virtue-signal on conservative grievances and the incubated cults will turn out in high volumes for you. The demagogues capitalize off of the cults of grievance *they* build for money and influence, and the politicians capitalize off of the cults that the *demagogues* build for votes and donations. That's the GOP Grift Venn Diagram.
I'll say this again as I've posted elsewhere, the "near enemy" vs "far enemy" dynamic is important to understand. MAGA's far enemy is China and immigration while their near enemy are liberals who they see as giving aid and assistance to their far enemy which is constantly growing closer to the gates in their minds.