CPAC Conservative Political Action Conference and the John Birch Society

CPAC US has been in the news for falling audiences and fallings out between different groups and players, while CPAC Hungary will be held 25-26th April in Budapest.  

Recently both The Atlantic and SPLC Southern Poverty Law Center have highlighted the links between CPAC and the anti-communist John Birch Society, founded by Robert Welch, with assistance from others including Fred Koch.

Fred Koch was the father of Charles Koch who in turn helped create the Atlas – Koch Network of global think tanks, along with Tanton Network nativism or eugenics from the old Rockefeller supported ZPG Zero Population Growth; underpins the threat of the ‘great replacement’ of the WASP 1% by lower orders and ‘other types’.

An interesting metaphor, allegory or comparison where the John Birch Society apparently saw itself in the same ecosystem as the KKK Ku Klux Klan competing for members, while nowadays Koch Network shares donors with the nativist or eugenics based Tanton Network, obsessing over borders and immigrants. 

From The Atlantic

‘The Return of the John Birch Society

The organization, once relegated to the outermost edges of the conservative movement, now fits neatly into its mainstream.

By Elaina Plott Calabro

Michael Smart chuckled as he thought back to their banishment.

Truthfully he couldn’t say for sure what the problem had been, why it was that in 2012, the John Birch Society—the far-right organization historically steeped in conspiracism and opposition to civil rights—had found itself blacklisted by the Conservative Political Action Conference. “Nobody knows the official reason, because they don’t tell you that,” Smart, a field coordinator for the group, told me.

He has theories, of course. Perhaps the Birchers’ unapologetic crusade against “globalism” had started to hit too close to home for the Republican Party of 12 years ago; perhaps their warnings about, of all people, Newt Gingrich—a “wolf in sheep’s clothing” whose onetime membership on the Council on Foreign Relations, as Smart saw it, revealed his “globalist” vision for conservatism—had rankled the Republican powers that be.

In any event, the ouster had made the news, coming as it had after a change in leadership at the American Conservative Union, the host of CPAC, the annual gathering of conservative politicians, commentators, and activists. “When they applied, I said, ‘I don’t want any segregationist groups at CPAC; it sends the wrong message,’” Al Cárdenas, the ACU chair from 2011 to 2014, told me recently. “And that was that.” For some optimistic observers, the decision had signified a small but symbolic effort to purge the movement of its most “highly offensive” elements, as one report put it…..’

From SPLC Southern Poverty Law Center

‘FOR CPAC ATTENDEES, ‘AMERICA IS UNDER ATTACK’

March 08, 2024

Hannah Gais and Cassie Miller

National Harbor, Maryland – Activists at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) this past month presented their movement as locked in an irrevocable, existential conflict with their perceived political enemies.

In recent years, the far right has used the event to integrate themselves into the greater political establishment and influence a coherent identity for their movement. The conference focuses on elections as one of the key strategies for advancing their agenda further to the right.

Between Feb. 21-24, right-wing activists gathered in National Harbor, Maryland, where one speaker called for overthrowing democracy and others presented former President Donald Trump as the sole politician capable of rescuing America from crisis. One sponsor, an antigovernment organization called Moms for America, whose self-proclaimed goal is “to raise patriots and promote liberty,” ran an advertisement between speeches that described America as “under attack.”

CPAC featured an array of speakers and prominent attendees from international far-right organizations in El Salvador, Germany, Hungary, Argentina, Spain, Japan and the United Kingdom, in addition to Trump and other figures from the American far right. In a sparsely occupied exhibition hall in the Gaylord Convention Center, the venue that hosts CPAC, Hatewatch observed organizers from the far-right, conspiratorial John Birch Society handing out publications and membership applications.

Another vendor permitted attendees to play a pinball machine promoting various conspiracy theories about the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection and attack on the U.S. Capitol. Multiple anti-abortion activists promoted their work. At different booth, one man attempted to sell Hatewatch reporters colloidal silver toothpaste, a fraudulent health product pushed by conspiracy theorists like Alex Jones.

“Welcome to the overthrow of democracy,” Jack Posobiec, a political operative and Turning Point USA (TPUSA) affiliate who has collaborated with a range of white nationalists, neo-Nazis and other extremists throughout his political career, told a crowd on Wednesday, Feb. 21.

“We are here to overthrow it completely. We didn’t get there all the way on Jan. 6. But we will endeavor to get rid of it, and replace it with this right here,” he said, before holding up what appeared to be a cross.

Amid a slew of sexual assault allegations against Matt Schlapp, who heads the American Conservative Union that oversees and organizes CPAC, the conference has struggled to maintain relevance and attract attendees. On Thursday and Friday, a Hatewatch reporter observed dozens of rows of empty seats throughout the conference hall. Even during Trump’s speech on Saturday, a small, standing-room-only overflow area in the main hall appeared only partially full.

‘IT WILL BE THEIR JUDGMENT DAY’

Throughout the conference, speakers described the United States as a “captive nation” that is under siege from a myriad of perceived threats, including from the political left.

“For hardworking Americans, Nov. 5 will be our new liberation day. But for the liars and cheaters and fraudsters and censors and imposters who have commandeered our government, it will be their judgment day,” Trump said during his speech on the afternoon of Feb. 24, which began one hour after its scheduled start time.

In the end, he said, “Our country is being destroyed and the only thing standing between you and its obliteration is me.”….

FEAR MONGERING ABOUT THE BORDER, IMMIGRANTS

Multiple speakers at CPAC focused heavily on immigration and anti-immigrant rhetoric, presenting immigrants from non-white countries as a destructive force.

“All of a sudden we’re starting to like our prisoners and our horrible violent criminals because they’re nicer than the people that are flowing in,” Trump said on Feb. 24, warning that immigrants from Asia, the Middle East and Africa were “destroying the country.”

Stephen Miller, once a senior adviser to Trump whose affinity for white nationalist literature Hatewatch revealed in 2019, emphasized that a second Trump administration would build on the anti-immigrant policies that he enacted during his previous time in office. Miller reiterated a plan to deputize the National Guard to act as immigration enforcement. The administration, he said, would establish large-scale staging grounds where immigrants would be brought before being flown out of the country by federal law enforcement.

FLOUNDERING ATTENDANCE AND EXTREMISTS

The continued presence of once-fringe conspiracy-minded groups such as the John Birch Society, which was also listed as a sponsor for this year’s CPAC, is a “symbolic ratification of where CPAC has been the past decade,” Matthew Dallek, the author of Birchers: How the John Birch Society Radicalized the American Right, told Hatewatch in a phone call.

Arguably, so too is the presence of several known white nationalists and neo-Nazis who attended CPAC or mingled around the outskirts of the official event.

Hatewatch observed Jared Taylor, wearing an official CPAC badge, at multiple events over the course of the Feb. 22-24 conference. Taylor runs the white nationalist outlet American Renaissance, which portrays Black people as inferior and biologically prone to criminality. Multiple conferencegoers posted photos with Taylor on “X,” formerly Twitter, with him over the course of the event….

…..Greg Conte, the former director of operations for the now-defunct white nationalist think tank the National Policy Institute, as well as a former chairman for the now-defunct pro-Hitler political party the National Justice Party, appeared at multiple venues near the conference with other white nationalists. The Nation, NBC News and The New York Times reported seeing Conte on Friday night at a bar near the venue. On Saturday afternoon, a Hatewatch reporter also witnessed Conte and a handful of friends, who were not wearing CPAC badges and confirmed they were not there as conference attendees, drinking at a bar in the Gaylord lobby.

On Feb. 25, Schlapp responded to the NBC News report regarding Conte, Sanchez and others’ presence at the event on “X,” formerly Twitter, falsely accusing supporters of a ceasefire in the ongoing Israel-Palestine conflict in Gaza of being neo-Nazis.’

For more blogs and articles related to Conservatives, Eugenics, Koch Network, Libertarian Economics, Radical Right Libertarians and Tanton Network click through:

Adam Smith – Classical Liberal Economics or Conservative Calvinist Christianity or White Christian Nationalism?

Posted on June 21, 2021

We observe many governments, especially Anglosphere and conservative, following the ideology of Adam Smith, promoted through Koch linked think tanks, assiduously. The outcomes include less Keynesian influence on government policy and more Smith, or Hayek, Friedman and Buchanan.

The latter cite ‘freedom and liberty’ for society, and economic policies based round ‘public choice theory’, monetarism and small government. Related there is also much emphasis or attention paid to elections, taxes, government budgets and many sociocultural issues including impairment of workers and unions rights, interfering on university campuses, demanding immigration restrictions, ‘freedom of speech’ and using Christianity as a divisive issue to create an ageing conservative voter coalition, especially in the USA.

Anglosphere Nativist Libertarian Social Economic Policies or Return of Eugenics?

Posted on October 28, 2022

In the past decade we have witnessed a political shift to the nativist and libertarian right in the Anglosphere, but described as ‘conservative’, appealing to the important above median age voter, less educated, more socially conservative, obedient and monocultural, but e.g. in UK leading to austerity measures?

Most of these ideas come from the classical or liberal economists of the past including Calvin, Smith, Ricardo et al. and also includes old eugenics based ideas of dour Christian men like Malthus on population, Galton on social Darwinism or eugenics, and worse, Madison Grant in the US who influenced Hitler.

James Buchanan – Economist – Koch Influencer – Radical Right Libertarian – Anglo Conservatives

Posted on October 10, 2022

5

We hear much about the influence of right wing or conservative economic ideology in political policies whether GOP Republicans, UK Tories, Australian Liberal conservatives etc., think tanks and related media calling for lower taxes or cuts, smaller government, fewer services, immigration restrictions, white nativism, climate science denial, less red tape and moving the Overton window to the far right. 

However, as witnessed recently in the UK, with ‘Trussonomics’, these policies are presumed to be native and grounded through good policy development, but are they? 

No, they represent the work of one ‘the most influential but unknown men in America’, segregation economist James Buchanan allied with Hayek, von Mises, Friedman and Rand, while being supportive of Pinochet’s coup in Chile; ‘radical right libertarian policies’ presented as economic but appear to be more social engineering, with eugenics (of class and race) in the background? 

Anglosphere Oligarchs – Koch Atlas Network Think Tanks

Posted on March 27, 2023

We have heard much of supposed ‘libertarian’ think tanks or PR outfits in the Anglosphere influencing policy, especially of the right, via media and lobbying, euphemistically known as ‘Koch Network’ or the ‘Kochtopus’ with a fondness for fossil fuels and climate science denial.

New Yorker journalist Jane Mayer investigated several years ago for her book ‘Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right’ (2017) which included insight into oligarch donors Mellon-Scaife, Olin, Bradley, DeVos and Coors.

Conservative CPAC Event – Hungary – Who Pays for Influence?

Posted on June 2, 2022

Recently the infamous US GOP Conservative CPAC event was held in Budapest, Hungary, with a conference and meeting of minds whether related to the far right, Fox News, ‘the great replacement’, anti-semitism, anti-immigration, Christian nationalism and rights etc.

Putin’s Russian Led Corruption of Anglosphere and European Radical Right, Conservatives and Christians

Posted on March 4, 2024

Some years ago Putin and Russia attracted much attention and sympathy from Anglo and European ultra conservative Christians, radical right and free market libertarians for Russia’s corrupt nativist authoritarianism with antipathy towards liberal democracy, the EU and open society.

These phenomena can be observed through visitors and liaisons, but more so by shared talking points and values.  These include family values, pro-life, Christianity, patriarchy, misogyny, white supremacy, traditionalism, dominionism, Evangelicals, anti-LGBT, anti-woke,  anti-elite, anti-gay marriage, traditional wives etc. and corruption, promoted by right wing parties, media, ultra conservative influencers, think tanks and NGOs.

Assange – Useful Idiot or Willing Dupe of the US Right and Putin’s Russia?

Recently there have been calls and pressure on the Biden Democratic administration, by supporters of Assange in Australia and the U.K., for him not to be deported and possibly pardoned (for charges brought by Trump administration), while many others contest his ‘journalism’ credentials, or at least how unhelpful his cause has been for journalism.

Convenient timing, as one observes how this also segues into criticism of Australia’s newish Labor government for not doing enough on his release, but ignores inactivity by both the former LNP conservative coalition government and the UK Conservative government, over many years to reach a solution; they didn’t even try?

Many supporters of Assange ignore salient facts of how he used Wikileaks, or at least went off piste on protocols when releasing material, links with Russia, Trump’s team, FoxNews, murder conspiracy theories and Assange’s vendetta towards Hilary Clinton, favouring Trump and the GOP.

Worse, many of the same supporters also share talking points with RWNJs, FoxNews/RT, Koch’s GOP Freedom Caucus, Trump, conspiracy theorists, pro Russian invasion, anti-vaxxer, anti-Covid science and related health measures.

For context, the experience of the same, including Assange cannot be compared to the risks that journalists, activists, politicians, NGOs and young people take in Russia, Turkey or elsewhere, where they are routinely censored, threatened, beaten, arrested, convicted, long gaol terms and simple murder or assassination. 

‘Mother Jones: ‘Denounce Julian Assange. Don’t Extradite Him.  

David Corn 17 December 2021

The prosecution of the conniving WikiLeaks founder poses a threat to American journalism. Julian Assange deserves condemnation. He doesn’t deserve extradition.

Last week, Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks who remains imprisoned in England, received bad news. A British judge ruled in favor of a US government request that Assange be extradited to the United States to face charges under the Espionage Act for having published classified diplomatic and military cables. This was a troubling development for anyone who cares about journalism and free speech.

The court decision was the latest turn in a long-running global legal battle. In April 2019, an indictment against Assange was unsealed in the United States. The charge was relatively minor: conspiracy to commit computer intrusion. The maximum possible sentence was five years imprisonment. It stemmed from his alleged effort in 2010 to help Chelsea Manning, then a US soldier, hack a classified database from which she obtained 750,000 secret military and State Department documents that she slipped to WikiLeaks. But weeks later the Trump administration further indicted Assange under the Espionage Act for having publicly posted the material WikiLeaks received from Manning. For that, he faces up to 170 years in prison.

This prosecution poses a serious threat to democracy. I’ll turn to that in a moment. But one PR problem with the case is that Assange is a highly unsympathetic character, for he is partly responsible for the damage done by Donald Trump during his presidency: 400,000 or more preventable deaths of Americans in the COVID-19 pandemic; the lack of action to address climate change; the promotion of disinformation and lies to incite a violent attack on the US Capitol; a tax cut that favored the wealthy and added to the national debt; right-wing appointments to the Supreme Court that could lead to the severe curtailing of reproductive rights for women; the spread of bigotry and racial hatred; the suppression of voting rights; cutbacks in government health programs; creeping (or galloping) authoritarianism; and so much more.

The United States has suffered greatly because of Assange. In 2016, he collaborated with the Russian attack on the US election to help Trump win. As has been detailed by several government investigations—including in special counsel Robert Mueller’s final report and in a bipartisan report issued by the Senate Intelligence Committee last year—after Russian intelligence teams hacked Democratic targets, they passed the stolen emails and documents to WikiLeaks, which then publicly disseminated the material.

The Senate report notes that Assange’s group “timed its document releases for maximum political impact.” That is, WikiLeaks wasn’t acting in a noble information-sharing manner. It sought to weaponize the information pilfered by Vladimir Putin’s operatives to cause harm to candidate Hillary Clinton, whom Assange and WikiLeaks had disparaged as a “sadistic sociopath” and a threat to the world. (“We believe it would be much better for [the] GOP to win,” WikiLeaks had tweeted.)

In disseminating the stolen information, WikiLeaks behaved more as a political hit squad than a media organization. For example, when the Washington Post on October 7, 2016, published the Access Hollywood video showing Trump bragging about grabbing women “by the pussy,” half an hour later WikiLeaks began releasing emails Russian hackers had swiped from John Podesta, the chair of Hillary Clinton’s campaign. This was a counterblow, an attempt to rescue Trump with a distraction. And to inflict the most pain it could on the Clinton campaign, WikiLeaks did not dump all the Podesta information at once (as it had done with its previous release of Democratic Party material at the start of the Democrats’ convention that July). Instead, the group doled out the documents in batches, almost daily, to ensure there would be a steady stream of negative Clinton stories for the final four weeks of the campaign. Assange and WikiLeaks were full partners with Putin in a plot aimed at electing Trump president.

And Assange tried to cover up Russia’s role in this perfidious operation. As the Senate report states:

Assange and WikiLeaks undertook efforts to obscure the source of the stolen emails, including through false narratives. Assange’s use of such disinformation suggests Assange possibly knew of and sought to hide Russian involvement. One narrative from Assange involved a conspiracy theory that Seth Rich, a DNC staffer killed in a botched robbery, was the source of the DNC email and had been murdered in response. On August 9 [2016], Assange gave an interview on Dutch television implying that Rich was the source of the DNC emails, and that day WikiLeaks announced that it would be issuing a reward for information about Rich’s murder. In a subsequent interview, Assange commented about the WikiLeaks interest in the Rich case as concerning “someone who’s potentially connected to our publication.” The Committee found that no credible evidence supports this narrative.

Assange was pushing a baseless and odious conspiracy theory (which caused tremendous distress for Rich’s family) that was also being championed by conspiracy nutter Alex Jones, Fox News’ Sean Hannity, and Russian intelligence. His apparent goal was to hide the Kremlin’s role in the pro-Trump/anti-Clinton hack-and-leak scheme that WikiLeaks was facilitating. This is not how a legitimate news organization functions. (By the way, the Senate report also issued this indictment of the Trump campaign: “The Trump Campaign publicly undermined the attribution of the hack-and-leak campaign to Russia and was indifferent to whether it and WikiLeaks were furthering a Russian election interference effort.” That is, Trump and his crew aided and abetted Moscow’s attack on the 2016 election.)

Assange and WikiLeaks connived and lied to help Trump vanquish Clinton. The Podesta information dumps were a steady drag on the Clinton campaign in the final stretch, often preventing it from gaining traction for its own messages and themes. These releases also served as a constant reminder to the public of her own email controversy—and as an effective setup for the last-minute revelation from then–FBI Director James Comey that the bureau might have unearthed missing or previously destroyed Clinton emails. (It hadn’t.)

Given how close the election ended up, the Russia-WikiLeaks operation was one of several factors that determined the outcome. Remove Putin’s hackers and Assange’s outfit from the picture, and Clinton probably would have won. (Ditto for Comey’s move, as well as for Clinton’s own decision not to do more in several swing states in the last week.) Assange can (proudly?) claim a degree of ownership of the election results. That means he also partly owns what came afterward. He and WikiLeaks opposed Clinton, they contended, because she was a warmonger. There is no way of telling whether she would have started any wars had she been president. But it’s a damn good bet that had she been in charge during the pandemic, far fewer Americans would have perished.

Assange ought to be punished—if only ostracized and widely denigrated—for his 2016 skullduggery. But the extradition case at hand does not address that. Focused on an earlier episode, it is an excessive use of legal force by the US government—first the Trump administration and now the Biden administration. The Obama administration considered charging Assange for releasing the Manning material under the Espionage Act—which was intended to be used against spies and their collaborators—but it was concerned about a negative impact on journalists. Obtaining and publishing classified documents—and asking sources to provide such material—is a common activity for many news organizations.

When Assange was indicted on these espionage charges, John Demers, then the head of the Justice Department’s National Security Division, said Assange was “no journalist.” Given Assange’s underhanded partnership with Russian intelligence, that may well be an accurate statement. But the actions for which he has been indicted under the Espionage Act are the actions of reporters. And media organizations are correct to worry about a precedent being established. (Most Espionage Act cases have involved government employees who leaked classified information.) As the New York Times reported at the time of the Assange indictment, “Notably, The New York Times, among many other news organizations, obtained precisely the same archives of documents from WikiLeaks, without authorization from the government—the act that most of the charges addressed… [I]t is not clear how that is legally different from publishing other classified information.”

Media outlets and free speech advocates have justifiably howled about this case. Kenneth Roth, the executive director of Human Rights Watch, noted, “The Assange prosecution threatens these basic elements of modern journalism and democratic accountability.” And the Committee to Protect Journalists last week issued this statement: “The U.S. Justice Department’s dogged pursuit of the WikiLeaks founder has set a harmful legal precedent for prosecuting reporters simply for interacting with their sources. The Biden administration pledged at its Summit for Democracy this week to support journalism. It could start by removing the threat of prosecution under the Espionage Act now hanging over the heads of investigative journalists everywhere.”

Considering all the devastation Assange enabled with his 2016 plot against America, it is tough to embrace him as a free-speech martyr. But those who care about accountability and excessive government power don’t always get to choose the battles that must be waged to preserve First Amendment freedoms. Assange mounted a damaging attack on the United States and facilitated a profound subversion of its political system. Still, his prosecution under the Espionage Act is another assault on American democracy.

Assange’s attorneys say they will appeal the decision, which calls for a lower court to send the case to the British home secretary for a decision on whether Assange ought to be extradited. Meanwhile, Assange will remain in Belmarsh Prison in London. He spent almost seven years in the Ecuadorian embassy in London, ducking extradition to Sweden for a sex crimes case, which was dropped in 2015; he was arrested in 2019 related to bail-skipping charges and the extradition warrant from the United States.

Assange did help put in the White House a wannabe authoritarian who demonized reporters and dangerously claimed the media was the “enemy of the people.” (And the ingrate paid Assange back by indicting him.) Yet now his personal fate is tied to the protection of First Amendment rights. The Biden administration ought to drop Espionage Act case against Assange—not for his sake, but for the rest of us.’

The Anglosphere Faux or Fake Left and Centre Heading to the Populist Right?

Interesting article from the US media outlet MSNBC titled ‘How the populist left has become vulnerable to the populist right’ describing the transition some political media personalities have been making i.e. moving from the centre left to right wing populist positions on Ukraine and GOP or Republicans linked personalities and protagonists.

Similar views have been observed in Australia around the proposed ‘Voice’ for Indigenous, but in addition to longer term Indigenous ‘Conservatives’ against the ‘Voice’, another has jumped from the Greens (left?) to opposing the ‘Voice’, at the last minute.

In the UK we have observed the antipathy from the left towards the EU and demands not to rejoin, whether TUC Trades Union Council, Momentum or Corbyn supporters, who echo pro Brexit talking points of the right, including eugenics tropes round economics?

In the US on Ukraine, Mearsheimer (linked to Kochs), Sachs (linked to Rockefeller Foundation) et al. demand that Ukraine negotiates, or yields, while Russia still occupies eastern Ukraine, and both have recently met with Putin ally Hungarian PM Orban, repeating similar talking points.

Finally, the fossil fueled ZPG Zero Population Growth movement of the ‘60s-’70s made inroads with left, liberal and centrist ‘environmentalists’ by promoting junk or pseudo science of ‘limits to growth’ demanding immigration restrictions and population control, i.e. masking discredited eugenics and ‘the great replacement’.

Why is this so? Maybe they were never left or centrist in the first place, but more about being media employees i.e. catering to (new) employers with suggestions of enhanced career prospects in a competitive market? Need the money e.g. have a mortgage? Horseshoe theory? The US left, but especially liberals in the US, would be centrist or centre right in Europe etc., echo chamber effect? Ageing demographics where people become more socioeconomically, then politically, conservative?

The latter has been avoided by younger demographics remaining centre or left as they age, even the baby boomers, possibly as a reaction against authoritarianism and nativism?

From MSNBC excerpts below, click through header for the full article:

‘How the populist left has become vulnerable to the populist right

A new political subculture could funnel people from leftism to authoritarianism.

By Zeeshan Aleem, MSNBC Opinion Columnist Jan. 9, 2023, 12:00 PM CET 

Since the mid-2010s, the rise of the populist left and the populist right has shaken up the American political spectrum. Both movements have manoeuvred 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.

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 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…

….If you are a free speech warrior, you should be concerned about threats to robust speech that manifest across the political spectrum, and you should take steps to demonstrate your independence from plutocrats who are whimsically buying public squares. Instead, anti-lib populists finds common cause with the right and designate Democrats as the implacable enemy.

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…….

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 discussed 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. And they can distort the nature of the right to make it appear innocuous. Witness Greenwald’s (tortured) attempt to portray Tucker Carlson, Steve Bannon and 2015-era Donald Trump as socialists….

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…..  

….None of this is to suggest that anti-lib populists have been bought off or are taking direct editorial cues from owners of platforms. The point is authoritarian elements of the capitalist class are cultivating relationships with anti-lib populists and backing platforms that can facilitate the left-to-right-wing populism pipeline. Networks and infrastructure are being crafted.

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’

Links of interests including other blogs and articles related to Ageing Democracy, Conservatives, Koch Network, Media, Political Strategy, Populist Politics and Russia:

Geopolitics – Horseshoe Theory – Russian Invasion of Ukraine – Anglosphere European Far Right and Left

Smoking Gun Memo – Warning to US GOP Republicans on Eugenics Masquerading as Conservative Immigration and Environmental Policies

Russian Brexit Coup by Putin and Compromised British Conservatives

Brexit, Conservatives, Nativism, Libertarian Strategy, Single Market and the European Union

Climate Confusion, Astroturfing, Pseudo-Science, Population Movement and Radical Right Libertarians

Dumbing Down and Gaming of Anglosphere Media, Science, Society and Democracy

Collective Narcissism, Ageing Electorates, Pensioner Populism, White Nativism and Autocracy

Ageing Democracy, Nativism and Populism