What the Right Can Learn From Joe Rogan
If we conceptualise the podcasting industry as institution, it’s a classic example of the maxim that any institution not explicitly dedicated to being right-wing will eventually become left-wing. An exception is the Joe Rogan Experience — and it’s a massive exception, as one of the world’s biggest podcasts. From Milo to Jordan Peterson to Alex Jones, Joe has a proven ability to get right wing talking points and people into, or closer to, the mainstream. What is it that he’s doing and what can the fringe right learn from him?
Before we get into this — yes, yes, yes. “Milo’s a degenerate fraud, Peterson’s a cuck, Jones is a distraction”. Rogan will talk to a Reaganite mannequin like Dan Crenshaw but not Sam Hyde (or whoever). I won’t haggle over that assessment, but it’s not the point. The point is that one of the biggest podcasts in the world should not be the one that accommodates these figures. That’s not part of the plan. He’s doing something right.
It’s a slight elision to say that his show is thematically “right wing”– I would say if it has a theme, it’s masculinity. It’s content (fighting, weightlifting, hunting, self-improvement etc.) is implicitly male, and it’s a place where masculinity is constantly present but never apologises for, explains or excuses itself. I think we can forgive the conflation of these two things — the right and masculinity — because to a person that hates them, they are the same. His podcast pulls off its trick by talking about issues of interest to right wing people (men) in an enthusiastic way without ever announcing that as his overarching purpose. Men still see the direct discussion of certain subjects as weak, lame or gauche. If you ask a man to discuss his manhood he will demur, but if ask him to listen to a discussion on masculine things between people who are expert in those fields, without ever using the “M” word, he will listen.
Where his guests stray into difficult political territory Joe will often play dumb or play devil’s advocate (“NPC? Nah, I’ve never heard that term, what does it mean?”). This is fooling nobody and can be a little grating. But the purpose is to allow the topic to be discussed without getting the host in trouble. “I don’t agree with my guest — I’m just giving you space to explain what you’re talking about.” Indirectly approaching certain issues in this way minimises the risks of being deplatformed. It’s interesting to compare this to the approach to people who are of the opposite political persuasion. To succeed in the liberal (which is to say mainstream) podcasting world it’s not enough to be political — you can get yourself in trouble for not being maximally woke at all times. Rogan understands that he is coming from a different angle can’t produce a product by behaving that way.
Assuming that Joe knows more about the world than he lets on, you can represent Rogan as being part of a “display your power level” spectrum. One end the spectrum is “completely hidden”. Joe is somewhere in the middle. At the other end is “completely revealed”, and these would be people who make no attempt to disguise their opinions. On the right, most of the notable people at the “completely revealed” end are anonymous. Those that aren’t are more often than not outcasts, wretches, oddballs — and, as a result of their opinions, comprehensively ruined. How do you live with your power level without being anonymous?
As noted above, JRE definitely isn’t perfect. Many would place his opinions in the category of “basic bitch libertarian” (see: marijuana legalisation). There are lots of places he won’t go and lots of people he won’t talk to. The guests can be bloke-y and repetitive (another comedian episode? Really?). But crucially whatever he does say, and whoever he speaks to, he does it under his own name. Anonymity is a good and valuable thing, but increasingly the progress of dissenting opinions on political issues is going to require people to find a way to speak under their own names.
Sadly we live in a time where our ability to say what we want, even where the truth is staring us in the face, is restricted. Well, only some of us are restricted — regime opinions can be let fly indiscriminately and without end. For the rest of us, we need to find what imperfect models we can to imitate so we can stay afloat in spite of the weight of our opinions. Joe is as imperfect as they come — but he has established some helpful patterns. Play dumb when you need to. Understand you can talk about the thing without naming about it. Know that you won’t be cut the same slack as your opponents. Let other people make your arguments for you. Know what discussions are the discussion too far. His continued existence, let alone his success, is worth paying attention to.
