‘Based’ Signals vs. Populist Policies

Like Marxist radicals in the Sixties, “based” discourse often uses disgust with American life as proof of authenticity. From this perspective, maximal honesty means asserting maximal brokenness. The foes are legion: corporate America, the “deep state,” feminists, every media outlet, the “forever war” political establishment, schools, “wokes” of all stripes, Big Tech, nonprofits, professional associations, conservative organizations, and your next-door neighbor. They have taken every opportunity from you, and the struggle with them is the essential goal of politics. (Apparently, much of this “struggle” consists of listening to podcasts.)

Advertisement

This is a political branding birthed by alienation and the incentives of the digital media space. However, this vision also seems unlikely to address alienation, let alone forge a majority political coalition. Saying that Nazi rule over France was “infinitely preferable in virtually every way” to the opening ceremony at the Olympics may generate a lot of engagement online but also repels most Americans.

Particularly when weaponized by the incentives of digital engagement, performative alienation is corrosive.

Ed Morrissey

It certainly seems to rally some people to the polls, so it's not entirely useless, but the question is whether it's a net gain. Fred argues that it's not, and that we're better off selling positive visions for either conservatism or populism. That seems like good sense to me, especially when the negative vision involves wholesale historical revisionism. 

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Trending on HotAir Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement