Thinking that we can “build” yours Rogan Experience is to fundamentally misunderstand the power of alternative media.
Photo: PowerfulJRE via YouTube

The weeks immediately following an election defeat, especially a Democratic defeat, tend to be a stormy season of snap post-mortems and finger-pointing. Prescriptions abound: The party should have gone further to the left; the party should have gone further to the right; Joe Biden should not have resigned; Bernie would have won. Among the quick takeaways is the idea that liberals must “build their own Joe Rogan”, referring to the outsized shadow the podcaster cast in the final days leading up to the election. Trump appeared on the show on October 26, then JD Vance on October 31, then finally Elon Musk, their billionaire surrogate who finally sealed the deal to get Rogan’s support on November 4, which was then broadcast on the social media just before election day.

We can’t be sure to what extent Rogan’s support actually helped swing the election campaign toward a second Trump presidency, but it capped off what appears to be a successful execution of Trump’s campaign strategy of employing a large-scale press on the so-called “Manosphere” — the loose constellation of influencers like FlagrantAndrew Schulz, comedian Theo Von, and techno-brother Lex Fridman have collectively developed a group largely associated, but not necessarily exclusive, with what might be called “disaffected young men.” Rogan was the piece of resistance of this push and its biggest possible gain: The Joe Rogan Experience is still widely considered the most listened to show in the podcast industry, but it is particularly popular with men.

In the face of this, the liberal impulse to replicate the juice by developing their own Rogan equivalent is understandable but ultimately myopic. The idea is nothing more than a fantastical wish, driven by a top-down desire to inorganically bring into the world something that can only exist organically. It is an effort to circumvent the more pragmatic albeit far less encouraging: tackling head-on the constituency that Rogan’s audience, as well as the messy personalities and platforms in Rogan’s orbit, represent.

There’s a fundamental difference between the so-called “Manovere” and, say, the equally growing ecosystem of explicitly right-wing podcasts typified by Ben Shapiro’s. Daily Feed operation, new conservative talking heads like Dan Bongino, far-right figures like Charlie Kirk, and the afterlife of Megyn Kelly and Tucker Carlson. The latter are extensions of existing political bases, serving primarily as platforms for organizing and ideological reinforcement; they do not expand the tents but maintain the existing ones. To a large extent, liberals and the left already have equivalents in this area: Crooked Media on the center left, alternatives like Hasan Piker and Chapo trap house for those further down the spectrum, even if they don’t quite reach the financial and audience scale of their right-wing rivals.

In contrast, what Rogan and the Manosphere represent is a purely cultural space that is often politically fragile, whether by design or layout. Someone like Theo Von, for example, has his beliefs, but they are not emphasized and, in any case, they are not easily summarized into a fully defined ideological profile. Rogan has developed a following primarily as a comedian, mixed martial arts personality, and guy who is really interested in ideas of the galactic brain, weird conspiracy theories, and his own beliefs about the world, some of which are harmful. His arrival as a political influencer was as much incidental as it was consequential: over the years, he attracted the attention of right-wing politicians whenever he expressed disaffection with liberal values, which they now successfully exploited. But Rogan continues to be difficult to fit into a specific political container. Four years ago, he supported Bernie Sanders, even though he had doubts about the COVID vaccine. He seems to believe in man-made climate change; he makes fun of trans people. Even with his support for Trump, it’s still not entirely fair to say he naturally “belongs” to any camp.

The same goes for Rogan’s listeners. According to a study by Edison Researchthe show’s audience is made up about equally of those who identify as Democrats, Republicans, and independents or “something else” (27 percent, 32 percent, and 35 percent, respectively). Because of this fragility, his show, and others like his, have a natural ability to attract groups of listeners who have yet to define themselves politically. This is the opportunity: These constituencies are still open to being shaped by ideological entrepreneurs, but their very attachment to these shows serves as a signal for what different parts of the American electorate are thinking and feeling. Democrats have historically been reluctant to participate in shows like Rogan’s, fearing they might give the impression to their supporters that they are indirectly supporting the host’s more controversial views. In retrospect, this was a self-limiting position, one that automatically eliminated any distinction between engaging with an interlocutor and simply giving in to them. It is clear now that it is crucial for liberals to simply tackle these spaces as they are, not only to establish a presence, but to understand how one can begin to address certain concerns and arguments – however opposing to our convictions that they may be. . Of course, there’s a natural imbalance at play here: Trump and his Republican colleagues can acquiesce to Rogan’s more pernicious views, like his transphobia and penchant for conspiracy theories, while liberals must shoulder the burden of defuse and challenge them while working to overcome them. the conversation. But it’s work.

This advice doesn’t only apply to Rogan and the Manosphere, as they aren’t necessarily a singularly impactful phenomenon in the podcast universe. Rogan may operate on a scale all his own, but there are a growing number of other podcasts, YouTube shows, and online spaces with growing, naturally formed constituencies whose political identities remain fluid. To some extent, the Harris campaign sparked a counter-response along these lines when the candidate appeared on Call her daddywho represents the interests and concerns young left-wing women across the country, and All the smokean NBA nostalgia pod that the Harris campaign tapped into to reach black men. The problem was that it was too little, too lateand that Harris, as a candidate, never understood how to engage enough. There were too few appearances, and on the shows she did appear on, it felt less like community outreach and more like a sales tour. Say what you want about Trump, but the guy knew how to attract an audience. Liberals should not think about “building their own Joe Rogan.” They should engage effectively with Rogan and the growing class of alternatives that already exist.