Here’s Why the Right-Wing Grifter Problem Is a Right-Wing Problem

[Edge-]

https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-dr...-wing-problem/

Over at National Review, Jim Geraghty bemoans “The Right’s Grifter Problem.” I am really and truly loath to criticize this in any way, because the right’s grifter problem is a disgrace and it takes guts for Geraghty to take on his own side over this, naming names as he goes. But . . .

Yeah, I can’t help myself. I suppose I wouldn’t be much of a blogger if I didn’t live with a vicious demon that forces me to broadcast every idea that pops into my head. I’ll start with Jon Chait’s critique:

An unstated irony behind Geraghty’s complaint is that there is an agency tasked with overseeing the kind of misconduct he denounces: the IRS. When the first wave of tea-party scam PACs appeared, the IRS did look into them. Republicans insisted the agency was “targeting” the right for political reasons, probably at the behest of the Obama administration. While they spent years investigating the agency and making wild charges, a series of investigations by the agency’s inspector general, the Senate Finance Committee, and the Department of Justice refuted all their claims. The Obama administration had no involvement in the IRS’s enforcement priorities, and the agency was not even targeting the right at all — its criteria for regulating donors included keywords to search for activists on the left as well as the right.

Yeah. Stephanie Mencimer wrote about that for us here. I wrote about it here when the final IG report was released years after the fact. More generally, Rick Perlstein has written frequently about the right-wing grifter problem, most notably here.

Now, none of this is Geraghty’s fault. I don’t know how he feels about the IRS investigating political groups that might be scammers. But I can say that there were damn few Republicans in 2013 who pointed out that the IRS was supposed to audit political PACs for scammy behavior. They just wanted the money to keep rolling in.

But none of this addresses what should be the core question: why is right-wing grifting such a big problem? After all, it’s not a big problem on the left. What’s the difference?

Part of the problem, sadly, is that the right trends older than the left, and the elderly have always been prime targets for scammers for reasons having nothing to do with politics. But I think there’s something more fundamental at work: namely that the modern right is a scam at its core. I don’t mean this in the sense that the Republican Party doesn’t always deliver what it promises. No political party does that. What I mean is that since at least the late 70s, the cold, hard nugget at the heart of the conservative movement’s electoral strategy is an attempt to win working-class votes for a party that’s dedicated to the interests of corporations and the wealthy.

Let me be clear: I don’t mean that conservatives expend a lot of energy appealing to conservative social values. There’s nothing dishonest about that. Plenty of people are willing to vote their social consciences over their pocketbook interests, and every big political party has to find a way to win votes from people who agree with them only partly. It would be political malpractice not to appeal to different audiences with whatever arguments are most likely to win them over.

No, the problem is that this isn’t enough. Emphasizing social issues to the working class and economic issues to the rich just won’t get the job done. Conservatives know that they also have to directly appeal to working-class pocketbook issues, and that’s a circle that can never be squared honestly. It just can’t. The modern conservative movement is fundamentally dedicated to the economic interests of the upper classes.

This means that the success of the entire movement is intimately tied to a huge, relentlessly repeated lie. Tax cuts boost the economy and are good for the working class. Light regulation of Wall Street frees up money and is good for the working class. Right-to-work laws provide job opportunities for the working class. Social Security is a scam that won’t be around by the time the working class retires. “Dangerous” chemicals are just a left-wing myth designed to strangle the economy and hurt the working class. Allowing more oil drilling and more coal mining provides lots of jobs for the working class. Etc. Every policy designed to benefit the rich has to be deliberately twisted into a fraud for public consumption.

This is inexorably corrosive. It’s impossible to base an entire movement on a working-class scam and not create the conditions for other working-class scammers to ply their trade. As long as this is the case, scammers are simply the price modern conservatives have to pay for the way they conduct politics.

I saw the original piece yesterday and it's a pretty good self-reflective piece, but it felt as if it wasn't going deep enough and was missing context. Mother Jones definitely leans hard left, but I think they did a good job providing some more of the context surrounding the "How" and "Why" that the original piece really didn't delve into sufficiently.

I wasn't even thinking about the IRS issue when I read the article, but hot-damn if it doesn't make all the Republican pearl-clutching over the added scrutiny for these very groups that have been stealing peoples money look silly in hindsight. It was silly to begin with, but it's even sillier now.

Here's the original NRO article for context: https://www.nationalreview.com/the-m...m-faces-today/

[D Luniz]

https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-dr...-wing-problem/



I saw the original piece yesterday and it's a pretty good self-reflective piece, but it felt as if it wasn't going deep enough and was missing context. Mother Jones definitely leans hard left, but I think they did a good job providing some more of the context surrounding the "How" and "Why" that the original piece really didn't delve into sufficiently.

I wasn't even thinking about the IRS issue when I read the article, but hot-damn if it doesn't make all the Republican pearl-clutching over the added scrutiny for these very groups that have been stealing peoples money look silly in hindsight. It was silly to begin with, but it's even sillier now.

Here's the original NRO article for context: https://www.nationalreview.com/the-m...m-faces-today/

hell, I still so the occasional "Obama weaponized the IRS against rightwing groups" from Trump defenders on the few news sites that still have comment sections

the right wing very much wants their gut feels to have the same weight as research and facts, and throw a tantrum when anyone doesnt go along with it

[Felya]

https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-dr...-wing-problem/

I saw the original piece yesterday and it's a pretty good self-reflective piece, but it felt as if it wasn't going deep enough and was missing context. Mother Jones definitely leans hard left, but I think they did a good job providing some more of the context surrounding the "How" and "Why" that the original piece really didn't delve into sufficiently.

I wasn't even thinking about the IRS issue when I read the article, but hot-damn if it doesn't make all the Republican pearl-clutching over the added scrutiny for these very groups that have been stealing peoples money look silly in hindsight. It was silly to begin with, but it's even sillier now.

Here's the original NRO article for context: https://www.nationalreview.com/the-m...m-faces-today/

They elected Trump, despite him ripping off his supporters through the Trump University. In the he end, it might be grifting... but, the victims get exactly what they signed up for. All of their feeling being justified by these grifters. We can post about this sort of shit happening in the IRS scandal or Trump him self. In the end, it might be more fruitful to think about this as people paying for their unfounded beliefs being confirmed and not for what ever the grifter claims they will get.

If it’s feelings over reality, the reality is that they got ripped off... but, it feels like someone agrees with them. On the most basic levels, it’s like paying a friend for a comic book, you really don’t want... just so you can have a friend.

[Moralgy]

hell, I still so the occasional "Obama weaponized the IRS against rightwing groups" from Trump defenders on the few news sites that still have comment sections

the right wing very much wants their gut feels to have the same weight as research and facts, and throw a tantrum when anyone doesnt go along with it

Boy does this sound fucking accurate to many people on this forum.

[Kaleredar]

They elected Trump, despite him ripping off his supporters through the Trump University. In the he end, it might be grifting... but, the victims get exactly what they signed up for. All of their feeling being justified by these grifters. We can post about this sort of shit happening in the IRS scandal or Trump him self. In the end, it might be more fruitful to think about this as people paying for their unfounded beliefs being confirmed and not for what ever the grifter claims they will get.

If it’s feelings over reality, the reality is that they got ripped off... but, it feels like someone agrees with them. On the most basic levels, it’s like paying a friend for a comic book, you really don’t want... just so you can have a friend.

The problem is that they wont realize their mistakes. They'll continue voting for this kind of moron as long as that person edifies their "feeling," no matter how harmful their policies are. They care more about "message" than "policy."

"The wall" isn't a real solution to the already overblown issue of illegal immigration? Doesn't matter, it sounds like it sends a tough message to illegal immigrants.

Poorly planned out tariffs on other countries will only hurt american businesses in the long run? Doesn't matter, it sounds like Trump is favoring America by telling other countries off.

The Muslim countries that Trump plans on banning don't actually constitute the source of most terrorist activities and would do nothing to stop real terrorist actions? Doesn't matter; by being unilaterally tough on muslims it sounds like Trump is taking a bold stance against terrorism.

And if THEY were the only ones suffering for their bad decision making, it wouldn't be such an issue. But everyone else has to suffer too. Worst of all the people they keep voting into power have proven they're keen on perverting the aspects of democracy that would see them removed by keeping incredibly gerrymandered districts intact or proposing things like "voter IDs" that courts have found to universally disenfranchise minorities and young people.

[Theodarzna]

It exists on the Right because there is an open ecosystem for voices and a desire to hear those voices that seem trustworthy. The Left today doesn't have Grifters so much because there exists an entire powerstructure of influence and money to easily become successful in that direction. Also, in general nobody on the Right can trust conventional media which openly holds the people who tend to be conservative, or whom aren't a favored racial-ethnic group in absolute contempt and its easy to see that contempt, thus there is not trust.

Grifters appear because well, in the end, money is money. Eventually one gets comfortable with their audience, with cash, and whatever their original mission was, this is now a job and a source of income; potentially their ONLY source of income. In the end you don't need to be a Grifter on the Left since you can get income streams from anywhere; but I'd say there is an equivalent of a Grifter. Like say Contrapoints who ditched a lot of that Socialism talk once the big bucks rolled in on patreon and many high profile media types gave lavish blowfiles of her. That is because anyone being kinda Lefty will get mainstream organizations to support them, maybe even fund them and create these outfits. Where as Right-Wing voices largely have to become self funded as they cannot easily depend on institutions and powerful people to fund them. Well, anything really on the Right. You could be Ben Shapiro or Bill Kristol and focus on Tax Cuts and drone striking brown people and still enjoy those same institutions loving you.

[Stormspellz]

It exists on the Right because there is an open ecosystem for voices and a desire to hear those voices that seem trustworthy. The Left today doesn't have Grifters so much because there exists an entire powerstructure of influence and money to easily become successful in that direction. Also, in general nobody on the Right can trust conventional media which openly holds the people who tend to be conservative, or whom aren't a favored racial-ethnic group in absolute contempt and its easy to see that contempt, thus there is not trust.

Grifters appear because well, in the end, money is money. Eventually one gets comfortable with their audience, with cash, and whatever their original mission was, this is now a job and a source of income; potentially their ONLY source of income. In the end you don't need to be a Grifter on the Left since you can get income streams from anywhere; but I'd say there is an equivalent of a Grifter. Like say Contrapoints who ditched a lot of that Socialism talk once the big bucks rolled in on patreon and many high profile media types gave lavish blowfiles of her. That is because anyone being kinda Lefty will get mainstream organizations to support them, maybe even fund them and create these outfits. Where as Right-Wing voices largely have to become self funded as they cannot easily depend on institutions and powerful people to fund them. Well, anything really on the Right. You could be Ben Shapiro or Bill Kristol and focus on Tax Cuts and drone striking brown people and still enjoy those same institutions loving you.

your first paragraph is simply wrong, the instant-fucking instant a single minor GOP congressmen falls out of line and speaks truth, literally everyone who is anyone dog pilled on him with the exact script. Their is no ecosystem for voices other then the ones signed and approved. If the right wants to stop ignoring reality, facts and truth then maybe people wouldn't hold them in contempt.

[Edge-]

It exists on the Right because there is an open ecosystem for voices and a desire to hear those voices that seem trustworthy.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...=.dc34f35e53ec

Perhaps most important, liberals consistently score higher on a personality measure called “openness to experience,” one of the “Big Five” personality traits, which are easily assessed through standard questionnaires. That means liberals tend to be the kind of people who want to try new things, including new music, books, restaurants and vacation spots — and new ideas.

“Open people everywhere tend to have more liberal values,” said psychologist Robert McCrae, who conducted voluminous studies on personality while at the National Institute on Aging at the National Institutes of Health.

Conservatives, in contrast, tend to be less open — less exploratory, less in need of change — and more “conscientious,” a trait that indicates they appreciate order and structure in their lives. This gels nicely with the standard definition of conservatism as resistance to change — in the famous words of William F. Buckley Jr., a desire to stand “athwart history, yelling ‘Stop!’ ”

Not really.

[Endus]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...=.dc34f35e53ec

Not really.

More and more, every single complaint the right wing makes about those on the left really does just boil down to rank projection. They take their own ethical failings, and imagine their political enemies must share those failings, only more so. And when reality doesn't line up and they keep getting reminded of that by the news media, why, that's because there's a grand conspiracy among nearly all national and international media to cover up The Truth! Only this rando blog has the Real Story!

See also the recent attempts to post threads amounting to "hey look, the left-winger got banned on social media! Gonna get upset and defend their free speech now, aren'tcha, you leftie bastards?"

Where the response has categorically and basically without exception been, by those same left-wingers; "nah, sites can ban who they like, why would it matter to us that they're left-wing this time?"

The right-wingers know they only give a shit because the target in the first cases was right-wing, so they assume, incorrectly, that left-wingers will be the same way. That we actually believe in our stated principles is a concept they find baffling.

[Independent voter]

They are susceptible to con men because they're largely naive when it comes to politics.

I suspect there will be legislation soon. Or more legislation.

[Felya]

They are susceptible to con men because they're largely naive when it comes to politics.

I suspect there will be legislation soon. Or more legislation.

Conman succeed because they tell you what you want to hear. It’s not that they are naive, as much as it’s the only source that confirms their view.

- - - Updated - - -

your first paragraph is simply wrong, the instant-fucking instant a single minor GOP congressmen falls out of line and speaks truth, literally everyone who is anyone dog pilled on him with the exact script. Their is no ecosystem for voices other then the ones signed and approved. If the right wants to stop ignoring reality, facts and truth then maybe people wouldn't hold them in contempt.

Yeah, they literally have a term “RINO”, for republican in name only.

- - - Updated - - -

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...=.dc34f35e53ec

Not really.

It’s almost half correct... a desire to hear voices that feel trustworthy. As in, those confirming their biases and generalizations.

Edit: To that Buckley quote... it includes new ideas, that confirm conservation of ideology. This includes social Marxism, antifa, deep state and all the other newspeak being pushed. Yesterday it was democracy, today it’s culture.

[announced]

I didnt think we actually quoted articles from motherjones. was Alex Jones not available instead? it's usually more credible.

The problem is that they wont realize their mistakes. They'll continue voting for this kind of moron as long as that person edifies their "feeling," no matter how harmful their policies are. They care more about "message" than "policy."

"The wall" isn't a real solution to the already overblown issue of illegal immigration? Doesn't matter, it sounds like it sends a tough message to illegal immigrants.

Poorly planned out tariffs on other countries will only hurt american businesses in the long run? Doesn't matter, it sounds like Trump is favoring America by telling other countries off.

The Muslim countries that Trump plans on banning don't actually constitute the source of most terrorist activities and would do nothing to stop real terrorist actions? Doesn't matter; by being unilaterally tough on muslims it sounds like Trump is taking a bold stance against terrorism.

And if THEY were the only ones suffering for their bad decision making, it wouldn't be such an issue. But everyone else has to suffer too. Worst of all the people they keep voting into power have proven they're keen on perverting the aspects of democracy that would see them removed by keeping incredibly gerrymandered districts intact or proposing things like "voter IDs" that courts have found to universally disenfranchise minorities and young people.

That's actually a myth that has been debunked. Voter ID laws have no effect on minority turnout. In fact Political scientists Jason Mycoff, Michael Wagner and David Wilson write that these laws likely don’t influence turnout because a voter’s political interest is strong enough to overcome the costs of having to obtain an ID. There’s also some evidence to suggest the laws actually act as a catalyst, inspiring and mobilizing minority voters. After a controversial North Dakota voter ID law was passed that made it more difficult for Native Americans to vote, Native Americans turned out in record numbers during the 2018 midterm elections.

Source - http://theconversation.com/voter-id-...y-claim-114349

[Kaleredar]

That's actually a myth that has been debunked. Voter ID laws have no effect on minority turnout. In fact Political scientists Jason Mycoff, Michael Wagner and David Wilson write that these laws likely don’t influence turnout because a voter’s political interest is strong enough to overcome the costs of having to obtain an ID. There’s also some evidence to suggest the laws actually act as a catalyst, inspiring and mobilizing minority voters. After a controversial North Dakota voter ID law was passed that made it more difficult for Native Americans to vote, Native Americans turned out in record numbers during the 2018 midterm elections.

Source - http://theconversation.com/voter-id-...y-claim-114349

That's one interpretation saying they don't; there are many saying they do, including judicial hearings in which proposed laws were struck down because they would disenfranchise people.

Moreover, the whole "well people will know they're being victimized so they'll actually be MORE willing to do it!" is a very, very bad way to try and sell something. Like trying to sell a treadmill that shocks you when you stop running as being "great motivation."

Finally, there is no plausible reason for voter ID laws to exist. Voter fraud does not happen in any appreciable form in the United States.

[Milchshake]

More and more, every single complaint the right wing makes about those on the left really does just boil down to rank projection. They take their own ethical failings, and imagine their political enemies must share those failings, only more so. And when reality doesn't line up and they keep getting reminded of that by the news media, why, that's because there's a grand conspiracy among nearly all national and international media to cover up The Truth! Only this rando blog has the Real Story!

See also the recent attempts to post threads amounting to "hey look, the left-winger got banned on social media! Gonna get upset and defend their free speech now, aren'tcha, you leftie bastards?"

Where the response has categorically and basically without exception been, by those same left-wingers; "nah, sites can ban who they like, why would it matter to us that they're left-wing this time?"

The right-wingers know they only give a shit because the target in the first cases was right-wing, so they assume, incorrectly, that left-wingers will be the same way. That we actually believe in our stated principles is a concept they find baffling.

American historian Richard J. Hofstadter noted this in his famous essay The Paranoid Style in American Politics | Harper's Magazine. All the way back in 1964, when McCarty and Nixon were playing on the fears of Americans. No Mistake characters like ROger Stone, Paul Manafort, Roy Cohen also have connections from then... to the ascendancy of Trumperism.

This eventually evolved into the conservative distrust of the intellectual elite. Conservatives have spent decades training their supporters to reject the authority of bureaucrats, professors, the media, or any institution not explicitly committed to the right-wing agenda.

Right wingers are a lot easier to rip off than the average person, both because they’re easy marks for apocalyptic rhetoric about America becoming a communist hell hole if Medicare is enacted funded expanded modestly, and, relatedly, because they don’t believe in fancy-talking so-called “experts,” what with their “statistics” and “theories” and other tools of the Devil, intended to steer God-fearing folk from the righteous path.

After just watching Chernobyl. The original Geraghty article (National Review) has an almost Soviet manner of talking about problems and then dancing around how they’re all correlated or related.
The Right’s Grifter Problem

An unstated irony behind Geraghty’s complaint is that there is an agency tasked with overseeing the kind of misconduct he denounces: the IRS.

Unfortunately the Modern Right has no Mikhail Gorbachev to quietly dismantle their failed ideologies. They want to skip to the looting phase of democracy. Then burn it all down to cover up the looting.


Rick Perlstein’s classic essay on this topic, The Long Con, waaay back in 2012. A real shame how so many people overlook Romney in 2012 really set the stage for Trump in 2016. That even the country-club Republicans that like to plead for civility, at their core are just cold hearted bigot that no remorse about playing on peoples fears.

[announced]

That's one interpretation saying they don't; there are many saying they do, including judicial hearings in which proposed laws were struck down because they would disenfranchise people.

Moreover, the whole "well people will know they're being victimized so they'll actually be MORE willing to do it!" is a very, very bad way to try and sell something. Like trying to sell a treadmill that shocks you when you stop running as being "great motivation."

Finally, there is no plausible reason for voter ID laws to exist. Voter fraud does not happen in any appreciable form in the United States.

There's multiple studies saying they have little to zero effect on minority turnout. If some partisan democrat judges want to claim they are disenfranchising minorities because they can't afford to drive to the DMV and obtain a drivers license (valid photo id) then that seems like personal problem and not an overreach issue.

[Kaleredar]

There's multiple studies saying they have little to zero effect on minority turnout. If some partisan democrat judges want to claim they are disenfranchising minorities because they can't afford to drive to the DMV and obtain a drivers license (valid photo id) then that seems like personal problem and not an overreach issue.

You have evidence that these were "partisan judges?" Because nothing I've seen indicates that.

[Felya]

There's multiple studies saying they have little to zero effect on minority turnout. If some partisan democrat judges want to claim they are disenfranchising minorities because they can't afford to drive to the DMV and obtain a drivers license (valid photo id) then that seems like personal problem and not an overreach issue.

I was without a debit card for over a year, because the activation timer ran out and I worked 12 hour days, including weekends. I don’t have kids... not disabled... only had 1 job... not old or decrepit... don’t live in the boonies... What I did happen, is me providing identification when registering to vote. Something that hasn’t changed and is intentionally combined with other mundane chores, like getting a driver license. If you think having to go to DMV, for no reason, other than to gain ability to vote... will not impact turn out, you are delusional.

If you don’t think it’s a scam to keep American citizens from voting, then please explain how your voter ID will work with absentee ballots... and why GOP has no issue with it.

FYI: I vote absentee... My gf had her ballot returned, because it didn’t match her signature. Seems like it works, without voter ID.

[D Luniz]

I was without a debit card for over a year, because the activation timer ran out and I worked 12 hour days, including weekends. I don’t have kids... not disabled... only had 1 job... not old or decrepit... don’t live in the boonies... What I did happen, is me providing identification when registering to vote. Something that hasn’t changed and is intentionally combined with other mundane chores, like getting a driver license. If you think having to go to DMV, for no reason, other than to gain ability to vote... will not impact turn out, you are delusional.

If you don’t think it’s a scam to keep American citizens from voting, then please explain how your voter ID will work with absentee ballots... and why GOP has no issue with it.

FYI: I vote absentee... My gf had her ballot returned, because it didn’t match her signature. Seems like it works, without voter ID.

I don't get how that signature match is supposed to work, hell, mine its just some squiggles and some dots I stick where I think those letters are. and it's not a consistent line

[Wyrt]

All I gather every time I see people in the US talking about elections is that you need better labour rights.

But that would be socialism!

[Captain N]

But that would be socialism!

Oh it's a special kind of socialism. The one where people want all the special privileges that comes with better labor rights (read: unions) but don't actually want to pay for it. It's so special that it makes those who usually bitch about handouts want one.

And before our resident edgelords start the Nuh-Uh --- see also Right-To-Work Laws