Privileged Populists

Populism in the Conservative and Libertarian Working Class

Micah J. Fleck

• Publisher: I.B. Tauris
• Year: 2022
• ISBN:
  9780755627394
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Politik & Internationale Beziehungen
• Subtopic: Politische Ideologien

Counter-revolution has long been a tool of propagandists to redirect populist movements from achieving actual liberation for themselves. But what happens when counter-revolutionaries begin to believe their own claims of genuine revolution? What leads to such a phenomenon? And how big a role does mainstream political ideology and policy play in the mass ignorance and revisionism that has now allowed nationalism to influence national elections? Privileged Populists sets out to answer these questions while aiming to understand the organic emergence of anti-political populism within the context of late-stage capitalism in the West. This book analyses how these elements inform and validate each other as means of appealing to the growing sense of cultural angst and economic unrest within the conservative working class-and unwittingly giving undue credence to some of the most extreme right-wing ideological claims in the process. What results is a journey through the history of revolutionary thought (and how that history has been distorted over time), as well as an anthropological investigation of populism itself as a naturally occurring logic within groups-and how it can be exploited in the absence of substantive mainstream solutions to present-day economic crises.

Part I

Populism in Theory and Practice
(Theoretical Frameworks)

1

Who Are the Privileged Populists?

The working class today correctly identifies that it is being shackled and exploited. The ways in which one’s politics influence how one engages with this observation dictate whether or not reality becomes fiction when identifying what the actual driving force is behind said exploitation. Privileged populism, in this book’s surmising, is what happens when an historically organic form of populism, the working class organizing upon fact-based grievances with their political system to change it, can be derailed into a distorted form of populism: a faux-revolutionary sentiment that walks and talks like its fellow revolutionary movements but in fact diffuses any actual striving for positive change. This form of populism has been diluted down to an almost exclusively economistic form of liberalism more concerned with celebrating “freedom” as a principled concept for a handful of preapproved demographics rather than a lived, ubiquitous reality for all. The most extreme form this can take (and has taken in the past) is fascism, but along the way toward that end, privileged populism can appear rather benign if still misguided. It is within such liminal states, between misguided and full-blown fascistic, where distorted populism does most of its handiwork—twisting and confounding the rhetoric of actual revolutionaries in order to woo certain privileged demographics into believing they are fighting the good fight without having to sacrifice anything about the comfortable way they currently already see the world around them.

The Movements of Interest

This chapter is concerned with identifying the specific movements within (or aimed at) the conservative working class at large that the author argues are currently undergoing these aforementioned distorting processes into privileged populism. It will be the observations laid out in this chapter that the more theoretical elements of the book should be connected to for reorientation when and if the reader deems it necessary to ground the theory and history in a present-day context. Without further ado, we are off to that end. It should be made clear that while these movements on their own were not large enough to have singlehandedly induced the 2016 US presidential election, each of them in their own respective ways played a part in turning the tide in favor of the faux-populist candidate of that election, Donald Trump.

Right-Libertarianism

One of the fastest-growing movements within the broader revolutionary right is the self-described “liberty movement,” made up of those calling themselves “libertarians” and who consider themselves to be above the concepts of left versus right, despite most mainstream iterations of American libertarianism today holding much more in common with the right than anything else. While this movement in its present form has been around since the mid-1900s, it has been aided in its numbers significantly by a steady influx of young people in online and college spaces since the early 2000s. One of the most popular “libertarian” publications, Being Libertarian, went from having around 100,000 readers in 2014 to having over 900,000 readers in 2020.¹ Most of its readership is made up of young working-class men in the North American region.² Among some of its most popular content leading up to the 2016 election were posts and articles shaming trans people and accusing Black Lives Matter protestors of being terrorists.³ This book’s author worked at Being Libertarian as an editor and opinion writer during this same time and saw firsthand the spikes in viewers, readers, and ad revenue whenever these sorts of posts hit the front page.

One activist member of this movement (which for the purposes of proper distinction will be referred to as the “right-libertarian” movement moving forward) in an interview with the author stated that he was indeed a “revolutionary” and that the only real revolution that could make a difference for “the little guy” was the one started by Ron Paul and the modern Tea Party, which this activist saw as synonymous with the libertarians he also claimed.⁴ Another member of the movement, who was also a top editor at a rival right-libertarian paper, said once in a personal conversation with the author that in order for true liberty to be reached, the country would have to “pass through the eye of fascism.”⁵ This claim would be repeated in 2018 on popular right-libertarian website Radical Capitalist in the article titled “Fascism is a Step towards Liberty.”⁶ In this article, the argument is put forth that (right-)libertarianism and the Alt-Right are the same movement in principle, and that it goes hand in hand with fascism, a label deemed by the author, libertarian and “anarcho-capitalist” Chase Rachels, as having been “abused and stigmatized to the point where [it] has become synonymous with pure evil” and subsequently lost much of its “discernible meaning.”⁷ The author goes further, claiming that fascism is in the same moral company as “nationalism, the nuclear family, monogamy, individualism, and capitalism.”⁸ All of these are equally moral and good, and any naysayers to this analysis are simply, according to Rachels, buying into “the Cultural Marxist agenda.”⁹ Rachels also makes it clear here that the goal of libertarians should be to “forge a union” with the Alt-Right, and that the principles held in common between the two groups include “libertarian principle,” endorsement of private property, and a stance against “expansion of State power.”¹⁰

This is not an uncommon view for the aforementioned young voting-age demographic that reads this sort of content. This author in particular wrote a book titled White, Right, and Libertarian that gained enough notice in the movement to gain an endorsement and foreword by prominent right-libertarian activist and writer Hans-Hermann Hoppe.¹¹ It should be noted also that the slogan for this popular website reads as follows: “Anti-State. Anti-Left. Pro-White.” Notice the slogan does not claim to be pro-right, nor do the site’s other various articles claim ownership of right-libertarianism. The site refers to itself simply as “libertarian,” as does partner site Liberty Hangout, with the latter’s whopping one million followers ¹² exposed to almost exclusively right-wing–aligned content praising Donald Trump, bashing pro-minority movements, and arguing, once again, for abolishing the State.¹³ Toward that latter point, this activist-run website, handled by real, everyday libertarians, genuinely does argue itself to be a place of revolutionary thought. The article “For a Peaceful Society, Privatize Everything and Abolish the State” begins its distorted call to populist sentiment by quoting historical leftist Max Weber’s definition of the State as a monopoly on physical force, claiming him as a fellow voice in modern libertarianism’s anti-government regulation cause.¹⁴ Weber, a scholar whose work would go on to inform many revolutionary populist causes on the left throughout history, has just enough in common in his rhetoric with those on the working-class right who frame themselves as fellow against-the-man actors to make things fuzzy for someone already politically right-leaning who may recognize that the system they occupy is unfair and find the Weber quote to make a lot of sense. Divorced from context, Weber and the right-libertarian activists of today seem kindred spirits. These exemplary writings, interviews, and quotes thus far are only a portion representing the larger whole of the current state of the liberty movement today. The starting point is always economic and worker-oriented, and the stated sentiment up front is always one favoring a touted push toward freedom and liberation from oppressive forces.

Another common thread in the modern libertarian activist movement is the belief that private property and personal property are the same thing. T. J. Roberts, a young activist in the movement, says that self-ownership necessarily begets private property rights. In his words, “since you own yourself, you have the inherent right to acquire private property,” adding that “private property is the foundation of a free society.”¹⁵ This book will go into detail later why private property is not at all what is being assumed here, but this assumption is common among modern libertarian activists and writers.

But despite the predominantly white and male makeup of the modern libertarian movement, there are exceptions to the rule. One young woman of color in the movement I interviewed, who we will call Bella, told me that despite being a member of a minority group herself, the only people who could actually make a lasting difference for the betterment of her demographic are the “conservatives and libertarians,” because they “understand economics.”¹⁶ The implicit connection being made here, of course, is that since conservative and libertarian activism tends to concern itself a lot with economics-focused rhetoric and policy proposal, it helps these movements exude a more confident veneer of assuredness when it comes to liberating their fellow human beings. The argument is often made in right-leaning circles that the only way for true liberation to reach all people is for “economic freedom” to be reachable for every individual.¹⁷ This is the official stance of not just the liberty movement loosely defined, but of its official political arm, the Libertarian Party.¹⁸

Another woman of color in the movement, who we will call Helen, told me that she actually considers herself to be a “social Darwinist” for similar reasons, citing how those who end up in poverty must have simply not worked hard enough to reach the same heights as their fellow humans, and that there was no self-assured action that couldn’t overcome any racially based economic discrimination that might still be at play in our current economic system.¹⁹

Once again, this rhetoric exemplifies empirically the stance of the movement as a whole as well as its individual members, but it also illustrates how said stances can appear to be very pro-worker, pro-individual, anti-authority, and, yes, revolutionary. Rising up and taking one’s place as a success in the face of a rigged system is still the broadly typed name of the game, here, but it fudges the details just enough to allow for narrowly economistic dogma to have final say. The claimed cause for these economically focused agendas is to liberate working people and give them the same freedoms as those who already achieved means of economic success. In spirit, that isn’t too far removed from the leftist equivalent of giving all working people equal access to the means of production. But in application, it is very different. Instead of striving to change the rules of the game itself to open up pathways to self-sufficiency for workers immediately, the right-leaning variant of pro-worker sentiment strives to build ladders and staircases for those currently in economically dire straits to climb in order to play by the already-existing rules and not rock the boat. The problem here is that this has never been an achievable goal in the history of markets.²⁰ It is by design a pipe dream that still tickles all the same points on a right-leaning disgruntled worker as the historically organic populist voices tickle on their left-leaning equivalents. This is why the book argues that many participants in conservative populist activism likely believe themselves what they are claiming. Much of this is not a conscious conspiracy to hedge genuine revolutionary change once it reaches the working-class level. It is simply the case that many of these activists plainly do not know any better. This is not the same thing as lacking the ability to know better—it is simply an observation of fact, supported by the movement members’ own words. The starting point is always solidarity on behalf of disgruntled working people against unjust authority, but where it goes from there can often be derailed, as the following chapters, focusing more on the theoretical side of this phenomenon, will show.

Another self-described member of the present-day libertarian activist movement is Lauren Southern, a former colleague of the author’s when they both wrote for The Libertarian Republic, the publication founded and run by former Libertarian Party presidential candidate Austin Petersen. Southern’s views, like many others in the movement, began as broadly pro-freedom for all people. In a move that was actually somewhat progressive at the time for right-libertarianism, Southern even publicly befriended and defended members of the trans community. But before long, her views on private property rights ended up evolving to their most extreme logical conclusions and she became a prominent supporter of closed borders—so much so that she ended up helping to popularize the pseudoscientific theory of the Great Replacement, which aligned her with white nationalism whether she wished it or not, as most proponents of that theory are not as concerned with preserving cultural sovereignty as they are with preserving what they perceive as pure races.²¹ Here we see even more evidence of how a person’s views in this movement can begin at an earnest place and end up aligning with something much more extreme somewhat organically. When the wrong vocabulary and obfuscated information serve as the foundation upon which one builds her political ideology, it becomes much harder to avoid these sorts of pitfalls. Young people make up the majority of this particular brand of privileged populism, and they act more at the behest of the privileged by passing on the talking points rather than always embodying privilege themselves.

Paleo-Conservatism

Even the more “mainstream” faces of modern right-wing populism show this same directional flow. Former congressman Ron Paul, the patron saint of many in the Republican Party who call themselves libertarians, or more precisely, “paleo-conservatives,” fraternized with such controversial figures as Lew Rockwell, who it is said ghostwrote Dr. Paul’s infamous 1990s newsletters full of anti-Black and anti-gay screeds in the name of personal liberty and freedom from big government oppression (i.e., racially sensitive holidays and anti-discrimination laws). Paul himself went on record time and again opposing the Civil Rights Act, once again arguing that it is government force and anti-freedom to force fair treatment of working people on business owners. Charles Murray, another libertarian figure who fights for seemingly noble, pro-liberty causes such as the school choice initiative and freedom of speech, co-wrote the grossly unscientific book The Bell Curve, which made the assumptions that “race” is a biologically definable concept (it isn’t), and that IQ tests actually do empirically measure general intelligence (t...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half-Title
• Dedication
• Title
• Contents
• List of Figures
• Preface
• Introduction: Of Realizations and Distortions
• Part I Populism in Theory and Practice: (Theoretical Frameworks)
• Part II Inducing an Organic False Consciousness: (Historical Contexts)
• Part III How Privileged Populism Prevails: (Modern Analyses)
• Acknowledgments
• Notes
• Bibliography
• About the Author
• Index
• Copyright