The Hochman Affair
Added 2023-08-21 17:38:50 +0000 UTCThree weeks ago, one-time Know Your Enemy guest and “frenemy” of the show Nate Hochman was fired from Ron DeSantis’s presidential campaign for his role in producing a campaign video featuring a Nazi “sonnenrad” symbol. (You may have read about it!) Unsurprisingly, the Hochman affair inspired some soul-searching on the part of your podcast hosts: had we inadvertently exposed our audience to a neo-nazi? Was our original December 2021 interview insufficiently combative — or too credulous (as many of our most vigilant listeners have suggested)? Were we naive about the value of welcoming young conservatives on the show? And, perhaps most illuminatingly, what can Hochman’s trajectory (from Never-Trump conservative and Michael Oakeshott fan to disgraced DeSantis speechwriter) tell us about the young right today?
After all, Hochman was not alone. A few weeks before the Hochman affair, DeSantis influencer and Chronicles magazine editor Pedro Gonzalez was exposed for expressing virulent anti-Semitic sentiments in private group chats in 2019. And most recently, Huffington Post reported that Richard Hanania, another young conservative — a darling of Silicon Valley reactionaries and a frequent interlocutor with centrist pundits on Twitter — had lived a previous life as an alt-right white supremacist and misogynist.
In this episode, we ask (not for the first time): what exactly is going on with young conservatives? Has the wall between mainstream conservatism and unacceptably hard-right sentiments completely broken down? Was it ever there? Or has it only become more porous in the age of Twitter, Telegram, and online anonymity? Did the alt-right of 2016, with its Pepe memes and winking fascist apologia, ever go away? Or did it merely merge, seamlessly, with today’s young right, turning an entire generation of GOP operatives into half-ironic racists, neofascists, and violent homophobes?
Further Reading:
Michelle Goldberg, “The Radicalization of the Young Right,” NYTimes, July 31, 2023.
“Young, Radical, and on the Right, with Nate Hochman,” KYE, Dec 16, 2021.
"How Euphemisms Muddy Our Political Conversations," On the Media (WNYC), Jan 21, 2022
David Weigel and Shelby Talcott, “‘This belongs in the Smithsonian’: Inside the meme video operation that swallowed Ron DeSantis’ campaign,” Aug 1, 2023.
Sam Adler-Bell, “The Radical Young Intellectuals Who Want to Take Over the American Right,” The New Republic, Dec 2, 2021.
Michael Oakeshott, “On Being Conservative,” from Rationalism in politics and other essays, 1962.
John Ganz, “They’re All Like That,” Unpopular Front, Aug 6, 2023.
Jordan Nixon-Hamilton, “‘F**k This President’: More Messages Show Pro-DeSantis Influencer Pedro Gonzalez Turned on Trump in 2019,” Breitbart, Aug 1, 2023.
Christopher Mathias, “Richard Hanania, Rising Right-Wing Star, Wrote For White Supremacist Sites Under Pseudonym,” Huffington Post, Aug 4, 2023.
Comments
Just listened to this episode and I really appreciated the thoughtful discussion of how / when to to engage. I don't think it's as simple as refusing to have discussions with people who may have hateful views or, on the other hand, always welcoming such discussions. I think this is something everyone has to struggle with in our increasingly polarized media bubbles. I see this episode very well aligned with the whole idea of KYE. "Enemies" are just other people like us. It's refreshing to hear people think about how to process feelings toward others in a self reflective way and a way that takes personal relationships seriously. Thanks so much for this.
Karen
2024-01-06 13:25:39 +0000 UTCTreated with more respect and more regard by leftie media? You gotta be kidding me
Lojban Chauvinist
2024-01-06 07:01:04 +0000 UTCI agree. I liked your comment. I wrote the following because I felt that, while you were spot on, your language was somewhat too academic, and needed translation to a simpler register (one ought to practice such translation in preparation for a time when one has to talk to people outside the overeducated Left bubble). There's no harm in "platforming" an enemy on a show like this because it's literally called "Know Your Enemy," and it is sometimes necessary to hear what the enemy believes "from the horse's mouth." Because as leftists, we believe in democracy, we should know that people can make up their own minds about bad ideas when these are contrasted with our own ideas. And we know that censorship does more harm than good; we know that currently, Western liberals have been pursuing a policy of censoring "harmful" views since around 2015 and what has it gotten? A far Right that is larger, angrier and less tractable than ever. Deplatforming is a soft kind of censorship that follows the same logic, and we know it does not work, and we know it goes against our principles, so why pay any attention to that criticism?
Lojban Chauvinist
2024-01-06 06:46:09 +0000 UTCIt was disappointing to hear self-doubt expressed. You guys did absolutely the right thing; I'm pretty sure of that from listening to the explanation of your aims in the interview (though I haven't listened to that episode yet). I hope you invite other conservative interlocutors on the show and treat them graciously and draw out their real beliefs without jumping down their throat when they are wrong factually or morally. It's excellent for the show and for the Left.
Lojban Chauvinist
2024-01-06 06:30:35 +0000 UTCWhat struck me about the episode was how couched and defensive Nate was, as if something was there, just underneath the veneer of conservative intellectualism that would be uncouth to let slip unless in "safe company". I felt as if we didn't get the real Nate.
John Woodbridge
2023-09-14 05:06:31 +0000 UTCI had one question, however, which Sam alluded to briefly, and that is, why do conservative intellectuals like Hochman seem to gravitate to the darker, more authoritarian versions of political philosophy as their career “progresses”? Is there some gravitational field that makes such a descent inevitable or more likely? Or is there some combination of historical circumstances that makes this more likely, circumstances that did not apply in the heyday of Buckley and Goldwater? Is DJT some kind of intellectual black hole that sucks all in his vicinity into his pathological maw? It is a puzzler, and if you could shed some light on it I would appreciate it.
Cliff Balkam
2023-09-08 01:35:40 +0000 UTCI listened to the original program with N. Hochman, and I felt he was pulling his punches somewhat, perhaps out of a desire to be liked or in deference to intellectuals he thought of as elder brothers. I had no prob with your handling of him, and I think your basic starting point, assuming the good faith of your interlocutors, is sound, conducive to productive conversations, and sadly lacking from most of our contemporary political discourse.
Cliff Balkam
2023-09-08 01:29:08 +0000 UTCI had similar thoughts about Hochman's blatant election denial in the original episode. I knew at that point (and probably long before it) that he was not a serious person and, more to the point, a liar. I wasn't too upset that Matt and Sam didn't challenge him more, maybe just because I felt I had sussed him out myself and could safely write him off as someone not worth listening to. But if ever there was a time to challenge him, that was it.
Jacob Finch
2023-08-27 20:18:28 +0000 UTCWhen you talked about the reasons you may have “failed” to push back, you brought up a bunch of very salient points about things like your personality is, the inappropriate Ness of the slam dunk in the context of your podcast, the desire to keep the journalistic tone to keep the person talking. All of these makes sense, and I think you should continue to not push back in a way that is a “slam dunk” or a conversation stopper. But if somebody is engaging with a tone of intellectual interrogation, and thoughtfulness and nuance, as he was doing, then not letting contradictions and falsehood slide is very important. You can do all those things without being confrontational, losing your journalistic approach, or having the person feel persecuted. It’s not asking of you to take a moralistic tone for expressing outrage. Just simply not letting things slide. (sorry to only comment with criticisms. You guys do a f-ing amazing job with this podcast. It’s truly one of a kind. And all the work you put into it is appreciated. Us “critics“ should know that we’re being “armchair coaches” (or whatever that expression is” and, in my case, only make these comments to share feedback in hopes that they will help).
Robin Lindheimer
2023-08-27 19:14:46 +0000 UTCYes! You nailed so much of what I feel about this whole thing.
Julie Abuelsamid
2023-08-27 19:06:18 +0000 UTCWell said, Courtney.
Julie Abuelsamid
2023-08-27 19:00:59 +0000 UTCAlternate interpretation (which I endorse) from the blogosphere golden age on how extreme ideas migrated into the GOP. Crucial five-part text. http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2003/08/rush-newspeak-and-fascism_12.html?m=1
Rick Perlstein
2023-08-27 16:53:50 +0000 UTC“We can humiliate and shoot down our enemies and their arguments in oral debate” is something I want to believe in as someone who thinks argumentation and Socratic discussion are crucial. In practice, however, it just never seems to work in our media environment. It works even less with those who remain embedded in the crypto-fascism of today's right, even if they are NR writers. I think the main conclusion is that too many professional right-wingers are bad faith, dishonest brokers. Ultimately, having them on your show is worthless or could even help vile political actors nab a win. But I also liked that Sam admitted how debating or interrogating right-wingers can give one an intellectual boost, even some entertainment. I've felt similarly.
Taylor
2023-08-26 22:51:44 +0000 UTCI really appreciate your introspectiveness, and willingness to address some of the criticisms you received about the original interview. My main criticism of your original interview, was not that you didn’t challenge him on some of his arguments as being “wrong,” as you stated, in this episode, so much as that ignored, or didn’t push back on clear signs of disingenuousness. Most of the interview he sounded reasonable, reflective and caring. But, for example, when you asked him about the topic of “stop the steal” and the integrity of the election, it became clear to me that he was being flagrantly disingenuous. That didn’t strike me as being a example of coming to different conclusions for valid understandable differences in philosophy. It struck me as an operative who was willing to say whatever he needed to support positions that were advantageous to his cause or candidate. He couched his answers with the same seeming sensitivity and thoughtfulness. But they were clearly BS. It was at that point that I felt like his reasonable this was a tactic. And if you’re willing to lean into election denial. And not surprised to see he was willing to use other distasteful authoritarian tactics (such as the ones that got him fired).
Robin Lindheimer
2023-08-26 22:13:34 +0000 UTCGood reflection but I'm worried the podcast is getting too far from its core purpose: Whittaker Chambers posting
Helena Latimer
2023-08-24 20:45:42 +0000 UTCFunnily enough I don’t really have a problem when they interview established conservatives. It’s more to me that as a young conservative this guy probably just used KYE as a way to cement his credentials to both the right and center. An established voice isn’t gonna get that. That is my biggest problem. Why even interview the guy?
Jeremy Williamson
2023-08-24 19:08:28 +0000 UTCmuch love guys <3
Dukinator
2023-08-24 16:36:02 +0000 UTCI don’t think there’s a right-wing pundit supply-chain problem. If it’s not Hochman, it’ll be someone else very similar. Even if the KYE interview did, somehow, increase the odds of him becoming a successful pundit (which I find implausible), so what? The problem is on the demand side. And I can't imagine how KYE interviewing Hochman or (less controversially) Douthat contributes to society-wise demand for conservative pundits. The consequentialist arguments against “platforming” Hochman seem so speculative that I have to wonder whether some of what’s going on here is just revulsion at the perceived contamination of a sincere, thoughtful lefty podcast by this guy who later posted Nazi memes for DeSantis.
Taylor Washburn
2023-08-24 15:18:19 +0000 UTCA lot of this has been said - most of it by Matt and Sam themselves - so I guess I'll just say that I noticed the decline in "enemy" episodes over the past couple of years and I grew to quite miss them!
MD
2023-08-24 04:06:01 +0000 UTCI mean he’s probably destroyed his career in the main stream (hopefully) but this is kinda how pundits get their start. That was my fear when they interviewed him. Every news program has to have a conservative voice, where do you think those guys got their start? A lot of them were very similar to Hockman at his age. It’s how mainstreaming works. Would KYE be the biggest offender if Hochman entered that pipeline? No. But they would have been a part that helped.
Jeremy Williamson
2023-08-24 01:14:02 +0000 UTCSo our beloved cohosts have been accused by self-espousing leftists of behaving like duped liberals who platform and legitimize far-right cretins, and of doing ‘incalculable harm’ by opening the gates for them into ‘polite conversation’. This gives me pause to dwell on the overall premise of ‘deplatformimg’. Are we to interpret said ‘harm’ in KYE’s ‘boosting’ of Hochman—that he owes credibility points won appearing on their niche leftist podcast for his ascendancy into, say, the De Santis campaign? Did Matt and Sam aid and abet the enemy with greater influence than he would’ve otherwise wielded? Or was KYE’s sin more basic than that—that even hearing the enemy’s slather in a public forum is a bridge to hell that burns the marginalized ‘incalculably’ (that is to say, in ways unknown or unverifiable). Of course, platforming ideas, however critically, has consequences. But broadly speaking, the premise that platforming reactionary ideas is the driving source of material harm from reactionary politics, instead of the actual material forces (organized money, class struggle from above, funding of anti LGBTQ politics by billionaires) that operate unceasingly behind the scenes—this premise is a center piece of liberalism, not any leftist structural analysis that I can recognize. It’s hyper focused on individuals of disrepute and not the structures that create them (contra to Sam’s useful analysis of his experience with Hochman) on guarding civility and legitimacy and the ‘good ideas force’ from being permeated by illiberal euphemisms and evil ideas. This is peak liberalism (not the kind Matt yearns for as a respite from ‘everything being political’, but it’s obverse reactionary form) because it sees political battle in an overwhelmingly idealist schema, according to which ideas make reality unidirectionally, and never the other way round. So we just have to guard the trusted outlets that spread ideas from being penetrated by these outer hateful hordes. This is reactionary liberalism par excellence, because it thinks struggle can be contained by the affect of discourse. It is a myopia that has hindered the Left, and shrouded it in a curatorial noblesse oblige, rather than an organizational force that can defend the marginalized and fight (with more than ideas) the revanchist billionaire class and their minions of death.
Benjamin Pletcher
2023-08-24 00:27:14 +0000 UTCThe dangers people are imagining here seem so attenuated. KYE interviews Hochman, then he gets a reputation for being willing to talk, then a journalist from WaPo interviews him, and then ... what, exactly? Some normies in Fairfax County get the mistaken impression he's a reasonable guy before quickly forgetting he exists? I don't get how all of this is supposed to work.
Taylor Washburn
2023-08-23 22:10:09 +0000 UTCI lived in Ames IA during the Ron Paul years, and got to do the whole "Ames Straw Poll" freakshow on time. At that time, I was also in a lot of online discussion groups that included "anarcho-capitalists" and other fancy ways to be a very online Ron Paul supporting smartass. A part of the appeal that that stuff had, I think, was that they actually did have legit (if obvious from a Left wing perspective) beefs with American center-left liberals, but they didn't have much of a mission being owning the libs and being deliberately awful. It's a useless way to be, it provides a way to feel all the power and pleasure that bullying provides. Those folks were exactly the prototype for what became the majority of what we later called the Alt-Right (along with a handful of more deliberately fascist folks), As you say, it's unsurprising to see a young conservative trafficking in this stuff. (I did get to see Randy Travis at the Straw Poll though, so that was cool.)
Jamie McAfee
2023-08-23 21:12:55 +0000 UTCDING DING DING DING We have a winner. One of the really defining things about younger conservatives (both online and off) that seems like a noteworthy is the centrality of trolling, "owning the libs," and other edgelordy nonsense to their worldview. They aren't really attached to any coherent philosophical or political project other than naïve contrarianism. Reactionary populism is always, at its core, an incoherent response to real structural problems and real suffering, but these online bros are unmoored from any real sense of community or concern with public policy. There is a real nihilism that seems different to me than previous versions of conservatism. This means that they while they are probably not particularly committed to the fascism and bigotry that permeates the spaces where they hang out, they don't really mind it that much either. Whether that's reassuring or alarming is up for debate.
Jamie McAfee
2023-08-23 20:58:51 +0000 UTCHold up you're calling Hochman a FRIEND? I mean, points well made about not casting aside people, but doesn't this present a serious conflict to getting to "know your enemy" objectively? It is understandable and maybe necessary to be friendly with and have complicated feelings towards your subjects, as you expertly laid out for us listeners. But why aren't you intentionally maintaining more distance from these people?
Lol
2023-08-23 20:02:16 +0000 UTChttps://thedigradio.com/podcast/conjuncture-w-akbar-winant-riofrancos/
MD
2023-08-23 19:43:18 +0000 UTCI mean this is the thing about the original Hochman episode to me -- I don't really agree with the idea that you need to grill right wingers in every public appearance they have, esp if your project is to chronicle the right. Some of my favorite episodes of KYE have been the ones where they have brought right wingers on. But even taking that as granted my impression of the whole episode was very much a "give 'em enough rope" scenario; Sam and Matt clearly liked him, but he came across as A) glib rather than deep per se B) had gotten into conservative politics for basically superficial and vain reasons and C) for all of the shallowness for his reasons, seemed awfully interested in the f(l)ashier aspects of hard right ideology. All of which seems to be correct. So like, as a journalistic enterprise -- mission accomplished!
MD
2023-08-23 18:59:40 +0000 UTCI have a follow up question: Do you think Nate Hochmann has political commitments as such? Beyond transient stuff that allows him to continue owning the libs, I mean? Because I mostly don't. As I mentioned his is a familiar archetype to me; and I think beyond some visceral reaction against what he perceives as slights / grievances there isn't much there there. Yeah he read some writers and quoted them, but I think if you survey the totality of his career and writing you find a striking vapidity.
Jeff
2023-08-23 17:54:07 +0000 UTCListening to this episode, I was very much reminded of Anna Applebaum's recent book on her naive (or was it just faux-naive distancing) 'realisation' that her former conservative stablemates turned out to have been latent extremists all along while failing to interrogate the possibility that this was actually inevitable and might also apply to herself. I don't mean the hosts themselves but the general lack of self-reflection on the right, their blinkered certainty - yes, you get that on the left too but not to anything like the same extent. The stripping away of pretence on the right since at least the Gingrich 90s - no less here in Europe than in the U.S - has exposed their real nature. These emperors have no clothes but they've got pretty explicit tattoos.
bindervelt
2023-08-23 16:39:15 +0000 UTCIt likely doesn't help him on the right. What it does do is give him some credibility with the center. "Here's a conservative who's willing to talk to liberals/leftists" is chum in the water for the likes of NYT and WaPo editors.
Jeff
2023-08-23 16:04:20 +0000 UTCWhat was the dig episode that was mentioned by Sam?
VirtuousRaven5646
2023-08-23 15:12:39 +0000 UTCMaybe I’m understating the influence of KYE on the right, but it would really surprise me if one appearance on this podcast advanced Hochman’s career in any meaningful way.
Taylor Washburn
2023-08-23 11:44:58 +0000 UTCExcellent discussion
Michael Mannix
2023-08-23 07:39:20 +0000 UTCThere's a cascading series of questions about who's worth taking seriously: Hochman, any conservative today, any conservative ever. I regard all those questions as open. But this podcast is offering a particular value proposition, one that's at least worth my $5/month, and it's not a niche I see anyone else filling. (As opposed to shows dunking on these people or rending garments at their rise.) I think it's worth having these people on, in an environment that's somewhere between CPAC and Crossfire (RIP), just to see what they say. Maybe they'll tip their hand. Maybe it'll be insightful. Maybe it'll be weird. Nobody else is doing it. Also, I don't see any evidence to suggest that Hochman got some big boon out of being on KYE. (I'm sorry guys, I just don't think you have the juice.) If anything, going on a show like this would only make sense if you wanted to work for someplace like The Lincoln Project or sell yourself to CNN as The Last Reasonable Person on the Right. At this point, I would not expect those checks to clear.
Ben Thelen
2023-08-23 03:39:51 +0000 UTCMost of the time, I just simply ignore all the pseudonymous online far-right types, both because its distasteful and because it far more likely than not isn't intellectually interesting, let alone honest. Much easier to find interesting perspectives in the history of conservative thought and easier to see the connections to the history of movement conservatism, both with the value of hindsight and to avoid the combined vacuousness and odiousness of the currents in conservatism today (not to say that history is not frequently odious, but it seems there's more of a "there" there). Which is to say, I greatly appreciate the usual approach of this podcast. But unfortunately this whole saga shows just how important those vague far-right ideas are to understanding conservatism today. It would be difficult to know what is worth diving into, and how to approach the ugliness for an audience who may not be as "perverted" as Sam (or allow them to disengage from the podcast if they wish) but I think that's important to do and I'd be curious to hear how you would approach some of that toxic soup. You've discussed the theocratic trad-Cath etc. side well, I wouldn't mind another episode digging into that. Also, as delicate a subject as it is, it might be worth discussing "race" "science" since that is one of the major gravitational centers of these online far-right types, but I'd understand not wanting to touch that.
Daniel Martin
2023-08-23 01:30:09 +0000 UTCI think Sam’s aside about being a sicko who enjoys hearing right-wing lies is a bigger key to the episode than meets the eye. There’s an extent to which constant exposure to political rhetoric strips it of some of its force, both positive (“This is well stated and I agree, but I’ve been around the block too many times to get excited”) and negative (“I’m aware these people are deranged, and I’m just hearing a symptom of a larger problem for the umpteenth time, so the details are unimportant in the moment”). To maintain a healthy relationship to the audience, as both podcaster and journalist, you have to fight that temptation. Indulging it a bit is only human - you can’t pretend to be hearing everything for the first time every day for forty years - but you have to set a hard cap if you want the audience to follow your direction through the material. Even giving your audience deserved credit for being sophisticated can be a trap - most people who listen to this show are not actually journalists, do not actually gossip with wised-up right-wing apparatchiks, and do not find the same ASMR quality in fascist-adjacent bullshit that Sam may find there. It’s hard to maintain a balance, but as a question of where to plant your professional flag, I vote for planting it more on the small-n normie side of the discourse divide. Saying ugly things is always ugly. You know it when you hear it. “Hearing what they think” is mostly valuable insofar as they’re reliable narrators. Once you know what they’re up to, because you’re sensitive to the linguistic registers of right-wing rhetoric, it would be interesting next time to point it out, not even by way of criticism so much as neutral observation — “You put that very similarly to how other writers in your vein have described it, and that’s interesting because in practice it always comes out like this instead.” That’s short of a shouting match but still adds some value through unpacking it in real time.
Adam Sarvana
2023-08-22 23:49:11 +0000 UTCAs someone who grew up on the 4chan pipeline around the Ron Paul years (luckily moved on a few years ago due in large part to this podcast), this doesn't surprise me one bit. All young conservatives end up in same circle where dropping slurs and citing crime statistics is second nature. I think you guys handled the situation fine and I honestly didn't have a problem with the first podcast. If you're going to "combat" this kind of stuff you need to do it Chapo style or ignore guests like this altogether. The listeners of this podcast should have the nuance needed to handle this stuff this since you guys do such a great job going over the conservative movement in general.
Logan
2023-08-22 23:48:26 +0000 UTCYour point about how you approach this similarly to teaching undergrads stood out to me because I thought of the way you talked with Nate is similar to what I try to do with my undergrads at a big public university with people from a lot of different backgrounds. Today was the first day of class and we had a big discussion about how we treat each other and how yes we’re allowed to simply not respect people’s opinions, but we need to have a baseline level of respect and kindness in the classroom for the person, despite disagreement. This gets so tricky when you’re managing a learning space for 20+ people with different identities and positionalities, which likely brings up need to shut down or call out harmful talking points simply to care for the others in the room. From conversations I’ve had with “emerging adults” (let’s say 18-24), I’ve noticed a huge need for this patience and listening in their development as thinkers and learners. (And also at that age a lot of people, myself included, think they know so much- makes me think of that Bob Dylan song “but I was so much older then, I’m younger than that now”). That all said, it’s interesting to hear y’all grapple with “what is the role of this podcast” and where does that type of pastoral care fit in— or does it? Because conversations like yours with Nate are valuable, it just gets more complicated when you consider listeners and their needs. But it’s a podcast, not a classroom, so we as listeners can opt out of listening. Also, the conversations you’ve had could have (and still could) impact young conservatives to leave conservatism! There are so many such cases, and you can’t predict who will become a Catholic leftist and who will use Nazi imagery and other deeply weird and problematic stuff in the name of a deeply concerning political agenda.
Camille Tinnin
2023-08-22 20:43:01 +0000 UTCDon’t disagree in general. I do see a difference between oft handily moving on in all situations and failing to penetrate the underpinnings of a guest assertions. What’s the purpose of an interview, particularly if the point of the forum is To Know Your Enemy. You should be willing to engage rather than leave matters to the vagaries of speculation or preconceived notions, not to suggest this need be overly confrontational, or disrespectful. Just an honest interview.
Bill Spater
2023-08-22 19:48:57 +0000 UTCI understand why many hear wish you had given more pushback to Nate but i disagree. I don’t listen to KyE for you to debate right wingers, but to understand them and better know what the believe and think. The value of an enemy interview is a time to test the hypothesis we develop in the literature and theory episodes and to hear from the mouth of the enemy themselves what it is they believe. Pushback won’t invite the guest to speak their mind, I agree that a more casual and friendly air is required to have the conversation. The problem with the Hochman interview was how little journalistic questioning their was. You don’t have to say “you’re wrong about Portland” but press him to expand on points. I don’t think giving a platform to these guys is a danger, the KyE audience is probably not open to being converted, but I would hope that we as an audience are capable of understanding that hearing these awful things is not the same as Matt and Sam agree with them.
Brick Ingle
2023-08-22 17:47:25 +0000 UTCIf we want to hear enemies on the podcast I don’t know if pushback is really conducive to that and the KyE audience is problematic not actually a good audience for the right wingers. I think the goal of any enemy interview should be getting to hear the enemy, know what they believe, and journalistic questioning would certainly help in that.
Brick Ingle
2023-08-22 17:40:19 +0000 UTCI’m the wrong person to ask. I don’t listen to those types of podcasts, and I’m also a liberal, so I don’t know much about the leftist podcast landscape (except Chapo, which I wouldn’t recommend and which isn’t about actionable strategy anyway). I know such podcasts exist, though; I saw a few just now by Googling. Maybe another commenter can offer some specific suggestions?
Taylor Washburn
2023-08-22 16:22:35 +0000 UTCI think there’s been some research on this, but without looking it up, I can say that the only people who have ever changed my mind on anything were people that I loved and respected. I’ve never been so thoroughly owned on the internet that I went back and reconstructed my entire identity. So I believe that it’s an absolutely essential part of political work to have a rapport and, yes, friendship, with people who don’t see eye to eye with you. Provided, of course, that you can safely do so. And I don’t think that the idea that some people ended up in really scary places despite one’s best efforts is an argument against the idea of trying. I appreciate that you guys can be introspective about specific moments where you might have handled something differently. What you do is difficult and complicated, but it’s also really important. I think I might share some of the concerns that folks have expressed over the years if you weren’t so thoughtful about how you handle this stuff.
Thomas Peake
2023-08-22 16:18:54 +0000 UTCWhat are those podcasts? I’d listen.
Daniel Kamen
2023-08-22 16:02:42 +0000 UTCI respectfully disagree. There are plenty of other podcasts about political strategy, and I’m glad KYE does something different.
Taylor Washburn
2023-08-22 15:49:47 +0000 UTCI’m not concerned that y’all provided a platform for Hochman - I think KYE listeners are discerning and skeptical. The Hochman conversation was interesting to me BECAUSE I assumed he was being disingenuous. Im not about to listen to Bannon’s podcast, so it’s informative to hear how Hochman misrepresents his own views. However, I have been feeling some complacency seeping into the podcast. I would appreciate if you would take more seriously that the conservative movement IS our enemy, and does in fact want to crush and kill people we love. I’m not saying anything new, but I’d love if you guys would focus some episodes on the rhetorical or institutional vulnerabilities of our “enemy” that could be valuable for folks engaged in more material (less intellectual) roles in the struggle for justice.
Daniel Kamen
2023-08-22 15:10:39 +0000 UTCIt’s also like…the entire podcast is the pushback? Why is it needed in real time when speaking to someone who obviously represents a worldview contrary to that of the hosts? The interview would be all disagreements and there’d be no time to hear anything the guest had to say. I don’t find it so interesting to challenge a young conservative on 2020 election denial. No one benefits from whatever evasive answer he might’ve given to such a challenge. Everything they expound upon in every other episode is a counter to Nate Hochman’s ideas; that episode didn’t need to resort to back-and-forth bickering. The podcast is “Know Your Enemy”, not “Own Your Enemy”.
Axel Herrera
2023-08-22 14:44:54 +0000 UTCAn excellent suggestion, I think. Doug Henwood has sometimes done this on his Behind the News podcast.
Seth K
2023-08-22 14:25:52 +0000 UTCyes to what Preston and Jeremy wrote. I haven't relistened to the episode since the first time, but I remember thinking "why are they building up this guy as someone worth listening to? It's just all the usual shit" which is why it was all the more irritating that he wasn't being challenged (however, I am sympathetic to what Sam and Matt said about not being confrontational and that it can be hard to come up with the right thing to say at the moment). That said, still one of my favorite podcasts, and keep it going, as long as you do the occasional Dead or (especially) Dylan episodes.
Seth K
2023-08-22 14:08:04 +0000 UTCI appreciated Matt's soul-searching about how to be both leftwing AND Christian, and both of your thoughts (and John Ganz's) about our pastoral responsibility (or lack thereof) to guys like Nate Hochman, the roles we can play in deradicalizing young conservatives or lending them undue legitimacy. This is stuff I've thought about a lot as a youngish Christian minister and socialist who has at times held the title "Pastor" in some pretty conservative milieux (blood-red rural Midwest) - how not to write off my ideological enemies as "lost causes" without cosigning their bullshit. Speaking only from my own experience, it's come down to believing that people *can* change but accepting that I may not always be an instrument of that change. I've had ultraconservative friends who have moderated their views and even become leftists at least in part as a result of my relationship with them. I've also had ultraconservative friends who ended up in such odious fascist territory that I could no longer in good conscience continue relating with them. I really do believe nobody is beyond redemption, but that will have to come down--arguably always comes down--to some higher power than me, even if that higher power is just Other People. The fact that I can even relate to these folks is a consequence, of course, of me being a straight-passing, White, male, Christian minister who was himself raised in the rural Midwest. I get a modicum of respect that wouldn't be extended to many others who share my politics. So I'm heartened to hear other leftists I respect grappling with that too.
Tom
2023-08-22 13:42:46 +0000 UTCPersonally I'm glad that you guys aren't left-wing Ben Shapiros trying to own conservatives and debate them into submission. Like other listeners commented, that style of discussion can occasionally be cathartic but it's definitely not what I want or expect out of this podcast. I agree with Matt that if Nate came across as evasive, that doesn't mean you guys did a bad job; you don't need to chase him down every intellectual rabbit hole for listeners to make inferences about what he believes but is unwilling to say on air. For the rare episodes featuring an enemy or frenemy, I wonder if a better format would be to have the interview with the enemy in the first half, followed by a post-interview discussion between the two of you in the second half. The thing with right-wing intellectuals, especially ones who went to elite colleges, is that by necessity they've usually mastered a kind of respectability politics (though Hanania is a notable exception). They speak in abstractions or shibboleths because if they stated their beliefs plainly most normal people would find them totally objectionable. If you guys took the time post-interview to interpret and unpack some of the shibboleths your right-wing guest trotted out in response to your questions, it would add clarity for listeners and make it harder for anyone to say that you let them off easy. Obviously your guest might be wary of you misrepresenting them post-interview, but I think KYE has earned a reputation as fair and even-handed.
Matthew
2023-08-22 12:55:28 +0000 UTCAs a loyal listener and fan of KYE who is also—quelle horreur!—a moderate liberal, I'm always listening to the show critically. I sometimes disagree with you and your leftist guests, and I usually disagree with the conservatives you've had on over the years, but I still really enjoy those discussions. I understand why the Hochman affair has inspired some soul-searching, but after listening to that episode again, I don't think you have anything to worry about.
Taylor Washburn
2023-08-22 12:43:25 +0000 UTCI think readers and listeners who call for more pushback do need to interrogate why they want interviewers to be more aggressive. In some cases, an interviewer's failure to address a false statement or dubious moral claim risks leaving the audience with a misleading impression; when that's the case, pushback is essential. But KYE is not the nightly news; it has a narrow, highly sophisticated audience. Nobody listening to that interview with Hochman was taking all of his statements at face value; the whole point of having Hochman on is that he represents an alien worldview and value system. In this context, I think listener and reader demands for forceful pushback sometimes reflect a lack of trust in either (1) the rest of the audience ("I'm capable of listening to this critically, but I fear that others may not be"); or (2) the interviewer ("is this guy really on my team if he's not debating this guest?"). Whenever you find yourself thinking that an interviewer ought to have been more adversarial, it's worth considering whether your concern arises from a trust issue regarding either the audience or host—and if so, whether your mistrust is actually justified.
Taylor Washburn
2023-08-22 11:47:41 +0000 UTCHi Matt! Hi Sam! Love the podcast and will continue to listen, but I did wanna offer some tough love and I think my perspective might be valuable. I am a 26 year old recent college graduate in southern Indiana. I went to class with young conservatives everyday in my poli-sci classes for 2 1/2 years. I've had many conversations with them in and outside of the classroom. If you are a conservative and in your 20's, you are just a sicko. There is no sugar coating it. They are all in the same group chats spamming the N-word, fantasizing about running over protesters, and are incredibly lonely because they cant get laid. It is just a different environment from the conservatism that you where a part of Matt. I think that one of the main weaknesses of this podcast might be that you guys are too nice. You always are looking for the good in people and engaging in good faith with people that you (and I) have profound disagreements. This is not a bad thing. The world needs more empathy. However the issue is that this is not reciprocated by anything on the right. You might have conversations with conservatives in your personal life where they are honest and genuine, but these people will never gain power in the GOP or the conservative media. And even if they did, they will not be able to shape the direction of the right. The direction the right is headed in is one of violence, isolation, hate, and fear. AND YOU GUYS KNOW THIS! You mention in this very episode that it was your fifth ep about the illiberal right that this is where the right is heading. In your Pat Buchanan episode, Sam mentions that the credulity of liberals is what allows the right to get away with their nonsense. In your episode on Trump being a Fascist, you point out how the center right will eventually go along with the far right. In the Freud episode, Sam and Patrick Blanchfield talk about how writers like Rod Dreher and the Nat Cons are held up as reasonable and respectable and are legitimate, and then they go all out on the racism and bigotry and its like, "Oh wow! Another conservative is hateful, empty person." Are we supposed to be surprised by Nate's "turn?" The entirety of this podcast suggests that you guys would know better. The energy on the young right is authoritarian and fascist-friendly. I think one of the things underlying a lot of my fellow listeners frustration is that leftist are sick of liberals laundering and falling for this crap, so when you guys do it, its leaves us with a feeling of "Aw man, you too?" I also think that you guys not really engaging with the more online-memeing right is a blind spot you two have. If you want to better understand it, you should watch The Alt-Right Playbook on the Youtube channel Innuendo Studios. hope that this made sense and didn't come across as to confrontational. I do love this podcast, even if a lot of the topics are way too smart for me some times. This is not a call for you guys to publicly attack or disown Nate. I personally don't care what you guys do in your personal lives. I suppose this is a call for your guys to, ironically, know your enemy.
Garett Smith
2023-08-22 09:30:39 +0000 UTCp.s. I never listened to the Hochman interview. I am primarily responding to the spirit of self-inquiry informing your discussion here.
Michael B McDonald
2023-08-22 06:51:11 +0000 UTCThis is the episode that led me to become a Patron. (I was actually in YAF in high school, albeit briefly in '69, so It's pleasing to have signed up under this rubric here. While I'm a longtime listener, the level of intellect, honesty, and maturity in this episode made me want to offer more substantial support to your efforts. The discussion of friendship was particularly moving for me. My late brother was a conservative Deadhead par excellence . . . his obdurate denial of climate change was the only aspect of his character that annoyed me more than his insistence on playing some crappy recording of some mediocre Dead show. (Mind you, seeing/hearing/having my mind completely blown by the Dead in Baltimore (73) remains one of the best concert experiences of my life . . . I will never understand the band's strange inconsistency though I am an inconsistent musician too . . . just not a professional or one with any following.) Over the years, my brother and I managed to stay good friends despite our rather fervent political differences, and so this part of your discussion rang particularly true and compelling for me. Really fine work!
Michael B McDonald
2023-08-22 06:43:00 +0000 UTCI think I do understand the practical, journalistic side of retaining cordial connections to the Right in order to better interrogate the project. But I think there's a fundamental assumption underlying the Oakschott quote (and thinking around it) that I've changed my thinking on considerably in the last few decades. His words only hold when friendship circles are homogenized. One can, presumably, be that Oakschottian friend to conservatives when the rest of your friends and family are not directly threatened by the conservative project. But that fig leaf disintegrates when the proverbial thanksgiving table must exclude friends who are not white cisgender people, ideally men, of privileged backgrounds, because the people who hate them and seek to destroy their basic human rights are entrenched there under the aegis of not dictating ideology to friends. I have learned that it's perfectly ok to have dealbreakers for the friend category. By all means, make the compromises and be cordial as needed for work and for the intellectual project you've embarked on; that all falls well within the remit of "you fight your way and I fight with mine". But I encourage you to leave friendship aside as a stake when these sort of bad faith agents of bigotry and fascism are in play; it does incalculable harm to marginalized people directly under threat from conservatives when they are allowed to break bread, so to speak, in polite company.
Roberto Arguedas
2023-08-22 06:15:01 +0000 UTCI’m grateful for the reflection and for the original interview with Hochman. It wasn’t an L, because it wasn’t supposed to be a W. It’s striking how the spirit of that wonderful Oakschott excerpt Matt read just doesn’t exist for many people. His definition of friendship is the glowing ember beneath the mask of all enmity. Please don’t be deterred by those who are confused about your project. It isn’t helpful to the Left to name the Right from afar as its inverse and claim we know what needs to be known. This show’s entire history and purpose disproves the criticisms that say there’s nothing about Hochman’s ilk worthy of investigation. You didn’t let him off the hook. He was hooked the whole time. We heard the machinations of a poisoned young mind. Deplatforming has its place, but it doesn’t come with universal rubrics. And it doesn’t address every need we have if we’re trying to understand what the hell is going on! Thank you guys. I’m one of those who was raised on the Right, so all of this soul searching is really meaningful for me. Solidarity!
Benjamin Pletcher
2023-08-22 05:52:54 +0000 UTCCame too late to the first go around to really comment, but in this episode it really rubbed me the wrong way, how you affirmed you're keeping this friendship going despite this person incorporating literal Nazi imagery into their public facing work. It's fine if you don't want to consider the implications for your own continued existence in the world Nate Hochman wants. But what about your other friends? What about marginalized people you don't know who this person wants to see suffer, or made not to exist at all? Does him being a "polite" guy who has read some of the same books you have really cancel out his politics? You quoted John Ganz's recent piece, "They're All Like That," but you didn't mention how at the end Ganz says: "There was no definitive moment or event I can recall where we broke off our contacts. I just couldn’t take what they were saying anymore and I know they felt the same about me. It wasn’t about slurs or anything like that. They just sounded increasingly insane to me and held views that I found objectionable, even when expressed without overtly hateful language." It's *really* okay to end it when your buddy gets fired for being too overtly racist for Ron DeSantis.
Courtney Simpson
2023-08-22 05:06:45 +0000 UTCAm I the only one who never listened to the Nate Hochman episode? I skipped over it because I knew it would not be my cup of tea. I suppose I am one of the "I don't want to hear it" types, perhaps as a result of knowing many "edgelord online conservatives" in real life--thus I don't come to this podcast for what I already have to put up with on a regular basis. Of course I listen to this podcast to learn about the intellectual right-wing, both historical and contemporary, but a sit-down with a smirking douche-bro who ended up working for DeSantis does not appeal to me. I do effectively agree that there is nowhere for the right to go other than in this direction of increasing "fascist sympathies". I can see the appeal of a young "never Trumper" and how he may have reminded you of a more old-school conservative intellectual archetype, but there is just no space for that anymore. It is a relic of a bygone era. Contemporary American conservatism is, disappointing as it may be, practically synonymous with 2020 election denial and obsession with the "woke mind virus". When I ask right-wingers who their intellectuals are, they say Jordan Peterson. Anyway, I enjoyed this episode for the discussion of young conservatives, but I don't really care about the "drama" surrounding the Hochman interview. This isn't a debate podcast, and sure, Hochman will go down as a regrettable guest, but every podcast I like has those. Such is life. Just keep putting out the good stuff.
Axel Herrera
2023-08-22 04:39:25 +0000 UTCThe thing I keep coming back to is how supremely uninteresting and untalented Nate was on top of all of this. There was a joke early in the interview with him about the young conservative pipeline. Hints at the reality that it was the easiest grift in the world. All of this would be worth something of value if Nate actually had some interesting views worth interrogating, but he didn’t. And doesn’t. He’s simply an average “intellectual” that found his way onto the page of The NY Times and into this podcast for being young and conservative and of modest talent. To give him a platform is one problem, but to give him a platform he’s so undeserving of is just too much.
Preston Crawford
2023-08-22 04:30:43 +0000 UTCPeople told you this was predictably stupid at the time, they reminded you that it was stupid now and it still hasn't sunk in. You need to take the L here.
Shinanoki
2023-08-22 03:41:40 +0000 UTCNate didn’t know that the Black Sun was a Nazi Symbol? The Nate who is as you say clearly “sleeping with dogs”? Come on guys…
-thundergolfer-
2023-08-22 03:11:25 +0000 UTCThe connection between podcasting and teaching really on point. Been reading Klaus Mann’s Mephisto and the mask growing into the face part resonates. From “der Fall Hochman” and Mann I keep wondering about the relationship between going harder right and careerism—both fascism and careerism are about accruing power for its own sake.
Klaus Yoder
2023-08-22 01:18:19 +0000 UTCY’all sound.a little bit CYA here. Why not defend the guy? Never thought he was worthy of attention. Now you just throw him under the bus. The Catholic thing is a tell. Y’all make fun of Sorhab Ahmari, but he seems better than Nate Hochman. Just admit you got bamboozled.
John Presnall
2023-08-22 00:40:24 +0000 UTCSam back from a plate of alfalfa sprouts and mashed yeast. And now he must defend Nate Hochman.
John Presnall
2023-08-22 00:25:17 +0000 UTCWhen the point of having an extended/hostile confrontation and arguing with a guest being, while cathartic, not great podcasting material was brought up, it reminded me of the early “lost episode” of chapo that they uploaded to YouTube like in, 2017, where it was them and a tradcath guy screaming at each other because they tried to do a debate episode, and while the audio of them screaming at this guy for his political views is cathartic, it’s not really a good episode of a podcast. Definitely agree with y’all on that.
JerJin
2023-08-21 23:59:18 +0000 UTCYou know I was relieved when white young people joined the BLM protests en masse, because I knew this meant they could not simply do what they wanted to do, which was to simply use indiscriminate live fire on other to achieve their desired state of black hiddenness. We stood together, and they weren't going to kill their own children ultimately. It was a beautiful moment. I don't think I could write comprehend at the time how psychotic this would make them. I thought, surely they have to listen to us now. This was so naive I don't even know what to say. Because what was their reaction of course? Incredible resent. They looked at the white and black youth of the nation marching together precisely with terror, this was of course their worst nightmare come to life. Divide and conquer is how they rule. And so of course the way they have responded should have been predictable - not with even the most minor of concessions, but a reactionary blitzkrieg. The all out assault on schools is precisely motivated by this, they are horrified that their his little angels did not sit by and gape while they mowed down black protesters just as they had done in LA. What does an idiot local elite immediately blame? Clearly the schools are at fault, they need to make our children more racist. Or clearly we just need to do away with democracy, because we're not able to control this situation anymore. We just need to establish a Christian theocratic dictatorship to properly redivide the races like is appropriate to us. They are such soulless husks, it is impossible to have too low of an opinion of the rightists, they will always find out a way to shock and appall you. If the largest protests in American history are met with nothing other than bitter retrenchment and reactionary resent, I'm just wondering what peaceful methods are left to is in order to accomplish any change at all? Because clearly they do not care what we think, they do not care what their children think, they don't care what the nation thinks. They just want power and wealth, period. They just wake to wake up and see their face reflected in all things, that all things noxious to them be hidden from their eyes. They are worshippers of hiddenness and ignorance.
John Smith
2023-08-21 23:26:54 +0000 UTCI think you guys still didn’t really get why the backlash actually occurred. You mentioned how you were shepherded by an older left leaning person who eventually gave you a job once you changed. But he didn’t broadcast your views to his audience and help your brand plus bonafides with the right. He talked to you privately and only offered you that job after you’d changed. I think that’s the big thing for me. Y’all let him use your brand as a way to gain clout as a young conservative.
Jeremy Williamson
2023-08-21 23:26:12 +0000 UTCConversations with bad faith speakers require an extra measure of clarity with your good faith cordiality, common sense, all that stuff, lest you find yourself nodding at excuses for Little Hermann's new black sun tattoo.
Adam Lewis
2023-08-21 23:00:26 +0000 UTCFew (though some), and not I, would listen regularly to a barrage of righteous "How dare you, sir?" Twitter socialism, but there is a time and place for, say, the conversation when Karl Barth asked a white South African pastor what Jesus would think of what the South African government and church were doing.
Adam Lewis
2023-08-21 22:50:20 +0000 UTCWhile I appreciate the self reflection, I for one am disappointed to hear you suggest you’ll do that sort of thing less in the future. It really wasn’t hard to grasp what you were hoping to accomplish and many of these criticisms come off as pretty bad faith. I would have hoped you’d earned listeners trust to take a couple leaps now and then, even if you don’t get it exactly right
Nicholas Laughlin
2023-08-21 22:34:41 +0000 UTCThis was a great episode, and I appreciate your willingness to look back at prior episodes. I, too, thought that you let Nate off too easily at several points. I felt the same thing in your show with Ross Douthat. That said: in the middle part of this episode, you talk about how hard it can be to maintain a "reporters" relationship with people with whom you disagree. "On the media" has covered this conundrum frequently. Back when Bob Garfield was still on the show, there were a number of episodes where I was REALLY pissed of at his nasty, overly-confrontational approach to his guests; it shut down the conversation, and made it impossible to discover motives or any possible ambiguous feelings the guest may have had - even though I was appalled at what the guest had to say. SO it IS difficult. I appreciate that you do manage to bring the unvarnished words of conservatives to the pod, even when I find them repulsive. So keep at it.
Jerry Callen
2023-08-21 22:14:16 +0000 UTCI agree with Jeff. I didn't take you to task then, but I think you're still being *way* too generous. In the end of this episode, you state your conclusion is that he was then what you took him to be, fell in among bad companions (and a bad structure with bad incentives), and changed. He struck me as lying then, someone playing a reasonable conservative because he knew that would be the easiest way to play *you*. I can't say my impression was right, but it's got to be at least as plausible as your assumption of sincerity. Your interview reminded me of something I dislike about Ezra Klein: an interviewee will say something that makes me go, "Wait! What? Press him on what he really means." And Klein hardly ever does – he changes the subject. I am not a person who wants you to bring the battle to The Enemy and argue. However, the point of such an interview is to discover what the interviewee believes. I was quite sure then that you let him artfully conceal that, to have a little bit of a propaganda win, and you didn't try to puncture the artifice. You spent too much of the time on the episode discussing your good intentions. It's hard to believe a regular listener (unless terminally online) would need that. They're obvious. You worried about that to the extent that you left a lot of analysis undone.
Brian Marick
2023-08-21 21:47:33 +0000 UTCIt's 4chan on a wider scale. Like, I actually believe, in 2002 or whenever 4chan started, most of the racist/anti-semitic jokes were actually just in a joking or ironic manner, but eventually, those voices either got turned into believers or overwhelmed by the people who saw, 'hey look, a place we can be anti-semitic/racist/etc' without pushback. Like, 100%, if he isn't still hiding in whatever frat brother's house and he's back more actively in politics, Nate is going to say the 2024 election is stolen. Whether he believes it or not. Which weirdly, is if this podcast is going to interview right-wingers, I'd rather have them interview true believers who might have even more odious views than folks like Hochmann or somebody like Patrick Deneen or Matthew Continetti or other types that end up on podcasts trying to explain the change in the GOP.
Jesse Ewiak
2023-08-21 20:30:05 +0000 UTCAs one of the people who (mildly, I think) took you to task in the Patreon comments a year and a half ago, what strikes me is just how predictable this was. Not that Nate is a crypto-Nazi (though I think perhaps you're being a bit gentle on him and the DeSantis campaign with the whole lies down with dogs line of reasoning), but that he'd just do something odious. The most striking part of the interview for me wasn't his crack about Portland, but rather a parting shot he took about the 2020 election. It was near the end of the interview and he made a comment about it being stolen, and you could just *hear* the smirk on his face. He *knew* he was full of shit, but he said it anyway. I say that was striking because for me it exposed a certain hollowness to his politics. He treated it all like a game, where the object was to score points on the opponent. And that's *exactly* the kind of young person who's going to end up following a path where two years later they're retweeting Nazi imagery (or whatever). I'd love to hear the two of you try to explore more fully the degree to which far-right views are malleable in this way. EDIT: something that occurs to me: part of why I was very much not surprised by Hochman's descent into being Nazi-curious is that I've been quite online for quite some time, most notably the tumultuous Gamergate years that preceded the Trump movement. I'd be not shocked at all to discover that a young teenaged Hochman was a regular on /r/kotakuinaction. That I sort of saw this is how it would end up with him wasn't out of any particular insight on my part, it's because he followed a *very* well trodden path. I feel like Gamergate is a very under-discussed area when it comes to the modern right. Would love to see yall tackle that topic as well.
Jeff
2023-08-21 20:24:13 +0000 UTCI’d view it as a learning experience. I didn’t think there was anything strikingly nazi-ish about the original interview, and I wouldn’t have assumed that he’d be the kind of person he revealed himself to be online. If nothing else, it helps us understand that, even if you can have a decent dialogue with someone, that does mean that person is someone worth compromising with. It’s better he revealed himself now than after he entered a powerful institution (where he could ruin the lives of others, rather than just his own.) I’ll also just say that, as a Portland resident and ex-Catholic, the right’s reaction to the protests is comically surreal. Portland has been ruined by rising housing costs, stagnant wages, and environmental change (which has brought fire and drought ever closer to our doorsteps.) The protests were partially motivated by those cost of living concerns, and the state’s response (which largely ignored the core causes, and leaned into police militarization over any other solution.) Black folks and folks of color felt the impacts of these shifts first, but these problems have become impossible to ignore for a wide swath of Portlanders, particularly the young and poor. Solidarity and a thirst for order, order that derives from economic and social justice (rather than tear gas, police truncheons and jail cells,) is what moved us. Yet all the right can do is shout us down and publicly fantasize about murdering us. We tried to save Portland and save our country- yet we get blamed for the very forces that push us to the brink. Hochman neither knows nor cares about these issues and there’s very little you can do (aside from shout them down) to counter that. The best you can do is draw these folks out, and draw a line where no compromise is possible. For that, your “perversity” is perfectly suited. I don’t think you could’ve done the show any differently- since bridging that gap through reasonable dialogue is impossible.
Isaac Suárez
2023-08-21 19:51:15 +0000 UTCTwo things: First the Hochman video, which I recommend everyone take a look at. The Sonnenrad is certainly an "in your face," but I had to wonder what you made about the symbol of white audience participation that opens the show. A downtrodden, disheveled white male figure wearing a stocking cap, sporting a toothpick between his lips, observes the goings on. First critical of Trump, the narrative slides into praise of Ron, and likewise our symbolic viewer metamorphizes into a clean-shaven, enthusiastic supporter of the message who only a few frames forward, loses his stocking cap, and reveals himself as a golden-hued skinhead. Very subtle if not a little too reminiscent of 1928. The second thing: I just hate to say it but the apologia notwithstanding you've got to find whatever it takes to not let the Hochman's of the world get away with alternative facts. The Portland libel is a bit of meme now, clearly directed at the outsiders--we've heard this before.
Bill Spater
2023-08-21 19:38:39 +0000 UTCI think there's a lot of reflection to be had on who gets to be "redeemed" by pastoral intellectuals and who's summarily dismissed as kooky, or "too woke" for critical discussion. It means a lot that someone like Hochman is treated with more respect and regard than prison abolitionists imo. This happens constantly, it's not just you but the entire media complex that holds these biases, pretty openly actually.
Chad Stanton
2023-08-21 19:34:28 +0000 UTCWonderful stuff.
Rick Perlstein
2023-08-21 19:22:03 +0000 UTCI honestly didn’t know Hochman was as far to the right as he apparently is. Hang out in a hair salon long enough…..
aarinsanity
2023-08-21 18:06:31 +0000 UTCThanks for bearing with us, Maggie! (-Sam)
Know Your Enemy
2023-08-21 18:01:55 +0000 UTCListen, I love you guys and am a huge fan of the show, but, yeah, you really let Nate Hochman say stuff on the podcast with almost no pushback. That honestly was such a frustrating episode to listen to. I'm glad you're doing some self-reflection.
Maggie Johnson
2023-08-21 17:50:10 +0000 UTC
