I think we need to make a distinction b/w politicians and non-politicians. IMO, words and actions are often part of the propaganda machine wrt elected officials. There are lots of examples just from my lifetime. There were lots of conservatives cheering for W in 2000. Not so much in 2023.
So far as I've been able to tell, looking at where…
I think we need to make a distinction b/w politicians and non-politicians. IMO, words and actions are often part of the propaganda machine wrt elected officials. There are lots of examples just from my lifetime. There were lots of conservatives cheering for W in 2000. Not so much in 2023.
So far as I've been able to tell, looking at where an individual's money is coming from - what is their source of income, who is funding their campaign or administration, what ties/dependencies do they have on the MiC - pretty much tells 90% of the story. Obviously, this can't be done for everyone, like talking heads/influencers/pundits and it's counterproductive to engage in character assassination based on gossip, hunches, and suspicions.
But it can be done pretty accurately for elected officials and those campaigning for office. We can see who is funding their campaigns and how they make their money while in office is also pretty well-known. Who elected officials are aligned with and dependent upon is important. More important than their words or actions, IMO. Same for much of the MSM and large media co's. It's pretty obvious whose side they're on. It's not gossip to say Hannity is a deep state ally, for example. Or that the WaPo is intelligence agency aligned.
That said, I've found folks have differing perspectives on what is important in the conservative "movement." There is a genuine difference in goals. Some people are happy to live with the forever wars - and the debt, and consequent destruction of the middle class that those wars create - so long as the "culture war" issues fall in their favor. Others deprioritize the culture war issues and focus on the financial side. Obviously, one's priority drives who one sees as an ally or a "mole."
I see everything as ultimately serving the primary grift - the forever wars - so I tend to focus on who is funding candidates and where they stand vis-a-vis the transfer-of-wealth mechanism we call 'forever war.' And I try not to get tied up in arguments about heterodox talking heads or influencers b/c I just don't know their personal financial incentives or entanglements. As you point out, with those folks, I think the best we can do is look at what their work is achieving. They're not politicians so we can't see who is financing them.
I think we need to make a distinction b/w politicians and non-politicians. IMO, words and actions are often part of the propaganda machine wrt elected officials. There are lots of examples just from my lifetime. There were lots of conservatives cheering for W in 2000. Not so much in 2023.
So far as I've been able to tell, looking at where an individual's money is coming from - what is their source of income, who is funding their campaign or administration, what ties/dependencies do they have on the MiC - pretty much tells 90% of the story. Obviously, this can't be done for everyone, like talking heads/influencers/pundits and it's counterproductive to engage in character assassination based on gossip, hunches, and suspicions.
But it can be done pretty accurately for elected officials and those campaigning for office. We can see who is funding their campaigns and how they make their money while in office is also pretty well-known. Who elected officials are aligned with and dependent upon is important. More important than their words or actions, IMO. Same for much of the MSM and large media co's. It's pretty obvious whose side they're on. It's not gossip to say Hannity is a deep state ally, for example. Or that the WaPo is intelligence agency aligned.
That said, I've found folks have differing perspectives on what is important in the conservative "movement." There is a genuine difference in goals. Some people are happy to live with the forever wars - and the debt, and consequent destruction of the middle class that those wars create - so long as the "culture war" issues fall in their favor. Others deprioritize the culture war issues and focus on the financial side. Obviously, one's priority drives who one sees as an ally or a "mole."
I see everything as ultimately serving the primary grift - the forever wars - so I tend to focus on who is funding candidates and where they stand vis-a-vis the transfer-of-wealth mechanism we call 'forever war.' And I try not to get tied up in arguments about heterodox talking heads or influencers b/c I just don't know their personal financial incentives or entanglements. As you point out, with those folks, I think the best we can do is look at what their work is achieving. They're not politicians so we can't see who is financing them.
Excellent distinction and points, RU!