Thanks, Justin, for the post! Massive fan of your work!!
A couple of quick thoughts… I don’t think we need to create a "left-wing Joe Rogan." Or if that is the goal, waiting around for it to happen is an extremely unlikely and therefore bad strategy.
Democrats already had access to a liberal Joe Rogan: it was Joe Rogan in 2016. He was into…
Thanks, Justin, for the post! Massive fan of your work!!
A couple of quick thoughts… I don’t think we need to create a "left-wing Joe Rogan." Or if that is the goal, waiting around for it to happen is an extremely unlikely and therefore bad strategy.
Democrats already had access to a liberal Joe Rogan: it was Joe Rogan in 2016. He was into Bernie, Yang, universal healthcare, taxing the rich… and yet, instead of engaging with him, Dems pushed him further and further away. Rogan isn’t Limbaugh—he never had crazy, far-right views that justified abandoning him.
Not saying you completely ostracizing Rogan, but many do. Instead, Democrats should actively engage with Rogan and his audience. His listeners already tune in—not because of a political label, but because of his perceived authenticity and curiosity. Waiting for some perfectly aligned "progressive influencer" is a losing strategy. Rogan’s appeal is organic—it can’t be manufactured. Dems need to meet his audience where they are, and going back on Rogan (not just for a one-off Fetterman-in-a-sweater chat) is a must. Too often, Dems let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
I also think this ties into your point about "Newspaper-izing Our Information." Meeting people where they are, with unscripted, respectful conversations, and dismantling myths in real-time is the way to reach disaffected voters. It’s not about pandering—it’s about showing up, talking normal, and offering something equally real.
That said, I don’t think just going on Rogan is the full solution. But I also don’t think we need to build much new infrastructure. It’s already there! The right figured this out. I was sooo impressed with Ezra Klein’s conversation with Vivek Ramaswamy—two people actually listening and not shouting at each other. It was a gold-star example of what Dems could pull off on Rogan, especially because, let’s be real, Rogan is no Ezra Klein.
Similarly, JD Vance’s NYT interview was a bundle of lies but came off as articulate, oppositional, and aimed at reaching new audiences. Dems need more of that energy—opposing, engaging, and reaching 47 million viewers head-on.
I think Rogan, and his viewers can be won back by the Dems and this is a worthwhile investment.
I think you're totally right about Rogan. But I'm not sure that Democrats (i.e. the party) actively engaging with him then would've done much good. The party made the conscious effort to move away from the very things that attracted Rogan (and the Bernie bros, and other constituent groups of progressives, economic populists, technologists, etc.) The problem, in short, was the Democratic Party itself (and maybe the state of liberalism/progressivism more broadly.)
Engaging with Rogan now is still probably worth it, but I think he's been captured by so much bullshit that you'd be left shadowboxing a bunch of insane half-baked takes.
But what sets Rogan apart from Klein is that the former has broad appeal. Klein's thing is "I'm a liberal political columnist with some heterodox views." That's great! That's why I like him. But he doesn't have broad appeal like Rogan does. Klein isn't interviewing standup comics, porn stars, etc.
Maybe we don't need a left-wing Joe Rogan. Maybe we need a new Howard Stern. There's an idea.
Thanks, Justin, for the post! Massive fan of your work!!
A couple of quick thoughts… I don’t think we need to create a "left-wing Joe Rogan." Or if that is the goal, waiting around for it to happen is an extremely unlikely and therefore bad strategy.
Democrats already had access to a liberal Joe Rogan: it was Joe Rogan in 2016. He was into Bernie, Yang, universal healthcare, taxing the rich… and yet, instead of engaging with him, Dems pushed him further and further away. Rogan isn’t Limbaugh—he never had crazy, far-right views that justified abandoning him.
Not saying you completely ostracizing Rogan, but many do. Instead, Democrats should actively engage with Rogan and his audience. His listeners already tune in—not because of a political label, but because of his perceived authenticity and curiosity. Waiting for some perfectly aligned "progressive influencer" is a losing strategy. Rogan’s appeal is organic—it can’t be manufactured. Dems need to meet his audience where they are, and going back on Rogan (not just for a one-off Fetterman-in-a-sweater chat) is a must. Too often, Dems let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
I also think this ties into your point about "Newspaper-izing Our Information." Meeting people where they are, with unscripted, respectful conversations, and dismantling myths in real-time is the way to reach disaffected voters. It’s not about pandering—it’s about showing up, talking normal, and offering something equally real.
That said, I don’t think just going on Rogan is the full solution. But I also don’t think we need to build much new infrastructure. It’s already there! The right figured this out. I was sooo impressed with Ezra Klein’s conversation with Vivek Ramaswamy—two people actually listening and not shouting at each other. It was a gold-star example of what Dems could pull off on Rogan, especially because, let’s be real, Rogan is no Ezra Klein.
Similarly, JD Vance’s NYT interview was a bundle of lies but came off as articulate, oppositional, and aimed at reaching new audiences. Dems need more of that energy—opposing, engaging, and reaching 47 million viewers head-on.
I think Rogan, and his viewers can be won back by the Dems and this is a worthwhile investment.
Hey Dylan — thanks for subscribing!
I think you're totally right about Rogan. But I'm not sure that Democrats (i.e. the party) actively engaging with him then would've done much good. The party made the conscious effort to move away from the very things that attracted Rogan (and the Bernie bros, and other constituent groups of progressives, economic populists, technologists, etc.) The problem, in short, was the Democratic Party itself (and maybe the state of liberalism/progressivism more broadly.)
Engaging with Rogan now is still probably worth it, but I think he's been captured by so much bullshit that you'd be left shadowboxing a bunch of insane half-baked takes.
But what sets Rogan apart from Klein is that the former has broad appeal. Klein's thing is "I'm a liberal political columnist with some heterodox views." That's great! That's why I like him. But he doesn't have broad appeal like Rogan does. Klein isn't interviewing standup comics, porn stars, etc.
Maybe we don't need a left-wing Joe Rogan. Maybe we need a new Howard Stern. There's an idea.