Most of my critics aren’t very good, but I recently saw one that I think hit upon something. The streamer Patrick Casey has a theory as to why I seem to enjoy the antics of people like Fuentes and Fishback.
According to Casey, I’ve been documenting the Groyperization and human capital decline of the conservative movement and predicting that it will accelerate. The worse things get, the more I can feel like a genius.
There is certainly something there. I do like feeling smart and being right about things. I’ve been disgusted with the right, and constantly harp on how a movement this divorced from good epistemological practices and knowledge-producing institutions is on the road to hell. Facebook rumors and social media algorithms are powerful on both sides, but on the left, this is at least balanced by a substantial number of people in the coalition who are educated, informed, and read serious newspapers and magazines, meaning that they know something about current events and are exposed to the views of smart people who have thought carefully about issues.
Conservatives don’t read real news, and neither do young people. So young conservatives represent a place on the Venn diagram where you will find some of the most poorly-informed voters out there. They are the perfect demographic to be taken in by grifters. A recent New York Times profile of Fishback supporters provides insights on this. One of them is a 20-year-old who had his political awakening when Kanye West published a list “of names of Jewish people who are in control of banking systems and stuff like that.” This kid feels helpless when researching Epstein conspiracy theories online, and says he can’t distinguish what is real from what is AI, but is glad to have Fishback as someone who can serve as a guide to understanding how the world works.
This is not a paywall. The rest of this article is available to free subscribers to the newsletter. Just leave your email below to continue reading.
In 2016, liberals took the position that Hillary had a 99% of winning. At least subconsciously, wishful thinking seems to have been their bias -- "it can't happen here." Now, in 2026, liberal institutions seem to have woken up to the threat of right-wing populism, and prefer to highlight it (and maybe even exaggerate it).
Even if Fishback has much less than a 10% chance of winning, it is still a better strategy to exaggerate the threat than to ignore it. If you can do this while wearing a smile and enjoying yourself, all the better.
Where "exaggeration" becomes harmful is when it is hysterical. We've all seen the tiktoks of liberals screaming and crying, which is not a winning message. Smugly proclaiming "I told you so" is much more attractive than having a mental breakdown.
The more that we draw attention to Fishback, the more Republican donors are to sit out or flip sides. The more moderate GOP donors we can peel off, the larger the war chest becomes for moderate Democrats. It's a win-win.
When you point out that Fishback is extreme, the net effect is not to make moderate conservatives into extremists -- its to make them more sympathetic to Democrats. This is because moderation is largely a product of personality traits, and individuals would rather switch coalitions than remain "ideologically loyal" to a brand. This will be even more true once the GOP loses its charismatic figurehead in Trump (we already noticed a split in the GOP flare up with the death of the great uniter, Charlie Kirk).
Reading that Fishback represents the future of American conservatism was a pretty depressing way to start my day.