Richard Hanania keeps trying to turn the Groypers into ‘a thing’, writing:
Groyperization is the natural endpoint of what the entire Trump era has been about. And there’s no guarantee that it will burn itself out. The combination of Low Human Capital, the decline of gatekeeping, and news as entertainment model is a powerful one.
I take the opposite view. Despite a large presence online, the Groypers are otherwise greatly outnumbered by mainstream Republicans. Due to demographic and geographic factors, the Groypers are unlikely to become an important or consequential voting bloc. Many are either not eligible voters or are politically disengaged. GOP officials and policymakers recognize this, which is why the views of the Groypers have no influence on party strategy or policy, as we’ve seen on Israel, Iran or other issues. By comparison, the pro-Israel wing is a much more reliable voting bloc.
As the Groypers come of age and have families and jobs, they will likely moderate their politics. Second, the movement is seen as inherently low status compared to the much more successful ‘norm-core right’. This limits their appeal and legitimacy among more successful people who hold levers of power. This was the same problem that faced OWS (remember them?), and similar demographics. It’s one thing to make noise and get attention, but it’s a much taller order to gain legitimacy and to influence important people.
The Groypers are viewed by GOP elites as nothing more than a disaffected, low-turnout minority that can be safely discounted, even if they make a lot of noise and get a lot of media coverage. Yes, wokeness was adopted by the mainstream, but the typical Republican voter has much less in common with the Groypers than the typical Democratic voter does with the far-left. This makes sense due to intersectionality seen on the Left. The typical Dave Ramsey–listening or truck-driving Republican either hasn’t heard of the Groypers or regard them as a petulant distraction.
I hate to break it to Mr. Hanania, but he will never be accepted by the Groypers as an intellectual-equal or fellow traveler to the movement. Obviously his views on Israel and free trade are anathema to what the Groypers stand for, but I’m sure he knows this. I think he wants to be seen as a hip intellectual who can fit in with whatever is cool or trendy. But he’s 3-4 years too late.
As I argue in “Nick Fuentes – the Firestarter of the Right,” ‘Groyperism’ peaked around 2018-2021 due to the confluence several factors: Covid, unrest/riots, and the decline of ‘Trumpism’ following Jan 6th, after which it was widely assumed Trump’s political future was over. The result was leadership void within ‘the right’, which was filled by the likes of DeSantis and various fringe movements and individuals.
Even during Trump’s first term he wasn’t as as big of a force as he is now or as popular among Republicans. Covid and the BLM riots of 2020 saw significant disruption nationally. Fringe/dissident individuals and movements thrive when there is instability and a leadership void. See for example the ’60s or the ’70s, after the post-War boom gave way to stagflation, and the Civil Rights movements. Or in the early ’90s following the collapse of the USSR.
Compare 2016-2021 to now:
Trump’s brand is bigger and more solidified than ever. Despite Trump embracing ‘boomer con’ messaging and policy, it has not hurt his approval ratings. The Goypers attempts over the Summer to use the Epstein files and Israel to divide ‘the base’ and to get voters to disavow Trump, totally and predictably failed.
Billionaire Trump and his jet, his family, and his staff such as Stephen Miller and JD Vance are perceived as much cooler than sénior Fuentes. This has to do with status and public image. Nick gives off vibes of being unsuccessful and a ‘social loser’, even if he has a successful show.
The post-Covid boom of ‘big tech’, strong GDP growth, and strong stock market means more stability economically. The post-2022 ‘AI boom’ has engendered a sort of fatalism, in which we’re sleepwalking towards AGI or some other paradigm shift. This means less uncertainty.
The post-2022 decline of wokeism means an eventual return to ‘politics as usual’ among the right. Trump’s first win was a repudiation of politics as usual, and his reelection was a repudiation wokeness, which had already peaked by early 2022. I take the view that the success of Trump and the decline of wokeness means the decline of the dissident-right.
The podcasting or livestreaming medium, despite putting up large numbers, is surprisingly limited in its influence outside of it. I predict that while Mr. Fuentes will reliably continue to produce episodes of his internet show, as does Tucker and Candice, who are watched by thousands of people, their influence will not escape the confines of that medium.