"I’d posit that Rogan fundamentally isn’t a leftist or a conservative. He’s someone who occasionally pays attention to politics, has a just a few firm beliefs (like what he thinks about abortion or drugs), and is genuinely curious and open-minded."
Yeah, he just likes to have interesting conversations -- and, of course, many guys are somewhat interested in politics alongside other issues. Given Kamala is very bad at formal interviews, but seems like a lovely, endearing, and engaging person outside those settings, I'm shocked she turned down this opportunity.
I listen semi regularly to both Rogan and Theo Von. They are stand up comedians doing long form podcast shooting the shit w/ interesting people about so many topics. Kamala interview w/ Rogan likely didn't occur because her campaign insisted marijuana legalization was not to be brought up, because this might naturally lead to how many black & brown males she put in jail for weed, while AG of California.
"In other words, he’s the most high-profile swing voter in America." I can't decide if that comment was genius or simply inspired. Either way, you nailed it!
This beautiful post was full of potent, thought-provoking sentences, even by Zaid's standards, but I agree: This sentence represented a pretty extraordinary moment of nailing it. So grateful to start my day with this open-hearted, open-minded post.
I think I saw someone on MSNBC describing some sort of "fascist rabbit hole" that Rogan herds viewers into, which is totally unhinged. Rogan's sense of humor, & his desire to understand the world around him, are what make his show so good. Apparently, Kamala's staffers think of his show as a fascist recruitment program.
"Rogan's sense of humor, & his desire to understand the world around him, are what makes his show so good." I've only listened a couple of times when he was interviewing authors whose works I enjoy, but those listens showed me exactly what you describe.
The first time I recall listening to Rogan was when Jon Haidt was on to promote The Anxious Generate. I'd only just read a book (Within Reason: A Liberal Public Health for an Illiberal Time) in which author/public health expert Sandro Galea drew on Joe Rogan as an example of what public health should today aspire to (again) be. Wrote Galea:
"he is frequently out of his depth. What separates him from many other high-profile interviewers is that he makes no effort to hide this. Rogan will often pause conversation to ask guests to explain concepts to him, sometimes quite basic ones. He issues corrections and responds to new information in real time, learning on the spot in front of a vast community of listeners. It could well be that he is trusted by millions not because he cloaks his ignorance in authoritative tones, but because he does precisely the opposite, deriving authority from a candid acknowledgment of his limits while working to broaden those limits, one conversation at time. Might we perhaps learn from this?"
When I began listening to the Haidt episode, I did so with a mind to see how well Joe Rogan matched Galea's representation of Rogan. The match was excellent, as is the match between this post's representation of Rogan and actual-Rogan.
There is no way KH could have handled a real Rogan interview and everyone on her campaign knew it. They tried to dictate the terms to mitigate that fact.
Don't forget believes in a social safety net, pro gun, thinks corporations will do bad things if they can get away with it, and thinks law enforcement needs to be held accountable but hated the 2020 BLM riots. He is also one of those rare individuals who thinks both Hamas and Israel can engage in bad behavior.
I had not previously realized how closed-minded "progressives" were.
One would think, with her enormous budget, at least one of Kamala's campaign staffers could have invested a few days watching Rogan videos. But since they couldn't even be bothered to address the financial distress afflicting the working class, & much of the middle class, it's not really that surprising.
Zaid, I discovered your substack from your also great piece at New Lines Magazine on the election. I rarely sub to substack but need to read your work regularly. I'm a late 60s Michigan Daily, Liberation News Service, Student Communications Network journalist who is returning to the fold. I've got the bug again. Here is my Election Analysis Bib, and on my home page are two preliminary How t=To Survive the Next Four Years analyses: https://michaelalandover.substack.com/p/2024-election-analysis
Wait, you mean I cn comment without being a paid suscriber? Zaid, this is the third piece of yours that this former Michigan Daily, LNS, SCN journalist of the late 60s, and born-again substacker and op-ed writer as read. I found you from this great piece: https://newlinesmag.com/argument/how-democrats-lost-minority-voters/. I hope we can be in touch. See my bibliogaphy of Election Analsysis items at my Lagniappe section and my How to Survive the Next Four Years Part 1 and Part 2 on the home pageo of my substack Speaking from the Heart? Who knew about Joe Rogan? Pgogessives and many of the left are isolated from what our own neighbors and co-workers really think. No wonder the Harris and Senator Brown lost. https://michaelalandover.substack.com/p/2024-election-analysis
This is exactly how establishment Republicans responded when Obama beat McCain and Romney. How did that work out for them?
Even if what you’re saying is true it is irrelevant. The electorate isn’t going anywhere - especially considering Trump is likely to succeed in deporting most of the 10 million illegal immigrants democrats imported. Whatever one’s opinions are about Trump, he won by listening to what people wanted and promising to deliver it, not by telling them they will accept what their Washington masters give them and like it.
While I like this content whole, I especially appreciate that last sentence. I didn't vote for Trump, but I'd like that sentence all by itself, if only Substack had such a feature.
A credulous fool who gets Mark Zuckerberg to admit the FBI pressured Facebook to engage in censorship, JD Vance to go into detail about the Trump administration’s policy plans, and numerous other powerful or influential figures to share newsworthy things they never would reveal in a legacy media format.
A significant chunk of the American public believes the moon landings were faked, a 2nd gunman killed JFK, George W Bush masterminded 9/11, surgical masks are an effective prophylactic against respiratory viruses, angels and demons are real, American elections are subject to systematic fraud, Donald Trump is an agent of the Russian FSB, and other things that are either demonstrably false or inherently unfalsifiable.
If we censored, deplatformed, or dismissed everyone who held at least one wacky belief, public discourse would cease to exist.
"I’d posit that Rogan fundamentally isn’t a leftist or a conservative. He’s someone who occasionally pays attention to politics, has a just a few firm beliefs (like what he thinks about abortion or drugs), and is genuinely curious and open-minded."
Yeah, he just likes to have interesting conversations -- and, of course, many guys are somewhat interested in politics alongside other issues. Given Kamala is very bad at formal interviews, but seems like a lovely, endearing, and engaging person outside those settings, I'm shocked she turned down this opportunity.
I listen semi regularly to both Rogan and Theo Von. They are stand up comedians doing long form podcast shooting the shit w/ interesting people about so many topics. Kamala interview w/ Rogan likely didn't occur because her campaign insisted marijuana legalization was not to be brought up, because this might naturally lead to how many black & brown males she put in jail for weed, while AG of California.
https://www.foxnews.com/media/joe-rogan-says-kamala-harris-campaign-had-condition-avoid-marijuana-legalization-talk-interview
That’s incredible. I can’t believe they didn’t want her to talk about that issue.
"In other words, he’s the most high-profile swing voter in America." I can't decide if that comment was genius or simply inspired. Either way, you nailed it!
This beautiful post was full of potent, thought-provoking sentences, even by Zaid's standards, but I agree: This sentence represented a pretty extraordinary moment of nailing it. So grateful to start my day with this open-hearted, open-minded post.
Trump was *authentically* Trump, whatever you think of that.
The Democratic Party today is a walking HR department, its anti-authenticity. That repels Rogan.
I think I saw someone on MSNBC describing some sort of "fascist rabbit hole" that Rogan herds viewers into, which is totally unhinged. Rogan's sense of humor, & his desire to understand the world around him, are what make his show so good. Apparently, Kamala's staffers think of his show as a fascist recruitment program.
And that's why they lost.
"Rogan's sense of humor, & his desire to understand the world around him, are what makes his show so good." I've only listened a couple of times when he was interviewing authors whose works I enjoy, but those listens showed me exactly what you describe.
The first time I recall listening to Rogan was when Jon Haidt was on to promote The Anxious Generate. I'd only just read a book (Within Reason: A Liberal Public Health for an Illiberal Time) in which author/public health expert Sandro Galea drew on Joe Rogan as an example of what public health should today aspire to (again) be. Wrote Galea:
"he is frequently out of his depth. What separates him from many other high-profile interviewers is that he makes no effort to hide this. Rogan will often pause conversation to ask guests to explain concepts to him, sometimes quite basic ones. He issues corrections and responds to new information in real time, learning on the spot in front of a vast community of listeners. It could well be that he is trusted by millions not because he cloaks his ignorance in authoritative tones, but because he does precisely the opposite, deriving authority from a candid acknowledgment of his limits while working to broaden those limits, one conversation at time. Might we perhaps learn from this?"
When I began listening to the Haidt episode, I did so with a mind to see how well Joe Rogan matched Galea's representation of Rogan. The match was excellent, as is the match between this post's representation of Rogan and actual-Rogan.
There is no way KH could have handled a real Rogan interview and everyone on her campaign knew it. They tried to dictate the terms to mitigate that fact.
Spot on Zaid!!
Don't forget believes in a social safety net, pro gun, thinks corporations will do bad things if they can get away with it, and thinks law enforcement needs to be held accountable but hated the 2020 BLM riots. He is also one of those rare individuals who thinks both Hamas and Israel can engage in bad behavior.
Perfectly encapsulates my thoughts on the situation, very well said!
I had not previously realized how closed-minded "progressives" were.
One would think, with her enormous budget, at least one of Kamala's campaign staffers could have invested a few days watching Rogan videos. But since they couldn't even be bothered to address the financial distress afflicting the working class, & much of the middle class, it's not really that surprising.
Zaid when are YOU going to be on the Pod?
Zaid, I discovered your substack from your also great piece at New Lines Magazine on the election. I rarely sub to substack but need to read your work regularly. I'm a late 60s Michigan Daily, Liberation News Service, Student Communications Network journalist who is returning to the fold. I've got the bug again. Here is my Election Analysis Bib, and on my home page are two preliminary How t=To Survive the Next Four Years analyses: https://michaelalandover.substack.com/p/2024-election-analysis
Wait, you mean I cn comment without being a paid suscriber? Zaid, this is the third piece of yours that this former Michigan Daily, LNS, SCN journalist of the late 60s, and born-again substacker and op-ed writer as read. I found you from this great piece: https://newlinesmag.com/argument/how-democrats-lost-minority-voters/. I hope we can be in touch. See my bibliogaphy of Election Analsysis items at my Lagniappe section and my How to Survive the Next Four Years Part 1 and Part 2 on the home pageo of my substack Speaking from the Heart? Who knew about Joe Rogan? Pgogessives and many of the left are isolated from what our own neighbors and co-workers really think. No wonder the Harris and Senator Brown lost. https://michaelalandover.substack.com/p/2024-election-analysis
Um - he’s a scaredy cat shilly-shallower!
Liberals searching for their own Joe Rogan don't realize that they had it....it was Joe Rogan
He’s a credulous fool — like most voters.
This is exactly how establishment Republicans responded when Obama beat McCain and Romney. How did that work out for them?
Even if what you’re saying is true it is irrelevant. The electorate isn’t going anywhere - especially considering Trump is likely to succeed in deporting most of the 10 million illegal immigrants democrats imported. Whatever one’s opinions are about Trump, he won by listening to what people wanted and promising to deliver it, not by telling them they will accept what their Washington masters give them and like it.
While I like this content whole, I especially appreciate that last sentence. I didn't vote for Trump, but I'd like that sentence all by itself, if only Substack had such a feature.
A credulous fool who gets Mark Zuckerberg to admit the FBI pressured Facebook to engage in censorship, JD Vance to go into detail about the Trump administration’s policy plans, and numerous other powerful or influential figures to share newsworthy things they never would reveal in a legacy media format.
Sometimes admitting (or even feigning) ignorance is a GREAT interview tactic. Columbo also comes to mind. :D
He’s not feigning.
A credulous fool who believed the moonlanding was faked.
A significant chunk of the American public believes the moon landings were faked, a 2nd gunman killed JFK, George W Bush masterminded 9/11, surgical masks are an effective prophylactic against respiratory viruses, angels and demons are real, American elections are subject to systematic fraud, Donald Trump is an agent of the Russian FSB, and other things that are either demonstrably false or inherently unfalsifiable.
If we censored, deplatformed, or dismissed everyone who held at least one wacky belief, public discourse would cease to exist.
Yes, because a “significant chunk” of the American public are also credulous fools. That’s why a life-long con man has made president. Twice.
You seem to be taking this critique of a foolish podcaster and a foolish electorate personally. I wonder why…
Are you a significant chunk?