Dare to be 'cringe'

By now, you have probably heard the argument that the Democrats need their own Joe Rogan. A non-political podcaster who leans right, Rogan attracts a largely male audience. As his guest, Donald Trump came off as not only non-toxic but likable. Some Democratic strategists believe that made the difference in 2024. They say the party needs a Rogan, too.

Some think Hasan Piker is the one. A popular podcaster who also draws a largely male audience, Piker talks about politics from the view of the far left. Jacobin, a leading socialist publication, defended him against recent criticism by a prominent centrist think tank. 

“Democrats spent the last year asking where their Joe Rogan was," Ryan Zickgraf wrote. "Hasan Piker is one of the few leftwing figures with the audience they covet — but the party is deeply hostile to the spontaneity and independence that make figures like him appealing.”

“Spontaneity and independence” are … generous terms.

Among other controversial remarks, Piker said this about Republican Dan Crenshaw, the Texas congressman who lost an eye fighting in Afghanistan: “Didn't he go to war and, like, literally lose his eye because some mujahideen – a brave fucking soldier – fucked his eye-hole with his dick?” He has also said Israelis are inbred and that America deserved 9/11.

These are just three examples. There are many more.

There is a debate over Hasan Piker that’s being framed as one between Democrats versus “the left.” It is phony. First, because Piker is not a progressive Joe Rogan. (Magdi Jacob breaks down the difference in the footnote.) Second, because the framing itself is deceptive.

When it comes to “leftists” like Piker, and there are many online, we are not talking about people involved in competing factions across the spectrum of American left-liberalism. 

We are not talking about centrists versus progressives. We are not talking about liberals versus socialists. We are not talking about people who wish to work in good faith through universal principles and democratic institutions like equal treatment under law, free speech, democratic accountability, separation of powers, an independent judiciary, and so forth.

Instead, we are talking about people who are creating, in online spaces, their own countervailing "realities" with which to establish dominance over perceived enemies.

Unlike leftists of the old American sort, they do not mind hierarchies. What they mind is who’s on top of them. They use the language and arguments of revolution – anti-racism, anti-colonialism, etc. – in the hopes of making a new order by which they are in control.

This urge to dominate and control is easy to see in Hasan Piker’s insult of Dan Crenshaw. But it comes in harder-to-see forms. For instance, “cringe” is a frequent insult hurled at people who are genuine, sincere, forthright and who demand that others live up to high moral standards, which is to say, traits of the American liberal resistance to Donald Trump.

In the online world of “leftist” politics, that's “cringe,” said Alan Elrod in Liberal Currents. “Cringe politics are not just rejected for being uncool but for being too girly, too motherly.” 

“We are still being subjected to endless discourse about the supposed need for macho, beer-swilling, pot-smoking commentators on the left who can go toe-to-toe with the right’s manosphere influencers and cancellation-seeking comedians," Alan wrote recently.

We don’t need all that, Alan said. All we need is the “mutual trust and care” that are “prerequisites to establishing meaningful relationships.” All we need, I would add, and I'm sure Alan would agree, is faith and a collective dedication to the universal principles and democratic institutions that make America great. If that requires us to be cringe, so be it.

Alan Elrod is the president and CEO of the Pulaski Institution, an Arkansas-based nonprofit focused on democracy in heartland areas. He is a frequent contributor to Liberal Currents.

Here's our conversation:

In your piece, you discuss at length the idea of “cringe” – a plain straightforward demand for morally upright action. Why is “cringe” a problem for so many people on the left?

I think that a lot of people who have developed their politics in very online spaces have also adopted the detached style that tends to dominate there. You get more attention and engagement for being funny, especially if you can be funny and mean at the same time, than for being earnest. And so it tends to create a feedback loop.

You cite Elle Reeve. She said “irony … is not real” to those who practice ironic communication. “It does not matter what someone really believes.” If you don’t stand for something, you’ll fall for anything. That’s why cheap sensationalists like Hasan Piker can pass themselves off as progressives. Thoughts?

I should clarify that I do believe irony is real if we mean irony in the arts — satirical plays and movies, fiction writing, etc. But the ironic style in American politics is mostly a charade. It’s often a false cover for the things we actually want to say. And more dangerously, it can even help radicalize us by giving us permission to perform as a kind of person that ends up becoming who we are.

You say “cringe” is gender-coded. To ask people to live by high moral standards is somehow seen as mommy-talk. And anything that sounds like mommy is to be rejected out of hand. From my viewpoint, this is deeply stupid. Is that too hard?

I think misogyny is deeply stupid! But it is also deeply ingrained so we’ll have to mount rigorous efforts to eradicate it. I’m very uncomfortable with people on the progressive side of politics accepting the right’s terms on what constitutes strength and weakness. The idea that a certain kind of gentler, more curious politics is weak is, I think, certainly rooted in the idea that it’s more feminine. As is the disdain for middle-aged and middle-class women at protests. Moms can’t be cool. Dads can. It’s all tied up in misogyny.

If I understand you, there is a faction that believes the left must countervail the so-called manosphere on the right. Because of that, the incentive to be ironic is growing, as sincerity is unmanly. But, again, from where I’m standing, this isn’t an alternative manhood. It’s alternative boyhood. Same juvenile behavior coded for the left. Too cringe?

I don’t think we can defeat any form of toxic politics by aping its styles. And I think the idea that it’s necessary to adopt bullying or macho politics in order to defeat the right isn’t just practically wrong. It’s morally poisonous. As Vonnegut says “we are who we pretend to be.” I don’t think we can practice toxic, misogynistic and cruel politics and expect anything other than to become those things. Winning on those terms just means making America more toxic, misogynistic and cruel.

Criticism of “cringe” seems more than gendered-coded. It’s white-coded, too. It’s discourse that takes for granted privileges that come from being a white man in America. So there’s an incentive not only to avoid talking about politics in sincere terms but to discourage everyone else from talking that way by championing irony. Maybe it’s just me.

Both cringe and irony are often white-coded. They tend to evoke a certain kind of white person, the former a middle-class mom and the latter a 20-something guy. It’s another reason I find the irony-poisoning on the internet so lame. It’s really not particularly rebellious. It’s the behavior of the most obnoxious guy you know at your local coffeeshop.

Footnote

My friend, the brilliant Magdi Jacobs, explained recently the difference between Joe Rogan and Hasan Piker. The most important difference is that Piker is almost entirely political but especially that his politics are like that of the Soviet Union or Chinese Communist Party.

It's time to do an analysis of relative power. How does Joe Rogan derive his immense power and how does that differ from Piker?

Specifically: thousands of different people appear on Rogan, including comedians, scientists, UFC fighters, conspiracy theorists, and, also, politicians. This means that Rogan works as a political influence vector because people show up for MMA, or weed chat, or whatever Jordan Peterson is yammering about, and they get politics as a byproduct.

Rogan also has influence in other domains, not just politics. For example, there's been a long-running intra-hunter debate on whether or not he's had a positive/negative influence on the sport. So Rogan draws people in on one topic, then exposes them to a whole lot else, including politics.

Rogan is politically ambiguous to the general public. We Democrats might see him as extremely rightwing, but that's not what draws all his listeners in. So, in Rogan's case, we have a macho dude whose reach is sprawling precisely because he has content diversity and political ambiguity.

This gives him influencer-status across the board.

Now contrast that with Piker. Piker's content is almost exclusively just one thing: talking about politics from a "far-left" perspective.

He's a dude ranting Chinese Community Party propaganda at like-minded people and occasionally electrocuting his dog. That's it.

The entire "Should Democrats accept Piker?" discussion assumes that Piker is bringing people in, what we would call a "reach" asset.

That's what Rogan is for maga, to some extent. But Piker is not a "reach" asset.

Piker is talking to either like-minded people or people who hate him. And he is speaking on one topic (politics) from one perspective ("leftism"). He keeps the already converted engaged to what's essentially CCP/Russian style "leftism."

When you engage with him, that's who you're engaging with.

Stop comparing Hasan Piker to Joe Rogan. When you do this, you overestimate Piker's power and misunderstand Rogan's influence.