Populism versus the Globalist Elite

Populism versus the Globalist Elite. Darren Beattie, in an interview with Mark Granza.

Darren Beattie is a former speechwriter, White House official under the Trump administration, and the publisher of Revolver News. He holds a B.S. in mathematics from the University of Chicago and a Ph.D. in political theory from Duke University.

Trump’s election in 2016 proves democracy was still working then:

Here you have a guy opposed unanimously by every single powerful institution in society: from the leadership of his party, the leadership of the opposing party, the entire corporate world, the military-industrial complex, the national security apparatus, the mass media — pretty much every single institution that matters, not only opposed him but actively conspired against him. And he still ended up winning an election….

So while there’s a question as to whether that could ever be repeated now that the powers that be are on high alert, at least at the time that someone could run and win just because he had popular support was a very encouraging sign. …

But then you have to look at how the presidency played out and how the opposition not only didn’t stop when Trump was elected, but in fact intensified. It’s true that Trump sort of let his guard down and governed fairly moderately, certainly not in the way that was commensurate with the stakes involved as reflected in the election. But still, the fact that he wasn’t able to implement his agenda because of the strong opposition from all these powerful institutions was a very cynical lesson, which suggests it is precisely those institutions in the end that decide what can or cannot get done. …

You need some of the elite on side to run a country:

You do need a faction of the ruling class behind you in order to be effective in governance. You know, people conflate populism with just lowbrow, mass behavior, and these kinds of things. But it’s clearly necessary to also cultivate an elite, both cultural and intellectual, and capture the institutions that serve to reinforce your ideas once you get political power so you don’t have to find yourself again in this situation where you nominally have government, but functionally you’re kind of impotent. …

Even if you take the critique that ultimately the masses can’t exercise power — which, I think, despite there are nuances to it, on some fundamental level it’s true and always has been true — it doesn’t mean that populism can’t be an effective instrument in challenging an existing and dominant faction of an elite. …

Immature tech-bros were easily manipulated by the political left:

A lot of these tech people are very weak; they don’t have what it takes to confront the system.

You saw this with Elon Musk trying to buy Twitter. He dipped his toes in the arena and then ran back with his tail between his legs and all his billions of dollars as soon as he realized what that entails. “I’m sorry guys, I am content to resume my role as glorified IT support for the Regime.” …

Should Trump run in 2024?

I think yes. For all his faults, unlike DeSantis, he has already developed a movement. He has loyal followers. He can go and fill up a stadium of 30,000 extremely dedicated people and have them hang on every word of his. Now there are some downsides to that. To be attached to a particular individual like that it’s an obvious downside of populism. But that’s just basic human nature. All these people who think there’s some strict ideological underpinning beneath Trump the man, and that we can extract it and make it a little softer, more palatable, thus move beyond Trump, fail to understand that most of his voters are attached to him as a person. And that’s just a fact of political psychology. The “cult of personality” around Trump supersedes any kind of ideological allegiances on the part of the populace.

So this notion of “Trumpism without Trump” is only possible if you have someone that can replicate the charisma and build a movement as he has. That’s what the job requires: more than just someone willing to get up on stage and lay out the plan reading from a little policy paper. And without taking anything away from DeSantis, who is awesome, Trump has already done that. We don’t know if DeSantis would be able to implement his policies at a national level, nor how he would function if you put him in a position with the same stakes and coordinated pressures as the 2016 election. That takes a very specific type of skills. …

Confronting the Deep State is going to be painful, and requires sacrifice:

This desire for “Trumpism after Trump” is just a product of people’s constitutional weakness and inability to accept the pain boxes associated with actually challenging the system. They think that if we’d only keep the policies and communicate them in a nicer way, then maybe they wouldn’t be canceled, or have the FBI knocking down on their door, or be called a “racist”. …

To the extent that that’s true, it’s a fool’s errand, because it makes you think you can challenge the Regime without paying the price. But there’s no getting around the pain box. If you’re challenging the Regime, you are going to face the storm.

The color revolution that the globalists, led by the US left, is using to conquer the world:

It’s basically a combination of mass mobilization. So you’re mobilizing people to the streets. You are exploiting preexisting cleavages, either ethnic or religious or so forth, and using that as a motivating basis to get people to protest, using dominance over the media and dissemination of media narratives in order to facilitate that.

Now, this is a core feature of how the United States translates its soft power into geopolitical preeminence overseas. Ever since the Iraq war, there has been a really low level of popular support for anything resembling a boots-on-the-ground war, which even further goes to privilege this alternative method of regime change and projecting influence.

And this is usually done by NGOs that we plant throughout the world, pushing feminism, human rights, and all these kinds of things. Feminism especially is very central to all these color revolutions. If you look at the protests in Eastern Europe, such as in Belarus, or punk groups like the Pussy Riot in Russia, or even Afghanistan, women are always mobilized on the basis of women’s rights.

They identify whatever the preexisting cleavages are and exploit and exacerbate those cleavages in order to create political pressure to undermine our rivals. And of course this method is not just useful overseas. It’s ultimately the same method that’s used over here at home. In the US, these cleavages are principally race and gender, and now with this weird addition of the transgender stuff. But the mechanism is basically the same. …

Racist, white supremacist, disinformation agent — the accusations keep getting worse:

It used to be that you could implicitly threaten complete social ostracism by accusing someone to be a “racist”, or a “white supremacist”, but at some point that wasn’t good enough. So now they add the national security threat on top. “You’re a disinformation agent” means you get filed under a specific national security category which justifies the full weight and force of the national security apparatus to shut you up …

Future of the US is shaky:

I must say I’m not optimistic about the future of the country. But that doesn’t mean I’m a pessimist, you know. Countries come and go. This notion that people should pledge allegiance and remain in perpetuity loyal and sacrifice all sorts of things to the United States of America as this coherent unit, is a kind of false dichotomy. I think there are other ways people can find meaning and exercise power.

Nations and empires come and go and the United States is no exception to that. There’s really no question that the country is in a profound decline. But out of that decline, I think great things can be created.

This guy was a White House official under the Trump administration, and can see it all pretty clearly.