The entire history of American conservatism in the time I’ve been alive is just that scene from Cabaret about how the far right are a bunch of brainless thugs but they’re useful and can be controlled. Rufo counts as an establishment figure now so of course he’s falling victim to the same brain virus that the conservative establishment has always suffered from: the belief that you can throw red meat at violent borderline psychotic fascists to win their support and not have them turn on you or grow beyond your control.
As a side note, the former first assistant U.S. Attorney Joseph H. Thompson, who put to sleep the Al Shabab financing hoax (while insisting the fraud cases were very serious), and who later resigned when the DOJ asked his services to investigate Renee Good's wife rather than Renee Good's killing, is now representing Don Lemon (https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/10/us/joseph-thompson-don-lemon-minneapolis-protest.html).
I took this as the sign that some of the people who resign from federal services rather than bend to the political pressure of the Trump administration are not leaving the fight altogether, but continuing it by other means. Which is... quite heartening ?
(PS : don't anybody get me wrong and think this means he may have pushed aside the Al-Shabab story because he was politically motivated. The prosecutors said there was nothing to it, the FBI and counter-terrorist services (that journalists reached out to) said there was nothing to it, Rufo's key source complained about being misquoted : this story is and has always been a plain hoax.)
The "indispensability of the mob" comment reminded me of a little pet theory I'm developing.
Edith Stein segregated human relations into three groupings: The Mass, Society and Community. If you look at the 18th century community was often strengthened by conservative tradition. Religion helped people see their common humanity, strong family ties (with a patriarch) made the strong protect the weak, etc. Liberals like Kant tried to strengthen society through reform of ideas. And from 1750 through 1973 society strengthened *greatly*, and community weakened.
Over the same time frame the industrial revolution/capitalism basically changed the entire world order. Community was broken down by capitalism/efficiency and there was no way it could hold up in this new system.
But 21st century conservatives think that the reason community broke down is because society was strengthened, so they want to weaken society thinking it will bring back a sense of community.
The problem is ofc that you can't get back to 1700, so by attacking society the only thing left is to rely on empowering "the mass". Trump/Hitler/McCarthy all work by organizing the mass, while hollowing out society.
Liberals continue to try to build up society, because they see the danger of the mass. Neither party is doing a very good job of building up community, but conservatives have deluded themselves into thinking if we attack the middle form of organization, we will move up the chain to community. It isn't working (for obvious reasons) and somehow they don't see it. The most successful politicians are the ones who see the game for what it is and now target the mass.
------
I need more time to flesh out the details, but wanted to write it down & thought you might have insight (or know authors who have talked about this idea as it relates to the era of mass communication)
As an Air Force brat, I grew up in the belly of beast, initially as a hostage to Curtis “Bomb ‘em Back to the Stone Age” LeMay (even lived on an air base in England that had housed the 8th Air Force). I managed to stave off the counter-culture onslaught and stay in the echo chamber of the bipolar world of the Cold War. I remember watching Buckley’s “Firing Line” as a teen and tried to cling to the hope of a trustworthy conservative movement. Passed through a Nixon phase and then allowed my cognitive dissonance to play out. Undergraduate studies didn’t radicalize me, trying to support a family in the era of stagflation and deindustrialization combined with Reagan’s election, the Sandinista revolution, the war in El Salvador, and, yes, John Lennon’s murder exploded that illusion finally for me. By ‘82-‘83, I was helping to organize a student chapter of DSA at San Diego State, while a political science grad student with a far different purpose than arming myself intellectually to fight the Cold War. For some time I felt ashamed of working as a union retail clerk while holding a UC college degree, but I knew I couldn’t play the game, didn’t want to. Those six years (and trying to support a wife and two sons), set me straight on what was up. Grad school studies gave me the intellectual framework to understand it.
The word "movement" in "conservative movement intellectuals" is doing a lot of necessary work. It excludes the Never Trumpers, who have left the movement, but not always their conservatism. It also excludes any conservatives who never joined the movement: folk like James Q. Wilson, the great sociologist.
But yes--the conservative *movement* intellectuals are little more than propagandists for an agenda they do not control. Their job is to lipstick the triune pig: the racism, masculinism, and ressentiment that drive the mob.
I remember back in 2021/22 or so, the NYT ran a piece about Critical Race Theory. Rufo was gloating over the Manhattan Institute's efforts to put all the various cultural insanities under the term "CRT" so that the average person instinctively views it as toxic.
He can f*ck off back to hell as far as I'm concerned
Damn right, thank you. It helps me clock how even in this kind of tweet, Rufo is still playing his designated role of trying to whitewash thuggery.
The tweet puts down a marker from which he can claim ala Buckley and Bozell that he will discern and anoint the mendacious operators on his side to be "men of good will and morality." The MAGA pope will absolve you of your lies and greed, and his own.
Compared to Rufo, there is something almost refreshing in the willingness of vile people like Ann Coulter to admit openly that, say, Donald Trump is monumentally corrupt (which she says with a laugh), but she just doesn't care as long as he fulfills the only thing she cares about by ridding the country of the brown people she loathes.
The infuriating thing is that these von Papenists will all be forgiven when Trump is gone because centrist fanatics will say that 'America needs a responsible Republican party'.
Whenever they need the popular support to carry out the ‘make the rich richer’ agenda, they embrace the goon squad to divert attention from economic issues and ever-widening inequality.
I think they might have done marginally better in the 21st century but the Ross Perot affair, I think, taught conservatives they can’t split their vote with a populist firebrand or they will lose.
Democrats might take a lesson to mind the populist elements of their coalition (hopefully without inciting their worst excesses.) Newsom seems one of few taking heed of this, and I hope other Democrats wake up to this, because otherwise I think Newsom will run away with the nomination.
Voters are desperately craving authenticity and a reprieve from the empowered elite. And Democrats have a golden opportunity to take back Trump voters retreating from
MAGA as they realize their interests are not being minded.
100% and that is a huge reason he should not be the nominee. And he is tainted by decades of Cali politics that conservatives can use to pummel him as extreme on social issues. But he is pandering to populist sentiments and its working for him.
Rufo and his pals have been sowing the wind, without doubt, but I'm not so sure they'll reap the whirlwind. That lot will befall others -- those less wealthy, less well-connected, less fortunate.
Rufo and his gang's tech-bro masters and funders have been hard at work developing and deploying AI-driven systems to monitor and identify every active opponent of the new, emerging postliberal order. Effective opposition and an eventual turning-back of the postliberal authoritarians has become vastly more difficult and dangerous.
So I expect Rufo et al. will be safe and comfy beneath the sheltering wing of the right-wing surveillance state that they have encouraged and supported all these years.
Sophists soph.
The entire history of American conservatism in the time I’ve been alive is just that scene from Cabaret about how the far right are a bunch of brainless thugs but they’re useful and can be controlled. Rufo counts as an establishment figure now so of course he’s falling victim to the same brain virus that the conservative establishment has always suffered from: the belief that you can throw red meat at violent borderline psychotic fascists to win their support and not have them turn on you or grow beyond your control.
As a side note, the former first assistant U.S. Attorney Joseph H. Thompson, who put to sleep the Al Shabab financing hoax (while insisting the fraud cases were very serious), and who later resigned when the DOJ asked his services to investigate Renee Good's wife rather than Renee Good's killing, is now representing Don Lemon (https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/10/us/joseph-thompson-don-lemon-minneapolis-protest.html).
I took this as the sign that some of the people who resign from federal services rather than bend to the political pressure of the Trump administration are not leaving the fight altogether, but continuing it by other means. Which is... quite heartening ?
(PS : don't anybody get me wrong and think this means he may have pushed aside the Al-Shabab story because he was politically motivated. The prosecutors said there was nothing to it, the FBI and counter-terrorist services (that journalists reached out to) said there was nothing to it, Rufo's key source complained about being misquoted : this story is and has always been a plain hoax.)
Like Saturn, the reaction devours its young.
The "indispensability of the mob" comment reminded me of a little pet theory I'm developing.
Edith Stein segregated human relations into three groupings: The Mass, Society and Community. If you look at the 18th century community was often strengthened by conservative tradition. Religion helped people see their common humanity, strong family ties (with a patriarch) made the strong protect the weak, etc. Liberals like Kant tried to strengthen society through reform of ideas. And from 1750 through 1973 society strengthened *greatly*, and community weakened.
Over the same time frame the industrial revolution/capitalism basically changed the entire world order. Community was broken down by capitalism/efficiency and there was no way it could hold up in this new system.
But 21st century conservatives think that the reason community broke down is because society was strengthened, so they want to weaken society thinking it will bring back a sense of community.
The problem is ofc that you can't get back to 1700, so by attacking society the only thing left is to rely on empowering "the mass". Trump/Hitler/McCarthy all work by organizing the mass, while hollowing out society.
Liberals continue to try to build up society, because they see the danger of the mass. Neither party is doing a very good job of building up community, but conservatives have deluded themselves into thinking if we attack the middle form of organization, we will move up the chain to community. It isn't working (for obvious reasons) and somehow they don't see it. The most successful politicians are the ones who see the game for what it is and now target the mass.
------
I need more time to flesh out the details, but wanted to write it down & thought you might have insight (or know authors who have talked about this idea as it relates to the era of mass communication)
Thanks for that. Did a brief dive on Stein because of my interest in solidarity and was rewarded.
As an Air Force brat, I grew up in the belly of beast, initially as a hostage to Curtis “Bomb ‘em Back to the Stone Age” LeMay (even lived on an air base in England that had housed the 8th Air Force). I managed to stave off the counter-culture onslaught and stay in the echo chamber of the bipolar world of the Cold War. I remember watching Buckley’s “Firing Line” as a teen and tried to cling to the hope of a trustworthy conservative movement. Passed through a Nixon phase and then allowed my cognitive dissonance to play out. Undergraduate studies didn’t radicalize me, trying to support a family in the era of stagflation and deindustrialization combined with Reagan’s election, the Sandinista revolution, the war in El Salvador, and, yes, John Lennon’s murder exploded that illusion finally for me. By ‘82-‘83, I was helping to organize a student chapter of DSA at San Diego State, while a political science grad student with a far different purpose than arming myself intellectually to fight the Cold War. For some time I felt ashamed of working as a union retail clerk while holding a UC college degree, but I knew I couldn’t play the game, didn’t want to. Those six years (and trying to support a wife and two sons), set me straight on what was up. Grad school studies gave me the intellectual framework to understand it.
The word "movement" in "conservative movement intellectuals" is doing a lot of necessary work. It excludes the Never Trumpers, who have left the movement, but not always their conservatism. It also excludes any conservatives who never joined the movement: folk like James Q. Wilson, the great sociologist.
But yes--the conservative *movement* intellectuals are little more than propagandists for an agenda they do not control. Their job is to lipstick the triune pig: the racism, masculinism, and ressentiment that drive the mob.
Fabulous! I love you man.
Excellent, as usual
I remember back in 2021/22 or so, the NYT ran a piece about Critical Race Theory. Rufo was gloating over the Manhattan Institute's efforts to put all the various cultural insanities under the term "CRT" so that the average person instinctively views it as toxic.
He can f*ck off back to hell as far as I'm concerned
from buckley to buchanan to rufo, the conservative intellectual is nothing but a thug with a thesaurus
Damn right, thank you. It helps me clock how even in this kind of tweet, Rufo is still playing his designated role of trying to whitewash thuggery.
The tweet puts down a marker from which he can claim ala Buckley and Bozell that he will discern and anoint the mendacious operators on his side to be "men of good will and morality." The MAGA pope will absolve you of your lies and greed, and his own.
Compared to Rufo, there is something almost refreshing in the willingness of vile people like Ann Coulter to admit openly that, say, Donald Trump is monumentally corrupt (which she says with a laugh), but she just doesn't care as long as he fulfills the only thing she cares about by ridding the country of the brown people she loathes.
… and the Jews!
The infuriating thing is that these von Papenists will all be forgiven when Trump is gone because centrist fanatics will say that 'America needs a responsible Republican party'.
Whenever they need the popular support to carry out the ‘make the rich richer’ agenda, they embrace the goon squad to divert attention from economic issues and ever-widening inequality.
I think they might have done marginally better in the 21st century but the Ross Perot affair, I think, taught conservatives they can’t split their vote with a populist firebrand or they will lose.
Democrats might take a lesson to mind the populist elements of their coalition (hopefully without inciting their worst excesses.) Newsom seems one of few taking heed of this, and I hope other Democrats wake up to this, because otherwise I think Newsom will run away with the nomination.
Voters are desperately craving authenticity and a reprieve from the empowered elite. And Democrats have a golden opportunity to take back Trump voters retreating from
MAGA as they realize their interests are not being minded.
If voters are desperately craving authenticity (and I believe they are), Newsom ain’t it
100% and that is a huge reason he should not be the nominee. And he is tainted by decades of Cali politics that conservatives can use to pummel him as extreme on social issues. But he is pandering to populist sentiments and its working for him.
FWIW (nothing), I believed you.
Rufo and his pals have been sowing the wind, without doubt, but I'm not so sure they'll reap the whirlwind. That lot will befall others -- those less wealthy, less well-connected, less fortunate.
Rufo and his gang's tech-bro masters and funders have been hard at work developing and deploying AI-driven systems to monitor and identify every active opponent of the new, emerging postliberal order. Effective opposition and an eventual turning-back of the postliberal authoritarians has become vastly more difficult and dangerous.
So I expect Rufo et al. will be safe and comfy beneath the sheltering wing of the right-wing surveillance state that they have encouraged and supported all these years.