You see less protests on the right because the media is not sympathetic to protests on the right, so there is little benefit. As a case in point, in the late 80s and early 90's "Operation Rescue" was an organized pro-life activist protest movement. Pro-life protesters blocked the doors of abortion clinics with their bodies, preventing entry. These were very controversial protests, with abortion clinics and pro-choice groups claiming that the protesters caused violence and property damage, while the pro-life protest groups claimed they were peaceful but often attacked by police and counter-protesters.
Certainly the movement had a lot in common with left wing protests, such as sit-ins or blocking traffic or taking over events and the like. The main difference is that in the case of Operation Rescue the media coverage was almost universally negative. When a left wing group blocks a road, they can expect to get a lot of sympathetic media attention and get the word out. When Operation Rescue blocked abortion clinic doors, they got headlines describing them as militant, exteme, aggressive, and violent. The articles were full of sympathetic quotes form abortion clinic employees and pro-choice activists testifying as to how they were victimized by the protesters. In essence, the protests gave their opponents an opportunity to spread awareness, and the media coverage made their own side look barbaric. I'm not saying there was a media conspiracy or anything; there didn't have to be. Most journalists were pro-choice, with no incentive to cover the protests sympathetically.
As for the protesters, they were arrested en masse and for the most part the justice system threw the book at them. In 1994 the Supreme Court ruled that abortion clinics could use RICO, a 1970s anti-organized crime law, to sue Operation Rescue protesters. Under RICO they could sue for triple monetary damages and prison sentences of up to 20 years for individual protesters. As one fairly typical example, a pastor named Randy Alcorn who participated in the protest (and was arrested multiple times as a result) was sued under the RICO law, and was required to pay the abortion clinic he protested $8.2 million in damages. They garnished his wages, so in order to pay the clinic as little money as possible Alcorn quit his job and has worked at minimum wage ever since. Alcorn was not an unusual example.
Then in 1994 Congress passed the FACE act which made it a federal offense to use physical obstruction to interfere with any person obtaining an abortion. First time non-violent violators face up to six months in prison and $10,000 in fines, with up to 18 months in prison or $25,000 in fines for repeat non-violent violations. Operation Rescue was pretty much dead in the water after that.
In other words, when the right wing protests the way the left wing protests, they do not get any benefit from media coverage, they go to jail, and they get sued under the same rules that apply to mobsters. That's why you see less of it: the consequences are far harsher than for left wing protesters.
Right. Authorities punish right wing protests and ignore or even reward left wing protests. Many left wing protestors even end up with huge state payouts.
Thousands of left wing protestors were jailed due to actions in 2020 alone. There's actually a whole database that's run by the Prosecution Project, available here:
The fact that it takes destruction on the scale of a category 2 hurricane for violent leftists to face any consequences whatsoever (how many leftists arrested in 2020 faced consequences anywhere close to that of taking an unguided tour of the capitol in 2021?) does not make the point you seem to think it makes.
What about it is untrue? It is a documented fact that the riots in 2020 caused north of $2 billion in insured damages (not to mention uninsured damages), and over two dozen deaths. This is roughly the equivalent of Hurricane Dolly in 2008, a category 2 hurricane.
I doubt you can name any perpetrators of this wave of destruction who faced any serious prison time whatsoever, much less the sort of egregious (and unconstitutional) treatment faced by those who entered the capitol in January 2021.
Therefore, it is obviously false that "it takes destruction on the scale of a category 2 hurricane for violent leftists to face any consequences whatsoever."
Henry Parker is currently serving 30 years in prison for his destructive acts. Frank Calluzzi, 14 years. There is that protester who murdered a guy and got pardoned by Texas's governor, so I guess that doesn't count. Cody Tarner, currently serving 10 years for arson of a police vehicle. I can keep doing this, but I am less interested in utterly pointless point-scoring than you.
The idea that the conduct on January 6th amounted to no more than an unguided tour is obviously insane. I have never been on an unguided tour of a building where I broke in through a window and assaulted police officers. This sort of sane-washing is just completely discrediting.
I don't disagree that left wing protesters get jailed. I may have spent too much time focusing on how the justice system came down on Operation Rescue, because the larger point is that when left wing protesters get jailed they have a decent chance of "raising awareness" by getting some sympathetic or even neutral media coverage. When right wing protesters get jailed it almost always leads to negative media coverage and raising awareness for their political opponents instead. This is because very few journalists are on the right: in 1982 only 18% of journalists identified as Republicans, compared to twice as many who identified as Democrats, and today only 3.4% of journalists identify as Republicans (https://www.theamericanjournalist.org/post/american-journalist-findings). So right wing protesters get the negatives of getting arrested, without the positives of raising awareness and earning sympathy or support for their cause.
This may be changing though, as legacy media is less and less important and independent journalism is rising in prominence. We'll see I guess.
Another factor is that conservatives are generally not sympathetic to disruptive protests in general (Republicans are generally the "law and order" party, after all), so when right wing protesters are causing disruptions left wing politicians can often get the support of right wing politicians to crack down on them: thus things like the FACE act. Also, until fairly recently more judges were left wing than right wing (I think that still may be the case when it comes to lower courts, but I'm not sure), so you got more situations like abortion protesters getting ruled as racketeers by the Supreme Court. That has also changed, so the conditions may be right for a possible resurgence of right wing disruptive protest.
Westboro Baptist would be the one right-wing example that goes for theater and garish signs. They share the urgency about something extremely serious and yet widely ignored.
As an evangelical myself, the funny thing is, we believed some of the same things technically as Westboro, but most Christians lack the kind of psychology that wants to do that sort of thing. Street evangelism is the furthest some go.
I think that left-wingers are undergoing a psychology of religious conversion effectively.
Just some thoughts about the example of "throwing soup on famous paintings":
When I heard about that for the first time, I thought it was the most moronic counter-productive thing, but I have come to change my mind about it.
First of all, they didn't throw soup on any painting, they threw soup at glass.
But the thing that made me change my mind was an interview of the protestors in a TV show (the most popular and also the most shitty TV show in France). On the set, they were accused of "deserving their cause" and only arouse hate for their movement. They were asked "why didn't they go through normal means of revendications, like petitions, and non-disrupting protests". The answer was: "Well we did all of that. Why didn't you invite us then?"
I suppose there is a parallel with the animal holocaust. Many carnist will say that vocal activists are dESServing ThEir cAUSe as soon as they encounter any cognitive dissonance. According to them, a good vegan is a vegan who hides their veganism. Like sure, this is what will help the animals the most... (I've personally been accused of that so many times since I started being vocal, yet I've done so much more than when I was silent. Weird...)
I also think the left likes to think of themselves as part of a Whig history-like narrative where all the correct people from history textbooks (e.g. the Civil Rights movement) engaged in protests to get what they want. Notice how there's been a narrative recently that student protests are always correct. https://reason.com/volokh/2024/04/26/student-movements-are-often-wrong/
I liked the article and agree with it, but wanted to add that I think the activist right is more similar in style to the activist left than many realize. The right's most common justification for spreading falsehoods about immigrants ("they're eating the dogs", "they're bringing rapists", etc) is that the media and the left ignored immigration for many years when the right was more respectable. To them Trump's bombastic rhetoric (now imitated by many others) is bringing attention to an important issue: immigrants are bad for the country they move to. in this way of thinking, small lies told about individual immigrants and groups of immigrants pale in comparison to and are justified by the big lies the left and the media tell (implied to be "immigrants are good for the country they move to").
Loudly lying isn't the same as throwing soup on a painting, but both produce outrage and consequently attention. Both seem to stem from a worldview that "X is a very important issue not getting the attention it deserves and it's ok to do somewhat bad things with the goal of getting people to pay attention to X". I used to be mildly in favor of such a worldview, but like Matt Iglesias (ironically), I've become more skeptical of it.
I definitely think we’ll be seeing more off-putting rightist protests. Anecdotally, there’s a guy and his wife who come and stand outside my high school with a big sign reading “SODOMY IS SIN” because we have I think a couple rainbow flags in the window. He’s been around before, written some angry emails to the principal—but this is the first year he’s doing this.
As the MAGAs deal more in grand conspiratorial narratives (just like lefties have been doing, especially since 2008), I’m sure we’ll see more SODOMY guys and Jan 6–inspired events.
Great article. Not sure about the theatre correlation though, thats probably just political activism in general (just look at James O’Keefe’s embarrassing antics)
I think your claim that right wingers don't engage in as many protests is fairly anecdotal. March for Life, Westboro Baptist Church, and Charlottesville all come to mind. Some more data might be needed here to validate either side.
I also would probably push back on your reasoning that the right doesn't engage in bizarre protests just because they protest less. I think the reason they don't engage in such protests is because most of their "existential threats" border closely to conspiracy (per the example you mentioned of Haitian immigrants) and thus don't have enough substantial truth value to warrant violent commitment. In areas where it's a bit more grey, such as abortion, radical demonstrations are more apparent. Put bluntly, the conservative position will always have less existential threats because it is always favoring people in power.
Another right-wing protest that I haven't seen anyone mention yet were the different protests regarding COVID mandates, many of which involved parading around with guns in front of state capitols and one of which involved blockading downtown Ottowa with trucks.
There was another protest a few years earlier about a statue in Charlottesville, which involved tiki torches and the chant "Jews will not replace us."
I like Yglesias's commentary. It is always careful, never simplistic, and open to revision. He doesn't deserve this!
Progressivism in the United States grows out of Protestantism. Protest -- literally making a show of your beliefs -- is in the label. The righteous are justified by faith alone. There is no way to know if you are part of the Elect, but visible indicators may include public displays of righteous living, devotion, and moral and philanthropic conduct. (Work as hard as possible, but the Other should always receive the proceeds.) Activism is a way to confirm your election. It is a visible sign that you are chosen by God, that history moves in one direction, and you are on the Right Side of it. This gets unconsciously carried over to the secular and political realms when Protestants go atheist.
American Protestantism is Puritanical. As Santayana once remarked, a Puritan believes three things: sin exists, sin deserves to be punished, and it is beautiful that sin should be punished. I can say more prosaically, looking from the inside rather than the outside of what was once Mainline Protestantism (full fedora now), that Puritanical behavior (politically correct, woke, and whatever the next iteration is) is too often a hypocritical exercise where one punches down on a perceived weak target in a humorless, self-serving way. It can even be bullying, terrorism, and destruction for its own sake under the air of do-gooderism -- look at the history of the 1500s to Antifa today. It isn't exclusive to the left but is its core animating spirit -- the northeast is the most progressive for a reason. There is also substantial cultural overlap with Judaism and its concept of Chosenness.
I generally prefer liberal policies. It is just good to know where the witch-burner mentality comes from before we start speculating about mutational load, imagining deep state conspiracies, blaming "cultural Marxists" for brainwashing the kids, and whatnot. If anything, the obnoxious moralism, with its coded language, signals to others mutual belonging to a certain social stratum, like wearing a specific brand of watch. There is an element of hypocrisy to this stuff that Ellis Island Americans don't always detect.
The mainstream criticism of environmental movements is fundamentally weak and inadequate. Critics typically retreat into tepid, neutered arguments that reveal more about their own intellectual timidity than any genuine engagement with the core issues.
Their critiques are invariably shallow:
- "They're sort of correct, but they're too extreme."
- "Even if they're right, they shouldn't be blocking roads."
- The perennial favorite: pointing out supposed hypocrisy, as if that undermines the substantive arguments.
But the real problem runs far deeper than these superficial dismissals. The foundational premises of environmentalist claims are riddled with misconceptions and unexamined assumptions.
Consider the widespread beliefs that are taken as gospel:
- Artificial fertilizers are "bad"
- Factory farming is inherently evil
- Processed foods are dangerous
- Organic food is healthier
- Free-range eggs have magical nutritional properties
- "Eating local" is somehow environmentally virtuous
These are not just minor errors—they represent a systematic misunderstanding of agricultural science, nutrition, and ecological dynamics.
Yet even these factual inaccuracies pale in comparison to the truly problematic core ideology: the notion that industrial civilization is inherently destructive and that "nature" requires protection from human progress.
This romantic, anti-human perspective must be decisively challenged. Humanity's capacity to reshape the world is not a sin—it is our birthright. If certain species cannot adapt to the transformative power of human civilization, that is not a tragedy. It is simply the natural order of evolutionary pressure.
In fact, I would go further. We should:
- Abolish laws protecting endangered species
- Eliminate biodiversity preservation mandates
- Dismantle nature reserves
Mankind has both the power and the will to remake this planet according to our vision. Any species unable to survive in the world we create has simply failed the ultimate test of evolutionary fitness.
The environmental movement will continue to spawn wave after wave of well-intentioned but fundamentally misguided activists until we are willing to completely deconstruct their foundational ideology.
In the final analysis, an animal or plant can be nothing more than property. They should be afforded no rights beyond those we choose to grant them—as objects of our ownership and utility.
Conservatives , by definition, value the role of institutions. (even today while conservatives think that institutions have failed. They still believe that institutions play a role in society.)
As such, they view the way to make change is working through the correct institutions.
Anecdotally, the bowtie class of conservatives in Washington are too busy writing white papers. And the conservatives who are small business owners are too busy running their business to go throw paint on a masterpiece.
(For the midwits in the comments who will say “what about January 6”…Of course it was inexcusable. The difference between January 6 and the Gaza encampments and just stop oil is that the January 6 cause does not have any backing or support from most mainstream media, or universities…)
I would add that conservative minded people tend to be more outcome/performance focused.
And that conservative typ people imo are much less fond of emotional expression.
Leftists are much more comfortable with emotional inputs, and that tends to be a factor for why actors are more leftist. Either they were a bit leftist, or they were an emotional person but felt supressed by conservative society. And thus their incentive in a sense is becoming more leftist to find a crowd
Can you imagine how right wing protestors - say for the right to own rifles, or harsher limits on abortion - would be treated in the media if they blocked interstates or threw soup on artistic masterpieces?
You see less protests on the right because the media is not sympathetic to protests on the right, so there is little benefit. As a case in point, in the late 80s and early 90's "Operation Rescue" was an organized pro-life activist protest movement. Pro-life protesters blocked the doors of abortion clinics with their bodies, preventing entry. These were very controversial protests, with abortion clinics and pro-choice groups claiming that the protesters caused violence and property damage, while the pro-life protest groups claimed they were peaceful but often attacked by police and counter-protesters.
Certainly the movement had a lot in common with left wing protests, such as sit-ins or blocking traffic or taking over events and the like. The main difference is that in the case of Operation Rescue the media coverage was almost universally negative. When a left wing group blocks a road, they can expect to get a lot of sympathetic media attention and get the word out. When Operation Rescue blocked abortion clinic doors, they got headlines describing them as militant, exteme, aggressive, and violent. The articles were full of sympathetic quotes form abortion clinic employees and pro-choice activists testifying as to how they were victimized by the protesters. In essence, the protests gave their opponents an opportunity to spread awareness, and the media coverage made their own side look barbaric. I'm not saying there was a media conspiracy or anything; there didn't have to be. Most journalists were pro-choice, with no incentive to cover the protests sympathetically.
As for the protesters, they were arrested en masse and for the most part the justice system threw the book at them. In 1994 the Supreme Court ruled that abortion clinics could use RICO, a 1970s anti-organized crime law, to sue Operation Rescue protesters. Under RICO they could sue for triple monetary damages and prison sentences of up to 20 years for individual protesters. As one fairly typical example, a pastor named Randy Alcorn who participated in the protest (and was arrested multiple times as a result) was sued under the RICO law, and was required to pay the abortion clinic he protested $8.2 million in damages. They garnished his wages, so in order to pay the clinic as little money as possible Alcorn quit his job and has worked at minimum wage ever since. Alcorn was not an unusual example.
Then in 1994 Congress passed the FACE act which made it a federal offense to use physical obstruction to interfere with any person obtaining an abortion. First time non-violent violators face up to six months in prison and $10,000 in fines, with up to 18 months in prison or $25,000 in fines for repeat non-violent violations. Operation Rescue was pretty much dead in the water after that.
In other words, when the right wing protests the way the left wing protests, they do not get any benefit from media coverage, they go to jail, and they get sued under the same rules that apply to mobsters. That's why you see less of it: the consequences are far harsher than for left wing protesters.
Right. Authorities punish right wing protests and ignore or even reward left wing protests. Many left wing protestors even end up with huge state payouts.
Thousands of left wing protestors were jailed due to actions in 2020 alone. There's actually a whole database that's run by the Prosecution Project, available here:
https://theprosecutionproject.org/2020/12/22/tracking-federal-cases-related-to-summer-protests-riots-uprisings/
The fact that it takes destruction on the scale of a category 2 hurricane for violent leftists to face any consequences whatsoever (how many leftists arrested in 2020 faced consequences anywhere close to that of taking an unguided tour of the capitol in 2021?) does not make the point you seem to think it makes.
I don't think your statement is true, and I think you're more interested in point-scoring and advancing your narrative of grievance and victimhood.
What about it is untrue? It is a documented fact that the riots in 2020 caused north of $2 billion in insured damages (not to mention uninsured damages), and over two dozen deaths. This is roughly the equivalent of Hurricane Dolly in 2008, a category 2 hurricane.
I doubt you can name any perpetrators of this wave of destruction who faced any serious prison time whatsoever, much less the sort of egregious (and unconstitutional) treatment faced by those who entered the capitol in January 2021.
I can point you to many arrests of leftists from this year, and last year, and the year before that. Here's an article about some of them. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/thousands-arrested-college-protests-students-fallout-was-only-beginnin-rcna164807
Therefore, it is obviously false that "it takes destruction on the scale of a category 2 hurricane for violent leftists to face any consequences whatsoever."
Henry Parker is currently serving 30 years in prison for his destructive acts. Frank Calluzzi, 14 years. There is that protester who murdered a guy and got pardoned by Texas's governor, so I guess that doesn't count. Cody Tarner, currently serving 10 years for arson of a police vehicle. I can keep doing this, but I am less interested in utterly pointless point-scoring than you.
The idea that the conduct on January 6th amounted to no more than an unguided tour is obviously insane. I have never been on an unguided tour of a building where I broke in through a window and assaulted police officers. This sort of sane-washing is just completely discrediting.
I don't disagree that left wing protesters get jailed. I may have spent too much time focusing on how the justice system came down on Operation Rescue, because the larger point is that when left wing protesters get jailed they have a decent chance of "raising awareness" by getting some sympathetic or even neutral media coverage. When right wing protesters get jailed it almost always leads to negative media coverage and raising awareness for their political opponents instead. This is because very few journalists are on the right: in 1982 only 18% of journalists identified as Republicans, compared to twice as many who identified as Democrats, and today only 3.4% of journalists identify as Republicans (https://www.theamericanjournalist.org/post/american-journalist-findings). So right wing protesters get the negatives of getting arrested, without the positives of raising awareness and earning sympathy or support for their cause.
This may be changing though, as legacy media is less and less important and independent journalism is rising in prominence. We'll see I guess.
Another factor is that conservatives are generally not sympathetic to disruptive protests in general (Republicans are generally the "law and order" party, after all), so when right wing protesters are causing disruptions left wing politicians can often get the support of right wing politicians to crack down on them: thus things like the FACE act. Also, until fairly recently more judges were left wing than right wing (I think that still may be the case when it comes to lower courts, but I'm not sure), so you got more situations like abortion protesters getting ruled as racketeers by the Supreme Court. That has also changed, so the conditions may be right for a possible resurgence of right wing disruptive protest.
Westboro Baptist would be the one right-wing example that goes for theater and garish signs. They share the urgency about something extremely serious and yet widely ignored.
As an evangelical myself, the funny thing is, we believed some of the same things technically as Westboro, but most Christians lack the kind of psychology that wants to do that sort of thing. Street evangelism is the furthest some go.
I think that left-wingers are undergoing a psychology of religious conversion effectively.
Just some thoughts about the example of "throwing soup on famous paintings":
When I heard about that for the first time, I thought it was the most moronic counter-productive thing, but I have come to change my mind about it.
First of all, they didn't throw soup on any painting, they threw soup at glass.
But the thing that made me change my mind was an interview of the protestors in a TV show (the most popular and also the most shitty TV show in France). On the set, they were accused of "deserving their cause" and only arouse hate for their movement. They were asked "why didn't they go through normal means of revendications, like petitions, and non-disrupting protests". The answer was: "Well we did all of that. Why didn't you invite us then?"
I suppose there is a parallel with the animal holocaust. Many carnist will say that vocal activists are dESServing ThEir cAUSe as soon as they encounter any cognitive dissonance. According to them, a good vegan is a vegan who hides their veganism. Like sure, this is what will help the animals the most... (I've personally been accused of that so many times since I started being vocal, yet I've done so much more than when I was silent. Weird...)
The left protests more because they care more about politics. See "Liberals Read, Conservatives Watch TV." https://www.richardhanania.com/p/liberals-read-conservatives-watch?s=r&utm_campaign=posts-open-in-app&triedRedirect=true
I also think the left likes to think of themselves as part of a Whig history-like narrative where all the correct people from history textbooks (e.g. the Civil Rights movement) engaged in protests to get what they want. Notice how there's been a narrative recently that student protests are always correct. https://reason.com/volokh/2024/04/26/student-movements-are-often-wrong/
I liked the article and agree with it, but wanted to add that I think the activist right is more similar in style to the activist left than many realize. The right's most common justification for spreading falsehoods about immigrants ("they're eating the dogs", "they're bringing rapists", etc) is that the media and the left ignored immigration for many years when the right was more respectable. To them Trump's bombastic rhetoric (now imitated by many others) is bringing attention to an important issue: immigrants are bad for the country they move to. in this way of thinking, small lies told about individual immigrants and groups of immigrants pale in comparison to and are justified by the big lies the left and the media tell (implied to be "immigrants are good for the country they move to").
Loudly lying isn't the same as throwing soup on a painting, but both produce outrage and consequently attention. Both seem to stem from a worldview that "X is a very important issue not getting the attention it deserves and it's ok to do somewhat bad things with the goal of getting people to pay attention to X". I used to be mildly in favor of such a worldview, but like Matt Iglesias (ironically), I've become more skeptical of it.
I definitely think we’ll be seeing more off-putting rightist protests. Anecdotally, there’s a guy and his wife who come and stand outside my high school with a big sign reading “SODOMY IS SIN” because we have I think a couple rainbow flags in the window. He’s been around before, written some angry emails to the principal—but this is the first year he’s doing this.
As the MAGAs deal more in grand conspiratorial narratives (just like lefties have been doing, especially since 2008), I’m sure we’ll see more SODOMY guys and Jan 6–inspired events.
Great article. Not sure about the theatre correlation though, thats probably just political activism in general (just look at James O’Keefe’s embarrassing antics)
I think your claim that right wingers don't engage in as many protests is fairly anecdotal. March for Life, Westboro Baptist Church, and Charlottesville all come to mind. Some more data might be needed here to validate either side.
I also would probably push back on your reasoning that the right doesn't engage in bizarre protests just because they protest less. I think the reason they don't engage in such protests is because most of their "existential threats" border closely to conspiracy (per the example you mentioned of Haitian immigrants) and thus don't have enough substantial truth value to warrant violent commitment. In areas where it's a bit more grey, such as abortion, radical demonstrations are more apparent. Put bluntly, the conservative position will always have less existential threats because it is always favoring people in power.
Another right-wing protest that I haven't seen anyone mention yet were the different protests regarding COVID mandates, many of which involved parading around with guns in front of state capitols and one of which involved blockading downtown Ottowa with trucks.
There was another protest a few years earlier about a statue in Charlottesville, which involved tiki torches and the chant "Jews will not replace us."
I like Yglesias's commentary. It is always careful, never simplistic, and open to revision. He doesn't deserve this!
Progressivism in the United States grows out of Protestantism. Protest -- literally making a show of your beliefs -- is in the label. The righteous are justified by faith alone. There is no way to know if you are part of the Elect, but visible indicators may include public displays of righteous living, devotion, and moral and philanthropic conduct. (Work as hard as possible, but the Other should always receive the proceeds.) Activism is a way to confirm your election. It is a visible sign that you are chosen by God, that history moves in one direction, and you are on the Right Side of it. This gets unconsciously carried over to the secular and political realms when Protestants go atheist.
American Protestantism is Puritanical. As Santayana once remarked, a Puritan believes three things: sin exists, sin deserves to be punished, and it is beautiful that sin should be punished. I can say more prosaically, looking from the inside rather than the outside of what was once Mainline Protestantism (full fedora now), that Puritanical behavior (politically correct, woke, and whatever the next iteration is) is too often a hypocritical exercise where one punches down on a perceived weak target in a humorless, self-serving way. It can even be bullying, terrorism, and destruction for its own sake under the air of do-gooderism -- look at the history of the 1500s to Antifa today. It isn't exclusive to the left but is its core animating spirit -- the northeast is the most progressive for a reason. There is also substantial cultural overlap with Judaism and its concept of Chosenness.
I generally prefer liberal policies. It is just good to know where the witch-burner mentality comes from before we start speculating about mutational load, imagining deep state conspiracies, blaming "cultural Marxists" for brainwashing the kids, and whatnot. If anything, the obnoxious moralism, with its coded language, signals to others mutual belonging to a certain social stratum, like wearing a specific brand of watch. There is an element of hypocrisy to this stuff that Ellis Island Americans don't always detect.
The mainstream criticism of environmental movements is fundamentally weak and inadequate. Critics typically retreat into tepid, neutered arguments that reveal more about their own intellectual timidity than any genuine engagement with the core issues.
Their critiques are invariably shallow:
- "They're sort of correct, but they're too extreme."
- "Even if they're right, they shouldn't be blocking roads."
- The perennial favorite: pointing out supposed hypocrisy, as if that undermines the substantive arguments.
But the real problem runs far deeper than these superficial dismissals. The foundational premises of environmentalist claims are riddled with misconceptions and unexamined assumptions.
Consider the widespread beliefs that are taken as gospel:
- Artificial fertilizers are "bad"
- Factory farming is inherently evil
- Processed foods are dangerous
- Organic food is healthier
- Free-range eggs have magical nutritional properties
- "Eating local" is somehow environmentally virtuous
These are not just minor errors—they represent a systematic misunderstanding of agricultural science, nutrition, and ecological dynamics.
Yet even these factual inaccuracies pale in comparison to the truly problematic core ideology: the notion that industrial civilization is inherently destructive and that "nature" requires protection from human progress.
This romantic, anti-human perspective must be decisively challenged. Humanity's capacity to reshape the world is not a sin—it is our birthright. If certain species cannot adapt to the transformative power of human civilization, that is not a tragedy. It is simply the natural order of evolutionary pressure.
In fact, I would go further. We should:
- Abolish laws protecting endangered species
- Eliminate biodiversity preservation mandates
- Dismantle nature reserves
Mankind has both the power and the will to remake this planet according to our vision. Any species unable to survive in the world we create has simply failed the ultimate test of evolutionary fitness.
The environmental movement will continue to spawn wave after wave of well-intentioned but fundamentally misguided activists until we are willing to completely deconstruct their foundational ideology.
In the final analysis, an animal or plant can be nothing more than property. They should be afforded no rights beyond those we choose to grant them—as objects of our ownership and utility.
Conservatives , by definition, value the role of institutions. (even today while conservatives think that institutions have failed. They still believe that institutions play a role in society.)
As such, they view the way to make change is working through the correct institutions.
Anecdotally, the bowtie class of conservatives in Washington are too busy writing white papers. And the conservatives who are small business owners are too busy running their business to go throw paint on a masterpiece.
(For the midwits in the comments who will say “what about January 6”…Of course it was inexcusable. The difference between January 6 and the Gaza encampments and just stop oil is that the January 6 cause does not have any backing or support from most mainstream media, or universities…)
Have read the article. Seems broadly right
I would add that conservative minded people tend to be more outcome/performance focused.
And that conservative typ people imo are much less fond of emotional expression.
Leftists are much more comfortable with emotional inputs, and that tends to be a factor for why actors are more leftist. Either they were a bit leftist, or they were an emotional person but felt supressed by conservative society. And thus their incentive in a sense is becoming more leftist to find a crowd
Not really. Conservativism is not an ideology. It's just status quo bias.
Before reading this article:
Mainly because they genuilly feel that the world is that offputting and they want to be listened to and mirrored
Gonna read the article now
Can you imagine how right wing protestors - say for the right to own rifles, or harsher limits on abortion - would be treated in the media if they blocked interstates or threw soup on artistic masterpieces?
The right does not really cause riots either.