By: Laila Gauhar
If you’ve ever met a certain type of guy who says he’s ‘into podcasts’, the man he’ll undoubtedly bring up as being ‘authentic’ and ‘down to earth’ is Joe Rogan. Comedian-turned-podcaster, Rogan runs one of the most popular podcasts in the world, receiving millions of listens and downloads for every episode he hosts. Given his large reach and the demographic of his majority male listeners, it could be argued that his interview with and subsequent endorsement of Donald Trump in late 2024 was a factor in so many more young men voting red in the election than in 2020. This has sparked a debate amongst Democrats, some of whom are looking to replicate the Republicans’ success – do they need their own Joe Rogan?
Attempts to create a liberal version of Rogan are fundamentally misguided because they misunderstand why he’s successful in the first place. Rogan’s appeal comes from his ability to portray himself as apolitical, willing to engage with all kinds of people regardless of their affiliation. On one hand he has supported abortion rights and socialised healthcare, even endorsing Bernie Sanders in the 2020 Democrat primaries. On the other hand, he staunchly defends gun ownership, promoted the use of ivermectin in lieu of any covid vaccine, and platforms figures like Alex Jones, JD Vance, and Elon Musk. His inconsistent and sometimes contradictory set of beliefs, and unwillingness to push back on the misinformation spewed by his guests are what actually drives his popularity – he isn’t a political operative whose beliefs are structured by a particular party, he’s just a funny dude who gets high and has unfiltered conversations. This appeals to those who distrust mainstream media and partisan narratives. Unlike existing popular liberal podcasts like Pod Save America (hosted by former Obama aides), Rogan is able to connect to the nonpartisan, ‘ordinary’ person. Ultimately the masses like the idea of somebody standing up to the establishment, so they’re drawn to the libertarian Joe Rogan. Young men, in particular, are drawn to Rogan’s willingness to challenge what they see as restrictive or overly politically correct norms. This is why a ‘liberal Rogan’ wouldn’t work – it would instantly feel insincere and too obviously propagandistic. The appeal of Rogan isn’t just his format, it’s his perceived independence. Any attempt to create a left-leaning version would likely fail because it would still be bound by one of the Democratic Party’s biggest weaknesses: their reluctance to engage in real, populist politics.
Aside from the difficulty of replicating the organic success of Rogan, liberals face the struggle of mobilisation. As traditional news media declines in influence, platforms like social media and podcasts are becoming the battlegrounds for shaping public opinion, especially among younger voters. As we saw last year, Trump was able to harness this space to his advantage, while Harris stuck to the traditional campaign tactics of TV ads, carefully curated rallies and mainstream celebrity endorsements. She even refused an interview with Rogan. In prioritising the endorsements of the rich and famous over reaching out to disaffected voters, they proved their disconnect and misunderstanding of the issues of the average American. Despite “brat summer”, the Democratic Party was unsuccessful in utilising the media to reach gen Z voters, and while this may be due to its unwillingness to adapt to the changing media landscape, the main reason is the lack of a resonant message. The real problem isn’t just where Democrats communicate—it’s what they have to say. Even if Harris did sit down with Rogan, would the audience have been convinced by her lackluster message? One of the Democrats’ main arguments wasn’t that they stood for something but that they were not Trump. Meanwhile Trump was able to speak to and mobilise the anger that many Americans were feeling, even if his rhetoric was nonsensical and destructive.
Therefore, the solution isn’t for the Democrats to find a liberal Rogan or to start going on more podcasts, but rather to change their policy. Throwing money at a content creator and expecting them to be popular doesn’t resonate with people unless they have something tangible to offer them – alienating the “Other” is not enough. The party needs to adopt actual progressive economic messaging instead of purposely avoiding it because they’re scared of messing with the status quo and upsetting their corporate donors. Liberals’ focus in the cultural war has been on minority rights and political correctness – not in any meaningful way, but as a branding exercise to appear tolerant while remaining largely inert. Think of the infamous photo of Democratic lawmakers wearing Kente cloth and kneeling solidarity during the BLM movement, while failing to push for real police reform. Or even more recently, Harris’ campaign leaned heavily on her being the first Black and South Asian woman VP, but in terms of policy she represented the same corporate-friendly politics as previous administrations, alienating the very voter base they are trying to consolidate. Additionally, this spotlight on identity politics has served to alienate young men who see their struggles and interests being ignored. Instead of focusing on these culture war debates to mask inaction, Democrats need to put their focus on fighting for material gains for the working class. This shift would serve to increase their popularity with not only young men, but the population as a whole. Once the Democratic Party actually develops a message worth fighting for, they can fix their branding problem. Until then, it doesn’t matter how many podcasts they appear on – people won’t buy what they’re selling.
