The Podcast Election

The podcast election?

“This has been 100 % the podcast election” (Marina Hyde)

Podcasts have become a hugely popular and influential part of the media ecosystem. Their rise is a manifestation  of a fracturing in our media, with many established media institutions losing their position. While some traditional media groups (such as the BBC and The Times) have entered this sphere, podcasting has led to new entrants. In the UK, the Goalhanger, founded by Gary Lineker, is the largest independent podcast group. 

Podcasts vary widely in character, quality, and subject matter, but are now prominent in the political realm. Particularly within younger generations,  they have become a (perhaps the) major source of news and political discussion. As the co-host of the Today Podcast Nick Robinson put it, podcasts are not just a different platform for accessing traditional media (e.g. radio/ T.V.  programmes), but also “a completely different way of communicating”. 

Podcasts are often a way of communicating that rejects many aspects of traditional media interviews, such as “detailed scrutiny” of what guests say. Instead it may be a guest’s “emotional state” or the symbolic character of their comments that may be what comes to the fore. What is most effective is when there is a natural connection between the participants. These work as it resembles the type of conversations we have in our daily lives –  often  tangential and slightly rambling. Unlike our daily conversations, cul-de-sacs and errors can be edited out. 

In the UK, political podcasts such as The Rest is Politics (Alastair Campbell and Rory Stewart), The News Agents (Emily Maitlis, Lewis Goodall, and Jon Sopel), The Today Podcast (Amol Rajan and Nick Robinson) and Political Currency (George Osborne and Ed Balls) have risen to prominence. Often considered ‘centrist dad’ (or mum) in their character and orientation, they have achieved some reach and influence [I’d add a few from Scotland but they are too embarrassing to mention – Ed].

Those involved are well connected (such as Ed Balls, married to the Home Secretary) and have held senior roles. Listeners feel they are getting an inside track. The general perspective of these shows is that British and American politics have gone off the rails during the era of Brexit and the rise of national populism. For them, movements such as Corbynism and the Farragist hard right represent two sides of the same populist coin. What about the influence of podcasts on the Presidential election?

Rogan and the “Trumpian elite”

Joe Rogan’s podcast is an example of one with tremendous reach, well beyond those usually particularly interested in politics. Trump’s appearance on Rogan’s podcast was seen by many as illustrating his flawed and eccentric character. But from a wider perspective, it was a good way for Trump to reach beyond the traditional media channels. Emphasising this, Ryan Grim,  co-founder of Drop Site News, stated that “I hope that this is the last Democratic candidate that says no to Joe Rogan”. In response, Mehdi Hassan argued that the left needs “its own Joe Rogan”, someone capable of reaching beyond traditional liberal media and those disaffected from politics. In particular, Rogan is seen as an influence on young men, with his increasing sympathy towards Trump significant in terms of attracting the ‘bro vote’. 

Marina Hyde believed that Harris should have connected to this world more fully: “I wish she had gone on Joe Rogan”. Hyde was herself speaking as part of The Rest is Politics’ live coverage of the election. According to her fellow panellist Anthony Scaramucci, Trump got on after trying for three years. He went on to say that “Rogan doesn’t like Trump” but in the end Rogan endorsed the president-elect, just prior to the election. Trump’s willingness to spend three hours on Rogan’s podcast spoke volumes about the influence held by Rogan and podcasts more broadly.  For Amol Rajan (on The Today Podcast), the election had revealed “the incredible power of new media”, as represented by some of the figures now in Trump’s circle. 

They are part of what Nick Bryant considers the “Trumpian elite”, including Elon Musk, Carlson and Joe Rogan. As with anyone who poses as an anti-elitist, the aim is not to rid society of elites but to replace the current one with one in sympathy with their views.  In short, an accelerated version of the sort of process we saw in the past when radical figures of the 1960s first attacked the establishment and then became it in the 1980s. Trump’s aim, in ‘breaking the bureaucracy’ is to radically change the governing elite in the country. 

“I was completely wrong about Kamala Harris”

It’s always risky making political predictions. This was clearly illustrated by Rory Stewart’s confident prediction that Harris would win. This prediction gave many people solace and hope due to the authority Stewart has garnered as a political sage in recent years, partly through The Rest is Politics.

The Rest Is Politics transmitted a live show (on YouTube) for portions of the evening, while the News Agents also provided  portions of content throughout the night. For the main presenters of both, their response to the results was coloured by emotion; they had feared such an outcome and its arrival was clearly a huge disappointment. They see it as a further embedding of populism in contemporary politics. They are aware that it will give a boost to the Faragist hard right in the UK. They have long felt that the political momentum was with them. This will only add to this sense. 

Stewart seemed to shrink in stature as the night wore on, as his prediction started to look ridiculous. He later ‘fessed up’ admitting that his prediction was born of optimism – optimism about the American electorate and about the future.”I was completely wrong…obviously, I’m guilty of massive wishful thinking.” This rather revealed that his prediction was an emotional one, not one borne of insight and knowledge. This will surely do a bit of damage to Stewart’s reputation. In his partnership with Alistair Campbell, it is usually Stewart who provides depth to the discussion, contrasting with Campbell’s ability, from his years as a journalist and communications director, to produce concise narratives on most political topics. In their coverage of the Presidential Election, these UK-based podcasts revealed some of the limitations of speaking about a political scene they were not fully conversant with.  

For a more authoritative and analytical approach, some of the podcasts put out by the New York Times over election night (and in its wake) proved more fruitful. These looked at the deeper issues in a cool analytical manner, with emotion put aside. Most of the commentators were liberals, but were not surprised by the result. This type of reflective commentary in the cold light of day is one of the best aspects of podcasts. The New York Times post-election podcasts were a good example of the pros of the unhurried character of podcasts, without the need, prevalent in much television, of needing to rush to the next item, ad break, or piece of breaking news. 

Not an aberration

A key aspect of the reflections was the acceptance that Trump can no longer be dismissed as “an aberration”, that his mode of politics is now part of America’s political culture, if not the dominant part of it. It’s not a fad.  2016 could have been dismissed as a fluke if he had lost in 2024; now it can’t. His victory this time was more substantial than in 2016, including making significant ground in several ‘blue states’.  This suggests that his brand of politics is here to stay. The Republican Party is now dominated by Trumpism, while its opponents are also obsessed with how to challenge and defeat it. The UK is far from immune from Trumpian politics. The conservative movement in the UK is strongly influenced by the US scene.  

The hard right is also part of our political culture. Again, podcasts have played a role. Political discussion podcasts such as Triggernometry and media sites such as Unherd have played a role in giving a lot of attention to those articulating hard right views. These podcasts like to portray themselves as ‘heterodox’ and open to new ideas. In truth, these podcasts generally focus on hard right culture war themes. Figures such as Jordan Peterson and Douglas Murray are lionised in this ecosphere. 

Though they portray themselves as serious, with sober sets and lighting and professional sound, these podcasts also draw in figures with conspiratorial views. The videos and podcasts by Andrew Gold typifies this.  Other popular podcasts such as the Diary of a CEO and Modern Wisdom also have a clear sympathy for more conservative positions. They often feature a similar roster of guests, with softball questions predominating. This lack of interrogation can be freeing in many podcasts, but the podcasts I’ve mentioned could do with the presenters pushing back when guests come out with outlandish claims.  

Such podcasts have added a gloss of respectability to views that would, even 20 years ago, have been considered on the outer margins of the conservative movement. Similarly, GB News has played a role in mainstreaming not just Faragism but also ‘Ickeism’, the conspiratorial narratives of David Icke. Several of their present (Beverley Turner and Neil Oliver) and past presenters (Dan Wootton, Mark Steyn, and Calvin Robinson) could best be described as conspiracy theorists. The tropes they use often have clear anti-semitic roots. Of course, when those in the liberal centre (say Matthew Sweet, David Aaronovitch, Oliver Kamm) describe them in this way, it merely feeds their sense of being silenced by the liberal elite. 

Podcasts and YouTube content from the New Culture Forum is another example of the mainstreaming of material that goes to the fringes of the hard right and into far right territory.Their themes are also echoed in The Podcast of The Lotus Eaters, run by Carl Benjamin. Using his Sargon of Akkad identity, Benjamin welcomed Trump’s victory with a video entitled ‘The Moment of Destiny is Upon Us’. Liz Truss recently appeared on the podcast, evidence of her increasing extremism but also of the mainstreaming of such podcasts and the extreme narratives they confidently articulate.

Demographic destiny

A theme discussed was demography, provoked by Trump’s ability to attract significantly more Black and Latino voters than he had in the past.  Trump apparently benefited from a 14 percentage-point increase in votes from Latinos, compared to the 2020 election. This had undermined the view, held by some American liberals, that as the country became more ethnically diverse, the electorate would become more Democratic. Some commentators had speculated that demographic shifts would make it difficult for the Republicans to achieve a majority in the popular vote, though they would remain competitive in terms of the Electoral College.

This notion of demographic change inevitably aiding the Democrats has also been a theme expressed by some on the paranoid right, such as Tucker Carlson. He has expressed such fears of the Democrats deliberately encouraging immigration, so it could ‘import’ new voters. These voters would, in Carlson’s view, change the American electorate. In this version of this narrative, Carlson is feeding off the Great Replacement thesis, according to which the liberal elite is trying to change the character of western society by marginalising the indigenous population. In his view,the end of America as we know it. This view was endorsed by Elon Musk. This will be the last election in America if you don’t vote’. Basically, that Republicans will have no chance in the future, as the Democrats have been “importing” immigrants who will vote for them in future elections. As he posted on his own social media channel, X: “Triple digit increases of illegals in swing states over the past 4 years. Voter importation at an unprecedented scale!”

For the Democrats, the lesson was not taking the votes of certain sections of society for granted. They believed that certain voting  ‘blocs’ would remain loyal. They had not seen how faulty demographic destiny was.  There are similar changes here. The loss of connection between the Labour Party and the British working class has played a significant role in changing the British political scene. The decline of trade unionism is a key factor here. Trade unions historically played a role in ensuring that disaffection with British society led them towards support for the Labour Party as the manifestation of hopes for a better, more equal society. The party advocating change. This has withered, allowing Labour’s opponents to portray it as primarily the party of the metropolitan graduate elite – the party of the establishment. 

The anti-establishment party

In the US the Democrats have also lost this role as the anti-establishment party, focussing on political economy. They were no longer seen as the party best able to “channel the emotions” of the disaffected. Trumpism had proved successful in tapping into a general sense of dissatisfaction, a “deep wellspring of anxiety”, as Tressie McMillan Cottom put it. Trump has been able to portray the Republicans as the “party of disruption”, not just among the white working class. The MAGA movement had become a “refuge from a broken, unfair system” for a wide section of the population, including working class Blacks and Latinos. 

This narrative has been made easier by the Democrats’ embrace of the view that they were protecting the system from the threat of Trumpian extremism and incipient facism. This can easily be portrayed as a desire to maintain the status quo and a belief that the status quo is working for most. In short, the Democrats lacked a vision of how democracy could be improved and deepened. While many Democrats welcomed endorsements from Republican moderates and never-Trumpers (Liz Chaney and the like), this again adds to the sense that they are the establishment, resisting the change the people desire. 

In the UK, ‘one nation’ Conservatives such as Rory Stewart critiquing Faragism just adds to the sense in hard right circles of the establishment attempting to marginalise them. The hard right are brilliant at turning apparent positives for ‘the left’ into a negative. Many on the left and in the centre fall into traps. Rory Stewart’s over-confident prediction gave hope to many. It’s crashing and burning feeds hard right narratives that the liberal elite is out of touch with what the mainstream majority believe.  

Stewart made the prediction in response to a tweet by Andrew Neil stating the election was too close to call (“This election started as a dead heat and it’s got even closer. You’re talking about a couple of thousand votes”). Stewart felt that Neil was only doing so because of a  “desire to prod the establishment” Stewart went on; “this won’t be a close race decided by a “couple of thousand votes”. He is wrong. And Kamala Harris will win”.

In short, Stewart was accusing Neil of doing what he did, of making a prediction based on factors other than knowledge and understanding.  Neil was among the many commentators who responded with (understandable) glee when the prediction proved erroneous. Stewart did own up, “you were right and I was wrong”, but his reputation will have taken a dent. It may dent the reputation of The Rest Is Politics in the short-term, but what it won’t do is harm the reputation of political podcasts more generally. 

Marian Hyde is right to see podcasts as a key feature of the 2024 Presidential election. 

There’s little doubt that podcasts are going to be a key feature of our politics. They are also representative of a fracturing and evolving media environment.  They have undoubtedly played a role in mainstreaming the hard right. However, they have also provided some of the best analysis of contemporary politics. Can podcasts be used by those still licking their wounds after the election to help forge a coherent response to Trumpism?