I have more things I want to write about than time to write about them, and some of those things I posted as comments long ago over at Steve Sailer’s blog. Here are some comments I made about the difference between right wing and left wing activism, including the PIRGs (public interest research groups) as an example.
“There’s also a professional activist culture for Republicans, it’s just not as effective [as professional left-wing activism] because it’s oriented towards milking the base. HSLDA is a case in point. Doesn’t always start that way, but the right-wing activist stuff always seems to end up there, mysteriously.”
“…the left funds professional activists opaquely, with small fees that hit thousands or millions of people, where they skim off a portion (the PIRG system is a great case in point). It tries to not directly milk its base. The right, conversely, does nothing but overtly milk its base and avoids opaque funding mechanisms, favoring direct appeals, even if they have a con-artist sheen.”
“The PIRG money for student PIRGs, the main ones Americans hear about comes from the students, not the government. They also don’t tell students they can claw it back and the few students who figure it out have a major struggle to get a few hundred bucks back out of thousands spent per year. So it’s opaque funding, but not so much that people have a strong incentive to try to eliminate it. That structure is typical of liberal activist stuff. There’s other examples like obscure state level taxes that cost a few bucks a year per person, but in a state of millions, that’s real money.
The hijacking foundations is also a liberal special. Conservatives are fairly bad at working that angle, too. The Birchers in their prime were a good conservative activist alternative approach, but they relied on historical conditions that are unlikely to be replicable by conservatives these days.”
The context was something that is currently on alt-right, dissident right and other conservative-ish minds, effective activism techniques. Some people were doing the whole “Republicans HAVE JOBS LOL” thing that is standard when this comes up, but Democrats have jobs too, and not just activist-ing.
But mostly they dismiss the successful right wing organizing that does exist (pro-life activism, homeschool activism, 2nd amendment activism) and are unaware that right-wing women were the mainstays of previous successful right-wing activism pushes before the degeneration into base-milking in the wake of the 1960s.
I’ll come back to the right-wing women thing over and over again, because smart right wing women were the backbone of pre-1960s conservative and Republican organization. Then that energy mostly got diverted into homeschooling and other acceptable fringes.
Ultimately right wing activism is crippled by its inheritance of individualism into believing that getting a dollar from ten million people is “socialism”. In the post-Trump age this is somewhat less true and the sooner the right moves towards the left’s most common funding model (aka “Let’s get a penny from everyone ten times!”), the sooner they can provide real alternatives to the toxic insanity of the left instead of even more toxic and unworkable alternatives that quietly shift people further leftward.
Bundling works. Learning to milk the crowd works. As the left has learned, people will pay a tiny amount of money for something that sounds totally neutral and harmless and they’ll do so for decades on end. There are so many things that would work as alternatives waiting to be proposed and funded. But the will must be there, of course. Is it on the right, dissident or plain-vanilla? Well?