SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
left-wing
Why Are America’s Far-Right Leaders So Young?
How social media turned a handful of young provocateurs into the far right’s national vanguard.
Sep 16, 2025
Through the late 2010s, pundits hailed Gen Z as America’s most progressive young cohort. Yet, the truth is more complicated: While many young voters voice support for climate action, racial justice, and reproductive rights, their overall partisan tilt is far less lopsided than early headlines implied. Support for Democrats among under-30 voters has softened since 2020, and young men in particular are drifting rightward on issues like gender equality and LGBTQ+ rights.
That gap between reputation and reality is, in part, due to a rising cadre of young conservatives who are more radical, more visible, and better organized than their progressive peers. From Nick Fuentes to Laura Loomer to the late Charlie Kirk, the figures shaping the far-right agenda have been startlingly young. Why, then, are some of the movement’s most prominent figures in their late 20s and early 30s? How did a political current once defined by veteran politicians and talk-radio personalities come to be led by live-streamers and college-circuit activists?
Consider Fuentes. Only 28, yet he commands a national audience of more than 700,000 followers. He has a dedicated fanbase, connections to GOP congressmen, and once had a private dinner with US President Donald Trump. And Fuentes is not an outlier. From political candidates to campus organizers, the far-right’s most prominent figures are getting younger—and more extreme.
The explanation lies in the internet’s ecosystem. Figures like Mike Cernovich and Jack Posobiec were among the first to show how provocation and relentless online promotion could transform fringe ideas into mass influence. In the years since, news has gone largely digital, with about 86% of Americans getting at least some of their news on phones or computers. The overwhelming bulk of political information now flows through a dense lattice of live-streams, podcasts, and Discord servers, all spaces young people navigate with native ease.
For ambitious young people, each viral provocation can bring a surge of followers and donations, turning radicalism into a fast track to high-profile visibility.
In this landscape, digital platforms have dismantled traditional barriers to political power. Two decades ago, a young ideologue needed gatekeepers—local radio, party donors, sympathetic editors—to build a following. Today, a ring light and an algorithm are enough. YouTube, Twitch, TikTok, and X provide inexpensive infrastructure and frictionless amplification, allowing individuals to raise money, mobilize supporters, and establish a brand long before institutions can react.
Why is this dynamic propelling the far-right in particular? Without much formal representation in elected office, these ideas circulate almost entirely online, where scarcity makes them more alluring. And algorithms reward outrage, propelling the sharpest sound bites and most incendiary claims to the top of every feed. For ambitious young people, each viral provocation can bring a surge of followers and donations, turning radicalism into a fast track to high-profile visibility.
Conservative legacy media compounds the effect. Figures who achieve algorithmic virality are quickly booked on cable programs and high-profile podcasts, which confer legitimacy and feed the next surge of online attention. The result is a self-reinforcing loop: Digital notoriety leads to mainstream exposure, which drives further radical content.
The American left lacks a parallel generation of online, movement-building leaders. Progressive lawmakers such as Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) have national profiles, but their influence depends on elected office and formal party structures rather than on a grassroots, youth-led network. Yes, young progressives such as Dean Withers and Matt Bernstein have built impressive reputations as digital advocates for progressive causes. But they operate largely as individual voices, not as architects of a nationwide, highly-branded youth movement comparable to Kirk's Turning Point USA or Fuentes' America First movement. Comparable grassroots movements on the left, like the emerging 50501, lack visible leaders capable of unifying and sustaining a broad, youth-driven base.
This distinction matters. Without a cohesive, youth-led movement, progressives struggle to match the visibility and narrative power of their far-right counterparts. Every far-right provocation arrives with a spokesperson and a polished national platform, while the left relies on a handful of elected officials and scattered digital voices. The absence of equally prominent, institutionally supported young progressives cedes narrative ground, and gives rising alt-right leaders disproportionate space to break out online.
Addressing this imbalance will not turn on deplatforming extremist voices alone; the internet’s architecture makes that a game of whac-a-mole. Nor will it come solely from established progressive leaders. It requires cultivating and sustaining a cohort of young progressives who can operate effectively online and build movements without succumbing to social media's darkest ideologies. It also requires a cultural shift on the left: valuing charismatic leadership as a complement—not a substitute—for collective action.
Gen Z was supposed to guarantee a progressive future. Instead, many of its most visible political entrepreneurs are on the far-right. Unless progressives move beyond supporting individual creators and intentionally develop their own social movements, the loudest young voices shaping America’s political future will continue to belong to its most far-right fringes.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Why It Matters That Male and Female Economists See the Economy Differently
In a significant new study published by the Institute for New Economic Thinking, Canadian economist Mohsen Javdani reveals that gender shapes views on power, equality, and inclusion in ways politics alone can’t explain.
Sep 14, 2025
Men and women might check the same box on election day, but they see the economy through different lenses. Just ask professional economists.
That’s the striking implication of a new study by Mohsen Javdani, associate professor of economics at Simon Fraser University, who surveyed over 2,400 economists across 19 countries. His research reveals that gender shapes how they understand economic issues in ways politics alone can’t explain—and warrants attention from policymakers and campaigns alike.
Javdani wasn’t just chasing numbers; he was looking for patterns in what economists believe and focus on. What he found: Women in the field (still underrepresented) are more likely to challenge traditional theories, promote equality and social justice, and push for a more inclusive economics. They tend to lean further left than their male colleagues, who are more often centrists or right leaning.
Probably no surprise there.
But here’s the twist: Even when the men and women shared the same political beliefs, they still interpreted economics differently. Right-leaning female economists, for example, were more likely than their male peers to question orthodox ideas and emphasize equality and inclusion. Javdani’s data suggests that as economists shift right politically, men abandon progressive views more quickly than women do.
Simply put, political labels often try to explain it all, but they miss a big piece: Gender is at work behind the scenes.
If right-leaning women are more receptive to progressive economic ideas than their male counterparts, then campaigns that speak directly to these women could unlock a powerful, untapped base for fairness and inclusion.
So, just pack the room with more women and expect the conversation to shift? Not so fast.
Javdani points to earlier research by Giulia Zacchia and others, showing that numbers alone don’t cut it, especially if the loudest voices still echo the same old male-dominated, market-centered dogma. Without structural changes and real efforts to open the field to new ideas, the issues women tend to bring to the table, like labor protections, inequality, and a more hands-on role for government, keep getting sidelined. New faces, same soundtrack. Female economists are out there pushing for redistribution, calling out bias, and demanding better, but if no one’s listening, the system stays stuck.
This isn’t just academic—what’s at stake is a real understanding of how the economy hits women, what they contribute, and why their labor keeps getting undervalued.
Javdani’s study breaks new ground by showing how politics can blur—but never erase—the gender gap in economic thinking. As he writes:
While moving rightward on the political spectrum is consistently associated with weaker support for progressive and equity-oriented positions, the decline is less steep among women. In several cases—particularly among right- and far-right-leaning economists—women remained more supportive of positions emphasizing inequality, structural disadvantage, and concern about corporate power.
For anyone trying to grasp how voters think about the economy, this research is very suggestive.
Javdani study samples only economists, but it is difficult to believe that the differences he documents do not extend far more broadly, and that if we want to understand economic opinions at the ballot box, we have to look beyond party lines and pay attention to gender.
A recent NBC News poll, for example, shows a wide gap between conservative young male voters and their liberal female counterparts on issues like financial independence, debt, and home ownership. And a new Gallup survey reveals meaningful differences in how male and female respondents view capitalism and socialism—with men viewing capitalism more positively than women, and the reverse for socialism.
But significantly, there are also large gaps among men and women in the same political categories. A March 2025 Pew analysis found Republican women were more than twice as likely as Republican men to see employer bias as a major cause of the gender wage gap (43% vs. 18%). Meanwhile, polling by Navigator Research shows American women are consistently more pessimistic about the economy than men, across race, income, and party lines. This stems from how women experience the economy day-to-day—focusing on costs like groceries, rent, and healthcare rather than abstract numbers like GDP or the stock market.
As a result, women tend to strongly support policies that directly ease these burdens, from paid family leave and the Child Tax Credit to cracking down on corporate price gouging.
Yet much economic messaging still treats the economy as gender-neutral—a costly oversight for anyone hoping to connect with voters. Javdani’s research points to a missed opportunity: If right-leaning women are more receptive to progressive economic ideas than their male counterparts, then campaigns that speak directly to these women could unlock a powerful, untapped base for fairness and inclusion.
Talking about economics like gender doesn’t matter is like playing checkers in a chess game. When you meet people where they actually are, not where your ideological playbook says they should be, you stop talking past each other, and start building something real, like an economy that works for everybody.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Who Will Lose Out If the Rich Succeed in Helping the Right Win in Bolivia?
There is now a coordinated, well-funded network, backed by big capital, big business, and international financial institutions, working to bring in a new conservative government in Bolivia.
Aug 15, 2025
Ahead of this Sunday’s presidential election in Bolivia, the latest polling from Ipsos Ciesmori, released last weekend, reveals a close horserace in Bolivia’s presidential race between perennial centrist candidate and business magnate Samuel Doria Medina (21.2%), former conservative and Banzerite President Tuto Quiroga (20%), as well as Manfred Reyes Villa, Cochabamba mayor, retired Army captain, and pro-Banzer right-winger, at 7.7%.
The two left-wing MAS-affiliated candidates, Senate Leader Andrónico Rodríguez and Government Minister Eduardo del Castillo, both poll below 10% despite the MAS leading in voting intentions early on in the cycle. Current President Luis Arce is not running due to his administration being marred by continuous crises, scandals, and unpopularity.
The unpopularity facing the MAS and the left, particularly amid various crises—inflationary, political, judicial, energy, and financial—has created the possibility that the right could win an election for the first time in more than 20 years. The “nill-blank-undecided” camp stands at 33%, with most of them being disaffected leftist voters; most prominently, supporters of Evo Morales, who has been barred from running and wanted on pedophilia charges.
The race is likely to head to a second round in late October if no candidate secures 40% of the vote and a 10% lead over the next competitor. As things stand, two right-of-center candidates, Doria Medina and Quiroga, are likely to advance, a blow to the left’s progressive agenda. It would be the first second-round runoff in Bolivia’s history.
A right-wing government today would mean more poverty, more austerity, more militarism (and a likely return to heavy US influence), and less representation for Indigenous peoples and women.
The socialist movement’s downfall has been the right’s elation, and they have not been able to contain it, perhaps even overplaying their hand right before Sunday’s election.
Marcelo Claure, Bolivia’s richest man and loud financial backer of multi-millionaire Samuel Doria Medina, has declared Bolivia will soon be “free from socialism and communism” and says he looks forward to returning to the country under a “new government.” Claure, who lives between New York and Miami, backs a neoliberal, private-sector-focused corporate economic plan that suspiciously mirrors Doria Medina’s, calling for the privatization of key industries, inviting international financial institutions like the International Monetary Fund, and relying on “public-private partnerships.” Much of Doria Medina’s financing has also come from his personal fortune, ironically earned through state contracts.
Jaime Dunn, the right-wing libertarian Wall Street tycoon who dropped out of the race after claiming to be the “most talked about politician in Bolivia,” has also been actively lobbying for a right-wing government. Dunn has said that “Bolivia is a country of owners, not proletarians,” claiming both Doria Medina and Quiroga have “copied [his] economic plans.” He has celebrated what he calls “an end to socialism and authoritarianism” while proposing to dismantle all government industries, shut down the tax service, cut taxes for the wealthy, and end fuel and other subsidies, policies that would trigger a tsunami of chaos and suffering across the country.
Dunn openly praises Argentine President Javier Milei’s “chainsaw” cuts, which have already pushed more than half of Argentines into poverty; left thousands more living on the street; and sold the country off to crypto scammers, big exporters, and foreign investors.
The financier class has made its preferences crystal clear. In a Reuters piece, foreign investors expressed elation at the prospect of a new right-wing government, saying the election was “fueled by investors’ hopes that a political U-turn could help shore up the country’s fragile economy and pave the way for an IMF program.”
Carlos de Sousa, a debt strategist at Vontobel, said a change in government would be “quite positive for the economy.” Ajata Mediratta, a partner at Greylock Capital, described a non-leftist government as one that would bring about “liberalizing reforms” which “will eventually allow the economy to flourish” and “unshackle the economy.”
That’s a hell of a way to say people are going to suffer immensely under austerity and policies designed to enrich the wealthy and foreign capital.
Mainstream media, particularly in the US, has lavished coverage on the right-wing frontrunners, presenting their ideas and personalities in a vacuum of “neutrality” without acknowledging their history. This includes their roles in the Banzer dictatorship, their role in selling Bolivia’s energy and commercial sectors to foreign interests in the 1990s and early 2000s (leading to the Cochabamba Water War and the rise of the MAS), and their track record with IMF-backed austerity programs that brought very mixed results despite the costs.
A right-wing government today would mean more poverty, more austerity, more militarism (and a likely return to heavy US influence), and less representation for Indigenous peoples and women.
Inside Bolivia, the corporate media ecosystem has spent years boosting conservative candidates. Most outlets in the country are private, running cover, and buying skewed polls for their preferred right-wing hopefuls. These include Red Uno, Bolivia TV, Unitel, ERBOL, El Deber, the two Catholic Fides networks, and La Brújula Digital. Página Siete, Bolivia’s only independent media outlet, was closed through government pressure, and has left a wide hole in the country’s press freedom.
Affiliated TikTok, X, and Facebook accounts have also been busy spreading misinformation in their favor, publishing manipulated or outright false polls bought by candidates and running disproportionate favorable coverage of conservatives. Negative coverage of MAS and the left, with overwhelmingly positive or neutral coverage of the right, dominates their reporting.
Even Evo Morales has been running fake polls to claim the election is rigged against him.
There is now a coordinated, well-funded network, backed by big capital, big business, and international financial institutions, working to bring in a new conservative government in Bolivia. That would mean dismantling much of the progress achieved by the MAS and the left over the past 20 years.
The MAS, though highly imperfect (we can talk about crisis mismanagement, corruption, embracing of dictators, and centralization of power forever), has made significant progress on various and significant fronts. That includes drastically reducing poverty and extreme poverty by more than half; cutting child hunger; expanding access to public education; creating new public universities; defending water rights; more than quadrupling gross domestic product per capita after decades of stagnation; getting Bolivia to a low and stable unemployment rate; successfully nationalizing key industries; expanding public healthcare through SUS; and giving Indigenous peoples, women, and other marginalized groups meaningful political representation under a Plurinational government.
If the polls are right, that legacy could soon be gone, making way for austerity and widespread suffering amid historic crises.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular