Rafael Holmberg delivers a startling inversion: the populist figures who claim to hate "woke" philosophy are actually its most consistent practitioners. In a landscape where political debates often devolve into shouting matches about specific policy failures, Holmberg argues that the real crisis is a total absence of critical thought on both sides of the aisle. This piece forces the listener to confront a uncomfortable truth: the anti-intellectualism of the modern right is not a rejection of ideas, but a hollow, postmodern performance of them.
The Philosophy of "Common Sense"
Holmberg begins by dismantling the self-image of the new right. These figures, including Charlie Kirk, present themselves as defenders of "common sense" against the over-thinking of the academic left. But Holmberg insists this is a trap. "The figureheads of the new right - whether it is Charlie Kirk, Michael Knowles, Candace Owens, Matt Walsh, or Tucker Carlson - brand themselves as avatars of common sense." He argues that this appeal to pragmatism is merely a smokescreen. As Holmberg puts it, "this appeal to common sense, to 'be rational', is little more than a smokescreen concealing an acute absence of seriousness and a deployment of the same 'postmodern' tactics as they claim to diagnose in the left."
The core of the argument is that by refusing to engage with philosophy, these movements actually become more philosophical in a dangerous way. They rely on unexamined assumptions that function as dogma. Holmberg writes, "Conceptual frameworks and ontological systems not only reflect the political context in which they were written, but they also have inevitably practical consequences." This lands because it reframes the debate from "who is smarter" to "who is actually thinking." The danger lies in the fact that "Serious' philosophers or political theorists dismiss the America First pundits as unserious charlatans, refusing to engage with them. But thereby these same reactionaries proceed unchallenged."
Critics might note that Holmberg risks over-intellectualizing a movement that thrives on raw emotion and simple slogans. Not every political stance requires a deep ontological foundation to be effective. However, the author's point stands that ignoring the underlying logic allows the movement to grow unchecked.
Charlie Kirk is therefore little more than a representative of postmodernism's confrontation with itself: he opposes the decadence of modernity, but reflects its methods, reproducing the substanceless opportunism that he claims to loathe in the left.
The Failure of Liberal Opposition
The commentary then shifts to the failure of the Democratic establishment to counter this narrative. Holmberg argues that young Democrats often make the mistake of attacking the personality or specific offensive remarks of figures like Kirk, rather than the structural logic of their movement. He notes that labeling a populist as a "transphobe" or "misogynist" only strengthens their base, as these voters feel "alienated by the liberal left."
Instead of moralizing, Holmberg suggests a deeper engagement. "The task, I argue, is instead to 'philosophise' MAGA's practical political stance - to frame it within a broader philosophical narrative in order to see it as a totally misguided, relativistic reaction to political instability." This is a crucial distinction. The author posits that the movement is a response to real economic pain, but a "wrong solution" born of a lack of serious alternatives from the liberal left. As Holmberg writes, "Charlie Kirk is therefore able to speak of freedom - and to claim to defend freedom against the Democrats - because both sides refuse to ask the more difficult question of the flaw in the basic structures of today's political economy."
This framing is effective because it moves the conversation away from culture war skirmishes and toward the material conditions that fuel populism. It suggests that the administration and the opposition are both failing to address the root causes of disenfranchisement.
The Mirror of Contradiction
Holmberg provides concrete examples to show how the right's arguments crumble under their own logic. He points to the stance on the conflict in Gaza, where Kirk argues that Hamas "should have known" Israel would retaliate violently. Holmberg flips this: if Hamas should have known, then Israel "should have known" that decades of occupation would breed militancy. "The onus of judgement and rational decision-making is thereby entirely placed on Hamas," Holmberg observes, yet the mirror image of this logic is ignored.
Similarly, he attacks the conservative conflation of disparate ideologies under the banner of "cultural Marxism." Holmberg notes that "Any honest engagement with Marx's analysis of the dynamic mechanisms of capital or of dialectical materialism's inversion of Hegel would soon realise that this simplification is disingenuous." Yet, this simplification works for the movement because it mirrors the very postmodern tendency the right claims to hate: reading only what others say about a concept rather than the concept itself. "Kirk performs the same self-affirming bias as the Ivy League poststructuralist: reading only what what others say about something, rather than reading the thing itself."
The author also touches on the issue of sexuality, noting that Kirk's defense of heterosexuality as "natural" ignores the psychoanalytic reality that all sexual positions are contingent and constructed. When challenged with this, Kirk simply disavows the fact, claiming he "still thinks it is wrong." Holmberg concludes that "Kirk appeals to emotions just as much as the 'irrational left'." This evidence holds up well, demonstrating that the "rational" right is often just as reliant on unexamined emotional appeals as the left they criticize.
Bottom Line
Holmberg's strongest move is the demand to take the new right seriously by exposing its lack of seriousness; he forces the listener to see that dismissing these figures as "uneducated" is a strategic error that leaves their ideas unchallenged. The argument's biggest vulnerability is its heavy reliance on dense philosophical terminology, which may alienate the very audience it hopes to mobilize. The reader should watch for how the political left responds to this challenge: will they continue to moralize, or will they finally engage with the structural philosophy of their opponents?