The Super Bowl halftime show by TPUSA has once again reignited the debate over the ability of conservatives to create art of their own and why the Right fails to produce artistic media. Regardless of one’s thoughts on TPUSA, Kid Rock, and whether their halftime show was good, it was a success in the sheer numbers that it was able to attract. Strictly speaking, the concept of an alternative halftime show was proven in the 1992 In Living Color halftime show, which was hilariously successful and led to the NFL bringing on Michael Jackson the following year. With the internet, the alternative halftime shows will likely continue as major, nonpolitical streamers might also get in on the action.
That said, there is a void for art as Hollywood has largely chosen the path of anti-white, pro-homosexual, and feminist messaging—or as it is commonly called, THE MESSAGE. It is not so much that they are incapable of making good art, as A Knight in the Seven Kingdoms or The Gentlemen prove, but that they choose not to. Often, this is due to DEI, which has removed White men from the writing process. This affects TV, movies, publishing, and video games. The question must be asked: why have no good “conservative” alternatives arisen?
Enter Chris Rufo, of the Manhattan Institute, and a major figure in Conservative Inc. when it comes to fighting DEI—even though his accomplishments are overstated and he has personally participated in DEI hiring. He initially called the TPUSA halftime show a ghettoization of Conservative culture before elaborating with the following explanation.
I used to think the problem was “conservative billionaires don’t care about culture,” but over time, realized that the problem is not with capital, but with both the supply (creatives) and demand (audience) of culture production. There is tons of money sloshing around with nowhere to go, and even if we had great artists, it is not certain that they would find an audience.
Rufo places the onus on conservatives for why “right-wing” art fails and not the industry itself. As the January compact magazine article proved, many white writers (which would include Jews) were cast aside in favor of DEI hires which coincided with a decline in entertainment quality. Did they disappear or is there a systemic exclusion of them? If such people still exist, why are they not being recruited to produce quality content?
Rufo casts the problem of there being money with nowhere to go. The first problem is whether there is a vat of money available. It has always been true that the patricians must be the ones to patron the arts. Conservatism has plenty of money, but this money is indeed misallocated. There is an abundance of podcasts on the Right and money that might flow into such networks, creating a lucrative media industry with a patronage network. The problem with conservative-leaning billionaires and millionaires is that these types are seldom interested in parting ways with their money without any tangible benefit. There is a more cutthroat attitude when it comes to the Right soliciting money than the Left. Even a tax deduction would be a starting place in attracting large donors. In the case of entertainment, they would rightfully want a piece of the pie.
Entertainment productions are financial moonshots. In an era where TV and cinema are extremely expensive to produce, raising capital for such endeavors is tenuous at best. Angel Studios largely fails to make or distribute profitable movies, and they even subsidize their box office performance with donations. These movies mostly fail to achieve 2.5 times their budget (the industry standard) for success, apart from their documentaries which are lower budget features.
A24 Studios serves as the ideal strategy for Conservative media to engage in TV and cinema. A24 is functionally the money-ball of Hollywood, often producing successful movies at a modest budget in an era where big budget blockbusters are flops. A movie’s profits are made in production more than at the box office. There is a model for a Return on Investment for a Conservative Hollywood.
The second problem is where the money goes. Conservative Inc. has plenty of money for podcasts, but it is these media companies that absorb the money which might otherwise go towards producing culture. Many of these figures were themselves failed Hollywood actors who then transitioned into political media. The saying Politics is Hollywood for ugly people rings true in Con Inc. Jeremy Boreing is the most infamous example as he failed in Hollywood and nearly bankrupted Daily Wire to produce entertainment with The Pendragon Cycle becoming a massive boondoggle. These productions absorb much of the available money that might otherwise be given to better creatives. Because Conservative media tries to compete with Hollywood, they poison the well of Conservative art with productions that are often just mirror images of Hollywood slop (See Mr. Birchum).
As Dave Greene pointed out in response to Rufo:
To be at least a little artistic, in order not to be slop, and an entertainment product must do two things:
1. It must make people love it, not just like it or be mildly placated by it.
2. It must point people towards higher spiritual aspirations that they don’t encounter in their ordinary lives.
Obviously, algorithmically optimized content doesn’t do either of these two things, and neither does the focus-grouped pandering that you see in conservative media. Ultimately, conservatives have to get over a critical, flawed conception about art, namely that it is a demand-driven consumer product. It is not. Art is designed to lead people, not follow their desires. It’s not supposed to give audiences what they already say they want; it’s supposed to show them what they should want. It’s aspirational.
Again, these people failed in Hollywood, so of course, they will fail to compete against it. Even worse, they deter the donor class from funding genuinely good ideas because of their terrible execution. Greene would suggest recreating Shakespeare adaptations that, while unlikely to be financial homeruns, would demonstrate quality to an outside investor.
The third problem is Distribution. As alluded to, Conservative Inc wants to distribute its content, not just make it. This means they want to be the streaming service or use these productions to justify the price of their paywalled content. The Daily Wire’s production of Pendragon was already financially problematic before they decided to become the distribution platform, so they could reap the subscription revenue directly. Angel Studios serves as the distribution platform, but their brand is tainted as religious in the eyes of normies and unlikely to draw those outside their niche. Loor, of Doug Wilson’s orbit, also had the problem of wanting to be their own distribution platform and production company to great failure.
Being their own distributor is part of the problem. In order to compete with Hollywood, alternative media must be available to the masses where they already view media. That means being on a real streaming service, not creating another. Any project requires a distribution partner, whether that means Netflix, HBO-Max, Amazon, or Paramount. With the Netflix-HBO buyout, there will soon be only three major streamers, with YouTube as the final alternative (which means the product will have to be free to compete). If one’s product is not on either of those soon-to-be three options, then it does not exist in the eyes of most consumers.
Too often, Conservative Media wants to be the distribution platform, and that is a failing strategy to the investor class and the viewers. A conservative production company needs to be thought of as just another studio without the tainting of Conservatism or even religion. The problems that exist in right-wing art overlap with Christians producing art.
This then leads to the problem of talent. There is an abundance of creativity on the right, and where the money gets absorbed by the untalented Hollywood failures, but talented whites have been systematically excluded from Hollywood who otherwise could create culture with the right patronage. The easiest solution is to go to YouTube creators who produce art. The Critical Drinker is an author of an action-thriller novel series and, while anti-woke, is not overtly conservative in the eyes of normies. He will not have the stain of Daily Wire in their eyes. These creators exist, and if they could receive the funding, they could create an alternative to Hollywood with mass appeal while having an ingrained audience to sell to.
Another avenue for cultural investment would be video games. Gamergate was truly the political awakening for Millennials as wokeness came for the video games. For years, the industry has produced lackluster games or tainted existing properties with THE MESSAGE. DEI has also captured the major studios, who have undergone consolidation (Microsoft buying Activision Blizzard) or fallen into financial loss (Ubisoft). Independent games would be an avenue for financial investment that would not be seen as overtly political and could have excellent ROI for an investor. There is an abundance of white, conservative programmers who can develop games that would be commercially successful alternatives to the AAA failures. After all, these same people are being denied tech jobs in favor of H1B’s and would provide an investor access to a talent pool which might code more than games.
Conclusion
Chris Rufo might have several points regarding the inability of the Right to make art, but the reality is that Conservative Inc is the reason the Right cannot make art. It is not the lack of talent, but the lack of infrastructure to develop and hone talent. People like Rufo are part of the problem, especially since he has a history of hiring “artists” and calling for white men to forego lucrative careers for Panda Express. But because many of these people failed in Hollywood, they have absorbed resources that could have gone to legitimately creative people that Hollywood excludes. They seek to be conservative first, talented second when really good art is naturally conservative even if produced by liberals. Christian art fall into this same trap, which is why Christian movies have long sucked.
The talent is out there, but the money is being syphoned by untalented hacks. There is no bridging the patrons to the artist through Conservative Inc. An alternative bridge is what is needed. There need to be studios that are sympathetic to but untainted by Conservatism. They need not be Conservative Studio Inc, but a studio that so happens to align with conservatives. Politics and art might not truly be separate, but for art to truly be successful, there needs to be a veneer of separation.
