{"id":160004,"date":"2025-03-20T06:02:11","date_gmt":"2025-03-20T14:02:11","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/?p=160004"},"modified":"2025-03-20T06:09:47","modified_gmt":"2025-03-20T14:09:47","slug":"the-long-con-mail-order-conservatism","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/?p=160004","title":{"rendered":"‘The Long Con: Mail-Order Conservatism’"},"content":{"rendered":"

I asked Grok about this November 2012 Rick Pearlstein essay<\/a> and how well it holds up today:<\/p>\n

Rick Perlstein\u2019s essay \u201cThe Long Con,\u201d published in The Baffler in November 2012, dives into the world of conservative direct-mail campaigns, multilevel marketing schemes, and the broader culture of grift that he argues has long underpinned the American right. Perlstein frames this phenomenon as a symbiotic relationship between ideological fervor and financial exploitation, spotlighting figures like Mitt Romney and the broader conservative ecosystem of the time. As of March 20, 2025, let\u2019s assess how this piece holds up over a decade later, considering political, cultural, and technological shifts.
\nAt its core, Perlstein\u2019s argument is that the conservative movement has historically fused genuine belief with a predatory hustle, using fearmongering and patriotic appeals to fleece the faithful while advancing a political agenda. He cites examples like Romney\u2019s flip-flops on abortion and federal funding for the Olympics, alongside the \u201cgold scam\u201d peddled by right-wing media, as evidence of a pattern: leaders lie, followers buy in, and someone always profits. In 2012, this was a sharp critique of the Romney campaign and the Tea Party-era GOP, written as Obama\u2019s re-election loomed.
\nToday, the essay\u2019s central thesis feels prescient, even evergreen. The grift Perlstein describes didn\u2019t fade with Romney\u2019s loss\u2014it metastasized. Donald Trump\u2019s rise, starting with his 2015 campaign, supercharged the dynamics Perlstein outlines. Trump\u2019s brand of politics\u2014built on exaggerated promises, conspiracies, and direct appeals to supporters\u2019 wallets (think Trump University, NFTs, or fundraising emails claiming election fraud)\u2014is like the direct-mail scams of 2012 on steroids. The essay\u2019s observation that \u201cthe ideological con\u201d and \u201cthe money con\u201d blur together rings truer now, as Trump\u2019s post-2020 efforts raised hundreds of millions from small donors under dubious pretenses, often funneled to his legal fees or personal ventures.
\nThe mechanics have evolved, though. Perlstein focuses on physical mail\u2014Newsmax subscriptions, Townhall ads\u2014reflecting 2012\u2019s still-analog fundraising landscape. By 2025, the grift has gone digital: X posts, crowdfunding platforms, and crypto schemes have largely replaced envelopes. Yet the psychology remains identical\u2014exploit trust, stoke fear, promise salvation. Recent examples, like MAGA influencers hawking \u201cTrump coins\u201d or conspiracy-laden health supplements, echo the gold scams Perlstein mocked. The players may have shifted\u2014less Romney, more Marjorie Taylor Greene\u2014but the game\u2019s the same.
\nWhere the essay feels dated is in its optimism that exposure might disrupt the con. Perlstein writes as if cataloging the lies could shame the perpetrators or awaken the duped. Post-Trump, that hope seems quaint. The GOP base has doubled down, embracing \u201calternative facts\u201d and dismissing critiques as elite bias. Romney, once a grifter in Perlstein\u2019s eyes, is now a relative moderate, sidelined by a party that\u2019s leaned harder into the tactics he critiqued. The essay\u2019s faith in a discerning public hasn\u2019t aged well\u2014polarization and media fragmentation have only deepened the marks\u2019 loyalty.
\nCulturally, Perlstein\u2019s lens still applies beyond politics. The rise of influencer scams, NFT bubbles, and wellness hustles suggests the \u201clong con\u201d isn\u2019t just a conservative quirk\u2014it\u2019s a feature of late capitalism. His focus on the right, though, misses how the left has developed its own grift, from performative crowdfunding to sanctimonious branding. The essay\u2019s partisan frame feels narrower now, when the hustle transcends ideology.
\nStructurally, \u201cThe Long Con\u201d holds up as a biting, well-researched snapshot. Its anecdotes\u2014Romney\u2019s contradictions, the \u201cGoldline\u201d racket\u2014remain vivid, and its prose crackles with indignation. But its predictive power is where it shines: Perlstein saw a machine that wouldn\u2019t just persist but grow bolder. In 2025, with Trump eyeing a second term and the GOP wielding X as a megaphone, the essay reads less like history and more like a playbook still in use. It\u2019s not flawless\u2014its analog focus and faint reformist hope show their age\u2014but it\u2019s a damn good mirror for today\u2019s chaos. The con\u2019s longer than ever.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Who are the most dubious advertisers in right-wing media today?<\/p>\n

Pinpointing the “most dubious” advertisers in right-wing media as of March 20, 2025, involves looking at patterns of deceptive practices, exaggerated claims, and exploitation of trust within conservative audiences. Based on available trends and recent developments, here\u2019s a rundown of some standout culprits.
\nOne major category is gold and precious metal companies, like Goldco or Birch Gold Group, which heavily advertise on right-wing platforms such as Newsmax, Fox News, and X influencers\u2019 channels. These firms often pitch gold as a hedge against an imminent economic collapse\u2014think \u201cBiden\u2019s ruining the dollar, buy now!\u201d\u2014using fear tactics that echo Perlstein\u2019s \u201clong con\u201d from 2012. While not inherently scams, their ads frequently overpromise returns and downplay risks, targeting older, conservative viewers who may not dig into the fine print. The FTC has cracked down on similar outfits in the past, like Goldline a decade ago, but today\u2019s players keep the hustle alive with endorsements from personalities like Sean Hannity.
\nThen there\u2019s the supplement and wellness racket\u2014think MyPillow guy Mike Lindell\u2019s \u201cMyStore\u201d pushing unproven health products or Alex Jones\u2019 Infowars hawking \u201cSuper Male Vitality.\u201d These advertisers thrive on right-wing distrust of mainstream medicine, peddling cures with little scientific backing. Jones, for instance, has faced legal heat over false claims, yet his model persists across podcasts and YouTube channels tied to figures like Tim Pool or Benny Johnson. The FDA occasionally sends warning letters, but enforcement lags behind the flood of ads.
\nCrypto and investment scams are another hot spot. Post-2020 election, outlets like The Gateway Pundit and X posts from MAGA influencers hyped \u201cTrump coins\u201d or dubious blockchain ventures, often tied to multilevel marketing schemes. These prey on patriotic fervor\u2014\u201cinvest in Trump\u2019s America!\u201d\u2014but many turn out to be pump-and-dump cons, leaving small investors burned. The DOJ\u2019s 2024 indictment of Epoch Times\u2019 CFO for laundering $67 million hints at how deep financial grift can run in these circles, even if not directly ad-related.
\nFinally, ad networks like AdStyle deserve a nod. ProPublica exposed this shadowy outfit in 2023 for plastering right-wing sites (e.g., Saber Communications\u2019 pro-Trump pages) with fake celebrity endorsements\u2014Oprah pushing CBD gummies, Elon Musk touting crypto. AdStyle\u2019s not an advertiser per se but a conduit, splitting profits with publishers while dodging accountability. Its Delaware registration\u2019s a ghost, and its scam ads keep popping up, exploiting algorithmic ad placement to rake in clicks from trusting readers.
\nWhy these stand out: they lean hard into fear, loyalty, and anti-establishment vibes\u2014hallmarks of right-wing media\u2019s audience. Data\u2019s patchy\u2014no public ledger tracks \u201cmost dubious\u201d by revenue\u2014but X chatter and investigative pieces (e.g., ProPublica, NBC) spotlight these as repeat offenders. Gold and supplements hit older demographics via TV and radio; crypto and AdStyle-style scams target younger, online conservatives. All dodge scrutiny by blending ideology with profit, a playbook Perlstein nailed over a decade ago that\u2019s only gotten slicker.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

How dubious are Dennis Prager’s advertisers? <\/p>\n

Evaluating the “dubiousness” of Dennis Prager’s advertisers as of March 20, 2025, requires looking at the types of companies tied to his platform, their track records, and how they align with the patterns of exploitation Rick Perlstein flagged in his 2012 essay. The link you provided (https:\/\/dennisprager.com\/our-advertisers) lists sponsors of The Dennis Prager Show, a long-running conservative radio program. While the specific list can shift, Prager\u2019s advertisers historically and currently tend to reflect broader trends in right-wing media\u2014some are straightforward businesses, others flirt with questionable claims or predatory tactics. Let\u2019s break it down.
\nThe current advertisers on that page include names like Relief Factor, a supplement company Prager\u2019s long endorsed for pain relief. Its pitch\u2014fish oil and botanicals as a cure-all\u2014leans on testimonials over rigorous science. The FTC\u2019s warned similar firms about unverified health claims, though Relief Factor itself hasn\u2019t faced direct action. It\u2019s not a scam outright, but its aggressive marketing to older, trusting listeners fits Perlstein\u2019s grift archetype: overpromise, undersubstantiate. Prager\u2019s personal vouching\u2014he says it worked for his wife\u2014adds credibility without evidence, a classic move.
\nThen there\u2019s AMAC (Association of Mature American Citizens), pitched as an AARP alternative for conservatives. It\u2019s legit as a membership org, offering discounts and insurance, but its heavy-handed \u201canti-socialist\u201d branding and upselling of financial products (like annuities) can prey on retirees\u2019 fears. No major legal red flags, but the fear-driven sales echo the direct-mail scams Perlstein critiqued.
\nGoldco pops up too, a precious metals dealer pushing gold IRAs. This ties straight into the right-wing trope of impending economic doom\u2014think \u201cBiden\u2019s crashing the dollar!\u201d Goldco\u2019s been sued (e.g., a 2021 California case alleging misleading fees), and while it\u2019s not a Ponzi scheme, its high-pressure tactics and inflated pricing target the same paranoid demographic as the old Goldline scams. The SEC and FTC watch this sector closely; Goldco\u2019s not uniquely bad, just part of a dubious pack.
\nPragerU itself, co-founded by Prager, isn\u2019t an advertiser but a sister entity often plugged on the show. Its \u201ceducational\u201d videos are free, funded by donors, not a direct hustle\u2014yet its selective narratives (e.g., downplaying slavery\u2019s horrors) sell ideology over facts, a subtler con. It\u2019s not about profit but influence, though it boosts the ecosystem\u2019s revenue indirectly.
\nPast sponsors, like MyPillow, also linger in memory. Mike Lindell\u2019s pillows are real products, but his wild election fraud claims and discount-code saturation on conservative airwaves turned it into a loyalty racket. MyPillow\u2019s faced BBB complaints and a 2016 false-advertising settlement ($1M) over unproven health benefits\u2014dubious enough to fit the pattern.
\nHow dubious are they overall? It\u2019s a spectrum. Relief Factor and Goldco skirt the edge with shaky claims and fear-based pitches, exploiting trust more than breaking laws\u2014Perlstein\u2019s \u201cmoney con\u201d in action. AMAC\u2019s tamer, a standard advocacy group with a sales twist. None are outright frauds like fake charities; they\u2019re legal but lean on emotional manipulation over substance. Compared to broader right-wing media\u2014say, Alex Jones\u2019 snake-oil supplements or Trump\u2019s NFT grift\u2014Prager\u2019s advertisers are less cartoonishly shady but still trade on the same vulnerabilities: an audience primed to buy salvation from a collapsing world. Data\u2019s thin\u2014no public revenue breakdown exists\u2014but X posts and listener anecdotes suggest these ads hit hard with older, loyal fans, the perfect marks for a long con.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

To what extent should Dennis Prager be held morally accountable for his dubious advertisers such as Lear Capital<\/a>? Mar. 20, 2025, Grok says: <\/p>\n

\nAssessing Dennis Prager\u2019s moral accountability for dubious advertisers like Lear Capital hinges on his role, intent, and the impact of his platform as of March 20, 2025. The Washington Post article you linked (July 25, 2023) details how Lear Capital, a gold IRA company, advertised heavily on right-wing media, including cases where elderly clients like Terry White lost significant sums\u2014$80,000 in White\u2019s case\u2014due to high commissions (e.g., 33%) and misleading promises. While Prager isn\u2019t directly tied to Lear in the piece, his show\u2019s advertisers, like Goldco, operate in the same murky gold IRA space, suggesting a pattern worth probing.
\nPrager\u2019s accountability starts with his platform. The Dennis Prager Show reaches millions via radio and online, targeting a conservative audience often skeptical of mainstream institutions\u2014prime marks for fear-based pitches like gold IRAs. He doesn\u2019t just host; he endorses. For Relief Factor, he\u2019s claimed it helped his wife, and for Goldco, he\u2019s likely framed it as a bulwark against economic ruin (common in his rhetoric about government overreach). This isn\u2019t passive ad-reading\u2014it\u2019s leveraging trust. When a figure like Prager, who positions himself as a moral arbiter, vouches for products, listeners may assume vetting\u2019s been done. If those products fleece them, his role shifts from bystander to enabler.
\nBut how much should he know? The gold IRA industry\u2019s red flags\u2014lawsuits, FTC warnings, and tales like White\u2019s\u2014aren\u2019t secret. The Post notes regulators have accused firms like Lear of fraud, with markups so steep (up to 213% per some suits) that investors need gold prices to soar just to break even. Goldco, a Prager advertiser, faced a 2021 California lawsuit over misleading fees, settled quietly. Prager\u2019s not a financial expert, but he\u2019s a savvy operator\u2014decades in media suggest he\u2019s aware of who pays his bills. Choosing not to dig into their practices could be willful blindness, especially if revenue (potentially 10% of earnings, per Post sources on similar deals) trumps scrutiny.
\nIntent matters too. There\u2019s no evidence Prager knows these companies harm listeners and doesn\u2019t care\u2014contrast this with Alex Jones, who\u2019s settled for pushing bunk supplements he knew were shaky. Prager\u2019s likely driven by ideology (gold as a conservative hedge) and business, not malice. Yet ignorance isn\u2019t a free pass. If he\u2019s negligent\u2014failing to vet advertisers despite their track records\u2014that\u2019s a moral lapse for someone who lectures on ethics. His audience, often older and loyal, trusts him implicitly; the Post\u2019s Jeanne White blamed Fox for her husband\u2019s losses, saying they \u201cwouldn\u2019t take a commercial like that unless it was legitimate.\u201d Prager fans likely feel the same.
\nImpact seals it. If even a fraction of his listeners get burned\u2014say, losing retirement savings to Goldco\u2019s fees or Relief Factor\u2019s hype\u2014the harm\u2019s real. No hard data ties Prager\u2019s ads to specific losses, but the ecosystem he feeds mirrors Lear\u2019s: fear-laden pitches, high markups, vulnerable marks. Perlstein\u2019s \u201clong con\u201d fits here\u2014Prager\u2019s not the scammer, but he\u2019s a cog, amplifying the hustle.
\nHe\u2019s not fully culpable\u2014advertisers bear primary guilt for deceit\u2014but he\u2019s not off the hook. Morally, he\u2019s accountable to the extent he trades on trust without due diligence, especially given his influence and the industry\u2019s stench. A preacher of personal responsibility should practice it. If he\u2019s pocketing ad cash while shrugging at the fallout, that\u2019s a hypocrisy his own principles indict. Call it 40% accountable: not the architect, but a knowing gatekeeper who could\u2019ve locked the door.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

I asked Grok about this November 2012 Rick Pearlstein essay and how well it holds up today: Rick Perlstein\u2019s essay \u201cThe Long Con,\u201d published in The Baffler in November 2012, dives into the world of conservative direct-mail campaigns, multilevel marketing … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"om_disable_all_campaigns":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[201,4],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-160004","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-conservatives","category-dennis-prager"],"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t