I just received an ad in my inbox from Tucker Carlson shilling the Heritage Foundation. Should I interpret this as Establishment Conservatism bending the knee to the post-2016 Dissident Right, or is this Establishment Conservatism infiltrating the new ecosystem to one day return to the pre-2016 ways of thinking? Who is using who?
The appearance of Tucker Carlson promoting the Heritage Foundation can be read in multiple, equally provocative ways, and the interpretation you choose depends on the framework one employs to understand the evolution of American conservatism in the post-2016 era.
One perspective is that Establishment Conservatism is, at least superficially, bending the knee to the post-2016 Dissident Right. In this reading, figures like Carlson—who emerged as vocal outsiders during the Trump era—symbolize an insurgent break from what was once a more predictable, technocratic conservatism. The Heritage Foundation, long seen as a bastion of established conservative policy thought, may now be seeking to harness the cultural resonance and media savvy of dissident figures in order to repackage its ideological legacy. This strategy resembles historical instances in which mainstream institutions adopt populist rhetoric to reengage with a disaffected electorate. For example, during the Reagan revolution, the conservative establishment co-opted elements of the grassroots movement, transforming an insurgency into a governing paradigm. In the current context, such a move might be understood as an admission that the old guard can no longer claim an uncontested monopoly on conservative legitimacy and must therefore incorporate, or at least signal an affinity with, the more radical critiques offered by figures like Carlson.
An alternative interpretation posits that what we are witnessing is Establishment Conservatism actively infiltrating the new ecosystem of the Dissident Right. Rather than a capitulation to radical ideas, the Heritage Foundation’s willingness to platform Carlson could be read as a calculated attempt to temper or domesticate the energy of the dissident movement. By bringing a disruptive voice into an established institutional framework, the conservative establishment might be trying to reshape the insurgent agenda from within, steering it back toward a more controlled, even familiar, ideological territory. Historically, the conservative movement has periodically absorbed radical elements in order to consolidate power—what some theorists have called “conversion from within.” This process often involves co-opting the symbols and rhetoric of dissent while simultaneously reasserting traditional policy prescriptions and institutional discipline. In this scenario, the Heritage Foundation isn’t capitulating to dissident impulses but is rather positioning itself as the mediator between the old and the new, ensuring that even radical discourse is ultimately subsumed under the longstanding principles of conservative orthodoxy.
Thus, the question “Who is using who?” might best be answered by recognizing a symbiotic, albeit uneasy, relationship. The post-2016 dissident right offers the establishment an invigorating challenge to its perceived stasis, one that can be harnessed to energize its base and reframe policy debates. Conversely, the establishment provides the dissident right with institutional legitimacy and access to the policymaking process, tempering its more radical impulses and integrating its narratives into the mainstream political dialogue. This interplay has historical precedents: think of how populist movements have been both suppressed and repurposed by elite institutions throughout the twentieth century.
Moreover, the contemporary landscape is characterized by rapid ideological flux and media fragmentation, where the boundaries between insurgency and establishment are increasingly porous. In this environment, figures like Carlson can simultaneously be seen as the voice of a revolt against the status quo and as a conduit through which the establishment renews its relevance. This duality is emblematic of what some political theorists have described as the “postmodern political formation,” in which oppositional identities and institutional power are interwoven in a complex dance of appropriation and resistance.
In sum, whether one interprets the ad as Establishment Conservatism bending to the post-2016 Dissident Right or as the establishment infiltrating and reappropriating the insurgent space depends on the analytical lens. The truth likely encompasses elements of both dynamics: a mutually beneficial, if tension-ridden, symbiosis in which each side is both co-optor and co-opted. The resulting ideological landscape is one where traditional conservative institutions and radical dissident voices are not so much at war as they are engaged in a continuous process of negotiation and realignment, each seeking to define the future trajectory of conservative thought in America.
