Ezra Klein: Charlie Kirk was practicing politics the right way

[ThatRobGuy]

Ezra Klein: Charlie Kirk was practicing politics the right way

The foundation of a free society is the ability to participate in politics without fear of violence. To lose that is to risk losing everything, New York Times columnist Ezra Klein writes.

www.sltrib.com

You can dislike much of what Kirk believed, and the following statement is still true: Kirk was practicing politics in exactly the right way. He was showing up to campuses and talking with anyone who would talk to him. He was one of the era’s most effective practitioners of persuasion. When the left thought its hold on the hearts and minds of college students was nearly absolute, Kirk showed up again and again to break it. Slowly, then all at once, he did. College-age voters shifted sharply right in the 2024 election.

Kirk and I were on different sides of most political arguments. We were on the same side on the continued possibility of American politics. It is supposed to be an argument, not a war; it is supposed to be won with words, not ended with bullets. I wanted Kirk to be safe for his sake, but I also wanted him to be safe for mine and for the sake of our larger shared project. The same is true for Shapiro, for Hoffman, for Hortman, for Thompson, for Trump, for Pelosi, for Whitmer. We are all safe, or none of us are.


Ezra Klein has been catching some hate for this piece...

 

[Bradskii]

You can dislike much of what Kirk believed, and the following statement is still true: Kirk was practicing politics in exactly the right way. He was showing up to campuses and talking with anyone who would talk to him.

It really sounds like he's never watched the guy holding court on campuses.

 

[Pommer]

It really sounds like he's never watched the guy holding court on campuses.

Yeah, but the gig sort of demands it, no?, the beyond-the-pale rhetoric keeps people talking, which is all we ultimately have.
Not talking is even worse, no matter how badly the talking is “going”.

 

[durangodawood]

Ezra Klein: Charlie Kirk was practicing politics the right way

The foundation of a free society is the ability to participate in politics without fear of violence. To lose that is to risk losing everything, New York Times columnist Ezra Klein writes.

www.sltrib.com

You can dislike much of what Kirk believed, and the following statement is still true: Kirk was practicing politics in exactly the right way. He was showing up to campuses and talking with anyone who would talk to him. He was one of the era’s most effective practitioners of persuasion. When the left thought its hold on the hearts and minds of college students was nearly absolute, Kirk showed up again and again to break it. Slowly, then all at once, he did. College-age voters shifted sharply right in the 2024 election.

Kirk and I were on different sides of most political arguments. We were on the same side on the continued possibility of American politics. It is supposed to be an argument, not a war; it is supposed to be won with words, not ended with bullets. I wanted Kirk to be safe for his sake, but I also wanted him to be safe for mine and for the sake of our larger shared project. The same is true for Shapiro, for Hoffman, for Hortman, for Thompson, for Trump, for Pelosi, for Whitmer. We are all safe, or none of us are.


Ezra Klein has been catching some hate for this piece...

The essence of the piece seems to be lets give Mr Kirk a medal for using words rather than violence.

Seems a low bar for handing out medals imo.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Ezra Klein has been catching some hate for this piece...

Rightfully so, because he got Kirk partially wrong and more-or-less whitewashed his project.

I think it's more accurate to think of Kirk as an evangelist rather than a debater. He didn't go to campuses to listen or to understand or to have his mind expanded. He went to convince others and he used the valance of debate to sell his message. That's not an inherently bad thing, but it's not quite the pinnacle of free speech that it's been made out to be. In person, he may have been genteel, but on his podcast and on the TPUSA website, he and his organization were more likely to throw around the vitriol that others have talked about and that EK managed to overlook.

I've seen some EKFans steelman his case by saying that what he's arguing is that Kirk was more effective at politics than a lot of Dems. Maybe that's a better read of EK's argument (I'm skeptical). Either way, it's certainly true that Kirk was highly effective.

What a lot of folks in my political camp are tired of is what I would describe as a form of emotional abuse being perpetrated by the right, and them getting away with it, while we're supposed to just take it and be polite.

I don't think for a second that the left is innocent or that it doesn't have a bunch of rot that needs to be excised. It does. But when we compare the things that are said and done on the left and the right by people with equivalent levels of influence and public stature, it's not even close.

I resurrected this in another thread:

Amazon.com

Can you imagine the outrage if one of Biden's advisors had written the forward to a book describing conservatives as subhuman? Or if Tim Walz had written a blurb for it? What prominent individual on the left just casually tosses around claims that Republican politicians deserve the death penalty? But this gets a pass. And that's just one example of the hypocrisy rampant on the right.

IME, right-wing commentators throw around a lot of things that, if you take them at face value, are objectively terrible, but they do so with a sort of snickering gentility that buys them enough wiggle room to avoid getting associated with that terrible message. Left-wing commentators do sort of the opposite - the emotion goes ahead of the language, and people respond to the sneering or angry emotion even if the words themselves are more reasonable.

ETA: Here's Steve Bannon again: "A third of teachers are terrorists" Can you imagine a Dem saying "A third of Baptist pastors are terrorists"?

 

[rambot]

Can you imagine the outrage if one of Biden's advisors had written the forward to a book describing conservatives as subhuman? Or if Tim Walz had written a blurb for it? What prominent individual on the left just casually tosses around claims that Republican politicians deserve the death penalty? But this gets a pass. And that's just one example of the hypocrisy rampant on the right.

IME, right-wing commentators throw around a lot of things that, if you take them at face value, are objectively terrible, but they do so with a sort of snickering gentility that buys them enough wiggle room to avoid getting associated with that terrible message. Left-wing commentators do sort of the opposite - the emotion goes ahead of the language, and people respond to the sneering or angry emotion even if the words themselves are more reasonable.

I keep about how often they keep bringing up "deplorables". I guess there hasn't been too many others.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

The essence of the piece seems to be lets give Mr Kirk a medal for using words rather than violence.

Seems a low bar for handing out medals imo.

It's not just the abstaining from violence, but just the mere proposal that dialogue should be had at all.

There have been several strategies apart from physical violence have been invoked in order to shut down even having a conversation with someone from the other side, out of the rationale that "Even giving them a platform to speak is too much"



Van Jones (from CNN) just shared this, indicating that he would somewhat agree Ezra's assessment, that despite disagreeing with Charlie, he was doing a good thing by being willing to engage in public dialogue with people he disagreed with.

 

[durangodawood]

It's not just the abstaining from violence, but just the mere proposal that dialogue should be had at all.

There have been several strategies apart from physical violence have been invoked in order to shut down even having a conversation with someone from the other side, out of the rationale that "Even giving them a platform to speak is too much"



Van Jones (from CNN) just shared this, indicating that he would somewhat agree Ezra's assessment, that despite disagreeing with Charlie, he was doing a good thing by being willing to engage in public dialogue with people he disagreed with.

I wonder what these campus "dialogs" were really like.

Here's a guy whos practiced every argument a million times over and very stage-assured going up against college randos who have none of that. Is that his typical dialog? Or is his typical dialog on even terms? I dont know.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I wonder what these campus "dialogs" were really like.

Here's a guy whos practiced every argument a million times over and very stage-assured going up against college randos who have none of that. Is that his typical dialog? Or is his typical dialog on even terms? I dont know.

Admittedly, I wasn't as familiar with his content prior to recent events, but I went back and watched a bunch of it.

Seems like he did everything from
- the "prove me wrong" bits that people are familiar with
- headlining political debate events like "PolitiCon" that were formal structured debates with neutral moderators
- going on overtly progressive podcasts to debate their hosts


Even in impromptu setting where there was no time to prepare... here's one excerpt.

The Young Turks got access to the RNC. While other conservative types were basically ignoring them and avoiding that table like the plague, he noticed they were there, pulled up a chair, and did an impromptu "friendly sparring session", for a half hour, with no advanced knowledge of the topics they'd be bringing up.

 

[Chesterton]

I wonder what these campus "dialogs" were really like.

Here's a guy whos practiced every argument a million times over and very stage-assured going up against college randos who have none of that. Is that his typical dialog? Or is his typical dialog on even terms? I dont know.

What's your point? He was very intelligent and had an encyclopedic mind for facts, and more importantly he was right. If Mike Tyson in his prime invited people to step into the ring with him and they volunteered to do so (which is basically what he did), who's fault is it they'd get defeated?

 

[Tropical Wilds]

Ezra Klein: Charlie Kirk was practicing politics the right way

The foundation of a free society is the ability to participate in politics without fear of violence. To lose that is to risk losing everything, New York Times columnist Ezra Klein writes.

www.sltrib.com

You can dislike much of what Kirk believed, and the following statement is still true: Kirk was practicing politics in exactly the right way.

 

[iluvatar5150]

What's your point? He was very intelligent and had an encyclopedic mind for facts, and more importantly he was right. If Mike Tyson in his prime invited people to step into the ring with him and they volunteered to do so (which is basically what he did), who's fault is it they'd get defeated?

I like your analogy, though I think it would be more accurate if you replaced Tyson in his prime with Tyson of today.

Tyson of today could destroy any rando off the street, but as we saw in the Jake Paul fight, he’s no longer able to keep up against younger professionals.

Kirk was smarter and more well read - and most importantly, better rehearsed - than the average undergrad, but he wasn’t smarter or more well read than subject matter experts.

Lauding Kirk’s dunking on undergrads is like claiming Tyson’s beating up a rando is an example of great boxing that does wonders for the sport. In a sports analogy, that would be obviously preposterous, but that’s what Kirk fans are doing.

 

[durangodawood]

What's your point? He was very intelligent and had an encyclopedic mind for facts, and more importantly he was right. If Mike Tyson in his prime invited people to step into the ring with him and they volunteered to do so (which is basically what he did), who's fault is it they'd get defeated?

If the point is entertainment, then sure, a boxing metaphor fits. So fun to watch Iron Mike cream some randos.

 

[Chesterton]

I like your analogy, though I think it would be more accurate if you replaced Tyson in his prime with Tyson of today.

Tyson of today could destroy any rando off the street, but as we saw in the Jake Paul fight, he’s no longer able to keep up against younger professionals.

Kirk was smarter and more well read - and most importantly, better rehearsed - than the average undergrad, but he wasn’t smarter or more well read than subject matter experts.

Lauding Kirk’s dunking on undergrads is like claiming Tyson’s beating up a rando is an example of great boxing that does wonders for the sport. In a sports analogy, that would be obviously preposterous, but that’s what Kirk fans are doing.

Charlie quit college after one semester. The undergrads should have been smarter than him, no? He was smarter, more well read and more honest than subject matter experts.

 

[durangodawood]

Oh my gosh this all reminds me of that event I promised not to mention again, but here I go..... when Dinesh DSouza came to college and I, as an audience member, shut down his point in public discussion. After his show, but still with a big throng around us. I actually thought he had a very keen intellect in his ability to spar verbally on the spot. Certainly better that I had. I think I won in that case because I was just good enough..... and right.

Since then tho I watched with dismay as my little victory has been steadily devalued by that smarmy punks decline into fantasy and criminality.

 

[Chesterton]

If the point is entertainment, then sure, a boxing metaphor fits. So fun to watch Iron Mike cream some randos.

Shouldn't our colleges be producing undergrads who can stand up to a college dropout?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Kirk was smarter and more well read - and most importantly, better rehearsed

per my previous post, not all of his engagements were "rehearsed environments" The video I linked shows the exchange where he noticed that the Young Turks where there (and being avoided by the rest of the conservatives at the RNC), so he pulled up a chair, and sparred with them for a half hour. While Cenk can be a tad obnoxious (and therefore it's easier to get a perceived as getting a "win" in a debate by merely making him so mad that he starts yelling and comes across looking a bit foolish), Ana's pretty sharp and is nothing if not well-prepared and composed in debates... she's the same one who's headlined political events debating against Shapiro. He went back and forth with both of them for 30 minutes, unrehearsed, represented his position fairly well, and they shook hands and had a laugh about an older exchange they'd had back in the day, and gave a sincerely friendly goodbye.


But that aside
How does one rehearse for 100 random people?

Unless his opponents' questions and talking points have become so predictable that he has a canned answer for all them? (which would say more about them than him)

 

[durangodawood]

He was smarter, more well read and more honest than subject matter experts.

He should have put that to the test.

 

[durangodawood]

Shouldn't our colleges be producing undergrads who can stand up to a college dropout?

I dont hold lack of college against anyone. On average its a great thing to do, but you can learn things and hone your intellect elsewhere

 

[Tropical Wilds]

What's your point? He was very intelligent and had an encyclopedic mind for facts, and more importantly he was right. If Mike Tyson in his prime invited people to step into the ring with him and they volunteered to do so (which is basically what he did), who's fault is it they'd get defeated?

He was not a particularly educated person… He could recite the right facts for the right audience on the right topics. His ability to generate a sound bite higher-than-average, but his ability to deliver an insightful sound bite decidedly less so. His ability to be off-the-cuff insightful was average-to-poor. If he was pulled off his topics of choice to something he wasn’t familiar with, he was not at all particularly well-spoken or thought provoking. He’s a guy who appealed to a certain demographic, which is fine, but that’s all.

Frankly, in the 13ish days since his death, his wife has delivered more quotable insights than he ever did.