Ezra Klein: Charlie Kirk was practicing politics the right way

[Chesterton]

He should have put that to the test.

Newton should have wrote about physics.

 

[durangodawood]

Newton should have wrote about physics.

Taking on random undergrads and bottom of the barrel public "intellectuals"?

 

[Chesterton]

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.

You shouldn't discuss things you obviously haven't listened to.

 

[Chesterton]

Taking on random undergrads and bottom of the barrel public "intellectuals"?

This is interesting. Which one of the intellectuals he spoke with was bottom of the barrel? Cenk? I could agree with that. Bill Maher? I could agree with that. But I'm curious who you're talking about.

 

[durangodawood]

This is interesting. Which one of the intellectuals he spoke with was bottom of the barrel? Cenk? I could agree with that. Bill Maher? I could agree with that. But I'm curious who you're talking about.

Yes I was thinking of the "young turks". Not dummies. But are these the real thinkers of our times?

 

[iluvatar5150]

Charlie quit college after one semester. The undergrads should have been smarter than him, no?

No, that’s absurd.

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

Oh? Are there any examples of him debating SME’s in their field and coming out ahead?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

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.

Per the previous posts I've made here, that's a false statement.

This was an impromptu 30-minute exchange, unscripted, no knowledge of what the topics would be, no time to prepare.

He happened to see the hosts of one of the more prominent progressive shows sitting there being largely avoided and ignored, and agreed to pull up a chair and talk with them for a half hour.

 

[iluvatar5150]

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)

He spent multiple hours a day talking into a microphone. Rehearsing arguments was literally his full-time job.

Part of it is that yes, the talking points are predictable; part of it is that he was reasonably good at this endeavor; part of it is that the live “debate” format allows him to get away with stretching the truth.

I saw one video recently where somebody asked something to the effect of how he reconciles his faith with his nationalism and he rattled off a couple of verses that in no way supported his contention, but when recited quickly, authoritatively, and out of context, had the intended effect.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Oh? Are there any examples of him debating SME’s in their field and coming out ahead?

search for "Charlie debates College Professor", there's several videos that'll pop up

There's videos of him debating Oxford professors on their home turf.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I saw one video recently where somebody asked something to the effect of how he reconciles his faith with his nationalism and he rattled off a couple of verses that in no way supported his contention, but when recited quickly, authoritatively, and out of context, had the intended effect.

Is that not the similar to the form of rhetorical leverage higher-ups in academia may use to "win" debates?
(having more experience speaking in front of crowds, having more factoids committed to memory, speaking from a place of perceived authority, etc...)

 

[Tropical Wilds]

You shouldn't discuss things you obviously haven't listened to.

You shouldn’t give opinions on something you obviously aren’t informed on.

 

[Chesterton]

No, that’s absurd.

So why are people talking like he was a giant going up against mere mortals?

Oh? Are there any examples of him debating SME’s in their field and coming out ahead?

Robguy answered this below.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Is that not the similar to the form of rhetorical leverage higher-ups in academia may use to "win" debates?
(having more experience speaking in front of crowds, having more factoids committed to memory, speaking from a place of perceived authority, etc...)

Yes. This is part of why I think the entire format is a performative fraud. It’s useful prep for something like trial litigation where there are formal rules and processes for presenting arguments, but as for actually hashing out what is true, it’s worthless. The only things of value in the presidential debates are the zingers.

 

[iluvatar5150]

So why are people talking like he was a giant going up against mere mortals?

He wasn’t a “giant,” but he was pretty well practiced. The kids aren’t.

To go back to the boxing analogy- the guy who holds the pads for Tyson isn’t a GOAT like Mike is, but he could still whoop me and you without breaking a sweat.

 

[Chesterton]

He wasn’t a “giant,” but he was pretty well practiced. The kids aren’t.

To go back to the boxing analogy- the guy who holds the pads for Tyson isn’t a GOAT like Mike is, but he could still whoop me and you without breaking a sweat.

My point is that he's being criticized for talking with people who were not as good at thinking than him. Again, like criticizing Michael Jordan for being better than his opponents. Voluntary oppenents.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Yes. This is part of why I think the entire format is a performative fraud. It’s useful prep for something like trial litigation where there are formal rules and processes for presenting arguments, but as for actually hashing out what is true, it’s worthless. The only things of value in the presidential debates are the zingers.

But why is that only viewed as "performative fraud" in certain circumstances?

When "academic consensus" is invoked to make a case for some kind of position in the soft sciences (which are subjective by their very nature), and everyone pops up to say "we should trust the experts", isn't that just emblematic of a memorization exercises based on parroting back some stuff they were told in that environment?

I've harped on it before, but a perfect example is the fact that both Milton Friedman and Paul Krugman are Nobel winners in economics despite having very different views on most things...they both can't be right simultaneously.

So in the realm of soft sciences, how is what a Poli Sci or philosophy professor does for a living, different than what Kirk did? (getting young people to be political sympathetic to their position (that was likely instilled by someone else) based on their speaking abilities)

 

[Bradskii]

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?

Yes, most defintely. I've watched a lot of his 'debates' over the last year. All his college ones follow the same format. He sits on a chair under a small marquee or similar, couple of security dudes either side, barrier in front of him. Random students who want to engage are effectively granted an audience, stand in front of the barrier and are given the mike.

They get to ask a question or make a statement and ask for his views. They are invariably on well trodden subjects. Kirk had his patter, would sometimes ask gotcha questions back: What do you think a woman is? Do you think underqualified people should be hired over more qualified? Do you think that illegal immigrants who break the law should be allowed to stay? Do you agree with feminism? All intended to get a single black or white response which can then be dismantled with any number of examples. If a question comes up that he realises he's not on firm ground in supporting then he'll divert: Well, that's a good question, but let me ask you one'

It's not debate. It's a party trick.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

Per the previous posts I've made here, that's a false statement.

This was an impromptu 30-minute exchange, unscripted, no knowledge of what the topics would be, no time to prepare.

He happened to see the hosts of one of the more prominent progressive shows sitting there being largely avoided and ignored, and agreed to pull up a chair and talk with them for a half hour.

Yes, and he talked about topics that are his wheelhouse, and those that weren’t, he did a cold reading, something any person who’s lead a group talk can do.

Go to his section about family leave… He didn’t know what the standard is, what they do in Europe, who even talked about legislation about it, and when asked why republicans and democrats can’t come together to do something, he did a word salad about not wanting more government programs, some people will abuse the system, and then declared the money we send to the Ukraine (200 million, according to him) should go to fund FMLA.

He didn’t answer the question, he didn’t source his numbers, he didn’t show and understanding on what it would cost or how it would be executed… He pulled out old faithful (Ukraine), yelled a number ($200 million), and said to use that, despite the fact the funding of one has nothing to do with the other, nor are they transferable expenses.

There was no deep insight. No profound remarks on why FMLA was important, how it helps families, how extending it would benefit people, he stated he doesn’t know how it goes anywhere else, and gave a non-answer that he didn’t even bother to think about for more than 2 seconds. There’s nothing special, intelligent, articulate, or profound about that. And that’s how he rolls with all his debates… Steering the topic to his comfort zone, throwing darts at buzz topics, maybe generating a clickbait sound bite, and announcing he won.

A master of marketing with a dynamic personality that appeals to a certain group? Yes, absolutely.
A schtick that people remember and is easy to execute? Yes.
Profound intelligence that distinguishes him from the herd? No.
A thinker and profound articulate who challenges free thought like MLK, Angelou, Dylan, and other modern social/political luminaries? Absolutely not.
A person who’s words will be quoted and studied and seen as a guiding light to the advancement of society? Not even close.

 

[Bradskii]

Unless his opponents' questions and talking points have become so predictable that he has a canned answer for all them?

The questions would all be about his views. What he had said. His positions on politics or gender or immigration. The students were there to talk to him about him. Of course all the questions were predictable.

 

[Bradskii]

My point is that he's being criticized for talking with people who were not as good at thinking than him.

No. He's being criticised for the manner in which he held his 'debates.' Two or three minutes on subjects he'd been asked about dozens of times, so his responses were rehearsed over very many interactions. You might as well have been asking ChatGPT for a three minute diatribe on feminism.