Ezra Klein: Charlie Kirk was practicing politics the right way

ThatRobGuy · 2025-10-04T18:27:34-0500

RestoreTheJoy said:
The implication of "holding court" is that Kirk considered himself above the students as a King is above his subjects of his royal court, and suggests subjects are inferiors, hangers-on, or sycophants, who feel compelled to support. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I wouldn't even take the "holding court" thing as a pejorative.

Kirk probably did consider himself to be above the average college student. Not to the degree that a king would view subjects obviously. But for any adult who's raised a family, started a business, and become influential enough that they're a household name and got to rub shoulders with political leaders... they are "above" (in terms of life experience and certain practical skills) your average person whose only exposure is confined to theoretical academics.

The backlash to the fact that he came across as "talking down" to them (and often bested them in debates in some instances) highlights how much academic credentialism has permeated society. Where it's considered some sort of "offense to sensibilities" for a non-college person to be able to be able to "beat" a college educated person in anything that's considered to be an "intellectual endeavor"

I've posted this before, but these types of dynamics are reminiscent to the scene in "Back to School", where Dangerfield's character (a drop out, but someone who's actually navigated the business world) has an exchange with the Business/Economics professor.

Dangerfield's character "Thornton Melon" is clearly "talking down" to uptight professor, and may include themes and concepts that progressive academic types find offensive, but is a closer representation of how things really work in the world, and highlights the difference between "in a perfect world" vs. "in the world we actually live in"

Hans Blaster · 2025-10-04T18:44:35-0500

ThatRobGuy said:
I wouldn't even take the "holding court" thing as a pejorative.

Kirk probably did consider himself to be above the average college student. Not to the degree that a king would view subjects obviously. But for any adult who's raised a family, started a business, and become influential enough that they're a household name and got to rub shoulders with political leaders... they are "above" (in terms of life experience and certain practical skills) your average person whose only exposure is confined to theoretical academics.

The backlash to the fact that he came across as "talking down" to them (and often bested them in debates in some instances) highlights how much academic credentialism has permeated society. Where it's considered some sort of "offense to sensibilities" for a non-college person to be able to be able to "beat" a college educated person in anything that's considered to be an "intellectual endeavor"

I've posted this before, but these types of dynamics are reminiscent to the scene in "Back to School", where Dangerfield's character (a drop out, but someone who's actually navigated the business world) has an exchange with the Business/Economics professor.

Dangerfield's character "Thornton Melon" is clearly "talking down" to uptight professor, and may include themes and concepts that progressive academic types find offensive, but is a closer representation of how things really work in the world, and highlights the difference between "in a perfect world" vs. "in the world we actually live in"

There is no world in which Charlie Kirk was a smart as Thorton Mellon III and Mellon's sparring partner was a caricature of the uptight, ivory tower types with no experience running the kind of businesses he taught about.

ThatRobGuy · 2025-10-04T18:53:02-0500

Hans Blaster said:
There is no world in which Charlie Kirk was a smart as Thorton Mellon III and Mellon's sparring partner was a caricature of the uptight, ivory tower types with no experience running the kind of businesses he taught about.

Sure he was...

Charlie Kirk built became a multi-millionaire monetizing an idea in a way that resonated with people. Became high profile enough that he was getting invited to Oxford/Harvard/Etc to engage with professors, rubbing shoulders with Presidents and Senators, and doing all of that being a community college drop out who founded a company (now valued at $380M) when he was still in his teens.

If it were that easy to do, we all would have done it.

Hans Blaster · 2025-10-04T18:56:13-0500

ThatRobGuy said:
Sure he was...

Charlie Kirk built became a multi-millionaire monetizing an idea in a way that resonated with people. Became high profile enough that he was getting invited to Oxford/Harvard/Etc to engage with professors, rubbing shoulders with Presidents and Senators, and doing all of that being a community college drop out who founded a company (now valued at $380M) when he was still in his teens.

If it were that easy to do, we all would have done it.

He was a "debate bro", don't mistake that for intellect.

ThatRobGuy · 2025-10-04T19:08:07-0500

Hans Blaster said:
He was a "debate bro", don't mistake that for intellect.

It takes a certain amount of intelligence and calculated to be able to translate that into becoming a multi-millionaire.

If it were as simple as "say some things that agitate other people to the delight of some other people", you and I would both be driving Ferraris based on our royalties and monetization of CF posts.

Hans Blaster · 2025-10-04T19:16:28-0500

ThatRobGuy said:
It takes a certain amount of intelligence and calculated to be able to translate that into becoming a multi-millionaire.

If it were as simple as "say some things that agitate other people to the delight of some other people", you and I would both be driving Ferraris based on our royalties and monetization of CF posts.

I can't hold a handle to you, Rob.

Bradskii · 2025-10-04T19:22:49-0500

ThatRobGuy said:
Became high profile enough that he was getting invited to Oxford/Harvard/Etc to engage with professors...

From here: charlie kirk appesarance fee - Yahoo Search Results

Charlie Kirk did not invent the method of traveling “stump debates” or campus spectacles; that tradition reaches back centuries. But he did master a modern version of it by bullying underprepared college kids rather than engaging seasoned orators, scholars or those with deep pockets and experience.

The absurdity lies not just in his tactics but in how the media framed them as legitimate debate, when in fact the entire setup was a carefully staged performance.

This wasn’t a debate; it was propaganda repackaged as an intellectual triumph. His “Prove Me Wrong” format was misleading from the start. It suggested he was open to persuasion when, in fact, the entire setup prevented such an outcome.

Real debate requires humility — the possibility that one might be wrong. Kirk’s certainty was performative rather than earned.

Bradskii · 2025-10-04T19:24:29-0500

ThatRobGuy said:
It takes a certain amount of intelligence...

It's not that a person selling something needs any great intelligence. What makes the money is the stupidity of the people buying what's being sold.

ThatRobGuy · 2025-10-04T20:24:12-0500

Bradskii said:
It's not that a person selling something needs any great intelligence. What makes the money is the stupidity of the people buying what's being sold.

"A person who espouses my values and doesn't call me stupid" is, in and of itself, something that has market value.

The "wrinkle" with that is that there are political implications up for grabs.

If you think that people who hold certain conservative values are stupid...when a person who espouses those values can "best" the progressives in very public forums, and that impacts political outcomes...that's something progressives need to factor into the overall strategy.

Their choices are:

A) stop acting like someone's stupid merely on account of them not being willing to adopt a very new radical concept in a very short timespan
or
B) find a left-wing version of Kirk who can publicly "own the Conservs" in the same way he "owned the Libs" in such commanding fashion.

Certainly you can understand why someone who's fed up with being labelled as a "country bumpkin simpleton" by someone half their age (who's asking them to reimburse the costs of the very education that led them to that opinion) based on the fact that they don't want to "completely rethink established norm XYZ by next Thursday" would've drawn them to Charlie, correct?

Bradskii · 2025-10-04T20:30:49-0500

ThatRobGuy said:
If you think that people who hold certain conservative values are stupid...

It might be more productive if you addressed what I say instead of misrepresenting it.

ThatRobGuy · 2025-10-04T20:38:23-0500

Bradskii said:
It might be more productive if you addressed what I say instead of misrepresenting it.

Your comment was, and I quote:
What makes the money is the stupidity of the people buying what's being sold.

So quick question...

Is a person who says if you're born a male, you're a man, if you're born a female, you're a woman, "stupid"?

Is a person who says no, a fetus isn't just a clump of cells, "stupid?

If that is your position, then you're the reason why Charlie Kirk was so popular.

While I'm generally pro-choice, and have a moderate viewpoint on the trans issues, I can totally see why people who disagree with me gravitated towards people like Kirk, without immediately assuming that the reason was "because they're low-IQ"

I don't want some smug 1st semester philosophy student talking down to me (based on parroted talking points from their professors) either. So I can sympathize with them.

zippy2006 · 2025-10-04T20:49:37-0500

Bradskii · 2025-10-04T20:55:30-0500

ThatRobGuy said:
Your comment was, and I quote:
What makes the money is the stupidity of the people buying what's being sold.

So quick question...

Is a person who says if you're born a male, you're a man, if you're born a female, you're a woman, "stupid"?

Is a person who says no, a fetus isn't just a clump of cells, "stupid?

The person saying those things isn't necessarily stupid. But if someone wants to pay to listen to someone say those things, then they are stupid.

BPPLEE · 2025-10-04T22:31:13-0500

Follow

Photo by mancowmuller on September 20, 2025. May be an image of text that says 'Racist noun A person who wins an argument with a Liberal Homophobe noun A person who wins an argument with a Liberal Bigot Nazi noun Agree w/ this? noun A person who wins A person who wins an argument with an argument with a Liberal a Liberal Islamophobe noun A person who wins an argument with a Liberal Hitler noun A person who wins an argument with a Liberal'.

zippy2006 · 2025-10-04T23:10:23-0500

I enjoyed Ezra's monologue. It was a bit hackneyed, but that's his style and I don't mind as long as he is making sound points. And interesting conversation with Shapiro followed.

At the depths of this lies the fact that Kirk's positions were in no way beyond the Overton window for American discourse. That's why the violence is so problematic, and why it is in danger of spreading. Nutty liberals like @Bradskii are artificially tinkering with the Overton window in a very devious manner. It's a bit like when the trans folks try to get people to swallow the outright lie that the trans position is the majority or widely accepted position within society, and then become angry when someone "on the fringe" or "on the far right" disagrees with them. Once they face up to reality and recognize that the people who disagree with them are in no way "on the fringe" or "on the far right" they will be much less likely to see extreme measures as justified.

Bradskii · 2025-10-04T23:50:32-0500

zippy2006 said:
At the depths of this lies the fact that Kirk's positions were in no way beyond the Overton window for American discourse. That's why the violence is so problematic, and why it is in danger of spreading. Nutty liberals like @Bradskii are artificially tinkering with the Overton window in a very devious manner.

No-one has any control over the Overton window. It's just a reflection of societies views. Subjects and matters that reflect the values of society. And there's no doubt that society has become more liberal over the years. Gay marriage would be a good example. Time was when you'd keep the fact that you were gay a secret. Now we have people in political high office married to people of the same gender. It's like...no big deal. Women in the workplace is another. At one point it would be surprising that a woman wasn't at home looking after the kids and cooking dinner. Now it's entirely normal.

Kirk was on the far right. And the way he expressed his views meant that a lot of people that would not normally involve themselves in some matters - like gay marriage for example, found his views distasteful, so the window moved and gay marriages became nothing out of the ordinary for a lot of people. Close to 2/3 of Americans now have no problem with it. And that figure is rising. Except for Republicans, where not much more than one third have no problem.

Point being that to stay valid, Kirk had to move further to the right. It's a bit late in the day to argue what's already within the Overton window. That's where society is at the time. So he started preaching to the choir on the far right. Which I'm fine with, personally speaking. Society will react as they did with gay marriage and we'll move gradually to a more liberal society and Kirk's choir will keep on shrinking.

ThatRobGuy · 2025-10-05T09:49:41-0500

Bradskii said:
No-one has any control over the Overton window. It's just a reflection of societies views. Subjects and matters that reflect the values of society. And there's no doubt that society has become more liberal over the years. Gay marriage would be a good example. Time was when you'd keep the fact that you were gay a secret. Now we have people in political high office married to people of the same gender. It's like...no big deal. Women in the workplace is another. At one point it would be surprising that a woman wasn't at home looking after the kids and cooking dinner. Now it's entirely normal.

I think that's the point of contention...

I've discussed the Overton window concept numerous times on here.

The Overton window shifts when enough people organically shift their views.

The backlash occurs when activist entities try (and succeed) in getting institutional allies to try to ram through those shifts forcibly to try to accelerate the process.

durangodawood · 2025-10-05T10:08:57-0500

ThatRobGuy said:
The Overton window shifts when enough people organically shift their views.

The backlash occurs when activist entities try (and succeed) in getting institutional allies to try to ram through those shifts forcibly to try to accelerate the process.

Presumably you define "organic" as peoples thinking evolving on its own without exposure to relevant arts and news media presenting the issues and consequences for those affected..... aka "accelerating".

But I dont think that ever happens. People dont change their views absent exposure to the lives of affected people.

ThatRobGuy · 2025-10-05T10:46:30-0500

durangodawood said:
Presumably you define "organic" as peoples thinking evolving on its own without exposure to relevant arts and news media presenting the issues and consequences for those affected..... aka "accelerating".

But I dont think that ever happens. People dont change their views absent exposure to the lives of affected people.

But is there not a difference between exposure via the arts vs. leveraging institutions to force it through in an unrealistic timeline and circumnavigating the adults to promote and idea to their kids? (that latter is where people really take it personally)

Attempting to accelerate change by leveraging the old Comenius philosophy of "allow me to teach a child until they're 7, and I will show you the man" has not been well-received.

That's where I see a major distinction between the earlier forms of gay advocacy vs. the modern forms of LGBTQ activism.

For the former, it was focused on changing the minds of other adults (which takes longer), but when achieved, they'll teach it to their own children and there won't be any perceptions of usurping.

vs

"These adults aren't going to change their minds in a time table that suits us, so we'll just go around them get the arts and academia institutions to promulgate our views to the kids who are much more easily persuaded -- then it won't matter what their parents think"

To use a religious comparison (I know neither of us is religious, but just pretend)

If I was Catholic and you were Hindu
A) I can try to convince you to (which will be much more difficult -- adults don't budge as easily)...but if I succeeded, you'd eventually teach it to your kid and there wouldn't be much of a conflict.
vs
B) I can convince your kid to be on my side (which would be much easier), but now, you're understandably put-off by that because you feel like you're in competition with a stranger for which values are going to be instilled in your kid.

Stopped_lurking · 2025-10-05T10:55:01-0500

ThatRobGuy said:
But is there not a difference between exposure via the arts vs. leveraging institutions to force it through in an unrealistic timeline and circumnavigating the adults to promote and idea to their kids? (that latter is where people really take it personally)

Why are all the laden terms (I'm thinking about force, unrealistic and circumnavigating) only present in the second alternative? This looks like textbook example of prejudicial language. If you really are trying to present a moderate position I would say that you are failing?

Ezra Klein: Charlie Kirk was practicing politics the right way

Part of the IT crowd

Beardo

Part of the IT crowd

Beardo

Part of the IT crowd

Beardo

Old age should burn and rave at close of day;

Old age should burn and rave at close of day;

Part of the IT crowd

Old age should burn and rave at close of day;

Part of the IT crowd

Dragonsworn

Old age should burn and rave at close of day;

Well-Known Member

Dragonsworn

Old age should burn and rave at close of day;

Part of the IT crowd

re Member

Part of the IT crowd

Active Member

Similar threads