Charlie Kirk Was No Ezra Klein
When empathy goes too far.
I frequently post about and/or recommend episodes of the Ezra Klein Show, which I consider easily the best program of its kind right now. Klein is highly intelligent, incredibly well-read, and gives the impression of being genuinely interested in understanding the arguments of his guests, especially those with whom he disagrees ideologically.
In the latest episode, “We Are Going to Have to Live Here With One Another,” he uses the monologue to double down on his defense of Charlie Kirk.
In the hours after Kirk’s murder, while trying to process my own shock, I wrote a piece about him. In that piece I said: You can disagree with virtually everything Kirk believed about politics, you can detest some of what he said and did — yet still believe that he was, there on that stage, practicing politics the right way: showing up to college campuses and inviting people who disagreed with him to talk with him.
I said that I had often wished my own side exhibited more of that spirit — that we went more often to the places where we knew people would disagree with us and talked to them, that we treated disagreement as a beginning rather than an ending.
I’ve published a lot of pieces over the years. I’m not sure I’ve published any as polarizing as that one.
[…]
My reaction to this, honestly, is that it is too little to just say we oppose political violence. In ways that surprise me, given what I thought of Kirk’s project, I was and am grieving for Kirk himself. Not because I knew him — I didn’t. Not because he was a saint — he wasn’t. Not because I agreed with him — no, most of what he poured himself into trying to achieve, I pour myself into trying to prevent.
But I find myself grieving for him because I recognize some commonality with him. He was murdered for participating in our politics. Somewhere beyond how much divided us, there was something that bonded us, too. Some effort to change this country in ways that we think are good.
I believe this so strongly: We have to be able to see that the bullet that tore into him was an act of violence against us all.
Because I’m more conservative politically, I’m more sympathetic to this than my co-blogger, Matt Bernius, who sees it as an elevation of polite tone over all else. But, the more I think about it, I believe Klein’s generosity has led him to make a category error. He and Kirk were only superficially engaged in the same enterprise.
While I, of course, condemn violence, let alone murder, of Kirk and anyone else for their political speech, I do not think Kirk and Klein were “participating in our politics” in remotely similar ways. Not, as Matt does, because Kirk’s ideas are beyond the pale; I’m a near absolutist on free exchange of ideas. Rather, it’s because, unlike Klein, Kirk was not actually interested in debating ideas. He was in the business of scoring points, not persuasion and genuine give-and-take.
Mike Masnick‘s essay, “The ‘Debate Me Bro’ Grift: How Trolls Weaponized The Marketplace Of Ideas,” helped crystalize my thinking on the matter:
Klein’s fundamental error reveals something much more dangerous: he’s mistaking performance for discourse, spectacle for persuasion. Kirk wasn’t showing up to campuses to “talk with anyone who would talk to him.” He was showing up armed with a string of logical fallacies, nonsense talking points, and gotcha questions specifically designed to enrage inexperienced college students so he could generate viral social media clips of himself “owning the libs.”
Klein is eulogizing not a practitioner of good-faith political discourse, but one of the most successful architects of “debate me bro” culture—a particularly toxic form of intellectual harassment that has become endemic to our political discourse. And by praising Kirk as practicing “politics the right way,” Klein is inadvertently endorsing a grift that actively undermines the kind of thoughtful engagement our democracy desperately needs.
The “debate me bro” playbook is simple and effective: demand that serious people engage with your conspiracy theories or extremist talking points. If they decline, cry “censorship!” and claim they’re “afraid of the truth.” If they accept, turn the interaction into a performance designed to generate viral clips and false legitimacy. It’s a heads-I-win-tails-you-lose proposition that has nothing to do with genuine intellectual discourse.
[…]
Perhaps most insidiously, these aren’t actually debates at all. They’re performances designed to generate specific emotional reactions for viral distribution. Participants aren’t trying to persuade anyone or genuinely engage with opposing viewpoints. They’re trying to create moments that will get clipped, shared, and monetized across social media.
Kirk perfected this grift. As a recent detailed analysis of one of Kirk’s debates demonstrates, when a student showed up prepared with nuanced, well-researched arguments, Kirk immediately tried pivoting to culture war talking points and deflection tactics. When debaters tried to use Kirk’s own standards against him, he shifted subjects entirely. The goal was never understanding or persuasion—it was generating content for social media distribution.
[…]
There’s nothing in how Charlie Kirk “debated” that aimed to get at nuances or understanding. They were entirely designed to seek to humiliate his opponent. They’re full of red herrings, lies, and attempts to deflect from any actual logic, as the video link above showed.
The point is not about getting to any level of understanding. It’s to try to quip and dunk in the manner most likely to go viral when shared on social media in 20-second snippets.
The format actively discourages the kind of thoughtful, nuanced discussion that might actually change minds—the kind actually designed for persuasion. Instead, it rewards the most inflammatory takes, the most emotionally manipulative tactics, and the most viral-ready soundbites. Anyone going into these situations with good faith gets steamrolled by participants who understand they’re playing a different game entirely.
The link is to an hour, twenty-two-minute video from a YouTube channel calling itself Rationality Rules, ironically (?) using the clickbait headline “Feminist SPANKS Charlie Kirk With This 1 Ancient Trick.” I got bored after a few minutes, but it does a good job breaking down Kirk’s practiced use of red herrings, straw man fallacies, false correlations, and Gish gallops to avoid engaging with the substantive questions ostensibly being debated. It’s performance art, not debate.
This is a case of one of the things that makes Klein’s podcast so good—his attempt to get the best version of a guest’s arguments out of them rather than going in for the kill—working against him. He wants to understand the world around him and he’s incredibly generous intellectually, taking as a given that his interlocutor is at heart a decent, thoughtful human being. That’s almost always the right approach to a conversation. But it will backfire if that assumption isn’t true.
********************@
I have been thinking about this and was going to write a similar post–but this underscores the way I have been thinking about Kirk: a performer and a provocateur, not a debater, let alone some saint of reasoned free speech.
@Steven L. Taylor: You can’t be a champion of free speech while compiling a list of professors who should be fired for their speech.
@James Joyner: Exactly.
And yet I heard Jonathan Turley on NPR yesterday making it sound like it was just sort of a “Rate My Professor” for conservatives.
@James Joyner:
I have been planning to write about this for a few days. And I have to admit that I have had a lot of difficulty getting through the transcript (I just cannot bring myself to listen to Shapiro).
I think Klien was a bit more clear here, and I am in full agreement with this statement:
This is 100% the case and the issue from the start.
For me, what gets me about Klien in this piece was this quote from his lead in:
The issue is that Kirk very clearly was using social media in this way. Honestly, it was the core of his online presence (just look at the title of his YouTube videos and most of his X posts (that now require his defenders to say “wait you need to read the whole piece for the context).
To be fair to Klien this is something he really works to avoid. But if he things this is “wrong” and it was so fundamental to what Kirk did, how can Kirk’s practice of politics be “right?”
BTW, on Klien, I’ll fully admit that I’m definitely an ex-smoker lecturing on how dangerous cigarettes are. I used to hold very similar views to Klien. I had friends confront me about them, much like Klien apparently had as well. I listened with curiosity, revised my views, and seriously considered them, leading to some changes.
I’m not sure Klien has developed that curiosity. And, to be fair, that also could be why he’s a far more successful pundit than I am.
Ezra’s blessing and curse is assuming the good faith of his guests. Describing Charlie Kirk as a performance artist rings far more true than the freshly concocted notion of him as a free speech warrior. In fact, the aftermath of Kirk’s death has exposed the Right’s commitment to free speech as spurious at best. There is no free speech for late night comedians, but there is for anti-vax charlatans, hate and division spewing Presidents, Vice Presidents, Cabinet members and Fox News channel hosts.
TY for that critique James. I think I inadvertently overemphasized that part of my argument, in trying to explore the question of “what is doing politics right.”
One thing I want to make sure I emphasize is that I wasn’t suggesting Kirk’s speech rights should have been curtailed. Much of this came down to what I was seeing as a combination of ignoring what was being said AND additionally, all the issues Masnick raised.
This was also helpful feedback on how what I wrote was interpreted!
One last thought… Then I have to get back to finish writing this chapter…
I think this is getting to the limitations of the concepts of “good faith” and “intent.”
Based on a lot of what I’ve read, even from liberal commentators who knew him, it sounds like Charlie Kirk the human being was a likable person. Many thought he was quite “decent” and maybe even “thoughtful.” I’m sure folks will say the same thing about Ben Shapiro.
Very few people are Golden and Silver Age Comics supervillains (i.e., “We named our organization ‘The Brotherhood of EVIL mutants–what does that tell you about our intent?!”). Killmonger in the Black Panther movie thought he was the hero.
I’m not sure what the right way is to approach this FWIW. I think that’s why I tend to index (perhaps too much) on impact versus intent.
I went back and watched the 3 Jimmy Kimmel monologues aired since Charlie Kirk was killed.
I could not identify a single comment that was disrespectful or objectively offensive about that horrific crime. Nor could I see how any of Kimmel’s comments exploited the situation, certainly not to the obscene degree in which rightward media and figures used the moment to paint their political opposition with a broad brush.
In fact, quite the contrary. Kimmel’s initial statement on the killing expressed complete abhorrence of the act and condemned all such acts regardless of the motivation. All without jokes or jibes. Kimmel was somber and dead serious.
Therefore, like with so many issues masticated by the Right today, facts are twisted into useful tools with which to promote their lies and damage their opposition. All the shame issuing forth from the death of Charlie Kirk belongs to the Right, as they attempt to lionize a personality who promoted a heretical view of Christianity. Any honest student or follower of the life of Christ knows this to be true.
However, in the rest of Kimmel’s three monologues, he continued his practice of pointing out Trump and Company’s ongoing foibles, making sport of their hypocrisy, inadequacy, and absurdity with razor sharp wit —- the usual stuff.
So it is clear that in falsely accusing Kimmel of non-existent bad behavior toward Kirk’s memory, the authoritarian MAGA regime is taking advantage of Kirk’s horrific death to silence one Trump’s most visible critics. We all know this to be true. The emotionally stunted boy-President and his arrested-development MAGA movement which includes a large contingent of heretical Christian poseurs, simply can not deal with criticism.
The willingness of Trump and MAGA to grossly misuse their access to power for increased aggregation of said power (as well as personal enrichment and personal vendetta), is an expression of fanatical authoritarianism. At what point are we willing to use the F-word and consider the possibility of emerging fascism.
These are the facts:
– Charlie Kirk’s male killer, Tyler Robinson, was engaged in a romantic relationship with another male who was struggling with gender issues.
– Tyler Robinson was raised into a “gun culture” home of Republican parents in the ultra conservative state of Utah. Robinson is an avid online gamer. He has scant history of political expression and only recently became outwardly animated on the transgender issue, coinciding with his romantic involvement with another male having gender identity issues.
– Charlie Kirk has a history of loud public expression of anti-transgender shaming with virulent undertones.
Therefore it cannot be reasonably said that Robinson’s killing of Kirk was “radically programmed” by the Left. Robinson’s romantic relationship may have put him at odds with Kirk’s hateful messaging, but it was his conservative gun culture socialization that likely provided both the means and the impetus for the horrific act itself.
The vast majority of LGBTQ+ persons and their supporters are neither inclined nor enabled to do such a thing. This killing is the result of our own culture of guns and violence, along with mental health care negligence.
And predictably avoids the most inconvenient details about Kirk’s frequently homophobic, fallacious, racist invective — this sanewashing Kirk’s legacy. Again, it’s dishonesty by omission. Because if Klein dived deeper into Kirk’s words and deeds, Klein would render his own conclusions superficial and morally vacuuos.
If it is too little to just say we oppose political violence, then it is too little to just say “I disagreed with him.” About what? Go into detail. Quote Kirk bashing MLK, quote him questioning the intellect of successful of successful black women, quote him lionizing Old Testament verses calling for gays to be executed, quote his election denial, quote his homophobic lies about Paul Pelosi and desire to bail out Pelosi’s attacker, etc.
Then tell blacks and gays how they should feel bonded to Kirk, if you dare.
This is embarrassing, but also instructive about Trump-era journalism. To borrow the old Hillary 2016 phrase, most of the mainstream press is temperamentally unfit to meet the moment. Not bad people, just wrong priorities for these times.
If you recall, there was a commenter here, though not in the last month or so, whom I refused to respond to in any way and would not address directly. I believed him to be a paid operative of some kind – much like Charlie Kirk was an astroturfed paid operative.
This is not a situation where “debate” has any meaning other than producing good sound bites. Kirk had an arsenal of “discussion ending statements”. These are one liners that sound good but have absolutely no foundation in fact or history.
If a person shows up as a person, and not a bot spouting programmed lines, I will talk to them. At least for a little bit. That’s not what our recent commenter did, and it’s not what Charlie Kirk did.
So, yeah, I think you’ve hit the nail on the head.
It was a reach by Klein. He is trying to find someone serious on the right he can relate with. That person does not exist. Who is it? Ben Shapiro? Again I fall back to “where did all the serious people go?” Can anyone from Gen X imagine George Will or Charles Krauthammer posting videos “owning Ezra in a 1v1” on YouTube. Ezra was born into a void of serious exchange of ideas with opponents. Opponents are now enemies and seriousness is dead.
Klein:
Klein is right about this. The shooter may have ignited a fuse. Time will tell. However, this does not make brothers of us unless all sides are motivated by the horror of this act, to step back and start dialogueing in good faith, for the preservation of a civil union. But, all indications suggest to the contrary, as the Right is galvanizing to build a bigger bonfire of our society and its onetime guarantees.
Masnick got this completely correct:
The activist Right has cultivated a veneer of intellectual discourse that masks underlying intellectual dishonesty. This plays well in sound bites and with those who perhaps, are less versed in the discipline of semantics — as intended. Kirk’s banner of “Prove Me Wrong” was click-bait leading those of good faith and unwary into his den of “I’ll never let you prove me wrong.”
Kirk is dead by a horrible act. (I cannot get the video image out of my mind — opened unsuspectingly received from a friend). Our nation is traumatized. A legion of young grifters and naive followers is ready to take up Kirk’s banner. What comes next?
The Right still has the option of bringing calm reason to our national dialogue, but the scorpian-frog fable comes to mind. Dare we expect better? What lies before us is a definitive study of good-faith verses bad-faith.
I expressed similar thoughts in a comment the other day. I used the same word for these events that Masnick does: spectacle.
@James Joyner:
Yes, on the list. I note that Turley’s defense referenced by @Steven L. Taylor would only work if Kirk engaged in actual discussion and debate.
I think another reasonable way to think about the style of Kirk, Shapiro, et al. is as a reverse heckler’s veto.
It’s a combination of Homer bullying Lisa with the “King of England could come order you around” defense of the second amendment, in the direction of the opposition; and Peter Griffin’s “cooome ooooooon” on the floor of Congress, toward the audience.
@Rob1: Yeah, it’s worth noting that the phenomenon of transgender is not limited to liberals or liberal-dominated polities. I so hope that Robinson’s, uh, friend is safe.
I am aware of some trans people whose parents are both supportive and very conservative. They think of it as a “birth defect”. Not that I think any trans person is defective. But it’s a way of describing something that wasn’t a choice.
Seriously James, if I were you I wouldn’t be writing anything that can be seen as even remotely negative about Kirk. I realize that you are trying to present an objective comparison but the people who would be deciding if your comments are negative will not be even remotely fair or objective in their assessments and if they claim you are saying negative things about Kirk that can get you fired.
Steve
@steve222: This is James’ choice, and I support him whatever he wants to do.
AND, I feel sure that while the Trump admin can make James feel some pain, they would ultimately lose any court battle. Perhaps James has decided that this is the case? I would not remotely expect him to respond to this.
Meanwhile, what we need right now is people who aren’t intimidated, who aren’t easy to bully, who are willing to suffer some for our country. Soldiers and ex-soldiers might well be the sort of person who feels like doing that.
I have long wished that A) I lived in Texas, and B) my child was under 18 when transitioning, because I would absolutely, publicly dare Abbot and Paxton to try and prosecute me for child abuse. I would turn the whole thing into a spectacle, driving my story into the front pages of Texas newspapers.
It is a case they are sure to lose. Absolutely.
This is a risk I can take. It may not be a risk others can take. So I issue an invitation, not an imperative. What ground can you stand on?
@steve222:
FWIW this is part of the challenge we are all facing–James doubly so. Early this week I went through the final round of interviews for a fellowship position as a civic designer working in local government.
The organization that oversees the work is a non-profit center that has a history of being risk-averse. I have wondered about the extent to which they conduct social media and Google searches on applicants, and whether my writing and comments will influence the decision.
My preference is to continue to work in the civic space, and the reality is that for the next few years, everyone doing work in and around government will be walking on eggshells. And is very much intentional on the part of this administration. They are actively disassembling federal civic service and replacing it with a political patronage system from a prior century.
@Jay L. Gischer:
That’s assuming that James is interested in footing the bill for such civic case. I also suspect (though I could be wrong) that he’s not in a union position–which makes the case harder.
It took until 1987 for the Supreme Court to rule (in favor) of a data entry clerk fired in 1980 for a comment made about the Reagan shooting. It was a split decision and I don’t know if today’s Supreme Court would rule the same way.
BTW, this is one of the reasons why I’m still salty about the Biden proactive pardons. Beyond the process aspect of them, it essentially took some of the most well protected people and made them more protected. Again, Fauci doesn’t deserve to be prosecuted. And, he’s also in a position where there are institutional forces outside of government that would have assisted in those cases.
Those of us “little” folks don’t have access to those same resources–and yet we’re the ones who are often doing the actual pushing back (without safety nets — especially in the current job market).
NYT (gift link) today has a Klein being interviewed by Ross Douthat. It seems like an NYT management driven clumsy rehab tour for Klein, since he’s caught so much spit for expressing the unthinking centrism and proper demeanor FTFNYT values so highly.
It does rehash some of the Kirk stuff, but what I found interesting is off topic. Klein talks about Dems needing a project, a project they can rally voters behind. This is a concise way of saying something I’ve been trying to say, they need to create a positive image, something people can sign onto, a tribe people can feel they belong to.
Liberals have given us old age insurance, health insurance, and unemployment insurance, the pillars of Bismarckian social democracy. Plus the Voting Rights and Civil Rights Acts. The project is more or less complete, what’s next. Now, as we’re exceptional, we’ve done these things in exceptionally clumsy and incomplete ways. So Dems are basically running on “We’ll make healthcare a little less clumsy than it is.” and, “We”ll protect SS.” in opposition to GOPs who lie and say they’ll protect SS. Not exactly soul stirring.
Klein’s right, we need a project. But I’m at a loss as to what, and I don’t recall he proposed anything. We do need to stop fascism and oligarchy, but we’ve seen that’s too esoteric for the average “independent” voter.
I believe you’ve absolutely nailed it, James.
Klein is a very good thinker so this error seems a bit odd to me. Just speculating, but perhaps the assassination of someone who, like himself, is in front of crowds in public places a lot affected his thoughts. As per the saying “fear is the mind killer”…at least until it’s mastered, which can take a bit of time.
@dazedandconfused: I think this is very much part of the situation.
@rwb:
The old internet axiom on Hitler comparisons is kinda bunk. Nazi comparisons are very useful in challenging trite “always” and “never” statements — to show such statements are often absurd, hypocritical, or lacking in nuance.
Most who say things like, “It’s always wrong to cheer a political opponent’s death” or “Cancel culture is never right” or “War is never the answer” or “Word policing is awful” have beliefs more situational and nuanced than they let on. Insert one of history’s universally-acknowledged monsters into their logic, and they start to stutter. Lots of these people really believe things like, “Me and mine should be the ones to decide which words get policed, and for which reasons.”
It’s been stated many times that Kirk was not interested in debate. I agree with this.
It’s also been stated that he was not in the business of persuasion. I see this differently.
First and foremost, Kirk sought attention. And he was damn effective at getting it. Attention is a necessary but not sufficient ingredient of persuasion.
As others have noted, his performance style was filled with cheap shots, non sequiturs, etc. Gish galloping over less practiced interlocutors.
I loath this style of communication, and I recognize that it can be very effective. Very effective.
Does it convince the woke leftist Marxist soyboy that their entire worldview is wrong? Unlikely.
Does it nudge the person with a less fully developed worldview toward Kirk’s? Often enough, it does. Is that not persuasion?
Moreover, because Kirk offers up a stream of one-liners, gotchas, etc… and because his interlocutors are often ill-equipped to respond effectively… Kirk often emerges as the powerful winner. Persuasive.
Moreover moreover, he gives observers take-away language that they too can use to pwn their peers. Said observers then get to experience the addictive rush of “winning” a “debate.” This is incredibly reinforcing — among other things, it elevates their status (intra- and inter-personal), and we are nothing if not status seeking social animals. Self-persuasive.
Ironically enough, given the criticisms of Klein’s intellectualized verbally mediated approach to politics, I think not enough emphasis is being placed on the socio-emotional mediators of persuasion.
The South Park episode that lampooned him with Eric Cartman mimicking him this season does a pretty accurate job of demonstrating his actual tactics; as you say, performative not genuinely interested in debate. I think this actually does a better job of showing people what’s wrong with the debate me, bro culture than trying to explain it.