It is relatively rare for people on the Left and the Right to engage. Most TV shows and podcasts have guests of the same political persuasion as the host; we have constructed echo chambers intended to confirm the current opinions of the target audience. Challenge opinions and subscribers might abandon you for a provider willing to cater to your narrowly focused views. An actual debate, when folks from Left and Right actually converse, is a one-off.
However, political discussion in America has not always been this way. For years, I watched Crossfire on CNN (the show aired for more than twenty years until 2005). It featured one topic each night with a pundit from the Left and from the Right. It was an actual debate–held daily. There were many well know co-hosts on both the Left and the Right: Tucker Carlson, Geraldine Ferraro, Pat Buchannan, James Carville, among others.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossfire_(American_TV_program)
Crossfire was an American nightly current events debate television program that aired on CNN from June 25, 1982, to June 3, 2005, and again from September 9, 2013, to August 6, 2014.
There were fewer choices back then, before Y2k, before cell phones, social media, and the internet were omni-present. You had to watch the show the same time each day or miss out. I regularly tuned in because I truly wanted to hear both sides. Such a series is not possible today. We have more networks and more forums than the few available forty years ago, but very few avail themselves of the wide variety of choices. Networks narrow their focus to appeal to a small audience; news outside that purview is often ignored. Viewers have a skewed worldview because they hear only what their favorite network wants them to hear.
A death knell for Crossfire, my long-ago favorite show, was an appearance by Jon Stewart:
On October 15, 2004, Jon Stewart, then host of The Daily Show, appeared on the program to promote his book America (The Book): A Citizen’s Guide to Democracy Inaction. He used his appearance on the show to raise criticisms of the format of Crossfire and the style of arguments presented on the show. He said the program failed its responsibility to the public discourse and indulged in partisan hackery, reducing news coverage of important issues to a series of talking points from both extremes of the political spectrum: “It’s hurting America. Here is what I wanted to tell you guys: Stop
https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2023/04/25/tucker-carlson-fox-cnn-jon-stewart
Both hosts, Tucker Carlson on the Right and Paul Begala on the Left challenged Stewart, but remained respectful throughout the episode. For once, both hosts didn’t take opposite stances.
Stewart began by playing a peacemaker: the debate on Crossfire, he said, was too rancorous and was hurting the country. Let’s all get along and work together. We have heard this generally phony refrain before. Apparently, peacemaking only lasts so long in Stewart’s world, so by the (thirty minute) show’s end he resorts to calling Carlson names. Further, he appears neither funny nor smart on this particular episode.
Stewart went on to set a new standard for news delivery, informing youth of his day via comedy and satire. He became one of the most popular purveyors of news until stepping down in 2015 . However, he was a poor replacement for Crossfire. The message should not be: Stop. It should be: re-engage.
Today, I rarely watch CNN. Perhaps, I watch a brief clip that has gained notoriety or I stumble across a CNN opinion on-line. I find CNN to be chocked full of lies and distortions along with uninteresting opinions and guests. They try to influence rather than report the news. They have joined the cacophony of anti-Right, anti-Judeo Christian, anti- free thinking voices in the one channel media. This is the legacy of Jon Stewart.
Today, I follow conservative outlets such as The Blaze and Daily Wire, among others. Their hosts certainly complain about the unwillingness of the Left to engage directly and come on their shows. They too are also hesitant to venture into one-channel media. Steve Deace, a Blaze TV host, was once a regular guest on MSNBC, but he says he won’t do it again. He would be the one conservative of a panel of five, and eventually realized they would not give him a fair shot or they would listen only when he was criticizing someone on the Right. Deace, however, often challenges views popular on the Right and (he says) doesn’t care about losing viewers over it. I like such challenges myself.
Still, I remember Crossfire, an outstanding show. I remember when CNN was a far more interesting network. Ted Turner was of the Left when he founded CNN, but its presentation was far more balanced initially.
If I want similar engagement to the Crossfire of old, I must engage folks one-on-one. Many I engage become apoplectic; they are shocked at my heterodox notions (from their perspective). Snarky comments and unwarranted accusations often end these discussions. It is so much easier to avoid the discussion–and don’t we often choose the easy way out? Unfortunately, many folks in my camp think politics is a dirty business and shy away. “I don’t want to get involved in politics” or “I don’t have time for politics” are common refrains. They do not understand the stakes. The dishonest and nefarious politics of today will ensnare you eventually. You need to care or you will be made to care.
Debate is vital to politics, and in the end, our way of life. We suffer greatly under today’s paradigm. Politicians would rather we be uninformed or misinformed so they can more easily manipulate our votes. Uniformed voters cannot hold them accountable. We will also learn to hate folks on the other side. They become straw men caricatures because we never hear their actual viewpoints; we ascribe whatever motivations we like to them. If you tune in, you cannot miss this abundant sentiment. Ultimately, hatred of the other side is good for votes (and obtaining votes is what politicians are best at).
This is our electorate today: people isolated in echo chambers on either side and an even larger portion unaware or minimally aware of how nefarious politics are today guided by politicians all-to-happy to manipulate us all. Our misunderstanding of the issues as well as each other is maximized. Thanks Jon Stewart for leading us down this primrose path.
Libs of TikTok Vs. The Washington Post
Today, we occasionally see interaction from both sides. Bill Maher on the Left has engaged more than most. He even sides with the Right on occasion. Ann Coulter, a Right winger made an interesting splash on his show this past February https://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/news/ann-coulter-surprises-bill-maher-and-van-jones-with-her-white-male-theory-about-super-bowl-shooting/ar-BB1isuXr. The View also sometimes invites a conservative guest like Ted Cruz (and then gangs up on him) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7Ey_G1JU1o. Governor DeSantis and Governor Newsome, polar political opposites debated on Hannity last Fall https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2023/11/30/watch_live_gov_ron_desantis_and_gov_gavin_newsom_debate.html#!
The debate, when is it allowed to happen, is certainly far better than most content today. We see an actual contrast, not a contrived one, between the two sides. Such encounters can make one think twice before treating our opposition so contemptuously. You may staunchly disagree with your opposition, but at the same time, you might notice they are actual people with good intent.
The following interview/debate captured my attention. It features Taylor Lorenz, a Washington Post columnist questioning Chaya Raichik, an ordinary Jane who has suddenly become famous posting for Libs of TikTok. The two represent Left and Right fairly well, and we see a stark contrast between their views and their logic.
Libs of TikTok, Raichik’s creation, seeks to expose the Left using memes, tweets, articles, videos, etc. initiated by those on the Left. There is relatively little or no commentary. In other words, Raichik attempts to define the Left in the terms the Left uses to define itself.
Throughout the interview, Lorenz presses Raichik on hot button contemporary issues, quickly moving from topic to topic and sometimes back again. As in her tweets, Raichik’s responses are concise, often very blunt. I would have expanded more on topics, but still I found Raichik effective at representing the conservative viewpoint.
The LGBTQ agenda, especially transgenderism is covered extensively throughout. The tone is set initially as Raichik tells Lorenz: transgenderism is based on a lie. It is simple logic, but Lorenz is dissatisfied with this answer. Raichik does not budge. “I am for the truth,” she says.
It is a reasonable objection: we don’t want our society willing to accept lies. If you believe sex is malleable and based on your sexual proclivities in this moment (proclivities that change for most of us over our time) or worse yet based on some need for acceptance, then those in power (politicians and media, especially), can convince you of anything.
Around minute five, Lorenz addresses another issue that liberals cannot help but raise, but Raichik brings it back to transgenderism.
Lorenz: In the conservative movement, there is this ideology around white nationalism. . . How do you feel aligning yourself with those people?
Raichik: Some of your audience wishes to chop off kids body parts. What do you think about it?
Lorenz: I don’t know what you are talking about . . . I believe in body autonomy.
Raichik does not address the white nationalism comment, but why bother? I am sure Raichik does not align with white nationalists, not because I know her, but because nobody in conservative media does.
The debate has many wonderful piquant contrasts.
Lorenz: It sounds like you want to tell people what to do in their house.
Raichik: I never said that.
Nobody else has either. Dispelling such continually trafficked lies is why the debate is needed. We must shatter talking points that are not true.
Live your own life as an LGBTQ, but do not demand we affirm yours.
Lorenz: But what harm is it causing?
Raichik: I like the truth . We are nation of truth. I seek the truth.
Millions of people being affirmed in a lie along with punishing parents and children who won’t ascribe to your lie are big problem. Blindly accepting all claims, encouraging people who may be confused, calling them brave, leads to even more problems.
Lorenz continues to press.
Lorenz: What about the happy transgender people who are not harming anyone?
Raichik: If someone says I am happier if I chop my [penis] off, then we should just let them do that?
Lorenz: I think there is a lot of gender affirming care that women do . . . Women get boob jobs, nose jobs . . . and you don’t critique that . . .
You can call these deceptions too, but, in any case, they are not as radical and as life changing as denying your sex and removing body parts. We should all know this is not a fair comparison.
Lorenz: Do you think it is okay for [others] to dictate how you live as a woman?
Lorenz goes on to say nobody should be forced to live by another’s system, a system which denies the right to chop off your breasts and find fulfillment in changing your gender. This is especially true, she says, for happy well-adjusted transgender adults. Raichik insists she is not imposing; she is simply stating truth and following science.
Raichik: There are two sexes, zero genders, and many personalities.
Lorenz: I don’ t think any of it is based in science. It is a social construct.
The differences between male and female: physically, emotionally, spiritually, etc. are not based in science? They are not real; they are just something we have imagined up in order to manipulate others? All the love songs, the sonnets, the romance movies, the literature based on love and male/female relationships were phony social constructs? Nobody realized any of this until fifteen years ago?
Lorenz might as well say nothing is real; reality is something conjured up in this moment. Demanding others accept that (false) reality is exceptionally dangerous and harmful.
12-year-old-speaks-to-school-board
Lorenz: A lot of LGBTQ people say your posts cause an enormous amount of pain. How does that make you feel?
Raichik: How does it make you feel that your reporting on me causes me pain?
Lorenz: I feel sad.
Raichik: So would you stop?
Lorenz: No. Because I am a journalist and you are a public figure.
Good job Chaya. You hit the target. Elsewhere in the interview, Lorenz makes the same mistake.
Lorenz: There are 33 instances where you posted about a specific institution or organization and then there was death threat . . . and bomb threats. That’s a significant correlation.
This stems from news reports earlier in the week. https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/internet/libs-tiktok-x-chaya-raichik-bomb-threat-twitter-of-libsoftiktok-rcna102784
Raichik, 29, is not accused of making any bomb threats in Iowa or anywhere else. But about a day and a half before authorities responded to the threat at Coralville’s Northwest Junior High, Raichik posted that the school offers a “pornographic” book in its library that “teaches kids about gay sex.”
Raichik’s response is priceless:
Raichik: I get tons of death threats . . . this week . . . after the entire media machine came after me. So, are they responsible for those?
Lorenz: I don’t think there is the same correlation. Are you receiving bomb threats?
HOLD IT. Raichik reports on the actions of an institution or organization, then death threats follow. Got it. The media reports on Raichik and death threats follow. How is that not the same thing?
Raichik: I am receiving death threats, like: “Hi. I am going to come murder you.”
Lorenz: I definitely sympathize with you.
Raichik: Literally, the article goes live and I get the death threat. So, is the journalist responsible?
Lorenz: I would say there is a different responsibility when we are talking about media.
HUHN? Lorenz then says there is a difference between your followers issuing death threats versus bomb threats. How does getting bomb threats instead of death threats change the calculus? The logic escapes me, but I don’t think like a liberal Washington Post journalist.
Raichik then throws another curve ball:
Raichik: how do you know my followers are the ones issuing the death threats? It could be anyone.
Are you responsible when nutty people listen to you and act in nutty ways? They wouldn’t act in nutty ways otherwise?
A causal fallacy is one that implies a relationship between two things where one can’t actually be proven, often where one follows another. For example: whenever I wear my lucky jersey, my team wins. There is no actual relation here.
Around minute nine we see yet another of the fallacies continually raised by Leftists. This one is destroyed by Raichik with seemingly little effort. I am amazed when Lorenz so confidently poses these challenges and Raichik quickly and easily destroys them. I will grant Lorenz appears quite sincere in her beliefs, but it appears she has rarely spoken to anyone who challenges her perceptions.
Lorenz: I know you are interested in removing books from libraries . . . that you consider inappropriate.
Raichik then lists several sexually explicit books she considers problematic.
Lorenz: How do you square being a free speech supporter from wanting to ban literature?
Raichik makes clear she does not want to ban books (literature, per Lorenz), but instead wants to remove gay pornography from public school libraries. She catalogues books in public school libraries. She has the receipts: naked people, masturbation, oral sex, anal sex.
Lorenz does not address this challenge. She switches the topic to sex education, comparing it to gay porn and implying Raichik is simply opposing sex education in schools. It is not a fair comparison. Later, Lorenz talks of drag queens and asks what harm they provide as well. She finds all the sexualization of the culture and of children innocuous. I find it demonic. This is a big problem: there is a wide chasm between us that I don’t know how to bridge.
Nobody in the conservative movement wants to ban books. Nobody. I wish someone would ask Lorenz why Dr. Seuss books were actually banned. https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/02/us/dr-seuss-books-cease-publication-trnd/index.html
(CNN) Six Dr. Seuss books will no longer be published because they “portray people in ways that are hurtful and wrong,” the business that preserves the author’s legacy said. The titles are:
- “And to Think That I Saw It on Mulberry Street”
- “If I Ran the Zoo”
- “McElligot’s Pool”
- “On Beyond Zebra!”
- “Scrambled Eggs Super!”
- “The Cat’s Quizzer”
Lorenz in the final portion of the interview tries to paint conservatives as misogynists and the ones who are sexualizing kids, especially young girls. It doesn’t work. Raichik turns the table on her yet again.
Raichik: So we could give kids pictures of gay sex as long as it is in the proper context?
Lorenz: I don’t know. I mean it is up to the educator to determine. I don’t know.
She was certain it is a problem when she targeted conservatives, but when her side is targeted she claims not to be an expert.
Lorenz simply does not bring the receipts for the charges see makes (see panel above), but please watch the interaction for yourself and form your own opinion. Is Lorenz correct? Does Raichik “run a hate account” and believe that “gay people should not exist” or is Raichik’s argument not so simple and not so intolerant as Lorenz portrays?
Please seek more such interactions, whether you are on the Right or the Left. Do not, like Jon Stewart, criticize those simply seeking debate. They are often the ones who attempt to clarify for the rest of us. Do not avoid the issues because you will remain in the dark until it is too late to do anything about things you could have prevented.
Raichik: So should this picture [of gay oral sex] be in books in elementary school? (From the book “Gender Queer”. See minute 47 of the video. I won’t post the picture myself)
Lorenz: I would defer that question to a qualified professional–a sex educator.
I wouldn’t defer it. I am qualified to answer that question (so is Lorenz and I trust the rest of you as well). Perhaps, Lorenz thinks it is better to defer to the experts when faced with a question she doesn’t want to answer. She doesn’t understand logic either, but doesn’t stop her from trying to apply it.
Finally, leave your echo chambers too. Diversity is a topic often discussed, but diversity of opinion is not a celebrated form of diversity. Challenge your lack of exposure to diverse opinions. Watch interactions like this one between Lorenz and Raichik so you can judge for yourself what your political opponents actually think. Judge for yourself how the standard talking points are addressed when they are actually challenged. Look for those significant flash points and see how they are addressed by each side. You will learn far more and be better off for it than if you never see such clashes of opinions.
Dave https://seek-the-truth.com/about/
https://seek-the-truth.com/
Seek the Truth 