17 thoughts on “What Andrew Breitbart Got Wrong

  1. Culture war is not only a terrible, yet utterly American metaphor, but toxic to thought and culture. It’s great for ginning up hate at others which is some people’s tool like breitbart. I know people love his quip because people like quips. It sounds smart and witty but that doesn’t mean it makes any sense. CW never got one person health care but politics did. CW is great for people who don’t really care much about policy, which many people dont which explains the state of conservatism and trump.Report

    1. “CW never got one person health care but politics did. CW is great for people who don’t really care much about policy, which many people dont which explains the state of conservatism and trump.”

      That’s just, it’s just not right at all. Why is health care a proper goal for politics? Who says what politics should be about? We can debate the impact of policies, and we should do so as accurately as possible, but the parameters of the conversation are ideological and thus cultural.Report

      1. Obviously, Chomsky’s linguistics writing is famously dense and difficult, so much so that the Chomsky Bot was invented, and I once attended a talk of his on the Minimalist Project after which pretty much every question from the linguists was, “Could you please explain everything you just said?”

        That said, he’s a famously good speaker, his political writings are highly readable, and he’s easily one of the most well known intellectuals in the English-speaking world.Report

        1. Oh my, I just read the Chomsky-as-tankie post, and my head exploded. Calling an anarchist (a libertarian in the original sense) and all-but-pacifist who has long been one of the most fervent anti-war and anti-domination activists on the worlda tankie suggests that folks here have no idea what’s going on to the left of Nancy Pelosi.Report

      2. Chomsky is an incredibly fringe figure. Just because you know of him doesn’t mean anyone else does. Ask the average American if they know who Noam Chomsky is. You’ll get blank stares.Report

    1. I probably would have gone with with the classic unholy trinity of Stalin, Mao, and Hitler. Maybe swap one out for Genghis Khan if I wanted to indulge my inner hipster. But this is also a reasonable list that reflects a totally healthy and balanced view of politics.Report

  2. The thing that sort of freaked me out about Breitbart was every time I saw him speaking, I thought “Jesus, that guy’s going to have a coronary!” And then it happened.
    It reminded me of when someone asked a friend “Hey, did you hear about Kurt Cobain?” and he replied, sarcastically, “No. Did he kill himself?”
    “Uh….”Report

  3. If you must tie yourself into knots to explain your position, your position sucks.

    No, sometimes (or perhaps quite often) the truth is complicated and it is lies which are simple.

    Sometimes even very smart people can suck at explaining stuff. Some people have a knack for explaining and simplifying complicated things, most people don’t. What this means is that even if something can in principle be explained simply, the originator of the idea is not necessarily the best person to do the explaining. As a result, the mere fact that some given person has difficulty explaining their idea does not mean that the idea is bad.Report

    1. No, a political position does not usually require a long explanation. Morality is not that complicated. Chomsky’s views of the world are toxic, contradictory, and self-serving.Report

      1. If morality is not that complicated, why are there moral philosophers? Philosophers have been trying to figure out the right account of morality for ages. If everything was just open and shut, we wouldn’t have spent eons thinking that slavery was permissible.Report

Comments are closed.