1/I'd like to write a quick thread about pundits and public intellectuals. I don't have hard data on this, so this is just describing my observation and experience.
I think people may not realize how personalistic and feud-driven the world of pundits actually is.
I think people may not realize how personalistic and feud-driven the world of pundits actually is.
2/Punditry is driven by beefs.
Typical scenario: Two pundits get into an argument on Twitter or on the blogs. It gets heated, and they have a falling-out. Their followers exacerbate things by rushing to attack the opposing pundit.
Typical scenario: Two pundits get into an argument on Twitter or on the blogs. It gets heated, and they have a falling-out. Their followers exacerbate things by rushing to attack the opposing pundit.
3/Depending on their level of aggression, each pundit will then:
* fail to quote or retweet things by the opposing pundit, even if (s)he agrees
* jump at any opportunity to attack the opposing pundit, dunk on them, or execute a "gotcha"
* etc.
* fail to quote or retweet things by the opposing pundit, even if (s)he agrees
* jump at any opportunity to attack the opposing pundit, dunk on them, or execute a "gotcha"
* etc.
4/But that's pretty normal. Here's the insidious thing about pundit feuds:
As near as I can tell, feuds actually change pundits' issue stances, and entire worldviews!
As near as I can tell, feuds actually change pundits' issue stances, and entire worldviews!
5/A left-leaning pundit who gets attacked from the left by a socialist pundit will tend to become less socialist.
A right-leaning pundit who gets attacked from the right by Nazis will start emphasizing the threat of Nazis more.
These changes can be permanent.
A right-leaning pundit who gets attacked from the right by Nazis will start emphasizing the threat of Nazis more.
These changes can be permanent.
6/Obviously, this pollutes the marketplace of ideas. When public intellectuals think via feud and grudge, it turns their audiences into a bunch of warring fandoms. Just like when musicians' beefs get out of control, fandom stops being about the music.
7/The root of the problem is the fact that people want two contradictory things from their public intellectuals:
1) They want them to be sources of ideas, facts, and analysis.
2) They want them to be intellectual gladiators who fight for the public's entertainment.
1) They want them to be sources of ideas, facts, and analysis.
2) They want them to be intellectual gladiators who fight for the public's entertainment.
8/Of course, the gladiatorial aspect is heightened dramatically by Twitter, where pundits and their followers can engage with each other directly.
9/I try to resist the tendency toward feud and beef as much as possible - to make it about the ideas, instead of the people. I've had big fights with @Econ_Marshall, @salimfurth, and others, but I've tried to get back to appreciating them as quickly as possible.
10/But even I am vulnerable to the grudge-holding impulse. For example, I am still annoyed at @ryanlcooper over an incident years ago in which, during an argument, he threatened to start a movement to get me fired from my job. That makes it hard for me to approve of his ideas!
11/I know that's irrational and stupid, and that even jerks can have good and important ideas, but it's impossible to completely divorce the intellectual from the personal.
12/In any case, the upshot of all this is: To get the most out of a public intellectual's writings and thoughts, you need to know who they're feuding with, and take that into account. That's a hard thing to do.
13/Another implication is that the conversation benefits from a constant inflow of new pundits, who haven't yet built up a repertoire of grudges, and who are therefore still able to think about ideas without attaching faces to those ideas.
(end)
(end)
Really this thread was an elaborate way for me to bury the hatchet with @ryanlcooper, and in that it was successful.
