Connect with us

Culture and Religion

Millennial keepers of the flame: Are Shapiro and Crowder the new Buckley and Limbaugh?

Published

on

On Wednesday, I co-hosted a screening for Ben Shapiro’s visit to the University of Utah. Prior to the event, a viewer who’s fairly new to politics and hadn’t heard of Ben Shapiro until a month ago (which, let’s be real, how is that even possible?) told me that while he agreed with Ben on gun rights, he didn’t think Shapiro’s argument was all that great. Then he asked me for my take.

Background

Quickly, for those who are unfamiliar with Shapiro’s history of destroying Piers Morgan on the 2nd Amendment, here’s Ben’s basic approach: “The basis for the Second Amendment is not really about self defense, and it’s not about hunting. It’s about resistance to government tyranny. That’s what the Founders said, and that’s what the right believes in this country.”

I restated Ben’s argument and stressed the importance of shifting the debate to remember the core principle of the issue, but then I turned to another source who one might not immediately consider when citing constitutional scholarship: Steven Crowder.

Crowder’s oft-quoted meme on the 2nd Amendment is, “Why do I need an AR-15? Because go f*** yourself.” The question isn’t whether I need a gun but the mere fact that I want one and it’s my right so I’m getting one. Why do you need your iPhone, flat screen, fidget spinner, or Taco Bell? It’s irrelevant. Your money is yours to spend pretty much however you want, up to and including a gun if you so choose, and except in rare conditions, the government can’t stop you.

The real question isn’t why I need it, but who gave the government permission to stop me.

The man said he thought I had a more convincing argument than Ben, which is 100% the highest compliment a conservative can receive.

But I didn’t let it get to my head for two reasons: 1) it was just a mix of two ideas others have been sharing for years, one of them Shapiro himself, and 2) it made me realize the importance of distinct conservative personalities.

Analysis: Shapiro vs. Crowder

Before I go any further, no one can intelligently refute that Ben Shapiro is one of the sharpest and all-around best debaters in modern history. He knows and implements all the right tactics in just the right combinations based on his opponent’s typical strategy and weaknesses. He literally wrote the handbook on this with his bestseller Bullies, and he frequently speaks on how to use the Left’s talking points against them.

That said, he has a very unique brand that doesn’t lend itself to certain audiences, and depending on his goal, he may speak very differently. In debate, you are not trying to convince your opponent of anything; you’re trying to show the crowd that you know better than your opponent and that he’s a stooge. This is Shapiro’s bread and butter.

In dialogue, however, you actually do want to find some common ground, and Ben’s strategy here, conscious or not, is typically to prove his point analytically through philosophical reasoning. Personally, I love this. But it doesn’t impact everyone the same way.

For example, at the University of Utah, Ben was asked to provide evidence for the existence of God, the soul, and free will. To be fair, this is a deeply philosophical question — the kind Ben attracts because he’s so brilliant. But the first words out of his mouth were, “All right, I’m gonna give you the Aristotelian slash Aquinas argument for the existence of a God,” and he continued in that vein, citing the concepts of actuality vs. potential, contingency, an infinite regress of causes, and the unmoved mover.

Not everyone speaks this language. I’d bet that many people don’t know that Aristotelian (especially when hearing it rather than reading it) relates to Aristotle. Of course, I loved his answer, but I’ve read Aristotle. And although I haven’t read Thomas Aquinas, I’m acquainted. But I also watch C-SPAN in my spare time, so I’m clearly not the metric by which one should measure public political interest.

Bottom line: there is none greater than Ben Shapiro in the modern conservative movement. But going with pure Shapiro as a communication tactic might not be enough to attract the largest base. I don’t think Shapiro believes that either.

Enter Steven Crowder.

Crowder’s approach is comedic, irreverent, and inflammatory. He’s not a provocateur like a certain flamboyant, pro-pedophilia, Alt-Right apologist whose name I won’t dignify; Crowder’s schtick is actually incredibly substantive, and in some cases, as with his recent undercover exposé on Antifa, legitimately groundbreaking.

He intentionally triggers Leftists, but not just for the sake of triggering. He educates by debunking historical myths, exposing corruption, and rebutting culturally popular political lies from the likes of John Oliver, Vox, and Samantha Bee.

Ben Shapiro is fully capable of inciting outrage with witty one-liners (hence the thug life videos); it’s just not how he leads. Steven Crowder is highly intelligent and often delves into deeper territory than just politically infused comedy, or even comically infused politics, but he does so in a way that makes sense to someone with any level of political expertise.

I don’t hesitate at all in saying that Ben Shapiro knows more than Steven Crowder about political theory, I can say with equal confidence that Crowder is more effective at communicating with the average listener.


Perspectives

9/18/17 – Ben Shapiro = William F Buckley? – Glenn Beck

http://www.glennbeck.com/content/audio/91817-ben-shapiro-william-f-buckley/Glenn Beck speaks on the radio and asks the question: Is Ben Shapiro the new William F. Buckley?

Opinion: The argument over free speech: intellectually shallow, vitally important | Opinion | ocolly.com

http://www.ocolly.com/opinion/opinion-the-argument-over-free-speech-intellectually-shallow-vitally-important/article_1fd3ec5a-9ca9-11e7-90fb-c3976233bbd1.htmlOn the right you have individuals like Charlie Kirk and Steven Crowder, two people I’ll admit to otherwise enjoying, who spend most of their time lambasting the millennial generation of being soft and unable take criticism, that they are in social and political echo-chambers. Largely, this line of reasoning is unproductive, meaning it is unlikely to change the mind of its opponents, and, as I’ve been alluding to, it lacks real intellectual heft. That being said, however, this argument has an equally simplistic counterpart.

An Interview with Ben Shapiro: Where Conservatism Stands Today | Merion West

http://merionwest.com/2017/06/01/an-interview-with-ben-shapiro-where-conservatism-stands-today/Erich: Do you see your role, in part, then as guiding the opposition to the Left towards a grounding in a set of principles such as constitutionalism rather than encouraging opposition to the Left by hook or by crook?

Ben: Yes that’s the idea. The idea is to understand why the Left despises the Right and understand that the replacement for that is not a tribalism of the Right but rather a universalism within the founding principles.


The Takeaway

Both are indispensable to conservatism.

Ben Shapiro is the William F. Buckley of our generation. If you’ve never seen Buckley’s show Firing Line, you need to right now.

But Steven Crowder is this generation’s Rush Limbaugh, and that title shouldn’t be treated lightly.

I can’t imagine where conservatism would be without either of these legends, regardless of the contrast between Buckley’s reserved intellectualism and Limbaugh’s affinity for sports and song parodies.

At their core, Ben is a thinker and Steven is a comic. Both are brilliant, and they’re exactly what conservatism needs. And whether you’re cut from the Crowder cloth or you lean Shapiro, whether you’re a mix of the two or something else entirely, conservatism needs you too.

Richie Angel is a Co-Editor in Chief of The New Guards. Follow him and The New Guards on Twitter, and check out The New Guards on Facebook.

Liked it? Take a second to support NOQ Report on Patreon!
Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Culture and Religion

Why abortion must be fought politically AND culturally

Published

on

Why abortion must be fought politically AND culturally

Last week, I jumped in on a heated Twitter debate between a conservative writer and a pro-life policy wonk. Though they both wanted to reduce or eliminate abortions in America, they were fighting over whether it was practical or even fair to charge women who get abortions with a felony. Obviously this debate was set within a hypothetical world in which abortions were already illegal, but it’s worthwhile to plan steps that need to be taken if Roe v Wade were overturned, or if some other laws at the state or national level made abortion-on-demand illegal.

Both sides made pretty epic arguments supporting their side, but both missed the bigger picture. Abortion is, at the very least, a two-front war. There are a few smaller fronts where the war can be waged, but the two primary battlefields are political/legal and cultural. Most pro-lifers fight the political battle. They may invoke faith-based arguments or post videos from the womb to pull at the heartstrings, but when they do so within the framework of the law, they’re still making a political argument.

The pro-abortion side is focusing on the cultural side of the debate… and they’re winning. It’s not because they have the better argument. It’s because the pro-lifers are neglecting this front, and the few that are actually addressing it are doing so with a generally poor strategy. Most are relying on judges and legislation as the way to stop abortions. Meanwhile, they’re losing ground on the cultural front.

How is the left so adept at fighting the culture war? Because they’re framing their arguments within a bigger picture. Their focus on the collective rights of people groups has made their willing sheep abandon what they once knew in their hearts, that killing preborn babies is fundamentally wrong.

The left’s message is that if you believe in equal rights, then you MUST believe in women’s rights. Not too long ago they called it “reproductive rights” but they abandoned that when they realized they could position abortion within the greater women’s rights narrative and get away with it. We’ve seen some pushback by prominent pro-life women, but it’s not enough. To win the cultural war against the womb will require utilizing a variation of the same tactics used by the left.

There are three fundamental truths that pro-lifers must understand if we’re going to win the culture war as it pertains to abortion.

  1. Statistics are counterproductive. I cringe every time I see or hear someone spouting out statistics like there are 125,000 abortions worldwide every day or that over 50,000,000 Americans have been murdered through abortion since it was made legal. It’s not that the statistics are wrong. It’s that they only have an impact on those who already oppose abortion. Those who support abortion do so knowing that many abortions happen and they don’t really care because to them, these weren’t people. Whether they think of them as fetuses or potential humans or parasites or whatever, they’re not going to be swayed by arguments that abortions are rampant.
  2. Science is on our side. Every week, there are new stories highlighting certain attributes of preborn babies that need to be communicated to the masses. They feel pain. They dream. They’re often viable at a much earlier stage of development than previously believed. There’s still a large portion of the population that believes a baby’s heart starts beating when they leave the womb. So much effort is made to use the science on the political side, we often forget that it works from a cultural perspective as well, perhaps more so. We need to educate the people so they understand that preborn babies aren’t just potential humans. They’re humans.
  3. Framing is everything. Just as the left has framed abortion as part of women’s rights, so too must pro-lifers frame the right to exist as a human right. This may seem like a political argument instead of a cultural one, and it is, but when we do so from the perspective of right versus wrong, we can allow the argument to transcend into the part of consciousness that touches on cultural ethics. But framing doesn’t just end with making it a human right to live. We have to frame abortion itself with other topics that people may find despicable. Here are three examples of talking points that frame the abortion debate in a culturally favorable way for pro-lifers that have the potential to reach those who are either pro-abortion or indifferent.
    1. Planned Parenthood was born from the tenets of racism and population control and continues those missions today.
    2. Pushing for gun control to save lives while endorsing abortion-on-demand is a contradiction.
    3. The elite promote abortion knowing it is far more rampant among the poor and minorities. This is no accident. It’s by design.

The war on the womb cannot be won through political means. It cannot be won through cultural shifts. It can only be won when both fronts are addressed simultaneously. Pro-abortionists are doing it. It’s time pro-lifers learn a lesson from the enemy.

Liked it? Take a second to support NOQ Report on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Doctors baffled as inoperable brain tumor in 11-year-old Roxli Doss miraculously disappears

Published

on

Doctors baffled as inoperable brain tumor in 11-year-old Roxli Doss miraculously disappears

It was the worst news Scott and Gena Doss could have received. Their 11-year-old daughter, Roxli, was suffering from diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma, or DIPG, a very aggressive brain tumor. To be sure, her parents sought multiple opinions to see if the worst-case scenario perhaps wasn’t what they thought it was.

Everyone agreed. It was bad.

“At Dell Children’s, Texas Children’s, at Dana-Farber, at John Hopkins, and MD Anderson, all agreed it was DIPG,” said Scott.

The prognosis was grim, but then something miraculous happened.

Texas girl’s inoperable brain tumor miraculously vanishes

https://nypost.com/2018/12/18/11-year-old-girls-inoperable-brain-tumor-miraculously-vanishes/Roxli underwent weeks of radiation as her Buda community rallied by holding a benefit for her in August, when all her parents could do was pray for a miracle.

“And we got it,” an overjoyed Gena said.

“Praise God, we did,” Scott added.

“When I first saw Roxli’s MRI scan, it was actually unbelievable,” Harrod said. “The tumor is undetectable on the MRI scan, which is really unusual.”

Doctors have no idea why the tumor vanished.

My Take

Those of us who share faith in God and His plan are rarely surprised to hear stories like this one. Medical science can only go so far before a higher power must be called on to intervene. We hope and pray the Doss family’s story can inspire others.

Liked it? Take a second to support NOQ Report on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Harvard students figured out why women are paid less than men

Published

on

Harvard students figured out why women are paid less than men

It genuinely disgusts me that, despite how much we’ve progressed as a society, especially in regards to our treatment of minorities and women, men still earn more than women do. It makes me ashamed of my country. How can we still refer to the United States as the “Land of Opportunity” when women are only paid $0.80 for every $1.00 that men are paid despite working just as hard in the same positions? Hell, even that depressing number doesn’t accurately express how large the gender pay gap is, according to the Institute for Women’s Policy Research.

In the report, titled Still a Man’s Labor Market: The Slowly Narrowing Gender Wage Gap, published in November 2018, the organization revealed that women earn a mere 49% of what men do. What’s worse is that it won’t be until 2059 that men and women have 100% equal pay, assuming the gap continues to narrow as slowly as it currently is. This is absolutely unacceptable, and it’s well past time Congress made it illegal for employers to pay women less than men for the same work.

At least, that’s what I would say if I was a leftist moron who still pays attention to the easily debunked “women earn less than men because of sexism” argument that’s been regurgitated countless times over the years.

The reality is that Congress made it illegal for employers to pay people differently based on their sex decades ago. It was called the “Equal Pay Act” and it was signed into law by President John F. Kennedy all the way back in June 1963. Ever since then, employers have been able to pay employees differently based on their merit, their seniority, their work output, or really whatever factors the employer desires… except sex.

A man and a woman in identical positions with identical output are legally required to be paid the same amount, and employers that fail to do so run the risk of some hefty legal ramifications. But if that’s the case, then why do the numbers presented by the IWPR show that there’s such a massive gender pay gap? Is the Equal Pay Act ineffective? Did the IWPR mess up its numbers? Is there some patriarchal plot to keep women from making money?

No, no, and no. The real answer is incredibly simple, and it’s one I’m sure most of us were able to figure out on our own the first time we heard the “women earn ($0.75, $0.79, $0.80) for every $1.00 that men earn” statistic that’s been getting thrown around for years. Basically, men are paid more than women on average because they seek out more lucrative jobs on average and work longer hours on average. If you take the combined earnings of all the women in the United States in a given year, divide that number by how many women worked at any point in that year, and then do the same for men, you’ll see that the earnings-per-working-woman are quite a bit lower than the earnings-per-working-man, so clearly there is a gender pay gap. However, despite what leftists like the people at the IWPR want you to believe, this gap has nothing to do with sexism.

This was demonstrated in a report, also published in November 2018, by two PhD Candidates in Economics at Harvard University. In the report, titled Why Do Women Earn Less Than Men? Evidence from Bus and Train Operators, the two students examined the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority in order to figure out why such a heavily unionized agency in such a notoriously progressive city (Boston) still paid its female employees $0.89 for every $1.00 it paid its male employees. The answer was, once again, incredibly simple. Women were less likely than men to work overtime hours while also being more likely to take unpaid time off. That’s it. That’s all there is to it.

Men tended to prefer making more money to having more free time, while women tended to prefer having more free time to making more money. While an argument could be made that more employers should account for the different preferences of men and women, something the report actually advises on how to do, there’s no basis for the argument that the gender pay gap is a result of sexism.

It should be noted that the Harvard report examined just one industry in one metropolitan area, which means the findings aren’t applicable everywhere, but the gist of them is. Yes, there is a gender pay gap. That’s an objective fact. However, it has nothing to do with sexism. The causes of the gap vary from industry to industry and place to place, but they almost always have to do with the inherent differences between men and women. I think there’s a conversation to be had about whether or not this is an issue, and if it is, whether it’s up to employers, society, or women themselves to solve it, but to even have that conversation requires us to abandon the idea that sexism is the cause. There are certainly some instances where it is the cause, but the vast majority of the time, it’s not.

Liked it? Take a second to support NOQ Report on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Facebook

Twitter

Trending

Copyright © 2018 NOQ Report