1. The problem with the Ben Shapiro Playbook isn't primarily the author. It's that the *content* of the piece is bad, in a way that was eminently predictable given the author.

I'm going to go through the entire piece and explain why.

2. Shapiro's core argument is that House Republicans opposed impeachment because they saw it as a Democratic plot to undermine them — and, moreover, that they were right (or at least justified) in thinking that.
3. This logic has a glaring logical flaw: as @jonathanchait points out, Democrats couldn't use impeachment to tie Republicans to Trump *if they voted for it* https://t.co/DPoeiX167z
4. The problem goes deeper than that. The evidence that Shapiro uses to argue that Republicans are justified is that Democrats and liberal commentators have argued that the Capitol Hill riot vindicates their positions on *issues other than impeachment*
5. Of course they'd say that — they're Democrats! You can debate the validity of these claims, but that says nothing about the purpose of pursuing impeachment. There's just no real connection between Shapiro's argument and the evidence offered for it.
6. Next, Shapiro argues that Democrats want to blame all Republicans and Trump voters for the riot — and will use this as a pretext for "repression" for conservatives everywhere.
7. This is a dodge. It positions the argument that the GOP bears some responsibility is necessarily unreasonable and evil. That a party that made Trump its leader and backed him for four years is axiomatically innocent, and saying otherwise is the real problem.
8. Shapiro's "evidence" for this claim that Democrats want to "repress" the GOP? That corporations — not Democrats, *corporations* — punished outlets and politicians who either tolerated violent rhetoric or encouraged the election fraud delusion.
9. These were targeted actions against specific groups, not the entire Republican party. And yet Shapiro sees this evidence of a conspiracy to repress the entire GOP!

So you see the real argument here: it's not just impeachment, but any consequences, that are illegitimate.
10. Now, here's the next section. Virtually every claim in this is either dishonest or false.

In 2018, Abrams didn't try to overturn the election, telling supporters that "the law currently allows no further viable remedy" for an election she felt (justifiably!) was unfair.
11. Raskin's objections were pro forma and without support from a Senate member, so they didn't trigger debate. And the reputable First Amendment lawyers I've spoken to say there is a real case that Trump did incitement; Shapiro links out to a piece by Andy McCarthy, a crank.
12. Here's the last substantive section, which is really a con. Shapiro is arguing for "neutral standards" to "unite the country" while quite literally arguing for division — that Republicans are justified in seeing Democrats as evil and opposing impeachment to spite them.
13. But this is Shapiro's shtick. Out of one side of his mouth, he positions himself as a high-minded intellectual. Out of the other side, he offers up the most divisive conservative red meat imaginable. Some examples I compiled a bit ago:
14. So the real problem with today's Playbook isn't Ben Shapiro's identity. It's that the piece itself is poorly reasoned and outright dishonesty in a way that was predictable given his past work — and that no editor fixed the piece. It's just below decent journalistic standards.
15. Coda: there is an argument that Playbook is helping its more left-leaning readers understand the right better by publishing this. That's false, for reasons @AsteadWesley, @AdamSerwer, and @cjane87 explain here:
16. Coda II: this statement from Politico's EIC makes it worse, not better.

The logical and evidentiary flaws in the newsletter were glaring and obvious; if it was "very closely edited," then the editorial process failed. https://t.co/FNa8UlSO4S

More from Culture

I'm going to do two history threads on Ethiopia, one on its ancient history, one on its modern story (1800 to today). 🇪🇹

I'll begin with the ancient history ... and it goes way back. Because modern humans - and before that, the ancestors of humans - almost certainly originated in Ethiopia. 🇪🇹 (sub-thread):


The first likely historical reference to Ethiopia is ancient Egyptian records of trade expeditions to the "Land of Punt" in search of gold, ebony, ivory, incense, and wild animals, starting in c 2500 BC 🇪🇹


Ethiopians themselves believe that the Queen of Sheba, who visited Israel's King Solomon in the Bible (c 950 BC), came from Ethiopia (not Yemen, as others believe). Here she is meeting Solomon in a stain-glassed window in Addis Ababa's Holy Trinity Church. 🇪🇹


References to the Queen of Sheba are everywhere in Ethiopia. The national airline's frequent flier miles are even called "ShebaMiles". 🇪🇹
I just finished Eric Adler's The Battle of the Classics, and wanted to say something about Joel Christiansen's review linked below. I am not sure what motivates the review (I speculate a bit below), but it gives a very misleading impression of the book. 1/x


The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x

Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x

The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x

It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x
. THREAD 1/x

David Baddiel is getting lots of coverage and feedback on his book which again focuses on so called 'left wing' antisemitism.

I will start by saying that I have seen antisemitic comments made by Labour members and some genuine cases.

However, I have huge concerns.


2/x

Let's look in detail at this article written in April 2019 in the @Guardian - and I will explain the concerns.

The areas highlighted guide you to believe this was all Labour - IT WASN'T.

It also occurred before 2015! Detail follows...

https://t.co/cK59FP83aG


3/x

So as you see the writer of this rather deceitful piece starts with

"THAT CHANGED IN SEPTEMBER 2015" 🙄

This was done to point the timeframe as Corbyn's leadership. Yet the article goes on to describe things that are not even related to Labour, which occurred in 2014.


4/x

So... What in fact the @Guardian writer is discussing here is this case - where a group of Neo-Nazi's spent months inflicting abuse on Jewish MP Luciana Berger

All the detail is in the Court Notes when Bonehill-Paine was sentenced by the judge.

https://t.co/wAyo6Yro5Q


5/x

The Justice sentencing remarks to Neo-Nazi explain the previous cases too. See the date 2014.

Yet the Guardian writer refers to this NON LABOUR case to effectively make her article a lie.

"Star of David" - this was Garron Helm another neo-Nazi..

You May Also Like