This past week, Christopher Rufo waded briefly into the "intra-Right" conflict that broke out between Ben Shapiro and Candace Owens, and which ended with Candace Owens leaving The Daily Wire.
Here's his extensive tweet:
Here's the full statement:
I generally avoid intra-Right conflict, but the ongoing
Daily Wire-Candace Owens dispute is an important moment for the Right, which, I
believe, merits comment.
First, it's not a violation of "free speech" to
let a multimillion-dollar contract expire, which is reportedly what happened.
The Daily Wire is not obligated to subsidize Candace Owens's speech, especially
if she is deviating from the publication's editorial standard or causing
problems for the business. DW is not an open platform such as YouTube,
Facebook, X, etc., and the owners of a publication are under no obligation to
subsidize someone whose trust and friendship they no longer enjoy. Owens spent
months taking public shots at @benshapiro and @JeremyDBoreing, which is a tacit request to get canned and then play the
martyr.
Owens is a gifted speaker, who has been able to turn
controversy into attention—a valuable capability—but she does not advance a
serious politics. She is clearly traveling down an ugly, but, unfortunately,
well-trodden path. She has rationalized Kanye West's antisemitic rants,
speculated about Jewish gangs murdering people in Hollywood, accused @BariWeiss of being a CIA asset,
and claimed that Emmanuel Macron's wife is a man. There is an audience for this
kind of material—Inforwars does a robust business in vitamins and emergency
prep kits—but it's a political dead end.
Why does this matter? Because the Right faces an inflection
point. There are serious people who are trying to advance a serious political
movement with a vision for governing—I consider the Daily Wire to be among
them. And there are unserious people who are willing to sell kayfabe and
conspiracy, leading us nowhere. I care about politics because I believe we have
substantive work to do for the country. This requires putting together a
coalition that is capable of taking responsibility. The choice is ours.
First, let me state my views on Candace Owens:
1. She is very well-spoken
2. She is well-researched on a number of topics.
3. She is photogenic, which contributes to her charisma, her appeal
4. She is a strong self-promoter
5. She interviews incendiary people and takes incendiary positions to get attention.
6. Ultimately, she got lots of attention because she was an articulate black conservative, and conservative influencers lionized her for more likes, views, and shares.
I have lost a great deal of respect for Candace Owens. She is more interested in making a name for herself than making a difference. She was the face of a somewhat broad movement on the right, Blexit, but what was the result of this movement? Did black voters become Republicans? Did they vote Republican in larger numbers? Did they more strongly embrace our country's civic culture and history?
According to final data from Election 2020, regardless of how disputed the election results remain, the black vote did not shift considerably in Trump's favor. All the government handouts didn't make a difference, and all the diversity rhetoric didn't really matter.
As for Blexit, Candace O made lots of dough, but not much else was accomplished. How many black voters were registered? How many of them registered as Republicans? Do we have any data on these outcomes?
Recently, she began attacking the The Daily Wire and support for Israel. She had the audacity to accuse Israel of being an apartheid state, of resegregating the different ethnic populations in Jerusalem, when different ethnic quarters had existed in Jerusalem for centuries!
She also interviewed Andrew Tate and gave one of the most shameless softball interviews, similar to what Tucker Carlson had also done. Not once did she confront him on the sex-trade allegations. Not once did he push back on his insufferable arrogance. Not once did he really seek fact-finding in her interview with that very disordered man.
She wants to grift, throw bombs, engage in "engagement harvesting" to boost her profile.
And there is no better subject to stir up some populist dissidents on social media than to talk about, and talk badly about, Israel.
She jumped into that fight, she said things about Israel that are not true, Ben Shapiro corrected her, and then she played victim because he corrected her.
This is not serious conservatism. The country is not going to be saved with relentless clickbaiting and engagement harvesting. We need substantive policy achievements and true intellectual activism to turn the constitutional ship of state around.
Rufo's criticism is well-place. We need a robust cultural rebranding in this country. We need to articulate and advance key policies, not just engage in grimy grifting for a quick buck. This issue with putting profit ahead of purpose is particular to the Right, since people on the Right focus on money, economic growth, freedom, and an understandable revulsion to government power.
At this point in our history, however, we need to take back the levers of power and restore natural law and natural order in our country. Headlines, views, debates, relentless chatter are not going to fix what is ailing this country. A profound restoration of our Founding Values, and a commitment to advancing those causes, will restore this country. Candace Owens is not serious about this fight. I agree with Rufo: Shapiro and his team at The Daily Wire are more committed to this effort. Are their tactics and investments the best means for accomplishing these goals? We are still waiting to see those results.
No comments:
Post a Comment