More recently, this format has undergone some re-evaluation. In 2015 Begala reflected that, looking back, America could have used more noisy dissent in the run-up to the Iraq War. Outsiders on the show also defended him, or at least expressed bewilderment in his status as a punching bag; Ian Crouch, for example, wroteIn this magazine, Stewart's criticism began to seem “less nuanced and insightful” and she was unaware of the reality that “the real debate requires passion and theatricality as well as intelligence.” By 2023 PoliticianMichael Shaffer what I'm calling about the show's return, arguing that in a world of insular echo chambers, the relative lack of content that involves sharing “might even be detrimental to America.”
Crossfire didn't return. (An attempt at a revival in the mid-twenties, involving Gingrich and Van Jones, among others, seemed to be unsuccessful and lasted barely a year.) But the basic idea appears to be enjoying a revival. Since last year, “NewsNight,” Abby Phillip's primetime show on CNN, which, according to one media reporter, put this onis often “more 'Crossfire' than 'Crossfire' ever was – pitting brawlers on both sides against each other, with sometimes spectacular results (see: journalist Katherine Rampell challenges Trump ally Scott Jennings, who defended Elon Musk against accusations that he gave Sieg Heilto repeat the gesture if it was so harmless), sometimes horrifying (see: right-wing commentator Ryan Girdusky, supposedly jokingly, calling Muslim journalist Mehdi Hassan a terrorist sympathizer), and usually somewhere in between. Either way, people seem to be watching it.
On social media, angry debate formats are also very much in keeping with the zeitgeist—in no small part a result of the self-righteous “Argue with me!” a culture of right-wing bros who rose to prominence online during Trump's first term. Charlie Kirk perfected the form by traveling to college campuses where he sparred with “woke” opponents; Last summer, a liberal streamer known as Destiny snuck into a meeting of Kirk's group, Turning Point USA, and discussed the manosphere influencer in what one attendee likened to a “cockfight.” Last year, Jubilee Media launched Surrounded, a web show that has a provocateur edge to it (Kirk came first). surrounded intellectual adversaries who take turns arguing until their peers vote against them. Here, too, the results are difficult to observe: when Hassan, who was born in Great Britain, but is a US citizenIt turns out that one of his interlocutors said that he should be deported; another proudly calls himself a fascist. But, again, people are watching. Hasan and others said they made “Surrounded” at the urging of their children.
If this is the moment of heightened controversy, both Phillip's show and Surrounded have nonetheless been condemned, in decidedly Stewartian fashion, for giving a platform to dishonest bigoted hackers more interested in fighting than enlightening. (Perhaps tellingly, both shows were marketed in softer terms that appeared intended to head off such criticism; Jubilee founder said that he's trying to build a “Disney of empathy.”) After Hassan's appearance in Brady Brickner-Wood's “Environment” wroteThe magazine says the show serves up “brain-corroding slop” that “offers the viewer little more than a lobotomy.” Another criticism is that such content does not represent the “real” country, much of which is in some imagined moderate center, or even the work of politicians, which is friendlier in the smoke-filled rooms where decisions are actually made than in public. Ceasefire is based on shining a light on these rooms and modeling respectful dialogue aimed at building consensus on major issues.
These are noble goals. But what politicians say in public shapes the world at least as much as behind-the-scenes communications. And any bipartisan ceasefire must take effect on certain political coordinates that are not value neutral. (The Begala example with Iraq comes to mind.) In my opinion, shows like Ceasefire risk confusing civility with unity, or at least blurring the lines between these two very different concepts. There are no disagreements demand anger, and there are shows that are polite and don't seek compromise; Ezra Klein's Time the podcast in which he patiently lays out ideas alongside eloquent opponents of his liberal worldview is one example. This type of exchange can fulfill what I believe to be the primary function of debate, which is not to present some majority view, but to expand and stress test ideas, including those perceived as outlandish. However, as Crouch noted, this process is often passionate, especially when the stakes are so high.
When I started thinking about this article, the difference between the Crossfire and Ceasefire styles of debate seemed metaphorical. In September, after Kirk was tragically killed during a debate with Utah Valley University students, the situation changed. There were urgent calls among leading politicians and commentators to lower the temperature and, in the words of Utah Gov. Spencer Cox, to “better to disagree.” Meanwhile, Trump and his allies have begun using the killing as an excuse to silence voices they don't like. ABC in brief suspended late-night host Jimmy Kimmel for remarks he made about Kirk's death following threats from the head of the Federal Communications Commission that even some Republicans later compared to the language of a mob boss. The State Department revoked the visas of at least six people who “celebrated” Kirk's death. A Tennessee man posted a meme highlighting Trump's more dismissive response to a previous school shooting and was then arrested on the false grounds that he had made death threats. The man was detained for more than a month.
A discussion soon arose about whether it was possible debate in fact, that's exactly what Kirk did. Many observers depicted him as words Katherine Kelaidis in Salonas “a modern Socrates wandering the agora of American universities in search of truth through rhetorical contest”; Klein wrote V Time that Kirk “practised politics in exactly the right way” and was one of the “most effective practitioners of persuasion” of his era. This characterization, especially as Klein made it, drew howls of outrage from many left-leaning commentators, who argued that Kirk was not interested in changing anyone's opinion, but instead practiced a form of performance art in which he lured less experienced debaters into rhetorical traps, which he could then publish online under heavy-handed headlines such as “Charlie Kirk TURNES OUT 3 Arrogant College Students” 👀🔥” – all the while dehumanizing various marginalized communities and spreading hatred. Kirk's style was “to civil dialogue what porn is to sex,” Kelaidis wrote. “A deliberately titillating, mildly degrading, commercialized rendition of something that is normally good, or at least neutral.”
