A thesis: Most public intellectuals don& #39;t debate actual people. They debate fictional persons who are an amalgamation of what they see as the worst characteristics of "the other side," which are then synthesized into the proto-typical "conservative," "liberal," etc.

A corollary: This is why so much of public debate feels dishonest. We never recognize ourselves in the proto-typical characters that are supposed to represent us.

For example, my bet is that there are no public intellectuals who see themselves in this tweet.

I suppose I think that often they aren& #39;t debating ideas that anyone actually holds. The gold standard is that someone reading the arguments being critiqued would say, "Yes. That is a fair statement of what I believe." This, I think, is seldom true.

I don& #39;t begrudge philosophers or other theorists playing around with ideas that no one actually believes, although there are problems with this. Regardless, philosophical investigation isn& #39;t really what is happening with "think pieces" in @TheAtlantic or @NRO or what have you.