Read on Twitter
A thesis: Most public intellectuals don'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'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'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't really what is happening with "think pieces" in @TheAtlantic or @NRO or what have you.
