Why Engaging with Extremists Like RFK Jr. Can Be Counterproductive
Written on
The Dangers of Engaging in Debate
Recently, RFK Jr., a contender for the 2024 Democratic nomination and a figure reminiscent of a cartoonish Hulk, appeared on Joe Rogan’s podcast to garner attention for his presidential campaign. During this session, Kennedy Jr. extensively promoted various conspiracy theories primarily concerning public health and societal issues. Some of these theories, such as the debunked notion that vaccines lead to autism, have circulated for years. However, he also touched on lesser-known claims, like the assertion that WiFi exposure can cause cancer or that chemicals in drinking water can influence gender identity in young boys.
Although it's unnecessary to emphasize the falsehoods in Kennedy Jr.'s assertions, it's important to fact-check some of these statements, as Dr. Peter Hotez did shortly after the podcast aired. Hotez, a pediatrician and vaccine authority, took to social media to remind everyone that Kennedy’s claims lack factual support and are rooted in misinformation. Hotez's rebuttal triggered a frenzy among Kennedy's supporters, who demanded that he engage in a debate with Kennedy—a request Hotez declined. This decision only intensified the outcry from extremists, who labeled Hotez's refusal as cowardice, suggesting he cannot defend his stance. In truth, the opposite is true.
The Complexity of Modern Debates
Hotez's choice to avoid a debate with Kennedy costs him credibility in a society that often equates debate with truth, where one-on-one discussions are seen as the ultimate way to discern right from wrong. Having participated in Debate and Speech competitions in high school, I understand this mentality and occasionally find myself in agreement. However, in a potential Hotez vs. Kennedy debate, the fundamental disagreement on basic truths would render any discussion virtually meaningless. Hotez's reliance on scientific evidence and the consensus of the scientific community places him on a distinctly different plane than RFK Jr., who leans on misinterpretations of data, fabrications, and dismissals of counterarguments as mere deep-state conspiracies.
Kennedy's tactic of dismissing any unrefuted claim as part of a deep state conspiracy is arguably the most detrimental aspect of his debating approach. This strategy serves as a blanket justification for distrusting established professionals in government, science, and education—especially those like Hotez who operate at the intersection of these fields. This dynamic presents another compelling reason why a debate between Hotez and Kennedy Jr. would be unproductive. While one can point out inaccuracies or fact-check an opponent, if the discourse shifts towards questioning the integrity of others rather than addressing ideas, the debate loses its essence.
At this juncture, where neither party holds respect or trust for the other, and each exists in entirely separate realities, what value could such a debate offer society? The only potential beneficiaries would be those already aligned with Kennedy Jr.’s views, as a debate would merely amplify his conspiracy theories. Debates should aim to explore differing perspectives on how to navigate reality, not settle the veracity of facts. For example, a discussion about addressing climate change is only worthwhile if all participants recognize that climate change is indeed real. Similarly, a debate on affirmative action is beneficial only when all parties agree on its definition.
The Rise of Extremism in Politics
An increasing number of individuals who share Kennedy Jr.'s mindset are emerging across the nation and seeking public office. Many of these candidates demand debates with their opponents. Kari Lake, a failed gubernatorial candidate in Arizona, insisted on debating her opponent, Secretary of State Katie Hobbs. Like Hotez, Hobbs declined the invitation, unwilling to provide a platform for Lake's misleading claims. In response, Hobbs faced criticism from various political factions for her decision to abstain from the debate. Nevertheless, she remained resolute and ultimately secured a narrow victory in the November elections—an outcome Lake continues to contest, citing fraud without evidence.
Debates can clarify political or social positions for those who are undecided or uninformed, helping individuals identify candidates who share their beliefs and goals. However, they lose their significance when participants resort to lying and questioning the character of others without justification. It is entirely acceptable to avoid such confrontations and decline invitations to debate. In fact, withholding attention from ideas like those promoted by Kennedy Jr. is one of the most beneficial actions one can take for society.
Chapter 2: The Importance of Fact-Checking
In this video, RFK Jr. engages in a contentious discussion during his first presidential debate, attempting to articulate his views while facing criticism.
Here, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. shares his thoughts on the first presidential debate, describing it as 'depressing' and expressing his discontent with the discourse.