Ben Shapiro: US commentator clashes with BBC's Andrew Neil - BBC News

ben shapiro you're followed by millions of people online and on social media you're one of the biggest names in American conservatism what is it you think you're tapping into well I think that there are a couple of things one there is actually a hunger for different ideas the the monolithic nature of the United States media is pretty evident in terms of its politics people tend to agree on essentially the liberal point of view and increasingly a radical leftist point of view in the media and obviously I speak to in response to that at the same time I try to provide an honest take on the issues of the day and that means that I am not beholden to the Republican Party for example it means that I'm going to speak out whenever I think that a principle is being violated just no matter who is doing the violation you work for the right-wing Breitbart website that you left over it's support for Donald Trump and I think you said you'd never vote for mr. Trump why is that well in 2015 2016 the Breitbart made a hard turn in favor of one particular candidate and that's their prerogative lots of publications have an editorial point of view and Breitbart was one of those the reason that I left Breitbart specifically was because it was because of an incident in which a Breitbart reporter a female reporter was grabbed on the arm by Corey Lewandowski than the campaign manager for president Trump and was bruised on the arm and then Corey Lewandowski proceeded to lie about it in Breitbart proceeded to throw its own reporter under the bus suggest that she was lying or making this up and at that point I determined that I could no longer work for a publication that wasn't even willing to stand up for its own reporters and instead would throw those reporters under the bus in favor of a candidate that had sought to back haven't you lost you battle for the Republican Party though isn't the Republican Party now the party of Trump no I mean I think that the Republican Party is always the party of whomever is the president technically speaking but in terms of who are the sort of the thought leaders inside the conservative movement who are the people who are driving a lot of the discussion inside the conservative movement I don't think that's correct at all I think that most Republicans see President Trump is a vehicle for their policy preferences but that doesn't necessarily mean that they agree with all of his personal foible or the way that he behaves or the things that he says and I think a lot of Republicans responds in anger to the media attacking President Trump mainly out of a reactionary and half appropriate upset that the media seem to have a double standard when it comes to covering certain politicians I'm interested that you think there's a thought movement inside the Republican Party I mean half of the Conservatives run out of IDs in America all the new policies the Medicare for all $15 minimum wage the green you deal they're all coming from the left and they're popular frank fryman frankly I'm confused by the idea that any of those are particularly new ideas I mean most of those ideas have been around since Franklin Delano Roosevelt at the very earliest or at the very latest rather some of them go all the way back to Woodrow Wilson but the idea the new ideas are absent in the Republican Party is obviously untrue we have a very strong debate that goes on inside sort of the the conservative halls of intelligentsia about what is the appropriate action to take with regard to the medical system should global warming be considered a real threat or should global warming be be considered something that technology will solve and if so what are the best best aspects of solving that now there's that there's a rich intellectual debate on the right about nationalism versus patriotism for example or populism versus free-market tourism that debate is happening on the right to sort of suggest that the right in America is bereft of ideas but the left is full of ideas number one not all ideas are good ideas I mean AOC is pretty good evidence of that I'm a big fan of some old ideas myself that I think are pretty good but beyond that I think that it is it is intellectual intellectual sneering of the highest order to suggest that only the left has new and decent ideas some of the ideas that are popular in your side of politics which seem to take us back to the dark ages Georgia new abortion laws which you are much in favor of that a woman who miscarries could get 30 years a georgian woman who travels to another state for an abortion procedure could get 10 years these are extreme hard policies well okay a couple of things one I'm not sure I mean frankly I don't know whether you're sitting are you an objective journalist are you an opinion journalist I mustn't ask questions okay so your inner a supposedly objective journalist calling policies with which you disagree barbaric acting only one side of the political aisle knows ideas so I just want to point out though I know we should at least be honest in your own bias this is your parenting in America is now so polarized that on one program you only have the left and another one you just have the right my job is to question those who have strong views and put an alternative to them if you were an anti-abortion person I would be putting pro-abortion questions to you but you are so my question sir sir I'm happy to answer a question please answer this one would you suggest would you suggest that a late-term abortion is brutal I'm not talking about more questions sir you just suggested the pro-life position is inherently brutal and terrible so I'm asking you as an objective journalist would you ask the same question to a pro-choice advocate by calling their action brutal and I'm asking you is that why is it that a bill banning abortions after a woman has been pregnant for six weeks is not a return to the dark ages what's your answer my answer is something called science human life exists at conception it ought to be protected now back to my question to you you purport to be an objective journalist BBC purports to be an objective down the middle network it obviously is not it never has been and you as a journalist our proceedings who call one side of the political aisle ignorant barbaric and sending us back to the dark ages why don't you just say that you're on the left it's so hard for you why can't you just be honest this is a it's a serious question mr. Shapiro if you only knew how ridiculous that statement is you wouldn't have said it so let's move on would you vote for there's the evident from your own Trump would you vote for mr. Trump in 2020 I'd certainly consider voting for mr. Trump in 2020 just like I'd consider voting for anybody else in 2020 but didn't you answer you'd never vote for him I said that I wouldn't vote for him in 2016 and then I wrote a column for National Review explaining the conditions under which I might change my mind you're a culture war warrior isn't he largely on your side you you wrote once it was unlikely he'd appoint conservative judges to the Supreme Court he has right you were wrong until I met I like many of President Trump's policies even if I still have serious reservations about his personality in character do you think there's a Democrat that could be tuned to 2020 sure I think there are several Democrats who could beat him in 2020 who would have the best chance I think the Joe Biden is likely is to beat him considering that he has significant appeal in a lot of the Rust Belt in places like Pennsylvania Michigan Wisconsin the place that the president Trump needs to wins retain the presidency and Joe Biden also has a long history in politics which means that the American people already have sort of a preconceived vision of him President Trump as a campaigner is very good at dragging unknowns through the mud or at exposing details about people that are previously sort of covered up but when it comes to Joe Biden he's been well exposed for a very long time most people know him and he's not nearly as unpopular even going in as Hillary Clinton was in 2016 so if it was a close race between mr. Biden and mr. Trump you would for what you say I think probably go for mr. Trump yes I would vote for mr. Trump if it were a race between Biden and Trump because I think that the damage the president Trump has done to the country on a character and rhetorical level has already been done and cannot be undone I don't see it as getting worse day by day that is the new status quo unfortunately now the question becomes which policies I would most like to see enacted and Trump's policy preferences are closer to my own than Joe Biden's are now you're a star of new media conservative new media you and others on the left and the right you position yourself says suppose that tell us of hard truths but haven't you all just really coarsened public discourse in America and the exacerbated its divisions you know it's kind of odd to be to be hearing about me corseting public discourse when you call policies you disagree with brutal and bringing us back to the dark ages sir the point I don't return to but the point was to put a position for you to reply to it and I thought we that's well I think some of the points to because on your characterization of issues is part of the problem in the for sending a public well maybe it's also part of your problem too because we have from you YouTube videos ben shapiro destroys the abortion argument ben shapiro destroys change it transgenderism and abortion is that not a kind of course public discourse well are those videos labeled by me I have no idea why are you picking out wire why are you why are you I have a question why are you picking out random YouTube videos put up by people who are not me are you reading the titles to me are you unhappy with the way they've been described I think that people can describe me however they please it's a free country and I'm all in favor of a bubble of a public debate if you watch the actual clips there are generally civil conversations between me and somebody who disagrees with me you say in your new book oh you suggest that America's largest struggle at the moment is quote the struggle for our national soul we are so angry at each other right now and I think that's true I've just returned from the United States but aren't you part of the problem with the way you go about your discourse not the solution I think we can all do better in our discourse but the fact that I've reached out to so many people across the aisle to have conversations with them is pretty evidence the fact that I was willing to walk from a publication that was paying me money over principle is pretty evidence the fact that I've called out President Trump a member of a party of which I am a member repeatedly when I think that he has done things that are immoral I think is decent evidence that I'm looking at least for a civil conversation well as you say in your book you say that there's a credit keyphrase we are so angry at each other right now but as I say on you part of that anger aren't you encouraging that anger for example you just you described mr. Obama's State of the Union address in 2012 as fascist mentality in action well I think that if you are one if you want to argue with the characterization and then we can talk about what exactly his State of the Union address said is it charged language in politics sure the problem that I have is not with charge language in politics which I'm generally in favor of I like a robust public debate and a very loud and and spirited public debate I have no problem with that whatsoever what I'm talking about is the assumption that people with whom we disagree politically are inherently of bad character or in your words want to bring us back to the dark ages but again it was your description of the State of the Union address in 2012 as fascist the wording of the president Trump's 2012 address was bad and wrong that's over there plenty of things are bad and wrong but it doesn't make them fascist well I suppose that's true but if would like to again if you'd like to read me the column out loud I suppose I can critique it for you oh well again with mr. Obama you said June and you're Jewish yourself I only mentioned that because food is in context the Jews who vote for Obama are by and large Jews and name only journals you call them my statement was based on the fact that Jews in the United States as an ethnic group are largely irreligious which is true by every single poll Jews of the most irreligious group in the United States as an Orthodox Jew who actually takes Judaism seriously the point that I'm making is that most Jews who are ethnically Jewish are not religiously Jewish in any context no no the point you were making is that Jews who vote for Obama are Jews and namely only I said I said that yes that is correct that Jews who voted for Barack Obama a progenitor of the Iran deal a person who was cracking down on religious liberty a person who spent much of his career as presidents of the United States attempting to deprive Israel of the necessities to defend itself that that people Jews who voted for President Obama by and large cared about Judaism far less than they did about other priorities did you said they should return their badge in as a Jew yes I believe that if you are a believer are somebody who takes Judaism seriously that comes along with ideological ideological commitment I mean I guess also I'm just I mean I mean I hope you're having fun by the way going through every old tweet that I've ever sent to try and do gotcha questions but if you'd like to have a discussion about my general philosophy or things I've done and say I don't know that's 2012 so it's now 2019 if you'd like to discuss something I've done and say like the past five years why don't we do that because you book is a criticism of how angry America's and how America has to do better and I'm sick I have an entire list on my website sir sir panelists have an entire website some of the things you've said that seem to me to help to stoke that anger for example you said sure Israelis like to build Arabs like to bomb crap and live in open sewage well as I say in an article entitled here's a list of all the giant bad dumb things I've ever said was that one don't but yes that's a dumb tweet and not only a but it is also important to mention that the next few tweets clarified that sweet is specifically referring to the komali der ship which by the way a BBC I've seen is relatively reticent to condemn no I'd say it wasn't what you went on to do and say you are correct about the slurring are Arabs is not all Arabs that want to live in open sewage and blow things up is just Palestinians even want to say holiday no it sighs you several is wrong Alice billion population is rotten to the core you went on to say not have masses Arab population I say that by poll numbers they elected Hamas they elected Hamas they educate their children's in school that Israel should be obliterated sir I guess if you want to read Khan you know honestly the this is a giant waste of time in the sense that the entire interview is designed for you to shout slogans or old things that I've said at me I don't see how this forwards the debate you talk about you talk about undermining the public discourse it seems to me that's simply going through and finding lone things that sound bad out of context and then hitting them with and then hitting people with them is a way for you to make a quick buck on BBC off the fact that I'm popular and no one has ever heard of you there are not many box of emitter on the BBC unlike American Broadcasting mr. Shapiro I get the point right because your words are highly designed to produce the consensus and understanding that the book seems to want to produce that's my point that you write about you know judeo-christian culture and so on but so much of what you've said in the past would seem to turn its back on judeo-christian culture you're lecturing me on judeo-christian culture after you call the pro-life position barbaric I just leave a question and I asked you a question you failed to answer a single one of mine frankly I find this whole thing a waste of time if you want to read the book and critique the book why don't you read and critique the book if you want to read if you want to critique me you can think whatever you want to be I don't give a damn what you think of music I've never heard of you yeah and I've never heard of you until I brief myself for this but that's not the issue you have it's an interesting book but my point is your book claims he was voted from time to time your book is called you I've done so several times and I'm about to do so again if you would let me just finish the question you bet that turning on a slicer on judeo-christian values yeah this is where are the values it's turning its back on I you know I'm not inclined to continue an interview with a person is badly motivated as you as an interviewer so I think we're done here I appreciate your time all right well we thank you for your time and for showing that anger is not part of American political discourse now mr. Shapiro will say goodbye

Channel: BBC News

Views: 9,058,514

Rating: 4.3196034 out of 5

Keywords: bbc, bbc news, news, Ben Shapiro, Shapiro, Andrew Neil, Politics Live, Breitbart, Corey Lewandowski

Id: 6VixqvOcK8E

Length: 16min 6sec (966 seconds)

Published: Fri May 10 2019

Reddit Comments

[u/warr3nh]

Was expecting a different kind of video 😂

[u/rubinass3]

I don't know why Shapiro was mad when the presenter suggested that the punishments related to abortion were extremely harsh. Isn't Shapiro's entire point that people should be punished for abortion? All he needed to say was that he believes that the punishment fits the crime.

[u/salaman77]

The peak cringe was when he said "I'm famous and no one has ever heard of you!" or "Why don't you just say you're on the left?" (to a known right-wing interviewer lmao).

[u/btscher]

“Thank you for your time and for showing anger is not part of American discourse”. Poor Ben can’t take it when other people calmly ask him questions about his own statements.

[u/conconbar93]

Im starting to realize that i turn into ben shapiro when i argue. I need to re-evaluate my whole fucking life. Good lord. His face at the end of the video.

[u/BCFCMuser]

Calling Andrew Neil a leftist is the true cringe.

[u/ltyboy]

This is what happens when Shapiro is challenged by an actual journalist and not random upset people on the street or at question boards. The way he gets progressively more flustered and eventually has a full on temper tantrum is delicious. "STOP USING THE THINGS IVE SAID TO CRITICIZE ME THATS NOT FAIR"

[u/ShinbrigGoku]

Must have been a shock for Ben Shapiro when he's debating someone other than a college student.

[u/themettaur]

So, just one thing I've noticed, as I'm not really all that knowledgeable in politics, is: he put up a hissy fit over a bill limiting abortion being called "barbaric"... only to later admit that he "loves charged language in political debates".

I'm trying to give him some level of the benefit of the doubt, trying to put myself in the shoes of those that think the man is intelligent and well spoken. But a contradiction of that level makes it difficult. He can't even keep his narrative straight over the course of 10 minutes when he's being grilled.

These aren't perfect quotes, just summaries put in quotation marks.

Follow that up with: when called out for his "dumb tweets", he admits to having a list of all the dumb things he's said. When the BBC guy picks specifically the quote about Arabs shitting in the street or whatever, he calls that a dumb statement to make as well. And then immediately follows it up by saying he clarified in a later tweet that he was only talking about one group of Arabs as if that makes it now justified. Is it a dumb tweet, or is it justified?

And the end? That's just a mess. The guy has said over and over again, he's pulling things from the past to demonstrate a trend in Shapiro's language that has enlivened the divisive nature of discussion in American politics that Shapiro later complains about in his book. I cannot believe someone who thinks of themselves as an intellectual would see it as "gotcha questions". Does he not understand that an interview is typically the interviewer asking questions, and the guest answering them? An interview isn't meant to be a back-and-forth, that's why it's an interview and not a debate. He expressly and explicitly even states that it's an interview, calls the other guy an interviewer, albeit a "badly motivated" one.

I can see falling for his facade, though. He plays with half truths and exaggerations. A bias to the left of his platform becomes "radical leftist". An interviewer bringing up related questions to demonstrate a pattern of behavior becomes an attack. Things like that, born from a seed of some truth, but then twisted. I can see people agreeing to it when they don't want to think for themselves, because he does kind of start from the point of realty in a sense.