I personally think there's a simpler explanation (based on my own experience as an investigative journalist interviewing so-called 'guilty men', up to and including child murderers). It's simply this: they think they're right. Chotiner is self-evidently a smart person and they are sure that he will see how right they are. We are all heroes in our own narratives.
That “they think they're right” becomes an empowering asset which affords them a sense of security. Having to admit that they may not be right is to lose face, admit a weakness, display their vulnerability.
I think a huge part of it is that Chotiner doesn't come across as threatening. He's polite and asks seemingly innocuous questions. But he is a master of Socratic inquiry and his interlocutors don't realize that his questions have laid a trap until they fall into it.
And was preceded by Stephen Colbert's interviews with clueless, unprepared, or I-am-mightier-than-thou politicians on The Daily Show ("I'll put that down as a yes").
Exhibit A for Drezner's fascinating discussion above is Henry Kissinger, as to Oriana Fallaci: He explained himself as "the cowboy who leads the wagon train by riding ahead alone on his horse, the cowboy who rides all alone into town." It's a daydream of uncanny powers by a serial blunderer, just to recall Nixon's observation that Kissinger would "start a crisis over Ecuador if Vietnam weren't available."
And Exhibit A for 2 Degrees of Separation is that Ted Koppel just did an interview with Chotiner on Koppel's softball interview with "his good friend" Kissinger.
Just curious: How has that worked out two years later, with Russia's army lying in ruins, its war crimes exposed to the world, and even naval ships sunk by a nation with no navy?
Well, no one "wins" wars. As for Russia, their "three-day military operation" sure is taking a long time.
Now that our country has decided Russia and North Korea are our allies, other nations are stepping into the gap to further marginalise the USA in world affairs.
I mean yeah, I'm sure it's a bummer for Putin that it took longer, but he's still gonna get the land. Hard to see how that's not a win for him and a loss for Ukraine.
Isaac's uncle was Murray Chotiner, and it's not that usual a name even among Americans of Ashkenazi descent, so I have to wonder if some conservatives—many of whom, uh, over-emphasise ancestry in my opinion—unconsciously think that they're with a good and trusted friend.
I think the other suggestions here, particularly that these people are so full of a self-directed, passionate, intensity that they forget to stay on their guard, are probably most of it, but the above if present would intensify the effect.
When you look at the nexus of folks like Mearsheimer, Chomsky, Taibbi, Greenwald, Maté, etc., they never seem to understand how often the very worst of folks (e.g. Putin, Xi) are getting aid and comfort from their "analysis"
I personally think there's a simpler explanation (based on my own experience as an investigative journalist interviewing so-called 'guilty men', up to and including child murderers). It's simply this: they think they're right. Chotiner is self-evidently a smart person and they are sure that he will see how right they are. We are all heroes in our own narratives.
That “they think they're right” becomes an empowering asset which affords them a sense of security. Having to admit that they may not be right is to lose face, admit a weakness, display their vulnerability.
He should retire from public life and grow roses.
I think a huge part of it is that Chotiner doesn't come across as threatening. He's polite and asks seemingly innocuous questions. But he is a master of Socratic inquiry and his interlocutors don't realize that his questions have laid a trap until they fall into it.
It's like the most serious version, journalism-wise, of what Jordan Keppler (sic?) does so well for comedic effect on The Daily Show.
And was preceded by Stephen Colbert's interviews with clueless, unprepared, or I-am-mightier-than-thou politicians on The Daily Show ("I'll put that down as a yes").
Exhibit A for Drezner's fascinating discussion above is Henry Kissinger, as to Oriana Fallaci: He explained himself as "the cowboy who leads the wagon train by riding ahead alone on his horse, the cowboy who rides all alone into town." It's a daydream of uncanny powers by a serial blunderer, just to recall Nixon's observation that Kissinger would "start a crisis over Ecuador if Vietnam weren't available."
And Exhibit A for 2 Degrees of Separation is that Ted Koppel just did an interview with Chotiner on Koppel's softball interview with "his good friend" Kissinger.
Mearshimer refused to endorse the catastrophic war and the fantasy of Ukrainian "victory".
We now know he was right.
Just curious: How has that worked out two years later, with Russia's army lying in ruins, its war crimes exposed to the world, and even naval ships sunk by a nation with no navy?
Wait do you *still* think Ukraine is winning this thing?
Well, no one "wins" wars. As for Russia, their "three-day military operation" sure is taking a long time.
Now that our country has decided Russia and North Korea are our allies, other nations are stepping into the gap to further marginalise the USA in world affairs.
I mean yeah, I'm sure it's a bummer for Putin that it took longer, but he's still gonna get the land. Hard to see how that's not a win for him and a loss for Ukraine.
I appreciate the pejorative use of both "contrarian" and "emeritus". I was once moderately favorable to contrarianism https://johnquiggin.com/2009/10/19/the-importance-of-being-earnest-how-superfreakonomics-killed-contrarianism/
Isaac's uncle was Murray Chotiner, and it's not that usual a name even among Americans of Ashkenazi descent, so I have to wonder if some conservatives—many of whom, uh, over-emphasise ancestry in my opinion—unconsciously think that they're with a good and trusted friend.
I think the other suggestions here, particularly that these people are so full of a self-directed, passionate, intensity that they forget to stay on their guard, are probably most of it, but the above if present would intensify the effect.
When you look at the nexus of folks like Mearsheimer, Chomsky, Taibbi, Greenwald, Maté, etc., they never seem to understand how often the very worst of folks (e.g. Putin, Xi) are getting aid and comfort from their "analysis"
While reading Chotiner’s interview of Mearshimer, for some reason the name ‘Nathan Thurm’ kept coming to mind.
https://youtu.be/GjciBesIiPM