Two things progressives must learn from the Douglas Murray vs. Dave Smith debate
Credentials for me, but not for thee
It’s a bit of old news now but I’m still thinking about the Joe Rogan podcast featuring Douglas Murray and Dave Smith. The most viral moment was Murray meeting Smith’s denial of visiting Israel or Gaza with disdain.
Murray: “When were you last [at Israel-Palestine crossing points] at all?”
Smith: “I've never been.”
Murray: “You've never been?”
Smith: “What am I not allowed to talk about it now?
…..
Murray: “If you're going to spend a year and a half talking about about a place you should at least do the courtesy of visiting it.”
Smith: “I just think this is a non-argument.”
Smith is mostly right here, except it is indeed an argument—just a bad one. But one thing I didn’t expect from this viral moment was Leftists understanding why it’s a bad argument!
First Point: Credentials as a weapon
Leftists are known for pulling out this same debate strategy of using empirical justification for their ideology, instead of good and objective explanations. Much of the time the strategy is utilized in discussions about systemic racism, homophobia, and even foreign policy conflicts— “I’ve experienced it, so unless you have too, you have no right to tell me about it.”
I have no way of knowing this for certain, but I think I came up with the term and concept “Standpoint Credentialism”. Basically, it’s when someone attempts to use biological, academic, familial, and other credentials as a rhetorical weapon for condemnation to those who don’t share the credential—or have one at all. In this instance, Murray is trying to establish himself as an authority on the topic by using his credential of visiting the region against Smith’s lack of a similar credential.
Leftists get this part right in the debate: you don’t need a credential to have a good argument. One need not be Black to discuss systemic racism, nor to be more right than Black individuals on the subject. One need not be Jewish or Palestinian to have good arguments about the conflict. And as most Leftists know now, one need not live or visit a particular place to have ideas about it. The substance of any idea is in its content, not its source.
Second Point: Credentials as a shield
There’s a second part here that Smith and other Leftists failed to understand. The broader point Murray was expressing was genuinely good: if you claim to know something those the experts don’t, then you cannot then say you’re not an expert to wiggle out of criticism and accountability for your arguments.
People who incessantly talk about how experts are wrong, and then when pressed on their arguments’ truthfulness jump back to their lack of expertise, are called frauds and grifters. This is the point Leftists need to work on understanding and rejecting: people cannot use credentials—or a lack thereof—to get out of arguments they cannot corroborate.
Any time Smith would start discussing the conflict, he would sound 100% certain of his explanations, claiming to know more than what one could find on Wikipedia. But he also never conceded any major points or provide much explanation for his more extreme arguments. When pressed for reasoning to his ideas, he’d entirely rely on someone else’s expertise.
The Cancer of Conspiracies and Credentials
Murray’s general problem in the debate was more with those in alternative media who act like experts until having to deal with expertise—a bit like Smith or Rogan. This problem expanded when Rogan insisted he be on with Smith, despite Smith having multiple solo appearances. To Murray it seemed that the only opinions people like feel need to be pushed against are pro-Israel, pro-Ukraine, pro-American views.
Murray argues in his NY Post article that if he started rambling about MMA fighting, Rogan would’ve been quick to point out his errors, but for conspiracy theorists, people like Rogan and Smith let things slide. If Murray were to have done that and then claim, “Look, I’m no expert on MMA,” it would mean he just wanted to deflect criticism of his ideas, not that he’s truly interested in learning and improving his understanding of the sport.
That’s what the foreign policy discussions from Smith look like to Murray. And I would agree with Murray here: the alternative media space is quickly becoming a cancer for Dunning-Kruger victims who only ever ask questions and never find answers they can articulate without supervision.
The Left learned a great lesson by criticizing Murray: one does not need any credentials to have arguments. The second lesson is still being ignored: one cannot use their credentials or lack thereof as a barrier to criticism of the ideas you convey. When they figure that one out, Standpoint Credentialism will no longer impede the improvement of their ideology.