Why Ben Shapiro and Milo Yiannopoulos Can't Get Along

Ben Shapiro and Milo Yiannopoulos are often described as the most disagreeable figures in the contemporary political sphere. Their acrimonious relationship stems from their shared and contradictory agendas, their exploitation of controversy, and their competitive dynamics for media and public attention. This article delves into the reasons behind their adversarial relationship, the nature of their political ideologies, and the impact of their clashes on the broader political landscape.

Competing Interests and Public Divide

Their relationship can be best understood in the context of their mutual interests and the public divide they exacerbate. Ben Shapiro, an orthodox Jew, grounds his conservative viewpoint in a long-standing intellectual tradition based on natural law principles. His adherence to these principles aligns with the broader constitutional conservatism he upholds. In contrast, Milo Yiannopoulos, while he may claim political philosophical underpinnings, often acts purely as a provocateur to generate controversy. Shapiro views Yiannopoulos as a flash in the pan, a figure of fleeting relevance, much like the neoclassical Richard Spencer, who gained brief notoriety before fading into obscurity.

The Protagonists and their Strategies

Ben Shapiro operates as a debater and intellectual leader, advocating for principles he believes to be fundamentally just and empathetic. While he may occasionally be perceived as biased, he holds himself to a standard that values reasoned discourse and principled arguments. In contrast, Milo Yiannopoulos adopts a strategy that prioritizes sensationalism and emotional provocation over coherent argumentation. His approach is designed to stir up public sentiment and generate media attention, even if it means undermining valid causes he is supposedly supporting.

The Public Perception and Its Impact

The public perception of both individuals is largely negative. They are seen as individuals who thrive on division and controversy, often at the expense of constructive dialogue and meaningful change. The public perception of them as "smug little assholes" who make a living by fomenting division reflects the broader disillusionment with the political discourse of their quarters. However, the impact of their relationship on the political landscape goes beyond simple public opinion. Their rivalry often manifests in media battles, legal disputes, and strategic jockeying for public attention and influence.

Escalating Controversies and Their Resolutions

Their behavior has led to numerous controversies that have put both individuals in the spotlight. For instance, Yiannopoulos was caught saying inappropriate and potentially illegal things, such as making controversial remarks about underage sex, which resulted in the cancellation of his book deals and public speaking engagements. However, these incidents have not dented his fame or financial success. His ongoing and often over-the-top behavior continues to generate significant attention, albeit negative.

Shapiro's stance against Yiannopoulos is not motivated by a desire for personal vendetta but rather a belief in the value of principled discourse and the preservation of intellectual integrity. His approach is rooted in a commitment to natural law principles and a sincere belief in the importance of reasoned argumentation. While Shapiro would be a reasonable alternative to Yiannopoulos in many respects, their relationship is one of competition rather than friendship.

Conclusion: A Cautious Outlook

Ben Shapiro and Milo Yiannopoulos represent two distinct and often conflicting approaches to political engagement. Their relationship is a testament to the ways in which ideological differences and personal characteristics can shape the political discourse of our time. While they may compete for media attention and public influence, their approaches to politics and their relationship with the public continue to highlight the challenges of navigating a divided and contentious political landscape. Their clash is not merely a personal one but a reflection of broader tensions within the conservative movement and the broader political spectrum.