There once was a time where I would tune in every week to the online political talk show The Rubin Report and watch each new episode with great interest. Hosted by comedian and Internet personality Dave Rubin, his program bills itself as being about “big ideas and free speech” while having “honest conversations” with a host of various guests from across the political spectrum. It recently reached one million YouTube subscribers and is one of the more successful channels related to politics on the platform.

Initially buying into its premise, I started watching The Rubin Report when it debuted on Larry King’s Ora TV network in 2015 after Rubin had left its previous incarnation associated with The Young Turks. This happened to be when I began my college career as a freshman and was just beginning to explore politics in a serious manner. At the same time I graduated from university in 2019, it was only fitting that my relationship to Dave’s show also officially reached its end.

On May 24, 2019, journalist Cathy Young published an article entitled “How the IDW Can Avoid the Tribalist Pull” for Claire Lehmann’s publication Quillette. The IDW, an abbreviation for the “Intellectual Dark Web,” has been defined by online political circles as a group of “dissident” academics, journalists, and pundits who share an opposition to political correctness and extreme left-wing progressivism.

Comprising of the likes of Ben Shapiro, Sam Harris, Michael Shermer, and Jordan Peterson, defenders of the IDW claim it to be an ideologically diverse set of people, while its detractors accuse it as an echo-chamber for typical right-wing thought against the left. Young’s piece, which I highly recommend reading, considers all nuances of this debate. She fully acknowledges the dangers radical leftism has on political discourse, but drives home the point that the IDW cannot drift too far in the other direction, namely the same place where the alt-right and ideological grifters like Milo Yiannopoulos inhabit.

Dave Rubin is considered to be a key figure of the IDW because all of its members have appeared on his show. Young’s mild criticism simply cautioned Rubin of sympathetically viewing right-wing ideologues like Paul Joseph Watson, Mike Cernovich, Stefan Molyneux, and Lauren Southern as centrist allies against what he views to be “the regressive left.” There were no personal attacks or bad faith arguments involved. Hardly even her main focus, Rubin was mentioned exactly five times by name in the entire 2700-word piece. His response? A lengthy Twitter diatribe that devolved into childish attacks which lasted throughout the day.

On the morning of May 28 when this petty drama unfolded, I tweeted as much that such a response was quite the overreaction to a perfectly reasonable piece. Young herself retweeted me in agreement and I logged out of Twitter to get back to my day job. I did not tag Rubin nor did I think that what I had said was anything close to being uncivil. Later in the afternoon I even watched his brief livestream explaining things from his side, but it did little to convince me that the original piece had been wrong about anything. When I checked again in the evening to see if this whole ordeal had progressed to anything further, I ended up with this revelation.

So much for the battle of ideas.

Given that I wasn’t blocked earlier in the day, I can only deduce that Rubin had to have been specifically looking for people who took Young’s side in this argument. From what I can gather, Rubin frequently blocks those who disagree with him and accuses those who throw even the slightest criticism towards his direction as arguing in bad faith. In any case, this was essentially the last straw that caused me to unsubscribe from The Rubin Report after four years of having watched nearly every episode. As a former fan, I will explain why I would have made this decision sooner or later anyways.

The Rubin Report has become a boring show.

I should preface this section by briefly talking about my own personal politics. At the beginning of university, I considered myself as allied towards the Bernie Sanders-wing of progressivism. As time went on, however, I quickly became opposed to most of modern leftism and no longer associate myself with that side of the political aisle. Most tests place me as a center-right moderate who is socially liberal and fiscally conservative. I’ve occasionally used the term libertarian as a shorthand label to describe myself, but I am a registered independent since I feel that neither Democrats nor Republicans represent my views. That being said, my YouTube and social media feeds are curated so I receive content ranging from progressives like Kyle Kulinski to conservatives like Ben Shapiro. I try to listen to a balance of everything.

Giving credit where it is due, The Rubin Report was one of the first shows I seriously followed when I was determining my own political views. Circa 2015–2016 pre-Donald Trump presidency, genuine progressives like Jimmy Dore and Cara Santa Maria were interviewed by Rubin alongside episodes conducted with those on the right like Steven Crowder and Dinesh D’Souza. In those early days of Rubin’s program, there was genuine ideological diversity on display and that was precisely the reason why I found it so compelling. Fast forward to 2019, however, and a mere glance at his channel now demonstrates a clear slant towards almost entirely conservatives and libertarians.

I add the caveat of “almost” because liberal guests like Sam Harris, Tim Pool, and Bret Weinstein have made semi-regular appearances on The Rubin Report. Virtually all of their talking points, however, revolve around the same subject matter of criticizing political correctness and generally agreeing with Rubin on the majority of topics discussed. Harris has directly criticized Trump on Rubin’s show as a rare example to the contrary, but voices like his are hardly the norm when the majority of people interviewed tend to be apologists for our current President. I am not saying that no liberals appear on Rubin’s show, but you’d be hard-pressed to find many interviews with mainstream members of the Democratic Party or any who seriously represent its platform.

I say all of this as someone who genuinely admires people like Sam Harris and even what conservatives like Ben Shapiro have to say, but in 2019, The Rubin Report is only concerned with the same handful of repetitive topics. Criticism of social justice warriors, political correctness, and student coddling on university campuses is all well and good, but it has reached the point of ad nauseam with Dave Rubin. I would further argue that outside of niche Internet political circles, the vast majority of people in daily life are hardly concerned with these subjects to begin with. After the eight or ninth softball question interview with a right-leaning guest dunking on blue-haired gender studies majors working at Starbucks and other blasé conservative talking points, I eventually decided that listening to The Rubin Report every week was hardly the best use of my time.

Rubin is not a Larry King-style host and at the very least should stop pretending that he is a neutral interviewer.

A commonly cited criticism of Dave Rubin is his non-confrontational interviewing style which has allowed some of his guests to get away with saying blatantly false things with little to no pushback. Rubin has replied to this by arguing that it isn’t his job to challenge the views of others as an impartial host and that the audience can decide for themselves the value of their stated ideas. He has also frequently cited Larry King as an inspiration and a model he emulates. The problem with this? They are almost nothing alike.

In this evenhanded video by Counter Points, the two interviewers are compared against one another. His ultimate conclusion, which I also hold, is that their only point of similarity is a general tendency to avoid overt disagreement with guests. Unlike King, however, Rubin frequently displays explicit agreement with what is said and regularly states his opinions on any given topic. Moreover, the fact that he frequently touts having “left the left” as a former progressive with conservative organizations like Prager U and Turning Point USA is a clear admission of where his current political agenda and interests are. If Rubin wishes to be a softball interviewer with all of his guests, that is one thing, but the attempted parallel to his mentor King does not hold water.

During a post-2016 election video discussing Donald Trump that has certainly not aged well, Rubin asserted that he would be the “first to hold his feet to the fire.” Yet from his Twitter which has become more or less a shallow “owning the libs” account to his blatant on-camera agreement with staunch Trump supporters like Brigitte Gabriel, how exactly am I supposed to believe that Rubin is the impartial host he claims to be? As stated previously, there is hardly any real Trump criticism on his show apart from rare occasions. Rubin continues to remain silent on some of the President’s worst remarks and gaffes, which clearly contradicts what he promised his viewers.

The Rubin Report even previously had a “Direct Message” segment before each interview that unequivocally stated his political stances, though these have pretty much been replaced with livestreams that convey the same information and opinions. It is certainly within Rubin’s prerogative to freely espouse his opinions, but for him to imply that he has no agenda-driven goal with his show is a clear display of dishonesty.

Rubin ignores progressives willing to appear on his show, but is wholly welcoming of right-wing ideologues.

I want to make this abundantly clear so there is no room for misinterpretation. I have zero issue with Dave Rubin inviting the fringes of the right on his show. Bad ideas speak for themselves, and the idea of “giving a platform to extremists” is not an argument that I consider to be particularly strong since there are already tangible social consequences to being overtly racist or bigoted. If the likes of Jared Taylor or Richard Spencer want to elucidate their positions of white nationalism on live cable television, then millions more will become aware of their heinous beliefs and shun them accordingly. History has shown that the attempted suppression of speech tends to have the opposite effect of stamping it out permanently.

My issue with Rubin’s choice of guests is his seemingly greater willingness to have conspiracy theorists like Info Wars contributor Paul Joseph Watson, grifters like Candace Owens, and outright disgusting men like Mike Cernovich over level-headed progressives who have considerably far less baggage attached to them. Sam Seder, Kyle Kulinski, David Pakman, and plenty more have all expressed willingness to appear on The Rubin Report on numerous occasions, yet are outright ignored or rejected. Rubin instead seems to like tagging Twitter accounts of celebrities and public figures with millions of followers knowing full well that none of them will ever reply.

When Rubin appears to have no qualms in being friendly towards those who have unhealthy obsessions with race and I.Q. and promoted Pizzagate, while naively claiming that they are part of a rational “New Center,” it comes as little surprise that he is criticized for these associations. Treating one’s guests as an interviewer with respect is one thing, but excusing or ignoring extreme right-wing identitarianism because one claims to hate the ultra political correctness of the left is being an ally with some genuinely terrible people. This was one of Cathy Young’s biggest criticisms in her piece, but Rubin has continued to double down without actually addressing what people like me and her are concerned with.

None of the above reflects well upon a man who advertises his show as being about the battle of ideas. I have considerable disagreements with progressives like Kulinski and Pakman who identify themselves as strong supporters of Bernie Sanders among other left-wing positions, but they are certainly not the “dishonest players” Rubin flippantly dismisses them as. I fail to see why he cannot sit across from them if he is able to do the same with people on the right who are far more extreme. Even if I were to give him the benefit of the doubt, am I seriously expected to believe that there are no rational members of the progressive left willing to appear on The Rubin Report? There is not a single left-wing organization that Rubin can find which will host him at an event or debate? Somehow I doubt it.

Rubin is generally weak at defending his own ideas and does not respond well to criticism.

If it it hasn’t been made quite obvious already, Dave Rubin really isn’t the best at making the case for his own positions when he’s the one being interviewed. Rubin calling himself a “classical liberal” is a well-worn meme at this point, but when asked to actually explain his worldview and defend it from scrutiny, the results have been embarrassing to say the least.

I’m pretty much convinced that Rubin dodges requests to have David Pakman on his show not because he actually considers him to be a bad actor, but because it would be a repeat of the mess that was this interview from 2017. At this point in time, Pakman and Rubin were still on relatively friendly terms. Throughout the entire discussion, Pakman is completely civil and asks questions that anyone with complete conviction in their beliefs should be able to answer. Instead, Rubin obfuscates with rambling replies that dodge what Pakman asks and he really does not look good by the end. Rubin must have realized this too, because there has been next to no communication between the two men since.

Rubin does not fare much better when he is being interviewed by Joe Rogan. He has appeared on the podcast a total of three times, but his most recent appearance from 2018 gave the Internet a now infamous clip of Rubin completely faltering when pressed on his thoughts related to government regulation. Numerous erudite libertarians have of course written countless book-length treatises on how a society with minimal state interference could operate, but Rubin has clearly not read anything substantial to back up his proposals. If anything, it also demonstrates just how different Rogan is as a host since he is far more willing to point out the flaws of his guests’ arguments which is apparently anathema to The Rubin Report.

More recently, this interview with the YouTube channel Rebel Wisdom showed journalist David Fuller pushing back against Rubin’s typical dodging of criticism and certain points of the video even came across as borderline exasperation. Upon its release, Rubin gave it no promotion on his Twitter and I highly doubt that he would be interested in talking to Fuller again. This and the other two interviews I have cited are only a handful of examples, but there are plenty more to be found online. As I opened in this piece, I myself was blocked by Rubin without even tagging him. Do I really need to say anything further about how he responds to disagreement?

It’s time to move on.

Top ten cursed images of 2019.

I highly doubt that Dave Rubin will read this piece, but on the off-chance he does, I’m sure that he will dismiss me as a regressive leftist bad actor like he accuses most of his critics. Doing so, however, ignores the fact that there are plenty of people both on the left and the right who take issue with what Rubin does. Frankly, if I were to lay out my policy positions issue by issue, I’d probably find considerable alignment with him. My problems with Rubin, however, generally go beyond mere political differences and have everything to do with his conduct as a host.

I do not want this to come off as me attacking those who still like Rubin either. Former guests including Michael Malice, Douglas Murray, Gad Saad, Colin Moriarty (whose podcast I myself have been on) and many others are people I maintain great respect and admiration for. I can even say that The Rubin Report was a gateway for me discovering some very interesting public figures when I initially began watching it. At this moment in 2019 though, I simply no longer experience those moments, and I have run out of excuses to defend what’s dishonest behavior from Rubin.

I began watching The Rubin Report when I was a young college student still trying to find my political belief system. Since then I have grown, changed, and further developed my held positions. I can thank Rubin for encouraging me to hear other perspectives and for being part of my ideological journey, but my desire to keep watching has vanished completely. There are better things to do with my time and other programs I can engage with that truly challenge my views. Being blocked by Rubin himself obviously means that his show is no longer for me.

Dave Rubin may have left the left, but I can now assuredly say that I have left Dave Rubin.