Help Me Find Some (Quality) Progressive Thinkers

[Starkiller]

23 hours ago, Cyrus said:

Looking for some interesting Progressive thinkers (Or Liberal in the modern sense) to read/listen to. For whatever reason I'm finding it difficult to find any real "thought" leaders or thinkers that aren't specifically atheists. (like Hitchens, Dawkins or Sam Harris - to the extent one would consider them politically progressive). There are a few individuals that I really like, such as David Axelrod, but I'm not sure I would consider him as a theorist/thinker in the traditional sense. (maybe that's cutting him short). I'm looking for more dense philosophical or broadly informed ideas.

 

Most of the formative Progressive thinkers seem to be post-modernists from decades ago. There are a number of inspirational/emotional figures, but I'm struggling to find a good source for well-articulated Progressive ideas for the purpose of listening to more viewpoints. That's not a slight - I just can't identify them.

 

@Starkiller@WG53@IsntLifeFunny@Bink

If you are looking for a left wing version of someone like George Will or Charles Krauthammer or William F Buckley, I don’t really know where to point you. The right seems to have plenty of well known opinion names that everyone turns to. The left doesn’t have that. Not because those people don’t exist, but because there are just no big names that rise above all the rest in a very large field. Also, as has been mentioned, it may depend on what specific field you are looking at. 

 

Every major newspaper has their editorial board and there are good names. There are plenty of liberal blogs. Even the late night comedy host category is way more insightful than the right would like. 

 

Honestly, I don’t really follow anyone in particular on the left who would qualify as a “thought leader”. I’m more likely to just read the news and check out the opinion pieces that come along. 

[OILERMAN]

4 hours ago, Mythos27 said:

Chomsky is excellent. 

He's got some good stuff lately on Trump. Basically Trump is a sideshow while the courts are filled with pro corporate interest straight from the swamp and deregulation on banking and climate change 

[Mythos27]

10 minutes ago, OILERMAN said:

He's got some good stuff lately on Trump. Basically Trump is a sideshow while the courts are filled with pro corporate interest straight from the swamp and deregulation on banking and climate change 

His piece on manufactured consent should be damn near required reading/listening no matter where you fall on the political spectrum. One thing I truly despise about Trump and his minions is how he's forcing those of us who were skeptical of the government before it was fashionable to side with them on a daily basis. And it isn't that they're just so squeaky clean and perfect but rather that this dude is so monstrously corrupt that they look like heroes just be virtue of doing their jobs on a daily basis. 

[Cyrus]

1 hour ago, Starkiller said:

If you are looking for a left wing version of someone like George Will or Charles Krauthammer or William F Buckley, I don’t really know where to point you. The right seems to have plenty of well known opinion names that everyone turns to. The left doesn’t have that. Not because those people don’t exist, but because there are just no big names that rise above all the rest in a very large field. Also, as has been mentioned, it may depend on what specific field you are looking at. 

  

Every major newspaper has their editorial board and there are good names. There are plenty of liberal blogs. Even the late night comedy host category is way more insightful than the right would like. 

 

Honestly, I don’t really follow anyone in particular on the left who would qualify as a “thought leader”. I’m more likely to just read the news and check out the opinion pieces that come along. 

There are some on the economic side to some extent, Krugman was mentioned, but Larry Summers was that at some point in the past for Democrats (not so much anymore). Obviously economics delve into political rights, the social order/good and so forth, but I was hoping to find some individuals who might present a coherent vision or idea for the "progressive good".

 

I'm hoping to find some more modern or contemporary figure dialogue about some of these ideas. Chomsky is certainly that, but not quite part of the political establishment in any sense to put those ideas into some real policy vis-a-vis politics. Obviously Democrats are not devoid of values and agendas, but who out there is articulating it with some type of substantive argument or reasoning? 

 

[OILERMAN]

@Cyrus are you wanting roe v wade overturned?

[reo]

1 hour ago, Cyrus said:

There are some on the economic side to some extent, Krugman was mentioned, but Larry Summers was that at some point in the past for Democrats (not so much anymore). Obviously economics delve into political rights, the social order/good and so forth, but I was hoping to find some individuals who might present a coherent vision or idea for the "progressive good".

 

I'm hoping to find some more modern or contemporary figure dialogue about some of these ideas. Chomsky is certainly that, but not quite part of the political establishment in any sense to put those ideas into some real policy vis-a-vis politics. Obviously Democrats are not devoid of values and agendas, but who out there is articulating it with some type of substantive argument or reasoning? 

 

Well yeah Krugman has some stuff out there on the economy bc he's an economist. Same with social science or climate science, etc. 

 

It's like you want some politician or opinion guy to consolidate the ideas. But honestly I don't know if Dems really have "ideals" per se. It just depends on what the studies, facts or experts think on any particular subject and a lot of times those platforms can be very nuanced which can be difficult to sale and are easily trashed or misrepresented.

[Starkiller]

1 hour ago, Cyrus said:

There are some on the economic side to some extent, Krugman was mentioned, but Larry Summers was that at some point in the past for Democrats (not so much anymore). Obviously economics delve into political rights, the social order/good and so forth, but I was hoping to find some individuals who might present a coherent vision or idea for the "progressive good".

 

I'm hoping to find some more modern or contemporary figure dialogue about some of these ideas. Chomsky is certainly that, but not quite part of the political establishment in any sense to put those ideas into some real policy vis-a-vis politics. Obviously Democrats are not devoid of values and agendas, but who out there is articulating it with some type of substantive argument or reasoning? 

 

Krugman is really good on economic issues. Austan Goolsbee is someone good I see on TV sometimes but not really a prolific voice. Robert Reich is excellent on labor issues. I think liberals like to hear arguments from experts on specific subjects, like economics. 

 

You can turn on CNN or MSNBC and find plenty of guests who are good at articulating the liberal viewpoint. But I don’t think there are clear leaders tons of people follow.

 

Maybe it’s a psychological difference between liberals and conservatives. Conservatives tend to fall in line behind a leader. Liberals tend to be more group oriented, which sometimes leads us leaderless. It might also be why conservatives follow talk radio talking heads and that never caught on among liberals. And why the Occupy Wall Street movement or BLM, as liberal movements, had no real leader giving them direction.

[Cyrus]

3 hours ago, OILERMAN said:

@Cyrus are you wanting roe v wade overturned?

@OILERMAN I thought Clinton articulated it pretty well in the debates. There are some really difficult discussions to be had with doctors, without having the government be involved. We also live in a pluralistic society where we have many of the same values, but some differing ones too on complicated issues.

 

I think abortions are generally a tragedy for everyone involved. I think there is definitely a gray area, and that’s where I think the individuals and doctors need to make the hard decisions without the state being intimately involved.

 

As for abortion as a form of birth control for unwanted pregnancies, I think it’s the worst method. If we can find a way to support single mothers or make adoption far easier (currently very expensive and complicated) we may be able to dramatically drop these types of abortions without pushing people into far riskier or dangerous options. 

 

So in sum, I’m not in the fight for overturning Roe vs. Wade, I’m for dealing with the more fundamental issues at the heart that lead to abortion, and letting the gray areas be dealt with by individuals, their healthcare provider and their own conscience.

 

 

[Cyrus]

3 hours ago, Starkiller said:

Krugman is really good on economic issues. Austan Goolsbee is someone good I see on TV sometimes but not really a prolific voice. Robert Reich is excellent on labor issues. I think liberals like to hear arguments from experts on specific subjects, like economics. 

 

You can turn on CNN or MSNBC and find plenty of guests who are good at articulating the liberal viewpoint. But I don’t think there are clear leaders tons of people follow.

 

Maybe it’s a psychological difference between liberals and conservatives. Conservatives tend to fall in line behind a leader. Liberals tend to be more group oriented, which sometimes leads us leaderless. It might also be why conservatives follow talk radio talking heads and that never caught on among liberals. And why the Occupy Wall Street movement or BLM, as liberal movements, had no real leader giving them direction.

I think that’s a better distinction for modern Republicans and Democrats than conservative and liberal philosophies  (although liberal is a term that might be interchangeable with conservative a century ago). To me that’s politics rather than political theory if you’d grant me that distinction. You could argue that on the left that plenty of people organized around Sanders as a personality, and did with Obama too.

 

I think the kind of institutional conservatism has very clear roots in a variety of 18th century enlightenment ideas. There are also a number of conservative thinkers who have studied and teach law who are able to synthesize and articulate that history. 

 

But I’m not sure if the modern liberal movement has the same characteristics, unless I assume (inaccurately) that they’re communists and socialists. Instead I think of the last few decades of Democratic positions to be mostly some of the same enlightenment philosophies with a healthy amount of American transcendentalism and some big society, FDR values. 

 

But I havent found anyone yet articulating those ideas clearly in that type of way (like conservative thinkers). I’d like to so I can hear a more nuanced and grounded case for other types of opinions.

Edited July 12, 2018 by Cyrus

[Starkiller]

1 minute ago, Cyrus said:

I think that’s a better distinction for modern Republicans and Democrats than conservative and liberal philosophies  (although liberal is a term that might be interchangeable with conservative a century ago). To me that’s politics rather than political theory if you’d grant me that distinction. You could argue that on the left that plenty of people organized around Sanders as a personality, and did with Obama too.

 

 

 

Certainly people have to organize behind the politicians, but that’s just the way our system works as a republic.

 

But as far as thought leaders, it’s a democratic free for all. And psychology shows that there are clear differences between conservatives and liberals. We tend to think the way we think for a reason. And I see clear evidence that people from the 2 different spectrums tend to think and act differently. Not necessarily universally, but in tendency.

[Cyrus]

8 minutes ago, Starkiller said:

Certainly people have to organize behind the politicians, but that’s just the way our system works as a republic.

 

But as far as thought leaders, it’s a democratic free for all. And psychology shows that there are clear differences between conservatives and liberals. We tend to think the way we think for a reason. And I see clear evidence that people from the 2 different spectrums tend to think and act differently. Not necessarily universally, but in tendency.

The make up of political supporters, or nuance of executing policy objectives (technocratic), tells me nothing about the reasons for supporting this or that idea. (Which is what I’m looking for specifically). 

 

Its difficult sometimes to disentangle political ideas from the people who support those ideas (parties, coalitions, etc) or the people who execute them, but ultimately we must have reasons for doing one thing over another. I can easily find very academic, dense support on the conservative side, but I’m not sure who’s doing that on the progressive side. Because I don’t want to fill my head with just one view (even if they’re fair or even handed), I’m looking for more perspectives. 

Edited July 12, 2018 by Cyrus

[pat]

Only very rich people like Trump use abortion as birth control.

[Bink]

@Cyrus https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/center-is-not-sexy-698699/

[THE_TITAN]

Brett and Eric Weinstein are two very interesting voices from the left, though I don't know whether either would be termed "progressive" - that is very different from being a liberal in my view.

 

I find the compelling arguments to come mostly from thinkers from the centre to right-of-centre e.g. Friedman (now deceased but still valuable insights), Harris, Peterson, Sowell, Haidt, Locke, Burke, Mill...heck even Aristotle (who to my mind was the first 'conservative').

[Cyrus]

1 hour ago, Bink said:

@Cyrus https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/center-is-not-sexy-698699/

I totally disagree with his sentiment that centrism doesn't exist, and never really did. Clearly there's a lot of unsubstantiated claims in this article and those of his that are referenced as well.

 

This reminds me of the Tea Party movement - "we're not winning because we're putting too moderate of candidates out there like Romney and McCain, we need stronger convictions and less weakness, which will lead to victory". Fast forward to now and because of a variety of circumstances we have Donald Trump. Nevermind the fact that the Republicans had the executive and plenty of Congressional support during W. Bush's two terms - and they had only to endure two terms of a Democrat. Generally speaking, many political scientists feel like the oscillation is normal - and it's hard to keep a party in office for three or more consecutive terms. 

 

Let's also remember the point that the objective is good governance. It's hard to achieve that while working from the extremes. My greatest concern is that Democrats will feel like they need to double-down on their strongest or most extreme positions. I do think that there's a strong middle in the United States. The problem is that the Democrats often get caught up in things like "abolishing ICE", supporting transgendered children or a number of seemingly progressive but ultimately divisive fringe issues that push people away. Meanwhile they don't have much of an articulate message on normal middle class issues, and endlessly get buffered about by social issues and consistently take the bait on every piece of red meat the Republican fringe gives them.

 

So Taibbi's point, Elizabeth Warrens and Bernie Sanders won't move the Democratic party forward, but people like Lamb and Seth Moulton will.