Instead of reading claptrap rags such as Quillette or anything from Peterson, Rubin, Shapiro, etc. who, as you note, just garble the same pseudo-intellectual talking points among themselves like some bacchanalian circle-jerk, or even banal left-of-center publications, such as The New York Times, or The Atlantic, you could look into progressive, far left publications. My favorites are: Jacobin, The Nation, Current Affairs, Vox, and specific individual contributors to those publications and others. I also recommend Chris Hayes' podcast.

Sounds like we’ve had some similar exposure.
I think rather than whats missing, I think its about whats present, which I would broadly categorise as some sort of tribalism. People have gotten to the point where they live in these bubbles, the same talking points over and over is a symptom of people clinging even closer to the sharing of ideology (having an ideology in common with others) than they do for the ideology itself.
These bubbles, or echo chambers, seem to be more present and stronger than any other time in my adult life.
Whats missing? I cant see anything that used to be there that isnt now, to be honest.
Did the public used to have a bigger attention span? The tiny, bite sized news feeds might be evidence of that perhaps?

Some people feel there is just too much uninformed political discourse going on. The various Internet platforms give millions of unvetted people (a good share of whom are nitwits, airheads, extremists, and lunatics) a soap box from which to declaim their views. This is not an improvement over the situation of... e.g., 50 years ago when there were only 3 television networks broadcasting news. The range of approved and expressible network views was far narrower back then. In 1960, then President Kennedy had numerous affairs about which the country was not informed generally or in detail because it was considered "off limits".

Lyndon Johnson could be really, really crude, and Richard Nixon could be quite savage, but these moments were not offered hourly for public consumption.

The war in Vietnam was covered frankly, the frankness of which contributed greatly to the anti-war reaction. This is not to say that the war in Vietnam was always covered impartially (whatever that might mean) or truthfully. There was much that should have been said that was unutterable.

Certainly there were extremists, lunatics, nitwits, and airheads around 50 years ago. Quite a few really bad things were perpetrated by some very bad groups. But the difference between then and now is that there was less time devoted to the news (no CNN at the time) so coverage of IRA bombings or lunatic leftist gangs in Germany was minimal (not an altogether bad thing).

People have gotten to the point where they live in these bubbles — DingoJones

I think this true. One can arrange to hear certain kinds of news about certain kinds of events reported in a certain way -- exclusively. Until the last 20 to 30 years it was far more difficult to establish an information bubble for one's self. The population as a whole received much more shared information -- ie, ABC, CBS, AND NBC news. And of the three, CBS led the pack, with NBC following, ABC trailing.

There were newspapers, magazines, and radio. But these too served rather broad, large audiences.

A general rule of thumb: if the publications you read don't frequently address questions of economic justice and power imbalances, and don't employ class as a central term of analysis, look somewhere else.

What is missing in political discourse? Respect for other views than your own. Or views that don't go by party lines. And basically the healthy critique of the side you actually support (as obviously those who are against you can use that critique to attack you).

Of course, the other side of the political aisle has lost it's marbles, so why respect them? :wink:

“Respect for other views than your own.“
I don’t know about that, some views are not worthy of respect.
Also, you listed healthy critique against yiur own view last. I think it should be first, its the most important thing to do of your own views. And I think you are missing the point if you are doing it merely to prevent attacks against you. You should be doing it to make sure your view makes sense and is a good view to have.

What is missing in political discourse? Respect for other views than your own — ssu

Many views simply aren't respectable, of course; or they are just agonizingly myopic or unquestionably stupid. In fact, I would say one of the major problems with the New York Times, The Atlantic, and other center/left-of-center publications is that they are precisely beholden to the notion that both sides are valid, and that we should hear them.

Most "news" these days seems to be speculation and opinion. There seems to be a dearth of reporting involving facts or giving background and historical perspective. Those who hold opposing ideological views are not seen as the "loyal opposition" but rather as "the enemy" or worse "traitors". We no longer seem to view those of a different opinion about how to solve the nations problems as "misguided" even if "well intentioned" we now attribute nefarious motivations to them. We have lost the art of polite disagreement, discussion or compromise. Politicians seem more interested is getting serially reelected than they do in addressing the nations problems. The two party system practically renders members of the senate as puppets to the leadership, told how to vote and warned of the consequences should they fail to follow party leaderships directions (no funding, no committee appointments, support for primary opposition opponents). All in all we do not have 100 intelligent independent members of the senate passing their own judgement on solutions to the issues of the day, as would befit a good republican government (we are a republic not a democracy). We have no long term plans, no long term solutions no advance planning. Meanwhile other less democratic countries are engaging in long term planning and investment. We continue like this to our own peril and to the detriment of future generations who will have to pay the bills for the entitlements and foolish adventures (wasted blood and treasure) that the older generation has left for them. This is not even to mention climate change and growing inequities in the distribution of wealth (the disappearing middle class on which any healthy democracy depends).

I agree with DingoJones.

I find most of the commentators specifically mentioned to be hypocrites in any case. Like Jordan Peterson claiming he's all for freedom of speech; yet, he threatens lawsuits against those who criticize him. David Pakman claims he's against pseudoscience; yet, he brought on an economist on his show just last week who engaged in pure strawman fallacies against mainstream economics to promote his pseudoscience.

I think what it comes down to is the following two points: 1. A "public intellectual" is historically a person who merely says what a lot of people already believe; it's just that the person articulates the view better than the average person. If they weren't saying what a lot of people already wanted to hear, it would be very difficult to gain an audience. In other words, a public intellectual is not an intellectual at all, but someone just giving voice to a viewpoint held by many, and is basically an icon around which a tribe of people can gather around and express their solidarity. 2. An intellectual, a real one, specializes in a very specific topic and would never go around speaking about numerous topics that he or she knows next t nothing about. So, to be a real public intellectual, one would have to have a small audience, focused on a single topic, and people who are into politics are not sticking with single topics, so political commentators could never be true intellectuals as they cannot focus on isolated topics and leave it at that.

Check out BBC radio. In my area they're on the PBS channel during the very early morning hours (prior to 6am).

I've listened to NPR for years, but must admit they too have become just more breathless recycling of the latest melodrama.

Best I can tell, BBC has more international coverage, more in depth coverage, and far fewer ads. I just wish they'd learn how to speak proper English without the accents like we Americoons. :smile:

Maybe what should be missing from political discourse is you and me?

I've been a news junkie for 50 years. Not sure what this hobby has accomplished really.

I've listened to NPR for years, but must admit they too have become just more breathless recycling of the latest melodrama.

Best I can tell, BBC has more international coverage, more in depth coverage, and far fewer ads. I just wish they'd learn how to speak proper English without the accents like we Americoons. :smile: — Jake

Of course the BBC programs you are listening to come from the BBC world service, so there should be a lot of international news there. What the local BBC sounds like, don't know. Yes, NPR distributes some good programming, but it isn't as good as it was say, 20 years ago; it wasn't as good 20 years ago as it was in their Watergate heyday. We're probably lucky they exist at all.

But then, I'm not as good as I was 20, 30, or 40 years ago, either.

Maybe what should be missing from political discourse is you and me? — Jake

Emerson thought that reading a newspaper once a month was sufficient. For large topics, like global warming or Washington paralysis, reading a newspaper once a month is still sufficient. If you want to know about the latest disaster, then sure, you need to check in twice a day, at least.

If you want to be informed mass media isn't going to help too much. One has to read carefully selected books. The "knowledge explosion" is more of a fire cracker than an atomic bomb. What has exploded about real knowledge is detail. Evolution was news. What we have been reading about since are the details. Discovering DNA was news. Finding a lot of Neanderthal DNA in British royalty is a detail. I'd rate the Pluto fly-by as news. Launching the Pluto mission many years earlier was a detail. If I start bicycling from Minneapolis to Tierra del Fuego, that's a detail. Actually arriving would be news.

Some disasters are news. The record breaking earthquake off Japan that produced the huge tsunami that wrecked the Fukushima nuclear plant and killed tens of thousands people was news. Hurricanes are news only in so far as they reveal the stupidity of rebuilding cities on flood planes and on low-lying beaches, despite their getting wrecked every now and then.

I couldn't agree more with you, prothero.

People have come to treat their political party/ideology like a religion - with their side being "righteous" and the other side being "demons".

The two-party system is antiquated. No parties would be better - where we vote for people, not a party. Too many people just look for a "D", or an "R" next to a name on the ballot and vote for it - with no more information about that person than their political party.

Politicians seem more interested is getting serially reelected than they do in addressing the nations problems. The two party system practically renders members of the senate as puppets to the leadership, told how to vote and warned of the consequences should they fail to follow party leaderships directions (no funding, no committee appointments, support for primary opposition opponents). — prothero

Yes, and of course they don't want us looking in their direction as the source of the problem. They would much rather have us pointing our fingers at each other than at them.