This is something I've noticed for ages and I guess it's just come to a head for me. Why are public intellectuals often so terrible at political awareness and lacking in knowledge of history, and why are they so often scientists? Whether it was Hitchens's ceaseless defense of the Iraq War even after it was clear hundreds of thousands of civilians had been killed for nothing or Sam Harris's incredibly naive and history-denying defense of U.S. foreign policy, there's an incredible tendency to make bold declarations that run contrary to history or even the present state of affairs. With nary an exception, it's to play a "both sides" game from the right side of the aisle and it's disturbing.

Like what set this off for me was a Tweet I saw earlier from Steven Pinker which was so out of touch that I honestly thought it was a fake screen cap:

"Are you frustrated with the stale ideologies and mutual demonization of the Left and Right? Here's a manifesto for Radical Centrism, Liberal-tarianism, Bold Moderation, an Open Society, smart regulation, and a liberal democratic capitalist welfare state."

Source: https://mobile.twitter.com/sapinker/status/1074932509014667264

It reads as a complete piss taking of the Third Way Democrats and neoliberalism... And no, it turns out not to be a parody, centrism can apparently be the radical position despite being the exact view of dominant political figures of the last 2 decades or more (esp. Clinton and Blair). It's almost a rip off of a SOtU speech Bill Clinton did in '98, as an example:

We have moved past the sterile debate between those who say government is the enemy and those who say government is the answer. My fellow Americans, we have found a third way. We have the smallest government in 35 years, but a more progressive one. We have a smaller government, but a stronger nation.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/01/27/sotu/transcripts/clinton/

Pinker's idea is that the real issue is that market fundamentalism and "democratic fundamentalism" are causing the problems. Ya know, as if the Republicans aren't shredding democracy in Michigan at this very moment by stripping the governorship of nearly all it's power as a democratic orepares to take office in a couple weeks by handing those powers over to a Republican controlled body. Or the absurd levels of monied interests involved in getting politicians elected into higher offices, leading to politicians overwhelmingly privileging the desires of these groups even over the safety of the planet in issues likes war and climate change. Or pulling out of a nuclear weapons treaty that the entire world agreed on but who cares about honoring our word on the international stage.

I just don't understand why these """intellectuals""" don't just stay in their lane. They make a mockery of any political analysis, much less political reform efforts, because contrary to their so-called rationality angle, they make no apparent attempt to understand the lay of the land and jump in to lecture condescendingly about the apparently "logical and obvious" truths. What policies led to our current state of affairs? What historical tendencies can be found in our past actions that explain how we got here? It's borderline deceptive to "it's both sides" this to lay claim to a supposedly bold and new middle ground ideology that was trumpeted loudly as recent as the 2016 election, by Hillary Clinton no less... Look how that turned out. Why do Pinker and his like (almost said 'ilk') engage in such sloppy and self-congratulatory exercises?

I don't get it. But then again, I tried to ignore these people when Neil Degrass Tyson was on his "Rationalia" nonsense so maybe I'm just catching up on the inane suggestions these people come up with. But I will forever laugh at referring to American centrism as "Radical Centrism" and being "bold moderation".