Steven Pinker and George Will on Liberalism

Rob Tracinski brings together George Will and Steven Pinker for a conversation about the nature and foundations of political liberalism. For more conversations about liberalism, visit Symposium at symposium.substack.com/.

[@RayWalker-pythonic]

Steven Pinker is by far the most intellectually honest pundit there is within the public domain. His analysis is second to none.

[@danielm5161]

I agree.

[@ellenfox7807]

@Average Sassanid Enjoyer 1

[@rahulchaudhary6740]

"pundit". This is the first time I've seen a foreigner using that word correctly. But you might be horrified knowing the history behind it; given that you see this kind of material on internet.

[@raymondjensen4603]

His analysis is second to George Will's.

[@KJoiaHouheneka]

Never expected to see Steven Pinker discussing philosophers Burke and Mill, and George Will talking about social science data...…looking forward to more conversations like this!

[@garywood97]

Pinker discusses people like Burke and Mill quite often. In both of his last 2 books!

[@boydhooper4080]

The solution is obvious. Let’s get these guys heading the political parties. Pretty much proves that the current problem in politics is the lack of intellect of the leaders. A great, intelligent, informed and considered conversation.

[@peterw.5984]

Wonderful conversation thank you

[@EmperorsNewWardrobe]

4:08 definition 26:30 great point about somewhat reducing politics to empiricism 31:37 “We need history taught by grown ups, who teach that history is a record of what grown ups did in difficult circumstances”

[@DavidMorley123]

Excellent discussion. I wish the moderator had never injected a fork in the discussion, but instead had let it run between the two guests. Thanks for the video.

[@Nitrogen858]

Excellent conversation!

[@lathangravelle7693]

Great conversation!

[@jeffweinbergeruke]

Imagine this sort of discussion on today's partisan, corporate cable news networks!

[@arthurwieczorek4894]

The Peter-Paul goblet representing two cognitive orientations, the absolute and the relative (or ampliative). The first sees Peter and, of course, Paul. What else is there to see?

[@AndriiMuliar]

Make all sound volume equal

[@davidb5711]

I'm surprised to hear WIll list "grievance" as best characterizing the failed liberalism in modern conservatives. So many better answers.

[@davidb5711]

Pinker is right that laissez-faire's opposition to basic welfare safety nets is a radical idea, but that doesn't mean baseline socialism should be considered "state of the art" - It's merely state of the state.

[@bb-lq6dm]

We need negative income tax to replace welfare.

[@MikeDial]

I hope that, if we can resurrect Liberalism, it won't consist of democracy, wheeling and dealing, and learning to live with the welfare state and regulations rather than Liberty and a smaller, less powerful government and people making their own decisions. This is a beginning step, though. I'll be sharing this.

[@alexleibovici4834]

I am afraid there is not enough common ground for political cooperation between all three directions represented here...

[@PSchearer]

Isn't it Tracinski's goal to create that common ground?

[@alexleibovici4834]

@@PSchearer > Isn't it Tracinski's goal to create that common ground? Yes, it is.

[@alanbrooks2237]

The Right often complains about Hollywood; yet Hollywood had to adjust to the values of the ‘80s. Thus it became glitzier.

[@danielm5161]

6:18 , I define "Liberal" and "Conservative" the exact opposite of how George framed it. Liberals reason from Openness and Experience and Conservatives reason from Preservation and literal Conservatism (low risk, low reward..."if it ain't broke don't fix it"). It's conservatives that want law and order from above (Support our police, support our troops, don't do the crime if you can't do the time etc.). Liberals want open borders, free expression, relaxed laws (defund police, legalize drugs, open borders, gay marriage etc.). This dichotomy gets flipped on it's head however with economics. For some reason in terms of economic regulation, self proclaimed Conservatives want less taxes, less economic regulation where as liberals want more regulation, taxes etc.

[@danielm5161]

Also, those who call themselves "Progressives" I would claim are "Humanists". Some acknowledge and adopt this label instead of Progressive. They reason almost entirely from human-centric Fairness and the lowest common denominator in society. "We are only as strong as our weakest link" is a good phrase that encapsulates the humanist's core reasoning. The word Progressive if taken literally would be closer to the ambitious technocrats of society as they are the literal force of progression. These people's core reasoning is Progression and Productivity.

[@StrategicWealthLLC]

Conservatives want to preserve the liberal order as expressed by the Constitution.

[@StrategicWealthLLC]

@@danielm5161 - Except when it’s regressive and unproductive…under the guise of progressivism.

[@a.duncan6791]

I am a member of the conservative socialist party (1 member, me) who believes all policy should be inclusive and all policy should be fiscally sound. Further, government should fix potholes, guard the cave, and leave us alone to live out lives without being subjected to dogmatic nonsense. I hope the first colonizers of the moon and mars, leave all this behind when humans finally expand their empire into the cosmos.

[@3-der251]

@33:25 Dr. Pinker notes that Al Gore should not be the spokesman for climate change. Good luck; there is a reason for that.

[@thisperson3240]

Yes but Pinker's book would say it didn't used to be that way. Environmentalism was a right conservative issue in the 60s that the democrats poo pooed as elitist. As a friend said lets put the conserve back in conservative. Centralize environmental issues as much as possible.

[@martinbennett2228]

Mill gets a passing mention, but that is about it. - Quite shocking.

[@symposium8327]

If you want more about Mill, go here: symposium.substack.com/p/where-did-liberalism-go-wrong and here: symposium.substack.com/p/what-is-the-culture-of-free-speech

[@MyManinHavanna]

I was onboard until Pinker humanized the New York Yankees. Sorry, dumb joke. This talk is excellent as might be expected.

[@SkeletonModel91]

Nobody's perfect. lol

[@tonywilliams49]

All the examples Mr. Will gave that’s wrong with America involved African Americans. Was my observation misplaced.

[@davidjacobson9907]

Pinker is on another level from Will. Will is filled with myth and movie propaganda. He could use a science course or two.

[@jimcrabbe3373]

These guys are both hacks

[@petermurphy3690]

Pinker wonders, could George Will get a B in an introduction to philosophy class?

[@christophermcauliffe9141]

I'm not sure. I think Pinker would respect Will's education as a Rhode scholar and Will's Ivy League PhD. I don't know too many folks who can discuss the different types of utilitarians.

[@thisperson3240]

@@christophermcauliffe9141 Agreed. Pinker bends over backward to acknowledge good thinking in any polemic. Liturgical exegesis, Rabbi humor, hunter gatherer tactics.

[@ericblack1127]

George Will is more of a progressive-grifter than a conservative, meaning that "main-stream" "news" sources and their progressive, naïvely centrist, moderate audiences enjoy talking with him in buying into his articles and his interview/panel presence far more than conservatives/critical-thinkers consider or even listen to his John-Roberts-esque commentary.

[@SMenkveld]

Only if one thinks that "vox populi, vox Dei" is a conservative position... It isn't. Populism is antithetical to conservatism.

[@alanbrooks2237]

Pinker is informative; Geo Will is...shall we say, less informative.

[@AC-xe7gm]

two pseudo intellectuals debating.

[@wink3319]

Ans they used to be intellectuals....but now. Steven Pinker at least recognizes the dangers that the far left poses to free speech. Rob tried to bring the topic up but George Will just punted. I guess, you cannot acknowledge the problem if you work for the WaPo these days.

[@willmercury]

Who, exactly, would satisfy your definition of a "real" intellectual?

[@AC-xe7gm]

@@willmercury Any intellectual before 1945.But, also, Baudrillard is interesting.

[@johnwalker4642]

What are the benefits of having "intellectuals"?

[@bertrandrussell7138]

Where are Jim Baker and Pat Roberson when we so desperately need them? 😵