Paul Krugman, NYTimes columnist. He is so smart. I mean, he won the damn Nobel Prize for economics, for Pete’s sake. His column is so well-written and did I mention: smart? I wish our politicians and policy-makers would listen to him.
I’d be interested to know what the argument is for Hitchens not being an intellectual.
Krugman doesn’t debate like a gentleman and he lets politics influence his writing to an extent where he actually seems to turn his brain off when the political side of him is dominant.
In fact, I’d judge Krugman’s debate style to be toxic and I think a lot of his supporters take after him. He’s actually said that people who are proven wrong often enough should never be listened to again in public discourse, as if he’s never been wrong about anything.
I still value his contributions, but he is a dick, actually.
I disagree. But in anycase it seems kinda silly to call Krugman out for that given the calm measured tone of your own choice
FWIW I have a friend who has a Phd in economics and works for the fed; she claims he is not very highly regarded among serious economists.
I think that’s less because of his work than that no one can talk to the guy. If you don’t agree with him, you’re an idiot, is basically his attitude.
Doesn’t seem to keep them from citing his papers. He’s the 25th most influential active econimist, as measured by paper citations.
I notice Rogoff and Reinhart rate higher than him, yet he can’t stop calling for their public disgrace.
Glad to see Mankiw at #31. He’s one I respect.
I didn’t give a definition of who qualifies as a public intellectual, beyond a person whose views you seek out, because I’m working on the assumption that we all have an idea of what the term implies, even if we don’t all agree 100.
If somebody wants to take a shot at giving us a definition, please do.
To my mind Noam Chomsky and William Buckley are definitely public intellectuals. David Letterman isn’t. Bill Mahr or John Stewart? Kind of in the middle I’d guess. If somebody said they were, I couldn’t disagree. I’ve not really seen much of their stuff first hand to be honest.
I’ll have to ask her about it at thanksgiving; I didn’t ask her what the particular reasons were. It may be a personal bias she has, it may be that 25th isn’t a huge deal at her level, maybe the metric you are using isn’t an accurate means of appraisal. I really have no idea - it was just something she said to me in passing.
I seldom agreed with the late William F. Buckley, but I loved watching him lean back in revulsion when he took exception to someone’s words.
Public intellectual a bit of a tautology, IMHO, as an intellectual has to be public facing by definition - at least as far as the word being used as a label goes. No one packs more intellectual firepower than scientists and mathematicians, for example, but it’s rare to label them intellectuals. No one says 'the intellectual Andre Geim said this…’ or ‘the intellectual Alexander Grothendieck passed away recently.’ Real scientists are the opposite of public-facing - they’re more like a secret society.
Scientists who have moved on to senior administrative roles, or to popularise science, can be public intellectuals, but it’s hard to play this role when you have no one to argue with. Politics or economics lend themselves to the circus of public debate more readily.
A prominent exception to the above would be Richard Dawkins. Never a man to get his hands dirty in the lab, his landmark work was a brilliant synthesis and conceptualisation of existing ideas that were, previously, completely inaccessible to the public. Very rare in the modern day for a scientist’s work to resonate at all levels in that way, impacting the forefront of research as well as popular opinion. Definitely a public intellectual.
Steven Pinker
Daniel Dennett
(Not as “public” as many listed here, but they’ve both written a number of popular books and done countless interviews.)
Another vote for Cornel West.
Once it would have been John Kenneth Galbraith and Lewis Lapham. Both are gone now, I think, and there isn’t yet a clear replacement.
There are some I admire even though their conservative posture is at odds with my own, such as Michael Steele. It’s refreshing to hear an articulate exposition of a viewpoint that is not mine.
Jon. It’s Jon, not John.
Jon.
No H. Jon.
Jon. Jon. Jon. Jon. Jon.
I think that the first step in listing intellectuals that you admire should be learning to spell their 3-letter name correctly.
It’s not even his real name. As a general rule, intellectuals don’t adopt showbiz names.
Jon certainly is his real name. The rest not so much.
François-Marie Arouet would disagree.
I’d be sad if it was his porn name…