Discussion about this post

User's avatar
RBG's avatar

You asked about a Teddy Roosevelt or a neo-Progressive era and I think many of the conditions are the same for such a thing. The issue, as per usual, is that Democrats can't resist the opportunity to shoot themselves in the foot (to borrow my father's language). The DSA/Dem split bodes poorly for the party, as does the issue of what to do with Hasan Piker, the antisemitic, misogynistic streamer claiming to be a progressive. (Piker notably said that rape isn't so bad when it happens to Ivy League women, denied rapes happened on Oct. 7, has allied himself with the Houthis, and has given his dog electric shocks on stream. He's also a loud and proud supporter of many of the DSA candidates.) Piker is an issue but really more emblematic of the broader issue -- that the media refuses to give Dems their dues because we aren't as interesting as the Republicans hell-bent on destroying the country and that the media isn't doing investigative journalism at the level warranted. The Progressive Era was notable for its journalism, for the muckrakers yanking bad actors into the light. Where are they now, in our fractured media landscape? The Atlantic, as per usual, shines. ProPublica shines. Both have yielded real change. But on the municipal level, we are losing papers and new organizations left and right. They're being replaced with streamers and influencers, who are not beholden to journalistic ethics but to unclear algorithmic trends, meant to feed on emotion reactions. Streamers in the Piker mold. To me, they're similar enough to yellow journalism, part of the Gilded Age, which serves none of us. Until our media landscape is able to focus on truth instead of outrage, we'll not have any sort of real neo-Progressive era.

No posts

Ready for more?