The Public Intellectuals America Needs

Americans no longer trust institutions. They trust individuals. That makes a certain kind of thinker a critical national resource.

Americans didn’t use to have to wonder about which thinkers to turn to. We had institutions that selected, vetted, appointed, and elevated people we relied on as authoritative voices. They had processes around them, like editorial review and fact checking at publications, to ensure they did not go off the rails. The professions had an ethical code that meant something. While this system was not without its faults, and not without errors, Americans felt confident relying on network TV anchors, writers at newspapers, college professors, pastors, doctors. It was an era of high institutional trust.

That world is gone today. The institutions that sustained it have lost public trust, not entirely without warrant. Not only are official voices not trusted, but being in a position of authority today often makes the skeptical trust you even less.

People today feel left to their own devices in picking the voices they should listen to. Influencers and outsider voices are now often the authorities of choice, whether that be on personal health, relationships, or media. Even when those people are part of a major legacy institution, it’s as individuals that people trust them.

In short, trust has been devolved. People no longer have a default in trust institutions; they trust and follow individuals they’ve personally selected. People don’t believe something just because it was published in their local newspaper. They believe it because they trust the individual who said it. Because there’s no longer an institutional layer of vetting and review, the choices people make on whom to trust have a big impact on how our society functions.

This environment makes those public intellectuals who apply to themselves individually the same standards of truth, rigor, public spiritedness, etc. that we used to rely on the institutions to supply a critical resource. That’s because the individual with a following is now a structural element in our society. So it’s not just that these public intellectuals are people individual Americans or leaders can trust, but they are supplying important support columns that disappeared with the decline of institutions in America. They are particularly needed as America passes through a period of transition in which the new and renewed institutional structures we need to build are not yet in place.

I’ve noticed that I keep turning again and again to certain public intellectuals that I find particularly compelling and fit this bill: Ross Douthat, Richard Reeves, Tanner Greer, Ryan Burge, Julius Krein, and others. Or someone I don’t know as well will write an op-ed or essay that resonates with me in the same way as those people’s work.

I’ve often wondered if there’s a set of characteristics these people share. I’ve concluded that the answer is Yes. There is a common disposition or ethos that I sense. A common set of attributes.

We can call the people who exhibit these traits “The New Trustees.” A trustee is a person who controls property for the benefit of someone else, or for a charitable purpose. It’s not just that a trustee can be trusted. A trustee has a fiduciary responsibility to the beneficiary and must act in the beneficiary’s interest. It used to be that society as a whole relied on institutions - steered collectively by boards and executive teams - to be these trustees for our national conversation. Today, individual citizens appoint their own individual trustees. Being selected by someone as their trustee comes with big responsibilities. It means duties like loyalty, care, and good faith. The public intellectuals I am talking about have that kind of relationship to the work that they do, and to the society whose benefit they are working for.

A few caveats. Calling them the New Trustees does not make them an actual social grouping. They are not a board of trustees. They are not an institution like the Bauhaus or an actual community of people like the Inklings, although some of them know and interact with each other.

I also am not intending to provide a definitive grouping of names, a gatekeeping list of who’s in and who’s out. Rather, I’m writing about a sensibility that many people share and to which anyone can aspire. The people I mention are examples, but this essay does not even include all the people I personally can name that would fall into this category.

It’s also about public intellectuals specifically, not people engaged in other fields like politics, even if some of those other people might share a certain affinity.

The overall ethos is one of a high-minded approach to ideas, one that’s truth-seeking, constructive, forward looking, and seriously engaged on some of the most serious issues facing our land. The eight attributes I identified are:

1. They are engaged in the genuine pursuit of truth. The impression that strikes you when reading one of the New Trustees is the high-minded pursuit of truth, something I’ve written about before when it comes to Ryan Burge, the scholar of religion. He’s trying to get it right, not just push a particular agenda. Or think about Emily Oster’s work on Covid in schools. Or Peter Moskos’ work on policing.

You see this pursuit of truth in the seriousness of their analysis, their scrupulous fairness, and their use of independently verifiable data. They also aren’t afraid to change their minds or admit where they got something wrong when facts or changed circumstances warrant.

They are primarily analysts not activists, but are not merely detached observers without an agenda. However, they state their agendas and loyalties openly. Richard Reeves believes there are serious problems facing boys and men, and wants America to address them, while expressing his commitment to women’s empowerment as well. Ross Douthat is a serious, conservative Catholic. You don’t have to parse these people’s writing like a Bill Clinton speech, wondering what the hidden agenda is, or how the definition of “is” (or whatever) is being used to manipulate you.

In their commitment to truth, they don’t shrink from saying where they think their own people have problems or are not getting it right. Geoffrey Kabaservice, for example, champions the old moderate Republicanism, but not without acknowledging its problems and limits. Conversely, they’ll recognize the virtues and good ideas of their opponents or sometimes even enemies.

In short, perhaps the most distinguishing feature of the New Trustees is that they feel a fiduciary responsibility to the truth, and to the people who’ve placed trust in them to provide it.

2. They deliver constructive insight, often with an “owned framework.” A big reason I return again and again to these thinkers is that they help me understand the world. Reading Tanner Greer write on America’s original techno-nationalist elite or how the 19th century’s voluntary associations actually shaped those who participated educated me and sharpened my own thinking on these issues. Dan Wang wrote just one annual letter per year from China, but it was eagerly awaited by many because each one was brimming with insight. Julius Krein’s writings on the financial incentives underlying the industrialization question shaped my thinking on this topic.

They don’t just provide insight, but it’s on important topics, and is very relevant to helping us understand and navigate our world. They not infrequently include ideas that, if implemented, would move the ball in the right direction for our nation.

In terms of owned frameworks, Melissa Kearney educated America on the “Two-Parent Privilege.” Ryan Burge helped people see “The Nones.” Ross Douthat gave us the “Decadence” label to make sense of the cultural stagnation we see around us. Or think about the “Grand New Party” idea he and Reihan Salam developed nearly two decades years ago. Brad Wilcox is the best known promoter of the “Success Sequence.” They are giving us insight, frameworks, and a language to understand and navigate our world.

Extending this still further, some of them have built products or their own institutions around their frameworks, such as Reeves’ American Institute for Boys and Men. Krein created American Affairs. Greer was the founding director of the Center for Strategic Translation (focused on understanding China, now part of the Council on Foreign Relations).

3. They have moral seriousness without moralizing. In keeping with the idea of a fiduciary responsibility, the New Trustees believe the stakes are high in what they are talking about. It matters for the lives and futures of individuals, and also the nation. The future of religion in America matters. The future of boys and men matters. The decisions we make on education and policing matter. Our political economy matters. They matter to individuals, but also the future of America itself. You can feel that moral weight in the way they approach their topics. They think these things are very important. You can often feel the sense of urgency, and also the desire to get it right.

At the same time, they aren’t scolds. Even a strongly exhortative essay like Lori Gottlieb’s “Marry Him!” doesn’t demean the readers, or attribute evil motives to those who disagree with her. I only once noted her hitting out at readers who might disagree with her. She also frankly acknowledges the tradeoffs and downsides of a woman settling for someone other than the man of her dreams. You can also see here especially the honesty about her own situation, basically telling women to act now before they make the same mistakes she did and end up like her.

4. They have class-traitor courage. The New Trustees are willing to say difficult things that could cost them money or status among people that they care about, whose opinion matters to them and affects their future.

This is one that is not always straightforward to discern. Very often, people who seem to be criticizing their own team are really criticizing a rival faction within it. They won’t suffer much if it at all among the people whose opinion they actually care about. In fact, they may gain status with them, or with outside parties whose support would be valuable.

We always have to be alert for when rhetoric or actions are really inter-factional conflict. That sort of thing is very different from someone like Melissa Kearney writing about the two-parent privilege and taking heat. Or Peter Moskos, who recently wrote, “I’m basically not invited to Lefty spaces anymore because [flips through file] ‘I think police are necessary in a civilized society and we should work hard to make police better.’ And I’m a liberal lifelong Democrat.” When Tanner Greer included a very critical review of Palantir CEO Alex Karp’s book The Technological Republic as part of his techno-nationalist elite essay, he risked alienating powerful people in Silicon Valley, potentially the entire “tech right,” people who could potentially be an important source of money and patronage to him.

At the same time, these people are not being offensive for its own sake, or to brand build off controversy. They are not waving an unpopular fact like a red cloth in front of a bull. They aren’t trying to smash the Overton Window by being provocative. If anything, they are striving to be measured and nuanced, to present the truth in a way that hearers will actually accept. They are willing to stand and take the heat for what matters, but aren’t gratuitously playing a heel, or trying to be perceived as a “renegade” or a “heretic.” They are hoping to actually influence people to make moves.

5. They aren’t pandering or captive to their own audience. The New Trustees are also willing to challenge their own audiences. They aren’t “influencers.” They aren’t putting on a show for clicks and superchats. They aren’t trying to maximize their audience size and revenues, and by and large aren’t running their own huge platforms. Ross Douthat has a large audience in part by virtue of being at the Times, but he’s an exception that proves the rule. They write (or publish) serious works for serious people who are also interested in getting it right and don’t mind being challenged from time to time. Julius Krein’s American Affairs is paradigmatic here.

6. They have a generosity of spirit. You’ll often see these people say and do things that show a sort of generosity or magnanimity that’s all too rare today. For example, they’ll associate with people it might be risky to associate with, or reference and build up less prestigious people.

Richard Reeves came on my podcast and appeared on stage with me at an event. There’s not much to gain for him in doing things like that, and it potentially exposes him to being attacked. He would have been well within his rights to calculate that coming on my podcast wasn’t important enough to his mission to make it worth it. But he did it anyway. I’ve seen him do the same for others, even on occasion taking far greater risk than that.

Similarly, when Geoffrey Kabaservice wrote a long response to Tanner Greer’s essay on the techno-industrial elite, one that made some significant criticisms, Greer called it the best engagement with his piece to date. People in the pursuit of truth recognize the same in others, and respect it.

Or I think about Emily Oster, who took a contrarian stand on Covid and schools, arguing for keeping them open. She was vilified for this at the time. Even though she was vindicated by events - almost everyone now accepts that schools were kept closed too long - rather than take victory laps and taunt or attack those who had criticized her, she wrote an essay instead calling for a “pandemic amnesty.” She was once again vilified for her trouble.

7. They are defined by what they are for, not what and whom they are against. The New Trustees are occupied by their own ideas and agenda, and far less by opposition to particular ideas, people, or movements. Richard Reeves is pro-men but is not anti-feminism, for example. Ross Douthat will strongly criticize Donald Trump, but he’s not a “Never Trumper” whose work is all about trying to get Trump. As with Douthat here, these people will make criticisms of others, sometimes strong ones, but it’s not an organizing objective for them.

8. They have an even temperament that shows self-mastery. In a world where the way to gain attention is through histrionics, intentionally provocative statements, online feuds, erratic shifts in position, etc., the New Trustees tend to have a very measured style. Richard Reeves has a mantra at the American Institute for Boys and Men: “Keep it boring.” Tanner Greer is dispassionate in style. For some, this may be a cultivated style, but even if so, it shows discipline. At the same time, their public class-traitor courage shows that they don’t treat respectability or public approval as the organizing principle of their lives. The truth wins out over “what would the neighbors think?”

Not every person I mentioned necessarily exhibits all eight of these characteristics. You can think of them as describing an ideal type rather than an individual person. But these are the characteristics I often see in people doing the work I find to be the best, most insightful, most thought provoking, and most aligned with what America needs today. And these traits do very often occur together in a cluster with people. There’s some kind of high-minded spirit that correlates them.

Again, I’ll note that this essay is designed to describe that ethos, not to be an exhaustive list of people who exhibit them or to define a club or group. I could list more examples right now.

So if you see yourself in these attributes, that’s excellent. I know at least some of you should. They are also standards that anyone who operates as a public intellectual can aspire to live up to, and my hope is that it’s not used to define an exclusive group, but to channel a broad range of people in a productive direction.

I can’t help but measure myself against them. I have to ask myself where I have work to do. I’m not a rhetorical bomb thrower, but should I be even more measured in my speech, for example? Am I too critical or scolding of some other groups? My aspiration is to be one of the public intellectuals America needs, so I want to continue looking for ways to elevate my own game. I can use this list myself to help me evaluate what I’m doing or writing.

I also want to distinguish the New Trustees from what I’d call their “false friends.” In foreign language learning, “false friends” are words in two languages that look the same but actually mean different things. For example, the English word “library” and the French work “librairie” look very similar, but in French, a librairie is a bookstore whereas a library is called a bibliothèque.

There’s a group of people who are false friends in this language sense to the New Trustees. They are superficially similar, especially in style, but critically different in substance. They are people who have a moderate, controlled, respectable demeanor. They are often smart, and I find myself in agreement with the vast majority of what they write. They aren’t bad people by any means.

And yet, they seldom provide any genuine insight. You can read them and agree with what they are saying, but seldom gain any important new knowledge about the world. What seems like their public courage is usually directed against people who aren’t their actual peer group or tribe, but often a rival faction. Although they may have their own positive agenda, they are also motivated by opposition to people, ideas, or movements. They rarely display generosity of spirit (only show it in conspicuously narrow ways towards select people who are only to their right or only to their left). And they can be highly moralistic scolds at times.

As with my eight New Trustee attributes, this complex of traits often goes together in my experience. Ask screening questions: do you sense that fiduciary duty towards the truth? Look for evidence of the generosity of spirit or where it was not demonstrated, or whether someone seems to be particularly driven by opposition to something or someone. And so on. It’s the general pattern here that matters. In particular, I have noticed that once someone becomes an “anti,” the amount of insight they generate plummets. You can almost see the light bulb turning off.

I’d also again highlight the difference between the New Trustees, who are primarily public intellectuals, and those who are engaged primarily in other fields, such as activists, politicians, or legacy institutional leaders. You may have noticed that I did not include any “Abundance Liberals” on this list, even though I admire many of them and some of them legitimately embody some of these principles. They have coalesced around a particular political program, and are engaged in inter-factional maneuvering with the Democratic Party to promote it. They now have to undertake that work in the register it requires. That doesn’t mean they are bad, but I am classifying them as a different genre of actor.

I do believe there’s a set of positive character and behavioral traits that we need to see more of generally - ones not specific to the public intellectual world. In fact, I’m developing an essay on that which is the major new piece of research on which I’m engaged.

While I am working on that, I hope you can use these attributes of the New Trustee as a guide to helping you understand the public intellectuals you follow. We should be supporting people who are seriously and high-mindedly working on the key areas we need to get right to build a prosperous America on the other side of this period of transition. We do need to renew and resest America’s institutional infrastructure, but in the meantime the individual authority increasingly reigns as the locus of citizen trust. So it’s imperative we see public intellectuals who faithfully carry out the trusteeship such reliance implies.

Cover image: The caryatids of the Erechtheion by Harrieta171/Wikimedia, CC BY-SA 3.0