Philadelphia Political Agnostics

This meetup started as a group for people in the Philadelphia area who were concerned with the current political turmoil in America, but who also felt that the prevailing liberal-vs-conservative political paradigm is unnecessarily limiting our ability to think rationally about politics & search for policy solutions. Since we shifted to mostly online meetups in 2020, we've opened the group up to people everywhere. If you like to talk politics but you've got some moderate or unconventional views that leave you feeling out of place at most of the activist groups, party meetings & political rallies in your area, this meetup is for you!

However, if your political views put you on the far left or far right of the political spectrum - i.e. you're a Marxist, anarchist, "woke" left-wing identitarian, fascist/ethno-nationalist, Islamist, Black Hebrew Israelite, Christian fundamentalist, etc., or sympathetic to these positions - please go elsewhere. Also, if you consider yourself a moderate Republican or moderate Democrat but your views are just generic talking points you've gleaned from listening to Fox News or MSNBC, this group is not for you. It may seem uncharitable to exclude people, but from past experience our discussions just don't work very well with these folks, since they tend to be close-minded and see all of our problems as the result of only one of our political parties - i.e. they're not even remotely "agnostic".

"Political Agnosticism" is a term I came up with back in 2015 to represent a non-dogmatic approach to politics that acknowledges uncertainty and the validity of multiple perspectives, and looks for practical solutions without worrying about adherence to an overarching political ideology. The purpose of this agnostic, skeptical & free-thinking approach is to avoid treating politics as a "culture war" based on group identities or a clash of "political religions" based more on devotion to a party than knowledge of the issues. Instead, when we cover a political issue, we look at what experts in various disciplines know (and don't know) about it, tease out the ethical implications, note the tradeoffs between different policy approaches, and then look at potential solutions that encompass everything we've learned.

The only political values that are prerequisites for members are a belief in civility & tolerance towards those we disagree with, a belief in traditional civil liberties like the freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of association, and the right to privacy, as well as respect for institutional norms like separation of church & state, academic freedom, press freedom, government transparency, due process, judicial impartiality, and free & fair elections. These principles of an "open society" form the preconditions for the existence of a non-partisan political forum like ours.

Our general approach to politics is based on a concept we've borrowed from another organization, the Circle of Reason, called "pluralistic rationalism" – i.e. a personal commitment to reasoning, regardless of one's worldview. We start by assuming that reasonable people can differ in their cores values, whether it's framed as a preference for freedom vs security, tradition vs progress, individualism vs communitarianism, meritocracy vs egalitarianism, patriotism vs cosmopolitanism, etc. However, this approach is also premised on the belief that we should all commit to following the rules of logic & evidence-based reasoning. "Pluralistic Rationalism" is based on 3 tenets: (1) Factualism (as opposed to Denialism) for sourcing knowledge, (2) Skepticism (as opposed to Dogmatism) for vetting knowledge, and (3) Moderation (as opposed to Emotion) for expressing knowledge. To learn more about "pluralistic rationalism", see the Circle of Reason's website: http://www.circleofreason.org/

We are committed to creating a space for non-partisan political discussion based on intellectual honesty, mutual respect & civility. That means adopting the conversational principles of charity & good faith, avoiding name-calling, and trying to understand the best arguments that can be made for each side.

The goals for this meetup group are as follows:

(1) We try to understand why people - including ourselves - are predisposed by inherent psychological traits, cultural milieu & life experiences to have different moral intuitions & political orientations. We generally use a mix of the Big Five personality traits & Jonathan Haidt's Moral Foundations Theory, as well as Dan Kahan's work on "cultural cognition".

(2) We look at moral philosophy to try to better understand how moral axioms logically connect to one another and form ethical systems like deontological ethics, utilitarianism, virtue ethics, and contractarianism. We examine how these ethical systems form the basis for political philosophy, legal philosophy, and normative theories in the social sciences.

(3) We try to increase our level of rationality by learning how to spot logical fallacies, cognitive biases, flawed statistics, and various forms of groupthink. We often look to the work of the "rationalist community" (e.g. Robin Hanson, Eliezer Yudkowsky, Scott Alexander, Julia Galef, Spencer Greenberg, Stefan Schubert, Kevin Simler), as well as bloggers like Matthew Adelstein (Bentham's Bulldog) & Jack Despain Zhou (Tracing Woodgrains), data journalists like Nate Silver, investors like Paul Graham, and scholars like Daniel Kahneman, Phil Tetlock, Keith Stanovich, Scott Aaronson, Nick Bostrum, John Nerst & Zeynep Tufekci who've promoted a similar style of detached, analytical thinking & strategic forecasting.

(4) We try to educate members on both the fundamentals and the latest research from the social sciences, and we discuss how this relates to current events & trending political topics. Aside from looking at academic research, a lot of our reading material comes from data/explainer journalism sites, econ & policy blogs, as well as the major public intellectuals & pundits from across the political spectrum.

(5) We try to imagine alternative types of political & economic systems that could provide better outcomes for the future based on both theory & empirical data. This often involves looking at various "maps of the policy landscape" like the Cato & Fraser Institutes' Human Freedom Index, SPI's Social Progress Index, the Economist's Democracy Index, the UN World Happiness Report, and others, even as we acknowledge the way their limitations, particularly the way they try to quantify qualitative factors that are often vague or inherently subjective.

(6) As part of our effort to break away from the narrow range of ideas represented by the two major political parties, we often look at constellations of ideas that could be described as syncretic, contrarian or heterodox. This often involves looking to intellectuals who've resisted the major populist & identitarian currents on the left and right, such as the scholars associated with Jonathan Haidt's Heterodox Academy, Peter Singer's Journal of Controversial Ideas, Keith E. Whittington's Academic Freedom Alliance, and Yascha Mounck's Persuasion.

(a) For critical insight on trends within conservatism, we often refer to conservative pundits who've criticized the GOP's ideological capture by Trump, e.g. David French, Sarah Isgur, Jonah Goldberg, Charles Sykes, Kevin Williamson, Anne Applebaum, Bret Stephens, George Will, Mona Charen, and other writers at sites like 'The Dispatch' and 'The Bulwark'. Also of interest are the Obama-era "reformicons" (e.g. David Frum, Yuval Levin, Ross Douthat, Reihan Salam, Ramesh & April Ponnuru, David Brooks, James Pethokoukis) who tried to steer the party more towards the interests of the middle & working classes in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, only to end up politically homeless when Trump took over the GOP. (Note: I specifically didn't include some neocons like Bill Kristol, Max Boot, Stephen Hayes, etc., since they've never appeared to modify their hawkish foreign policy views in light of the disastrous Iraq War they championed.)

(b) For critical insight on trends within libertarianism, we often refer to "cosmopolitan libertarians" (a.k.a. Beltway libertarians) at the Cato Institute & its "liberaltarian" offshoot the Niskanen Center, the GMU economics department (e.g. Tyler Cowen, Alex Tabbarock, Robin Hanson, Bryan Caplan, Russ Roberts, Walter E. Williams, Arnold Kling), the members of the '200-Proof Liberals' blog - successor to the now-defunct 'Bleeding Heart Libertarians' blog (e.g. Jason Brennan, Chris Freiman, Kevin Vallier, Matt Zwolinski, Jacob Levy, Steve Horwitz, Sarah Skwire), as well as the 'Fifth Column' podcast (Kmele Foster, Michael Moynihan, Matt Welch) and writers at the magazine 'Reason' (e.g. Nick Gillespie, Cathy Young, Robby Soave, Elizabeth Nolan Brown, Katherine Mangu-Ward, Peter Suderman, Ilya Somin, Eugene Volokh), and the anti-Trump libertarians at the new Substack 'The UnPopulist' (e.g. Shikha Dalmia, Aaron Ross Powell, Berny Belvedere, Radley Balko). The debates within Gene Epstein's Soho Forum and the Cato Institute's 'Cato Unbound' blog are good venues for seeing the clash of ideas between libertarians & non-libertarians. (Note that I've excluded the paleolibertarians at the Ludwig von Mises Institute, the objectivists at the Ayn Rand Institute, and the left-libertarians at the Molinari Institute & C4SS since they seem to be more siloed in their echo chambers - although I'm fairly open to revising this opinion.)

(c) For critical insight on trends within progressivism, we often refer to liberal & centrist journalists who've criticized the biases of legacy-media outlets from within (e.g. Jonathan Chait, Adam Gopnik, George Packer, Caitlin Flanagan, Megan McArdle, Josh Barro, Conor Friedersdorf, Jonathan Rauch, Shadi Hamid) and those who've moved to independent platforms like Substack (e.g. Andrew Sullivan, Matt Yglesias, Emily Yoffe, Freddie deBoer, Matt Taibbi, Jesse Singal, Katie Herzog, Zaid Jilani, Lee Fang). Left-leaning scholars who've broken with the progressive orthodoxy on key issues (e.g. Camille Paglia, Kathleen Stock, Jonathan Haidt, Mark Lilla, Scott Galloway) also fit into this loose intellectual cluster. Many of these people signed the open letter against cancel culture in Harper's magazine back in July 2020.

(d) For critiques of trends within both conservatism & progressivism, we often look to the scholars at the Heterodox Academy (e.g. Jonathan Haidt, John Tomasi, Musa al-Gharbi, Lee Jussim, Phil Tetlock, Scott Lilienfeld, Alice Dreger, Allison Stenger, Nicholas Christakis, Eric Smith, Sean Stevens, Yascha Mounck, Eric Kaufmann) and the moderate "enlightened centrist" faction of what used to be called the "Intellectual Dark Web", e.g. Sam Harris, Steven Pinker, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Sarah Haider, Douglas Murray, Claire Lehmann, Helen Pluckrose, Peter Boghossian, Glenn Loury, John McWhorter, Coleman Hughes, and the various writers at media outlets like 'Quillette' & Areo Magazine' (now defunct). Some other heterodox pundits like Bill Maher, Razib Khan, Richard Hanania, Meghan Daum, Debra Soh, Melissa Chen, Meghan Murphy, Konstantin Kisin, Michael Shellenberger, Freddie Sayers, Winston Marshall, Bari Weiss, Nellie Bowles - as well as other writers at 'Unherd' & 'The Free Press' - could be considered the successor to the IDW. (Note I've excluded some of the former IDW members like Dave Rubin, Jordan Peterson, Brett & Eric Weinstein, Maajid Nawaz, and James Lindsay since they appeared to go off the rails amid the COVID pandemic & 2020 election due to "audience capture" and knee-jerk contrarianism. I've also excluded Joe Rogan due to his interest in pseudoscience & conspiracy theories, and Ben Shapiro is excluded because he seems more like a garden-variety conservative pundit.)

(e) For critical insight on trends within the emerging bipartisan populist sphere, we may refer to some members of the new think tank 'American Compass' (e.g. Oren Cass, Chris Griswold, Abigail Ball), writers at Julius Krein's journal 'American Affairs' (e.g. Michael Lind, David P. Goldman, Joel Kotkin), the strange bedfellows at Sohrab Amari's magazine 'Compact' (e.g. Edwin Aponte, Patrick Deneen, Matthew Schmitz, Geoff Shullenberger, Alex Gutentag, Adam Lehrer, Michael Tracey, Ben Burgis, Slavoj Zizkek), so-called "reactionary feminists" like Mary Harrington & Louise Perry, and several "post-left" writers formerly affiliated with the "Dirtbag Left" (e.g. Amber A'Lee Frost, Angela Nagle, Aimee Terese, Oliver Bateman, Malcolm Kyeyune). We could also refer to Glenn Greenwald's post-Intercept output (e.g. the 'System Update' podcast) and the 'Breaking Points' online news show headed by Krystal Ball & Saagar Enjeti (with co-hosts Emily Jashinsky & Ryan Grim), as well as some of the journalists at the socialist magazine 'Jacobin' who are partly sympathetic to bipartisan populism (e.g. Jennifer Pan, Dustin Guastella, Paul Prescod). This loosely defined intellectual space is still evolving from conversations between anti-woke "class-first socialists" and "post-liberal conservatives" and is less ideologically coherent right now, although it has similarities to earlier Third Way ideologues like producerism and communitarianism. In some cases, figures in this movement have taken positions at odds with the core tenets of classical liberalism, but the left-right dialogue seems to be moderating some of their stances. (The comedians-turned-pundits Jimmy Dore & Russell Brand might fit into this space, as would Tucker Carlson, but I've excluded them as they've all promoted conspiracy theories so - like some of the former IDW members I listed above - they don't help us toward a rational view of politics. There's a similar problem with Anna Khachiyan & Dasha Nekrasova's 'Red Scare' podcast - they're too uninformed on policy & prone to knee-jerk contrarianism for shock value. The "MAGA Communism" guys have a similar problem.)

-- The common feature among all of the new media projects & public intellectuals listed above is that they are openly critical of intellectual blindspots & bad ideas coming from both the left & right, although most of them are not always *equally* aware or critical of problems on both sides of the political spectrum.

(7) In order to do our part combatting political polarization, we borrow ideas from a range of organizations that are currently working on enabling mutual understanding & civil dialogue, such as David Blankenhorn's Braver Angels project (formerly Better Angels), Frank Burton's Circle of Reason, Alexandra Hudson's Civic Renaissance, Liz Joyner's Village Square, Joan Blades' Living Room Conversations, John Gable's AllSides team, David Nevins & Debilyn Molineaux's Bridge Alliance, Lisa Swallow & Kareem Abdelsadek's Crossing Party Lines, Tim Dixon & Gemma Mortensen's More In Common project, David Brooks's Social Fabric Project (a.k.a. Weave), Gary Kasparov's Renew Democracy Initiative, Charles Wheelan's Centrist Project (now called "Unite America"), Irshad Manji's Moral Courage Project, the Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism (FAIR), and others.