Pinker indeed sets out to answer “why progresssives hate progress?” And many of the people who voted for Ralph Nader in 2000 and many of the people who didn’t vote for Hillary in 2016 won’t like his answer. They have their own version of “the absolute good,” a kind of for the most part secular gospel. To them half measures and merely incremental improvements are perhaps even more objectionable than outright repression because, in their minds, they obscure what’s going on and “delay the revolution.” I can’t forget that Alexander Cockburn, a progressives’ progressive, called upon his readers to sit out the 2004 contest between Kerry and “W.” And am I the only person who remembers that Obama was repeatedly pilloried by progressives because he allegedly failed to carry out his immigration promises? Some progressives are walking embodiments of Oscar Wilde’s saying to the effect that “no good deed goes unpunished.”

Most of the rest of us, including me, don’t want revolution. We prefer to keep things because as far as we are concerned they seem to be getting better or there appear to be ways to make them better. In addition, revolutions have a proven track record of dismal failure. To argue that progressives haven’t repeatedly shot themselves in the foot politically by turning their backs on progress is a thankless task. Nonetheless, I welcome progressives’ views. And l liked Cockburn’s writings: he wrote with no less vigor than Christopher Hitchen’s spoke. And I keep an open mind because I have made mistakes before. Perhaps I’m wrong.

I’m not sure whether Pinker identified himself as a libertarian. It might have happened. Whether he said that he was a libertarian or not, the fact is that he is a serious thinker whose ideas and arguments deserve to be considered. He’s not a bumpersticker propagandist, and he is immune from bumpersticker putdowns. Incidentally, he maintains that social spending increases with the wealth of a society, and he unapologetically and clearly endorses this most non-libertarian idea.

What could be less enlightened than a Conservative Religious Fundamentalist?

Republicans don't like change. The party has swung so far right and so far into greed that moderates are considered party enemies. While Independents and Democrats certainly have their issues, they are angelic compared to Republicans today in what they do and in what they will accept. As to a centrist? I see nothing there one way or another but negativity and certainly not in any way enlightened.

Yeah... that's why they spend so much time in higher education. They hate enlightenment.

What type of enlightenment? And who cares what a political party has to say about an entire ideology? And why are you conflating conservatives and Republicans? They're not the same thing.

Personally I don't think fining people for teaching a dog to Nazi salute is enlightened but the progressive UK government did. They also sentenced a19 year old girl to community service and a curfew for sharing rap lyrics. I don't count that is enlightened either. Many Progressive American college students want to do away with the first amendment. I don't consider that enlightened. I don't know a single Progressive who actually thinks that men deserve Reproductive Rights. I don't consider that enlightened. Both the SJW and feminist movements are considered progressive and I don't consider equality of outcome enlightened either. Most progressives don't take biological differences in the sexes into account. Hell they deny their existence. That's FAR from enlightened.

I could make a similar list for conservatives.

Neither side is for or against enlightment. They're for or against enlightment that they agree with or not. Both conservatives and progressives are wrong. The truth lies somewhere in the middle. Those who don't understand that are doomed to forever fight amongst themselves and each other.

Am I the only centrist here? I hope not.

I wonder at the Republicans definition of enlightenment. Were they discussing creationism (or what ever they call it now)?

"Are progressives against enlightenment? This is what some republican talking head stated"

Well I think progressives may be against 'The Enlightenment' as a paradigm, since it is no longer a paradigm. Republicans want a dictate, a rule to follow, a totalizing rhetoric which they can blindly follow. The left recognizes there is no such paradigm.

There is a subset of regressives that gets lumped in with progressives due to social trends, the anti-vaxxers and such. They aren't actually progressives, obviously. But they (the host) could have been playing into that to smear all progressives by 'association'.

"Are progressives against enlightenment? This is what some Republican talking head stated.'

Oxy(moronic)?