As someone associated with the Progress Studies movement for over 10 years, we have alot to offer BOTH political parties. And we are willing to sell out to the highest bidder!
Yes this has elements of a true vision that could unite us. Interesting you note Rocket Boys, inspirational book and movie (October Sky) which does bring to life elements of that vision and clearly had a transformative impact on all the boys involved
I remember reading something from Andreesen (I think - can't remember exactly) recounting the discussions with the Biden Admin over AI.
The Biden Admin told him flat out to forget about any AI startups. This technology will be controlled 100% by the government with maybe a couple of highly regulated private companies involved. In other words, don't waste your money creating a company that won't be allowed to participate.
This is why Silicon Valley went to Trump. At least he is willing to give people a chance.
The most important component. A belief in, and strong support for, free market innovation and entrepreneurism rather than the government-centric focus, ideology, and programs of the progressive community.
Sorry, but I am no more a fan of right-wing economic planning as I am of left-wing economic planning. This is nothing more than an attempt my multibillionaires to goad the taxpayer into funding pet projects that will make them trillionaires.
Fascism was a specific political philosophy that emerged from the generally leftist and secular school of continental philosophy. Mussolini and Giovanni Gentile were both militant atheists who hated Christianity. They were imagining a Utopian society based on a mythic vision of the Roman Empire - not the actual Roman Empire - let along the actual traditions that still existed in 20th century Italy.
In keeping with the spirit of this website, it would behoove everyone to drop the words fascist and Nazi from their vocabulary unless actually talking about 20th century totalitarian movements. Authoritarianism and racism still belong, but even those words are heavily weaponized and generally counter-productive to reasonable discourse (Eating three meals a day is racist, growing cauliflower is racist, complimenting a black woman's hair is racist, etc.)
Do you regard the mid-20th century space race as “economic planning”?
When I see Ruy’s points that they promote:
“An emphasis on entrepreneurialism and creativity rather than technocracy”
And
“Positive engagement with, rather than simply trying to regulate, new loci of economic power”
I become cautiously optimistic. The key will be making sure government doesn’t put the taxpayers on the hook for the inevitable failures while it mostly stays out of the of companies that are succeeding.
From global warming denial to techno optimism: that seems to be the thrust of recent columns here, Rex. Perhaps, on both counts. But this is the centrist vision? Surely there’s ample evidence - as the tech bros already quite entrenched economically and politically run rampant building their data centers - evidence that the warming is real and dangerous and smartphones & AI are already and will cause as many problems as they solve. What’s more needed is somebody, some how and some way, to begin to restore enough faith in government so its institutions can begin to manage or direct the inevitable changes ahead to benefit the disillusioned middle and working classes.
Arguments urging Democrats to embrace the “progress movement” ignore the profound tension between its entrepreneurial energy and the anti-democratic tendencies of many of its leading figures. While the movement promotes innovation and patriotic aspiration, its intellectual and financial elite—including prominent voices in tech and venture capital—have shown little concern for constitutional norms or democratic governance.
During the Musk–Trump dismantling of executive agencies—an unprecedented overreach of presidential authority an egregious breach of the separation of powers—these figures were notably silent. Few have condemned the episode even in retrospect. Their silence reflects more than oversight; it signals alignment with a worldview that treats public institutions as obsolete and sees democratic constraint as a problem to be solved with capital and code.
Many in this orbit espouse longtermist, transhumanist, or libertarian ideologies that elevate elite control and future speculation over present-day accountability. The aesthetic of “American Dynamism” masks a deeper hostility to oversight, redistribution, and public input. The comparison of Sam Altman to Sam Bankman-Fried is increasingly apt: both operate within insulated spheres of wealth and influence, shielded from scrutiny by narratives of visionary urgency.
This is not a constituency with a record of defending democratic institutions. American big business—particularly its tech aristocracy—has drifted toward oligarchy, consolidating power while evading civic responsibility. A party that aligns itself with such actors without clear ethical red lines risks undermining the very democratic foundations it claims to defend.
A renewed national vision must draw from the civic ethos of October Sky—not just ambition and technology, but public education, community, and democratic purpose. Without that grounding, calls for progress risk becoming little more than invitations to rule by unaccountable elites in the guise of innovation.
As someone associated with the Progress Studies movement for over 10 years, we have alot to offer BOTH political parties. And we are willing to sell out to the highest bidder!
Ruy, I appreciate that you are trying to move beyond “the democrats have a problem” to trying on solutions.
They would be wise to listen to this sage advice......But they won't.
Yes this has elements of a true vision that could unite us. Interesting you note Rocket Boys, inspirational book and movie (October Sky) which does bring to life elements of that vision and clearly had a transformative impact on all the boys involved
I remember reading something from Andreesen (I think - can't remember exactly) recounting the discussions with the Biden Admin over AI.
The Biden Admin told him flat out to forget about any AI startups. This technology will be controlled 100% by the government with maybe a couple of highly regulated private companies involved. In other words, don't waste your money creating a company that won't be allowed to participate.
This is why Silicon Valley went to Trump. At least he is willing to give people a chance.
The most important component. A belief in, and strong support for, free market innovation and entrepreneurism rather than the government-centric focus, ideology, and programs of the progressive community.
Fascism by any other name is still fascism.
Sorry, but I am no more a fan of right-wing economic planning as I am of left-wing economic planning. This is nothing more than an attempt my multibillionaires to goad the taxpayer into funding pet projects that will make them trillionaires.
No thanks.
I think we're defining fascism down.
Fascism was a specific political philosophy that emerged from the generally leftist and secular school of continental philosophy. Mussolini and Giovanni Gentile were both militant atheists who hated Christianity. They were imagining a Utopian society based on a mythic vision of the Roman Empire - not the actual Roman Empire - let along the actual traditions that still existed in 20th century Italy.
In keeping with the spirit of this website, it would behoove everyone to drop the words fascist and Nazi from their vocabulary unless actually talking about 20th century totalitarian movements. Authoritarianism and racism still belong, but even those words are heavily weaponized and generally counter-productive to reasonable discourse (Eating three meals a day is racist, growing cauliflower is racist, complimenting a black woman's hair is racist, etc.)
Do you regard the mid-20th century space race as “economic planning”?
When I see Ruy’s points that they promote:
“An emphasis on entrepreneurialism and creativity rather than technocracy”
And
“Positive engagement with, rather than simply trying to regulate, new loci of economic power”
I become cautiously optimistic. The key will be making sure government doesn’t put the taxpayers on the hook for the inevitable failures while it mostly stays out of the of companies that are succeeding.
From global warming denial to techno optimism: that seems to be the thrust of recent columns here, Rex. Perhaps, on both counts. But this is the centrist vision? Surely there’s ample evidence - as the tech bros already quite entrenched economically and politically run rampant building their data centers - evidence that the warming is real and dangerous and smartphones & AI are already and will cause as many problems as they solve. What’s more needed is somebody, some how and some way, to begin to restore enough faith in government so its institutions can begin to manage or direct the inevitable changes ahead to benefit the disillusioned middle and working classes.
And what do we get out of this?
Arguments urging Democrats to embrace the “progress movement” ignore the profound tension between its entrepreneurial energy and the anti-democratic tendencies of many of its leading figures. While the movement promotes innovation and patriotic aspiration, its intellectual and financial elite—including prominent voices in tech and venture capital—have shown little concern for constitutional norms or democratic governance.
During the Musk–Trump dismantling of executive agencies—an unprecedented overreach of presidential authority an egregious breach of the separation of powers—these figures were notably silent. Few have condemned the episode even in retrospect. Their silence reflects more than oversight; it signals alignment with a worldview that treats public institutions as obsolete and sees democratic constraint as a problem to be solved with capital and code.
Many in this orbit espouse longtermist, transhumanist, or libertarian ideologies that elevate elite control and future speculation over present-day accountability. The aesthetic of “American Dynamism” masks a deeper hostility to oversight, redistribution, and public input. The comparison of Sam Altman to Sam Bankman-Fried is increasingly apt: both operate within insulated spheres of wealth and influence, shielded from scrutiny by narratives of visionary urgency.
This is not a constituency with a record of defending democratic institutions. American big business—particularly its tech aristocracy—has drifted toward oligarchy, consolidating power while evading civic responsibility. A party that aligns itself with such actors without clear ethical red lines risks undermining the very democratic foundations it claims to defend.
A renewed national vision must draw from the civic ethos of October Sky—not just ambition and technology, but public education, community, and democratic purpose. Without that grounding, calls for progress risk becoming little more than invitations to rule by unaccountable elites in the guise of innovation.