You make it sound like there's a large roster of public intellectuals worth listening to. Why lump him in with the Tucker Carlsons of the world?

Excuse me but what is the point of your comment? Anything general about intellectuals in my comment is all in your own head. And what does some American pundit has to do with anything?

Uncharitable metacomment aside, I can't clarify much more.

You said he's a "hack," I'm saying it's relative. If Fukuyama is a hack, then that doesn't leave many public intellectuals left.

You did not add anything of value to the discussion, and it has nothing to do with my comment. You not even bringing a real argument for anything to the table. An absolute preposterous idea that Fuku being an idiot says anything about other public intellectuals. Don't make me, or anyone else, the target of your own internal discussion. Especially such nonsense.

There's Chomsky.

Anybody really worth listening to is probably not going to be as corporate friendly as Fukuyama so they probably wont get much of an airing on the mainstream media.

I like Chomsky, but your criticism makes no sense. You can’t be a serious intellectual unless you hate corporations? Have you looked around lately? People love corporations and the products corporations make. And there is no better system than corporate neoliberalism, that we have figured out, for giving people the material things they want in large quantities. I just got back from Disneyland. It’s neoliberal paradise and people love it. People in my third world home country want to come to America and buy a house in Texas with four bedrooms and a pool and take their kids to Disneyland.

There’s lots of good criticisms to be made of the system. But there’s also a serious intellectual case for why systems that facilitate people getting the material things they want is a good thing. To write that off completely is intellectual laziness; a desire to wish away the difficult parts of your own position.

Chomsky who loves to downplay genocide if done by a leftist party and the political system he advocates is so hilariously unproven and basically can not actually work. But sure he is really worth listing too.

The Origins of Political Order was a good book. I felt it had a reasonable way of structuring the understanding of how different societies came about and how a different mix of rule of law, accountability to the people, and the existence of a state.