Are you trying to describe an entire ideology based on one article by one author? I consider myself a progressive and don't agree with a lot of what Ezra Klein, or many other pundits who label themselves in such a way, have to say.
Also not completely related but I don't think that sensationalist website necessarily does a good job representing Klein's point of view on the issue.
y'all a bunch of paranoid delusional mentally-disabled freaks who can't get laid
Here's an example of what I mean.
I get that it's just an example, but cataracts are far from the only source of blindness
Again, weak simplification of things I didn't even say.
There will always be problems in your country. If you haven't gotten to the point where you'll start helping sub-Saharan Africa yet, when will you?
That's a strong assumption regarding my charitable donation habits, of which you have no knowledge
Lasting improvements for whom? Measured how?
Not addressing the underlying issues means there is no stem to the "supply" (so to speak) of people requiring charitable help.
If you don't have any open questions in that category, then you aren't really living as an intellectual.
I'm not sure that's a critical part of any definition of the word "intellectual".
There are a few reasons. Part of it is that left-leaning Canadian charities have been under threat by our government recently, so there is a political element. Part of it is tax refunds. Part of it is that there are problems in our own country as well that need solving, not just in sub-Saharan Africa.
I don't agree with their emphasis on direct cash transfers. It reminds me of the Canadian Revenue Agency's statement that "preventing poverty is not charity, only relieving it." Givewell has always struck me as being more concerned about balancing one's karma than actually causing lasting improvement anywhere. That's just my perception, though.
Predominantly liberal/social democrat, but unlike most left-wingers (here at least), I'm isolationist and anti-immigration