Will she or won’t she? Oprah Winfrey’s speech at the Golden Globes has people talking about a Winfrey presidency. Here’s the ILYBYGTH question: Why aren’t progressive pundits talking about it? I think I know why—it’s a rare moment when conservatives and progressives agree on something.

For their part, conservative pundits have had a field day with the Oprah news. At National Review, for example, commentators have relished the story. They’ve asked if Oprah will ditch her Hollywood-lefty friends; they have gleefully pointed out that Oprah would be the Left’s Trump; they’ve champed at the bit to see Oprah fight against an establishment Democrat.

At American Conservative, too, Benedictine pundit Rod Dreher has wallowed in the idea of an Oprah papacy/presidency. President Oprah, Dreher crows, would be

the Pallas Athena of Moralistic Therapeutic Deism. She would be the goddess of the nation-state.

On the other side of the culture-war spectrum, there has been markedly less talk about an Oprah presidency. Sure, Rolling Stone wondered about it. And a few other progressive small-fry have opined. But big progressive outlets such as The Nation, Progressive.org, and ThinkProgress have maintained a studied silence on the issue.

Why? I have a hunch and I’d be happy to be better educated by SAGLRROILYBYGTH.

I think smart progressives agree with the conservative National Review crowd on this one. That is, they see Oprah as the Trump of the Left. An Oprah candidacy, progressive strategists might think, will force them into discussing non-issues such as Oprah’s wacky universe-embracing religious quackery.

After all, as Yale’s Kathryn Lofton has argued, Oprah has crafted more than a media empire. Her “gospel” has translated Oprah into something else.

And progressives want to talk about health care and tax plans, not enlightenment through elaborate poster-making.