Archive for the ‘current events’ Category
I am a big believer in social science. For example, I believe there is a lot of evidence supporting the view that elite endorsements do predict party nominations, as documented in The Party Decides. So how does one explain Donald Trump’s current popularity?
The answer, I think, is simple. Normally, politicians need party elites because they don’t have the money, name recognition, organization, or media presence to run for office. Trump has all of these:
- A billion dollar fortune he is willing spend from.
- Decades of media presence.
- His own business organization.
- Name recognition from books, tv, and even a board game.
Add to this that Trump is charismatic, then it is easy to see what the issue is. The Party Decides model is mainly about people who need parties for help. If you need a party, and it doesn’t like you, you’ll loose. Trump has his own resources and he’s great at projecting himself on tv. Thus, he has a chance at bucking the system.
This doesn’t mean that he’s a shoe-in. He could easily turn out to be one of the many also-rans in presidential races. But this reasoning does increase my small belief that he could win a state, or run a Ross Perot style campaign and get 10% or 20% of the popular vote. The deeper lesson here is that politicians, relatively speaking, are poor and need parties. That is why most people have to play by the party’s rules. If you have your own bank account, and you’re good on tv, you can write your own rules.
How do we know if restrictionism is unjust? Is it ethically good or bad to prevent migration between countries? In this post, I draw on Martin Luther King Jr.’s Letter from a Birmingham Jail to argue that restriction laws are unjust. King sets out the problem and offers a solution: “How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law.” In other words, there is no intrinsic demand that the law be followed. You don’t have to follow the law just because it is a law.
But there arises a problem, how do we know if a law is in accordance with “moral law?” King begins by pointing out that just laws try to help people, but unjust laws degrade people and create privilege and superiority: “Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality.”
King makes a behavioral argument. If a law were indeed just, the group that passed the law would apply it to themselves. “An unjust law is a code that a numerical or power majority group compels a minority group to obey but does not make binding on itself. This is difference made legal. By the same token, a just law is a code that a majority compels a minority to follow and that it is willing to follow itself. This is sameness made legal. Let me give another explanation. A law is unjust if it is inflicted on a minority that, as a result of being denied the right to vote, had no part in enacting or devising the law.”
Let us now turn to border controls and deportation. How do these laws “uplift human personality?” Restrictionist laws clearly do not “uplift” the people who are banned from entry. People who migrate may want jobs, or they want to be with family, or they simply want to be in another place that they deem safe. By preventing people from being with family, they clearly degrade people. By preventing people from earning a living and peacefully enjoying property, they degrade people.
What about the native citizen? How do restrictionist laws “uplift” her personality? They can’t because they are aimed at others. One’s moral standing is based on their action, not the action of others. Simply living in a nation that excludes others does nothing for one’s moral worth. To the contrary, the active approval of laws that degrade others decreases one’s moral standing. Supporting migration restrictions and deportations gives, in King’s words, the restrictionist a “false sense of superiority and the segregated a false sense of inferiority.”
King’s behavioral criteria implies that migration restrictions are unjust. If these laws are so wise and proper, then why do we not see border controls between the states of the Union? Or between different cities? If the restrictionist is truly concerned about the dangers of outsiders, why shouldn’t Northerners build a fence to keep Southerners out because of their different values? Should Catholics and Protestants dig a moat around Utah to stop Mormons from entering their territory? If the restrictionist is truly concerned about outsiders exploiting public assistance, why doesn’t New York City build a wall to prevent New Hampshire’s citizens from exploiting that state’s more generous government services? The fact that such walls do not exist, and the restrictionists do not ask for them, says to me that these laws can’t truly be just.
From the founding of the United States to the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, this nation had 106 years of free movement across its borders. Millions of Jews, Poles, Chinese, Mexican, German, and Russian people came to this shore, relieved that they could live their lives as they saw fit, free from deportation, exile, and murder. Since then, wave after wave of anti-immigration law has been passed by this nation’s citizens. It is time to recognize that these laws are unwise and unjust and have same moral standing as the laws of Jim Crow. They do not command respect or honor and should be seen for what they are: attempts to harass people who, by chance, were born in another nation. Ignore them at will.
This weekend, Slate published an article by Reihan Salam about Governor Rick Perry. Once considered a front runner, Perry quickly imploded in 2012 and is having trouble finding traction in the current primary. Why? As Reihan correctly notes, he has a record that indicates great political strength. On twitter, I offered the cheeky response: he once promoted legislation that allowed some undocumented Texans to receive financial aid from the University of Texas. Poison. Gabriel Rossman also notes that he “crashed and burned,” a reference to some poor campaigning. But still, he did manage to get the second most endorsements after Romney, which is usually a strong correlate of success as shown in the book The Party Decides.
I’d like to offer a deeper response which situates Perry within the broader evolution of national Republican politics and why he might have an even tougher time in 2016 than before. Let’s start with my master theory of national Republican politics as presented in the post Nixon’s Revenge. What you notice is that almost every single GOP Presidential ticket since 1952 has had someone from Nixon’s personal network – Nixon (1952, 1956, 1960, 1968, 1972), Dole (1976, 1996), Ford (1976), Bush (1980, 1984, 1988, 1992), and Cheney (2000, 2004). This network is what you might call the elite of the national security wing of the GOP, since they focus on foreign intervention.
The next observation is that this ruling faction of the GOP has lost its grip, somewhat. Romney emerged from a more liberal wing of the GOP that is now almost extinct. Palin is the GOP’s version of the social justice warrior. McCain earned his political stripes by virtue of military service and family connections in Arizona and, as far as I know, has relatively little connection to the network of elite Republicans centered around Nixon in the late 20th century.
In theory, Rick Perry might be a strong candidate in this environment. A strong electoral record in a big Republican state would be an asset and you no longer need the sponsorship of the Bush/Nixon coalition. He could, in theory, beat a path similar to Reagan in the 1970s. Work the activist base, develop strong media skills, and use the home state at a launch pad for national politics. When the Nixon sponsored candidate lost in 1976, Reagan could step in and claim the mantle in the next election cycle.
So why can’t Perry use this strategy? First, the Bush faction recovered and Jeb is their guy. That is one very important faction that Perry can no longer rely on. A lot of donors, staff, and activists are off limits. Second, Perry has not projected himself in a way that allows him to be strongly identified with any other faction that is large enough to make a difference in the primary. For example, Romney and McCain easily appealed to centrist Republicans. Palin appealed to the Fox news crowd. Currently, Scott Walker has been able to appeal to anti-unionists, populists and Tea Partiers. Rand Paul can appeal to the 10% of the GOP that is libertarian. Ask yourself who Perry represents in the GOP and it is hard to clearly align him to a faction, even though it is fairly clear that he is a social conservative.
One might ask why Perry has failed to become the standard bearer for a GOP faction. I am not an expert on Texas politics, but I can offer a few conjectures. First, maybe Perry simply isn’t as adept at playing the game of conservative social identities. Walker has spent a lot of time fighting unions and is now tweaking tenure, which is a love letter to the GOP base. When every GOP governor is rushing to create a no-abortion zone, you’ll probably need to do more to stand out from the crowd than pass another law aimed at abortion clinics. Walker understands that better than anyone. Second, Perry is old (66). His career started in the 1980s. He may not have the energy, or the flexibility, to stand out in this environment. Third, Perry may be a Texas specialist. There are a lot of effective governors who did well in their states but failed to make any headway nationally. Fourth is what I call “Mitch Daniels syndrome.” Signal any compromise with the enemy and that can sink you quickly (e.g., the famous debate when Perry was booed for a rather modest higher ed reform benefiting immigrants). There’s a really good reason Mitch Daniels is now a university president and not a serious contender for the nomination.
Bottom line: With the Bush coalition pushing a candidate, there is less room for someone like Perry. Also, Perry hasn’t been able to make himself into a “brand name.” There isn’t much else to say.
In this post, I’d like to explain why you might want to adopt open borders as one of your issues. First, open borders is an issue that affects all people. Any one of us might want to travel to another country for work or enjoyment. For millions of people, migration represents the only plausible avenue out of poverty.
Second, open borders is a “common grounds” issue. It is a policy position that is consistent with most political ideologies. Liberals should favor free migration because it is the easiest way to address poverty and global inequality. Conservatives should support it on the grounds that moving to find work is an example of self-reliance. Conservatives should also support any policy that allows families to be reunited. Libertarians should support free migration because they favor open labor markets. Marxists should support any policy that allows poor workers to travel freely to be in places with the strongest labor practices.
Third, open borders is cheap. No need to build schools, roads, tanks, or anything. All you need to do is tell the border guards to take the day off and go protect things that need protecting.
Fourth, open borders is easy to understand compared to most policy topics. Honestly, most people don’t understand climate science or Keynesian macro-economics. In contrast, most arguments about the pros and cons of migration can be understood by nearly any educated person. The empirical evidence is also relatively straightforward.
If you have ever wondered how you can change the world, adopt open borders as one of your political issues and tell other people.
For me, one of the most insightful writings of DuBois comes from his history of the Reconstruction. In that work, he introduces the idea of the “racial wage”: low income Whites are placated with their domination over Blacks. In other words, poor southern Whites post-Reconstruction received psychological benefits from harassing and intimidating Blacks, which distracted them from their own poverty.
I’d like to make a connection to modern America. Usually, when we think of protests such as those in Baltimore and Ferguson, we think of police departments that are out of control, which is clearly true. We also tend to think of racism. Laws are passed that will have, intentionally or unintentionally, disproportionate effects on Blacks. What is missing, I think, from this conversation is a discussion of a possible racial wage in law enforcement.
When there are charges of police brutality and police shootings, we also see some reporting about the racial attitudes of police officers. For example, the press has reported that police in Ferguson wrote racist emails. See this Huffington Post article for details. The press also reports on police message boards that sometimes fill with racist comments (see this business insider article). Describing these behaviors as racist underplays the issue. Yes, some police do have racist attitudes. Might it be the case that police are extracting a racial wage from their work? Police work, even in the best of times, can be very difficult. Is it possible that part of the compensation comes from incarcerating people from other ethnic groups? More broadly, does seeing minorities jailed and deported provide a modern racial wage?
If it’s true, then it suggests that reform is much harder than we might suspect. If part of the culture of policing, and mass incarceration in general, is enjoying the punishment of minorities, then you have to do more than simply point out the injustice of police brutality and mass incarceration. Nor will it end as a result of the courts or legislatures who are often dependent on public opinion. Instead, there has to be a mass cultural movement where by a large portion of the population must assert that it is immoral to enjoy the suffering of others and insist that our police and penal system reflect those values.
In its particular contribution to “jihadi security studies,” The Management of Savagery provides what Will McCants and Jarret Brachman call the “playbook” for what is referred in these writings as “regional jihad”: the attempt to seize territory within the Muslim world and establish a self-governing Islamic state in a sea of hostile opponents backed by the West.
In order to do this, Naji’s strategic doctrine echoes Mao’s familiar three-phase theory of revolutionary warfare in which the insurgent organization can be in one or all phases simultaneously. In the first phase, the Islamist insurgent actor seeks to create or exploit “regions of savagery” through violent or shocking actions that collapse central authority or state control via “damage and exhaustion.” The second phase establishes primitive forms of government to “manage” such “regions of savagery,” which he claims would be accepted by shell-shocked people desperate for security. These forces would gradually expand government services while engaging in even more shocking violence in order to extend the “regions of savagery” and defend them. The final phase is the transition from the “administration of savagery” in various regions to a fully governed Islamic state under a Salafist version of Islamic law.
What is distinctive in Naji’s doctrine is his emphasis on shocking and spectacular violence as an asymmetric warfare strategy—a jihadist shock doctrine. One of most important lessons of Robert Tabler’s The War of the Flea is that insurgent actions must always mobilize a population to side with their cause. In a chapter dedicated to “Using Violence,” Naji emphasizes that shocking violence is not only effective for recruitment and instilling fear, but that it is the primary means to create a society-wide crisis that will polarize the population and drag everyone into the battle. Naji contends that, “We must make this battle very violent, such that death is a heartbeat away, so that the two groups will realize that entering this battle will frequently lead to death. That will be a powerful motive for the individual to choose to fight in the ranks of the people of truth in order to die well, which is better than dying for falsehood and losing both this world and the next.”
Interesting – the strategy is to make death so likely that you care about how you will die, so you are attracted to triumphalist ideologies. Niva’s essays take a Weberian turn. After ISIS creates perpetual crisis, then comes the phase of pacification and monopolization of violence.
In one the proudest moments in the history of nerdery, GenCon’s ownership has come out against Indiana’s SB 101 bill, which encourages private businesses to discriminate against gay customers:
The organizers of Gen Con, the city’s largest convention in attendance and economic impact, are threatening to move the event elsewhere if Gov. Mike Pence signs controversial religious freedom legislation that could allow business owners to refuse services to same-sex couples.
“Legislation that could allow for refusal of service or discrimination against our attendees will have a direct negative impact on the state’s economy, and will factor into our decision-making on hosting the convention in the state of Indiana in future years,” said Adrian Swartout, owner and CEO of Gen Con LLC, in a letter sent to Pence just hours after lawmakers sent the measure to his desk.
Gen Con’s website describes the convention as “the original, longest-running, best-attended gaming convention in the world!” The conference attracted 56,000 people last year to the Indiana Convention Center and has an annual economic impact of more than $50 million, Swartout said in the letter.
“Gen Con proudly welcomes a diverse attendee base, made up of different ethnicities, cultures, beliefs, sexual orientations, gender identities, abilities, and socio-economic backgrounds,” she wrote. “We are happy to provide an environment that welcomes all, and the wide-ranging diversity of our attendees has become a key element to the success and growth of our convention.”
Let’s hope that the governor sees the wisdom in vetoing this bill.