Greg Sanders

Responding to America’s vote of no confidence

The election has been a source of grieving for me. As someone privileged to be both a member of the post-graduate educated class and foreign policy community, I think this vote represents a rejection of my own personal values and the institutions of both American democracy and of the role in the world it undergirds. The possibility space for policies I support has shrunk in a dramatic and lasting way. Lives and suffering are on the ballot in every election, but the stakes were higher for this one, and the widespread anti-system sentiment means that hard-won aspects of U.S. law and practice can no longer be taken for granted. But compared to most of human history, including the generations that won those rights, U.S. citizens in 2024 have far more resources and past practice to call on.

So what the hell happened?

Harris ran ahead of national trends in the battleground states. I personally saw Pennsylvania being flooded with volunteers; it’s not about marginal campaign choices.

* Voters hate inflation, even when it is offset by rising wages, low unemployment, and reduced inequality. Inflation is down but interest rates are only starting to fall. Incumbent parties around the world have been losing post-Covid. In an enormous tragedy, I think the other global factor is that that lower barriers to international travel and the resultant rising migration have fundamentally undercut the political viability of the strong form of present asylum rules and fueled populist backlash in countries part of this legal structure.

* Polarization by education and density are similar global factors, even as we’ve seen reduced racial polarization. Also, (to my surprise) gender polarization shifted right rather than expanding relative to 2020.  Polling quality was a known unknown, but tying into longstanding declines in trust, class combined with the education polarization heightened against the Democrats largely took place within that known unknown. The destruction of the business model and reach of journalism due in good part to technology changes is an important part of this story.

What is to be done?

Henry Farrell had the response that was most convincing to me (and not just a restatement of his prior beliefs):

So we need to experiment. We need to talk to people who we don’t usually talk to, not in the from-high-to-low ‘tell us what you need so that we can get your votes and you can go away again’ mode, but to build solidarity. We don’t just need to learn from the other side, but to coopt some of their coalition so it becomes ours, so that, indeed, it becomes us. That is never comfortable. But its necessity is a fact of democratic politics. Without the capacity to build a majority coalition - for the sake of democracy, an enduring coalition - we cannot win.

He points to the work of Margaret Levi on communities of fate and Hahrie Han on megachurches’ efforts to overcome racial divisions.

Secondarily, I think that state and local governments are going to become more important, as well as protecting the right to free movement within the United States. Related, the quality of blue state governance, especially on housing inflation, needs to be a place the Democratic party proves itself. A big part of the problem here is that many states or cities are dominated by one of the two national political parties. Political parties are an important part of providing political competition that’s more easily parsed by often disengaged voters. Fixing that probably requires electoral reforms that allow for strong parties, strong competition, and more parties, at least at the state and local level. 

Ben Rhodes in the NY Times offers a possible vision of how Democratic party leaders might seek to build a bigger tent, taking a play from a different successful populist:

After he lost an election in 2002, Mr. Orban spent years holding “civic circles” around Hungary — grass-roots meetings, often around churches, which built an agenda and sense of belonging that propelled him back into power. In their own way, the next generation of Democratic leaders should fan out across the country. Learn from mayors innovating at the local level. Listen to communities that feel alienated. Find places where multiracial democracy is working better than it is in the rest of the country. Tell those stories when pitching policies. Foster a sense of belonging to something bigger, so democracy doesn’t feel like the pablum of a ruling elite, but rather the remedy for fixing what is broken in Washington and our body politic.

Meeting the burden of proof posed by voters is hard, especially when trust often comes down more to relationships and stories rather than robust empirical policy analysis (though success in the latter gives opportunity for the former). Identifying remedies to systemic challenges that robust majorities of Americans can support is a vexing problem that is at best only partially solvable and that often requires working with others one vehemently disagrees with while not wavering in defense of both democracy and pluralism. I’ll do my best at that challenge, and welcome any critiques on perspectives or evidence I am missing.

Hans Riemer for County Executive: Saying yes to a prosperous, progressive future

I’ll be attending a rally at Astrolab brewing tonight for Councilmember Hans Riemer to celebrate his endorsement for Montgomery County executive by former Governor Glendening. The event starts in an hour from 4:30 to 7:00 pm at Astrolab brewing in Silver Spring.

I’ve long been a support of Hans thanks to his championing of the Purple Line going back to his critical first Council race. However, while that’s my top issue, I think his larger vision that “It’s time we say yes” for a prosperous and progressive Montgomery County is the right agenda and temperament for this moment that could turn to recovery or fall to malaise.

Here’s three examples of how he differentiates himself from our current executive:

* Addressing the housing crunch by building 40,000 new housing units, including allowing for a duplexes and other forms of multifamily housing where the transportation infrastructure supports. This is on top of Hans support for affordable housing measures.

* Moving to clean energy including allowing rural property owners to build solar. I support the county’s agricultural reserve, both to limit sprawl and  allow for local food. Allowing our rural areas to build more concentrated solar arrays is compatible with the spirit of that initiative and is the kind of work that can be done at the county level to counter climate change.

* Pushing for universal vaccination for county employees, this is a bit backward looking, but I was impressed by Hans takes on pandemic response as I thought he was willing to fight for the most effective policies while still taking learning loss for our schools very seriously.

Hans knows policy and implementation. He has has years of leadership experience on the County Council where his ability to build coalitions was reflected in his getting the most votes of any of the at-large candidates in the last election. I think these are not strengths of our current executive and it does the county the most harm on housing issues and economic growth. It’s not that I don’t think Hans will make mistakes or that I’ll agree with every compromise he cuts, but I trust that he has a larger vision of a successful growing county with widespread benefits and a willingness to listen to data that will use new tax revenue where it will make the biggest positive difference.

Finally, on a pragmatic note, the County Executive race is now a three person one between Marc Elrich, David Blair, and Hans Riemer. I don’t have polling access, but I’m sharing this today because I think the departure of Councilmember Hucker from the race and the endorsement by Gov. Glendening makes this a great time to tune into the race and give Hans a closer look. In general, your vote and voice carry a lot more weight than in national election. The last county executive primary came down to less than a hundred votes. Hans is also running with public financing that means that in county donations are have a 6x match. So if you look and like what you see, even a modest donation will go long way.

Image credit: David Asche Photography from Hans’s website, because I really need to organize my photos better for people searches.

Supplemental: Hooligans and Convicts

At the end of the trip last week, I’d ask asked my companions what stood out for them in Hooligans and Convicts. Inspiring was the term they’d most often used to describe the play.

One standout was a scene describing the use of hunger strikes by imprisoned suffrage activists and the forced feedings was particularly well done. It was not presented gratuitously or graphically, but both made clear the political logic of the protest and the horror of force feeding. The latter has a special resonance with me, going back to a surgery nearly a decade and a half ago. In my case the purpose was not nutrition so there were no dubious meals to face, but believe me when I say that even in a cooperative and caring environment having a tube down one’s throat is no picnic. In her case, she judged that the British authorities would let her weaken but not die in custody, and then seek to re-arrest her once she gained sufficient strength.

My companions also raised the nature of the disagreements amongst the civil rights leaders. Their efforts were united at the Seneca Falls convention, but as depicted, Elizabeth Cady Stanton wanted Frederick Douglass to delay or oppose the 15th amendment unless women were included in the expansion of the franchise, where he naturally cited the urgency for the African American community and in this portrayal noted that while white women could at least hope to influence partners, women in Black families had no representation whatsoever. Later the 19th amendment passes without provisions against poll taxes and measures to preclude Black women and alongside President Wilson’s backsliding on race. The play addresses this by telling some of the story of Mary Church Terrell and others that fought to make sure all female citizens could vote. The messiness and partial victories are important for an honest depiction of history, and I think they do help ground the nature of progress and show the way people kept fighting even when their part of a broader coalition was neglected.

The debates and speeches excerpted also brought a fresh appreciation of the incisive and clever responses and statements made by the women as they were challenged and told to keep their place. One particular way I feel inspired is to want to engage more with the primary sources and learn more of the figures myself and to bring a similar mindset when facing the challenging problems both within our nation and abroad.

Play: Hooligans and Convicts

Tonight we went to see Hooligans and Convicts at the Winnipesaukee Playhouse. It’s a musical play commissioned by the theater for the 100th anniversary of the 19th amendment, with the debut delayed one more year due to the pandemic. The play is a historical review, with a modern teenager as the framing mechanism for with seven actresses and actors taking on a multitude of roles. Earnest and didactic at times, I think the play benefits from looking at the relationships between leaders, such as Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony and Frederick Douglass. The play also crosses the pond to look at the militant suffrage movement in the U.K. and leader Emmeline Pankhurst. Pankhurst gives the play its name based on the terms of derision a magistrate threw at her. Those [historical figures] included goes beyond some of the bigger names to include a mix of movement members, including African American women whose organization were relegated to the back of the march in support of the 19th amendment.

My favorite performance was from Rebecca Tucker who played both Anthony and Pankhurst, both quite juicy roles of charismatic speakers who brought them alive. Our whole group enjoyed it, learned a few things, and left with some things to think about. In particular, one theme that stood out to me was the role of children and pregnancy in the movement that often isn’t given the same level of attention in histories of civil rights struggles.

[Edits: Some small fixes for clarity and addition of pictures.]

Ballot Questions (No on B&D for Montgomery)

My mail in ballot arrived last week, which means my post on local election stuff is overdue.

First off, if you want more information check out the League of Women Voter’s guide at vote411.org for arguments for and against each questions and as well as candidate survey responses. And now that I’ve pointed you a source for complete information, here are my recommendations:

Montgomery County:

There are four ballot questions, two on property taxes, two on council size. In both cases, Montgomery County’s long time tax-revolter Robin Ficker is again seeking to hamstring the ability of our county legislative branch, the County Council, to govern effectively. Thankfully, we’re still a county where leaders from both parties, the Democratic former County Executive Ike Leggett and Republican former Congresswoman Connie Morella, can still come together to defeat bad ideas.

For a detailed case against those amendments, I turn to Bruce Adams, who knows the history of our how local council and tax rules developed and makes an eminently practical case against Ballot Questions B and D.

Here’s my short take on each amendment.

Ballot Question A would shift the property tax cap from being set in dollar terms to being in percentage terms. If the County is growing and prospering, we need the ability to budget to keep up with rising infrastructure demands. [There are some provisions for new development, under the current law but I think rates are still a much more sensible way to govern things.] I favor question A.

I’ll turn to Bruce to explain why I oppose question B:

Ficker’s Question B would create an inflexible tax cap that would not allow county leaders to respond to real crises like COVID-19 and dramatically changing circumstances. The existing charter allows the county council to exceed the property tax cap only with a unanimous vote. Ficker’s amendment would not let even a unanimous council act to preserve our quality schools and services.

Ballot Question C would increase the number of district council seats by 2, leaving the Council with seven district and four at large members. I think this will have some challenging interactions with unanimity rules, but ultimately it is a reasonable ask from those upcounty who feel underrepresented. No endorsement, but I’ll personally be voting for it.

Ballot Question D would get rid of the county’s at large representatives, switching entirely to districts. I’d oppose question D because I think it undercuts our ability to face problems together as a county and it reduces the number of Councilmembers accountable to you. If you’ve ever called in to a politicians office at most any level, one of the key pieces of advice you’ll get is to tell them where you live, because unless you’re from their district, it’s not their job to care. There are a lot of ways that the at-large seats could be improved, for example by adding ranked choice or proportional voting. However, this is a step in the wrong direction.

Maryland:

Question 1 is about the state budget process and would give the General Assembly additional authority. As a general rule, the General Assembly can now make reductions in the Governor’s budget, but cannot move money around or make increases except in special circumstances. Under question 1, the General Assembly would be able to move funds, so long as the overall budget is balanced and does not exceed the total for the Governor’s budget. I support Question 1 as Maryland has the weakest legislature in the country when it comes budget matters. The Governor would still have a line item veto, so the Maryland Governorship would still remain a powerful office thereafter.

Question 2 expands commercial gaming to allow sports betting with hopes of raising $20 million a year for education.  Eh, I’m dubious, I’ll probably vote against.

Procrastinated on your Maryland Ballot? Resources for Tuesday Mail-in Election

As a general rule, I recommend going to check out Vote411.org/Maryland, the League of Women Voters sends surveys to all the candidates asking about key issues pertinent to their position. They don’t endorse, they just pass on the answers.

For Montgomery County, the most contested election is school board. Here’s a background piece on the school boundaries dispute. I come to this as a child of Montgomery County schools, well served by a magnet program at a majority minority East county school (Montgomery Blair). I think the approach to addressing overcrowding and segregation taken by the current board make sense. Unfortunately, we still use a jungle primary system, rather than ranked voting, so if you feel similarly it probably makes sense to vote for one of the front runner candidates for that approach. Here’s Dan on the two:

Sunil Dasgupta of Rockville is a political science professor at UMBC and former PTA president who emphasizes student mental health and reducing class sizes, and wrote a seven-part series looking at the politics of school boundaries. Dasgupta has endorsements from the teachers’ union, Progressive Maryland, and SEIU Local 500, county councilmembers Sidney Katz and Hans Riemer, and YIMBY MoCo.

Lynne Harris of Silver Spring is a teacher at Edison High School, a longtime PTA parent, and a former president of the Montgomery County Council of PTAs whose platform includes increasing access to advanced classes for students of color. Harris has support from County Executive Marc Elrich and councilmembers Evan Glass and Gabe Albornoz, Ananya Tadikonda, the former student school board member, and YIMBY MoCo. [She subsequently got the endorsement of the Post and Silver Chips]

I’ve heard good things from advocates for Harris and Dasgupta and respect endorsers on both sides. They both have pretty good websites linked above, I haven’t followed the race that closely, so I’ll just point you again to Vote411.org/Maryland and Equity Questionnaire that Dan Reed links to in a subsequent post.

For delegates, you can always go with supporters of your favorite candidate + neighbors/electeds that you like. I tend to use whether they answered the League survey as a tie breaker. Hint hint candidates!

Resources for the 2018 Montgomery Primary

I’m happy to do my best to help friends find candidates, including different candidates than my favorites. I’m primarily focusing on my home county of Montgomery, though many of the resources work for other parts of Maryland or even D.C. Montgomery County is presently providing a case study for why we need ranked choice voting or other systematic reforms, as is many of the victors are likely to have below 30% of the vote.  Nonetheless, local elections, even in large counties like Montgomery, are a great chance to make your vote count.

[Update with Greg’s recommendations:

• County Executive picks (I lean Leventhal)
• County Council picks
• General Assembly and Central Committee]

Mini-ad: If you’re reading this before Saturday June 6th, please consider stopping by our humble abode sometime between 6 and 8 pm for a meet and greet for Hans Riemer, the one incumbent county council candidate, for a chance to ask about your concerns, hear his goals, and dine on wine, cheese, and other refreshments.

Non-partisan and Journalists

• Vote411.org for candidate answers to topical questionnaires, as provided to the League of Women Voters.
• Bethesda Beat Election Guide, Their Primary landing page has links to Q&As for all the major races,
• Maryland Matters on the County at Large race. They aren’t don’t have as good of a one-stop-shop for other races, but they’re a good new source of local news.
• The Washington Post goes to some details on the candidates for governor (Vignarajh, Madaleno, Baker, Jealous, Ervin published upon the writing of this post).

Endorsements by Transit-Oriented Groups

• Greater Greater Washington (summary page including legislature):
• Council At Large Endorsements and other finalists
• Council Districts
• County Executive For and Against
• Action Committee for Transit Scorecard
• Sierra Club

Other Endorsements

Helpfully, Bethesda Beat is reporting who on the range of endorsements received for County Executive/Council/School Board and Congress/General Assembly. This can be useful both for finding your favorite group, or just seeing which candidates have enough support to be serious contenders if you wish to be strategic with your vote.

Montgomery County Council Picks

For those that haven’t early voted:

•  Resources for the election. Let me specifically recommend the non-partisan Vote411.org for candidate surveys and local news source Bethesda Beat Election Guide.
• County Executive picks (I lean Leventhal)

County Council At-Large

This is where I begin to really feel spoiled for choice. There are five candidates that between ACT (all 5 got perfect scores), Greater Greater Washington (Hans, Danielle, and Will with secondary support for Evan and Jill), and the Sierra Club (Evan, Will, Danielle, and Hans).

Hans Riemer is the only incumbent and I think his record can be shown in a variety of the successful initiatives to make our communities more walkable and safe for biking. Beyond his vital support for the Purple Line, he’s championed initiatives like the  expanded county earned income tax credit and improving transparency and efficiency of county administration. For beer fans, he’s also reformed our liquor laws to allow for the now booming local craft beer industry.

Evan Glass has long been a leader in our community. One of the political causes you’re more likely to know him from is his time as a  board member for Equality Maryland. He’s also been a Producer on CNN and is the executive director of the Gandhi Brigade Youth Media, which gives some of the young people of our community the chance to gain skills and learn to be reporters or advocates. We saw one of their films a couple months back and it was really well done. Finally, he’s vice chair of Montgomery Housing Partnership and takes the affordable housing issue very seriously. He would also be the first openly gay person to serve on the Council.

Danielle Meitiv I met through an elementary school friend, but also her environmental advocacy, including Purple Line support. You may also know her for her fight for parent’s ability to trust their kids to show independence and self-reliance. 

Two that I haven’t had the chance to get to know, but friends praise:

Will Jawando’s special strength, according to a dear friend and transit advocate, is to bring a range of communities together. His lit emphasizes widespread economic opportunity, through mechanisms like smart growth, support for child card, and counter harassment measures. He and Hans are both on the teachers’ Apple Ballot.

Jill Ortman Fouse is coming with experience from the Board of Education. Aside from a brief Silver Spring encounter I haven’t had the chance to chat with her, but a friend praised her tenure on the Board of Education for being “evidence-based and transparent” and “100% for making sure all kids in MoCo succeed.”

I’ve had the chance to have good discussions with a few other candidates who were all on the GGW shortlist but not in the top 5.

Chris Willheim (+++ from ACT), I met at a friend’s meet and greet a few months back and he was conversant in a wide range of issues. He has experience as a legislative staffer and a teacher, the latter of which was particularly important to many of his ideas and reflected in his Apple Ballot endorsement.

Seth Grimes (++++/- from ACT) I’ve had the chance to speak with on the Metro and at ACT repeatedly. He has experience as Takoma County Councilmember and I found him quite conversant on the issues.

I had the chance to speak with Bill Conway (+/- from ACT) about the Purple Line when he attended an Action Committee for Transit meeting. He has experience as a Senate staffer and environmental lawyer and was conversant on the issues and supportive.

I spoke briefly with  Gabe Albornoz (+/- from ACT) at the Silver Spring Metro one morning. I was pleased by his statements in support of the Purple Line and that we need to address the housing supply problem. His Recreation Department experience is also valuable.

District 5

Tom Hucker is the incumbent and his strongest challenger is running against bus rapid transit on 29. I’m certainly a bit biased since marrying into a Howard County family and having had an apartment in White Oak some years back, but I think that’s an important project both for today’s component and the eventual connections to Howard County, which includes connections to Columbia as part of its long term masterplan.

2018 Primary Executive and Judicial Races

For those of you that haven’t early voted. Here’s my link to resources for the election. Let me specifically recommend the non-partisan Vote411.org for candidate surveys and local news source Bethesda Beat Election Guide. I’m planning to do a County Council  and General Assembly post, but one thing at a time.

Governor: I’m a Rushern Baker man, I think he got good results in Prince George’s, he’s been a great advocate for the  Purple Line in office. I generally like Ben Jealous and most of the other candidates, but Baker got the GGW endorsement in part because he knows the issues well.

County Executive:

I’ve long had the opportunity to work with Councilmember George Leventhal, a founder of Purple Line Now along with my father. Like many of the  candidates, he has an economic prosperity agenda. But I think of the candidates for executive, he’s the also most focused on affordable and abundant housing that addresses the problem that many people who want to live and work in our fair county can’t afford to do so. He takes this subject quite seriously and recently earned his PhD with a dissertation on evidence-based practices for reducing chronic homelessness. Endorsements by Greater Greater Washington, tied on Action Committee for Transit scorecard. Also his super heroics theme ad is in my opinion the best and funniest of this cycle.

Candidates I wish I could ranked vote for:

Roger Berliner is a  long time friend of the Purple Line, and a skilled conciliator on the Council. He’s tied on the ACT scorecard and got the endorsement of the Sierra Club.

Rose Krasnow isn’t as strong on the issues I care about, but she does have a good practical governing background as mayor of Rockville and comes in on the ACT scorecard above the other  candidates.

Judges: Judicial elections are generally a bad idea in my view. So I’d vote in support of all the incumbent judges.

Clerk of the Court:

I consider it silly that this is an elected office, but I wanted to put in a good word for neighbor Alan Bowser.

Resources for the 2018 Montgomery Primary

I’m happy to do my best to help friends find candidates, including different candidates than my favorites. I’m primarily focusing on my home county of Montgomery, though many of the resources work for other parts of Maryland or even D.C. Montgomery County is presently providing a case study for why we need ranked choice voting or other systematic reforms, as is many of the victors are likely to have below 30% of the vote.  Nonetheless, local elections, even in large counties like Montgomery, are a great chance to make your vote count.

Mini-ad: If you’re reading this before Saturday June 6th, please consider stopping by our humble abode sometime between 6 and 8 pm for a meet and greet for Hans Riemer, the one incumbent county council candidate, for a chance to ask about your concerns, hear his goals, and dine on wine, cheese, and other refreshments.

Non-partisan and Journalists

• Vote411.org for candidate answers to topical questionnaires, as provided to the League of Women Voters.
• Bethesda Beat Election Guide, Their Primary landing page has links to Q&As for all the major races,
• Maryland Matters on the County at Large race. They aren’t don’t have as good of a one-stop-shop for other races, but they’re a good new source of local news.
• The Washington Post goes to some details on the candidates for governor (Vignarajh, Madaleno, Baker, Jealous, Ervin published upon the writing of this post).

Endorsements by Transit-Oriented Groups

• Greater Greater Washington (summary page including legislature):
• Council At Large Endorsements and other finalists
• Council Districts
• County Executive For and Against
• Action Committee for Transit Scorecard
• Sierra Club

Other Endorsements

Helpfully, Bethesda Beat is reporting who on the range of endorsements received for County Executive/Council/School Board and Congress/General Assembly. This can be useful both for finding your favorite group, or just seeing which candidates have enough support to be serious contenders if you wish to be strategic with your vote.

Missing Dad, Never Giving Up on the Purple Line

My father, Harry Sanders, passed away seven years. As those that know my family are aware, he was a key advocate from the start, three decades ago, for the Maryland Purple Line, a light rail line connecting Bethesda, Silver Spring, College Park, and New Carrollton. God willing and the court system allowing, we’re six some years from opening day.

From the County Council and Executive to his legion of friends and colleagues, all the remembrances in 2010 included his devotion to improving transportation alternatives in our region as a citizen-activist that made people feel good about engaging in politics. I’ve been thinking a lot about that legacy in recent months and striking the balance of being indefatigable in pursuit of the public good, listening to a range of voices including opponents, and encouraging the next generation of activist.

Today, I’ve taken inspiration from the news that the Riverdale Park station will be a the boon it was meant to be, thanks to committed activists, elected leaders, and tireless staff work by both the private and public sector. It’s a reminder of what he was fighting for and what so many others have worked so hard to bring us to the cusp of delivering. Politics is full of loss and setbacks, we need friends and fellow activists to renew and carry on. Dad taught me that, but every week someone reminds me of it. I’m grateful for to so many. For those fellow transit advocates that knew him, I’m sure he’s proud of all the work you’ve done these past seven years. To all those seeking to connect our communities who never had the chance to meet him, you have my thanks.

Photo Credit: Purple Line NOW! Archives of the New Carrollton Locally Preferred Alternative Announcement in 2009.

Highly engaging 'Shipment' rekindled my affection for satire (Forum Theater, Silver Spring, through 6/13)

I recently saw a horror play that, with the exception of an amazing entrance and particularly clever scene or two, didn't do that much for me. That's just a matter of taste; when I want to be made uncomfortable and a little scared, I want the focus not on supernatural monsters but frightening topics with which I actually wrestle. The Shipment's genuinely dangerous topic is focused on the African-American experience as perceived from within and without with special attention to portrayals in the culture.

Let's get a disclaimer aside: if you aren't at some level able to handle sustained vulgarity, skip this one. The stand up comic scene near the beginning is too much to handle otherwise. Similarly if uncomfortable but entertained and bracingly toyed with but in good hands isn't a place you want to be for 90 minutes, then it's not for you. However, if you dare brave experimental theater, know that this is a 90 minutes of entertainment that is very attuned to craft, entrancing dance, multilevel portrayals, and moments of great wit and beauty.

For a full discussion you can see the Post's review or an even more detailed review of an earlier production in the Root. The short version is that this is a variety show that wrestles with the format of minstrel shows past and some of their present descendents. The five players take a variety of roles which echo one another. This isn't a parody primarily concerned with an arch version of a particular story; it's outright satire and far more vicious to its source material. This can easily misfire, but with playwright Young Jean Lee and director Psalmayene 24 we are in able hands. Changes of scene bring new provocations, but also relief.

As an audience member, particularly in the first half, I felt connections as much to the five actors as to the characters they played. Particularly in the middle section, a stylized take on an after school special on urban African American poverty, each character was played one step removed with tactical choices made on when to commit and when to stick with stylized and stilted portrayals. In much the same way that a favorite comedian can bring a range of history to even a thinly sketched character, this kept me engaged with the actors when a lesser performance would have just had me alienated from the characters. The play doesn't wallow in ironic distance. That would be too easy. Instead it walks a thin line of discomfort as Shannon Dorsey plays a conventional mother character at the start of the scene only by the end to tell an absurdist parable of the origin of a very damaged world through the lives of disfigured cranes. Similarly Mark Hairston's earnest and emotionally vulnerable prison radical is a very different approach on sentiments earlier expressed by his shock comic.

The second half, after an achingly beautiful vocal performance and a scene changing palette cleanser, gives the cast a chance to play what seems a more conventional parlor comedy. Mark Hairston goes from earlier broad character types to a vey specific neurotic partygoer who, despite his insistence that he read a study that seltzer water might rot your bones, portrayed the sort of very real person I'd want as a guest. Gary L. Perkins III similarly went from a stock character rap inguéne to the person who was slightly too good for the party, an outsider there in part because the host

Technorati Tags: Forum Theater,Silver Spring,Young Jean Lee,The Shipment

liked him more than his actual friends. Dexter Hamlett goes from an oft malevolent puppet master to a character whose secret puts him in somewhat in the power of another, at least when it comes to picking the evening's entertainment. The other two players take a similar turn, but to learn why the cast is only allowed real depth at the end, I'd recommend watching the play yourself.

So how did it rekindle my love of satire? Like one of my fellow audience members, I tended more towards to British than American satire, probably in part because the distance makes it easier. I do enjoy the Daily Show and Colbert, but that's less often work that I'm directly implicated in and discomfort more often comes from interviews and the interaction of people out of character with those in character. By comparison, actively uncomfortable satire has also been particularly prominent in our culture of late as a catchall defense for offensive speech or discussion of French satire after the murders of Charlie Hedbo staff. That said, the most insightful piece I'd read recently was by Film Critic Hulk on Fight Club (warning, caps). A key insight from that piece is that a failing of Fight Club is that it is too compelling in terms of the nihilism it is sending up. He compares David Fincher's work to Paul Thomas Anderson, who "implicitly understood that in order to undo the seduction and allure of his pornographic inclinations in Boogie Nights, he essentially had to spend half the length of the film completely undoing that. He clearly understood the responsibility not to being indulgent."

I think everyone involved with this production understood that responsibility and took it very seriously. I meant it when I called the production dangerous at the start. There weren't any walkouts the night I went, but that's not true every night. This would be easy material to botch at any stage of the production and even though I found it successful and discomforting, an African-American woman in the audience who made the earlier comment about satire also found herself angered by the stand up comedy bit and felt it punched down at times. This is an area where I think Forum Theater's after-production discussions really shine. Dramaturge led up a strictly voluntary chat with about a half dozen of the audience members. I think it's important that art challenge us, but Forum understands the responsibility of satire in my view. I particularly appreciated actor Dexter Hamlett joining the conversation, although I did not fully recognize him at first as he shed at least ten years when he went out of character. I do think that the way we talk about race has changed some since the play was first written, and the way the stand-up trades on a range of taboos may now distract from rather than heighten some of the power of the scene (there's a line about walking on eggshells that made the whole bit worthwhile to me). But every part of this play left me with moments I hope to long recall. If you'll be anywhere near Silver Spring, go see it. If you miss this show, check out the Forum's future offerings. They've never let us down.

Production photos by Forum Theater available on Flickr by C. Stanley Photography. Technically they're all rights reserved, but I think this is how they're meant to be used. Correct me if I'm wrong there.

All I Want for Christmas Is the Purple Line

The news earlier this month was not promising for the Purple Line. Incoming Gov. Hogan is skeptical of mass transit, favoring road projects. As David Albert discussed months ago, the governor of Maryland does have significant budgetary powers and could substantially stymie the project, albeit at the cost of federal matching funds. However, in the season of hope, there are reasons not to despair. Since the election, we've seen three important signals as to why the project is still alive and why the Governor-Elect may consider funding it:

• Developers and other business leaders from both Montgomery and Prince George's counties are making the economic case for why the Purple Line is important.
• In addition, the Chambers of Commerce for both counties wrote a letter saying why they think the project is vitally important.
• Federal funding for the Purple Line is included in next year's omnibus budget thanks to hard work from Maryland's congressional delegation.

The Governor-Elect has said he will make decisions about the Purple Line after his inauguration, likely within the next month or so. This coming period is a great time to let the transition team ([email protected]) know that you support the Purple Line. Purple Line Now has a sample letter up as well as links to a variety of facts about regarding the economic benefits of transit and the importance of our region. Emails from parts of Maryland other than Montgomery and Prince George's Counties are particularly valuable, so if that's where you live, be sure to mention that. Otherwise, this is a mass drive: the most important thing is to write polite supportive notes and to click send rather getting stuck on polishing. The emails we send won't by themselves carry the day, but they will show the firm popular foundation underlying the economic case.

Congratulations to Governor Elect Hogan

Still speaking for myself.

The Maryland Democratic Party was humbled on Tuesday. Governor-Elect Hogan managed to get a substantial victory, performing well across the state.  This wasn't just a matter of the general Republican wave, as Brian Frosh is now Attorney General-Elect and Maryland's economy has been over-performing the national under Gov. O'Malley.

The incoming Governor deserves credit for staking out an agenda, however much I disagree with it. It is not enough to point out differences on social issues when one's opponent is not running on them and the legislature is not in play. Similarly, we Democrats in Maryland and around the country need to do a better job of providing a clear economic agenda. Fundamentally, even though the national economy is improving, these remain troubled times with stagnating wages. Democrats cannot hope to prevail unless we offer answers on these questions. The increasing nationalization of even gubernatorial races means we can't sit on our laurels even when the results are positive.

I was fairly frightened as to the fate of the Purple Line going into the election. Thankfully, Governor-Elect Hogan's initial words and deeds have lived up to his campaign pledge to be willing to work with Maryland's Democrats. Despite the fears that I shared, his initial take on the Purple Line is that "we're going to be talking about that during transition." There's a lot for him to take on during that period and taking his time and reviewing the range of active and ongoing projects from the O'Malley administration makes sense. He has appointed a Democractic co-chair of his transition team which offers valuable opportunities in living up to his stated goal of being "a governor for all of Maryland."

No doubt Governor-Elect Hogan will put his imprint on things, but projects like the Purple Line can fit with a growth agenda and have broad business community support because they bring economic as well as environmental benefits. As Dan Reed has noted, the Silver Line was initiated under a Republican Governor and a Republican President.

To be clear, the onus is on Purple Line advocates more than ever to explain the virtues of the project. This is a duty I do not intend to shirk and I hope we can all come together to continue to build a brighter future for the state we love.

Marylanders: The fate of the Purple Line does ride on tomorrow's election

I hope all U.S. citizens vote tomorrow. I recommend Vote411.org as a way to help you get information about your polling place and learn the candidates' stands on the issues.

One race particularly important to me this year is Maryland's gubernatorial election where Lt. Gov. Brown (D) faces off against Larry Hogan (R).

Hogan is explicitly an enemy of the Purple Line:

Hogan says he would put a far greater priority on building and repairing roads than on mass transit. He pledges to block two major light-rail projects: the Purple Line in the Washington suburbs and the Red Line in Baltimore.

Hogan's emphasis on new roads ultimately does not make sense. Vehicle Miles Traveled are down across the country. Infrastructure repair is important and specific projects might be worthwhile, but Hogan is pursuing road building as a culture war issue rather than an governing agenda for Maryland that actually makes sense.

By comparison, the Purple Line and Red Line are near ready for construction start.  The economic benefits are immense, especially at a time where the construction market has yet to fully recover and interest rates are low:

• 69,300 daily riders.
• $3 in economic returns anticipated for every $1 invested.
• 17,000 cars off the roads in the Montgomery and Prince George's Counties.
• Completion of the Capital Crescent trail.
• 2,380 to 4,140 new jobs for every $100 million of cost.

The Maryland governor is entirely capable of putting a project like this on hold. For those of you Marylanders will not directly benefit from the transit, this is still an investment in the state's long term future. Much of the funding comes from the federal government, with $800 million in federal matching funds to help build it. The economic activity generated will support the state's tax base and among other things help keep tuition low at Maryland's university system, a particularly remarkable accomplishment of the O'Malley-Brown administration when much of the country was experiencing jumps in public school costs. The Lt. Governor has taken his hits, rightfully, on the healthcare website debut. That ship has been righted, but for those with ongoing concerns about implementation I'd point to his own Lt. Gov. candidate, Howard County's Ken Ulman. As a present resident of Howard, I've got to say I've been consistently impressed by our young executive. I hope he has the chance to serve the state as a whole as well as he's served Howard County.

In closing, I certainly confess to being a partisan Democrat. But I'm also a proud Marylander. I think our state has managed great things in these past eight years, even when the national situation had headwinds against us. I'm asking Marylanders to vote for the Lt. Gov. because he'll build on the successes of the O'Malley administration and not undercut our economic future to fight culture war battles over infrastructure. I know this election can feel like there's not much as stake, but when it comes to the Purple Line, the opposite is true.

Speaking for myself and not my employer. Similarly, I'm not speaking for any non-profits I volunteer for. That said, Kate does back with me!

I am still unconvinced by the argument for direct U.S. intervention in Syria

As ever, speaking for myself and not my employer.

The New York Times editorial board and Kevin Drum do a good job of laying out the case that the President should seek Congress's approval before going to war in Syria.

In the end, aren't the president's personal convictions all that prevent any military operation from escalating?

It's a fair point, and I'm glad he brought it up. The answer, I think, lies in congressional approval for military action, and this is one of the reasons I think it's so important. If Obama is truly serious about not sending combat troops into ISIS-held areas in Iraq, then let's get a congressional resolution that puts that in writing. Let's get an authorization for war that spells out a geographical area; puts a limit on US troop deployments; and specifically defines what those troops can do.

Would this be airtight? Of course not... But nothing is airtight—nor should it be. It's always possible that events on the ground really will justify stronger action someday. However, what it does do is simple: It forces the president to explicitly request an escalation and it forces Congress to explicitly authorize his request. At the very least, that prevents a slow, stealthy escalation that flies under the radar of public opinion.

Presidents don't like having their actions constrained. No one does. But in most walks of life that deal with power and the use of force, we understand that constraint is important. Surely, then, there's nowhere it's more important than in matters of war and peace. And that's one of the reasons that congressional authorization for war is so essential.

ISIS did heinously execute two Americans that were already in Syria, and they should be punished for that. However, as Zack Beauchamp pointed out, the President implicitly noted that they are not a significant threat to the United States and there is no immediate crisis preventing getting congressional authorization. Syria continues to be an extremely challenging foreign policy problem and as Marc Lynch summarizes, the political science research on the civil wars does not support the idea that we could have just fixed it by intervening to a greater extent:

Would the United States providing more arms to the FSA have accomplished these goals? The academic literature is not encouraging. In general, external support for rebels almost always make wars longer, bloodier and harder to resolve (for more on this, see the proceedings of this Project on Middle East Political Science symposium in the free PDF download). Worse, as the University of Maryland’s David Cunningham has shown, Syria had most of the characteristics of the type of civil war in which external support for rebels is least effective. The University of Colorado’s Aysegul Aydin and Binghamton University’s Patrick Regan have suggested that external support for a rebel group could help when all the external powers backing a rebel group are on the same page and effectively cooperate in directing resources to a common end. Unfortunately, Syria was never that type of civil war.

So put me in the skeptic camp on the benefits of striking Syria. I was less skeptical with the war in Libya, but I take the same position now as I did then: if the President thinks this is a good idea, then take it to Congress. It's in the Constitution for a good reason and there aren't any circumstances that prevent it. Were I in Congress, I'd be inclined to vote no absent notable constraints. However, I'm in the minority there apparently, so what's the harm in asking?

Travelogue resumes tomorrow. Tonight, congratulations to the winners

Not all the races I’m watching are done yet, but from what’s known I’ll be happy to support Maryland’s (and specifically Montgomery and Howard’s) slate of Democratic candidates. This isn’t that surprising of a result to me, as most of the races had a lot of strong contenders and even many of the candidates that did not make the cut this year should be proud on a race well run.

I feel rather lucky to be alive in this period of Maryland history. There’s still a general election to win, but I think the theme for the next four years really has to be state-level execution. We’ve made some real strides, but the Silver Spring Transit Center and the first round of Health Care website problems show that we can sometimes mess ourselves up without needing much help from Republicans. We have a chance to be a hopeful example to a divided nation, but we have to bring our A-game. Let’s start by building the Purple Line now!

Japan travel blogging resumes tomorrow. Good night and good luck.

Travelogue interruption: MD primary endorsements and Vote411 plug

I’m rather happy with my choices this year. Maryland, my present home of Howard County, and my birthplace of Montgomery County have all been well governed for the past few years. There’s been a exception or two, mostly notably the health care website, but it seems like that’s under control now.

So, if you have any races you still need information on, allow me to recommend Vote411.org. That has the candidates answers to pertinent questions for races at all levels of the ballot. That’s not just MD, check it out for any U.S. election (though obviously many elections have already happened or may not be tomorrow).

So, speaking strictly for myself, and not for my organizations or employer, and certainly not for the League which doesn’t do endorsements, here’s the Action Committee for Transit scorecard for Montgomery County and various statewide races (scroll to the second page for state government stuff). One of the candidates did object to the scoring, here’s a discussion by David Alpert of GGW on what goes into that sort of thing.

If you favor building the Purple Line, now, then please allow me to point you towards two County-Council-At-Large candidates in particular: George Leventhal and Hans Riemer. Both have been with us from the start and  push for the line even when inconvenient. As the ACT scorecard shows, the Purple Line has many friends in Montgomery and I’m grateful to all of them. However, I wanted to emphasize those two as I hear the at-large race is pretty competitive this year and I want to be sure they stick around.

Hope your election day experience is or was a good one and that turnout is high for an off-year.

I know what all the fighting is for

At long last, after years of vitriolic opposition, America is finally joining the ranks of the other developed nations and offering a rudimentary form of universal health care to her citizens. While there’s sure to be some rollout technical glitches and such, HealthCare.Gov, the site for those without employer plans to comparison shop for healthcare insurance and see what subsidies are available, is now online. [The plans, start on January 1, 2014, so most people will probably wait until December, but consumers can start checking them out now.]

So between now and the 2014 elections, the public will get a chance to try  out the Affordable Care Act and see if they like it. If they do, then universality will be the foundation for our healthcare system. If they don’t, then Democrats will lose big, as we should. A minority of House Republicans, with the backing of the Speaker, are utterly desperate to prevent the public from seeing the benefits of a law that has already passed. That is what the government shutdown fight is about and what the debt ceiling fight is about.

Kevin Drum puts it best:

The Republican Party is bending its entire will, staking its very soul, fighting to its last breath, in service of a crusade to....

Make sure that the working poor don't have access to affordable health care. I just thought I'd mention that in plain language, since it seems to get lost in the fog fairly often. But that's it. That's what's happening. They have been driven mad by the thought that rich people will see their taxes go up slightly in order to help non-rich people get decent access to medical care.

But they are failing. We held the line. Now we just have to minimize the damage that their sabotage will do to the nation.

As ever, speaking for myself, and not the employer. Title from a catchy Ari DeFranco song that Monica introduced me to. [It isn’t actually that appropriate to this crisis, but I like the song. I’ve also fixed a few typos(with Kate’s help) after posting.]

Halt our aid to Egypt

Technorati Tags: Egypt,Foreign Assistance,Massacre

Cutting off aid is mandated by law after a coup. As a general principle, I’m not fond of the executive branch overriding or evading constitutional laws. Nonetheless, I think the administration’s buying time by not making a declaration may have been forgivable if the Egyptian government took the deal that the U.S. and partner nations mediated with the Muslim Brotherhood.

But efforts to prevent the crackdown failed. Jay Ulfelder puts it in quantitative perspective:

According to a story in this morning’s New York Times, the crackdown that began a few days ago “so far has killed more than 1,000 protesters.”

This puts Egypt in rare and sullied company. Since World War II, the world has only seen onsets of about 110 of these episodes, and fewer than a handful of those onsets occurred after 2000: in Sudan in 2003 (Darfur) and again in 2011 (South Kordofan);  in Sri Lanka in 2009; and in Syria since 2011.

Thus, I think we should obey the law and cut off non-democracy building aid to Egypt (which is the vast majority of our aid; even our non-military aid is mostly economic). We need not oppose their attempts to gain IMF aid nor seek sanctions against them, but unless and until the distant prospect of a genuine civilian democratic rights-respecting government emerges we must cut them off as a client.

The expert I trust most on these issues is  Marc Lynch, although I recommend the Arabist for a great collection of regional reactions on Middle East issues, with the note that I will regularly disagree with some of the sources they pull in but it’s important to be aware of opinions you disagree with. Lynch also has his own round up over on Foreign Policy. Now that I’ve laid out my sources, I feel I can safely endorse Lynch’s pessimistic read of the effects of cutting of aid:

These steps won't matter very much in the short term. Cairo has made it very clear that it doesn't care what Washington thinks and the Gulf states will happily replace whatever cash stops flowing from U.S. coffers. Anti-American incitement will continue, along with the state of emergency, violence and polarization, the stripping away of the fig leaf of civilian government, and the disaster brewing in the Sinai. It won't affect Secretary of State John Kerry's Israel-Palestine peace talks and the Camp David accords will be fine, too; Gen. Abdel Fattah al-Sisi can't manage his own streets, and it's unlikely he wants to mess with Israel right now.

The hard truth is that the United States has no real influence to lose right now anyway, and immediate impact isn't the point. Taking a (much belated) stand is the only way for the United States to regain any credibility -- with Cairo, with the region, and with its own tattered democratic rhetoric.

The benefits may go beyond a slow start on restoring credibility, based on my past research on Egyptian aid. Past research by Steven Finkel for the U.S. Agency for International Development (PDF) found that democracy aid can be effective, but tends to be undermined in countries where the majority of aid goes to the military. That result is probably over-determined, but I’ve got one hypothesis I hope to explore in future work: namely that military aid is not apolitical in countries with weak civilian control of the military and in which the military is a major economic actor. Egypt certainly fits that bill on both fronts. While I don’t see them allowing real U.S. democracy building aid again anytime soon, we should stop giving the military an edge against other actors. Should we restore aid at some point in the future, the current approach to Pakistan where assistance is not funneled through the military may be a helpful model. Of course, if we move away from military assistance, that may hurt U.S. arms exports, but I think that’s a correct prioritization.

Finally, on a personal note, I suspect many of the people I met in Egypt, particularly the Coptics, victims in their own right, are now backing the crackdown. Even in those heady post-revolution days when we visited, the military was often above criticism. Moreover, while the Morsi presidency was actively sabotaged on political and economic fronts, his party worked hard to alienate and disempower everyone outside their immediate coalition. However, the coup was ill-advised because wide-spread violence was a predictable - and predicted - effect. With hope for reconciliation off the table and the U.S. distrusted on all sides, we are not in a position to make a positive impact, but we can start by not being complicit in a bloody mistake.

As ever, speaking for myself and not my employer.

2013-03-18&19 Tel Aviv Beach and the Trip to Jaffa

Tel Aviv is a beach town, not merely temperate and on the water. It has ample sandy shores immediately adjacent to downtown. Perhaps surprisingly, the beach monuments were among most political ones I noticed during my trip.

Tel Aviv is a young city, barely a hundred years old, but that's long enough. There were monuments to the Aliyah Bet effort from 1934 to 1948 to evacuate Jews from Mediterranean countries in defiance of a British restriction on their then-colony. There was another monument to the Altalena affair, a clash shortly after the British left between the recently formed Israeli Defense Force and a Jewish paramilitary group. The rest of the beach seemed apolitical, so perhaps this was just a coincidence of my hotel placement, but the underlying reality is that shores are often borders.

The other time politics notably intruded from the landscape was a trip to the kibbutz cemetery that took us closer to the West Bank. Like Canada, Israel is a bilingual nation, so there is both Hebrew and Arabic on highway signs. That said, unlike the vehement bilingualism I remember from Quebec, in Tel Aviv I mostly saw Hebrew and English (which seems in keeping with the education system). Guy was generally less political on most matters than I am, although he made clear that he was rather frustrated with the current state of Israeli politics, particularly the current generation of leadership.

However, don't let the politics discussion deter you.  Both of my walks on the beach were lovely and the trip south to Jaffa was delightful. Surfers took advantage of the waves and trained on the beach. Small sailboats dotted the horizon. The buildings of Tel Aviv are a varied architectural backdrop from the skyscrapers of downtown to the mosque down by Jaffa. The last part of the walk was through parkland as the beach gave way to a rocky  shore.  

According to my walk book, the best time to do it would be sunset. That's probably right, but don't let that deter you if the timing doesn't work out. The journey is well worth it during the day, all the more so because it ends in Jaffa: the millennia-old sister to Tel Aviv, historical port to Jerusalem, Turkish-rebuilt hill city, and subject of my next post.

Marylanders: Please tell Senator Cardin not to back down on stopping filibuster abuse

Update: The Baltimore office at least was closed on Thursday 1/3 but will be open tomorrow 1/4. The vote will be on [1/22], post-inauguration, although calling sooner is still probably better.

Senator Cardin apparently may be part of a bipartisan group opposing bringing democracy and effectiveness to the U.S Senate. In doing so, he risks blowing our one opportunity for the next two years to make progress. I had the alarm raised for me via email, but the story checks out according to Ben German of `the Hill:

A bipartisan group is offering Senate leaders a political compromise on filibuster reform as Democrats push to change rules that frequently require 60 votes to pass bills.

The group met Friday morning in the office of Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), the Senate’s No. 2 Republican, and plans to present its idea to the separate caucuses later in the day…

Lawmakers involved in the ad-hoc group, in addition to Kyl, Alexander and Cardin, include Sens. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.) and Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and, according to The Huffington Post, Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.).

The filibuster as presently constituted does not work with European style parliamentary politics and as a result the Senate can't get anything done. The alternative to an effective legislature is not some panacea of democracy: it is the accrual of power to the executive branch. This is true whether the President is Republican or Democrat.

The Progressive Change Campaign Committee is leading up a call drive to push for real reform; if you follow this link, they'll get you the phone numbers and information you need.

In summary, I'll hand the floor to Ezra Klein:

[The McCain proposal] is filibuster reform for people who don’t want to reform the filibuster.

In other words, it wouldn’t do much of anything. Unlike Sen. Tom Harkin’sreform proposal, it wouldn’t change the number of votes needed to break a filibuster. Unlike Sen. Jeff Merkley’s reform proposal, it wouldn’t require the minority to actually hold the floor and talk. And perhaps most importantly, it wouldn’t use “the constitutional option,” thus protecting the precedent that changing Senate rules requires a two-thirds vote rather than a simple majority.

If you think the Senate is pretty much working well as is, and the biggest threat are the folks who want to change the rules, then this is the proposal for you. It lets people say they’re doing something to curb the abuse of the filibuster without actually doing anything at all. But if you think the Senate is broken, there’s nothing in here that would even plausibly fix any of its problems.

If you care about this issue, please call soon.

The U.S. Assault death rate is remarkably high

Thankfully, things do seem to be getting better on the overall assault death score. Nonetheless, it's vital to remember that the problem we face is far larger than even the terrible heart rending massacres. The chart below from Keiran Healy includes all assault deaths with gun deaths being a key driver. Of course, guns are not autonomous drones, they don't kill people of their own volition. Instead guns make it easy to kill people.

Ezra Klein has a good round up of facts about gun massacres. Whenever one of these occurs, you see suggestions that the solution is more guns. If that were true, wouldn't the U.S. be safer than other countries because we already have so many guns? Gun massacres, while being increasingly common in the U.S. still make up only a small percentage of the total annual blood toll our gun culture charges. At best, suggestions that we arm everyone would decrease the number of guns massacres while increasing the number of routine assaults which would naturally up the death toll.

But what about Switzerland and Israel?

Ezra Klein: Israel and Switzerland are often mentioned as countries that prove that high rates of gun ownership don’t necessarily lead to high rates of gun crime. In fact, I wrote that on Friday. But you say your research shows that’s not true.

Janet Rosenbaum: First of all, because they don’t have high levels of gun ownership. The gun ownership in Israel and Switzerland has decreased.

For instance, in Israel, they’re very limited in who is able to own a gun. There are only a few tens of thousands of legal guns in Israel, and the only people allowed to own them legally live in the settlements, do business in the settlements, or are in professions at risk of violence.

Both countries require you to have a reason to have a gun. There isn’t this idea that you have a right to a gun. You need a reason. And then you need to go back to the permitting authority every six months or so to assure them the reason is still valid.

The second thing is that there’s this widespread misunderstanding that Israel and Switzerland promote gun ownership. They don’t. Ten years ago, when Israel had the outbreak of violence, there was an expansion of gun ownership, but only to people above a certain rank in the military. There was no sense that having ordinary citizens [carry guns] would make anything safer.

Switzerland has also been moving away from having widespread guns. The laws are done canton by canton, which is like a province. Everyone in Switzerland serves in the army, and the cantons used to let you have the guns at home. They’ve been moving to keeping the guns in depots. That means they’re not in the household, which makes sense because the literature shows us that if the gun is in the household, the risk goes up for everyone in the household.

The line holds and the ceremony of innocence lives another day

The Surpreme Court  decision on universal health care was a frightening near thing. Four justices voted to find the entire Affordable Care Act unconstitutional and appear to be preparing a judicial assault against the New Deal. Chief Justice Roberts decision stepped us back from the brink of a Supreme Court legitimacy crisis, a change made perhaps at the last minute, although still a decision that will complicate future efforts to improve national programs that are implemented through the states.

The battle now proceeds to the election. This will be a hard one, thanks to difficult worldwide conditions and successful obstructionism by Republicans in Congress since the beginning of the crisis, economic recovery is slow in coming. As Dan Drezner notes, the U.S. is performing above par internationally, but the average American voter doesn't grade on a curve. I have no special insight into how to win that election so instead I"ll look at the topic of how did we win this round?

To answer that question, I turn to Will Wilkerson, a libertarian with liberal sympathies, who seems scornful of the win in a way that strikes me as informative:

Mr Roberts observed the livid reaction to Citizens United, as well as the liberal freak-out over the mere possibility of a ruling striking down Obamacare, and determined that prudent custodianship of the court called for a light, conciliatory touch. Indeed, my hunch (and none shall doubt my amazing intuition!) is that Mr Roberts may well have chosen to join his conservative colleagues had the court not lost so much public goodwill following the Citizens United decision…

Thus, all that was required to avert a looming "crisis of legitimacy" was to uphold Obamacare, for whatever reason, and Mr Roberts seemed to have known it. Mr Chait and his partisan allies clearly dislike the way in which Mr Roberts avoided the "crisis" of their collective tantrum, but the great relief that has now washed over them will be enough to keep them from attacking with full force the "bizarre and implausibly narrow reading" of the commerce clause which Mr Roberts just embedded more firmly in constitutional law.

This is a tradeoff I will gladly take. Achieving universal healthcare is no mere battle in building a more humane, it is the war. As Kevin Drum argues, the distinction between activity and inactivity never came up before and is unlikely to come up again. The practical result is that we will have to call things taxes in the future, scary I know, but the present Democratic party aversion to ever using taxes is on any but the top 1% was already unsustainable. We may yet lose the election, but Roberts had the votes to end it here and now via what James Fallows called a slow motion coup and he choose not to. We are a better country for that and we are a better country because liberal politicians and pundits were taking Michael Tomasky's fine advice and preparing to come out swinging. As Wilkerson notes, this wasn't a one off preparation either, the vehement reaction against Citizens United may not be enough to  overcome the effect of big  money donors but it did better prepare us  for this fight.

In some ways, this recalls the bully  pulpit strategy of presidential leadership: appeal to the public to move popular opinion and pressure members of the legislature. Political science has not found support for that idea. However, in part because supporters are defending an existing law rather than trying to institute change via the court, vehement arguments seem to have helped win the day. I'll keep an eye out for any further research on this matter, as I expect the minority mentioned above will be back for future attempts to roll back the welfare state.

Usual caveat: Speaking for myself, not my employer.

Legend of Korra continues Avatar's tradition of excellent antagonists

Sympathetic antagonists are one of my favorite things in fiction, if for no other reasons then that they add variety to the stories. If the enemy is nihilist or totalitarian evil then their degree of success is just a matter of how dark the pieces is. However, if the threat actually has a sympathetic cause, in this case standing up for ordinary people in a city largely run by those with special bending abilities, then it is far from clear how things will shake out.

I don't want to get into too much speculation at this point. Let me just say instead that if you were a fan of the first series be sure to check out Legend of Korra. This is particularly easy because the episodes are available, with commercials, for free online. Coming in without having seen the first series won't tell you as much about the world and will indirectly spoil some things about the ending. However, if you don't have an easy means to get a hold of it then I'd say that the core plotline should be perfectly enjoyable and the 70 year time skip means that the world in question is a very different one.

Last Train Home

I've been stockpiling these for a while. Some probably merit their own blog posts, but my new years resolution for this year was 'no more backlogs.'

• Sara Robinson argues that we need to return to the 40 hour-week. Yes, techies too. She cites research that notes that we first adopted the forty hour limits for a mix of worker rights and productivity reasons. As a side note, I think it might make sense to extend the school day. However, teacher workloads and student homework assignments should be adjusted accordingly.
• Mike Mitchell cites great artistic advice from Ira Glass. The short version is that when you start on any artistic project your ambitions won't match your taste. However, by completing many projects you can start to close the gap.
• Fredrik DeBoer clips a bloggingheads.tv between Aaron Brady and Mike Konzcal arguing for keeping public universities public. This was in the context of the police crackdown against the occupy movement at UC Davis. This applied to a question at a Purple Line event this past year at the University of Maryland Campus. One of the student reporters had asked whether having the light rail on campus would allow non-students to access the campus at night (there's restrictions on those driving, but not walking, in). Fears about campus crime are not illegitimate, although there are real differences between having a car and coming in via transit such that at very least there's a transit driver that would likely see the riders. With that caveat out of the way, the question failed to recognize that public university campuses aren't a gated community, they are to serve the public.

This blog opposes the Stop Online Piracy Act

 

For reasons why, look to Ezra Klein's interview with Sen. Ron Wyden. The whole interview is worth reading, but here are key excerpts:

EK: What makes PIPA and SOPA cluster bombs? If you agree there is a problem, why aren’t these acceptable solutions?

RW: PIPA and SOPA, at their heart, are censorship bills and blacklisting bills, and they undermine much of the architecture of the internet…  What the bills do is say, when you get a court order, you can’t use the domain-name system to resolve to the IP address.

EK; When you say “resolve to the IP address,” exactly what that means. Let’s say I run EzraTube.com. And someone has uploaded copyrighted content to my site. What happens next?

RW: When you type EzraTube.com into your browser, your browser is asking Comcast to ask other servers where that goes. These servers basically act as phonebooks. What the so-called “DNS remedy” in the bill does is enable the attorney general to get a court order that tells Comcast, ‘when people want to find EzraTube.com, don’t send them there. Send them to a Department of Justice site instead.’ People who want to work around this would be able to. There are already third-party tools that use foreign servers or other domain-name servers outside of Comcast’s network. But that’s a problem because, for the last 15 years, we’ve spent all this time building the DNS system into a secure standard…

EK: As I understand it, another element of these bills is that they would move the burden of policing content to the Web sites themselves. Right now, YouTube, if alerted to pirated content, needs to get it down. Under SOPA and PIPA, YouTube would be responsible for making sure it never goes up in the first place, and liable if they missed a video.

RW: You are describing what I call the “turn Web sites into Web cops” provision. This is a provision that has raised concern about what this is going to mean for innovation. If you’re a small Web site trying to get off the ground and you look at that provision, you put people through this kind of legal burden, which will mean a significant amount of money for anyone trying something new, it will do a lot of damage to innovation. That’s one reason the venture capital folks are speaking out.

[Update: Now's a good day to contact your member of Congress. Probably no need to send more than a polite sentence or two or use a form letter, I'm guessing numbers matter more than the specific message at this point. In Maryland, Sen. Cardin at least seems to be responding to SOPA/PIPA concerns.]

Programming note: Since this is a typepad blog and not a wordpress one, I don't see a quick and easy way to down it entirely [and frankly my readership is relatively small so I'm focusing on a call to action rather than get the tech right.]. So this post is my means of solidarity.

What’s an anti-interventionist liberal’s alternative to Paul?

Over at L'Hôte, Freddie argues that the argument over Rep. Ron Paul’s weaknesses has been used as a distraction from the larger critique of American interventions. Robert Farley pushes back some on the specific Indonesian example Freddie raises. While I’m generally anti-occupation I’m not an anti-interventionist, but I think it’s important to keep them part of the discussion.

I’d first like to note a point of disagreement with the post.

Left wing politicians like Bernie Sanders and Dennis Kucinich have embraced discussion of foreign policy and civil liberties, and for their trouble they have been dismissed as unserious by the self-same progressives who now dismiss Ron Paul's ideas…

I do think Rep. Kucinich does tend to be dismissed, but I don't think discussing Sen. Sanders (no relation) is taboo. Ezra Klein interviewed him in August of 2011. Admittedly Klein interviews many politicians, but in May of 2011 he posted video of Sen. Sanders smacking down Sen. Rand Paul. In June of 2011 Klein argued that the moderation of Sen. Sanders proposals, compared to Republican extremism, shows that the national debate is imbalanced. The Senator from Vermont appears to appreciate Klein's work and cited him from the floor of the Senate in June(Source: Fishbowl D.C.). Now that’s just Ezra Klein and is in a domestic context, so perhaps the specific objection is that Sen. Sanders foreign policy views aren’t really discussed.

That objection aside, the question Freddie raises at the end is well worth addressing:

I want those who profess belief in liberalism and egalitarianism to recognize that they are failing those principles every time they ignore our conduct overseas, or ridicule those who criticize it. What I will settle for is an answer to the question: what would they have us do? If you can't find it in you to accept our premises, at least consider what you would do if you did. For those of us who oppose our country's destructive behavior, there is no place to turn that does not result in ridicule…

I think the solution is primary challenges for members of Congress. Matt Yglesias and Freddie have disagreed about this point before but I think the key argument for congressional challenges is that they have a proven track record. The various conservative groups that now make up the Tea Party make regular use of primary challenges and have been rewarded with increasing ideological consistency in Republican Party.

This isn’t to say they haven’t overreached and cost the Republican party seats, it’s a tactic with clear limits. However, I think the experience on the Republican side, see the 1992 election, also indicates that Congressional challenges are far less likely to backfire than Presidential ones. Working on getting state government elected officials is generally a good idea but obviously isn’t that helpful for shifting foreign policy.

I think clear and enforceable red lines are another fairly effective technique. This means picking certain issues where disagreeing with your group means denial of funding or even actively supporting a replacement candidate. Part of the reason there’s such strong pushback against Rep. Paul is that he impressively manages to violate the redlines of almost every member of the liberal coalition. In the 2008 election, I’d say the anti-interventionist made fairly effective use of support for the Iraq war as a redline issue which is part of what got President Obama the nomination. I think that electoral effort deserves part of the credit for the fact that we’re did comply with our treaties and withdrawal the U.S. military (if not contractors) from Iraq.

This is actually an area where a fair amount of popular support is potentially available as both the war in Iraq and in Afghanistan lost popular support well before they lost elite support. Dan Drezner has argued that realism rather than liberal internationalism has more support among the American populace. To be sure, realism is not primarily concerned with preventing U.S. complicity in overseas violence but it is fairly consistently anti-interventionist in a way that does check liberal and neocon hawkery. I’d advise finding one or two policy statements that have support from a strong majority or vehement plurality in a fair number of states or Congressional districts. The anti-war movement probably doesn’t have the clout to raise their own challengers, but such criteria, if publicly applied, could help leverage existing resources by targeting them all at one race.

I think it would also be fair to withhold funding from any candidates, including President Obama, that violate your redlines. While I do have some strong objections to some of President Obama’s actions on civil liberties and foreign policy, I’m still willing to donate to him. However, I think redirecting donations of time or money away from a sitting Presidential candidate, even in a tough race, is a perfectly valid tactic for anti-interventionists. We all have to pick priorities.

Impressions: In the Loop

Perhaps surprisingly, satire isn't really my genre. Nonetheless, I did enjoy In the Loop, a film take on the British series In the Thick of It, which I still have yet to see and really should.

The film covers the period of the lead-in to the Iraq War and thus unsurprisingly depicts a steady series of failures of politics. There's a fair range of personalities, none of whom cover themselves in glory, but who generally manage to ring true. The film also has an interesting comparative politics angle, as it looks at executive branch politics on the U.S. side while looking at the parliamentary politics angle on the British side.

Perhaps one of the better uses of the film is to better prepare ambitious naïfs to as to what they might be getting into. The title gets to the core challenge: staying in the loop, particularly if your tradecraft needs work, has high costs. The petty compromises the characters fall prey to are far more pervasive than even the commonly-depicted adulterous affairs of candidates, let alone the overly complex conspiracy theories of most political thrillers.

On the downside, the film certainly did not leave my wife feeling favorably inclined to my field of study or industry, but again, it's a film about the lead-up to the Iraq War; we know how that one turns out.

Happy Independence Day

I've seen a few comics commenting on the oddity of the date, putting it at the start of the war and noting that it was still a premise and not a realized concept as of July 4th, 1776. I think the former is wrong, as the war had already started by the time of the declaration. The latter misses the point for humorous effect. The success of the Revolutionary war was critical for the U.S., of course. However, it was the principles of the Declaration of Independence, a document that was addressed to a global audience and that has proven a template for subsequent revolutions, that was truly important. While not flawless, I would even say that it would be the founding document most worth of celebration in its original form.

Now, for a song selection inspired by the Capital 4th fireworks tonight. Sadly the Takoma Park ones I'd meant to attend were scuttled by light rain.

Finally, happy second anniversary, Kate.

Passing through Tahrir Square 2011-04-17

Our trip to the Egyptian Museum took us through Tahrir Square twice, due to confusion about which entrance to use. The boundaries were a bit ambiguous: square is more of a figurative term, it is quite active, and there's multiple entrances. That final attribute and its centrality made it a hard-to-cordon-off gathering place. There were also any number of large buildings bordering the area which provide easy roosts for cameras and snipers.

However, that Sunday, it just seemed to be the  vital center for the city's infrastructure, under construction but not revolutionary. As the news accounts have covered, the big protest day was Friday, which corresponds with Islamic services and, as a result, the main day off in Egypt. The prior week's protest had been preempted by the arrest of Mubarak, and I'm told that later this week the long standing and long hated emergency law was finally lifted. I don't know the status of the remaining political prisoners, since I've actually been catching less Egyptian news here than when I was home, but I suspect this should be a fairly effective sign of progress toward a more stable society.

The main exception to a typical city center square was the building that ha been the former home of Mubarak's National Democratic Party which went up in flames after the revolution started. Last I heard, there hasn't been any attribution of responsibility on that one, although the popular theory is that it was self-inflicted to destroy records. I've got no particular insight on that score, but I am rather curious what will happen to the building. It borders the Nile and is visible from the square, an it is obviously on a prime piece of real estate. I suspect whatever happens with the building, it will be a symbol of the larger fortunes of the party. Supposedly, this party has more of a chance in the upcoming elections as they're to be held in only six months.  With the exception of the Muslim Brotherhood, no other group has existing campaign infrastructure. However, that doesn't accord with what I've heard from some of the locals.

Underway to Egypt [2011-04-15/16]

As I write this our Egyptian Air flight is passing south of Barrington en route to Cairo. I'd flown up to JFK, which had a nicer terminal than I expected and an unusual system of check-in desks at terminal four that seemed geared handling large numbers of passengers and easy reassignment of airline slots. As expected, I had to leave and re-enter through security which seems unnecessary but I did enjoy riding the air train between the terminals.

I believe I've managed to pack everything I need, about twenty-five pounds worth in my main bag and fifteen in my backpack, a good portion of that being my laptop. I would have liked to have done a more research on Egypt prior to the trip, although my obsessive following of the recent revolution means I know a reasonable amount about the present situation.

Reading the complimentary copy of the Daily News Egypt does bring home Egypt's status as a country that recently went through a revolution. In the day's news: eight of twenty six governors were fired, former President Mubarak remains detained for questioning despite claims of health issues, the treatment of 35 detained protesters is debated and a range of tycoons and former government leaders find their financial dealings investigated or their ability to leave the country denied. Critically though, it's a state more thrilling than frightening, the future is still unclear but disputes are of critical importance but appear to be handled through political and judicial venues. There's still much to be settled, but there's always something cheering about legal consequences for those once above the law.

While it's doubtless provincial to say so, I'm still impressed by international flights. The Spartan outlook of Southwest, my domestic carrier of choice, means that the TV screens, meals, and excellent features like under-seat outlets still strike me as extraordinary. We got a nice bag of freebies including a practical items like a toothbrush and toothpaste and a sleep mask, the ever popular standby of cheap headphones, and, to my surprise, a set of socks. There's also an under seat Ethernet plug but I have no idea if it's active, I'm told by a friend that I have a shot at wifi on my Lufthansa flight home but for  now I'd say Egyptair has treated me rather well. Now I should probably get some sleep, as at this point it's 4:12 am Cairo time.

[Update: Marriage Equality won't pass this year.]

The debate is on now. Maryland has a website with live proceedings (apparently you need real player for that). Maryland politics watch is live blogging the debate. [Wagner reported last night that the House was still a few votes shy of the 71 needed of passage.]

Theoretically they could end up working out a different compromise, but obviously this would be a huge blow to the momentum. If you want to call or email, here's the info. Here's a set of links to the Maryland Politics watch page on how people voted on amendments. At this point, any messages should probably have the dual purpose of encouraging voting on the final bill and not giving up if this one doesn't make it through. Setbacks can become defeats to easily.

[Update: The bill has been remanded to committee. I'll close off with an excerpt from Del. Heather Mizeur's speech as transcribed over at Maryland Politics Watch:

"425 rights and protections come with a marriage license." Discussing medical decisions in a hospital, riding in an ambulance and other very personal matters. That's all we're asking is to protect our relationships and our commitment."

"Even if this bill doesn't pass, my wife and I will still be married whether [or not] you choose to protect us from tragedy."

"You can't stop us from loving each other. You can't stop us from pledging our love in from of God and each other. All you can do is make it worse for us in challenging times when life throws you curve balls."

"What we're asking for is equal protection under the law."
"Choose love."]

John Wagner calls it for the year:

The Maryland House of Delegates has voted to effectively kill for this year a bill that would have allowed same-sex marriage in the state.

[Update: Trimmed gratuitous number of updates.]

Could the Rifftrax model work for television shows that are purged of their original music?

Freddie over at L'Hôte raises an issue that I've heard of before, even if I haven't encountered it much:

I have recently fallen deeply in love with the British original series Skins, or at least, the first two seasons. (The show goes through different generations every two seasons, which is an admirable alternative to standard Saved by the Bell bullshit where people are in high school for a decade; I just don't know if I can watch different characters... too attached to the originals.) Anyway, this is a show that really needs the music it has in general, but most importantly, there is a use of a song at the very end of the first season that is so brilliant and unexpected and it's apparently just completely purged from the DVDs. Which is just not right.

He's aware of the bit torrent alternative, but prefers not to pirate. This reminds me of the problem encountered by Mystery Science Theater 3k. That classic parody show got the rights to old terrible films and then brutally mocked them. The trouble was, once the DVD era came out the license rights to old films went way up as suddenly reselling them was more of a possibility. The Rifftrax solution to this was to sell a soundtrack that could accompany a popular film that the viewer would buy separately. Thus it became possible to riff on films whose rights they could never afford, because the end-user was the one that did the combining.

I wonder if this could work with DVDs, particularly ones watched on the computer. The shows could provide an alternate soundtrack, sans music, and if  do some virtual DJing to play the relevant music off of the users computer or a separately purchasable soundtrack if they so desired. They're often songs we own anyways in this age of digital music. I suspect, in practice, we aren't yet to the point where it's really practical. I haven't watched that many films at home of late, but even, to my chagrin, I think I've only done one Rifftrax. However, in the long term, that may be a way to finesse this problem within the law. I think most artists are strongly motivated to have their work disseminated in their preferred form, so even if this isn't a solution that would be widely used, it could meet a need for both the viewer and the artist. Alternately, distribution mechanisms like i-tunes could offer two versions of episodes and do the license management on the seller end. It sounds like paying an extra buck to get the original unbowlderized version would be well worth it in this case.

[Update: In theory at least, electronic media provides a range of options for putting the means of production in the hands of the average person, allowing this sort of craziness. In practice, I think the ease of piracy may end up precluding this as a means of remixing existing content. Even if you're wiling to pay, it's easier to just do the illegal thing than to do it right. However, ultimately, music producers are pricing themselves out of a market here so in theory there should be some sort of deal to be made. Back on the first hand, the recent history of copyright doesn't give me much hope as making reasonable deals hasn't been high on the agenda.]

[Second update: A typo fixed.]

Review: Adjustment Bureau

The premise of the Adjustment Bureau is remarkable yet straightforward: a Senate candidate played by Matt Damon meets the potential love of his life played by Emily Blunt, only to be kept separate from her by a group of mysterious hat wearing men trying to keep things according to plan. I'd say the film is smart but not especially deep.

I think the film really works first and foremost because it actually takes the time to develop the characters of the Adjustment Bureau. Bland men in black would be an easy choice, as would scenery chewing, but instead Anthony Mackie, John Slattey, and Terence Stamp play subtle characters with distinct outlooks that are just trying to do their jobs. Similarly the rest of the supporting cast often exhibits more character than you see in primary antagonists in other films. Damon's Senator is quite a distinct character and his love interest Elise has enough depth to avoid the manic pixie dream girl problem. However, for me it was the Bureau that really enamored the film to me.

There were also many funny moments. In some ways, large portions of the film were really a romantic comedy. As with Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, there are genuine forces rather than plot-driven idiocy keeping the main characters apart. That intelligence, also shown in how the film plays around with its rules, allows for a fair amount of subtle humor and keeps us sympathetic to the drive of the main characters.

I don't think the film actually says that much about free will, but that's no surprise coming from me. However, I do think it is an interesting meditation on choosing a life in politics, authenticity, chasing greatness, and the opportunity cost of the big choices we make in life. The aspiring senator's political aspirations are fairly content-free, although that's part of the point. To some extent the public, and I definitely include myself and other wonks in that, may play the role of an Adjustment Bureau trying to build our perfect candidate at potentially great cost to themselves. I wonder to what extent that element resonates in countries that don't have a presidential political system.

How to support the same sex marriage bill in Maryland

The news is a bit better than Tuesday, from what I've heard from informed sources, the Speaker of the House of Delegates is now fully engaged and the bill should be able to get out of committee. The Governor has similarly again said he will sign the bill and called on the House of Delegates to pass it. However, that there will also be a floor fight which means that getting additional support from anywhere in Maryland will be valuable. If you want to help get the bill passed, today (Friday) really is the day to call/email and even better to ecnourage others to do so.

How to contact (A repeat from my past post):

Equality Maryland has website that gives call in information for your Delegate (the email option is relevant to the civil marriage bill as well as an anti-discrimination act) they also have one that calls your phone, connects you directly, and gives you a script, but I tend to prefer old fashion calling.  If you don't want to call, the email option is pretty dang easy and gives you a pre-written one. If you prefer going through the Maryland ACLU they also have an email option setup  to allow for quick action.

What to expect when calling/emailing:

There's a big mobilization, so many of the delegates are just letting phone calls go to message. That doesn't man you aren't heard by any means. Doing both phone and email probably puts the most emphasis, but even email does help if you're more comfortable with that. Some Delegates are rather cool about being contacted: one of my own, Delegate James Malone gave a very supportive response and seemed very happy to hear from his constituents. He'll definitely have my support in the future and he has my thanks now, particularly as he'll also be supporting the anti-discrimination bill.

Advice for contacting:

It's best to be polite. People have been known to be switch sides because they don't like to be harassed. Also, specify where you live, as delegates care a lot about people in their own district. The email links above give you a starting email, some alteration at the top, saying why you personally care, results in a more effective argument. That said, I wouldn't agonize over it, these are probably going to be skim so individualize and then send is probably the best way to go.

High value targets:

Apparently Del. Arora will be voting to get the bill out of committee but may be voting no on the floor. So further contacts from District 19 in Montgomery (which goes from south of White Oak to North of Glenmont, check http://mdelect.net/ to be sure about your district. Del. Alston from Prince George's District 24 is probably another good target as she's now talking about only giving civil unions and to be frank this is Maryland, we're one of the more liberal states in the union, second class citizenship for gays and lesbians isn't good enough. [Update: Del. Alston said in an interview with Petula Dvorak that she'd support a switch to  civil unions for everyone, getting the state out of the marriage business. That's a fine compromise but we're rather late in the game for that. This was really a discussion for back when she was co-sponsoring the bill.]. If you've got any friends and family in these areas, or just in a district where you aren't certain of yes votes, convincing them to call in can multiply your leverage on this issue. The House of Delegates is one of the easier bodies for citizens to influence as there's a fair number of members and they don't hear as much from constituents on these kind of issues. Try passing on some of the contact links above to make it as easy as possible but if they prefer to not go through an advocacy group you can always get the info from the House of Delegates website.

Arguments to use:

Maryland politics watch  has a good number as does Equality Maryland. Personal experience carries a lot of wait, especially when convincing other people you know, although obviously you know parents, relative, and friends better than I do. This issue has such momentum as when people get to know gays and lesbians in committed relationships much of the fear mongering just falls away. If you want to make a straight pragmatic episode you can argue to Democrats (and only Democrats), that defying the Speaker and the Governor is probably not the best way to go when it comes to securing other services for their constituents. Similarly, we're already recognizing same sex marriages from other jurisdictions, so there's the economic argument of wanting the money from the marriage-industrial complex to stay in Maryland rather than hopping the border to D.C.

[Update: Saw in an interview that Del. Alston is up for supporting civil unions for everyone, which is just fine, but we're probably too late in the process to make that switch without losing all momentum. But I wanted to properly reflect her position.]

Marriage equality needs calls from Marylanders living in Baltimore, P.G., and Montgomery

Apparently, from someone in the know, getting the bill out of committee in the House of Delegates is going to be harder than expected.

I'm in Howard, so I'm not as key at the moment but I'm calling in. [Update: I'm told that calling Del. Arora in District 19 may be particularly of use, if you live in that district.]

Equality Maryland has website that gives call in information for your Delegate (the email option is relevant to the civil marriage bill as well as an anti-discrimination act) they also have one that calls your phone, connects you directly, and gives you a script, but I tend to prefer old fashion calling.  If you don't want to call, the email option is pretty dang easy and gives you a pre-written one. If you prefer going through the Maryland ACLU they also have an email option setup  to allow for quick action.

It definitely angers me that we have to keep fighting this battle. But that's energy worth channeling into action. Gays and lesbians are people too, they can and do act as parents, and for those that want the full commitment their relationships deserves the acknowledgement of marriage as much as mine does.

[Update: I've called my two delegates. Went to answering machine in both cases. I left a message with my address (which is apparently important for establishing yourself as a constituent, hoping that they'd vote for the Civil Marriage Protection act and giving my own personal anecdote. Probably best to have something in mind like that before calling.]

Multi-member House districts alone won't reduce polarization

Yglesias cites research to knock down the idea that open primaries would get rid of polarization:

Primary challenges are rare, and turnout in primaries is low. Those reasons, it seems to me, explain why primary system dynamics in practice have few consequences for political outcomes. I think the reform that anti-polarizers are looking for is multiple member House constituencies so that we’d have one or two Republicans from New York City, a smallish block of white southern Democrats, a conservative Mexican-American from Texas, etc. Then I think you might find that voting patterns became a bit less systematically correlated.

However, he misses something big. Multi-member alone doesn't do it, you also need a voting system that doesn't work off a simple plurality vote. As the thesis of Flores over at Fair Vote notes:

Simply put, multimember districts, even when fairly drawn, can still dilute minority voting strength. This is due to the fact that a bare plurality could potentially determine the gamut of Representatives for the region, gaining a disproportionate share of political power. Minorities may once again be left without representation, especially when their interests differ sharply from the majority. Therefore, multimember systems can be strikingly similar to at-large elections, as both share the same unsatisfactory sweep tendency.

In the past, Yglesias had correctly noted that single-transferable vote would do the job. The tranferable vote makes it safer to vote for your preferred candidate by transfering your vote to a second-best option if your ideal candidate loses in early rounds; similarly 'excess' votes for candidates elected in early rounds can be transferred. And here I will add a slight caveat to the title, single transferable vote isn't the only way to go proportional, it's just a solid proven method.

For a practical example, look at Maryland's House of Delegates, which elects candidates in three member districts. However, Maryland generally uses  block voting which "is not a system for obtaining proportional representation; instead, the usual result is that the largest single group wins every seat by electing a slate of candidates, resulting in a landslide." Under a proportional system Maryland's House of Delegates would probably have more Republicans elected from the Democratic strongholds and I suspect we'd also see more realistic challenges to the Democratic party from the third parties to the left. [The third party element would add a wild card in terms of polarization, however since we're still talking about districts the system would still have a noteable cut off in terms of popular support needed to get more than a handful of seats unless they were organized on a regional basis. An actual Tea Partybased in the south east might happen, but in turn politicians like Indiana's Sen. Lugar would have an easier time of it in the rest of the country.]

Progress in the battle for Marriage equality in Maryland

My go to source has been Equality Maryland and Maryland Politics Watch. I'm a bit late to the party, but the news on Thursday was excellent:

Sen. Jim Rosapepe became the latest senator to commit to vote for marriage equality when the issue comes before the Maryland Senate. Counting Sen. Rosapepe, the bill now has 24 or 25 votes in the Senate depending on how one counts Sen. Joan Carter Conway with only one senator not yet publicly committed. In short, it should now have the votes needed to pass the Maryland Senate.

Maryland has been on a roll on this issue since Attorney General Gansler ruled that the state would recognize same sex marriages from other states. He's continued to speak out on the issue and in the last election, despite threats to the contrary, he didn't even have a primary or general election challenger.

While we're hardly the first state to take this step, I am still quite proud of Maryland and am glad by the strong support from Montgomery County that includes a variety of Chevy Chase officials that I'm more used to disagreeing with on Purple Line issues.

Beyond the point of no return in Egypt

From what I'm reading from a range of sources, mostly Twitter, it sounds as if the security situation has deteriorated in Egypt with many blaming the former security services for the looting. U.S. citizens are being offered evacuation. From David Kirkpatrick and Alan Cowell's reporting for the NY Times, it sounds like a crackdown order is coming:

But the soldiers refused protesters’ pleas to open fire on the security police. And the police battered the protesters with tear gas, shotguns and rubber bullets. Everywhere in Cairo, soldiers and protesters hugged or snapped pictures together on top of military tanks. With the soldiers’ consent, protesters scrawled graffiti denouncing Mr. Mubarak on many of the tanks. “This is the revolution of all the people,” read a common slogan. “No, no, Mubarak” was another.

By Saturday night, informal brigades of mostly young men armed with bats, kitchen knives and other makeshift weapons had taken control, setting up checkpoints around the city.

Some speculated that the sudden withdrawal of the police from the cities — even some museums and embassies in Cairo were left unguarded — was intended to create chaos that could justify a crackdown.

If enough of the Army cooperates, Mubarak could still get control of the situation. However, it would be a discredited regime that emerged from the rubble. We're now seeing an Egyptian population that is willing to stand up and choose its own destiny. I think John Quiggin is right in that we are seeing the end to the Arab exception [which treats Arabic nations as unready for democracy], although the oil rich emirates can probably buy their people off for some time to come. Yglesias highlights the key point (emphasis Yglesias):

The point applies most obviously in relation to oil. The idea that the US can legitimately use its military power to ensure continued access to oil resources rests, in large measure, on the (not entirely unfounded) assumption that those controlling the resources are a bunch of sheikhs and military adventurers who happened to be in the right place, with guns, at the right time. Without the Arab exception, the idea of oil as a special case, not subject to the ordinary assumption that resources are the property of the people in whose country they are found, will also be hard to sustain.

It is time to say that we will not support a regime that engages in a brutal crackdown and that free and fair elections are the only soft landing available. More important, it's time to call in the chips we have with the military to increase the odds that a crackdown order is not obeyed. The removal of the police forces made this a double or nothing situation; martial law without security services will likely prove reminiscent of the Tiananmen square massacre where police forces were similarly inadequate or unavailable.

[Minor grammar edits and a clarification on the term "Arab exception."]

Start reforming the filibuster

In an attempt to repair the broken Senate, Sens. Tom Harkin, Tom Udall, and Jeff Merkley are proposing a package of modest filibuster reforms that could be past by majority vote at the start of the session. Here's Ezra Klein summarizing the details:

But before we get into what might change, let's say what won't change: The 60-vote requirement to break a filibuster won't change. The right to unlimited debate, to speak until your knees buckle and your voice gives out, won't change. In reality, the rights of the minority won't change at all. In some ways, they'll even be increased.

Here's how the filibuster would change: Motions to proceed can't be filibustered because to do so is filibustering the debate itself. Filibusters themselves have to feature continuous debate and discussion. After a filibuster against a nomination is broken, there will be only two hours of post-cloture debate, as opposed to 30 hours, because nominations don't have amendments that need to be debated.

And there are changes to the Senate rules more broadly, too. Holds can no longer be secret, and the minority gets the right to offer at least three germane amendments on every bill (which addresses the Republican complaint that they are often denied the opportunity to offer amendments)

In essence, these would greatly accelerate the business of the Senate. This could make viable strategies such as forcing the other side to do a genuine filibuster as well as free up time towards any number of governing tasks. Put simply, being a legislature for a country of more than 300 million people is hard work and takes time to do right.

Both Klein and Ruth Marcus note that this may just prove to be the first shot in a set of filibuster changes. Marcus tries to spin this into a horror tale. My comments added in brackets:

Imagine the start of the 113th Congress in January 2013. House Speaker John Boehner's first act, once again, is to repeal what he calls "Obamacare." Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, invoking the Udall precedent, moves to change the rules to eliminate the filibuster, and his caucus - over howls from the Democratic minority - agrees. The Republican Senate then votes to repeal the health-care bill, which is promptly signed . . . by President Palin. [This is generally called democracy. Matt Miller can explain more.]

…The filibuster could end up being a useful Democratic tool to block legislation that passes the Republican-controlled House and could, with a few Democratic defections, garner a bare majority in the Senate. [There's this thing called a veto. In addition, rules making is about the long game not the present circumstance.]

…But one little-noticed aspect of the Udall plan is that, as part of eliminating the filibuster on the motion to begin debate, it would guarantee Republicans more opportunity to offer amendments. Sounds fair - except that in practice more amendments translate into more chances to force endangered Democratic senators to take unpleasant votes. In short: more fodder for 30-second campaign ads. [Protecting seats is not a higher priority than implementing good policy. If the Democratic Congress could have done more to improve the economy, that would have swamped the impact of whatever ads the Republicans wanted to run.]

This filibuster fight is about whether we want our country to have a functioning legislative branch again. The new era may be scary but ultimately we have to have confidence in our policies. The last ten years have exposed a broken system, an executive branch that reserves the right to detain off the battlefield without charge, assassinate American citizens, and torture without threat of accountability, and the last two years have shown that it is barely possible to govern this country with a supermajority. As Miller argues, if we do not move towards a majority-rule system now we can see our future in California, budget crisis after budget crisis while no party has the tools necessary to fix things.

“We are not bound to win, but we are bound to be true.”

Unlike that dark day of January, when for a moment just duplicating the Senate bill or passing a new bill through reconciliation seemed like an unlikely best hope, the strategy that emerged of the House passing the Senate bill and fixing it in reconciliation has brought us to the very brink of victory. My Representative supports it so at this point I’m just making a few donations for the final push.

Speaker Pelosi had been my last hope and according to Carrie Budoff Brown and Glenn Thrush in Politico, my faith was vindicated (article via @brianbeutler). This isn’t to say there’s been no mistakes, or even no unforced errors, but by God they’re trying and that’s all I can ask. I’d been worried by the initial summary of Obama’s summit strategy but it appears my assessment after being calmed by friends was correct and the tactic worked. I have to say, I had been disappointed by some of Obama’s choices, but he has re-earned my faith and based on his actions and speeches like the one below has led me to believe he’s found his footing on domestic issues in a way he hadn’t even back during the campaign.

Here’s the text of his speech via Ezra Klein (video from @ebertchicago). I’ll just quote the excerpt I put in the post title:

I have the great pleasure of having a really nice library at the White House. And I was tooling through some of the writings of some previous Presidents and I came upon this quote by Abraham Lincoln: “I am not bound to win, but I’m bound to be true. I’m not bound to succeed, but I’m bound to live up to what light I have.”

 

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Thank you leaders, that’s all I can ask for.

If you’re looking for where to follow the news tomorrow, Twitter is actually very useful for this purpose I find, my top sources: @brianbeutler, @fivethirtyeight, @jeffreyyoung_hc, @jcohntnr, and @ezraklein are the ones to watch.

[As a final note, I do strongly believe that if we win here, as the President says, good policy is good politics. Dana Milbank does a good job of summarizing why.  Given the economy, we’re likely to take some losses in 2010, but the voters will fight to protect the right to health care once they’ve had the chance to enjoy it.]

Ironic that the lunar bombing happens on the day our President gets a Nobel peace prize

I am actually pretty excited about the moon thing.  I hope we do find some good water sources.  The best take I’ve read so far is from Dan Drezner who I don’t always agree with but I think manages to be the funniest top-tier international relations analyst.  Here’s the start:

CHAIR:  Guys?  Guys!!  It's 2 AM and we've got an award to give later today!  What are we gonna do?    We can't use Jimmy Carter again -- he was our emergency winner the last time we were stumped!  If we don't do this right, we'll have less cedibility than the Grammys!!

MEMBER A (clearly drunk):  Hey, why not Neil Patrick Harris?  For bringing peace to.... umm.....  Hollywood awards shows?! 

Neil Patrick Harris does in fact do excellent work.  I’m also left wondering who Kanye West thinks should have gotten the Nobel.

More seriously, I do tend to agree with Ackerman that he’s got to accept it as a commitment to the destination.  Just be real humble in the speech and donate the money somewhere.

Well played gonzo conservatives

Conor Friedersdorf has been doing a good job taking on some of the crazies on the right, and I’ve greatly enjoyed sharing some of his American Scene entries for that reason.  As a result, I think it’s only fair to link to his Daily Beast piece in which he gives props to James O’Keefe, the guy who took all those Acorn videos and now slowly dribbles them out (the title’s overwrought unfortunately, O’Keefe is no Bob Woodward).  The praise does have a valid caveat:

But it would be folly for news organizations to ignore this story out of pettiness or snobbery. Though everyone involved in producing the ACORN expose had ideological ends, they used journalistic means to achieve them—in fact, hyperpartisan impulses that produce muckraking scoops are the rare variety that should be celebrated. Who cares whether a reporter or an activist happened to do the reporting? Everyone benefits when indefensible deeds are accurately exposed and the perpetrators made accountable…

He added, "But I also know how my journalist friends are going to react. And so my advice to James is this: You can put this thing out your way, but you should also offer the full audio and full transcript so that people can hear and see them in their entirety – sans edits. So they can judge for themselves."

A wise approach—I'm writing this column only after having read the full transcripts. (ACORN has said that the videos were “doctored, edited and in no way the result of the fabricated story being portrayed by conservative activist ‘filmmaker’ James O’Keefe and his partner in crime”—and threatened to sue.)

I’ll reserve judgment until the full audio is out there.  I do assume that there were also a good number of cases where Acorn offices properly rebuffed the guy.  Also, the whole scandal during the election was BS, there were Acorn employees who made money by fabrication registrations but that was registration fraud to rip off Acorn and not election fraud.  On the whole though, the organization does seem to have a genuine problem with people, admittedly often volunteers, acting in an official capacity at their office.  If accurate this is a legit scandal, firing the workers is a good first step but it is a reasonable expectation that an org using federal funds wouldn’t have brought them on in the first place.

In any event Friedersdorf goes on to propose allowing wiretapping of public servants, police, grantees and the like.  He accepts a subsequent suggestion to limit it to their official capacity (see Brits for why this is necessary).  I’d further limit it to only being able to bug your or your phone. 

Even official capacity isn’t that limiting and frankly sometimes negotiations should be private or diplomatic/legislative agreements would never happen.  I am actively considering being a public servant some day and while taping interactions with public seems reasonable, bugging my house, cell phone, or laptop would not be.  Also, national security and spying aside, without such limits it would be rather tempting to bug people for information about how to win a contract or the other side’s political strategy.  The limitation to journalists really doesn’t deal with this problem as that term isn’t necessarily that meaningful limiting in an era of blogs.

Update: Acorn has a press-release stating that in at least one of the videos the Acorn employee was basically satirizing the obviously implausible journalist.  The specifics sound likely to me.  I'd say that approach was likely a mistake, better to toss them out, but not a scandal by any means. (Hat tip, The American Scene commenter.)

RIP Sen. Kennedy

I think Fallows summarizes his life well, see Joe Klein for a longer form version:

A flawed man, who started unimpressively in life -- the college problems, the silver-spoon boy senator, everything involved with Chappaquiddick -- but redeemed himself, in the eyes of all but the committed haters, with his bravery and perseverance and commitment to the long haul. And his big, open heart. A powerful, brave, often-wounded animal at last brought down.

Ezra Klein also has a terrific selection of articles written about him.  Kennedy’s cause, aptly summarized by Harold Meyerson, was looking after the downtrodden and as back in 1980, the year I was born, he was already a forceful advocate for providing health care to all.  Sen. Byrd suggested naming the health care bill after him (via Ezra Klein).  It seems logical.  The best way to honor the dead is not pomp or circumstance but to advance the causes the what they consider the cause of their life.  It’s certainly how I’d want to be remembered.  There will be haters, but as Achenbach noted for all of Kennedy’s polarizing qualities the Senator was one of the best at getting compromises.  I heard on NPR tonight the story of how he helped Sheppard through the sanctions on the apartheid regime in South Africa, even overcoming Reagan’s veto.

Is multiplayer the key to engaging serious games?

Last was week the Games for Change festival where designers of serious games got together to discuss their nascent industry. One regular topic for discussion at such gathering is whether serious games need to be fun and what fun even means. Michael Abbott of the Brainy Gamer summarizes the discussion:

Perhaps games, and the audience for games, would be better served by design that emphasizes values beyond fun, but it’s clearly a difficult assignment. A notable undercurrent at this year’s festival was a sense that the current crop of games for change aren’t reaching their intended audiences. Most of these games are perceived by players as preachy, and even their developers admit they often fail to match the engaging gameplay offered by commercial games.

He also casts doubt on the idea that a new generation that grew up on games would be more inclined to take games seriously given his experience with some freshmen regarding his class on video games. That said, Abbott found hope in the increasing awareness of the value of connections with commercial developers. From my experience with documentary films, I do think production values definitely matter. This doesn’t mean that serious games should be high budget, that’s impractical, but they should have a professional look.

On the fun breakdown, I’m inclined to think engaging is a better word. To find an audience beyond the equivalent of textbooks and corporate training videos people have to want to play serious games.

Making serious games engaging gets to the mention of multiplayer in my title. Economics and political science both heavily involve themselves in game theory with the classic example being the prisoner’s dilemma. The mechanics there are not particularly impressive, cooperate or betray, but I recall little grumbling when people paired up to experiment with it. I think that’s because the challenge and competition of playing with another person can up the engagement value substantially. This could even be faked I suspect, but probably only for one-off games.

Link round up 4-29-09

Culture

• N’Gai Croal finds a Maureen Dowd column amusing I do as well in this case, though she’s normally not my thing.
• Brainy Gamer discusses Mother 3 (earlier games in English went by Earthbound) The story sounds great and much of it involves one changing community rather than hopping around the world.  Sadly it isn’t officially available in English, but given the raves I might get a bootleg.

Political Economy

• The Monkey Cage notes that Democratic Senators are easy to herd after all and provides the data to back it up.  I think this phenomenon hasn’t been more noticed because as both parties get more unity each defection becomes more important.
• Emmanuel Saez won the Clark Medal for young economists and has done interesting work on equality.  The top 1% had hugely gained of late.  It’s well established that the top percentages tend to gain under Republicans, but I wonder whether that relationship goes both ways and they tend to win more thanks to a larger bankroll.  Such a phenomenon would still be contained by the inevitable crashes brought about by the excesses of inequality.

Rights

• Kevin Drum defends civilization against the torturers.  This might be my favorite tack combined with encouragement to have a stiff upper lip regarding terrorism which isn’t that big of a threat to the U.S. to begin with (See Cold War, WWII).  Manzi notes that countries that torture tend to be losers in their conflicts.
• Andrew Gelman explains that contradictory torture polling might be caused by the fact that people tend to make a lot of exceptions when you offer them specific scenarios.  Thus we probably do better in a big picture debate.
• Justine Fleichner discusses the risks to women from concessions to the Taliban.  I fear some concessions may prove necessary, but we should ensure that Afghan women are at the bargaining table to defend their interests.
• States with more men than women extended the franchise first in case you were wondering, why Wyoming took the lead.  I don’t think political violence was as much of an issue when it came to suffragettes, but we should still probably study our history to learn methods for dealing with Afghanistan.

Power-brokers oppose enforcing laws against the powerful

Michael Gerson admits that coercive interrogation is a mistake, but thinks waterboarding presented a difficult dilemma despite the fact that we’ve prosecuted people for it in the past.  David Broder is similarly happy the torture is done, but thinks that enforcing the law is scapegoating.  Moving away from the relative moderates, Outlook had an embarrassing article that put forth a scenario where we captured Bin Laden and he had vital information about multiple nuclear weapons that were to be used to blow up American cities.  Tom Clancy and the writers of 24 wouldn’t run with such a ridiculous scenario, why is it on the front page of the Outlook section?  Happily Eugene Robinson, who received a well deserved Pulitzer, does make the obvious point that torture is a crime that deserves punishment. 

The basic logic here is straightforward.  American elected leaders and their appointees have the right to be wrong, to break the law when we’re frightened.  Richard Cohen made this argument explicitly, albeit in a manner completely lacking in self-awareness.  Those who favor unaccountability often also praise the pardoning of Nixon who clearly stated his claim that if the President does it, it’s not illegal.  The fact that these measures violate international law is probably not even a secondary consideration here, after all, who is going to make us face accountability?  Spain isn’t really powerful enough to do more than keep people out of Europe .  None of this is especially surprising and I suspect that despite the extraordinary nature of 9/11 the principle of the executive accountable only to the electorate isn’t going to go away.

This is not to say that prosecutions are the best way to sway public opinion.  Mark Danner argued in the Post that investigations, not prosecutions, are what’s needed to keep torture from returning.  He may well be right, enforcing the law is just, but that doesn’t mean it will always be the best tactic. This will not be an easy battle, as John Sides shows public opposition to torture has been dropping in recent month.  Even so, a thin majority to support investigation (Hat tip: Ackerman).  The support levels for torture scare me, but it does provide an opening to release all the information we can find that the CIA hasn’t yet illegally destroyed.

All in all, I pray we can win the fight on torture, but I do not believe that the self-correcting measures on American hegemony can prevent future disastrous mistakes.  A few months ago I attended a great talk by Spencer Ackerman that essentially argued that the tools of military dominance inevitably corrupt and that unless we’re willing to put some of those tools down the cycle will keep repeating itself.  I have no problem with American military superiority, but I think liberals will better spend their energy directing resources away from supremacy than in trying to direct the tools of military supremacy to the greater good of the world.  If torture is giving our elites this much trouble, how are we going to manage the tougher calls?

Defense of Selfishness

Jamelle [of the US of Jamerica] criticizes Andrew Sullivan for making a defense of our current health care system on the basis of innovation.  Sullivan notes that medication to deal with AIDs saved his life, so he’s supportive of that sort of thing.  He similarly knocks Ross Douthat as being overly sanguine about the impact of the crackdown on crime which led to mass imprisonment.

In fact, I’m bothered by Ross Douthat’s output for similar reasons.  Both him and Sullivan have a “gated-community” outlook; “acceptability” is regularly defined as “what’s best for me.”  And again, while this can make for compelling reading on issues which are quite personal, it also leads Douthat to - for example - describe our incarceration heavy approach to crime as “largely vindicated by events,” completely oblivious to the immense costs said approach has had on poor communities and communities of color (Which Ta-Nehisi Coates illustrates with a heartbreaking story of a friend gunned down by police).  Indeed, it’s precisely because of their “gated-community conservativism” that I’m skeptical of their long-term project of revitalizing conservatism by means of turning its attentions to minorities, and working-class American.  Doing so requires approaching policy concerns with a broader public in mind, and neither of them has really reached that point (though, in fairness, Douthat is making progress).

Ta-Nehisi Coates also has done a defense of self-interested politics". I tend to agree with him, although he's a better writer than I am by far so I'll just quote him instead.

I firmly believe that the case against racism is not just that it's unfair to black people, but that it doesn't benefit the country as a whole. When I look at the large numbers of black men in the justice system, I'm not very interested in how much the justice system hates blacks. I'm interested in whether our justice policy is in the best interest of the country. Perhaps, I define "interest" too broadly. I include in that definition, not simply your short and long-term well being, but how you want to live your life. I hear people say that they support "black issues" even when they aren't in their interest. Hmm, I guess. But that's like saying it wasn't in my interest to be a writer. I should have gone to law school. Certainly I would have made more money. But I include in my interest what I want to see out the world, what makes me happy, what makes me smile, what I like and love. I guess it's not in my interest to spend a whole day watching football games--I could be making money. But it certainly makes me happy.

I don't buy Sullivan’s argument that innovation would be sacrificed, but I think wanting innovation in part from personal experience is a perfectly legit motivation. The thing here is that those benefiting from radical new health care innovations are a minority versus those who benefit from being able to rely on health care being available. That's a majority whose interest deserve to be respected, but also kept in perspective. So long as he's honestly and clearly arguing from personal experience and self-interest I've got no problem with it. The problem is stuff like the dishonest No Exit article published when he was editing TNR which was full of lies about Clinton-care.

This isn't to say I don't think some people need to think consistently about the greater good, but I don't think those people will ever be the majority of the public discourse. Also, the ability to try move beyond self-interest is immensely helped by privilege. Hence the Red State, Blue State findings that the culture war tends to among rich voters.

The European Dream

Ross Douthat has a post that concludes in a way that makes me glad he'll be one of the columnist I'll be arguing against over at the NY Times.  (For a far more critical take, check out Armanda Marcotte over at Pandagon or the critics Delong cites.  I think that social conservatives make up a large enough section of the country that there should be some place for them on op-ed pages.  That said, if there's one the critics find that's a better writer or more trustworthy than Douthat, then they should feel free to name said person.)

How much do you prize equality and ease of life? The more you do, the more you'll favor a European approach to the relationship between state and society. How much do you prize voluntarism, entrepreneurship, and the value of lives oriented around service to one's family, and to God? The more you do, the more you'll find to like in the American arrangement. Where this debate is concerned, I'm proud to stand with Charles Murray - but I don't think that we should labor under the false hope that scientific advances are going to tilt the argument dramatically in our direction.

I'd quibble a bit with the wording.  I personally would substitute "alleviation of suffering" for "ease of life."  I tend to think Americans could use more vacation time, but I think work itself is very important.  Below a certain number of hours, let's say 40 per week, including unpaid domestic work and volunteering, we'd be better off increasing the amount of satisfaction than further cutting back the time spent.  People tend to go a bit nuts when they're outright idle for prolonged periods.

Second I question the term voluntarism.  I think it should be qualified to resource voluntarism or something like that.  Economic necessity can be as great a compulsion as laws and taxes. Also, regulating sexual morality doesn't really seem to be consistent with general voluntarism.

The other principles could all use elaboration, but I think as is they describe things pretty well.

On this one, I proudly stand with the European approach.  I also think that Chait easily has the better argument than Charles Murray (here's one of many take downs of his Bell Curve book) for the degree that his favored policies are based on empiricism.  Last time I checked, the American approach just plunged the globe into a devastating recession and America continues to be the only OECD nation that doesn't manage to offer some form of universal health care.  It does come down to what you prefer at some point, but many of our policies are so bizarre and counter productive that there's nearly pareto optimal European alternatives available.

So why aren't we doing something that would benefit postively most everyone?  Because those it wouldn't benefit would be at the top and even if it doesn't hurt their income it would decrease their relative status.  Yglesias explains:

In the US and in Europe, income level is fairly predictive of voting behavior and this is neither a coincidence nor the reflection of an abstract disagreement about the value of “voluntarism.” It reflects the fact that politics is, among other things, a concrete contest over concrete economic interests. In a broad sense, both the American and European models work quite well compared to living standards enjoyed in other parts of the world. But in comparison, the models work differently for different kinds of people because different people have different interests. I don’t think, for example, that America’s high child poverty rate reflects American preference for “service to one’s family” over “ease of life.”

The rich, not the poor, are more likely to vote their values (see Red State, Blue State, Rich State, Poor State).  That holds with traditional religious stuff but I think it might also explain the fervor of some rich egalitarians.  But I think Douthat gets at some of the competing values that are being weighed by the upper middle class.  Note that he says "service to family" not "well being of the family."  There's a difference between the two.  If individuals have access to resources they need to survive without relying on the family, they're likely to value service to family lower, aren't they?  Strictly speaking, we're also talking service to traditional gender roles as well, I didn't quibble with that above because I think even in the defenders formulation we're obviously talking about patriarcy.  In any event, their offering a pattern of service, we're working towards results.  This strikes me as very favorable philisophical ground to argue on.