Saturday assorted links


1) This link is pretty programmerly, but it ends with an interesting assertion. Or a fairly mainstream place to see it:

"Hot: Just-in-time education

Not: Four years up front"

It will be interesting to see if the programmers can lead on that, of if they are just off in their cognitive Idaho.

1. When did people start misusing "reticent" when they mean "reluctant"?

reticent (comparative more reticent, superlative most reticent)

Keeping one's thoughts and opinions to oneself; reserved or restrained.
(proscribed) Hesitant or not wanting to take some action; reluctant (usually followed by to and a verb in the infinitive).
Usage notes
The second sense of reticent has developed in the years since the end of the Second World War and is still not accepted as correct usage by all native speakers of English

The French word with exactly the same meaning and usage as "reluctant" is "réticent". So, the new sense of "reticent" looks like an example of a modern "sense borrowing" from French to English which are not unseen (and are quite frequent in the other direction, to the dismay of the purists of the French language).

@Joel Yes Google Translate gives "reticent"as the French translation of "reluctant" but they do have different etymologies. Reluctant ( Latin reluctari: to struggle against), reticent (Latin retacere: to stay silent). Reluctant refers to hesitation in action, rather than reserve in speech, thoughts or feelings. What would be the French word for the original meaning of "reluctant"?

5. Dangerously plausible. But if it was the plan all along, it was also the problem all along.

Yes indeed. Plan for them, problem for us.

They have had the plan for a while. We have not seen it as a problem for a while. Thus, it's a highly asymmetrical situation.

Incidentally, I well recall Clinton and Albright's negotiation with the Norks, and how ANY skepticism evinced at the time was dismissed accompanied by Dem chest thumping and chortling at rubes who dared to question the "deal" struck, which was of course violated. It is perhaps natural that politicians will claim credit when there is even an iota of a chance for some credit, but that was an egregious moment in our foreign policy history.

My fear is that Trump will thrust his chest out and proclaim -- a'la Obama regarding Iran -- that the problem has been averted, when it has merely been kicked down the road.

But hopefully Trump will have people around him who are skeptical of the Norks. But that will unleash the press on him even more, with the only question being, will he be accused of being a war monger or blunderer?

I think we understood. With NK and Iran, it is hard to choose "war now" when "war later" might be avoided.

And Iraq looks more like a warning than a proof of concept.

I'd agree with NK, but we've kicked the can down the road too far. Iran was idiotic. Not only do we not stop them but help them fund it. I'm not in the 'Obama hates America' boat, but Iran would be exhibit A if I were. Screwing up Iraq in 2009 when things were pretty good there I'd just put to idiocy and partisanship rather than maleficence.

Screwing up Iraq in 2003?

2009. Iraq was pretty quite, more so than a weekend in Chicago. Obama tried to glom on to take some credit. Then, against even his own advisors, he announces a withdrawal. >>chaos ensues.

It is a possible scenario but why is this the only path for North Korea? The regime wants to stay in power. They could still: 1- dismantle ( demonstrably) their nuclear program, 2- negotiate in return a peace treaty and the withdrawal of American troops and the lifting of sanctions.

So an undemocratic, authoritarian regime with a strong conventional army would be safe and stay in power. The US or any other country would have no incentive to go to war with them. There are plenty of countries with undemocratic authoritarian regimes that don't have a nuclear capability.

The events of the past twenty years have convinced the North Koreans that conventional strength is totally unreliable as a means of remaining in power. We forget it, but Iraq was considered to have a fairly strong conventional army for its circumstances; that gave it no chance at all versus a U.S. force. I'm not saying that the Kims are correct, but I think that their point of view makes pretty good sense, given that the U.S. has never overthrown a nuclear power but has overthrown several conventional ones, including ones that had previously maintained friendly / cooperative relations (Iraq in the '80s) or had complied with our demands on giving up a WMD program (Libya, prior to the Arab Spring).

Both good posts, but JCW is correct here. The Kims were not being stupid when they pursued and achieved nuclear status. And even if there's another way there's just no chance of convincing Kim to see it.

2. Discussion of higher education (teachers' colleges in particular), immigration, the media, the legal profession, the social work and mental health trade, the school apparat, 'white privilege', the judicial ukase, crime, school discipline, & c. pretty much absent. Yammering about 'college educated' and 'non-college education' without ever discussing the fact that the share of each cohort cadging a degree has doubled in the last 40 years. Stick a fork in this guy.

On May 18th, 2017 a Basqiat painting sold for $110.5 million dollars. The buyer was billionaire Yusaku Maezawa, founder of a Japanese fashion website, and a new force in contemporary art.
On May 17th 2017, the Cleveland Cavaliers beat the Boston Celtics 117-104. With less than two minutes remaining, Lebron James dribbled through his legs three times before overpowering Kelly Olynyk for a right handed lay up.

#5: This is true of a lot of gender differences, right? The gender gap for various sectors is higher in Scandinavian countries. Heritability of IQ is higher in more developed countries.

The more even the playing field, so to speak, the more the genetics dominate. Average is over and whatnot.

6. The players tribune stuff is really excellent. Why havent i heard more about it?!

3. I wander to what developed extent countries get better when they are simply not ruled by lawyers.

In the grand sweep of things, I think it is a good thing that we are ruled by lawyers (rather than, say, soldiers). But Anglo countries have taken this well beyond the optimum.

I dunno. I recently completed Ron Chernow's biography of Grant - a great soldier and an under-rated (a low bar) president. Also, Eisenhower was not so bad. Note, 20th and 21st century American soldiers are different from earlier and other-culture iterations.

Ronald Reagan was not a lawyer or soldier.

President Donald J. Trump is neither a lawyer nor a soldier. So far, so good.

Economists are greatly smarter than lawyers. An argument could be made that economists actually run America. They manage The Fed, which attained its present prominence through historic, monetary policy fiascos. Identify a lawyer or soldier that was able to accomplish that.

They manage The Fed, which attained its present prominence through historic, monetary policy fiascos. Identify a lawyer or soldier that was able to accomplish that.

The Fed has performed satisfactorily throughout its history bar during the period running from 1929 to 1932, the period running from 1945-51, and the period running from 1966 to 1981. With regard to the last period, the problems arose initially when Wm. Martin bowed to pressure from Lyndon Johnson. Paul Volcker's plans to re-stabilize prices formulated in 1979 had to be postponed at the insistence of another elected official, Jimmy Carter. As for the truly catastrophic period which ran from October 1929 to March 1932, it was a consequence of policy conducted in accordance with the gold standard. In both Britain and the United States, rapid economic improvement commenced almost immediately consequent to a devaluation of the currency. But hey, let's get rid of what works in favor of what sounds good (or sounds good to Steve Hanke) and institute a currency board. Worked for Argentina. Oh wait...

The country is run by egoists and sociopaths. Who tend to become lawyers on their way to power.

Correlation v causation wot wot

A bot could run the Fed.

& what DO those two hundred economics PhD's do all day?

> The bad news is that the liberal-democratic capitalist welfare
> state and the so-called “neoliberal” global order is far and
> away the best humanity has ever done, and we’ve taken it for
> granted. We could very well trash it in a fit of pique, and wind
> up a middle-income kleptocracy boiling with civil strife and/or
> destabilize the global order in a way that ends in utter horror.

The reason I preferred Trump and Sanders to Clinton was that politics around Clintons is so much like business-as-usual in India. Whereas even if we assume (on the basis of style rather than evidence) that Trump is equally corrupt, we don't get the media falling over itself to say "well that's normal, everyone does it". The fastest we way I see for the US to become a middle-income kleptocracy is for Respectable People to normalise corruption by making excuses for their corrupt leaders.

And this is still quite likely to happen. But the good news is that collapsing the global order and bringing about utter horror are not something the US is likely able to cause. China can -- but doesn't seem inclined to in this generation.

"Whereas even if we assume (on the basis of style rather than evidence) that Trump is equally corrupt [as Clinton]"

This is a heroic assumption.

Breaking up the clinton cabal was worthwhile.

Theres plenty of time left of course. But its not obvious to me that - once you clear away the sordid drama - that the trump era is materially worse than any othe republican federal monopoly would have been, in terms of lasting policy thats hard to change. In fact, the dysfunction and scrutiny may have actually slowed them down.

Note that Trump ended the Bush dynasty before that. Breaking up two family empires is quite an accomplishment -- even one would be outstanding performance.

Re bush. Hell of a good point

Good point; + 1

I a typically a huge fan of Will Wilkinson, but think he is making a huge mistake here by assuming that everything that we call liberal is the same thing.

On the first page or so he uses three different meanings for the word "liberal" and then based his argument on the ideas that these can be easily applied to hundreds of millions of people over a 50 year period without any adjustments or consideration. In the article liberal means:

1) What people call members of the Democratic party in the US
2) What characterises the post WWII political consensus
3) And one of the two results of Jonathan Haight's useful but simple political centrifuge

This leads on to think that there are two kinds of people in the word (3), that one side matched the US Democratic party (1) and that they align with all of good accomplished by humanity in the last 70 years (2).

Once you start there it is hard to get anywhere else. Oddly, calling Democrats Progressives may solving this problem, but it will take time

Yes, and the article doesn't mention the illiberal tendencies of the left. Bernie Sanders was somewhat close to winning the nomination.

And there actually are liberal (in the classic sense) tendencies among Trump and the Republicans. I'd argue tax cuts and deregulation that limit government fit the bill. Most of the appointments (Gorsuch, Powell) aren't illiberal.

Perhaps what is missing is more economics in his piece. It's the urban left that wants to ban fracking and limit building on housing, not the rural right.

Yes. That is part of the point I was trying to make. Liberal with regard to the Democrat Party is closer to a team name than it is to an accurate description.

Charitably, where it's not wrong, Wilkinson's article is really about how the West can avoid the appearance of an oligarchy and keep liberal values (whatever they are), rather than actually any meaningful attempt to reduce tendency to oligarchy, which is surely a product of high end wealth relative to the median and high levels of elite competition (relatively many elites, they have relatively much of the wealth and competition and status striving between them is fairly ruthless).

Actual concrete motivations to prevent moves towards narrow closed access orders, are not so much on the menu as affirming values (and their inevitable triumph).

3. How is Puntland, whose president has a GMU Economics PhD, doing?

3. “Economies governed by former economics students grow faster than economies governed by leaders with other education backgrounds; a result which is most evident for presidents.”

The economist spends the do-re-me and the next person gets the bill.

2. This was pretty good. I like this map as well, as it shows the empty places as empty. That reinforces Trump county as more eastern and medium population density.

As it happens, performance measurement is still one of the hardest parts of running a firm, and even those that are successful can do this very badly for years until it comes back to bite them. If anything, the part of the comic that is unrealistic is that the next level of management can tell the difference between high and low performers in all but the simplest of occupations.

The differences are more clear across companies: Someone comes in, and suddenly realizes that, say, the stat of system administration at the place is 20 years behind the times. Or that low level managers have no idea of what they are doing. The default failure case is the one we see at very large companies: They are reluctant to fire, so ultimately most attrition comes from the people that have far better opportunities elsewhere, ultimately leaving a large low quality firm behind.

Some companies want to avoid that by trying to have "fact based" performance measurement, but as anyone that has followed the Nunes memo can attest, it's easy to come up with very different judgements while being at least somewhat factual based. In those environments, aggressive reviewers that defend their turf lead to levels of intrigue that make sure nothing gets done. Then there's the Valve model, where everyone, in practice, reviews everyone, but that also leads to ugly equilibriums: Risky ideas go nowhere, and you end up with yet another immobile firm. There's also the terrible Bridgewater model, which shows what happens when you have a system with a lot of transparency but a lot of uneven power: Transparency helps incumbents.

I've been chasing good ways to do this all my career... andy I've yet to find anything good. Ultimately, this is the kind of thing where market-based approaches should be best, but who has the stones to do something like that? The people who have the ability to do this are the ones sitting at the top of an autocracy. How often do autocrats give up their power?

I've always enjoyed the film 'Kind Hearts and Coronets', and have on occasions pondered how useful a model that might prove to be in business. Especially when I've found myself in meetings with Executives who are possessed of a certain mindset.

Fix the culture, and the performance measurement system will take care of itself

(Easier said than done)

It took me an embarrassingly long time to realize that all the systems and tools i had been taught werent worth dingoose. Every problem i confronted is a human problem.

Some firm solve them
Most dont

Will Wilkinson on polarization. Good article. Lots to think about. But, of course, I think it misses the critical question. Why is there no dialogue?

OK, you live in your bubble and I live in my bubble. I know that what I believe in my bubble is not always right (mostly, of course, but not always). I think I am an exception. I think most people live in their bubbles and are totally oblivious to any doubt.

What we need is more dialogue, more modesty.

How do we get there?

Are you familiar with the conflict vs mistake meta-argument?

You are asking for problem solving in a conflict culture. It's like, how do economists refute Navarro on trade? You can't, because he isn't making a problem solving argument. He is endorsing a conflict. Any disagreement, cogent or not, is seen as "just the other side."

Great point, and very underappreciated.

The problem with (2) is he starts out basically regarding the non-city types as The Other Guys, if not The Enemy.

It's hard to a dispassionate analysis if you're starting point is "they suck, and I'm not one of them".

+1. Whenever the word “cosmopolitan” appears as an attempt to distinguish between two groups, you are assured the author is a bigot. In this piece, in which WW attempts to evince concern for the nation, ie displays nationalism, he also wants to claim that he and the better sorts are cosmopolitan which the dictionary informs us means “free of local, regional, or national attachments, a citizen of the world.” The articles implicit threat, “submit to your betters or else” is equally as awful. I’d guess this article iwoll net Trump 4 or 5 votes, maybe more if anyone else links to it.

And he completely ignores the reality of race and culture differences. Most conservatives are aware that openness to new experience in Britain means openesss to having your daighters gang raped and enslaved my muslim orcs, with the full support of all authorities and elites.

Since that "conversation" is not allowed by our cosmopolitan elites, because they enjoy pedophilia, you can't communicate.

LOL thanks for the even-handed, mature contribution to the dialogue. Dispassionate analysis indeed, Anon.

6 - As someone who plays more golf than basketball, I have an analogous approach. When I have difficulties with completely retaining the required muscle memory for keeping a long drive from the tee in the fairway, I go to the driving range and, dozens of times, over and over, practice a hockey-like very-low-center-of-gravity swing that looks almost like a fast-moving (uphill) shot on goal with a hockey stick. Jim Furyk's swing is sort of like that, but I do it with an even lower center of gravity (at the driving range, not on the course - unless, of course, I really really do not want to miss the fairway). I do not practice a higher-than-usual center of gravity swing because that would be ridiculously stressful on the joints and tendons, and also would look really dumb.

and happy 115th Bix

If the 8:0 PM comment were a second draft, of course I would have said " a long drive off the tee " instead of " a long drive from the tee".

Thirty years ago who knew there would be so much first draft prose being put out there? Seriously, can you name a close-future sci-fi novel of the 80s that was even close to being accurate on this specific issue? And they were writers, after all, all those people writing sic-fi novels in the 80s, and not a single one wrote a single line - not a single line! - about how sad it would be to be a writer, or a professor who wrote a lot, or just someone who liked to write, in 2018, and to be such a person and to be so tempted to put first drafts out there on the inter tubes, no matter what (Sydney or the Bush!).

Back to golf: The first couple of years I played golf I played on a course that Plum Wodehouse used to play on (it was a twenty minute drive from his house).

He was in his 80s at the time I don't think we ever played the same course on the same day but maybe we did.

He is a very funny writer if you have not read any of his stories give them a try. Imagine a world where Long Island is not the Long Island you think it is but Long Island is as close to heaven as two people in love - or almost in love, and trying - will ever get. None of his published stories are first drafts.

That is the essence of P.G. Wodehouse. (writing novels about how places like Long Island are not heaven but are as close to heaven as two people with affection for each other are going to get, while they are young and witty and in the frame of mind in which Wodehouse characters always are, God bless their hearts).

2. Wow, is there a lot of "I guess" and "I haven't actually found evidence for ___, but it seems plausible" in that piece. I quit halfway through.

1. Liberals will continue to deny signaling theory because they MUST defend the value of college educations for which their tribe dominates the ranks of the educators / administrators. Yet, despite such staunch belief in the value of a college education they continue to push arguments based on household net-wealth data from the Fed's SCF which clearly values the intangible assets of a recent college graduate at $0.

2) Wilkinson seems to change political views fairly often, and sound pretentious and preachy every step of the way.

5. Why would the United States need to attack North Korea if tested an ICBM? Nothing changes. Right now North Korea can use a submarine to bring a nuclear bomb to the US, bring it ashore, and then uber it into a city center. (Let's be realistic here, rental cars are expensive.) The amount of drugs brought in by people who don't even have proper submarines shows this is not difficult to do. But North Korea does not do this because they know the US would attack them if they did. North Korea would not use an ICBM to attack the US for the same reason. The situation stays the same, except North Korea has spent a lot of money on rockets instead of say food.

"Right now North Korea can use a submarine to bring a nuclear bomb to the US, bring it ashore, and then uber it into a city center. "

I'd like to see a video of North Koreans trying to put that 10,000 lb nuke in the trunk of an uber car...

If they have an ICBM capable of delivering a payload of 10,000 pounds they are doing well. The Minuteman III could only manage 1,150 kilograms. Polaris 680 kg. Little Boy dropped on Hiroshima was 9,700 pounds but only contained 64 kilograms of uranium. It doesn't need a parachute, it doesn't need fins, it doesn't need a bomb casing... so you can strip a lot of weight off the total. Then you just do the usual trick of calling a disabled uber to a quiet location and kill the driver. If your are lucky he will have enough change on him so you can stop at McDonalds on they way.

Of course, the hard part would be lugging up to the top of the building to get the air burst effect.

It's mental thing crikey.

#4 - bogus social science 'p-hacking' type story, also people's personalities change more the more they age, so unless you control for age, it will seem that older, developed countries have more 'personality' (the suspect crazy old uncle at the family reunion for example) than younger, less developed countries.

#5 has anyone considered that NK rulers are scared of the changes in China? The two dictators may not get along.

#2. America has polarizing because Democrats have moved far to the left from where they were in the mid 90s while Republicans have mostly stayed where they were (moving a bit left on some issues and a bit right on others). Democrats, on the other hand, have moved left on all issues -- and in many cases dramatically so:

I'm not sure why this has happened, but Wilkinson certainly won't find the answer by psychoanalyzing conservatives -- they're not the ones whose political attitudes have seen the big changes.

Right. The death penalty for drug dealers, but the left has changed.

Did you look at the surveys? Since the mid 90s, Republicans have actually moved to the left on half of the 10 questions:

- "Government regulation of business usually does more harm than good"

- "Government is almost always wasteful and inefficient"

- "Most corporations make a fair and reasonable amount of profit"

- "Homosexuality should be discouraged by society"

And even

- "Immigrants today are a burden on our society because they take our jobs, housing, and health care"

The moves on the latter two are particularly dramatic (20 percentage swings). In contrast, on those 10 questions, Democrats didn't move right on a single issue. Not one.

Does Trump's latest troll tweet that you've cherry-picked represent a general move among Republicans on this issue? Show me the polling data.

That's the strange thing, and the question Wilkinson tries to address. On those questions you've named, the conservatives too have made a turn in direction in last 10 years. Look again at the chart. For “Government regulation of business usually does more harm than good” conservatives have rolled over from their peak.

While Trump and friends pretend something way right of mainstream is mainstream.

That is our problem. This is not representative government.

Well, Trump and partisan polarization are two separate phenomena. The polarization came first -- before Trump was even a candidate:

And it was driven by Democratic, not Republican, moves away from their formerly more centrist positions. If you're trying to understand the causes of polarization, you need to ignore Trump, not focus on him. At most Trump is a product or side effect (e.g. Republicans will vote for anyone -- even Trump -- rather than Democrats who've gone as far left as they have) -- but Trump cannot have been the cause since it A) predated him and B) happened among Democrats rather than Republicans.

Absolutely not. Trumpism is a late stage de-evolution of conservatism driven by polarization along an anti-intellectual axis.

"Absolutely not. Trumpism is a late stage de-evolution of conservatism driven by polarization along an anti-intellectual axis."

I see a long list of strident partisan assertions in your link -- assertions which are not backed up by a single iota of data.

You already linked the data, you just prefer not to see (1) the hard turn conservatives took around Y2K and (2) how it culminates in Trump.

Look again at "Government regulation of business usually does more harm than good."

If the recent reversal is a trend, it might be that they are starting to see their error.

By the way, is kind of high comedy when conservatives say "this conservative government has nothing to do with us!"

2. Such a garbage article. Classic "lying with statistics". Derp derp 51% of group X with 3 other characteristics voted for Trump while group Y when living in urban environments tended to vote for Clinton...

And when your metric for group-identity is who people voted for in the last election.... let's just say that the "cosmopolitan elites" are woke on LGBT and immigration, whereas black voters are, maybe a lot less woke and would be considered alt-right if they weren't a sacred identity.

Reading Will Wilkinson was like watching a desperate child trying to pound a square block into a round hole.

The article reminded me of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin: i.e., we are all evolving as a species until we achieve a superior or ultimate state of being and can reunite with Christ. We are growing toward a point where we will have a collective consciousnesses were isolation and separation will cease, and we will unite and become godlike. Pierre just didn't understand that, per Mr. Wilkinson, meant we would all become enlightened liberals like him. We should thank Mr. Wilkinson for filling in the evolutionary gaps.

Or we can reject both as silly, if well-intentioned, attempts to unite their philosophical semi-religious preferences into some quasi-scientific justification. It just requires a lot of pounding.

Companies aren't reluctant to fire people for social reasons, or even litigation, but because their division's headcount would be reduced and they would not get a replacement.
I don't think companies have a way to hype people externally, with the possible exception of CEOs.

In a recent Intelligence Squared debate on China one of the policy experts mention "decapitation" as a possible scenario regarding NK. Another mentioned a scenario of a deal between the US and China (who are not thrilled with NK's nuclear ambitions on their border) where the NK regime is out of the picture (e.g., give 'em a couple billion bucks and set 'em up in Switzerland) and the north and south unite with no US troop presence or US defense alliance. The withdraw of the US presence so that China will not feel threatened.

Lots of possibilities, Uhlig's seem the least imaginative.

3. The Khmer Rouge was top heavy with economists.

Thanks for #6. He's a good storyteller. Has a rare gift for seeing his life clearly, seems like.

#2. I like Wilkinson's analysis but I don't think that the rise in survival values is due to economic materialist pressures on non-urban whites. I think the rise in survival values is due to the perceived cultural threat that non-urban whites perceive from cultural elites and immigrants in the cities. It's NOT that non-urban whites are poor or that the economic fortunes of rural whites are threatened, or that the cities are so much richer. It's that non-urban whites feel disrespected and culturally under attack. They think that urban liberals look down upon their way of life, and they also identify that way of life with "America" in general and thus interpret a threat to it as an existential threat to America itself. i.e. "The anti-American cultural elites are importing these foreigners because they want to destroy America. " This is something that a Trump voter would probably flat out state as if it were a fact. They will tell you, straight out, that they are culturally, not economically, threatened - although economics probably plays a role.

And, from their perspective, it is true - what they imagine to be "America" - a mainly white Christian version of it, IS threatened by immigration and by changing cultural values and demographics. It's just that their idea of what "America" is, is a fantasy that has never really existed. There have always been sizable non-white communities which just haven't been socially integrated into their America. They have a historical blindspot in which those groups just don't exist (in the case of Asians and Hispanics), or are marginalized into segregated communities cut off from mainstream society (in the case of blacks). Also, urban America continues to evolve culturally at a faster and faster pace - gay marriage is a big factor here, but so are little things like diet trends, quinoa, and chia seeds and for god's sake you better not be caught dead sipping on a latte, you granola eating hippie. (Yes, there are still places where drinking espresso drinks is the mark of a pretentious asshole). The environmentalism is a sticking point too - if you're not eating organic, your raping the planet.

IMO, all these little culture war things, and even the immigration, would be accepted better if urban liberals weren't such giant assholes about the moral superiority of themselves all the damn time. The reality bubble that the right has created amplifies this into the perception that urban elites are really out to get them. The social media sphere doesn't help. Virtue signalling doesn't help. Socially ostracizing people for expressing mildly backward cultural values (like opposition to gay marriage) doesn't help. All of that stuff reinforces the perceptions of non-urban whites that there's an existential threat to their way of life - or at least their claim on "America". Even if that claim actually does need to die, and actual alt-right racists really do need to be fought and ostracized - the left needs to stop using these tools to try to enforce conformity on stupid shit like baking cakes for gay weddings, GMOs, and school vouchers.

I think the most telling detail about the last election was that Hillary had only two staffers devoted to rural outreach. And they both worked in Brooklyn. That, and the still-puzzling decision not to even campaign in Wisconsin.

It used to be that the middle of the road Democratic voter was working class, culturally conservative, economically liberal but not leftist, and white. Now it seems like there's a strong aversion to even asking for that person's votes -- to the extent that ambitious young people on a presidential campaign don't want to be the rural outreach guy.

My view from 10,000 feet is that working class whites haven't been served very well by either coalition -- they're more culturally conservative than the Democrats, and more economically liberal than the Republicans. Trump made a bid for those votes by being much more economically populist than a standard Republican. It remains to be seen whether the Democrats are willing to make a bid by nominating a cultural conservative.

2. There are a good lot of obvious errors in this.

For just one, Wilkinson claims that post-materialist values - Self Expression values and Secular Rational values- tend to load towards interest in politics.

But actually what we find on the Inglehart pattern is the politics loads towards Survival values rather than Self Expression values. Which makes perfect sense - why would modern liberal consumers be deeply engaged in politics? "The Culture" is largely hedonistic and post-political.

The high politics interest values group are, oddly enough, the Russians and Chinese - Secular Rational+Survival values.

Comments for this post are closed