Category: Political Science

I, for one, have nothing new to say about Barack Obama, even though I am exposed to more news about him than any other single person.  I wish I did, but I don’t.

Do you?  Does anyone?  Comments are open, the stipulation is that you must believe what you write about him genuinely represents new insight; it’s OK if it’s already appeared on your blog, provided it is not a major one, or you can link to the thoughts of others.  Please respect our usual standards of politeness.

Will anyone have anything to say?  Should I hope you do or don’t have anything new to say about him? 

Ford, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Gore, and now Obama and McCain are all left-handed.  Call it chance or availability bias, but I’m still wondering.  Read more here, and thanks to Martin Weil for the pointer.  Here’s one on-line discussion.  Here is a brief survey on Wikipedia.  It is my general view that left-handers have higher genetic variance in a number of dimensions, so they should be over-represented in many different kinds of extreme situations, including the Presidency. 

Here is Ed Lopez’s survey article, here is the survey from Thomas Stratmann.  Overall the academics who work on this issue tend to see the practical ramifications of campaign finance restrictions as very often constituting less than meets the eye.  It’s also well understood that most campaign finance reform benefits incumbents, who already have name recognition.

The pointer is from Ed Lopez, who notes:

Consider two ratios.

1. In 2000 the federal government spent about 1.8 trillion (~18% of
GDP), and total campaign expenditures on all federal elective offices
was about $1.85 billion (about $1b on congressional races, $0.35b on
presidential, and $0.5b in soft money). So federal public sector
advertising was 1/1000th of federal public spending. Ratio 1 = 0.001.

2. In 2000 the private sector share of GDP was about $7.5 trillion
(after federal, state and local spending net of intergovernmental
transfers), and total private sector advertising, according to
Advertising Age, was $240 billion (Statistical Abstract Table 1251). So private advertising was 3.2% of private spending. Ratio 2 = .032.

By this comparison, private sector advertising is more than thirty times greater
than the amount we spend on federal elections trying to make sure we
get the right person for the job. Given how much we expect from our
federal government, isn’t it surprising that campaign spending isn’t
twice, or even ten times, more than it is right now?

Ed thinks that campaigns need more money flowing through them, not less; I don’t have a personal view on this issue.  Reihan Salam offers interesting comment on recent controversies surrounding Barack Obama.

Liberals tend to believe that sexual orientation is determined by
genetics but that gender-difference in behavior is not, whereas
conservatives tend to believe the reverse.

That’s Matt Yglesias.

Henry writes:

In particular, German parliamentarian Axel Schäfer’s comment that “With
all respect for the Irish vote, we cannot allow the huge majority of
Europe to be duped by a minority of a minority of a minority,” would
have a bit more credibility if, you know, the majority of the majority
of the majority had been given a chance to vote on the Treaty
themselves.

I can imagine a few other lessons:

1. Give people a referendum on a big question and they will use it as a chance to voice their general displeasure with many other matters.  New Zealand made that mistake on electoral reform.  The Irish vote was strongly divided among rich-poor lines.

2. According to polls, the Irish are not especially Euroskeptical.  I guess that is "Eurosceptical".  In any case multilateralism has limits.

3. The option under consideration *was* Plan B.  There is no obvious Plan C.

4. It worked last time (2002) to ask them to vote again.  Few people think that gambit can be played a second time.

5. One Irishman opined: ""We’re told we can vote no, that the system requires unanimity. But
when (a `no’ vote) actually happens, every time, the EU tells us: You
really only have a right to vote yes," said Dublin travel agent Paul
Brady, who voted against the treaty.

6. Some deluded soul in the EU read a copy of John Calhoun instead of Buchanan and Tullock’s Calculus of Consent.  Hadn’t they remembered the history of 17th and 18th century Poland and decided that a unanimity rule is a bad idea?

7. If European nations demand a unanimity rule (which I can well imagine), is that not a sign that they have a free trade area but nothing close to a real political union?

Dani Rodrik writes:

So the "us" and "them" characterization that Tyler attributes to irrational nativism perhaps has more to do with the absence of a common set of international rules on labor standards, environment, consumer safety, and so on.

(There is much more at the link.)  I was surprised to read this.  In the 1980s people were very hostile to Japan and Japanese imports, even though Japan at the time was quite wealthy and had relatively high standards in these areas.  I also receive a fair number of emails — some of them of the hate variety — by people who are suspicious of the rise of China.  I believe it is Chinese success which bothers them even though they sometimes come up with ancillary stories about unfairnesss.  These people are not less upset when other countries use capital rather than labor or when foreign production does not create much pollution.

Most of all, many people in poorer countries object to having to compete with America, with McDonald’s, with Hollywood, and so on.  Those objections are usually more strenuous than the complaints of Americans about a poorer China and of course the poorer countries tend to be more protectionist, in part for this reason.  That’s where feelings of unfairness are truly strong.  There’s nothing special about the "regulatory arbitrage" unfairness story and in fact it is one of the weaker feelings of unfairness out there.  In reality the entire past of the world is unfair but cosmopolitanites can look past that to appreciate the gains from ongoing trade.

Rodrik himself seems to object to when Americans trade with countries in which first world labor standards are violated.  But doesn’t such trade raise wages in these countries and also give a long-run boost to labor standards?  And where does the net unfairness lie?  Haven’t the Western powers — if only through imperialism — usually treated these countries much worse than vice versa?  Didn’t we steal Panama from Colombia for instance and take away a huge chunk of Mexico?  (Were Europeans so nice to the Ottoman Empire?)  Maybe the American worker ought to feel those folks deserve a bit of regulatory arbitrage (and that’s not what most of the trade is based upon) in return.  But it is striking how infrequently such a fairness calculus — whether correct or not — is even considered.  That again is because most people engage in "in group, out group" thinking.

The bottom line is that most people support their countries to a highly irrational degree in most international questions or disputes.  That’s just obvious — watch the World Cup — and yes Jonathan Swift understood that too.   

In a story rich with irony the Senate, led by Democrat Dianne Feinstein, has voted to privatize its restaurants and food services.  The House privatized twenty years ago.  The result?  Sort of like East and West Berlin.

In a masterful bit of understatement, Feinstein blamed [millions of dollars in losses] on "noticeably
subpar" food and service. Foot traffic bears that out. Come lunchtime,
many Senate staffers trudge across the Capitol and down into the
basement cafeteria on the House side. On Wednesdays, the lines can be
30 or 40 people long.

House staffers almost never cross the Capitol to eat in the Senate cafeterias.

Naturally some of Feinstein’s colleagues were not pleased. 

In a closed-door meeting with Democrats in November, she was
practically heckled by her peers for suggesting it, senators and aides
said.

"I know what happens with privatization. Workers lose jobs, and the
next generation of workers make less in wages. These are some of the
lowest-paid workers in our country, and I want to help them," Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), a staunch labor union ally, said recently.

The reporter adds without comment, "The wages of the approximately 100 Senate food service workers average $37,000 annually."  Who says we can’t get a better press corps?

Feinstein had an ace in her sleeve, however, and when push came to shove she unleashed her threat.  Feinstein warned "that if they did not agree to turn over the operation to a private
contractor, prices would be increased 25 percent across the board."  Well that was it – the Senate voted to privatize.

…A commitment to the defense of the particular habits, mores and
institutions of the United States against those socioeconomic trends
that threaten to undermine them, and those political movements
(generally on the left, but sometimes on the right) that seek to change
them radically in the pursuit of particular ideological goals.

Here is the post, which is interesting throughout.  I should not speak for Ross but having read his blog for a while I believe he would prefer a modified definition to allow some of those habits and mores to be judged.  Ross circa 1958 for instance need not defend segregation.  But it is hard to invoke a standard of judgment without moving away from conservatism in the philosophical sense and becoming a rationalist.

Insofar as I am conservative (debatable) I would rewrite the definition:

A realization that we will do best by building on the strengths of the particular habits, mores and
institutions of the United States (and other successful nations) rather than trying to reshape the nation radically in the pursuit of particular ideological goals.

You can then pick a rationalist standard of judgment (e.g., utilitarianism, virtue ethics, Rawls, whatever) while keeping this vision intact.  Conservatism is then an empirical claim about the resilience and power of national and cultural strengths.  There is no "pro status quo" trap lurking in the background here and no reason why you can’t be both a conservative and a rationalist at the same time.

Christopher Hayes writing in The Nation.

The vast majority of interest groups in
Washington, from the Sierra Club to the AFL-CIO to Planned Parenthood,
are pursuing what Edsall calls "substantive reform"–attempting to push
legislation and enact policies that will provide public goods, protect
citizens from harm and redistribute benefits, rights and privileges away
from the powerful and toward middle-class citizens and disenfranchised
minorities.

And if you believe that, might I mention that if you act quickly I have some land in Florida just ripe for development.

By Christopher Hayes.  Lessig is now determined to fight the influence of money in politics, a possibly Quixotic quest.  Whether you think his program is either possible or desirable is a major question of politics.  Excerpt:

"There’s a speech that Reagan gives in
1965," Lessig says, "where he talks about how democracy always fails
because once the people recognize they can vote themselves largess, they
just vote themselves largess and the fiscal policy is destroyed. Well,
Reagan had it half-right. It’s not as if it’s the poor out there who
have figured out how to suck the money out of the rich. It’s exactly the
other way around."

Here is a good report on my libertarian heresies, summarizing a talk I gave at the Institute for Humane Studies a few weeks ago.  Excerpt:

Russia, he pointed out, is failing as a free society not because it
is poor – Putin’s shrewed management of high commodity prices has put
paid to much Russian poverty – but because Russians tend to privilege
their friends and contacts above all else, leading to epic levels of
corruption. Corruption, of course, is a signal rule of law failure.

He then asked, somewhat rhetorically, if liberty was confined (and
defined) by culture: ‘We should not presume that our values are as
universal as we often think they are’. What happens, he asked
rhetorically, if – in order to enjoy the benefits of liberty and
prosperity – societies have to undergo a major cultural transformation,
including the loss of many appealing values? Cowen focussed on Russian
loyalty and friendship, but there are potentially many others. Think,
for example, of the extended family so privileged throughout the
Islamic world, or the communitarian values common in many indigenous
societies.

Wunderkind Ben Casnocha summarizes a talk:

David Brooks, columnist, New York Times:

• "I’ll be brief because many of you are academics, and you’re not here to hear me talk, you’re here to hear yourselves talk."
• He likes Edmund Burke.
• People learn when there’s an emotional connection.
• All factions of conservative movement united around distrust of government – this ain’t enough.
• Obama’s perceptiveness / self-awareness / stability is striking.
• McCain’s morality is based on honor, not morality. #1 trait is aloofness – somewhat detached personality.
• Conservatism shouldn’t have permanent policies (like tax cuts): don’t get moral about a situational policy issue.
• Conservatism is about not knowing much; modest about what we can know/do.
• Conservatism is philosophy first, policy second. Liberalism is policy first, philosophy later.
• Conservatism values social mobility more than equality.
• Top issues in the election: bipartisanship, immigration, healthcare.
• People aren’t solely self-interested economic rational creatures.
  If this were the case, why would 30% of students drop out of high
  school even though it’s econ ruinous to do so?
• What’s the point of being a democrat if you can’t play the class card?
• Bush seems 40 IQ points smarter in private than in public.

Here’s a QuickTime version of Brooks’ speech.

I agree with many of these, although I am not sure that conservatism puts philosophy first.  Does it not put experience first?  Also, I think the main issue in the election is George W. Bush.