Monthly Archives: October 2012

The N Factor

One of the more prestigious political science journal just published an issue devoted to prognostications about the upcoming Presidential election. A variety of academics used their favored forecasting methodologies, and predicted the likely winner. The results ranged from “comfortably Obama” to “very, very close” to one “Romney by a nose.” (I’ve noted that “scientific” methods are a lot more accurate after the election has occurred.)

The problem with forecasting models is that they rarely take into account elements like likability; heretofore, they have not had to confront massive spending by SuperPacs, either. And even the scholars who employ them hedge their bets.

One element that was not measurable before 2008–and has now been measured–is the influence of race, as in the race of the candidates. Any sentient being knows that much of the anti-Obama animus is race-based (the “birthers” and people convinced that the President is a Muslim are so obviously substituting those charges for the N word). What has been unclear is the extent to which that racism motivates votes. In that journal’s issue on the election, one article analyzed data from the 2008 election, and concluded that his race had cost Obama five percent of the vote–that is, that Obama’s percentage of the popular vote would have been five percent higher had he been white. The author of that article forecast a slightly better result this time around; according to his calculations, racism will “only” cost Obama three percentage points this time around.

Of course, in a very close election, three percent is enough.

A lot of folks are in denial about the extent to which race influences attitudes about the President. They shrug off the more obvious indicators, like the guy in the photo taken at a Romney rally, whose tee shirt read “Put the white back in the White House.” I have friends whose unease with the President is pretty clearly based upon his “otherness,” but who don’t recognize or admit to themselves that such feelings are a part of their political calculus.

If we are inclined to dismiss the influence of racism, a look at Gallup’s polling may serve as a wake-up call. Gallup has been an “outlier” lately, showing Romney five or six points ahead in the popular vote. When you look at the internals, you see an interesting phenomenon: in Gallup’s numbers, Obama holds modest leads in the Northeast, Midwest and West. Romney leads in the South–by twenty-two points.

Maybe we shouldn’t have fought the civil war–and just let the South go.

Comments

Poor Fiscal Management. Again.

Government isn’t a business, but it does have an obligation to conduct its operations in a business-like way.

According to recent news reports, three state agencies — the Department of Natural Resources, the Department of Health and the State Budget Agency — paid more than $130,500 in late fees in fiscal years 2011 and 2012. The payments were uncovered in recently released audits by the Indiana State Board of Accounts.

The penalties were assessed because the agencies failed to pay claims on time. The audit reports say the delays resulted, in “an unnecessary use of state funds.” The reports are just one more bit of embarrassing evidence of this administration’s tenuous grasp on fiscal competence. (Remember that 300 million dollars they “found” awhile back? Or the payments “inadvertently” withheld from local government agencies?)

The report is not just a reminder that our Governor’s much-touted business acumen is mostly hype. It is also a reminder to those of us who vote that the positions politicians are spending millions of dollars to win require not-so-glamorous skills. Running state government requires an understanding of a whole range of management practices, many of which go beyond the skills required by private-sector enterprises: building bridges with fractious legislators, demanding accountability from those you’ve appointed to run departments, an acquaintance with the intricacies of policy formation, and an ability to communicate with citizens.

Campaigns test the ability to connect with enough voters to get elected, but otherwise, require no evidence that a candidate possesses any of these skills, and most have not held previous positions that demanded them. So we get rigid ideologues who–despite their pro-business rhetoric–never met a payroll, never had to build a team from competing factions, never had to be accountable to anyone who didn’t agree with them.

I’ve had my differences with the Daniels Administration, and I’ve aired many of those differences here. But the Governor is pragmatic and intelligent, and has done many things well (been to the BMV lately?? Much improved.)

Mike Pence is a different matter entirely. Pence is running a strategically brilliant campaign for Governor–a campaign intended to “upgrade” the Pence 1.0 version to a kinder, gentler, and infinitely more competent Pence 2.0. His 30-second spots portray someone very different from the culture warrior whose entire focus while in Congress has been on de-funding Planned Parenthood, working with Todd Akin to define “legitimate” rape and outlaw most existing birth control methods, and ensure that GLBT folks remain second-class citizens. Fortunately for women and gays, Pence has been a much more effective Tea Party spokesman than legislator: in his eleven years in Congress, he’s sponsored 63 bills and has been successful in getting exactly none of them passed. Only three ever made it out of committee.

Unfortunately for Pence and the other “true believers” who have come to dominate the GOP, governing involves a lot of non-glamorous, practical tasks where conciliation, an open mind and sound information are required.  Self-righteousness, ostentatious piety and intransigence don’t contribute much to transportation policy or parks maintenance–or to fiscal accountability.

Little by Little….

A federal appeals court recently became the second such court to declare DOMA–the federal “Defense of Marriage Act”–unconstitutional. The challenge was brought by an 83-year-old resident of New York State, where same-sex marriage is legal. When her partner–pardon me, her wife–died, DOMA allowed the IRS to assess an estate tax nearly 400,000 higher than she would have owed had her spouse been a man.

The court ruled that DOMA violates equal protection, by treating couples (all of whom are legally married in New York) differently, based solely upon whether the marriage partners are of the same or opposite sex. But the ruling did something even more important: it analyzed the case under what is called “heightened scrutiny.” If this part of the ruling holds up, it will make cases alleging discrimination based upon sexual orientation much easier to win.

Doug Masson has posted an excellent summary of the case. As he reports

To withstand intermediate scrutiny, a classification must be “substantially related to an important government interest.” “Substantially related” means that the explanation must be “exceedingly persuasive.”. The justification must be genuine, not hypothetical and not invented after the fact in response to litigation.

The Court rejected BLAG’s argument that Congress had an important interest in passing DOMA to maintain uniformity on the issue of marriage-related benefits in protection of the treasury. The court observed that Congress has historically allowed states to go their own way on marriage. (For example, rules about age, divorce, consanguinity, and paternity.) Indeed, the sudden federal intrusion into marriage is, itself, suspicious. (All the states-rights advocates have been clamoring for repeal of DOMA, yes?)

Another justification was preserving the historical understanding of marriage. But, the court observed, ancient lineage doesn’t protect a law where it lacks a rational basis. Miscegenation and anti-sodomy laws had pretty long historical roots of their own.

Another justification was encouraging responsible procreation. The court recognized that this could be an important government interest but did not see that DOMA advanced that interest.

DOMA does not provide any incremental reason for opposite-sex couples to engage in “responsible procreation.”6 Incentives for opposite-sex couples to marry and procreate (or not) were the same after DOMA was enacted as they were before. Other courts have likewise been unable to find even a rational connection between DOMA and encouragement of responsible procreation and child-rearing.

The Court also dismissed as “far-fetched” the idea that the laws passed by Congress might actually make people gay or effect their sexual orientation. It was also not persuaded by the idea that merely getting to use the extra-special word “marriage” would, on its own, promote stable opposite-sex marriages.

Because the court concluded that same sex married couples constituted a “quasi-suspect” class and because DOMA was not “substantially related” to an important government interest, the Second Circuit concluded, it must be regarded as being in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

The ruling was satisfying. What was not satisfying–indeed, what was very disappointing–was the role of Indiana’s Attorney General, Greg Zoeller, who led the group of states arguing for DOMA and its constitutionality. I have generally been impressed with Zoeller; unlike the hot dogs and culture warriors and know-nothings we seem to elect, he has come across as thoughtful and modest, and willing to abide by precedent. (I realize that complimenting a lawyer on willingness to abide by the law is a bit odd, but these days, the bar is set really low.) His willingness to fight for a discriminatory law in a case that did not directly involve Indiana–a case where he was a volunteer–was disappointing.

The bottom line, however, is that despite the efforts of Zoeller and those who agree with him, equality for GLBT folks is coming.

Little by little, the barricades are coming down.

Comments

It All Depends on What Your Definition of “Job” is….

I’m getting tired of politicians piously declaiming that “government can’t create jobs.” (That statement is generally followed by that candidate’s jobs plan. Irony, anyone?)

The truth is that even if you reject the notion that public policy can create an atmosphere that facilitates job creation, government is a huge employer. Almost one of every five American workers is employed in the public sector – working in our schools, colleges, universities, police and fire departments, and providing many other vital public services. One of the biggest drags on employment since the start of the Great Recession–one of the reasons that job creation has not been more robust–is that state and local governments have laid off so many of those public sector workers. Such job growth as has occurred has been almost entirely in the private sector .

Those public sector jobs (we used to call them “public service” jobs) have become a handy target for ideologues who rant about bloated government and overpaid public sector workers, but the inconvenient truth is that modern society requires educators and police officers and people who work at the BMV. When their ranks get too thin, we complain about government inefficiency, or insufficient public safety, or classrooms that are too large.

A modern, complex society requires an agency that monitors the environment, that oversees food and drug quality (more meningitis, anyone?) and performs numerous other tasks that individuals in urban environments cannot do individually. Unfortunately, we still need soldiers. All these people may be bloated bureaucrats in the public imagination, but when that schoolteacher or firefighter is furloughed, we are suddenly faced with reality.

Of course, even the politicians who are fond of declaiming that government can’t create jobs betray their hypocrisy by accusing “big government” of killing jobs with taxes and regulation. Their claim–implicit and explicit–is that lower taxes and less regulation will foster job growth. But when tax cuts imperil our ability to provide essential services, jobs go elsewhere. When we go too far with deregulation, we get more instances like the recent deaths from meningitis.

I know it isn’t as satisfying as making sweeping proclamations about the evils of government and the glories of the private sector, but we need to admit that modern life is complicated. We need the right levels of taxes, the proper regulation. Those things need to be carefully calibrated to achieve our goals, not subjected to simple-minded “either-or” formulations.

And we need to laugh out loud the next time a political figure says that government doesn’t create jobs.

Comments

My Litmus Test

I haven’t been very kind to single-issue voters who impose a “litmus test” in order to determine who they’ll support. So it pains me to admit that I seem to have developed one myself.

I simply will not ever vote for a candidate who rejects science and the scientific method.

In my defense, I think the acceptance of science–including recognition of the importance of the theory of evolution and the implications of global climate change, to cite just two examples–is a “marker” for an individual’s entire worldview. Someone who fails to understand the difference between a scientific theory–a construct based upon mountains of empirical data and subject to falsification–and “I have a theory, aka a wild-ass guess”–is simply not equipped to deal with the world as it is. He or she brings an intellectual bow and arrow to a nuclear conflict.

I believe that ideology should give way to evidence. When the evidence is mixed, it’s understandable that people will apply their own interpretations to it, seeing it through their preferred lens; when it is overwhelming, a failure to conform one’s theoretical preconceptions to that reality is a sign of dangerous rigidity–even, in extreme cases, mental illness.

People who reject science end up believing that women’s bodies can reject a “genuine” rapist’s sperm. They convince themselves that abortion causes breast cancer. They confuse climate with weather. They are convinced that homosexuality is a behavioral choice. In multiple ways, they fail to honor demonstrated facts. (They also tend to be the same folks who reject history in favor of a mythological “Christian Nation” past–after all, if you can ignore overwhelming scientific consensus in favor of an “inerrant” bible, you can certainly rewrite America’s past.)

There is a clear partisan divide at work: A 2007 Gallup poll found that 68% of Republicans do not believe in evolution. That compared with 37% of independents and 40% of Democrats. (Pretty pathetic numbers overall, but much worse among Republicans.) The best predictor of belief in creationism and rejection of science was weekly church attendance.

Let me be clear: I can respect a candidate who opposes abortion on deeply-felt moral grounds (although not the anti-woman, anti-contraception “personhood” theocrats). I can vote for a candidate whose preferred policy to combat climate change differs from mine. I can respect a candidate who is not yet ready to endorse same-sex marriage if that candidate is otherwise willing to extend civil rights to GLBT folks, although I will only vote for such a candidate when his opponent is worse. I cannot, however, respect a candidate who rejects science and reason. And I will never cast a vote for such a candidate.

If that is a litmus test–if that makes me a “single-issue” voter–so be it.

Comments