Category Archives: Random Blogging

A History Of Prognosticating

Given the overwhelmingly negative press about Biden’s approval ratings, I was impressed (and persuaded) by a recent essay in the American Prospect titled You Are Entering The Infernal Triangle: Authoritarian Republicans, ineffectual Democrats, and a clueless media,”

The essay began by considering how often pollsters blow their most confident—and consequential—calls.

Ronald Reagan’s landslide was preceded by a near-universal consensus that the election was tied. The pollster who called it correctly, Lou Harris, was the only one who thought to factor into his models a variable that hadn’t been accounted for in previous elections, because it did not yet really exist: the Christian right.

Polling is systematically biased in just that way: toward variables that were evident in the last election, which may or may not be salient for this election.

Former punditry was worse.

I have probably read thousands of newspaper opinion column prognostications going back to the 1950s. Their track record is too embarrassing for me to take the exercise seriously, let alone practice it myself. Like bad polls, pundits’ predictions are most useful when they are wrong. They provide an invaluable record of the unspoken collective assumptions of America’s journalistic elite, one of the most hierarchical, conformist groups of people you’ll ever run across. Unfortunately, they help shape our world nearly as much, and sometimes more, than the politicians they comment about. So their collective mistakes land hard.

Examples? In 1964: When Lyndon Johnson, defeated Barry Goldwater, one of the most distinguished liberal newspaper editors in the South pronounced that all future American elections would be decided “on issues other than civil rights” and affirmed what was then conventional wisdom– in the future, whichever party took the Black vote would be “no more predictable than who would win “freckle-faced redheads and one-armed shortstops.”

In 1976, when Jimmy Carter beat Gerald Ford, pundits overwhelmingly proclaimed that the GOP was “in a weaker position than any major party of the U.S. since the Civil War.” That was right before 1978, when “New Right Republicans and conservative Democrats upset many of the longest-serving and beloved liberals in Washington.”

There were several other examples, culminating with the following;

And in 2012, when Michael Lind wrote of Barack Obama’s re-election victory, “No doubt some Reaganite conservatives will continue to fight the old battles, like the Japanese soldiers who hid on Pacific islands for decades, fighting a war that had long before been lost … Any competitive Republican Party in the future will be to the left of today’s Republican Party, on both social and economic issues.”

The author uses these examples to point out that the “conceptual tools, metaphors, habits, and technologies that we understand as political journalism” are thoroughly inadequate to understanding what politics now is.

According to polls (which, yes, have their uses, in moderation), something around half of likely voters would like to see as our next president a man who thinks of the law as an extension of his superior will, who talks about race like a Nazi, wants to put journalistic organizations whose coverage he doesn’t like in the dock for “treason,” and who promises that anyone violating standards of good order as he defines them—shoplifters, for instance—will be summarily shot dead by officers of the state who serve only at his pleasure. A fascist, in other words. We find ourselves on the brink of an astonishing watershed, in this 2024 presidential year: a live possibility that government of the people, by the people, and for the people could conceivably perish from these United States, and ordinary people—you, me—may have to make the kind of moral choices about resistance that mid-20th-century existentialist philosophers once wrote about. That’s the case if Trump wins. But it’s just as likely, or even more likely, if he loses, then claims he wins. That’s one prediction I feel comfortable with.

Journalistically, this crisis could not strike more deeply. The tools we have for making sense of how politicians seek to accumulate power focus on the whys and wherefores of attracting votes. But the Republican Party and its associated institutions of movement conservatism, at least since George and Jeb Bush stole the 2000 election in Florida, has been ratcheting remorselessly toward an understanding of the accumulation of political power, to which they believe themselves ineluctably entitled as the only truly legitimate Americans, as a question of will—up to and including the projection of will by the force of arms.

Ain’t no poll predicting who soccer moms will vote for in November that can make much headway in understanding that.

The article proceeded to consider the way mainstream American political journalism has built in a structural bias toward Republicans. I will share some of those insights tomorrow, but you really should click through and read the entire essay.

Comments

News Supply And Demand

The faster our country spins out of control–the weirder the behavior of the clowns who (usually thanks to gerrymandering) have been elected to Congress–the more convinced I become that a majority of our  national dysfunctions are a result of our Wild West “information” environment.

No matter how crazy your preferred belief, you can find support for it online. I used to tell the students in my Media and Public Affairs classes that if they really believed that aliens had landed in Roswell, I could find them five Internet sites with pictures of the aliens’ bodies. (I never actually tested that thesis, but I firmly believe those sites are out there.)

The problem–as most of us have long realized–is that free speech on the web far too often means speech (and with AI, pictures) that are free of even the slightest contact with reality.

As Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank wrote awhile back, with the help of the Internet, the Republican Party has constructed a “walled fortress of alternative facts.”

Beginning in the hours after the elementary school massacre in Uvalde, Tex., right-wing social media churned out every manner of conspiracy theory: The shooter was an illegal immigrant! No, he was transgender! Or maybe the massacre was a false-flag operation perpetrated by the anti-gun left! And the grieving families are paid crisis actors!

The disinformation then followed the usual paths, finding its way to Alex Jones’s Infowars (the shooting had “very suspicious timing,” coming days before the National Rifle Association’s convention) and right into the claims of Republican members of Congress.

Rep. Paul Gosar (Ariz.), who has repeatedly tied himself to white nationalists, tweeted that the gunman was “a transsexual leftist illegal alien” — and let that multi-headed falsehood stand for two hours before deleting it.

It wasn’t just Gosar, who is such an embarrassing nutcase that six of his siblings took out television ads asking people not to vote for him. Milbank reported on equally idiotic statements issued by other “usual suspects”–Ron Johnson of Wisconsin and the ever-goofy Marjorie Taylor Green.

At the NRA convention, some of the most prominent Republican officials posited yet another conspiracy theory: that for political figures calling for sensible gun control, “their real goal is disarming America,” as Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) put it in a speech stocked with falsehoods. Former president Donald Trump falsely told the group that the Biden administration reportedly “is considering putting U.N. bureaucrats in charge of your Second Amendment rights.”

As Milbank says, purposeful disinformation, aimed at those who desperately want to believe “alternative facts” is why we can’t have a rational discussion or a common-sense compromise about gun violence–or anything else.

Academic studies have found that Republicans share between “200 percent and 500 percent more fake news (fabrications published by sites masquerading as news outlets) than Democrats.” A research team led by scholars from MIT wanted to determine why. “Were they less able to distinguish fact from fiction? More psychologically predisposed to political bias?”

In part, yes. But the researchers found that “the issue primarily seems to be a supply issue,” Guay told me. “There’s just way more fake news on the right than the left.” In experiments giving Democrats and Republicans equal amounts of fake news that confirmed their world views, Republicans were more likely to share the falsehoods — but only 1.6 times more likely. This suggests that Republicans don’t have some “overreaching hunger” to traffic in untruths; they simply can’t avoid it because they’re so immersed in the stuff.

Guay’s is the latest of many studies identifying the disinformation “asymmetry” afflicting the right in the Trump era. In lay terms: Garbage in, garbage out. Republican voters hear lies by the thousand from Trump and imitators such as Johnson and Cruz….It’s hardly surprising that, thus exposed, they become more toxic in their language, more extreme in their ideology and more outraged.

If you saw “evidence” everywhere you turned, from people you trusted, that the country is being run by socialist pedophiles bent on disarming the populace, extinguishing your race and destroying the United States, you’d probably be outraged, too. At the very least, you might not be in the best frame of mind for a constructive conversation about ending gun violence.

I haven’t the slightest idea how rational folks combat this “supply problem.” Real news–actual journalism, even at its most slapdash–requires time and effort to produce. The creation of propaganda doesn’t.

It’s hard enough to tell the difference for those of us who want to separate the wheat from the chaff–but fake news is welcomed and distributed by those who desperately want to believe it.

Comments

Is Shamelessness The Answer?

In these daily musings and rants, I’ve frequently noted my inability to understand why anyone would look at Donald Trump–as he parades his monumental ignorance, his bile and his obvious mental illness–and say, “Yep. That’s the guy I want to trust with the nuclear codes.” I simply haven’t been able to get my head around it.

But over the holidays, I read a review in the Guardian of a book offering a plausible explanation. Let me share a (relatively lengthy) quote that describes the author’s theory:

Imagine a white, working-class American, most likely a man, from Louisiana or Alabama, perhaps, standing in a long line that represents his life’s journey. The man has been sold the American “bootstrap myth”, which states that his great country is a place where anyone can rise from the humblest of origins to become a billionaire or a president, and at the end of the line he expects to find a little part of that dividend for himself. But things aren’t panning out as he had hoped. For a start, the line stretches to the horizon, and even as he stands in it, he suffers: his pay packet is shrinking, the industry he works in is moving overseas, and the cost of everything from food to gas to healthcare is through the roof. Worse still, he can see people cutting into the line ahead, beneficiaries of “affirmative action” – black people, women, immigrants. He doesn’t think he’s racist or misogynist, but that’s what they call him when he objects. He is doubly shamed: privately, by his failure to live up to the myth; publicly, by liberal society.

This is the so-called deep story of the American right. We don’t have to accept the man’s worldview, just believe that this might be how he perceives it.

 Now a new figure enters the scenario, an orange-haired tycoon: we’ll call him Donald. Donald seems instinctively to understand the man’s shame. In fact, he’s a shame expert. He has a long history of transgression, and people have been trying to shame him for much of his life. But Donald has found a way around it: he has become shame-less. He demonstrates his shamelessness almost daily by producing a stream of shameful remarks – about Mexicans, say, or Muslims, or the sitting president, who happens to be black. Although people shout “Shame!” at him, each condemnation inflates Donald a little more in the eyes of his tribe, including the man in the line, who holds him up as a sort of shame messiah. By refusing his own shame, Donald absolves them, too.

The author of the book being reviewed, one David Keen, observes that the words “shame” and “shameless” are currently in greater use than at any time since the mid-19th century.

I have often theorized that the far Right is populated by people who are deeply unhappy with their lives–people who are looking for someone or some group to blame for their failure to achieve their goals. Keen’s analysis is consistent with that thesis, but adds another layer to it–the fact that failure to meet one’s own expectations (or those of the culture into which one has been socialized) will inevitably involve some measure of self-incrimination, or shame.

When you think about it, when people feel they’ve screwed up–when they fail at something they wanted or expected to accomplish–that failure is typically accompanied by feelings of unworthiness/shame, prompting a pretty human desire to find a scapegoat to whom they can “hand off” responsibility for the failure. Well-balanced adults can resist that urge, recognizing it for what it is, but a lot of people cannot–hence racism, misogyny, antisemitism.

The review made me wonder whether different cultural expectations might not ease those feelings of shame. What if we Americans didn’t “monetize” the concept of success? What if our expectations of other adults focused more on behaviors like loving-kindness or generosity or other markers of commendable adult behavior and less on career or money or fame?

What if we didn’t tell American children they could “grow up to be President”–didn’t burden them with expectations of professional or financial success, however we define that–but instead just told little boys and girls “when you grow up, I want you to be a good person–a mensch.”

What if we raised people who could be trusted with the nuclear codes?

Comments

How To Save The Country–My New Year’s Resolution

Of course I don’t really know how to save the country–but I do know that an effort to change the direction of our politics requires not just a “what,” but a “how.”

(Forgive the digression, but when I listen to Mike Braun’s interminable TV ads, the utter   lack of that “how” drives me crazy. Granted, he’s a fairly unattractive person anyway, but when he pontificates that he has the “answer” to America’s problems, and advocates things like “sending illegal immigrants home,” he doesn’t bother to say how that might be accomplished. He talks about “stopping China,” but not what “stopping” would entail or how he proposes to do it.) (Of course, if these were issues he actually cared about, he’d remain in the Senate, since the federal government has exclusive  jurisdiction over them. He wouldn’t be running for Indiana Governor…)

As Trump, Braun and so many other candidates have figured out, it’s much easier to identify a desired destination than it is to map out a practical and/or constitutional journey to get there.

Yesterday, I concluded my post by identifying my New Year’s Resolution –working as hard as I can to defeat the racist cult that has replaced the Republican party. That statement raises a legitimate, and increasingly difficult, question, not just for me but for every American who is terrified by the prospect of a Trump or Trumpist victory in November: how?

What can an individual do to help ensure the continuation of the American experiment? Depending upon our particular skills, available time, energy, location…where can we each best deploy our efforts?

Probably the most important activity involves registering non-voters who are likely to vote Democratic. If you are like me, you have few–if any– unregistered friends and acquaintances, but there are organizations working on voter registration that can use volunteers. This is particularly important in rural areas, where Democratic-leaning citizens are convinced that they’re the only ones so there’s no point to voting.

Speaking of volunteering: volunteer with a political campaign being waged by someone you admire. This can involve phone banking, canvassing, organizing events, or providing support in other ways. If you have the means, contribute financially. Again, this is especially important in states like Indiana, where the biggest problem Democrats face is a  belief that no Democrat can win.

If at all possible, you can connect with local or even national grassroots organizations that are mobilizing voters and working to get out the vote. Turnout will be the single most important element of the coming election cycle: when lots of people turn out to vote, Democrats win. Republicans have figured this out–and credit where credit is due, they have been brilliant in suppressing turnout. (Gerrymandering has been their biggest success in convincing voters not to bother coming to the polls, but it isn’t their only tactic.) We can all encourage friends, family, and acquaintances to vote; if time and energy permits, you can organize a voter registration drive and/or a get-out-the-vote effort.

Speaking of time and effort, consider running for office yourselves.

Finally–be an advocate. Challenge officeholders who support unAmerican measures; call out bigotry (especially in campaigns); fact-check dubious assertions and fake news and communicate the results; share accurate information.

I intend to use this blog to mount such challenges and to call out the Mike Brauns, Jim Banks and others who should not be trusted with public office, and in addition, I have already volunteered on Marc Carmichael’s Senate campaign, as well as Trish Whitcomb’s very welcome campaign in Southern Indiana against “permitless-carry”  gun nut Jim Lucas. If anyone reading this post has added ideas about help I can provide to the “good guys,” let me know.

What will each of you do to defeat the MAGA effort to turn America into a replica of Victor Orban’s Hungary?

Comments

Testing Economic Theory

A couple of weeks ago, after speaking to a group at North United Methodist Church, I was approached by a couple who handed me a book and accompanying materials on Modern Monetary Theory. I explained that economics is definitely not one of my strong suits–far, far from it– but they insisted that the book, a New York Times bestseller titled The Deficit Myth, written by economist Stephanie Kelton–was clear and accessible.

So I took the book, and I read it. All the way through. And I found it very persuasive.

Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) begins with an undeniable fact: government budgets in countries with sovereign control over their currencies are very different from household budgets.  Not all countries have “sovereign control”–in the EU, for example, countries that have adopted the Euro cannot issue currency. They are “users” not issuers, and thus are constrained in much the same way as our household budgets are.

The United States, however, is not. Our government is not revenue-constrained in the same way as our households or our businesses. That doesn’t mean there are no constraints; it just means the constraints are different. As the book persuasively argued, budget hawks and public officials wringing their hands over the size of the budget deficit are still operating under economic paradigms that were appropriate when we were on the gold standard (and/or Bretton Woods), but the country today operates within a very different fiscal reality, one that requires that we change our previous assumptions.

MMT doesn’t dispense with fiscal responsibility; it redefines what responsible behavior looks like.

MMT advocates argue that the government can use its currency-issuing power to guarantee full employment, as it can fund necessary public sector jobs during economic downturns without worrying about running out of money. Governments can use fiscal policy more effectively to stimulate demand and support economic growth. MMT emphasizes the importance of managing real resources (labor, materials, technology) rather than focusing on budgetary ones.

The real constraint on government spending, according to MMT, is inflation.

If government creates too much money, it can fuel a speculative bubble; if it creates too little, it promotes stagnation. Taxation thus becomes an important tool–both for controlling aggregate spending and for altering the distribution of wealth and income–i.e., addressing and reducing the gap between the rich and the rest. (As the author notes, it’s important to determine when taxes should be raised or lowered, and especially which ones and on whom.)

I obviously cannot reduce the book’s lengthy and lucid explanations to a blog post. I strongly encourage you to read the book, or other explanations of MMT. I will note, however, that there are a growing number of economists, many cited in the text, who have adopted MMT because it is based upon an accurate description of the way our current economy functions.

Something that wasn’t in the text, but occurred to me as I was reading, was that both FDR’s New Deal and Joe Biden’s “Bidenomics” appear to have adopted some of the major tenets of MMT, by using government spending to boost wages and employment. I know that many people attribute FDR’s economic successes to wartime anomalies, but the data on Biden’s flourishing economy cannot be so easily dismissed.

As Heather Cox Richardson recently reported:

Data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis released today showed inflation continuing to come down. In November the Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE) price index was 2.6% over the previous November, down from 2.9% in October. The Federal Reserve aims for 2%. Falling gas prices meant that overall, prices actually dropped in November for the first time since April 2020.

In a statement, President Joe Biden reminded Americans that “[a] year ago, most forecasters predicted it would require a spike in joblessness and a slowdown to get inflation down. I never believed that. I never gave up on the hard work, grit, and resilience of millions of Americans.” In addition to the falling inflation rate, he noted that “the unemployment rate has stayed below 4 percent for 22 months in a row, and wages, wealth, and the share of working-age Americans with jobs are higher now than they were before the pandemic began.” …

The administration is highlighting economic numbers not just because they are good—and they are: real gross domestic product (GDP) grew by an astonishing annual rate of 4.9% in the third quarter of 2023; under Trump it was 2.5% before the pandemic knocked the bottom out of everything—but also because they illustrate the administration’s return to an economic theory under which the U.S. government operated from 1933 to 1981.

Unfortunately, we have too many lawmakers and pundits who cling to outmoded paradigms even more fiercely in the face of empirical evidence to the contrary.

Comments