Why Do LIberal Reforms Hurt the Poor?

 Is this true?

Liberals propose and enact more laws, regulations, and programs than conservatives?  

The poorer the citizen the more difficulty they have in knowing, understanding, complying, and taking advantage of the laws, regulations, and programs.

The richer the citizen the more able they are to manipulate laws and regulations to their advantage and to exploit programs in ways not intended by the authors.

Changing Views of Left and Right--Possible Images

 What sort of image do we have of our society and the left and right?  Often I think it's as if society is there, a platform or a landscape, while left and right act over time, moving one way or another. 

But is that a good image. After all society is people, as are left and right, so society can move as well. 

What's an alternative image: perhaps a crowd, some wearing red, some wearing blue, the majority, the less politically involved, wearing gray.  So you take a snapshot in 1960 of the crowd and you see the reds and blues scattered through the crowd. Take another snapshot today and you see the reds clustered together, the blues clustered-they've both become more cohesive. 

But that image doesn't reflect  a society's movement. Maybe an image is Hawaii, where the continental plate moves over a volcanic hot spot, which creates the various island.  In this image "society" would be all the people, the economy, laws, etc. So society could change because of innovations in technology, in the rest of the world etc.  Meanwhile there would be two "hot spots"; each representing a temperament which seems to be common in people at large: one conservative, one liberal.

That covers the fact there always seems to be a left and a right, a conservative and a liberal faction. And it allows for the fact that conservatives in the 1950's could be strong supporters of segregation, while conservatives today are opposed to racial segregation.

Don't know, maybe I need to think more.

Changing Views of Right and Left--Personal

Twitter activity on how left and right have changed, as here:

The thing about @NateSilver538’s argument here is that a Musk-owned Twitter would subsequently attract conservatives who have leaned way way WAY to the right, thereby refuting Musk’s original inductive generalization. pic.twitter.com/nhuJMnDF41

— Daniel W. Drezner (@dandrezner) April 28, 2022

I don't know about the national picture.  I do know I've always considered myself on the moderate left and my views have changed sometimes:

• In the 1950's liberals were still supporting public power, the path marked out by the New Deal in the TVA and Bonneville power. That's no longer the case.
• In the 1950's/60's liberals thought that ending legal  segregation and establishing things like civilian review boards would be sufficient.  No longer the case.
• In the 1970s I was called for a month's jury duty in DC.  For one case I was successful in getting off on the basis I couldn't be impartial in a marijuana possession case.  Despite that, I've never been high on legalizing pot, though by now I'm a reluctant supporter.
• Liberals used to have no opinions on legalized gambling; now I guess they support it but it's not a top issue and I still dislike it. 
• Back in the 1950's/60's liberals supported decolonization and were hot for foreign aid. 
• In the 1990's many liberals supported the "Washington consensus" on global free trade.  I still do, but that seems to put me in the minority.

To be continued, maybe.

Douthat in the Times

 Ross Douthat had an op-ed which interested me. He argued both conservatives and liberals have divisions, basically along two dimensions: trust in people and trust in expertise.  

Conservatives have over their history distrusted democracy, the mob. That continues today in attempts to limit voting. What's newish is conservative dislike of experts, of science.  Education used to be a conservative force but now both science and education are associated with change.

Liberals have a history of expanding the right to vote, which continues. But since the Progressive era they've developed a belief in educated elites, particularly science and social science.

The tensions on both sides make for instability. 

(The above is what I took from the essay without going back to doublecheck my summary.)

Douthat's analysis works for me as a liberal. I don't agree with some liberal positions, but I maintain my faith in science.

Inertia and Conservatism

 Many people find the easiest course of action is just to do what they did yesterday. Doing something different has downsides:

• it may mean breaking a habit. My wife and I joke about my driving on autopilot. If it's Friday I turn right, turn right, turn right, then turn left and we're at the glass recycle place. Varying the pattern means a conscious effort to decide to make a different turn.
• it may require a decision, and the decision may require researching an issue and getting information.
• it may mean risks, unknown risks. Doing what you do you're very familiar with the risks you run, and you're comfortable with them.  Doing something different means you're less familiar with the risks, which can mean you become nervous and tense, not something one likes.
• there may be unintended consequences.

So one part of conservatism is just an extrapolation of our habits.

Humor and Politics

 Ann Althouse at her blog has over the years considered Trump as being funny, humorous, tongue-in-cheek.  I could never see it.  In the wake of Rush Limbaugh's death some of the remembrances on the left have noted his comedy.  Never listened to him, didn't like what was reported about what he said (i.e., AIDs, McNabb, etc.).

I've always thought humor was one of the virtues, but I dislike Trump and Limbaugh's politics, so how do I reconcile the two?  

I'll assume for the sake of argument that both men were quite funny. Typically the humor I appreciate is directed at the establishment, from the position of an outsider. The other category is self-mocking; a liberal mocking liberals, etc.  (Wife and I enjoy "The Good Fight" TV series which does both. ) What I don't enjoy is jokes aimed at outsiders.  

That seems a fairly defensible position.  But then there's the category of blue jokes. Those can be defended as mocking the human body, so again self-mocking. 

Perhaps what I'm struggling with is a matter of power.  As a liberal I see Trump and Limbaugh as using humor from a position of power, to attack and denigrate those weaker than they are.  A conservative who perhaps firmly believes she's living in a world dominated by liberals who have all the power can find them funny because they're compatriots in the great rebellion against liberal hegemony?

The Right and Geography

 In this month someone on the right has:

•  mistaken the country of Georgia for the state of Georgia (tweeting that Georgia only had 3 million people so the number of votes reported for the state showed fraud
• mistaken the state of Washington and the city of Washington, DC (similar tweet to the first)
• mistaken Minnesota ("MN") for Michigan ("MI") as part of a lawsuit submission.
• at Fox, labeled Michigan's Upper Peninsula as Canada.

One might conclude there's a lack of education in geography and/or that speed makes for sloppy work. 

My Perception Gap (Flawed Test)

I just took the "Perception Gap Quiz". which has been in the news recently.  It's very brief, and my result is flawed because I've read about the results and adjusted my responses accordingly.   My gap was -9%, when the average Dems is 19%.  I gave the Republicans too much credit in judging Trump to be a flawed person and in worrying about climate change.

I suspect even if I hadn't read about the quiz before, I likely would have had a smaller perception gap than the average Democrat.  I do scan the Washington Times website each morning, though I rarely click through to the story, and I follow the Powerline Blog, staffed by four conservatives, and the Althouse blog.  Althouse may have voted for Obama in the past and hide her 2016 choice, but she tends to be right of center.  And my background growing up means I can be more understanding of Trump voters, at least if I'm reminded to be understanding.  (My knee-jerk reactions may differ.)

What Happened to Make Some Conservatives Smart?

For some strange reason I'm finding the reasoning of some conservatives much more impressive these days.  People like George Will, Charles Krauthammer in the Post and Kevin Williamson in the National Review actually can write columns with which I agree, or at least engage with.

There was a science fiction story in my younger days, something about a dumb person becoming smart, then reverting.  Flowers for Algernon, that's the story.   Did these conservatives have that operation last fall?  Will they revert back to their unenlightened ways at some time in the future?  Inquiring minds want to know.

Paragraph of the Day: Mirengoff

At Powerline, Paul ends his commentary on the passage of the 2017 spending bill with this:

Candidate Trump liked to say that under his presidency, he would win so much on behalf of America that we would get tired of winning. As yet, I don’t feel remotely tired.

And What Do You Really Think?

"In short, the problem is Trump’s personality. His presidency doesn’t suffer from a failure of ideas, but a failure of character."

That's from an article in the National Review--color me dumbstruck.

Why I'm a Liberal

Take two bloggers, one liberal, one conservatish, and give them the snafu at the Oscars to analyze.  What happens:

• Kevin Drum, the liberal, does a failure analysis, identifying five separate failure points.
• Ann Althouse, the less-liberal, comes up with a weird conspiracy theory.

Now it could be just accident that Kevin is hard-headed and Ann is somewhat prone to suspect conspiracy, but I prefer to believe that these traits are strongly associated with the respective philosophies.