Unmaking the Presidency

 As a glutton for punishment I'm reading that book.  One chapter discusses the Mueller investigation in the context of special prosecutors and the criminalization of oversight. The authors ding Congress for lack of effective oversight, instead ceding oversight to the criminal process of investigations through the special prosecutors.

I wonder if Congress shouldn't delegate its oversight powers to an agency set up like GAO. GAO works for Congress, not the executive, and has a good reputation, I think, unless you're a bureaucrat being critiqued.  But GAO focuses on the bureaucracy and on policy, worrying whether the laws Congress passes are being effectively administered by the executive branch.  It's my impression they rarely interview the big shots, the presidential appointees, and never those close to the president.  I'm not sure why; whether it's historical precedent or their legal charter at work.

The problem I see with my idea is that it seems like the old special prosecutor--giving a body authority to investigate without establishing limits.  That problem led to both parties agreeing not to reauthorize the statue which existed for about 20 years.  

Maybe we could look to the Congressional ethics committees, which police the members of Congress?  Maybe a standing bipartisan committee could work, relying on political forces to restrain it? The problem there might be shown in the Federal Election Commission, which is supposed to be bipartisan but has been deadlocked with vacancies for years. 

No answers here.

Nepotism

 Matt Yglesias at Vox writes on nepotism.  It's a thorough and to my mind bipartisan treatment.

I do wish Biden had been asked during the debate what role, if any, his family would play in his administration. Would he have replied: the same sort of roles as my predecessor has assigned to Ivanka, Don Jr., Eric, Jared Kushner or would he have excluded them? Would he promise to put his assets into a blind trust? 

Cowen on People

I follow the Marginal Revolution blog.  Sometimes, as here in Cowen's musing on Epstein, I read things which strike me:

I am now, at the margin, more inclined to the view that what keeps many people on good behavior is simply inertia. They are oddly passive in their core inclinations, but will behave badly if given an easy opportunity. And since many of these people probably are not active independent malefactors on a regular basis, their sense of risk may not be entirely well developed. Thus they themselves may have been fairly naïve in their dealings with Epstein, not quite understanding that their invulnerability in everyday life might not carry over to all situations.

Comments:

• For "inertia" I would substitute "habits".  I'm habit-bound, and I suspect most people are (except those suffering from war, displacement, natural disasters, etc.)  
• "Will behave badly"--Cowen argues that rich men could have become Epsteins easily--they had the money--but didn't out of inertia, succumbing to temptation upon meeting Epstein.
• "sense of risk"--this might be backwards--people who are not malefactors regularly may have a more highly developed sense of risk (even an exaggerated sense of risk) than do people who engage in risky behavior regularly.

The Down and Dirty Dairy People

My mother always celebrated the goodness of farmers, particularly dairy and poultry farmers. Se would be disappointed at the shenanigans described in this thread.

Alright, today’s the open show and all these cows are ready to compete. Figured now’s as good a time as any to do the sequel to my last thread. This time: A Study in Dairy Infighting. pic.twitter.com/DIzwtNm42o

— 😇💖😈 (@songlin221) July 27, 2019

The Virtue of Lynch Mobs

Yes, the title is bait.

I'm reading Richard Wrangham's The Goodness Paradox?, about 3/4 of the way through.  I like it and the argument he makes, having read the recent book on the experiment in Russia of rearing silver foxes selected for non-aggression, which seems to support a "domestication" theory.  After 40 generations the foxes were much like dogs, both physically  (floppy ears, changes in skull shape, etc) and in behavior.

So in the chapter I just finished Wrangham's discussing how humans might have developed a moral sense (as part of their self-domestication).  His basic theory is: lynch mobs, triggered by observations of chimpanzees.  The idea is, if and when an alpha male gets too alpha, the subordinate males discover by forming a coalition they can take him out.  From that we can evolve to coalitions which enforce social norms, and innate behavior which makes us hyper conscious of norms and therefore very moral.

That's a quick and dirty summary; no doubt one Wrangham would shudder at.

It's an interesting subject, and he's a careful writer.  I want to see if he explains why we still generate alpha males like our current president.

[I should note, Wrangham doesn't call them "lynch mobs", but his description would match a description of a generic lynch mob--a bunch of males converging to execute justice on someone who is perceived to have violated a norm.  He has some descriptions from anthropology of societies/tribes where there are strong norms covering such actions.]

My Thoughts on the "Greatest Generation"

A reply to a Wendell Pierce tweet:

Wendell Pierce‏Verified account @WendellPierce 2h2 hours ago

As the media reflects on the passing of the Greatest Generation, they should remember that generation was flawed. It allowed segregation &watched Americans kill others trying to exercise their right to vote.Greatness was their ability to change & live up to their professed values

21 replies120 retweets658 likes

"Bill Harshaw

‏ @BillHarshaw 1h1 hour ago

Replying to @WendellPierce

Flawed, as every generation is flawed: failing to fully correct evils they knew of, and failing to recognize clearly evils their descendants see all too clearly.

0 replies0 retweets0 likes

As you can tell, I'm ambivalent, as usual, particularly about making moral judgments on the past.  We're all stuck with the history we inherit.  The best we can expect of anyone, whether individual, generation, or nation, is to do better than their predecessors.

Jefferson Versus Trump

Andy Seal has a post at USIntellectual History quoting Thomas Jefferson on the importance of public perception in maintaining ethical standards.

Did Carter Have To Sell His Peanut Farm?

I saw that statement made today, probably on twitter.  It didn't sound right to me so I did googled "Jimmy Carters peanut farm".

From the first hit, I conclude that Carter put the farm into a trust called Carter Farms, managed by a trustee. So yes, he did, but the connotations of the statement mislead.