Liberals and Change

 

I mean...

What IS the response to this from good-faith liberals, btw? https://t.co/AvRtjYv7xb

— Wilfred Reilly (@wil_da_beast630) July 22, 2022

Within this thread is the "gentrification"/"white flight" cartoon attacking liberals--that is, if the neighborhood changes by increasing the proportion of whites--it's bad because "gentrification"; if it changes by decreasing the proportion of whites--it's bad because "white flight".

I think it's a fair point.  As a liberal I'm stuck, welcoming change from the "creative destruction" of capitalism/market economy, and opposing change by providing a "safety net". 

The key, I think, is modulated change: change must occur but change that's too fast, too massive needs to be cushioned.  That's my analysis and defense of farm programs--only a rigorous supply management system such as those we had for tobacco and peanuts has been halfway successful in maintaining successful farms. If we aren't willing to go that far, then the best farm programs can do is to cushion the changes. 

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.

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?

On Prohibition, a Reconsideration

 Politico has a long piece on Black Prohibitionism by a political science prof, Mark Lawrence Schrad.

My mother was death on alcohol.  I never quite understood it.  As I've gotten older I wonder whether someone in the family was a drunk.  I don't know of any likely candidate, but her vehemence makes me wonder.  

Anyhow, the piece puts prohibition back into the context of Progressive Era ideas to improve human life.  Some of those ideas are still considered good (secret ballot), some are now considered bad (eugenics), some have seen their reputation vary over the years (referendums, city managers, experts). 

I'm not sure on prohibition.  We're in the process of legalizing marijuana, partially on the grounds it's less dangerous than alcohol. I've still enough puritan in me to believe that life is hard and one should not try to round off the corners.  Some of the critics of prohibition see it as reflecting WASP prejudice against recent immigrants who frequented saloons.  But then I read Samantha Powers memoir which deals with the alcoholism of her father (very interesting).

My current bottom line is it's good to have people on both sides of the issue--not good for one side to have it all their own way.

The Importance of Heritage: Klobuchar

IIRC Hubert  Humphrey was called a "happy warrior" which turns out to be a poem by Wordsworth

The label has been applied to others, notably Al Smith by FDR, but Googling "happy warrior" and "Humbert Humphrey" has 285,000 hits.

Because the voting age was 21, I couldn't vote in 1960, but Humphrey was my candidate.  He made perhaps the most important political speech ever in the 1948 Democratic convention, one on behalf of civil rights and one which meant the exodus from the convention of the Dixiecrats who ended with Strom Thurmond as their candidate.

Once elected senator he was a stalwart for liberal causes through the 1950's, serving as a bridge between LBJ and the liberals, being active in many causes.

After Humphrey Walter Mondale and then Paul Wellstone continued the heritage of Minnesota liberalism in the Senate.

Klobuchar worked as an intern for Mondale, who has been a mentor to her since.  And Wellstone encouraged her first run for office.

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.)

Janesville and Liberal Government

This book just won a prize for nonfiction writing.  If you don't want to read the whole thing, this New Yorker piece of last year will substitute.

I'm still reading it, but I want to note one failure of government: Obama came, promised help, his man visited, listened, did nothing before leaving for a better paid post.  It's an old lesson of bureaucracy--you need unrelenting pressure from the top to accomplish the difficult.  President Nixon, despite his flaws, knew this and his administration was successful in removing the WWI "tempos"

now the site of "Constitution Gardens". 

Much as I like Obama, and my regard for him as a person is only increased by comparison with his successor, I don't see him as a good manager of the bureaucracy.  (The most glaring failure was, of course, healthcare.gov.)

Liberals believe in the power of government to help, but Janesville is disappointing in that respect.  The conventional wisdom is that job retraining programs are a necessary part of global free trade and/or fighting recessions.  The results from Janesville don't support their efficacy.  The job retraining seems to have worked somewhat like farm programs, easing the transition from a good past to a dimmer future. 

Blast from the Past: J.K. Galbraith

Paul Campos at Lawyers, Guns and Money posts about reading J.K. Galbraith's "The Affluent Society" (it's been 60 years since its publication).  That was a very influential book for liberals back in the days of the New Frontier.  But then came Michael Harrington and his "The Other America" which (re)discovered poverty.  Between the two, they shaped much of my thinking back then.

Virginia as Multi-Cutural

Tyler Cowen has a post on that theme at Bloomberg.

An anecdote: a relative recently attended the high school graduation of a grandson in North Andover, MA.  She commented to me she was surprised by how diverse the area had become (she was a girl in Andover during the 1940's).  I looked up on wikipedia and found North Andover was, in 2010, about 6 percent minority.  Currently the  school's site says 18+ percent are minority.

According to Cowen Charlottesville is 9 percent minority.   Fairfax county is about 50 percent.

I'm the sort of soft-headed bleeding heart liberal who enjoys this.  

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.

I'm a Born Civilian

That's what I joke to my wife, as a description of my time in the Army.  With that perspective, may I offer a small caveat to the praise being heaped on the President's new national security adviser, Gen. McMaster?  I don't know when having a Phd became the automatic basis for being an intellectual?  I suppose it partly reflects our (liberals) general incredulity that a military man could earn one. 

Yglesias and Jacobin Are Both Wrong

Matt Yglesias tweeted that this paragraph in a Jacobin article attacking incremental liberalism is mostly right.

The simple truth is that virtually every significant and lasting progressive achievement of the past hundred years was achieved not by patient, responsible gradualism, but through brief flurries of bold action. The Second New Deal in 1935–36 and Civil Rights and the Great Society in 1964–65 are the outstanding examples, but the more ambiguous victories of the Obama era fit the pattern, too.

The writer is sly, setting himself up to deny the "significance" of any achievement which was achieved by "gradualism", with the  fallback position of "virtually". Incrementalism often works by getting a piece of the pie now, another in a few years, so the argument is weighted. And the examples suggest that only legislative achievements count.  Wrong again.

One hundred years goes back to 1916, so here goes:

• Nineteenth Amendment (women's suffrage) 1919
• Brown versus Board of Education 1954  (the greatest example of incremental progress by liberals)
• Twenty-Fourth Amendment (poll tax) 1962 (so long a battle the ultimate victory became meaningless)
• Americans with Disability Act 1990
• federal aid to education (a long battle beginning in the 1950's to establish the principle and expand the pot)
• Equal Rights Amendment (a battle in which liberals were defeated, but the victory is being won incrementally)
• gay rights.
• Medicare, Part D, and CHIPS.

 More time to think would yield more examples.

IMHO what's right is this: sometimes liberals/progressives win victories by slow and patient work; sometimes we win victories by a breakthrough, a popular movement.  And sometimes we "win" something history shows was the wrong way to go.  Does anyone remember the progressive cause: public power, building hydroelectric dams? 

[Updated: Kevin Drum seems to take a similar position here. ]

Sunstein Forfeits His Liberal Cred

Cass Sunstein is a tremendous writer, in volume and  in content.  A law professor, he headed Obama's OMB office reviewing regulations during the first term.  He's also married to Samantha Power, our UN Ambassador.  So you figure he's firmly in the liberal camp.

He forfeits all that by his essay on "Gone With the Wind", the book, in the Atlantic.

I have to say I think I had much the same reaction 20 years or so ago when I read it. Mitchell told a good story, strongly feminist.  As I say in a comment on the website, I'd compare it to Downton Abbey, a similar romantic gauze combined with stories and nods to the changing times.

Liberrals in a Bind on Organic Checkoff?

Liberals, being mostly urban types, tend in my observation to have little sympathy for the various agricultural promotion programs.  And libertarians definitely think they're an encroachment on the freedom of the individual producer. 

So this line from todays Farm Policy'  may set up an interesting conflict:

"Mr. Lies also noted that, “Schrader said he also is working on an amendment with Rep. Reid Ribble, R-Wis., to establish a national checkoff program for organic producers.”

Why?  Because I think liberals are also more favorable to the organic movement.  Do they support a checkoff to promote organics or do they resist to promote freedom?

The Faults of Liberals

Kevin Drum has an interesting post reporting on a Haidt survey:

"what do people think? Answer: they substantially exaggerate the moral differences between liberals and conservatives. In fact, they exaggerate the extremity of moral concerns for both their own group and the other group. And there's bad news for us lefties: as the chart on the right shows, we were the biggest exaggerators. Apparently conservatives know us better than we know them."












He suggests some explanations.

Move to Massachusetts, It's Best

Here's a reasonably convincing article at Slate which boosts that far-left bastion of liberalism, Massachusetts. There's some surprising and counter-intuitive statistics included.

Call Me Conservative?

I consider myself liberal, but when I read this Ezra Klein pass-on of a Timothy Noah column, I seem to have a conservative knee-jerk reaction.  The issue is a Republican proposal to allow states to require a drug test for and enrollment in a GED program for recipients of unemployment insurance.

Noah sees them this way: "Their purpose is to make people who receive unemployment benefits understand that they are losers, and must be stigmatized and harrassed [sic] until they prove themselves worthy."

Whatever the motives of the Republicans who are pushing them, and I suspect them, my bottom line is I've got no problem in requiring the recipient of taxpayer dollars (technically it's "insurance", not taxes, but it's using the authority of the government) to do something.  In my dream world I'd encourage those who don't have a job and don't have a high school diploma and have time on their hands (i.e., no pre-school kids) to work on their GED.  And I'd have no problem with a drug test, provided there's a program available to help those who are using drugs.  So I could buy a deal where the Republicans extended unemployment insurance payments and paired it with a drug testing/treatment program and a GED training program.  Of course, the Republicans I assume are including the requirements without the programs.

Am I a Hybrid

David Roberts at Grist has a post discussing a piece by a couple of military types, thinking about the future in the 21st century. He includes this paragraph to support his claim the military men are liberal:

"The most comprehensive review of personality and political orientation to date is a 2003 meta-analysis of 88 prior studies involving 22,000 participants. The researchers—John Jost of NYU, Arie Kruglanski of the University of Maryland, and Jack Glaser and Frank Sulloway of Berkeley—found that conservatives have a greater desire to reach a decision quickly and stick to it, and are higher on conscientiousness, which includes neatness, orderliness, duty, and rule-following. Liberals are higher on openness, which includes intellectual curiosity, excitement-seeking, novelty, creativity for its own sake, and a craving for stimulation like travel, color, art, music, and literature.

Sounds to me like I'm something of a hybrid: I think I'd rate well on conscientiousness, but I don't like fast decisions (i.e., I'm indecisive); I have intellectual curiosity, but I don't do well on stimulation: change is bad at the personal level.

Lord Acton Was Right

Barking Up the Wrong Tree has a post, on a study which asked whether power makes us dehumanize people. The answer is "yes". Whether it's childhood bullying, or soldiers and civilians, the wealthy and the poor, whenever there's an imbalance of power it's going to be abused.  Not always, but enough of the time any moral person should be concerned and work to change the situation.

[Updated: On second thought, that might be my definition of the difference between conservatism and liberalism: liberalism thinks governmental action can be rational and improve balances of power; conservatism thinks government action will mostly make things worse.]

A Liberal's Wet Dream

Via Matt Yglesias, NY Times has an interactive website for the new Census data.  Looking at the tract in which I reside (western Reston/eastern Herndon south of Toll Road BTW I think the center of the Internet) the racial ethnic distribution is:
white 39%
Hispanic 24%
black 14%
Asian 22%
other 2 %

Median household income $84K

Odd figures for housing: the median unit is at $507K, up 97 % from 2000 to 2009 but the median rent is $920, down 2 %.  I frankly can't believe the house price, unless it excludes townhouses.  The discrepancy between the rise in housing and the decline in rental rates is interesting.