Why I, a Liberal, Worry About the Federal Debt

 Most liberals these days don't worry about the debt.  Even Kevin Drum, whose view I mostly follow, is rather blase about it.  So why do I worry?

One word: history.

I've lived throughabout a third of the life of the nation, which included some big increases in the debt, some severe inflation, and lots of changes.  Lessons I've learned:

• nothing lasts forever--the fact that inflation has been low, contrary to expectations of economists and conservative debt hawks, for many years doesn't mean it will always be low.
• inflation causes problems--it works for those with real assets, like homeowners, but not for people like those receiving aid from the government. 
• rising inflation rates leads to rising interest rates, which can rapidly eat up all flexibility in government budgets.  (See Clinton--whose 1992 program was killed by the bond traders.)

If we go on adding debt, it's like living at the foot of a mountain.  It snows on top of the mountain and the drifts build up.  But everyone says it's okay, it's been years since the last avalanche. So people build more houses at the foot of the mountain, and each time it snows there's no avalanche.  Comes the day when there is an avalanche and all the houses are wiped away.

Bottom line, I remember the 1950's, and 1960's when the Dem economists thought they had things figured and inflation was low enough.  Then Vietnam war heated up, debt increased, and money got tight.  We struggled through years of fighting inflation.  LBJ's Great Society dreams were sacrificed as a result.

I Don't Understand the Iowa Governor

 From the Gazette:

Gov. Kim Reynolds on Sunday requested an expedited federal disaster declaration to aid Iowa counties ravaged by last week’s a derecho that caused damage preliminarily estimated at nearly $4 billion — including $3.77 billion in crop damage in 36 counties.

What I don't understand is the crop damage request--given the changes in crop insurance and disaster programs in the 1990's I don't think there's any basis for it; at least there's no program under which USDA could make the money available.   

Ducks Pick Ducks

Rand did a big study of how the different US armed forces recruit and promote their general officers, particularly what are the features of each one's culture.  I skimmed it, finding it interesting, with some resonance with the differences in the cultures of the different USDA agencies I once knew.  

I hadn't run across the saying in the title before, but it makes sense.  It explains a lot of patterns in the bureaucracy.  A paragraph:

 “Ducks pick ducks.” We were unable to obtain data on exact compositions and backgrounds of promotion board members in order to compare them with the backgrounds of the candidates they ultimately chose for promotion. But we heard repeatedly from interviewees in each service that there is a tendency for promotion boards to select officers whose career experiences are comparable to their own, and for senior officers to select officers with backgrounds similar to theirs for aide jobs, positions that serve as a signal of O-7 potential to board members and can provide access to powerful networks of G/FOs. We also observed this trend in the SLSE. The notion of “ducks picking ducks” serves to cyclically reinforce service culture by perpetuating the selection of officers who similarly reflect service goals and preferences. As far back as World War II, Morris Janowitz wrote about the propensity of senior military leaders to fill their staff roles (e.g., military assistant or executive officer) with people who could “speak the same language.”582 However, this observation does not mean that the officers who are selected for promotion by similar, more senior officers are necessarily less qualified; it is possible that the “ducks pick ducks” tendency in some cases occurs because well-qualified officers sitting on promotion boards are selecting for other wellqualified officers.

More From Klein

Finished Klein's "Why We're Polarized".  It's due at the library on Sat., but I may get it out again--it's that good.

One point he made struck me: the Democratic Party is an assemblage of identity groups, while the Republicans are more one identity group.  (Not sure that's 100 percent accurate, but they lean that way.)

The result is that the Dems can elect moderates who can appeal to several of their groups, while the Reps don't have that option--it's striking the balance between moderate Reps and conservative Reps.

The Competition for Attention

 Ezra Klein in his "Why We're Polarized" points out there's been a big increase in the competition for attention (my term). In the 1970's we had 3 TV networks plus PBS, a newspaper and a handful of magazines which provided political information.  And access to material published in the past was limited.

Now of course we have more networks, more channels, more social networks and almost everything written remains available.  Perhaps even more significant, the same explosion of channels has happened for ally and all interests one can imagine.  Consider the availability of porn, with every peculiar interest/fetish being served up in a way unimaginable back in the 1970's.  Consider the handcrafts, all the networks and organizations set up to serve knitters, weavers, etc. etc.  

Everything I've mentioned is competing for attention.  People don't have unlimited time and money to devote to everything which might be interesting, so they have to specialize.  In the case of political interests, that tends to mean more controversy--controversy sells.

More on Election/Mail Problems

 As is often the case, I'm not as alarmed as the media or others concerned about the decline of USPS capacity and its impact on the election.  These considerations:

• the media have done their job of crying the alarm (and exaggerating it.  One meme has been the need for USPS to deliver social security checks, but they've been direct deposit for years now.  It's true that rural areas in particular are dependent on USPS.  I agree with the mandate of universal service.  I agree with Kevin Drum that current charges for first class are too low when compared to other countries.  I agree with Charles Lane that charges for corporate mailings are too low, due to their lobby on Capitol Hill.  And it's likely true that many of the changes De Joy has instituted are "good management", if not wise politically.)
• leaders are responding to the alarm.  Michelle Obama urged in-person voting and/or voting early and ensuring that the ballot was received.  Gov. Northam is pushing changes in VA arrangements in a special session of the legislature.  We're 77 days out and given the publicity there will be a lot of changes across the country.
• Harshaw's rule says there will be glitches, widespread, but I'm predicting that the media around 10 pm on Nov. 3 will say the election has gone/is going better than the worse predictions.

Why We're Polarized

In the process of reading this book by Ezra Klein.  One researcher he cites is Henri Tajfel, who found that once we humans categorize things, assign labels to them whether it's groups of people, symbols, or whatever, we start acting on it.  With respect to people this led to:

"They proposed that people have an inbuilt tendency to categorize themselves into one or more "ingroups", building a part of their identity on the basis of membership of that group and enforcing boundaries with other groups.

Social identity theory suggests that people identify with groups in such a way as to maximize positive distinctiveness. Groups offer both identity (they tell us who we are) and self-esteem (they make us feel good about ourselves). The theory of social identity has had a very substantial impact on many areas of social psychology, including group dynamics, intergroup relations, prejudice and stereotyping, and organizational psychology."

Klein notes the dynamics of sports fans, where the objective differences among teams are trivial, but the fanaticism can be large. 

The Strange Death of Europe

 I skimmed through this 2017 book  by Douglas Murray. It's interesting, because it's a very Euro-centric view of migration, but you see parallels and contrasts with the concerns in the US embodied in the Trump administration.  Some points which stuck out to me:

• the decline of Christianity 
• the loss of standards by which to judge (adversely) the Muslim immigrants 
• European guilt over colonialism and German guilt over the Holocaust
• governments were always behind the curve in reacting to increased flow of immigrants
• immigrants as violent, crime-ridden, and not integrating into the society
• loss of faith in Europe
• almost total ignoring of US trends and experience
• perspective that societies are unchangeable, that Europeans don't change when they emigrate, that Muslims don't change
• perspective that European culture/society is very vulnerable to change and loss of old historic values
• alienation from modern life, art, 
• the author's perception is that migrants are unskilled, unlike the US where several groups are more highly skilled than the norm for Americans.

One thing which strikes me--human societies have problems with too rapid changes. Sometimes the reaction is over-reaction, throwing the baby out with the bathwater.  Sometimes we can succeed in what I'd call "metering change"--taking measures which tend to slow the pace of change down to a speed which is acceptable.  I think that was the case with the New Deal and subsequent farm programs--they didn't save farmers for good, but they "flattened the curve", spreading the change over a longer time with a slower pace.

Prediction on Election Problems

There's a growing number of pieces discussing various problems which could arise in determining the outcome of the 2020 election. Slate has a piece on ten of them, collected from various sources.  As is often the case, I'm more optimistic.

I'll make this set of predictions:

• I don't think there will be a major problem, because I think the Biden-Harris ticket will win convincingly in enough states on election night to make the outcome clear.  There may be some states where the outcome is a bit doubtful, where recounts are going to happen, but history tells us recounts rarely change the result.
• If there are major problems, I expect the leaders of the Republican Party, excluding the Trump-Pence camp, to react much as one would have expected in the past.  Fight for advantage within the rules, as in Florida, but not violate norms.
• Even for Trump and Pence, I don't expect major violations of norms post-election.  Pence would want to run in 2024 and the Kushners may well have ambitions of their own.  At the least a long fight with norm violations is not going to do the Trump Organization any good.  

Questions To Live By

 Reading a recent bio of Ben Franklin.  IIRC we had to read his autobiography in my college course on American Intellectual History.  I've read other books on him, a very engaging figure.  But I'd forgotten these questions which were prerequisite to someone joining his Junto Club, an early do-good nonprofit:

Have you any particular disrespect to any present members? Answer. I have not.
Do you sincerely declare that you love mankind in general, of what profession or religion soever? Answer. I do.
Do you think any person ought to be harmed in his body, name, or goods, for mere speculative opinions, or his external way of worship? Answer. No.
Do you love truth for truth's sake, and will you endeavor impartially to find and receive it yourself, and communicate it to others? Answer. Yes.

Wikipedia tells us that a possible predecessor was a British club, which included John Locke.

I observe the third question is relevant to the so-called "cancel" culture.