Disclaimer: Some content in this post may be based on outdated or inaccurate polling.
There has been and continues to be a lot of talk about President Obama's popularity, and the constant drumbeat on news shows seems to be that he is in trouble. But is he really? While it's true that a lot of national polls place his popularity around 50%, this is a misleading way to present his true popularity. Even more misleading is the practice of some outlets that use an index of those who report strong feelings to represent his popularity as a negative number.
Outside of the South, Obama is actually quite popular. Among Democrats he remains overwhelmingly popular (~90%), and in general his approval rating outside of the South is stable around 55-60% of respondents. He has strong positive ratings with women, minorities, and younger voters. It is essentially the white, male, elderly southern vote that goes against Obama - and this is really not very surprising given the history of that demographic.
The demographic strength of the GOP has been their appeal to the most reliable of voters - those who are well off, well educated, well aged and, frankly, pasty white. But with the changing demographics of the coming century, is there room for a party that refuses to admit that real americans can be female, young, diverse and appreciative of diversity?
The Republican Party right now looks to me like a very dangerous animal. We have here an elephant with just enough life left in it to make a huge mess, and one that apparently has little or no interest in productively engaging in the legislative process. But the dynamics of elections being what they are, the GOP will be well financed and well positioned (with a hand from the media) to make life even more difficult for the People.
I'm no fan of one party political systems, but given the current state of our government, paralyzed by a GOP bent on total obstruction, I do believe there should be room for a Democratic majority to keep our nation functioning. What we really need is for voters to remember why they voted in 2008, and to take responsibility for moving forward with leadership that represents progressive values by voting D.
Saturday, June 19, 2010
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
Are you smarter than an economics professor?
After reading an article in the Wall Street Journal yesterday ("Are You Smarter Than a Fifth Grader?" by Daniel B. Klein), I was bothered enough to put down the paper in disgust. This was such a pathetic editorial that I was shocked to read that "Mr. Klein is a professor of economics at George Mason University." I sure hope this piece is not representative of the quality of work he does for the University.
Over at 538 I was very happy to find a response to this piece of work. Nate Silver does a good job of pointing to the problems with this editorial, but the true depth of depravity it represents is not really expressed.
The premise of the article is that a Zogby internet poll provides some evidence that "The left flunks Econ 101". Instead, the professor himself flunks basic logic. Each of the survey questions is flawed, and even the "researchers" themselves are aware that they are not engaged in inquiry here - it's a political hit job from the start.
So what is the problem? Well, the problem is that the questions are part of a broader narrative by the right wing to paint liberals as "unenlightened" on economic issues, when in fact the basic problem is that the right fails to understand nuance. According to the studies' authors, the left is unreasonable to question their conservative orthodoxy - and this is the sole basis for their slur against the left.
So, taking the questions one by one (answers = strongly agree/agree/disagree/strongly disagree/not sure):
1) Restrictions on housing development make housing less affordable.
Of course, the author, citing "basic economics", believes that by definition this is true. But it's not. There are many examples of restrictions on housing development that make housing more affordable - especially provisions that require affordable units within larger developments, restrict the size of lots, and provide for higher density development. The pavlovian response offered by conservatives and libertarians is agreement - the more accurate response is to disagree because it's about the nature of the restrictions. Not all restrictions make housing less affordable.
2) Mandatory licensing of professional services increases the prices of those services.
Again, Dr. Klein believes that this is necessarily true, but in many cases, it simply isn't. Even setting aside the obvious benefits of professional licensing, there is not any empirical evidence that licensing adds to the price of the services offered. In fact, there are many factors that influence the prices of professional services - and licensing is not among them. Moreover, the way the question is worded, even one exception to this "rule" would be enough to justify a "disagree" answer. In other words, the pavlovian response is again ranked as enlightened, despite being wholly at odds with reality.
3) Overall, the standard of living is higher today than it was 30 years ago.
Here we have an interesting question - because the "standard of living" is left undefined, this question is an ink blot test of sorts. The reality is, with wage stagnation and increasing costs of living, many people are not enjoying a higher standard of living than 30 years ago - but that pesky term "overall" makes things even muddier. However, depending on how one defines the standard of living, there are good arguments on both sides. But despite the ambiguity of the question, Dr. Klein is confident that the "enlightened" response is to agree, even though debate on the subject could fill volumes.
4) Rent control leads to housing shortages.
This one is pretty easy to agree to as a basic principle - but even here the professor has elected to ignore possible techniques to ameliorate such shortages. While rent control may lead to housing shortages, and probably does in many cases, there is no reason that rent control cannot be combined with other efforts in a way that does not lead to housing shortages. This connection is not a direct cause and effect - and therefore it can be altered. Again - the pavlovian, simplistic response is preferred to the nuanced treatment.
5) A company with the largest market share is a monopoly.
This question might simply be worded poorly - but the poor wording introduces ambiguity, and this is the source of contention. While not all companies with the largest market share in their industries are monopolies, a company with a monopoly is by definition a company with the largest market share. In fact there are many companies with the largest market share that are monopolies - so it is not at all odd to agree that a company with the largest market share is a monopoly, because this is in fact true in many instances. A company with the largest market share often is a monopoly.
6) Third World workers working for American companies overseas are being exploited.
Here is where Dr. Klein finally set me off. Clearly, millions of Third World workers overseas are being exploited. In fact, that is the basic reason American companies have moved so much production overseas - they wish to exploit the lower cost labor that can be extracted from the Third World. To claim that the "enlightened" response to this statement is to disagree flies in the face of reason, common sense and decency. Clearly one would have to be living in a fantasy world to pretend that there are no workers being exploited overseas by American companies. Yet the Wall Street Journal and apparently the right wing in general cannot accept that there is exploitation involved. I believe this is called "jumping the shark".
7) Free trade leads to unemployment.
Seems pretty clear to me that free trade does lead to unemployment, but Dr. Klein would of course assert that "basic economics" could demonstrate otherwise. Free trade has certainly led to some unemployment where I live, as manufacturing plants have moved overseas. But that's not in keeping with the neocon narrative that free trade is somehow a miracle cure for economic woe.
8) Minimum wage laws raise unemployment.
This one is the holy grail for the conservatives. Their entire project is to convince the general population to drink the free market fundie kool-aid, so that basic worker protections like a 40 hour week, the minimum wage, the right to organize, and other protections can be stripped away. If they can convince the frightened masses that minimum wage laws are the reason for their unemployment, they will succeed in getting the underclass to self-destruct, paving the way for a free market orgy the likes of which the world has never had to suffer. I hope we won't have to.
Dr. Klein goes on to denigrate the left, while acknowledging obliquely the ideological basis for his conclusion ("To be sure, none of the eight questions specifically challenge the political sensibilities of conservatives and libertarians.") He claims that "the left has trouble squaring economic thinking with their political psychology, morals and aesthetics"
Perhaps that's a good thing, since Dr. Klein seems capable of abandoning morals, aesthetics and economic thinking in favor of promoting his pet political psychology, even in the guise of an academic.
I do agree with his closing statement: "Realizing that many of our leaders and their constituents are economically unenlightened sheds light on the troubles that surround us." but I think we intend it to be taken in different ways.
Over at 538 I was very happy to find a response to this piece of work. Nate Silver does a good job of pointing to the problems with this editorial, but the true depth of depravity it represents is not really expressed.
The premise of the article is that a Zogby internet poll provides some evidence that "The left flunks Econ 101". Instead, the professor himself flunks basic logic. Each of the survey questions is flawed, and even the "researchers" themselves are aware that they are not engaged in inquiry here - it's a political hit job from the start.
So what is the problem? Well, the problem is that the questions are part of a broader narrative by the right wing to paint liberals as "unenlightened" on economic issues, when in fact the basic problem is that the right fails to understand nuance. According to the studies' authors, the left is unreasonable to question their conservative orthodoxy - and this is the sole basis for their slur against the left.
So, taking the questions one by one (answers = strongly agree/agree/disagree/strongly disagree/not sure):
1) Restrictions on housing development make housing less affordable.
Of course, the author, citing "basic economics", believes that by definition this is true. But it's not. There are many examples of restrictions on housing development that make housing more affordable - especially provisions that require affordable units within larger developments, restrict the size of lots, and provide for higher density development. The pavlovian response offered by conservatives and libertarians is agreement - the more accurate response is to disagree because it's about the nature of the restrictions. Not all restrictions make housing less affordable.
2) Mandatory licensing of professional services increases the prices of those services.
Again, Dr. Klein believes that this is necessarily true, but in many cases, it simply isn't. Even setting aside the obvious benefits of professional licensing, there is not any empirical evidence that licensing adds to the price of the services offered. In fact, there are many factors that influence the prices of professional services - and licensing is not among them. Moreover, the way the question is worded, even one exception to this "rule" would be enough to justify a "disagree" answer. In other words, the pavlovian response is again ranked as enlightened, despite being wholly at odds with reality.
3) Overall, the standard of living is higher today than it was 30 years ago.
Here we have an interesting question - because the "standard of living" is left undefined, this question is an ink blot test of sorts. The reality is, with wage stagnation and increasing costs of living, many people are not enjoying a higher standard of living than 30 years ago - but that pesky term "overall" makes things even muddier. However, depending on how one defines the standard of living, there are good arguments on both sides. But despite the ambiguity of the question, Dr. Klein is confident that the "enlightened" response is to agree, even though debate on the subject could fill volumes.
4) Rent control leads to housing shortages.
This one is pretty easy to agree to as a basic principle - but even here the professor has elected to ignore possible techniques to ameliorate such shortages. While rent control may lead to housing shortages, and probably does in many cases, there is no reason that rent control cannot be combined with other efforts in a way that does not lead to housing shortages. This connection is not a direct cause and effect - and therefore it can be altered. Again - the pavlovian, simplistic response is preferred to the nuanced treatment.
5) A company with the largest market share is a monopoly.
This question might simply be worded poorly - but the poor wording introduces ambiguity, and this is the source of contention. While not all companies with the largest market share in their industries are monopolies, a company with a monopoly is by definition a company with the largest market share. In fact there are many companies with the largest market share that are monopolies - so it is not at all odd to agree that a company with the largest market share is a monopoly, because this is in fact true in many instances. A company with the largest market share often is a monopoly.
6) Third World workers working for American companies overseas are being exploited.
Here is where Dr. Klein finally set me off. Clearly, millions of Third World workers overseas are being exploited. In fact, that is the basic reason American companies have moved so much production overseas - they wish to exploit the lower cost labor that can be extracted from the Third World. To claim that the "enlightened" response to this statement is to disagree flies in the face of reason, common sense and decency. Clearly one would have to be living in a fantasy world to pretend that there are no workers being exploited overseas by American companies. Yet the Wall Street Journal and apparently the right wing in general cannot accept that there is exploitation involved. I believe this is called "jumping the shark".
7) Free trade leads to unemployment.
Seems pretty clear to me that free trade does lead to unemployment, but Dr. Klein would of course assert that "basic economics" could demonstrate otherwise. Free trade has certainly led to some unemployment where I live, as manufacturing plants have moved overseas. But that's not in keeping with the neocon narrative that free trade is somehow a miracle cure for economic woe.
8) Minimum wage laws raise unemployment.
This one is the holy grail for the conservatives. Their entire project is to convince the general population to drink the free market fundie kool-aid, so that basic worker protections like a 40 hour week, the minimum wage, the right to organize, and other protections can be stripped away. If they can convince the frightened masses that minimum wage laws are the reason for their unemployment, they will succeed in getting the underclass to self-destruct, paving the way for a free market orgy the likes of which the world has never had to suffer. I hope we won't have to.
Dr. Klein goes on to denigrate the left, while acknowledging obliquely the ideological basis for his conclusion ("To be sure, none of the eight questions specifically challenge the political sensibilities of conservatives and libertarians.") He claims that "the left has trouble squaring economic thinking with their political psychology, morals and aesthetics"
Perhaps that's a good thing, since Dr. Klein seems capable of abandoning morals, aesthetics and economic thinking in favor of promoting his pet political psychology, even in the guise of an academic.
I do agree with his closing statement: "Realizing that many of our leaders and their constituents are economically unenlightened sheds light on the troubles that surround us." but I think we intend it to be taken in different ways.
Friday, May 21, 2010
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Scott Brown - Elected, or Selected?
The recent editorial by Karl Rove, in which he predicted 3-6 point victory for Scott Brown dovetails all too cleanly with news that Diebold's optical scan machinery was employed to count the votes. This is a corporate sham election, and unless the people of Massachusetts take action to prevent this election from being certified without an investigation (unlikely given the concession by Coakley) it will be the first of many more to be stolen by the right wing machine - literally.
Massachusetts voting machines are programmed and serviced by New England Diebold affiliate LHS Associates.
"The electronic voting systems used in Massachusetts are notoriously plagued with problems and vulnerabilities, and are in violation of federal voting system standards. Moreover, they are sold, programmed, and maintained by a company with a disturbing criminal background."
Unfortunately it really is this easy to subvert representative democracy. It's not really fair, or right, and it is something we should all work to fight against. Don't let corporations pretend to count your votes!
Massachusetts voting machines are programmed and serviced by New England Diebold affiliate LHS Associates.
"The electronic voting systems used in Massachusetts are notoriously plagued with problems and vulnerabilities, and are in violation of federal voting system standards. Moreover, they are sold, programmed, and maintained by a company with a disturbing criminal background."
Unfortunately it really is this easy to subvert representative democracy. It's not really fair, or right, and it is something we should all work to fight against. Don't let corporations pretend to count your votes!
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Joe Lieberman: Blinded by the Right
Health care reform is almost ready for a vote, and now Joe Lieberman, Independent Senator from Connecticut is promising to filibuster with the GOP.
I say: let them filibuster. Let them spend the holidays reading the phone book and trying to deny health care to the American people. Eventually they will have to let the vote happen, and health care will pass.
I say: let them filibuster. Let them spend the holidays reading the phone book and trying to deny health care to the American people. Eventually they will have to let the vote happen, and health care will pass.
Monday, October 12, 2009
Public Option NOW
The insurance industry has decided to turn on the health care reform bill, and attacks at the best possible moment for Democrats. Rather than continuing to work on this bill that protects insurance companies, the foolish corporations have elected to mount an offensive on the bill. They will regret this decision, because it means the beginning of the end of private insurance.
With cover provided by private companies who want to raise rates on consumers, the Dems will have every reason to pursue a robust and universal public option. If private insurance companies want to raise rates by thousands of dollars, then the best solution for consumers is an option that eliminates them from the process.
The left is gearing up for a fight in 2010 - and answering the insurance companies with strong congressional action is a great way to earn the trust of voters, and bring real reform to America's health care systems.
With cover provided by private companies who want to raise rates on consumers, the Dems will have every reason to pursue a robust and universal public option. If private insurance companies want to raise rates by thousands of dollars, then the best solution for consumers is an option that eliminates them from the process.
The left is gearing up for a fight in 2010 - and answering the insurance companies with strong congressional action is a great way to earn the trust of voters, and bring real reform to America's health care systems.
Thursday, October 8, 2009
SCOTUS - pants on fire
The Supreme Court failed to address the unconstitutional ruling of Florida's judiciary, and let stand a law that violates the basic rights of students in that state. The decision not to hear this case is a direct attack on current precedent. In 1943, the SCOTUS ruled on a similar case, and concluded that students enjoy the same right of conscience as any other citizen, and cannot be compelled to salute or to pledge allegiance to the flag.
This hits very close to home for me, as I was one of the few students in my school who objected to the pledge, and refused to legitimate the indoctrination it represents. If I had been subject to discipline of the nature practiced in Florida, I expect I would have brought a suit as well. Coercing students into reciting the pledge serves no legitimate purpose, and requiring parental excuses does nothing to remedy the assault on the first amendment.
This is a travesty, but at the same time, I am of mixed mind - would the SCOTUS have overturned their previous ruling? That could have been an even worse disaster. Still, I encourage students in Florida (and everywhere) to ignore such laws and follow their conscience and the constitution. The precedent from 1943 still stands, and the right to freedom of expression trumps any judicial pronouncement in these cases.
This hits very close to home for me, as I was one of the few students in my school who objected to the pledge, and refused to legitimate the indoctrination it represents. If I had been subject to discipline of the nature practiced in Florida, I expect I would have brought a suit as well. Coercing students into reciting the pledge serves no legitimate purpose, and requiring parental excuses does nothing to remedy the assault on the first amendment.
This is a travesty, but at the same time, I am of mixed mind - would the SCOTUS have overturned their previous ruling? That could have been an even worse disaster. Still, I encourage students in Florida (and everywhere) to ignore such laws and follow their conscience and the constitution. The precedent from 1943 still stands, and the right to freedom of expression trumps any judicial pronouncement in these cases.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
