How Broken Are We?

When I read this story about the bullshit posturing over who gets "credit" for the first images of a black hole, it's difficult to think of anything but how broken we are as a society.  It's understandable  -given how underrepresented women are in the STEM fields - to see Katie Bouman held up as a nice example of the contributions women make to science and technology.  However, it was wrong to say that she "did it."  It was even more wrong to denigrate her important contributions out of some peevish whine about male grievance. 

The most important advancements in human history have almost always been collaborations.  Or they have been the product of work that comes to fruition at the same time.  That's why Liebnitz and Newton both invented calculus at the same time, and two different people invented the telephone at roughly the same time. 

Some of this is the myth of the solitary genius, which has always warped our understanding of human achievement.  Edison ran a factory full of inventors, but he gets the credit for their work.

Now, of course, the internet allows us to force every single goddamned story through a political filter.  Every event is thrust forward to advance some political agenda - usually a shitty one.  My guess is that these opinions were always out there, but now they are amplified by being shared. 

It's exhausting.

It's not going to get any better.

Changing The Rules

HR1 is a good start at reforming democracy, but there has to be a series of laws passed after Democrats gain control of government that limit some of the egregious loopholes that Trump has exploited.  Presidential candidates must be transparent with their personal finances.  New safeguards need to be put in place surrounding the Justice department's impartiality.

And there are going to have to be more vigorous nepotism laws.

These fucking people....

Good News From Across The Pond

The EU has given the British an extension on Brexit until October.  That lessens the chance of a global recession caused by the nationalism of Putin's willing fools in Britain.  Meanwhile, another willing fool  - accused rapist Julian Assange - has been arrested in London after the Ecuadorians finally had enough of his shit.

Also, they deposed the long time dictator of Sudan.

Not everything is awful.  Just in DC at the moment.

Today In Your Democracy In Crisis

Where shall we begin?

The Attorney General of the United States was spreading conspiracy theories.

He also looks like he will refuse to issue the Mueller report.

The Treasury Department said they can't give the House Trump's tax returns, even though the law is very clear on this.

Fox News questioned whether a Muslim member of Congress was a real American.

Three or more states are moving to make abortions effectively illegal.

A Trump nominee for the Justice Department could not say if Brown v Board of Ed was properly decided.

The interim director of ICE is leaving because he's not sadistic enough.

These.  Fucking. People.

The Worst People

Among all the grifters, incompetents and racists that have populated the Trump Maladministration, there was - for a spell - an agreement that he would staff certain critical positions with competent people.  This was why his first National Security team included people like Mattis and McMaster.  The jettisoning of Nielsen from Homeland Security is a troubling expression of the idea that Trump is no going full bore into hack loyalists over any sort of expertise or competence.

This look also to be true for the Federal Reserve.  Trump has nominated two complete fools for these powerful positions.  Stephen Moore is a hack's hack with no discernible economic insights or abilities.  And he's the BETTER of the two candidates being vomited forth from the West Wing. The assumption is that Herman Cain will be voted down and Moore given a seat on the Fed Board, because the GOP can only oppose outright lunacy (Cain) as opposed to mere incompetence (Moore).

Still, it's worth gaming out if there are four GOP Senators who might oppose both Moore and Cain.  My first thought was obviously Murkowski, just because she's the only even slightly independent voice in the GOP caucus.  One has to assume that Collins will dither and fuss and then vote for Trump's people anyway.  Rob Portman might defect as a Senator with at least a modicum of financial expertise. 

But the best way to sink these disastrous choices would be in Committee.  Neither will get any Democratic votes, so only one GOP member of the Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs committee would have to flip.  Jerry Moran is retiring and sick of the bullshit, Martha McSally has to win re-election in a purpling state, Ben Sasse and Tim Scott occasionally wander off the beaten path, and Pat Toomey and Richard Shelby are also votes to watch.

Looking over the roster, I have to admit, it's very on-brand of the committee on Urban Affairs to have GOP Senators from: Idaho, Alabama, Nebraska, Arkansas, North and South Dakota and Kansas...

How Do We Talk About This?

Age is central question in the 2020 election, and we need to address it.  Trump, Biden and Sanders are all over 70.  Elizabeth Warren is 69.  Not every septuagenarian is mentally impaired, but a lot are.  Trump was never an intelligent man - cunning perhaps - but there are clear signs that he lacks even the average capacities he demonstrated as a younger man.  Biden has already demonstrated a mental inflexibility when it comes to his tactile experiences with other people.  Sanders locks in on his ideology at the expense of seeing anything on the periphery.

There are excellent candidates in the "sweet spot" of their 50s.  There are also some young candidates.  I believe that Pete Buttigieg is a very impressive person and candidate, but I think his age is a legitimate concern.  You aren't as wise at 37 as you might be.  Life has more lessons to teach you.  If Buttigieg's youth is an issue - and it should be - then Biden and Sanders' ages should be an issue, too.

Talking about it is tricky, because of accusations of "ageism."  However, we have mandatory retirement ages in certain industries, and it strikes me as being plausible that we should have one for a job that requires extraordinary mental dexterity. 

Not Terrible Enough

I think Kirstjen Nielsen is guilty of crimes against humanity for what was done on our southern border.  But she wasn't cruel and stupid enough for Trump. Apparently, only Stephen Miller is cruel enough.

As Trump gets more and more erratic, those who are merely cruel as opposed to depraved will abandon his administration to those who are truly vile (a la Miller).  Policies will get stupider and crueler.

I'm A Touch Concerned

I've been arguing on Facebook with David Greenberg about Joe Biden.  I am not a fan of a 76 year old man running for president.  I am not a fan of someone feeling entitled to the nomination because he was VP and a running punchline under Obama.  I am not a fan of Biden's bankruptcy bill when he was in the Senate.  I loved "Uncle Joe" memes, but when it comes to taking down Trump, I don't think Biden is the guy.  For many of the same reasons, Bernie isn't the guy.  He's 77, he has almost no legislative accomplishments to his name, he's a cranky old guy whose vision of America is either vague or negative.

The problem is that Sanders and Biden have the highest name recognition of the Democratic field.  As long as the field is hopelessly crowded, high name recognition will insure a sizable portion of the vote.  Harris has demonstrated some considerable political chops.  Warren has easily the most comprehensive and important policy agenda since Lyndon Johnson.  Buttigieg and O'Rourke have tapped into considerable charisma.  But as long as the field is crowded with Yangs and Salwells and Gabbards and Inslees and Hickenloopers...there is no room for the next page to be written.  It will be 2008 and 2016 re-runs.

Hopefully, the bulk of these aspirational candidates are simply building their national profiles and donor lists.  But if they stick around past Christmas, we have a problem.

Biden Ain't Your Jesus

Joe Biden is the current polling leader of the Democrats and he's not currently running.  However, Biden's high approval ratings are likely a product of several factors:

- He's got the highest name recognition of any candidate.
- He benefits from Obama nostalgia.
- He appeals to a certain important segment of the Democratic electorate.

But there's a counterpoint to all this:

- Name recognition is a weak predictor of future electoral success, especially when there are so many extremely capable candidates in the field. Lots of that name recognition is a function of a long career.  A long career means a target rich environment.
- Obama and the people around him have never really given Biden full throated support.  And Biden is just...not Obama.  He's gaffe prone and impulsive, where Obama was disciplined.  He's a career politician where Obama was an outsider.
- That segment of the Democratic party that Biden appeals to is shrinking in importance.

I believe that Biden would have beaten Trump in 2016, because he would have likely won Pennsylvania and Michigan.  Biden does have some appeal to WWC voters and he wouldn't be damaged by the latent sexism that hurt Clinton.  I believe that Biden could beat Trump in 2020, but then I believe most of the Democratic candidates can beat Trump in 2020.  (Remember several important things: Trump voters are older, so there are less of them each year; he ran an inside straight to win the Electoral College; a lot of voters said "what's the worst he could do" and now regret that.)

The question is: Which candidate can thump the Republican party so hard that it takes several electoral cycles for them to recover?  Who can usher in the next stage of building a Democratic coalition that will be as ascendent as the FDR and Reagan coalitions?  Who knits together people of color, college educated whites and single women into a majority party that consistently wins elections for the next 20 years?

THAT is the goal for 2020.  Biden is a look backwards.  He's old.  He's never been a good campaigner at the national level.  He suffers from fatal flaws as a Democratic candidate today: his closeness to the financial sector (Bankruptcy Bill), his past lamentable votes (the Crime Bill) and his inability to read where women are at this moment when it comes to entitled behavior from powerful white men.

Biden's touchy-feely personal style isn't really the problem, it's that he's old, when the party skews young. His tone-deaf joking about this issue shows how little he has a read for the bulk of the party and how prone he is to stepping on his own dick.

The Onion had a lot of fun lampooning Biden as Vice President (at least in part because Obama proved so hard to mock).  They did it by basically depicting him as your loser, dropout relative who cleans pools to buy a used Camaro because the chicks dig it.  They mocked him as being a man out of time.  He still is that.

Biden is not going to save the Democratic party, because he's not a very good candidate.  He wasn't in '92.  He wasn't in '08.  He is very much not today.

UPDATE: This.

How Many Continents Are There?

I love this argument.

"Continents" are whatever we define them as.  That makes the definition important, but also how we apply the definition. 

That's what makes it so fun.

Fixing The System

Buttigieg and Warren get it.

Kill It With Fire

Dana Milbank bemoans the latest chipping away with the filibuster in the Senate.  But it's tough to say that the problem with the Senate is the filibuster.  The problem with the Senate is the fact that Wyoming has as many votes as California.  In fact, the filibuster perpetuates and extends this anti-democratic feature, by requiring 60 votes for meaningful legislation. Given that Democrats tend to be the ones actually trying to legislate, I'm not sure why they feel it's important to give 41 Senators the right to stymie the will of the people. 

These F-ing People

The Trump administration is literally an enemy of children. Between caging children on the borders, cutting school funding and now working hard to make products for children less safe, I think we can safely say that if the Republican party was a parent, we would be calling child services on it.

Blunderbuss

It is somewhat amazing that Trump has not cratered the global economy, even if he has greatly hurt American farmers.

Still, maybe he will close the border, which combined with no-plan Brexit, could tip us into a recession.

As a recession caused by policy rather than macroeconomic failures, it could presumably be reversed by better policy.  Which we will hopefully get in 2021.

Ponies For Everyone

There is no perfect candidate.  There is no one who will not cross some line you feel is important.  I remember telling some starry-eyed students back in 2009: "Obama will disappoint you."  That was because so much of Obama's ascent to the presidency seemed impossible that everything now seemed possible.  "Hope and change" was such a load of vacancy that anyone could step into that "vision."  Why, yes!  I do like hope!  AND change!"

The 2020 primary is already exhausting online.  This example was especially interesting.  It's a comprehensive takedown of Pete Buttigieg based on the fact that Pete Buttigieg has worked hard and succeeded.  The very fact that Buttigieg went to Harvard and joined the military is what the author - ironically or not a Harvard grad student - finds so troubling.  Buttigieg is one of those "naive liberals" who believe the best in America.  The author routinely derides Buttigieg's fascination with Graham Greene's depiction of American power and the idea that more often than not, America makes bad choices for the right reasons.  If we make foolish and destructive decisions, it comes from a place - usually - of well-meaning ideals.

That's a reasonable criticism for a Harvard grad student in Sociology to make.  It is an appalling position for an aspiring politician to make.  I cannot imagine ANY successful run for national or statewide office that is predicated on America being an immoral place.  The author admits his bias:

I don’t trust former McKinsey consultants. I don’t trust military intelligence officers. And I don’t trust the type of people likely to appear on “40 under 40” lists, the valedictorian-to-Harvard-to-Rhodes-Scholarship types who populate the American elite. I don’t trust people who get flattering reams of newspaper profiles and are pitched as the Next Big Thing That You Must Pay Attention To, and I don’t trust wunderkinds who become successful too early. Why? Because I am somewhat cynical about the United States meritocracy. Few people amass these kind of  résumés if they are the type to openly challenge authority. Noam Chomsky says that the factors predicting success in our “meritocracy” are a “combination of greed, cynicism, obsequiousness and subordination, lack of curiosity and independence of mind, [and] self-serving disregard for others.” So when journalists see “Harvard” and think “impressive,” I see it and think “uh-oh.”

And, again, that's fine as far as an academic criticism of meritocracy goes. 

My worry is that the Extremely Online Progressive Left has replaced pragmatism with ideals.  Republicans have failed to successfully govern the country because they are more wedded to their ideology than they are to facts on the ground.  The next Democratic president will be as progressive as the Senate allows her or him to be.  That's it.  The policy differences between Harris, Warren, Hickenlooper, O'Rourke and Sanders are really no more than HOW to do certain things that WHETHER to do certain things.

I think Buttigieg is too young and too inexperienced.  But the fact that he is ferociously intelligent, genuinely empathetic and has achieved a lot in his young life is not to me a disqualifying set of conditions.