New School Politics

If you're a first time visitor, you may want to subscribe to our RSS feed, which will keep you up to date with all the latest New School Politics posts. Thanks for visiting!

Here’s his reason:

 I have made repeated efforts to encourage the Chinese government to use its unique influence to bring safety and stability to the Darfur region of Sudan. Although some progress has been made along the way, most notably, the passage of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1769, the situation in Darfur continues to worsen and the violence continues to accelerate.

…And I’m sure China really cares…

When it comes to politics, entertainers consistently demonstrate that they aren’t very bright. Then again I guess we shouln’t expect much from Spielberg who didn’t graduate film school until 2002, and most certainly did not study international relations. Normally, it takes a little more than the cries of celebrities to register any leverage on world superpowers. The point adds to what I have already said about the naivete of the “save Darfur” movement. Here is my first post on why “I don’t care about Darfur.”

I have more recently written another newspaper article elaborating on the impracticality of interventionalist Darfur policy. If you press the “continue reading” link at the bottom of the post you will be able to see it.

Lire le reste de cet article »

Popularity: 43% [?]

I have posted three videos which are of significance to the presidential race since last week.

First, is Ann Coulter speaking at CPAC. She has recently made news for announcing that she would support Hillary Clinton over John McCain in a general election. While there are many laughs to around at the prospect of this, it does raise a serious point: whether a general election whooping can discipline and improve the party in the long run; and moreover, whether a party member should vote against their nominee if the nominee shies from their views.

This is likely to be the key question for conservatives this election cycle. My own thoughts are yes; and yes. But in this case I, personally, am still inclined to vote for McCain because I do not think that his taste for reducing (or not) the size of government differs significantly from any other viable candidates who ran for the nomination (save the great Ron Paul). A scenario where I would have voted against the Republican candidate is if Huckabee was nominated for the sake of castigating Republicans for getting too religious.

Anyways, the video is entertaining. Much of it is quite funny, some is not all that “appropriate,” but you should judge for yourself. Lire le reste de cet article »

Popularity: 30% [?]

For any entry-level liberal, say an angsty young 13-14 year old reaching out for the arms of Papa Bono and Mama Greenday to lift them up into the simplistic world of catchy revolutionary slogans, publications like Rolling Stone often provide kindling for the fires of righteous adolescent fury. But once you grow up a little and do your homework, you find out that the Rolling Stone reporters, the Nader freaks, anarchists, and yes, even the opinionated pamphleteers-turned-bloggers(thanks to the advent of technology to quicken the pace of kvetching worldwide), have always been in the losing corner of the losing side, flanking the port on the half of the boat that is first to sink. One such recent article, entitled “The Chicken Doves,” offers some lopsided reporting in the way of first-hand accounts of

anti-establishment fringe elements, paired with a healthy helping of expletives to balance it out, and finally coming to this conclusion: Democrins or Republicrats, the establishment is out to get us. The establishment will always lie to you, and every time Nancy Pelosi blinks (that’s 103 times since you’ve started reading this post), an angel loses its wings. My point? My point is to ask columnist Matt Taibbi, or any cynical nihilistic young gun running his mouth off, what his point is. What is the point of cyclical logic and endless bitching about blockades in progress. That’s democracy, constant back and forth until you arrive at a compromise. The Reid and Pelosi team may have stopped fighting to end the war prematurely, but it does seem logical to focus energies on installing a Democratic president for four years, then ending the war in the next 8 months, and it does not constitute a betrayal of the American people as Mr. Taibbi suggests. Ok, Taibbi isn’t the worst example, as a writer for Rolling Stone, being cynical and foul-mouthed is practically in his job description, but this particular column is a step down from his coverage of the 2004 campaigns.

This is what’s so great about Barack Obama. Though he’s seen much of the world, much of the misfortunes of working class people all over the world, he’s come out relatively free of cynicism. He has the audacity to hope. He’s a mensch in every sensch. But if and when he gets into office, the American people can expect the same kind of political stagnation they can expect from any new leader, and even with a majority in the house and senate, progress will be slow. And it should be, because hasty moves are for dicatorships and autocrats, and that kind of governance-by-mandate has an efficiency that is always short lived. What we can hope for in the leaders of tomorrow is competence. Not inspiration, not a new dawn, but competence and an understanding of the issues that stems from the New School of Politics. The idealism of Free Love and social revolution turned out to be a failure, but our generation, with its overexposure to information and media and suffering in the world is as prepared as any to deal with the oncoming crisis of terrorism and an economy so interconnected that on ripple can send global shockwaves in days. Just because we didn’t live through the poverty of the Great Depression or the fear of Nuclear Holocaust doesn’t mean we’re uneducated and unprepared for dealing with the issues of the rise and fall of the market, and nuclear nonproliferation. We’ve had experiences of our own. We know fear, we saw the towers fall. We know failure, we invaded Iraq on false pretenses, alienating our friends and allies of the world. And we know that far flung idealism and a huge government organ that mandates what it thinks is best for the people will never get far. We’re pragmatists. We’re the New School of Politics. So shutup, dig in your heels, stop dreaming, and start working.

I recommend reading all of Matt Taibbi’s article here.

Popularity: 21% [?]

As politically incorrect, perhaps, as it may sound, the Democrats voting is mainly breaking down according to race and sex. I would not be a good blogger if I did not notice it and report it. The GOP on the other hand seems to be sparring over ideology. Here is what Super Tuesday has shown:

Democrats:

You know you’re a Obama supporter if you are: 1) black  2) young  3) wealthy and educated.

You know you’re a Clinton supporter if you are: 1) a woman  2) hispanic  3) old  4) lower-middle class.

National numbers and state exit polls demonstrate the validity of my general claims.

This is not to say that there are no ideological patterns among Democratic voters as more self-proclaimed “very liberal” voters tend to support Obama, while moderately “liberal” ones find themselves with Clinton. But at the same time Obama has received a consistent rush of independent (including moderates and conservatives) voters throughout the process. Additionally, Clinton was victorious by 10 points in the American fountainhead of liberalism, Massachusetts, despite the fact that Obama had the active support of both of its famous senators. Hence, while there are some philosophical trends, they are often contradicted. The fact remains that most of the candidates platforms are very similar (compare here and here), and thus, political ideology is marginalized in voters’ minds.

Another notable trend is that of racial “tension” or “divide” among the Democratic electorate. What I find from exit polling is that if there is a large minority voting block in any given state, white Dems will tend to vote in the other direction. For example, if there are a large number of hispanics (pro-Clinton) in a state, the whites will vote disproportionately for Obama, while if there are large amount of blacks (pro-Obama), the whites will vote for Clinton. This comes in addition to the fact that Hispanics and Blacks (who otherwise share many demographic characteristics) are voting in clearly opposite directions in part because cultural tensions are still apparent (additional evidence) between the two racial groups. Overall Clinton got about 60% of the hispanic vote, while Obama procured more than 80% of the black vote.

The two largest hispanic states on Super Tuesday were California and New Mexico, where hispanics were 30% and 35% of the electorate, respectively. Among those hispanics, Clinton won 67% and 62% of the vote, respectively. However, Obama tied her among white voters in CA (winning white men by 20 pts) and actually won the white vote in NM 55-43. Nationally Obama carried just over 40% of the total white vote last night.In Alabama and Georgia, the Super Tuesday states with the most black voters (51% of each electorate), Obama received 84% and 88% of the vote and won a commanding victory in the state. However, he lost the white vote significantly in both cases, with only 43% in GA and 25% in AL.

The irony of it all is that the party which lauds itself as a vehicle for racial and gender progress, is by no means above voting on such superficial factors.

Popularity: 43% [?]

Author of Freakonomics, Steven Levitt, along with Sudhir Venkatesh, released a preliminary version of their new study on the prostitution market in Chicago. My favorite discovery of all:

A prostitute is more likely to have sex with a police officer than to get officially arrested by one.

I recommend skimming the whole thing. Its interesting to see how economic laws can apply to even the taboo and fringe aspects of life. For instance, Johns pay a premium for sex without a condom; that premium is comparatively higher for more risky types of intercourse.

Moreover, the wages for the occupation of prostitute are above the national average at $25-30 per hour. The relatively high wages of prostitutes can be attributed to the significant risk associated with the job.

The new issue of The Economist features an article on the study.

Popularity: 21% [?]

The end of the week is a happy time for most, and I felt like we at NSP could share some of the things we’ve enjoyed this week with our readers. Those of you who read Ryan’s objectivist content tag will notice that he’s a big fan of Republican presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul. While Paul may make sense to the more economically inclined and intelligent parts of the electorate, he largely what amounts to gibberish to the average voter. His economic policies and opposition to governmental growth are often ridiculed by fellow presidential candidates, both in the debates and out on the campaign trail. College Humor has captured the essence of America’s understanding of Ron Paul by utilizing the music of Sean Paul. It’s a video well worth watching after the jump, along with more humor from the Onion. Lire le reste de cet article »

Popularity: 35% [?]

Peggy Noonan writes:

There was one significant mistake in the speech. I do not know why Romney did not include nonbelievers in his moving portrait of the great American family. We were founded by believing Christians, but soon enough Jeremiah Johnson, and the old proud agnostic mountain men, and the village atheist, and the Brahmin doubter, were there, and they too are part of us, part of this wonderful thing we have. Why did Mr. Romney not do the obvious thing and include them? My guess: It would have been reported, and some idiots would have seen it and been offended that this Romney character likes to laud atheists. And he would have lost the idiot vote.

My feeling is we’ve bowed too far to the idiots. This is true in politics, journalism, and just about everything else.

It was very gratifying to read this from Ms Noonan. Remember, she’s hardly one of the faithless either. She is a devout catholic, biographer of Pope John Paul II, and was a top Reagan aid and speechwriter–a consistent conservative, by all means.

To recap, Romney’s speech played out very well and it looks to be a political success. First, he looked very presidential, and, second he sent a positive message to American Evangelicals, among others. His basic message: candidates should not be judged on personal religious denominations, but rather on their underlying faith. Of course, this implicates secularists as well as the 1 out of 10 Americans who doubt God’s existence.

The obvious political goal is to juxtapose his piety versus the impiety of assorted secularists instead of his Mormonism versus traditional American Christianity. It is cunning politics, but it is exploitative. Under the facade of religious accommodation, Romney is simply trying to divert the conflict. Despite the fact that the speech has been compared to JFK’s of 1960, Romney is no JFK. Kennedy was the most ardent believer in separation of church and state as well as separation of church and politics while Romney is trying to court the religious right on their moral terms.

David Brooks writes in the NYT:

From Neuhaus, Romney borrowed the conviction that faith is under assault in America — which is the unifying glue of social conservatism. He argued that the religious have a common enemy: the counter-religion of secularism.

He insisted that the faithful should stick stubbornly to their religions, as he himself sticks to the faith of his fathers. He insisted that God-talk should remain a vibrant force in the public square and that judges should be guided by the foundations of their faith. He lamented the faithlessness of Europe and linked the pro-life movement to abolition and civil rights, just as evangelicals do.

In his speech he recounted Sam Adams call for faith among the founders in time of crisis. However, many of the founders not only framed this nation in the image of a secular state but also questioned the existence of God out-right. There was no Christian consensus among the founders, many were probably not even Christian. James Madison, George Washington, and Thomas Jefferson were probably among these men. The third president, for instance:

“Fix Reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve the homage of reason than of blindfolded fear. … Do not be frightened from this inquiry by any fear of its consequences. If it end in a belief that there is no God, you will find incitements to virtue in the comfort and pleasantness you feel in its exercise and in the love of others which it will procure for you” (Jefferson’s Works, Vol. ii., p. 217).

In 1797, the US Senate unanimously ratified the Treaty of Trippoli, which addresses the non-religious nature of America bluntly:

“As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”

The fact of the matter is that non-believers are a part of the American family, Mitt Romney’s speech notwithstanding. Secularists have made significant contributions to America from the beginning, and as they were treated on the merits of their reason and platforms from the time of Jefferson, they should be still today.

ADDENDUM: Zach has recently shown me a story in which a Romney spokesperson will not say whether atheists are part of the American family.

Popularity: 36% [?]

Here is an eye-popping link enumerating scores of different trends which have been linked to global warming.

Some of my personal favorites: rape, suicide, teen drinking, terrorism, child insomnia, less circumcision, polar bear cannibalism, poisonous spiders invading Scotland, rainfall increase, rainfall decrease, more colorful trees, less colorful trees, taller mountains, smaller mountains, and, best of all, another ice age.

The climate change sensation is prevalent in contemporary culture, and while the pressure is strong to hop on the band-wagon, any independent and rational thinker will notice it wreaks of dubious logic and claims. For instance, the current Secretary-General of the UN blames global warming as the primary culprit in the Darfur conflict. And, while the Sudanese campaign has been motivated in part by desertification of land in the north, it is giant leap to blame global warming for local weather trends. Not to mention the fact that by blaming climate change you are invariably evading the real issue which is that no government or people have the right to systematically violate people’s lives and property in the manner that the Sudanese government is doing.

An articulate editorial in the WSJ today posits how mob mentality may be perpetuating the matter:

How this honor has befallen the former Veep could perhaps be explained by another Nobel, awarded in 2002 to Daniel Kahneman for work he and the late Amos Tversky did on “availability bias,” roughly the human propensity to judge the validity of a proposition by how easily it comes to mind.

Their insight has been fruitful and multiplied: “Availability cascade” has been coined for the way a proposition can become irresistible simply by the media repeating it; “informational cascade” for the tendency to replace our beliefs with the crowd’s beliefs; and “reputational cascade” for the rational incentive to do so.

Mr. Gore clearly understands the game he’s playing, judging by his resort to such nondispositive arguments as: “The people who dispute the international consensus on global warming are in the same category now with the people who think the moon landing was staged in a movie lot in Arizona.”

Two things to remember are, a) its bad when open, rational debate is not tolerated and people blindly follow the leader and b) environmentalist politics are consequential and if people truly accept the idea that there are catastrophic warming trends, logically, regulations will follow that could severely hamstring the economy by attacking both its energy sources and its related price system.

The fact remains that the scientific data does not add up to the earth melting. For one, humans contribute a very small fraction of the greenhouse effect (try less than 2%). Moreover, the earth warmed more during the first half of the twentieth century then the second half and actually cooled for much of the period from the 50s-80s (hence, the “global cooling” scare), all the while industrial emissions were increasing steadily.

Such inconsistencies, among others, are not addressed in the mainstream. A documentary released in the UK in the past year called “The Great Global Warming Swindle” is a very informative source. Ultimately it demonstrates that “the debate” is not over–as a matter of fact, it has never even started–and that before we do anything too crazy the world should start openly and freely discussing the issue.

ADDENDUM: In a comment, Simmons said he did not believe me when I said that human contribution to the Greenhouse effect was just about 2% of the total greenhouse effect. While it is difficult to measure the exact contribution of humans, even what I consider generous estimates, measure human contribution at no more that 2 and a fraction %. From Junk Science:

Humans can only claim responsibility, if that’s the word, for abut 3.4% of carbon dioxide emitted to the atmosphere annually, the rest of it is all natural (you can see the IPCC representation of the natural carbon cycle and human perturbation here or a simple schematic from Woods Hole here).

Half our estimated emissions fail to accumulate in the atmosphere, “disappearing” into sinks as yet undetermined. Humans’ total accumulated carbon contribution could account for perhaps a quarter of the total non-water greenhouse gases (that is, accounting for all the increase since the Industrial Revolution regardless of source and irrespective of whether warming from any cause might result in an increase in natural emission to atmosphere — we’re simply claiming the lot as anthropogenic or human-caused here).

Assuming that water vapor accounts for about 70% and clouds (mostly water droplets) accounts for another 20%, thus water in it’s various forms is 90% of the total greenhouse effect, leaving 10% for non-water greenhouse effect (we know we cited 95% above — see “important distinction“). Of this remaining 10%, mainly atmospheric carbon, humans might be responsible for 25% of the total accumulated atmospheric carbon, meaning 0.25 x 0.1 = 0.025 x 100 = 2.5% of the total greenhouse effect.

Within the given range, 2.5% is the maximum estimation because  it used the maximum estimates of CO2’s greenhouse composition and human emmisions of C02. Being that CO2 may be as little as 4 or 5% of the greenhouse effect, and humans may contribute as little as 3.4% of CO2, a reasonable estimate would also pin human greenhouse effect as low as (.034 x .05) .17%.

Popularity: 62% [?]

For those who have heard of Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney, one of the first things they utter is, “Oh yea, isn’t that the Mormon guy?” Indeed, there was a major perception in the main stream media that Governor Romney would face serious obstacles in his quest for the Oval Office because of his religious beliefs. One of the reasons behind this is that polls show that more Americans’ would be willing to vote for a woman or an African-American than a Mormon. American’s should not vote for Hillary Clinton if she says that her gender will effect her decision making and policy, they should not support Obama if he claims that the color of his skin will alter his approach on issues, and they should not vote for Mitt Romney if he claims that the Church of Latter Day Saints will be driving his decision making. Yet, none of these candidates should be penalized for their personal characteristics as long as they will not influence their policies in the White House. If we do as Ryan proposes and analyze the faith of our candidates even more than we do now, then what is to stop us from lambasting public officials based on their race or gender?
Most people who are opposed to a Mormon politician claim that the religion is simply too odd or too strange, others’, such as Ryan observe the Church’s former policies of sexual and racial discrimination. It is true that blacks’ were not allowed to become members of the Mormon church until 1978 and it is also true that even today there is not a single woman that holds a high position within the LDS. Despite past policies of the Church, Ryan forgets to look at political history.

Michigan Governor George Romney, was one of first Governors in the country to support civil rights legislation. In 1962, Governor George Romney wrote the provision for the nation’s only constitutionally established Civil Rights Commission. There is no question that the Romney’s do believe in their faith and follow the teachings of their Church, but George Romney’s actions as a civil rights pioneer nearly two decades before his Church endorsed civil rights shows that true politicians put their oath of office above anything else. Like the majority of politicians in America, faith did not drive the policy’s of George Romney. Ryan was correct when he wrote, “the politics of Gov. Romney are not determined by the Mormonism of Mitt Romney,” yet he seemed to take this as an exception, when he should note that like Romney’s father, most American politicians limit the influence (if any) their faith will have during their tenure in office.

It is imperative that religion does not heavily influence the political actions of our leaders. At the same time dismissing those beliefs is not only unlikely, but unadvisable. Ryan may want to examine Romney’s faith to ensure it does not poison society, but what is to stop evangelicals from examining the Catholic faith Ryan was born with? It is apparent what a slippery slope this could become, if we as a society begin to dismiss politicians based on their faith even if it will not influence their policy, then we will endanger the very foundations of American politics. For example, could one not question an Objectivist on his ability to remove Ayn Rand’s philosophy from his thought process if ever elected into office? Politicians should be judged on the policies that they have proposed. American’s should not weigh a candidates religion unless that person admits that it is or will be a significant influence upon their policy. The only candidate who has done so as of yet in this Presidential race is Mike Huckabee. Unless Senator Obama, or Governor Romney, or Senator Clinton says that their race, religion, or gender will influence them in office, then it is only fair that we solely examine their political record’s.

Popularity: 44% [?]

Today, two very interesting revelations have been made about two very different presidential candidates. One was a strange family connection, the other was an announcement that the person would join the race.

Recent genealogical research done by Lynne Cheney for a new book has revealed that the Vice President is indeed related to Democratic Presidential Candidate, Sen. Barack Obama. According to her the two men are 8th cousins and trace their common roots back to an early Maryland settler. A lot has been said about the Bush and Clinton dynasties, but if Barack is on the ticket in ‘08 won’t it be the third straight presidential election with a Cheney on the ticket, too?

The latter news is that Stephen Colbert has stated that he will run for president. He announced this on his show where he enumerated that he would run in both parties primaries, but that he would only be running in his native state of South Carolina. It may be interesting to see how he fares. If you consider that about half of eligible voters do not vote, and that a significant portion of those voters are what we would call cynical, and that moreover Colbert has a very loyal fan base–the type that is known to do anything for their fearless leader–I could imagine a respectable turnout for Colbert. (Think less than Biden but more than Gravel). Then again, I surmise that South Carolina’s isn’t the type of electorate that takes a liking to New York-liberal satire.

Popularity: 44% [?]