Denial data point

Here's a poll of conservative bloggers on the lessons of the election. Only 4.5% of them think the Tea Party movement is "hurting the conservative movement overall." Again, that's 4 point 5. Meanwhile, 74.2% say it's helping, and 21.2% are not sure. I wonder what exactly would have to happen for a majority or even plurality of these bloggers to think that maybe, just maybe, it did hurt, a bit, possibly.

Jindal watch

I know it's, well, early to be talking about 2016, but certainly Gov. Jindal has raised his profile quickly lately. "Stop being the stupid party" is excellent advice. His government's letter on healthcare (PDF), found via this, makes for interesting reading, even for those of us whose eyes glaze on healthcare.

Cost of child-rearing

According to this NY Times column, the cost of raising a child, in monetary terms, is close to $2 million. I find it a rather dubious figure, when you consider that it attempts to factor in such things as what work you'd be doing if you didn't have a child. Who really knows? It also presents an absolute cost for one child that would not apply to the marginal cost of having a second child. And there's this:

To estimate the cost of housing a child, I subtracted our rent from the rent we would pay to live in our neighborhood in a more suitable space — one with higher security, a more responsive landlord, reliable heat and better stroller-accessibility. 

Maybe. Or maybe, like some people, you ended up buying a house because you had or would have children, and then maybe that house appreciated in value so you ended up wealthier than if you'd rented throughout your life. Or maybe it didn't. The counterfactuals involved put some pretty big unknowns into the calculation.

Carbon tax momentum

A carbon tax--which has been a cause célèbre of this blog since its earliest days--is getting new political momentum. May it keep moving forward. May it come coupled with tax cuts elsewhere, at least as a significant part of its revenue allocation. That will make it politically palatable and prevent it from unduly burdening the economy. May it be described truthfully as a tax, without any verbal subterfuge.

Future majorities

A couple of interesting political reads:

"This Is the Real Political Map of America--We Are Not That Divided," by Jesus Diaz, Gizmodo.

"Has the Emerging Democratic Majority Emerged?" by Jonathan Chait, NY Mag.

Excerpt from the latter:

...there is no such thing as a permanent change in American politics. What we’re talking about here is the landscape for a quarter-century or so — anything beyond that is too distant to project. In the long run, interracial marriage and cultural assimilation will make the descendants of today’s Latino voters identify much more closely with the white mainstream, which will make them more amenable to conservatism. But that long run is pretty far off. For the foreseeable future, the decline of the white population is occurring much more rapidly than the weakening identity of the nonwhite population. The Democrats have a party identity that is well suited to this environment; it is the Republicans who will have to adapt.

Me: Kudos to Chait for recognizing, unlike many people who've written about demography lately, that it is unwise to assume permanent allegiance by particular ethnic groups to particular political parties. I'd add that the "long term" he identifies could come sooner or later, depending on how fast the economy grows, how much upward mobility there is, and what party seems to be fostering the growth and mobility.

PhACT note

I'll be speaking at the Philadelphia Association for Critical Thinking (PhACT) on Nov. 17 on "Science vs. Politics." It's highlighted in the group's newsletter, excerpted below. Click on the images to enlarge.

That demographic thing

Now, since it's such a hot topic, I'm going to mention the politics of ethnicity/race. Here's a Pew chart showing the electorate half a century ago, now, and decades into the future (found via Derek Thompson):

I do not believe that those growing non-white groups are forever beholden to the Democratic Party. I think there's potential in all of them for large Republican gains. For one thing, immigrants and the children of immigrants (among others) tend to be entrepreneurial and upwardly mobile. The GOP is the natural party of entrepreneurship and upward mobility, and can win votes as such, provided it looks like--and is--a party that is inclusive, forward-looking, and not particularly concerned that whites are "only" going to be a huge plurality four decades from now, as opposed to an outright majority.

(Click chart to enlarge a bit.)

Climate security

Here's a national security issue on which conservatives can and should be at the forefront of sounding the alarm and formulating policies that address the threat: "Climate Change Report Outlines Perils for U.S. Military." Excerpt from the NY Times:

Climate change is accelerating, and it will place unparalleled strains on American military and intelligence agencies in coming years by causing ever more disruptive events around the globe, the nation's top scientific research group said in a report issued Friday. 

The group, the National Research Council, says in a study commissioned by the C.I.A. and other intelligence agencies that clusters of apparently unrelated events exacerbated by a warming climate will create more frequent but unpredictable crises in water supplies, food markets, energy supply chains and public health systems. 

Hurricane Sandy provided a foretaste of what can be expected more often in the near future, the report's lead author, John D. Steinbruner, said in an interview. 

"This is the sort of thing we were talking about," said Mr. Steinbruner, a longtime authority on national security. "You can debate the specific contribution of global warming to that storm. But we're saying climate extremes are going to be more frequent, and this was an example of what they could mean. We're also saying it could get a whole lot worse than that."

Me: I am not joking or being sarcastic when I say conservatives should respond to this threat. As a sidelight, I add that it may be an issue on which conservatives can regain some political traction as well.

'Conservatives have been lied to'

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

"The conservative followership has been fleeced, lied to and exploited." I couldn't agree more. Watch this clip, particularly the exchange between David Frum and Joe Scarborough starting a little after the 11 minute mark.

Hackery excavation

Recommended reading: "The Right's Jennifer Rubin Problem: An Information Disadvantage Case Study," by Conor Friedersdorf. The part about her coverage, then and now, of Romney's convention speech actually shocks me, and I'm a pretty jaded guy.

The other party

I got a bit of pushback on Twitter and elsewhere regarding my GOP "wish list" to the effect that what I'm proposing actually already exists as ... the Democratic Party. That's very badly wrong, as should be evident in my phrases such as "Offers generally market-oriented economic proposals..." "Seeks to limit the growth of government..." "Recognizes that a key reason why entitlement reform is needed..."

There are also significant problems for the Democrats in practice, regardless of their rhetoric, in areas that I mentioned such as "Takes environmental issues seriously..." and "Includes civil liberties among its key concerns..."

The good news, from a partisan perspective, is that we Republicans are not alone in having mistaken self-perceptions regarding a party's strengths and weaknesses. That's a Democratic vulnerability too, and one that can be exploited in future elections.

For the reading list

More posting soon--not all political, one hopes. Meanwhile, here's a book I intend to read at some point, though I don't currently use a Kindle: Why Romney Lost, by David Frum.

My GOP wish list

Some further thoughts about the election (I noted a few bright points in last night’s results earlier):

There’s going to be a fight—multiple fights really—in the Republican Party over its future direction. That, indeed, would’ve been the case even if Romney had won. But his loss—and a 300+ electoral vote win for Obama—ensures the intraparty conflict is going to be intense. There will be many factions involved, and shifting coalitions.

For my part, I would like to see a GOP that:

          Takes environmental issues seriously, rather than mocking them and ceding them to the left. Ditto, issues of science policy.

          Has room for multiple perspectives on social issues, rather than being monopolized on them by the religious right.

          Offers generally market-oriented economic proposals without reflexively advocating tax cuts and tight monetary policy as if it were eternally 1981.

          Seeks to limit the growth of government without unrealistically or reflexively proposing wholesale slashing of agencies and functions.

          Recognizes that a key reason why entitlement reform is needed is to enable the federal budget to include adequate discretionary spending.

          Includes civil liberties among its key concerns in limiting government.

          In foreign policy seems neither to be spoiling for a fight nor eager to retreat from the world.

          Shows with its tone as well as its policy substance that it wants new members, rather than just to fire up the old members.

There’s much more to be said about all of that, of course, but it’s a start.

Bright points

Being a glass-half-full person, I quickly note a few things I'm pleased by from last night:

-- Proposition 37 was defeated, "soundly" as they say. No (misleading) labeling to be mandated for genetically modified food.

-- Marriage equality in Maryland passed.

-- Akin and Mourdock lost. It would've been manifestly unfair for Romney to lose while these two, who surely helped damage his chances, get elected.

More blogging later.

Election punt [updated]

Congratulations to my Democratic friends, by all indications, and I'll have more to say on all this in the near enough future. (I also have a financial magazine to put to bed, but I'll find the time.) Cheers.

UPDATE 11/7 12:01 AM: Well, Romney is known to be quite a data maven, and maybe he wants to sort through some more numbers before he concedes.

Non-voting at Reason

I've written elsewhere about my checkered history with Reason magazine. I won't rehearse that here, but will add I'm underwhelmed by Katherine Mangu-Ward's November cover story "Your Vote Doesn't Count: Why (almost) everyone should stay home on Election Day." It focuses on the idea that it is extremely unlikely your vote will provide the margin of difference in any election, so why bother? (As opposed to the idea, also espoused in libertarian circles, that voting is bad because it legitimizes government.)

But that same logic could be applied to any activity in which you're contributing to a collective outcome, and these are not all analogous to being the 101st shooter in a firing squad. Consider, for example, contributing money to Reason magazine. It is extremely unlikely that your donation will make the difference between the magazine staying in business or not, hiring a person or not, or running any article or not. (Unless perhaps you're very generous.) So, why bother?

The answer is because donating money, like voting, is similar to being a construction worker adding bricks to a huge wall. If you don't do it, someone else may do it. If enough people don't do it, it won't get done. How high or solid the wall is, as well as whether it exists at all, are outcomes that depend on numerous people doing their part. The outcomes will differ depending on who does (or doesn't) participate.

Space solar power in Asia

"China proposes space collaboration with India." Specifically, this involves space-based solar power, or using arrays outside Earth's atmosphere to collect energy from the sun (which can then be transmitted down to users). Is it the energy source of the future? No one can say. But if it is, one suspects it won't be the U.S. leading the way. An excellent question in the presidential debates would've been: "What is your view of space solar power's potential and what role should this technology play in NASA and Energy Department planning?"

Prop 37 update

California's Proposition 37, which would require labeling of genetically modified foods, has been losing public support fast and getting determined opposition from the scientific community. Its fate on Election Day will be a topic of discussion at my scheduled Nov. 17 talk on "Science vs. Politics" at the Philadelphia Association for Critical Thinking (PhACT).

Big picture view

It's good to get up into the mountains to reflect on events. My sense of the political situation is that Romney's momentum has largely dissipated but not before giving him a real shot at victory. Bloomberg, the Economist and Colin Powell have given Obama some of the centrist imprimatur he needs to win over swing voters. Hurricane Sandy, which has made a hash of my New Jersey neighborhood, has given Obama some of the reputation for competence that had been tattered by everything from Benghazi back to the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. I don't think the perceptions of centrism and competence are accurate as applied to this president, and if he is reelected I expect that people who are voting on such a basis are going to be disappointed, to say the least.

Moreover, I think the notion that a post-Sandy Obama victory would be some kind of victory for better climate policy is, sadly, completely wrong. Obama in this campaign has acted as a sycophant to the coal and oil industries, no less than has Romney. Worse, Obama also has cast his lot with higher taxes on incomes and greater burdens on growth, which in turn mean there is no flexibility for the policies that are needed to limit carbon emissions. A carbon tax could only be implemented in an economy with a relatively light tax regime on incomes. A robust research program, including exploration of long-term geoengineering options, could only occur in the context of a federal budget that includes entitlement reforms. And, getting back to the short term, tight federal regulation of natural gas production would have the perverse effect of shifting energy use away from the cheapest and most efficient alternative to oil and coal.

Romney, for his part, is a flawed and frustrating candidate, for many reasons. But a President Romney, likely facing a Congress with a Democratic Senate and a smaller GOP House majority than the present one, has greater upside potential than the guaranteed mediocrity-at-best of Obama II. So my vote remains unchanged (assuming they have a vote in New Jersey). As for my prediction, I'm still inclined to say Romney pulls it out, even though I recognize that could easily be wrong.

Pictured: mountains around New Paltz, NY.

Post-Sandy

I am well and blogging will resume in the not-distant future. Thanks for stopping by.