Political heat map

Interesting: Amazon's "heat map" of political books sold in the U.S., based on categorizing them as red or blue (right or left). Marginal Revolution note here and Wired article here.

More blogging soon.

Anthropic memories

 File under "Questions I haven't thought about lately, but which remain interesting":

Does the Weak Anthropic Principle make certain assumptions about the nature of sentient biological organisms?

(Found while doing a Google search on my own name, which shows up in the comments. The long-ago article referred to is best viewed here.)

Today's last political note (I hope)

I've had my disagreements with Reason magazine, but I agree with this--vehemently: "The Wrong Side Absolutely Must Not Win."

The Obama record is relevant after all [updated]

Niall Ferguson In Newsweek: "Obama's Gotta Go." This article is very strong when it comes to the mediocrity (at best) of Obama's record. It gets weaker when it starts celebrating the alternative, and with the claim that "Ryan psychs Obama out." (I remember the same exact claim re Palin four years ago; even if true, it wasn't a particularly consequential effect.) But since so much of the election is now about Ryan, Ryan, Ryan (or today, worse about somebody named Akin about whom I hope to never hear again), it's valuable to have some attention paid to just what the incumbent has done and not done.

UPDATE: Ferguson's piece gets some pushback here. And Ferguson has more here.

Grumbling about Ryan

Here's some conservative discontent with Paul Ryan, on the grounds that he's a "corporatist" who favored TARP. To me, that has a similar effect to many conservative arguments we were hearing (especially pre-Ryan) against Romney: i.e., liking the candidate that much more after reading it.

Hardware part knowledge

For a lot of questions, there's someone out there who knows the answer. When a hinge on my Ikea desk broke, because a certain youngster had placed his elbows too heavily on it, it could have been difficult or impossible to find a replacement; I didn't even know the name of the desk type (Alve). But a little searching and I got what seems to be a correct recommendation for replacement hinges. Pre-Internet, things would not have proceeded so smoothly.

Kyrillos for Senate

Here's a good reason to vote for Joseph Kyrillos, the GOP candidate for Senate in New Jersey:

Many Republicans voice support for simplifying the tax code while lowering rates, but Kyrillos went further and has refused to sign the pledge from Americans for Tax Reform to oppose anything that increases the net tax burden on individuals or corporations. Most Republicans in Congress, and the party's entire New Jersey delegation, have signed that pledge.

Me: Any Republican who refuses to sign Norquist's pledge deserves my vote. Now consider this:

"There's a big difference between increasing revenue by raising taxes and increasing revenue from lowering taxes while closing special-interest loopholes," Kyrillos said in a news release. "A simpler, more efficient tax code will reward hard work, boost job creation and raise revenue by growing the economy."

His campaign would not comment beyond the statement, which also criticized Menendez for supporting higher tax rates. But one anti-tax activist said he appeared to be engaging in damage control.

"If revenues are up, it doesn't matter what you call it, it's a tax increase," said Steve Lonegan, state director of the conservative Americans for Prosperity Foundation, which has funded buses to bring demonstrators to Tea Party rallies in Washington.

 "If revenues are up, it doesn't matter what you call it, it's a tax increase." That desire for lower revenues qua lower revenues is at the heart of Tea Party ideology today. It's not only appallingly fiscally irresponsible; it also departs from the history of Republican conservatism. Recall that supply-siders used to emphasize that lower rates could mean higher revenues (and drew the Laffer Curve on napkins to make the point). That optimism was often misguided but at least it reflected a recognition that lower revenues are not a desirable thing in themselves, and certainly not the answer to a fiscal crisis.

Also, a good piece on why Jersey's governor has an appeal not limited to the GOP base: "Doblin: For One Night It's All About Christie."

Some Ryan, Zakaria links

A couple of election-related pieces I recommend:

-- "Romney-Ryan Wants It Both Ways on Medicare," by Josh Barro, who's emerged as one of those right-wing types who says a lot of things that are discomfiting to the right wing.

-- "How Obama Created the Greatest Threat to His Presidency," by Ezra Klein. That is to say, by hyping Ryan as leader of the opposition.

And a couple of pieces I recommend about the overblown controversy over Fareed Zakaria:

-- "A Very Different Media Scandal (Updated)," by David Frum.

-- "In Defense of Fareed Zakaria," by Bret Stephens.

----

As for me (Ken Silber), I have my own Fareed Zakaria story. Sometime over a decade ago, maybe it was in the late 90s, I interviewed with him for an editorial position at Foreign Affairs. Unfortunately, in the couple days before the interview, I developed some problem with my ears -- an infection or waxy buildup or something -- such that I could barely hear. Instead of seeking to postpone the interview, as I should have done, I showed up, acknowledging the problem and plowing ahead into a conversation that went largely like this:

Fareed Zakaria: Hmmdm mvmvm gvmgm mvmvmvm vmvmvm vmv?

Me: Excuse me?

I didn't get that job, somehow, but I do appreciate that Zakaria was diplomatic in not pointing out how I was wasting his time. I hope his generally laudable career recovers quickly from his recent lapse.

Climate political upside

If I were a political operative strategizing for a national campaign, I'd be very interested in this:

·      A majority of all registered voters (55%) say they will consider candidates’ views on global warming when deciding how to vote.
·      Among these climate change issue voters, large majorities believe global warming is happening and support action by the U.S. to reduce global warming, even if it has economic costs.
·      Independents lean toward “climate action” and look more like Democrats than Republicans on the issue.
·      A pro-climate action position wins votes among Democrats and Independents, and has little negative impact with Republican voters.
·      Policies to reduce America’s dependence on fossil fuels and promote renewable energy are favored by a majority of registered voters across party lines.

More here and full report here.

Stockman on Ryan [updated]

David Stockman makes some good points, along with some not so good ones, in this op-ed: "Paul Ryan's Fairy-Tale Budget Plan." Not so good: comparing today's defense budget with that of the 1950s 1961 by adjusting for inflation without noting that defense was a much higher percentage of federal spending and GDP back then And whatever case might be made for cutting the Pentagon budget, citing Calvin Coolidge as a defense and foreign policy exemplar is ridiculous.

Stockman is right, though, in noting what political courage does not consist of: further cuts in the top income tax rate; unspecified eliminations of deductions; and no discussion of alternatives to our current tax system.

UPDATE: Another interesting piece, "Why Demogoguing Paul Ryan is Bad for Democrats," by William Galston. (Answer: because it crushes Democrats' ability to then reform entitlements.) I would've spelled it "demagoguing," by the way.

A good pick by Romney (who's not Ryan)

As I think it's fair to say my reaction to Romney's Ryan pick has been less than enthusiastic, I would like to give the Romney campaign credit where credit is due: for hiring policy analyst Peter Wehner, who has said things too little heard on the right, such as "Conservatives and Climate Change: Facts Need To Be Our Guiding Star," i.e., it's real and we shouldn't try to obfuscate that; and "The Most Disturbing Personality on Cable Television," i.e., Glenn Beck.

Obamacon watch

My friend and fellow conservative deviationist D.R. Tucker has made up his mind: "It's going to be something of a weird experience, but for the first time in my life, I'll be voting Democratic in this fall's presidential election." See his post "Breaking Away." Excerpt:

I'm still not exactly a fan of President Obama. If Jon Huntsman had secured the GOP nomination, I would have voted for Huntsman over Obama without a second thought -- because Huntsman seemed to have the backbone necessary to stand up to the John Birch Society wing of the GOP. Romney and Ryan don't have that backbone. So this November, I'll set my differences with Obama aside in the name of saying no to a ticket that stands for nothing.

I sympathize. I'm not where D.R. is, but I can see his position from a not-too-distant vantage point. I too would be voting with some enthusiasm for a Huntsman ticket (Huntsman-Daniels?). I don't really agree that the problem with Romney-Ryan is that they "stand for nothing" -- actually it's more a combination of expediency and (worse) wrongheaded convictions (e.g. that we need more tax cuts) that's the problem. I note that D.R. doesn't have anything particularly positive to say about Obama--and what is the positive case for Obama? In any case, this is a moment of enthusiasm on the right--and it's never been more clear that I'm not on what's now the right.

A couple of other links of interest:

-- "Paul Ryan's V.P. Nomination Kills Off Moderate Republicanism for Good," by Geoffrey Kabaservice.

-- "Ryan: More Powerful Than Romney," by Peter Beinart.

Ryan's debate effects

There are many factors to consider as to how Ryan on the ticket changes the political calculus. One is the October debates.

My idea that the presidential debates will be crucial and will push polls in Romney's direction (and enable him to win the election) carries less weight now than previously, I think. The Ryan pick ensures heightened attention to the Oct. 11 VP debate, and Ryan enthusiasts are touting how he'll wipe the floor with Joe Biden. I'm not so sure. The event might highlight Ryan's lack of foreign policy experience. But in any case, I don't see how the Ryan pick enhances Romney's prospects in the debates. If Romney shows up offering Ryan's fiscal ideas, he looks weak and derivative. If he doesn't, he wastes the supposed advantage in "ideas" that the Ryan pick gave him. The upside is slim, it seems to me.

As for Obama, his debate strategy now becomes talking about Ryan's plans more than about other attack points such as Bain--but certainly not about his own plans and record in any case.

What about climate change?

Those of us who are Republicans and who also believe that climate change presents serious risks that need to be addressed--see my posts here, here, here and here--have had little cause for enthusiasm about the Republican Party on this issue in recent years. Romney, among the primary candidates, was the second-least-bad (Huntsman, also less than perfect, was the least bad). With the selection of Paul Ryan, Romney has added to the ticket someone whose climate record is worse than his own.

Against this, it is important to remember the fecklessness of the Obama administration on climate change. Failing to pass a cap-and-trade bill, and then mentioning the subject as little as possible, is not a good record either. Yes, the Democrats at least don't declare global warming a hoax and prattle on about "Climategate." But when you get to the question of how much carbon emissions would actually be different depending on who wins the election, there's no clear answer, as far as I can see.

Maybe a Romney administration would follow the advice of longtime Romney advisor Greg Mankiw and impose a carbon tax. Or maybe the Obama administration would get some carbon trading set up that replicates the flaws already evident in carbon trading overseas. Results are what matter.

Furthermore, in weighing the respective merits (or lack thereof) of the candidates, I give some weight to  the spectrum of opinion among their supporters. On the Republican side, that includes every shade of denialism and evasion. On the Democratic side, there are those who think the answer is, say, a worldwide "war footing,"with a command economy deliberately set up to depress living standards. The policy emphasis I would want to see--a carbon tax coupled with broader tax reform; and a federal focus on relevant R&D spending rather than Solyndra-like attempts to subsidize corporate operations--is not
on either side's policy agenda currently.

So, bottom line, if I were voting on the basis of climate policy alone, I'd vote for the Democrats. But that's not the case. On the other hand, although I've said I'll vote for Romney, I've also said it's possible I'll change my mind. Watching what the candidates say on climate will be a factor on that score.

The Ryan selection [updated]

Well, that's not the choice I would've made. In fact, as I wrote earlier, the Ryan boomlet seemed like a gift Romney could enjoy precisely by rejecting it. But no. So now where are we? Ryan has a reputation as a serious policy wonk--but he puts out tax projections based on unspecified eliminations of deductions. He voted for TARP (a point in his favor, to my mind) and then spent subsequent years building a reputation as a Randian scourge of Big Government and entitlement spending. Steep cuts in Medicare--beginning years from now--combined with endless tax cuts is not the solution I'd present to America (in fact I will be presenting an article with my own solution a few weeks hence). Of course, there's also the question of what power the V.P. will have anyway.

Will Ryan help Romney win? I tend to think not--in other words, that the increase in conservative enthusiasm will be outpaced by the increase in independents not voting Republican this year. It will be perceived--rightly, I think--as a sign of Romney's weakness and fear of the conservative base. I could be wrong. We'll see.

UPDATE: David Frum has a good post on what's right and what's deeply wrong in the Ryan plan (on the spending side; leaving aside the lack of specificity about taxes). ThinkProgress points out how this GOP ticket just became much less attractive to people who don't think global warming is a hoax. On a brighter note, I doubt many people will vote against Romney-Ryan out of fear they're aligned with "militant atheism."

Conservative frustration

Conor Friedersdorf has a post with which I basically agree: "Conservatives Have No Faith in the GOP Nominee--for Good Reason." Excerpt:

The truth is that, if elected, Romney is extremely unlikely to sign the Ryan budget, or to completely repeal Obamacare, or to act in accordance with his tough rhetoric on immigration, or to significantly reduce the deficit. Conservatives have persuaded themselves out of desperation that a man they know to be unreliable won't have any choice but to advance their agenda in the White House, which makes about as much sense as assuming that a Ryan vice-presidency would influence Romney in a conservative direction rather than co-opting Ryan.

Me: And that's good! While Friedersdorf (being someone with his own set of disagreements with prevailing opinion in conservatism) doesn't make a clear value judgement in his post, I will. A great attraction of a Romney presidency is precisely that he isn't expected to kill the Energy Dept., restore the gold standard or generally strive for a 19th century vision of political economy. If those were his objectives, he would not have won the Republican nomination, let alone have a good chance (as I think he does) of winning the presidency.

As for all the conservative grumbling, I think Friedersdorf has it right: "Partisans, especially of the professional variety, are nevertheless incapable of acknowledging when they're screwed."

It will be very interesting to see how all this pans out after the election. Either Romney wins, and there is much maneuvering to push his administration in a rightward direction; or Romney loses, and there is much complaint that the GOP should've nominated a "real conservative" (as if Michelle Bachmann would've won). Either way, the trouble for ideological movement conservatives is that they're too strong to recognize the need for compromise--and too weak to get the electoral and governing results they want.

The Ryan factor

In order to get elected, and also to govern effectively if he is elected, Romney has to show that he is his own man--that he won't work under the direction of the Republican congressional caucus, the Wall Street Journal editorial page or anyone else. From that standpoint, the conservative boomlet for Romney to pick Paul Ryan as his VP choice is a gift to him. Simply by rejecting such advice, Romney gains some credibility as a candidate and prospective president. Of course, if he actually chooses Ryan, the gift is wasted.

You didn't [blank] that

The controversy over Obama's "You didn't build that" statement has gone on longer than the Romney campaign could have hoped. Whatever the president exactly meant -- whether it was "You didn't build your business alone" or "You didn't build the infrastructure supporting your business" -- it is clear enough that his point was to limit the credit an entrepreneur can rightly claim. After all, business owners are not responsible for the business conditions that enabled them to thrive, right?

So, by the same token, does it make sense to be blaming Mitt Romney for a cancer death that occurred after someone lost health insurance after a plant was closed down--which happened after Romney was at Bain, which he headed when the initial investment in the plant was made? It seems a stretch in any case, but even more so since "You didn't build that" logically also means "You didn't dismantle that."

A few different things

I've just written an article sketching out what the presidential election's winner should do about tax policy, which involves some very fundamental reforms. I'll be blogging about that article when it's available in late August, but for now suffice it to say the approach is one that differs greatly from what either candidate is currently proposing, and yet has aspects that would appeal to both sides of the political aisle. More to come on that.

I am not a political monomaniac (or at least I think I am not). Among the many other topics that have caught my interest lately (besides the Olympics, which I'm pleased to have some time to watch):

-- "Decoding the Science of Sleep." Particularly interesting to learn people routinely used to divide the night into two segments, first sleep and second sleep, doing a few post-midnight activities in between.

-- "From Prison to a Paycheck." A promising program in New Jersey.

-- It's Julia Child's 100th birthday. Even someone like me, whose culinary skills are near-zero, can appreciate her life and achievements.

-- And of course, Mars Curiosity. This is going to be fantastic (assuming of course it lands safely).

Just a moment

This blog is having a midsummer slowdown. I will be back.

Pictured: Solarium 2012, taken during a recent visit to Storm King Art Center.