This was great! I really appreciate that you took the time to post it on Substack instead of writing a 36-tweet thread that I would've had to log into X to read.
A friend of mine and I always end up talking about the "kernel of truth" at the center of most of the GOP's schemes, along with the ridiculous positions Democrats are sometimes forced to take because we have somehow decided that morality is defined as "the opposite of whatever Republicans are doing".
I can only really have those kinds of conversations with that one friend, though. Everyone else I know are good people who care deeply about justice, fairness, a good society, etc, but I think they're just too confident that they already know what's right and what's wrong.
The changes they made to religious observance have dramatically improved my family’s ability to observe holidays. We always felt left out before, and our friend at the religious institution felt the same way.
I have no problem with religious holidays---it's the "observance days" where school is on but nothing is allowed to be taught that most bother me; those counted as a day of instruction without any actual instruction. Ditto with the endless early release days, same problem.
What are some likely ways you could see us transition to a single transferable system of representation based on party vote share? Do you think it’s possible partisan redistricting will reach a breaking point and there will be popular support for wonky changes like that? Seems to me your average voter isn’t that interested in issues of good governance and so there’s not a lot of incentive for electeds to make big changes like that, especially when lots of incumbents would lose their seats.
If progressives want to make an expected value calculation that they're willing to wait for the <20% chance event to have the election outcome they want, they also need to factor in the reality that it's hard to actually make change on issues if you can't guarantee you'll stay in charge for longer than a few years. For example , OBBBA just kneecapped much of the IRA and much of Obamacare's Medicaid expansion, and Trump is EO-ing his way to reverse much of what Biden did through EOs. Given that it's usually hard to create durable policy change even if a clear but small majority of the public agrees with you, the expected value of making durable policy change through voting for the most progressive candidate quickly drops to zero.
But I don't think that's what anyone is doing, except for maybe a few wonks in charge of some progressive groups and magazines. Rather, what I see in my social circles, and what I suspect is mostly happening throughout the progressive sphere, is a severe case of moral vanity. People don't want to get their souls dirty by voting for anyone a step to their right on any of the issues they've identified as extremely morally important ( which is pretty much all of the issues that are talked about in the news). I think vanity is the right word because it's more about how they look to themselves and other progressives than to what actually gets changed in the world. If they were doing actual expected value calculations, they would vote differently, but they'd also complain about the state of contemporary politics differently (oh, and also act differently).
Good to hear from you. It's been a while. Alas, "solve for the equilibrium" means nothing to me. Something from economics, maybe? A question for AI I guess.
I’m sorry I live in DC and I just can’t let your comments about crime in DC stand. A big reason crime in DC is higher than the national average is DC does not have control of all of the tools in the tool belt for dealing with it. The president and the Senate determine if we have enough judges. The federally appointed prosecutor decides if our local crimes get enough attention. It’s very easy for guns to travel in to DC because of how small our borders are. And Congress set up the city over a long period of time to be heavily economically and racially segregated. Amongst other actions Rock Creek Park was established to divide the city in 2 with Black residents confined to the east. Deploying the National Guard by Trump to DC is not some winning, genius move. Many people in the public can see it as wasteful, performative overreach. Trump is not allocating more funding for cops. In fact he’s on net firing them across the county or trying to hire them away to ICE. And his economic policies have the great potential to cause a recession or stagflation that could increase crime mechanically.
Glad to hear you agree but it was when you said that federalizing the MPD wasn’t “per se” a bad move and to me from 19 years living here so much of the issue is the existing federalization. The Feds just don’t care about the local issue and just use DC to posture but crime is a local issue, or at least a specific issue, and there’s never any engagement with the specific DC facts.
This was great! I really appreciate that you took the time to post it on Substack instead of writing a 36-tweet thread that I would've had to log into X to read.
A friend of mine and I always end up talking about the "kernel of truth" at the center of most of the GOP's schemes, along with the ridiculous positions Democrats are sometimes forced to take because we have somehow decided that morality is defined as "the opposite of whatever Republicans are doing".
I can only really have those kinds of conversations with that one friend, though. Everyone else I know are good people who care deeply about justice, fairness, a good society, etc, but I think they're just too confident that they already know what's right and what's wrong.
Enjoyed this post. Thanks for sharing!
VM in Herning right now - for some slightly better Bridge (my mostly non-cardplaying wife and sons love Sushi go, buy the way - thanks for the tip)
On #23 - which student holidays are unnecessary?
The changes they made to religious observance have dramatically improved my family’s ability to observe holidays. We always felt left out before, and our friend at the religious institution felt the same way.
I also thought the Dr. Azari piece was fantastic.
I have no problem with religious holidays---it's the "observance days" where school is on but nothing is allowed to be taught that most bother me; those counted as a day of instruction without any actual instruction. Ditto with the endless early release days, same problem.
Thank you. Appreciate the response. I have learned so much from reading you across the years.
What are some likely ways you could see us transition to a single transferable system of representation based on party vote share? Do you think it’s possible partisan redistricting will reach a breaking point and there will be popular support for wonky changes like that? Seems to me your average voter isn’t that interested in issues of good governance and so there’s not a lot of incentive for electeds to make big changes like that, especially when lots of incumbents would lose their seats.
If progressives want to make an expected value calculation that they're willing to wait for the <20% chance event to have the election outcome they want, they also need to factor in the reality that it's hard to actually make change on issues if you can't guarantee you'll stay in charge for longer than a few years. For example , OBBBA just kneecapped much of the IRA and much of Obamacare's Medicaid expansion, and Trump is EO-ing his way to reverse much of what Biden did through EOs. Given that it's usually hard to create durable policy change even if a clear but small majority of the public agrees with you, the expected value of making durable policy change through voting for the most progressive candidate quickly drops to zero.
But I don't think that's what anyone is doing, except for maybe a few wonks in charge of some progressive groups and magazines. Rather, what I see in my social circles, and what I suspect is mostly happening throughout the progressive sphere, is a severe case of moral vanity. People don't want to get their souls dirty by voting for anyone a step to their right on any of the issues they've identified as extremely morally important ( which is pretty much all of the issues that are talked about in the news). I think vanity is the right word because it's more about how they look to themselves and other progressives than to what actually gets changed in the world. If they were doing actual expected value calculations, they would vote differently, but they'd also complain about the state of contemporary politics differently (oh, and also act differently).
Good to hear from you. It's been a while. Alas, "solve for the equilibrium" means nothing to me. Something from economics, maybe? A question for AI I guess.
I’m sorry I live in DC and I just can’t let your comments about crime in DC stand. A big reason crime in DC is higher than the national average is DC does not have control of all of the tools in the tool belt for dealing with it. The president and the Senate determine if we have enough judges. The federally appointed prosecutor decides if our local crimes get enough attention. It’s very easy for guns to travel in to DC because of how small our borders are. And Congress set up the city over a long period of time to be heavily economically and racially segregated. Amongst other actions Rock Creek Park was established to divide the city in 2 with Black residents confined to the east. Deploying the National Guard by Trump to DC is not some winning, genius move. Many people in the public can see it as wasteful, performative overreach. Trump is not allocating more funding for cops. In fact he’s on net firing them across the county or trying to hire them away to ICE. And his economic policies have the great potential to cause a recession or stagflation that could increase crime mechanically.
I agree with basically all of this and I'm surprised you think my post disagrees.
Glad to hear you agree but it was when you said that federalizing the MPD wasn’t “per se” a bad move and to me from 19 years living here so much of the issue is the existing federalization. The Feds just don’t care about the local issue and just use DC to posture but crime is a local issue, or at least a specific issue, and there’s never any engagement with the specific DC facts.