Semi-Daily Journal
Brad DeLong's Thoughts of the Moment on Economics, and on Other Topics as Well
DeLong's Home Page
November 04, 2002
VOTE!!!!
VOTE!!!!:
November 5, 2002
By PAUL KRUGMAN
t's Election Day.... Political scientists will tell you that voting suffers from a severe "free rider" problem. Even if it's very important to you that Mr. A beat Mr. B, your individual vote is very unlikely to decide the outcome. So the sensible thing is not to bother voting. Yet if everyone acts on that logic, Mr. B — the candidate backed by corrupt special interests, which pay for his get-out-the-vote operation — sweeps into office.
In other words, even if the candidates in an election offer radically different programs, and you have a strong preference for one over the other, a narrow calculation of self-interest says that it's not worth taking the trouble to go to the polling booth. Yet democracy depends on your ability to rise above that calculation. If citizens want good government, they must do what they want others with the same concerns to do — namely, vote.
Of course, some pundits tell you that not much is at stake in this particular election, that the parties aren't really very different on the issues. I don't know what planet they are living on: in reality, the parties are further apart than they have been since the 1930's. The fact that anyone imagines otherwise is a tribute to the timidity of the Democrats, who are afraid to say what they really think, and the subterfuge of the Republicans, who show a disciplined willingness to pretend to hold positions they actually abhor.
Not only are there huge substantive differences between the parties, the background to this election means that it may determine the shape of America for decades to come.
Here's the story: In the 2000 campaign George W. Bush portrayed himself as a moderate. Toward the end the public started to catch on to this ruse, but thanks to all those Jewish retirees who voted for Pat Buchanan, the purging of minority voters from the Florida voter rolls and so on, Mr. Bush made it to the White House. Once there, his true radicalism quickly became apparent, and voters didn't like it.
But then came Sept. 11, and with it a huge surge in Mr. Bush's personal popularity. Although many pundits still talk as if he remains immensely popular, the fact is that most of that surge — about two-thirds, if you look at an average of polls — has now gone away, and the political landscape is returning to normal. Still, the Republican Party hopes that the remnants of Mr. Bush's post-terror clout can be used to regain control of the Senate — and that his radical domestic policy agenda can once again march forward, and perhaps be made irreversible.
For if we've learned one thing these past two years, it's the importance of Senate control. In his first few months in office Mr. Bush wasn't particularly popular, but Dick Cheney's vote was decisive in a 50-50 Senate — and the radical agenda rolled forward. After Sept. 11 Mr. Bush was, for a while, extremely popular, and gleeful right-wing pundits believed that he could get anything he wanted. But the Democrats had a one-vote edge in the Senate, and all of his pet domestic projects — permanent tax cuts for corporations, accelerated tax cuts for upper brackets, drilling in ANWR, hard-line judicial appointments — stalled.
This election will determine if Mr. Bush can resume the radical policy course he followed in those first few months. It will also determine the character of the nation's courts for decades; and it may greatly enlarge the Republican Party's already huge fund-raising advantage.
Now if that's what the American public wants, so be it. But it seems all too likely that this election will depend not on what the public wants but on which people bother to vote. (Or on which people are dissuaded from voting. The stories are already starting to come in; for example, someone is distributing leaflets in minority districts in Maryland telling people that they must pay parking tickets and back rent before voting.) Gallup now predicts only a 35 percent participation rate, the same as in 1998. That would be a shockingly low fraction in any year. In a year this crucial, it's appalling.
So now is the time not to be sensible. Forget those self-interested calculations. Go out there and vote — and tell everyone you know to do the same...
Posted by DeLong at November 04, 2002 09:04 PM
| Trackback
Is Paul Krugman really complaining about Republicans desiring to drill in ANWAR? Alas, this is another reminder why I am voting for the candidates of the Republican Party in tomorrow's elections. There is no rational reason why we are not drilling in this very small area of the Arctic wilderness. The United States must embrace sound and sensible solutions in order to achieve energy independence. Something is very wrong when an esteemed economist fails to grasp this simple reality. A legitimate concern for the environment does not require that we hesitate any further. Why do the radical environmentalists dominate the agenda of the Democrats on this particular issue?
David Thomson writes
>Is Paul Krugman really complaining about Republicans
>desiring to drill in ANWAR?
Uh, no. Duh.
I used to vote for Republicans, if I deemed them worthy. Certainly, over the years there were some. No longer. The Taliban wing of the GOP is destroying the Constitution, and is laughing all the way.
Zero tolerance for Republicans.
David Thomson is right. Unless we start drilling for oil in Alaska we'll never get oil independence. Others will drill there and take it!
ANWR is like the alcoholic's little reserve
bottle of vanilla extract. It might help a
little, for a moment, but it doesn't end the
pathetic substance abuse and dependency.
Forget about ANWR, we need to use less oil,
not pump more of it.
We certainly don't need to drill in ANWR
just so the H2-driving fashion victims can
tool around in their mobile follies.
>> The United States must embrace sound and sensible solutions in order to achieve energy independence.
I've always been curious why anyone would expect a "drain America first" policy to do anything but increase dependence on foreign reserves over the long term. Isn't the point of "energy independence" to be the last one on the block with significant reserves??
Then again, I also failed to see why expanding global oil production is seen as necessary given current projections of a roughly 20 year oil glut, or why funding research into alternative energy sources was a bad way to solve long-term energy needs.
I guess this just makes me out of touch with "simple reality" and "sound and sensible energy policies" on two counts. Oh well.
Read and savor:
The fact that anyone imagines otherwise is a tribute to the timidity of the Democrats, who are afraid to say what they really think, and the subterfuge of the Republicans, who show a disciplined willingness to pretend to hold positions they actually abhor.
How many casual readers of this sentence will realize that Krugman is describing the exact same behavior on the part of both parties-- which somehow only counts as "subterfuge" when done by one of them?
Am I the only one who notices that Krugman doesn't answer to the logic of the "free rider" problem? He just blithely replies, "If citizens want good government, they must ... vote." But again, whether or not I vote does not effect whether others vote, and so whether or not I vote does not determine who will get elected (unless there would have been a tie or one-vote difference). The only answer to the "free rider" problem is not to wave your hands and ask people to go against common, but to put in place a system which will increase the incentives to vote in a tangible way.
Paul Z.--
I think the difference is sins of omission vs. commission.
For instance, the Republicans are now angrily denying that they ever supported something they called "Social Security privatization." This ain't so (search on the talkingpointsmemo.com archives for background). I don't think Krugman thinks the Democrats have made any analogous outright false statements.
I agree, though, that this does the Democrats no credit. Krugman prefers the Democrats because of their underlying beliefs rather than because of their tactics.
Krugman isn't an uninformed economist and I'm sure he is familiar with the term "rent seeking". So why does he advocate voting? What possible incentive exists for a politician to keep their "promises"? And how can a majority rule votimg scheme possibly aggregate all preferences? Finally, if voting is such a wonderful allocative mechanism, why don't we vote on who gets food and who doesn't?
I, too, used to vote Republican, back when they actually believe in free markets, free trade and limited gov't that ran balanced budgets. None of this is true any longer. In fact, at the national level, they're just like the Democrats now (plutocratic, fair traders who have exploded the deficit), except in one key way. They are a lot nastier in what they're willing to do to hold power.
Couple of bones to pick with Dave Romm and Savageview.
Romm: "The Taliban wing of the GOP is destroying the Constitution, and is laughing all the way."
Don't compare the GOP to the Taliban. (Do you know anything about the Taliban?) The comparison is laughable, and that anyone on either side of the fence would buy this speaks either to their lack of intelligence, or their desire to defame the GOP in spite of the facts.
Furthermore, if there is a party intent on destroying the Constitution, it is the Democrats. They want the Judiciary, rather than the Legislature, to write legislation. (e.g.: abortion, Florida, New Jersey, Minnesota ...).
Savage: Both parties may be nasty, but lately the Democrats have been a lot more dirty than the Republicans. Have you heard about the Democratic gay bashing in three races? Not to mention the scare tactics for seniors. Oh, don't forget election irregularities/dead voter registration. Haven't heard the Republicans doing that ...
I'd say, the Democrats have a win-at-any-cost mentality. Meanwhile, they have nothing to offer; all they have to say is that they are "against" things, but have no alternative (except the socialist wing, of course).
Randal Verbrugge writes
> Don't compare the GOP to the Taliban.
Uh, why? Because you say so? It is a well known
fact that the Bushies have been working with
Islamic Fundies at the UN to impose their
religious views on various committees - like
their attempt to curtail support of women's
rights in the UN. So the GOP is working with
those who support the Taliban religious views to
further their religious views in the UN.
Just a bunch of religious fundies working
together. If the Shiite and Sunni Fundies can
work together then why can't the Christian
Fundies also work with them?
>there is a party intent on destroying
>the Constitution, it is the Democrats. They
>want the Judiciary, rather
>than the Legislature, to write legislation.
Quoth the man whose president was chose by the
Supreme Court. LOL. You're hysterical man!
And you haven't even mentioned the hysterical
reinterpretation of the 11th amendement by the
Repug Supremes.
>lately the Democrats have been a lot
>more dirty than the Republicans
You're lying.
>Have you heard about the Democratic gay
>bashing in three races?
There has been no gay bashing so you're lying
again.
>Not to mention the scare tactics for seniors.
Oh, you mean that the repugs have supported
social security privatization? Oh, wait a second,
they have. But since you consider them to be
"scare tactics" you couldn't care less that it's
the truth right?
>Oh, don't forget election irregularities/dead
>voter registration
Conclusion to draw about Randal Verbrugge: he
likes to lie a lot.
>I'd say, the Democrats have a
>win-at-any-cost mentality.
I'd say Randal Verbrugge likes to say a lot of
silly things and likes to lie a lot.
>Meanwhile, they have nothing to offer;
Meanwhile Randal Verbrugge has nothing to offer
but his vapid stupidity.
I want gridlock! Complete, total, all consuming gridlock. Candidates on both side of the aisle are bought and sold like pork bellies. I hope we have years of gridlock to come. The rich and well-connected have bred a new generation rich and well-connected that is a bit less competent than their Daddy. Congress will look like the House of Lords before too long.
I have a hard time picking the lesser of 2 evils anymore. Republicans digust me with their pandering to the religious right, Dems digust me waivering on Iraq and pandering to minorities. I'm not going Christopher Hutchinson on anybody. I'm finally just fed up. I will survey the political landscape and vote to keep and create gridlock accordingly.
Reminds me of a Simpsons scene where Mr. Burns goes to the doctor. He has nearly every disease known, but they all cancel each other out so that he lives on and on. I love that show.
The last post is so full of lies and distortions it isn't worth responding to. So I won't. The economics discussions on this board are simply much more interesting and educational than the political ones.
BTW, Krugman is wrong about the "extremism" of the Republicans. The GOP and the Democrats appear to be evenly divided in the electorate. And the recent NYTimes poll (from the Saturday edition) shows that people are more clearly aware of what the GOP stands for than the Dems. Ergo, the Republican position is understood better by voters who still manage to match the Dems. Hence, it isn't "extremism"; Krugman merely disagrees with it.
BEM -- sounds like you are ready to become a Libertarian. Welcome.
Mr.Krugman should contact a physician immediately. He appears to have a serious case of the vapors. To describe an argument as to whether national government should collect 18% of national income, as opposed to 20%, through taxation (I don't have the exact figures right now, but it IS a few percentage points difference) as a radical difference shows an extreme lack of perspective, and really is quite silly.
The only answer to the "free rider" problem is not to wave your hands and ask people to go against common, but to put in place a system which will increase the incentives to vote in a tangible way.
Compulsory voting, and make election day a public holiday. Works in Australia. (Actually, Aussies vote on a Sunday, but that might annoy the more God-fearing Christians in the USA.) Increase the disincentives of not voting--in the case of Oz, a fine equivalent to a parking ticket--and see how that works.
The United States must embrace sound and sensible solutions in order to achieve energy independence. Something is very wrong when an esteemed economist fails to grasp this simple reality.
What, such as enforcing sensible fuel efficiency standards on motor vehicles? I'm sure even you could come up with a good slogan for it in your advertising conference room, such as 'Starve a Towelhead, Impoverish a Camel-Jockey'.
I am registered as Libertarian. Problem is, there are so few candidates you are back to the lesser of 2 evils scenario. Harry Browne is old and tired. I hope he doesn't trot out in 2 years for the presidential election. Heck, goofball Perot is more dynamic.
Repeat after me: DRILLING IN ALASKA WILL NOT SET US FREE! In all the arguements above I have yet to see any numbers that support drilling. It is thought that there are 16 billion barrels of oil in ANWR. But, it is only economically feasible to extract if the price per barrel is over $30. OPEC, and soon Russia, can always drive the price down to $20 whenever they desire. Not to mention, it will take over 10 years to ramp up production. Buying from the Russians and creating new reserve facilities will achieve the same result cheaper. Ooops, big oil corporations wouldn't like that idea.
We need lower demand now by pressing for new energy technology. Lower demand by creating incentives for fuel cells, electric cars, etc. Then keep Russia out of OPEC and cut the cord with the Saudis. Hopefully Bahrain and others will keep dipping their toes in the water of democracy, we should ally with them. At least we have a few common values. Build a new airbase there.
Geesh...I've rambled on enough.
Krugman falls further off the deep end.
A few columns ago I described Krugman as unhealthily fixated with Bush and was roundly criticized. Once again Krugman gleefuly commits the same sins that he accuses Bush of. He has made a normative judgement that the rich are too wealthy. Because Bush doesn't share his opinion Bush is bad. Intellectual puritanism at its plainest.
It must infuriate Krugman that Bush is at 64% (Zogby), the highest approval ever for a mid first term president. Remember Clinton (the guy that let the Bin Laden get away, and Fastow/Skilling/Lay swindle away the 401ks?) lost 50+ house seats in '94.
Interesting that the person who disagrees with me won't give his/her name.
Anyway: his/her shrill rhetoric, of course, disguises a complete lack of substance.
On working with "fundies" at the UN and how that supposedly makes the GOP the Taliban:
Standing for the majority of the American population, Bush doesn't support abortion. The same is true of some "fundies". So ON THIS ISSUE why not work with them?
You have still not addressed the basic point: do you know anything about the Taliban? If you do, you wouldn't compare the GOP to it. Give it a rest.
>>there is a party intent on destroying
>>the Constitution, it is the Democrats. They
>>want the Judiciary, rather
>>than the Legislature, to write legislation.
>Quoth the man whose president was chose by the
>Supreme Court. LOL. You're hysterical man!
>And you haven't even mentioned the hysterical
>reinterpretation of the 11th amendement by the
>Repug Supremes.
Please. The Democrats wanted to change the Florida election laws on the fly so as to get Gore elected. The Florida Judiciary (or was it the Florida Democratic party?) was happy to play the game and try to rewrite the laws. Thankfully, we have a Supreme Court that still, more or less, believes laws should be written by legislatures. So you have it backwards: The Dems tried to get the Supreme Court to elect Gore, but failed.
On the other hand, they have succeeded in New Jersey. And wait: they'll be going to court in Minnesota too if Mondale is defeated.
>>lately the Democrats have been a lot
>>more dirty than the Republicans
>You're lying.
Wow, if that's not a convincing argument, I don't know what is.
>>Have you heard about the Democratic gay
>bashing in three races?
>There has been no gay bashing so you're lying
>again.
Check your facts. In 3 states: Montana, Hawaii, and South Carolina.
>>Not to mention the scare tactics for seniors.
>Oh, you mean that the repugs have supported
>social security privatization? Oh, wait a >
>second, they have. But since you consider them >
>to be"scare tactics" you couldn't care less that >it's the truth right?
The word "privatization" has a lot of baggage associated with it. It will still be run by the govt, just like TSP etc. And people will have access to safe investments. But people like you aren't interested in the facts, evidently. Rhetoric is just fine for you.
The Democratic party IS trying to scare seniors. It's not reasoned debate, it's scare tactics.
(Mind you, there is no Democratic plan for saving Social Security. Just opposition to whatever the Republicans propose.)
>>Oh, don't forget election irregularities/dead
>voter registration
>Conclusion to draw about Randal Verbrugge: he
likes to lie a lot.
Wow, what an argument. Hello, where have you been? Maryland recently; South Dakota, Minnesota? Giving out cigarettes to homeless people in "payment" for voting? etc.
>>I'd say, the Democrats have a win-at-any-cost mentality.
>I'd say Randal Verbrugge likes to say a lot of
silly things and likes to lie a lot.
Wow, I'm amazed at the brilliance of this argument.
Hey Brad?
Can you install a filter that will automatically screen out anyone who thinks that, in the case Bush v. Gore, Gore was the plaintiff?
People will shriek about censorship, but it seems to me that anyone with that little grasp of the facts has little to add to any conversation. I'll take one-sided accusations and ad hominem, but when you tell me that black is white and Bush is Gore, you're just wasting everyone's time.
"DRILLING IN ALASKA WILL NOT SET US FREE!"
I essentially agree with this sentence. By itself, drilling in Alaska will not take care of all our needs. Nevertheless, it does not address the issue: why not drill in Alaska?
Randy: The links between the extremist Republicans, and specifically the Bush family, are legion. Religious fanaticism, suppression of women's right to chose, jailing dissidents without trial, etc.
Perhaps the proper analogy is not the Taliban, who tried to warn Bush Lite about 9/11 but he wouldn't listen to them as he didn't listen to the State Department, but to Nehemiah Scudder. In Heinlein's novel, the religious extremist Scudder was voted in office as President, and the next election was cancelled. It took the Second American Revolution to get the US back on track.
Given the massive voter suppression by the Republicans in this election, it looks like Heinlein was right again.
Aside: I just voted around noon. The polling place said that there was very high turnout so far, compared to other elections.
Vote!
Randal Verbrugge writes
>Interesting that the person who disagrees with
>me won't give his/her name.
Interesting that Randal Verbrugge
is such a braindead moron.
>On working with "fundies" at the UN and
>how that supposedly makes the
>GOP the Taliban
You're being a moron. Nobody was talking about
"making the GOP the Taliban."
If you have problems reading
English take an ESL class.
>>>there is a party intent on destroying
>>>the Constitution, it is the Democrats. They
>>>want the Judiciary, rather
>>>than the Legislature, to write legislation.
>>And you haven't even mentioned the hysterical
>>reinterpretation of the 11th amendement by the
>>Repug Supremes.
>Please. The Democrats wanted to change
>the Florida election laws [..]
Hey Brad? Can you install a filter that will
automatically screen out anyone who
thinks that, in the case Bush v. Gore,
Gore was the plaintiff?
And you haven't even mentioned the hysterical
reinterpretation of the 11th amendement by the
Repug Supremes.
>Wow, if that's not a convincing argument
It wasn't an argument. Duh. Are they giving out
free e-mail addresses to morons at the Bureau
of Labor Statistics now?
>>>Have you heard about the Democratic gay
>>>bashing in three races?
>>There has been no gay bashing so you're lying
>>again.
>Check your facts. In 3 states:
>Montana, Hawaii, and South Carolina.
There has been no gay bashing in those 3 states
so you're lying again.
>The word "privatization" has a lot of
>baggage associated with it.
You're blabbering. We fluent English speakers
know well enough what social security
privatization means. If you're having problems
take an ESL class.
>But people like you aren't interested in
>the facts, evidently.
The facts are that many repugs supported
privatization. Stop being such a moron about
it ok?
>The Democratic party IS trying to scare seniors.
>It's not reasoned
>debate, it's scare tactics.
The facts are that many repugs supported
privatization. Stop being such a moron about
it ok?
>Wow, what an argument. Hello, where have
>you been? Maryland recently;
>South Dakota, Minnesota? Giving out
>cigarettes to homeless people in
>"payment" for voting?
You really are a pathetic moron. If the most
you can bring up are the actions of 1
democratic volunteer two years ago, you
really are a pathetic moron.
>Wow, I'm amazed at the brilliance of this
>argument.
It wasn't an argument. Duh. Are they giving out
free e-mail addresses to morons at the Bureau
of Labor Statistics now?
Randy, old boy, I trust your not using gov't property to post to this site. Trust me. It's illegal.
As for gay-baiting, phone calls are now being made on behalf of Brother Bush stating that the Brother believes in "traditional marriage."
As for nasty, nothing could be more scurrilous than Chambliss questioning the patriotism of a man who nearly died for his country in Vietnam--especially given Chambliss' military record. Chambliss is the standard chickenhawk, like many who now dominate the Republican party.
WP: "Chambliss put up an ad featuring Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein to attack Cleland, who lost both legs and an arm in Vietnam, on homeland security."
Finally, I'll note in passing that you addressed nothing substantive. If you would like to do so, however, I would suggest you do so from home and not on my nickel.
Keep those unemployment numbers coming!
Actually Australian elections are on Saturdays, not Sundays.
Compulsory voting with a small fine as penalty does seem to work there, with turnout around 95%. Exactly that you would expect: while the marginal benefit of voting compared with non-voting is zero for an individual, the marginal cost is usually not that high either, so only a little incentive is required to get people to show up.
Thank you, JRoth, for citing FACTS. One wonders whether many posting here know that the case was Bush vs. Gore. Guess who gets listed first on lawsuits...
Reply to David Thompson - Why not drill in Alaska?
I think it will be a huge waste of money and poor policy. I'm not particularly taken with the environmentalists position, I think technology can handle the safety issues. But I will say that the evironmental risks should not be taken lightly, as much for the Alaskan hinterlands as the increase in consumption by-products, aka smog.
Here is why I think it will be a waste of money and poor policy. We have yet to import any significant amount from Russia. All the while, Saudi Arabia is sitting on nearly 1 trillion barrels of oil according to the DOE. So we have 2 huge oil reserves sitting out there. ANWR by the most liberal estimates has 16 billion barrels at most, plus it will be expensive to extract and transport. So while we are spending $40 a barrel to extract the oil, Russia and OPEC have flooded the market with $20 per barrel oil.
It's like the state of Ohio trying move the market price on corn, meanwhile Iowa leaves more corn in the field than Ohio ever gets to market.
The U.S. simply doesn't have the supply and/or infrastructure to compete on oil production. So what do we have? Technology. We can create hybrid cars, fuel cells, electric cars, workable mass transit that lowers our demand for oil, and therefore our dependence on oil. BTW, a nice by-product of that is less pollution. Less pollution, less sickness, less health spending etc. We could spend smart money by upgrading and increasing our reserve capabilities for oil purchased over time. Currently we consume 20 million barrels a day. At the current rate, we could be at 32 million a day in 10 years. As recently as 1990, we imported an average of 5.9 million barrels per day. For August 2002, the average was 9.4 million barrels per day.
I define our independence by the number of "oil-days" we have in reserve, not by the oil's country of origin. If we have say (round numbers here) 10 billion in reserves, but consume say 5 million per day rather that 30 million, that makes our reserves that much more valuable...by 6 times. I don't understand why the pro-drilling crowd is so anti-conservation. Energy conservation adds value to reserves we already have in place. Take the money we would spend on drilling in ANWR, spend it on new technology to lower consumption. Unless you are an oil baron, it makes sense. Make sense to you?
"Take the money we would spend on drilling in ANWR, spend it on new technology to lower consumption. Unless you are an oil baron"
Whose money will you be spending on these new technologies? The so-called "oil barons" are investing their own money. Once again, it seems the bureaucrats are suppose to know what's best. Your contempt toward capitalism is obvious. One wishes you were a bit more wary of the motives of those in government positions.
Easy, Lads and Lassies,
This is usually such a classy joint. I show up around election time and find a bunch of normally reasonable, though partisan, posters behaving like, well, like Carville and Matalin. Not that anybody in this series of postings is interested in non-barbed, non-partisan, non-name-calling stuff, right now but here I go.
Isn’t it the job of the "out" party to obstruct the "in" party? Please, please don’t instruct me about the Democrats holding a majority in the Senate. That isn’t the point. Republicans hold the House, where a majority of 1 is needed to get things done, and they hold the Presidency, which exercises executive power and has a far higher profile than anybody else, Pope included. Democrats hold the Senate, where 41 votes can stop 59 votes from getting their way, by 1 vote. They are the minority party now in the grand scheme. The Senate is designed in part to frustrate legislative notions that have less than overwhelming support. That is what Senate Democrats are doing.
Do the Democrats have an agenda that the public recognizes? Well, why would you expect the public that by and large doesn’t even bother to vote to recognize an agenda of the party out of power? From a tactical point of view, why should Democrats publish a high profile agenda which has no hope of passing, but which would be attacked for electoral purposes? Seems the lack of a well-known agenda is pretty understandable. Doesn't mean they don't have an agenda. It also doesn't mean that those who listen closely can't discern an agenda beyond obstruction, if they try. A Republican agenda for not passing environmental (or other) regulations, when Republicans are in the minority, would be a negative, obstructionist agenda in the face of a positive, activist regulatory agenda from Democrats. Same as we see from Daschle now. That’s his job.
As far as the criticism that Krugman is asking for an unreasonable response from potential voters, isn’t that also what our gradeschool civics teachers did? While much of what is discussed on Professor DeLong’s site necessarily starts with the usual set of “rational this, optimize that” assumptions, that is not the be all and end all of human behavior. Don’t we ask more than that when charity is needed? Don’t we ask more than that when our nation is threatened? Sometimes, some of us respond with something better than free riding. We have, or at least once had, a civic religion that worked, sometimes. Krugman’s call to vote is clearly partisan, but anybody who didn’t know he was partisan was reading very closely. Many of you are also partisan, so why ding him for that? Beyond that, what he is asking is that those who enjoy the benefits of democracy practice democracy. Is that so stupid or so empty?
If you vote, then others like you will also vote. If you don't, then those others won't either. If there thousands people in your election district who feel as you do, then your vote may really matter. If you'd prefer to let others decide, they'll decide against you. This cannot be logical, but is true none-the-less.
I would use taxpayer money to both fund and give tax break incentives to encourage the new energy technology. We are already doing it in many areas. Now, you are either very ignorant or intellectually dishonest if you think that the "damn gub-ment" will have no outlay of taxpayer money for drilling in ANWR. Does the USGS work for free? No. Does the Coast Guard work for free? No. Will the oil companies pay for infrastructure? No.
Besides, explain to me how it will add to our domestic oil production anyway? North Slope production has dropped by half since 1988 with NO new prospects. If the Coastal Plain takes 10 years to ramp up, it will simply replace the lost production from the North Slope field. Now, try and convince me that the rate of 20 million barrels per day consumption will remain the same in 2013. Hell no, it will increase. Also add that the possible 16 billion barrels in the area are not all recoverable, somewhere between 9 and 16 billion is estimated to be recoverable. So then what? We get the oil, we use the oil, production drops off and bam, oil imports are 20 million barrels a day and we are even more dependant on imported oil. Our SPR is only 700 million barrels at most. Currently we have 588 million available...that would be 30 days worth. Face it, the ultimate future is either import oil or new energy technology.
"One wishes you were a bit more wary of the motives of those in government positions."
I wish you were a LOT more wary of the motives of those in corporate positions. I hope you have a drawer full of Enron stock. I am not anti-capitalism, I am anti-crony-capitalism. There is a huge difference.
My side good. The other 50% of the population are EVIL. C'mon, guys, this is pointless.
Isn't anyone a little bit disturbed that Paul Krugman is advocating people who know absolutely nothing about the candidates should get out there and vote anyway? Or am I the only person who thinks this is weird?
'Isn't anyone a little bit disturbed that Paul Krugman is advocating people who know absolutely nothing about the candidates should get out there and vote anyway? Or am I the only person who thinks this is weird?'
I thought literacy tests were outlawed..... ;)
>>Isn't anyone a little bit disturbed that Paul Krugman is advocating people who know absolutely nothing about the candidates should get out there and vote anyway? Or am I the only person who thinks this is weird?<<
When will there be a non-white President of the United States of America? When will there be a woman President, Jane?
People's involvement in politics is a function of their perception of the responsiveness of politics to their opinions. If people thought it important to vote, they would spend more time reading, thinking and talking about it. And if a specific group of voters looks likely to vote, candidates get out of their way to inform them.
"Isn't anyone a little bit disturbed that Paul Krugman is advocating people who know absolutely nothing about the candidates should get out there and vote anyway? Or am I the only person who thinks this is weird?"
Nope, you and I are on the same page. The radical egalitarians simply refuse to use their common sense. There is nothing wrong with literacy tests per se. We should not have eliminated them merely because of some abuses by Southern racists. It's ridiculous to allow illiterates the right to vote. Paradoxically, we also don’t wish to limit the vote to the university educated elites.
There is nothing wrong with literacy tests per se. We should not have eliminated them merely because of some abuses by Southern racists. It's ridiculous to allow illiterates the right to vote. Paradoxically, we also don’t wish to limit the vote to the university educated elites.
I just wanted to italicise that for emphasis, since there isn't a <fool> tag.
Precisely how literate does one need to become politically informed? In a world where all political discourse was mediated through broadsheet newspapers or pamphleteers, probably quite a bit. But one can be utterly incapable of reading and writing and still learn a great deal about politics from TV, radio, political rallies and verbal discussions with others. Developing countries often use colourful logos or photographs of the candidates, so that the large fraction of true illiterates are not disenfranchised.
And if that's not enough, you can always have preferential voting systems that require the voter to be able to number a series of boxes in sequence. If they can't do that, their vote is deemed informal. No need for an explicit literacy test. Illiterate isn't the same as stupid.
Once again, Mr Thompson, look at the world outside of your USofA bubble. You have not demonstrated any capability for thinking critically about flawed institutions and practices that happen to fit in with your own apparent prejudices. And you enjoin the so-called "radical egalitarians" to use their common sense (while adding in a little sneer about university-educated elites -- which are you, egalitarian or elitist/meritocratic? You can't have it both ways)! Sheesh. How about YOU avail yourself of a little common knowledge?
White House To Recast Its Economic Lineup
Washington Post
Nov. 6, 2002
Largely under the radar, the administration is already changing its economic team. It has added a senior Senate aide who helped scuttle the Clinton administration's proposed patients' bill of rights, and a health-care lobbyist with ties to the Christian right. It shifted to the Treasury an economic conservative who has criticized government programs that Bush now favors.
Keith Hennessey, who was Senate Republican Leader Trent Lott's policy director, was hired in August as deputy director of the National Economic Council. He has a reputation as an empire builder with a broad grasp of issues and a penchant for dealmaking. He received some notice in 1997 when an internal insurance industry memo surfaced naming Hennessey as the instigator of a "grass-roots" campaign by employers and insurers to scuttle the patients' bill of rights.
Last month, the White House brought in Douglas Badger from the high-powered lobbying firm Washington Council Ernst & Young as a senior health-care adviser. Badger had been chief of staff to Senate Majority Whip Don Nickles (R-Okla.) for much of the 1990s and has served on the board of advisers of Pat Robertson's Regent University. "Doug is known as being very conservative, very policy-oriented and does not like doing bad policy for political reasons," said a Republican health-care lobbyist who has worked closely with him.
On Monday, the Treasury Department said White House economic aide James Carter would become the deputy assistant Treasury secretary for policy coordination, a key post that ties the technically minded Treasury staff to the policymakers in the White House. As an opinion writer and economic adviser to Sen. John D. Ashcroft (R-Mo.), Carter made a mark as an uncompromising conservative who once excoriated federal bilingual education as a budget "oinker," labeled the Goals 2000 educational standards initiative "odious" and dismissed the Peace Corps as a "Great Society-era" program worthy of the budget ax. Bush has expressed strong support for all those programs and their successors.
Kevin Hassett, an economist at the American Enterprise Institute and friend of Carter's, said Carter was not "a doctrinaire person who has his mind made up already about everything."
Stephen Moore, president of the conservative political action committee Club for Growth, predicted that Carter will try to bring a new boldness to a Treasury Department that has been cautious about further tax cuts.
“But one can be utterly incapable of reading and writing and still learn a great deal about politics from TV, radio, political rallies and verbal discussions with others.”
Those people who actually take the effort to “learn a great deal about politics from TV, radio, political rallies and verbal discussions with others” will easily acquire the ability to read and write. Therefore, your point becomes moot.
My own views are fairly nuanced and complex on this particular matter. I strongly recommend everyone see the Anthony Hopkins film, “The Remains of the Day.” The following paragraph is part of a community review I wrote for Amazon.com concerning this great film:
“There is one very powerful scene that demands our rapt attention. Master Stevens is serving drinks to Lord Darlington and a few of his Nazi guests when one of the latter begins to insult the dutiful butler. The condescending guest asks Master Stevens questions about particularly difficult political issues of the moment. Stevens concedes that his lack of education prevents him from fully understanding these matters. The man then sarcastically concludes that Master Stevens is a quintessential reason why democracy is doomed to fail. Only the elites have any business being involved in politics, he adds. The guest rejects the very premise of democracy that declares ordinary and modestly educated people along with the elites are more than capable of forming a workable political system. Moreover, we hold that the basic commonsense of the hoi polloi often balances out the sometimes ethereal unrealistic speculations of the elites. The ordinary person is not an idiot to be marginalized, but may have much to add. Is such a system perfect? No, but as Winston Churchill once said, its still the best system devised in human history. Elitist governments, on the other, inherently tend to be tyrannical and unjust.”
HTH you be "nuanced" on the democratic right to freaking vote?
Some people get too caught up in writing pretty sentences that not only can't they see the trees from the forest (or visa versa) but they aren't even facing in the right direction anymore.
Is anyone else bothered by a man who advocates literacy quoting the movie "Remains of the Day" instead of the book? A fairly good book, by the way.
So even though Mr. Thompson has the ability to read, he is able, thorugh the maginc of movies, to fully understand the position of the story (actually, he doesn't but we can let that pass as well) WITHOUT READING.
To repeat (for DT). He got the message that normally would come from reading by watching and listening. Precisely what he advocated against a few posts back.
I suggest that Mr. Thompson read a bit about the fight for the great charter in britain, and gain a nuanced view of the matter.
B
>>Is anyone else bothered by a man who advocates literacy quoting the movie "Remains of the Day" instead of the book? <<
Heh. If by this, you mean "is anyone surprised that trolls troll?", no.
">>Is anyone else bothered by a man who advocates literacy quoting the movie "Remains of the Day" instead of the book? <<"
Sigh, I was simply too busy to read a classic written in the previous century. Isn’t that why they publish the comic book versions of these great works of art? I deemed it far more important to spend some going through David Horowitz’s “How to Beat the Democrats and Other Subversive Ideas.”
Weren’t the election results wonderful? There truly is a God and the wicked are ultimately punished. I feel it’s also incumbent upon me to paraphrase Robert Duvall in “Apocalypse Now”: I love the smell of burning Democrat flesh in the morning! Victory is sweet.
>> When will there be a non-white President of the United States of America? When will there be a woman President, Jane? <<
Mr. C. Powell and Ms. C. Rice seem like two plausible prospects in the forseeable future.
Of course, as they are both Republicans there's little doubt that good liberals of the Harry Belafonte sort, instead of rejoicing, would soon be questioning whether they are "really" non-white (and non-male), or are just the house-slave type of creature.
It it interesting that the Repubs seem to be developing more viable candidates of the kind. Though the Dems of course do have Hillary.
“It it interesting that the Repubs seem to be developing more viable candidates of the kind. Though the Dems of course do have Hillary.”
The very first thing I sensed is that the Democrats disgusting race card tactics may hopefully become a thing of the past. For far too long, the Democrats have encouraged racial divisiveness. This shameful behavior failed miserably yesterday. I am also greatly encouraged by the fact that many victorious Democrats seem to have little interest in advancing a radical agenda.
The neo-Liberals have a great opportunity to take control of the Democratic Party. It’s time for the Democrats to marginalize the idiot faction that displayed its true colors at the memorial service for Paul Wellstone. The Republicans have essentially eliminated the Pat Buchanans of their party. When will the Democrats choose to do likewise with their extremist members?
'It it interesting that the Repubs seem to be developing more viable candidates of the kind. Though the Dems of course do have Hillary.'
Well, it's kind of a tautology. Virtually no conservatives will vote for a black Democratic candidate, but plenty of liberals will vote for a black Republican candidate.
Let's see, they got the aforementioned CP (who doesn't agree with anything the Republican Party stands for), CR, "expert in a country that doesn't exist anymore," and big Clarence T. to backstop against any attempts for the people to end-run around our coin-op "representatives."
Preacher Watts has quit, and help me here but I really can't think of anybody else.
So I can quickly counter those three with needle-sharp Barbara Lee, clear-eyed Denise Majette, and the one and probably only thing Jesse Jackson has really, indisputably done right, and that is raise a very fine son.
I guess I'm just not watching the same movies as Mr. Thomson.
Dave:
Sorry, don't buy the "legion" of evidence "connecting" Bush to extremists. Of course, you might consider extremist anyone who is opposed to abortion (hardly an extremist position, since it describes the majority of Americans), anyone who actually recognizes that they have a religion, etc. As to jailing dissidents: try jailing lawbreaking illegal aliens. Basically, these are all heartland US values. If you think they are extremist, you should reconsider where you are relative to the median.
It's a bit over the top to think the Repubs don't want elections. Remember, its the Dems that try to get elected via the courts - no matter who is listed first on the title of the court case.
Blank: (funnily how appropriate that is):
You simply are unaware of the facts, since you are wrong in every instance. You might want to check a variety of news sources, rather than just Democrats.com.
Savage:
Thanks for the tip re: the people's resources.
On gay baiting: I am dismayed that readers of this site seem to be unaware of the instances of Dem gay-baiting. But not surprising: it's only newsworthy if its Repubs doing it. Seriously, you guys should read more than just left media. (You are aware that the % of media that is Dem is about 80% or so, I hope.)
Yes, the Repub. gay-baiting (and in the Chambliss case, patriotism-questioning) is just as bad (of course). Point being that it's not just on one side. I beg to differ with the chickenhawk description. See Hitchens.
The substantive things I addressed were facts. Go read my post again.
Best,
Randy
Well, it's kind of a tautology. Virtually no conservatives will vote for a black Democratic candidate, but plenty of liberals will vote for a black Republican candidate.
You could make it a tautology by removing the "black" in front of "Democratic". You think none of us would vote for Jesse Jackson because he's black? Imagine that instead of being a racist, race-baiting black man, Jesse were a racist, race-baiting white man. Then ask yourself if you'd vote for Jackson regardless of party affiliation. An idiot is an idiot. That he's a black idiot shouldn't make him more of a plausible candidate for office, in my view.
If there were a Republican black idiot running for office, I sincerely hope that you would recognize the "idiot" part and decline to vote for him/her.
I''m at a bit of a loss regarding the Times editorial pages.
Paul Krugman wrote...
>> Mr. Bush made it to the White House. Once there, his true radicalism quickly became apparent, and the voters didn't like it ... The Republican Party hopes that ... his radical domestic policy agenda can once again march forward...<<
While the next day's NY Times lead editorial wrote ...
>> Both political parties ran campaigns that huddled around the fuzzy middle <<
So who on those pages are we believe? Or were Bush & Co. really seen by the electorate as "quickly apparent" radical fuzzy-middlers?
'You think none of us would vote for Jesse Jackson because he's black?'
Huh? I wasn't talking about Jesse Jackson. In general, the first gay president will be a Republican for the same reasons the first black president will be a Republican.
Namely, that Democrats who are members of these minority groups are distrusted by conservatives far more than they distrust Democrats in general. By contrast, Democrats are more likely to trust gay or black Republicans more than they are the average Republican.
Sure, individual politicans on the Democratic side, especially in safe districts, are more likely to be black or gay; but when it comes to winner-take-all, broad coalition elections like the presidency, the minorities pretty much have to be GOP to win.
Oh, and there's the affirmative action aspect on the right, but I think it's almost a side issue.
Those people who actually take the effort to “learn a great deal about politics from TV, radio, political rallies and verbal discussions with others” will easily acquire the ability to read and write. Therefore, your point becomes moot.
No, Mr Thompson, my point is not moot. You don't understand about what illiteracy is and you STILL haven't thought outside your 'Merica's-the-greatest box. Rather than dismissing my point, you have simply made it more obvious how determined you are to hang onto obviously foolish opinions based neither on facts nor logic.
Smart people who never had the opportunity for a grade-school education (eg many people in developing countries, many people who have migrated from developing countries to rich countries, people who slipped through the public-education cracks through poverty or undiagnosed dyslexia) can still take an interest in politics even though they might be unable to read. Just as people who don't understand the difference between "could" and "will" are quite capable of trolling discussion boards. Let me spell out what you fail (refuse?) to see: if a smart person happened to grow up without learning to read and write, they presumably have the ABILITY to learn to read and write (COULD), but they might not get around to actually getting that training (WON'T). Unlike learning a spoken language, which comes naturally to any toddler, literacy must be taught -- laboriously.
PS, Jason McCullogh makes a good point. Anyone know if Chastity Bono is willing to join the GOP?
Illiterate American citizens who take an active interest in politics will invaribly wish to learn how to read and write. The urge is there to be satisfied. Our country does everything it can to encourage literacy. A genuine interest in politics, by the way, should connote far more than raising hell at a few political functions. I am restricting my comments to only those who take an active intellectual interest.