Complaints are sometimes a pretty good tell for what’s actually going on. A lot of self-proclaimed centrists don’t like Jon Stewart’s rally because it co-opts the center, laughs at Important Things, or isn’t liberal enough. It’s pretty tidy when your critics makes the point for you.
The actual center of American political opinion is a pretty good fit for Stewart’s political beliefs. It’s also a pretty good fit for the leftish side of the Democratic Party. A random American chosen off the street is likely to believe that we should do something serious about global warming, that abortion should be legal (though pretty regulated), that single-payer sounds like a pretty good idea, that it’s time to give up on Afghanistan, that it’s high time for gays in the military and civil unions, that the Bush tax cuts for the rich should go, and that you should be able to get pot with a prescription. The left doesn’t win either the public or Stewart on every issue, but it’s a win on almost all of the big ones. On most of them it’s not even very close.
The idea, coming from liberals, that the “center” should be defined by whatever David Broder thinks rather than what a big majority of the voters actually want, is just masochism. Coming from the David Broders, it’s just an attempt to control debate.
The country, and Stewart, both have some negative beliefs about the left as people, of course. They think our politicians are kind of nutty, kind of incompetent, and frequently full of bullshit. Most of us on the left are inclined to be a bit more forgiving, and to declare that the guilty parties are not real leftists, but it’s hard to deny the public kind of has a point. They would also like a bunch of good things to be accomplished without paying taxes, and for Republicans to cooperate with Democrats to provide universal healthcare and save the environment. I would also like these things. In addition, if polled, I will note that I want my freezer to be magically full of zero-calorie gelato at all times and for the bank to routinely make errors in my favor.
Stewart and most of the public think the likes of Christine O’Donnell are ridiculous and should be laughed at. I don’t really understand anyone who disagrees with that. I think that in addition to being laughed at, she should be soundly beaten in the election; I’m pretty sure everyone else laughing does too. It is possible for something to be a joke but not only a joke.
And one more thing: the Tea Party is nuts. When nutcases try to take over your country, having people of pretty diverse non-nutty opinion band together to reject them back is a good thing. The message is very clear: I may think that Medicare for all is the only logical solution, and you may think that a carefully designed and regulated private insurance market will yield better results. But we both think we can talk to each other, and that the guy over there who thinks we’re both trying to kill Grandma rates no place at the table. If you don’t think that millions of people coming together behind those beliefs is a positive development, I don’t know what you’re doing – but it’s not politics, and it’s not helping.
Saturday, October 30, 2010
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
it's not the thing, it's the other thing
The British Parliament has pretty thoroughly vindicated the East Anglia CRU in the e-mail leak “scandal”, agreeing that it didn't amount to much more than a couple of unfortunate turns of phrase and had no bearing at all on the science. This is, of course, very good news, and a fine example of a government body behaving like adults in a difficult political environment. It's also a good moment to put on our political operative hats and evaluate how the scientific and environmental activist communities did with this one.
The short answer: not so good. Sure, Rasmussen reported that we didn't lose any notable ground in public opinion as a result of the story. But we surely didn't gain any, and in the weeks around Copenhagen we spent as much time explaining the meaning of the word “trick” as we did advocating actual policy. With polls finding increased climate change denialism, the weak outcome of Copenhagen, and the general rise in conservative activism, the story helped form a classic media narrative - we're losing. After a decade moving the conversation most of the way from “is global warming real?” to “what are we going to do about it?”, we took a big step back toward having to debate the facts again.
Sometimes that's how it goes. Anyone in politics understands that you have good days and bad days. The thing is this: when the denialists find a gambit that works for them, they're going to use it over and over until it stops working for them. It's already started happening, with the “errors” in the IPCC AR4 report dominating climate change reporting for weeks. Just as with the CRU e-mails, the community carefully looked at the details of the accusations, acknowledged failings where they occurred, and explained the underlying science. The result has been exactly the same: the news story reads “Are there errors in the IPCC report? Scientists argue it's okay.”
So – back to that Parliament report. Committee Chair Phil Willis said:
This is familiar territory. 'If scientists only learned to communicate better - if they were only more careful about mistakes - if they only presented themselves as more neutral - or maybe less neutral – we'd finally get policy to respond to science and convince all those people we're right.'
That's almost entirely untrue.
Climate change policy is under attack by a thoroughly professional, organized, funded, determined group of political interests. We're not in a fight about science, as almost all scientists think. We're in a fight about politics. Better communication from scientists would be great, and the scientists doing everything they can to beat back denialists should be applauded. But scientists can't effectively lead this fight. The political fight over health care wasn't led by doctors. The U.S. didn't invade Iraq because of advocacy from soldiers or experts in Middle Eastern culture.
Modern politics is – just like scientific specialities - a highly skilled and extraordinarily demanding trade. Climate change scientists, right now, are bringing a textbook to a gun fight. It's a losing game. They need to stop wading into political battles, and instead put their support, money and trust into building effective political organizations, headed by professional organizers capable of sustaining serious campaigns.
Exactly what those campaigns would look like is a topic for another post. But I'll tell you this: when there's a massive theft of documents followed by quote-mining accusations from political hacks funded by the coal industry, the pros aren't going to go with “Wait, let me explain what we meant by the word 'trick' there.”
The short answer: not so good. Sure, Rasmussen reported that we didn't lose any notable ground in public opinion as a result of the story. But we surely didn't gain any, and in the weeks around Copenhagen we spent as much time explaining the meaning of the word “trick” as we did advocating actual policy. With polls finding increased climate change denialism, the weak outcome of Copenhagen, and the general rise in conservative activism, the story helped form a classic media narrative - we're losing. After a decade moving the conversation most of the way from “is global warming real?” to “what are we going to do about it?”, we took a big step back toward having to debate the facts again.
Sometimes that's how it goes. Anyone in politics understands that you have good days and bad days. The thing is this: when the denialists find a gambit that works for them, they're going to use it over and over until it stops working for them. It's already started happening, with the “errors” in the IPCC AR4 report dominating climate change reporting for weeks. Just as with the CRU e-mails, the community carefully looked at the details of the accusations, acknowledged failings where they occurred, and explained the underlying science. The result has been exactly the same: the news story reads “Are there errors in the IPCC report? Scientists argue it's okay.”
So – back to that Parliament report. Committee Chair Phil Willis said:
“Climate science is a matter of global importance. On the basis of the science, governments across the world will be spending trillions of pounds on climate change mitigation. The quality of the science therefore has to be irreproachable. What this inquiry revealed was that climate scientists need to take steps to make available all the data that support their work and full methodological workings, including their computer codes. Had both been available, many of the problems at CRU could have been avoided.”
This is familiar territory. 'If scientists only learned to communicate better - if they were only more careful about mistakes - if they only presented themselves as more neutral - or maybe less neutral – we'd finally get policy to respond to science and convince all those people we're right.'
That's almost entirely untrue.
Climate change policy is under attack by a thoroughly professional, organized, funded, determined group of political interests. We're not in a fight about science, as almost all scientists think. We're in a fight about politics. Better communication from scientists would be great, and the scientists doing everything they can to beat back denialists should be applauded. But scientists can't effectively lead this fight. The political fight over health care wasn't led by doctors. The U.S. didn't invade Iraq because of advocacy from soldiers or experts in Middle Eastern culture.
Modern politics is – just like scientific specialities - a highly skilled and extraordinarily demanding trade. Climate change scientists, right now, are bringing a textbook to a gun fight. It's a losing game. They need to stop wading into political battles, and instead put their support, money and trust into building effective political organizations, headed by professional organizers capable of sustaining serious campaigns.
Exactly what those campaigns would look like is a topic for another post. But I'll tell you this: when there's a massive theft of documents followed by quote-mining accusations from political hacks funded by the coal industry, the pros aren't going to go with “Wait, let me explain what we meant by the word 'trick' there.”
Sunday, January 3, 2010
On Savagery
I'm gonna keep posting until I find a voice for this thing.
I was reading a bit on the intellectual origins of the notion that mobs, and individuals without civilization, are savage or bestial - the heritage of Hobbes, who was a terrible physicist, by the way. Rebecca Solnit writes
We've long since accepted (most of us, anyhow) that "savages" aren't very savage. It occured to me, though, that beasts aren't either - few animals in any normal state are randomly destructive, and most lead rather ordered lives. Doesn't leave much for a Hobbesian view of human nature to stand on, but an awful lot of people persist in thinking that way anyway.
I was reading a bit on the intellectual origins of the notion that mobs, and individuals without civilization, are savage or bestial - the heritage of Hobbes, who was a terrible physicist, by the way. Rebecca Solnit writes
The belief that we have a besial nature refined by the march of civilization was a key tenet of the nineteenth-century European world, anxious to justify colonization...
We've long since accepted (most of us, anyhow) that "savages" aren't very savage. It occured to me, though, that beasts aren't either - few animals in any normal state are randomly destructive, and most lead rather ordered lives. Doesn't leave much for a Hobbesian view of human nature to stand on, but an awful lot of people persist in thinking that way anyway.
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
fun with the DMV
Some not-really-related stuff had me thinking about the DMV. I've had pretty substantial dealings with the DMV in three states now, and while it's not my favourite way to spend a morning, it's always been much better than the general reputation would lead you to believe. The employees have always been pretty helpful and reasonable - certainly far above the average in the wide world of customer service. The processes are about as efficient as could be hoped for. The only real trouble is the wait time, which is just a consequence of having too few employees, due to the mania for small government and all. Same thing with the post office, which incidentally is not publicly funded and is so good at what it does that even private companies already in the package delivery business don't bother trying to compete with it directly.
I'd far rather deal with either than make a complex support call to most tech companies any day.
I've always assumed that the intense conservative animus towards these things was just a cheap talking point, but I'm wondering now if it isn't about power relationships. We're all equal at the DMV or the post office, and (sadly) there isn't much recourse if it isn't going the way you want. Money and power don't make much difference, and with the folks behind the counter having things like unions and a middle-class salary, you can't feel nearly as much superiority to and dominance over them as you can at Target. I think that sort of freaks conservatives out.
I'd far rather deal with either than make a complex support call to most tech companies any day.
I've always assumed that the intense conservative animus towards these things was just a cheap talking point, but I'm wondering now if it isn't about power relationships. We're all equal at the DMV or the post office, and (sadly) there isn't much recourse if it isn't going the way you want. Money and power don't make much difference, and with the folks behind the counter having things like unions and a middle-class salary, you can't feel nearly as much superiority to and dominance over them as you can at Target. I think that sort of freaks conservatives out.
Sunday, December 27, 2009
Making Jeremiah Wright look understated
Conservatives really go to amazing lengths looking for 'reverse racism'. Quite a lot of them - including friends of mine, and I think they're totally sincere - go looking for tea leaves to read every time a nonwhite person is arrested, hunting for ways they're being treated too well. This is especially true if terrorism is also involved, so this week's excitement was that reporters didn't immediately publish hearsay versions of the name of the suspect in the attempted plane-bombing.
I know my brain doesn't work quite the same way as theirs, but I can't for the life of me figure out what the notion is here. Phase 1: delay releasing a suspect's name for a couple of hours in a highly sensitive situation. Phase 3: profit!
"(X) finds it very telling that "reporters" initially discouraged sources from giving the name of the suspect. I guess that type of information is only considered a "scoop" when it's an amish farmer or american male gun enthusiast. nothing to see here, move along..."
I know my brain doesn't work quite the same way as theirs, but I can't for the life of me figure out what the notion is here. Phase 1: delay releasing a suspect's name for a couple of hours in a highly sensitive situation. Phase 3: profit!
ok maybe two months is too long
This blogging thing is harder to get round to than I previously imagined.
I just finished "The Family", which was the sort of pretty good book that makes you wish for a better one. It offered another perspective on something I've been thinking for a long time: corruption, among modern conservatives, has been considerably displaced by a sort of perfect confluence of interests. If you really, truly, religiously believe that what's good for Walmart is good for America, the money they give you isn't quite a bribe. Sharlet writes of an early Christian-right politician,
"Langlie didn't so much end corruption as legalize it. Langlie wasn't opposed to a government organized around the interests of the greedy; he just didn't want to have to break the law to serve them..."
The philosophical (if you can call it that) merger of business interests, Christianity, and liking war a lot is the defining characteristic of modern conservatism, and it's a very strange mix indeed...
I just finished "The Family", which was the sort of pretty good book that makes you wish for a better one. It offered another perspective on something I've been thinking for a long time: corruption, among modern conservatives, has been considerably displaced by a sort of perfect confluence of interests. If you really, truly, religiously believe that what's good for Walmart is good for America, the money they give you isn't quite a bribe. Sharlet writes of an early Christian-right politician,
"Langlie didn't so much end corruption as legalize it. Langlie wasn't opposed to a government organized around the interests of the greedy; he just didn't want to have to break the law to serve them..."
The philosophical (if you can call it that) merger of business interests, Christianity, and liking war a lot is the defining characteristic of modern conservatism, and it's a very strange mix indeed...
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Math is hard. Let's go right-wing!
Michelle Malkin is very excited about a flaw she thinks she's found in the standard study of the effects of being uninsured on mortality.
Malkin notes that studies frequently find that a moderate fraction of those self-reporting as uninsured - 10%, say - turn out to be insured after all. She thinks this means... actually I've read through her post four times now, and I'm not sure what she thinks it means. She's just thrilled to have found a flaw.
Suppose, if you will, that being uninsured does indeed have some negative impact on health. We can probably trust that this is true; if not, the insurance companies are even more nefarious than we think.
Then if some people in the group labelled "uninsured" are in fact insured, this will decrease the effect of not having insurance found by the study. It means being uninsured is worse for you than the study finds, and people are dying from lack of insurance at a higher rate than is routinely reported. As the author of the study put it - Malkin quotes him in the post, but doesn't appear to have parsed it - "If present, such misclassification might dilute the true effect of uninsurance in our sample."
(To head off a possible objection, the figure for the number of uninsured Americans, and thus the extrapolation to the number of needless deaths we get annually, is not dependent on self-reporting.)
Similarly, if not having health insurance was just a temporary condition for the people in the study at the time they were surveyed - if they've all gotten health insurance since - that means that the difference in death rates is due not to people going all this time without insurance, but people missing out on insurance only briefly! We thought it was this bad for you to go your life uninsured - but actually it's that bad for you to go just a year or two without insurance.
Sorting out statistics like this can be difficult, so let's make an analogy with cookies. Let's say you make two batches of cookies. You follow the exact same recipe, only with one batch you use yummy chocolate chips... or maybe those big chocolate chunks, let's say semi-sweet, from Ghirardelli... sorry, I got distracted there.
Anyway, with the second batch, you replace the chocolate chips with lab rat poop. Then you feed people your cookies and see their reactions. Turns out people think the chocolate chip cookies are five times as good as the rat poop cookies.
Then, like in those old Folger's commercials, it turns out that your rat poop supplies were actually only half rat poop and were half chocolate chips. Does that mean rat poop is better than you thought? No. It means that rat poop is more disgusting than you thought - twice as disgusting, in fact.
For the rest, Malkin seems to have the routine right-wing problem of not understanding that people can be convinced by study that they should believe in something like health-care reform, rather than the normal conservative mode of people who already believe something doing bogus studies to try and prove their point. I guess that's kind of how it goes.
Moral of the story: if you are in no way a scientist, and you are also an idiot, you probably shouldn't try to debunk peer-reviewed papers.
Malkin notes that studies frequently find that a moderate fraction of those self-reporting as uninsured - 10%, say - turn out to be insured after all. She thinks this means... actually I've read through her post four times now, and I'm not sure what she thinks it means. She's just thrilled to have found a flaw.
Suppose, if you will, that being uninsured does indeed have some negative impact on health. We can probably trust that this is true; if not, the insurance companies are even more nefarious than we think.
Then if some people in the group labelled "uninsured" are in fact insured, this will decrease the effect of not having insurance found by the study. It means being uninsured is worse for you than the study finds, and people are dying from lack of insurance at a higher rate than is routinely reported. As the author of the study put it - Malkin quotes him in the post, but doesn't appear to have parsed it - "If present, such misclassification might dilute the true effect of uninsurance in our sample."
(To head off a possible objection, the figure for the number of uninsured Americans, and thus the extrapolation to the number of needless deaths we get annually, is not dependent on self-reporting.)
Similarly, if not having health insurance was just a temporary condition for the people in the study at the time they were surveyed - if they've all gotten health insurance since - that means that the difference in death rates is due not to people going all this time without insurance, but people missing out on insurance only briefly! We thought it was this bad for you to go your life uninsured - but actually it's that bad for you to go just a year or two without insurance.
Sorting out statistics like this can be difficult, so let's make an analogy with cookies. Let's say you make two batches of cookies. You follow the exact same recipe, only with one batch you use yummy chocolate chips... or maybe those big chocolate chunks, let's say semi-sweet, from Ghirardelli... sorry, I got distracted there.
Anyway, with the second batch, you replace the chocolate chips with lab rat poop. Then you feed people your cookies and see their reactions. Turns out people think the chocolate chip cookies are five times as good as the rat poop cookies.
Then, like in those old Folger's commercials, it turns out that your rat poop supplies were actually only half rat poop and were half chocolate chips. Does that mean rat poop is better than you thought? No. It means that rat poop is more disgusting than you thought - twice as disgusting, in fact.
For the rest, Malkin seems to have the routine right-wing problem of not understanding that people can be convinced by study that they should believe in something like health-care reform, rather than the normal conservative mode of people who already believe something doing bogus studies to try and prove their point. I guess that's kind of how it goes.
Moral of the story: if you are in no way a scientist, and you are also an idiot, you probably shouldn't try to debunk peer-reviewed papers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)