Civics quiz

A 10 question civics quiz (not paywalled). I got 9/10. ☹️

Democracy updates: Rethinking regulations, etc.

I'm a huge fan of data-driven politics. But in my experience, that is a concept that is rarely touched on by the MSM or its MAGA counterpart. And when it is touched on, it tends to get distorted by ideology, political opportunism, etc. Fortune magazine writes:

Politicians claim regulation hurts small businesses. When you look at 

real-world data, the truth is more complicated

We found that regulation-related tasks account for up to 3.3% of total labor costs for the average American establishment—costing all companies combined a total of $239 billion in 2014 ($289 billion including equipment). To give a sense of the scale, U.S. gross business income taxes amounted to $353 billion in the same year. Yet regulatory burdens vary widely across firms of different sizes. Midsize firms with around 500 employees spend, on average, about 47% more on regulatory compliance costs per employee than small firms—and 18% more than large firms.

Some regulations only apply to medium to large-size businesses and exclude smaller businesses. This can facilitate entry by small firms but creates a big hill to climb as these businesses wish to expand.

Large firms benefit from economies of scale that allow them to hire dedicated compliance specialists and put systems in place for managing compliance and reporting efficiently. These practices are more cost-effective than spreading the task among many nonspecialized employees. Large firms may also have a hand in shaping the rules to limit competition. [Well duh! That's just pay-to-play politics]

The uneven impact of government regulations creates a hump that companies must climb as they grow. The high regulatory compliance costs faced by midsize companies could prevent their growth, or even deter them from trying to grow. Companies sometimes bunch below the size threshold at which onerous regulations would begin to apply. 

Agencies could also test whether individual regulations are truly worth the expense through pilot programs. Before adding a new sanitation requirement for restaurants, for example, a city’s public health department might first roll out the regulation to a subset of establishments. The agency could then track how much the costs of compliance go up, and whether rates of food-borne illness go down relative to restaurants that are not operating under the new regulation. [Unbelievable -- someone arguing for testing to see if and how well something works or fails to work! What a shocking idea -- too good to be true /s]

A person can easily see big companies structuring regulations to prevent companies from getting too big. That limits competition and fattens profits, a twofer! It's a win-win strategy for the behemoths and lose-lose for the pipsqueaks.


Trump picked his lawyer for a top Justice Dept. job. Does it matter? -- If confirmed as deputy attorney general, Todd Blanche should recuse from Justice Dept. matters related to cases where he represented Donald Trump, experts say. -- Blanche would fix “a broken System of Justice,” Trump declared in a statement. Days later, Blanche was hard at work in his current role, signing a court filing that derided one of the cases against Trump as “politically-motivated and fatally flawed” and argued that it should be dismissed.

MSNBC confronts viewer frustration, changes and an identity crisis -- The network’s audience has declined since the Nov. 5 election, as viewers have tuned out. Its parent company is spinning it off. -- “We’re going to become a guest-driven, fully opinion operation that doesn’t even have the appearance of being a news-driven operation,” predicted one MSNBC journalist who, like others quoted in this story, spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to comment. -- Some critics questioned what the hosts meant by saying they were going to take a “different” approach to covering Trump. “The big problem with the announcement is that they all but said they’re going to give warmer coverage, which is a strange thing to announce,” the network insider said.

I've said it before and say again, professional journalism is not compatible with for-profit capitalism. Maybe it's not even compatible with rational politics, unless one defines rational politics to include irrational, e.g., populist, politics. Being at least somewhat irrational may actually be the rational thing to do for pro-democracy people.


Russia, Targeting Ukraine’s Grid, Moves to Cut Off Its Nuclear Plants (not paywalled) -- Moscow has increasingly hit critical substations linked to nuclear power plants in an effort to disconnect them. At the same time, Ukraine replaced the commander of its ground forces. “Ukraine’s energy infrastructure is extremely fragile and vulnerable, putting nuclear safety at great risk,” Rafael Mariano Grossi, the head of the agency, the I.A.E.A., said in a statement released late Thursday. Russia has targeted Ukraine’s energy infrastructure since the war’s first winter two years ago, in an effort to collapse its grid and make life miserable for its citizens. The Ukrainian authorities reported that Russia used cluster munitions — weapons that break apart in midair, scattering smaller bomblets over a wide area — to attack the grid.

Women despair over Taliban rules, but many Afghan returnees don’t see it (not paywalled) -- For the first time since the Taliban takeover three years ago, Afghans living outside the country have begun flocking back to their homeland, usually to visit relatives who have remained in Afghanistan. Upon their return, few seem preoccupied by the Taliban’s increasingly draconian restrictions on women — including bans on women going to university and school above sixth grade — or by the reluctance of many local women to leave their homes out of fear of encountering the morality police, according to interviews with residents and visitors. Instead, many of the visitors, carrying foreign passports or visas, marvel about the sense of security and the construction of new roads under Taliban rule. They post photos of their favorite Afghan dishes, discuss business plans and shop in the Kabul airport’s new duty-free store.  During a recent family trip to Kabul — her first since the Taliban takeover three years ago after years of war — Zahra, 34, was pleasantly surprised. “There’s freedom now,” said Zahra, an Afghan who lives in London. She indulged herself in shopping for gold jewelry and is already planning another trip to Afghanistan next year. For Afghan women who have had to live under Taliban rule, the enthusiasm of visiting relatives can be puzzling and, increasingly, frustrating.

Comment: This bit about Afghanis outside not caring about people living there is fascinating but disturbing. Assuming this reporting is more right than wrong, it clearly suggests that a lot of people have curiously limited amounts empathy. In this case, maybe that is mostly dues to an understanding that there is nothing outsiders can do to improve the plight of the oppressed, trapped natives. So why not take advantage of what there is to take advantage of and blithely carry on? Or, is something else going on here? 

Pandamonium!

The NYT writes about pandas (not paywalled):

For decades, American zoos have raised tens of millions of dollars from donors and sent the money to China for the right to host and display pandas. Under U.S. law, those funds were required to be spent protecting pandas in the wild.

But the Chinese government instead spent millions on apartment buildings, roads, computers, museums and other expenses, records show. For years, China refused even to account for millions more.

Regulators with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which oversees the payments, have for two decades raised concerns about this with American zoo administrators and Chinese officials alike. The U.S. government, on three occasions, froze payments to China over incomplete record keeping, documents show.

Zoos, too, have known that the money was not always going toward conservation. But they worried that if Fish and Wildlife cut off the money altogether, China could demand the return of its bears. Zoos count on pandas for visitors, merchandise sales and media attention.

Ultimately, the regulators allowed the money to keep flowing and agreed not to check the spending in China so thoroughly, according to records and former officials.

“There was always pushing back and forth about how the U.S. shouldn’t ask anything,” said Kenneth Stansell, a former Fish and Wildlife official who traveled to China throughout the 2000s to discuss pandas. He said his Chinese counterparts argued that “it shouldn’t be of any concern to the U.S. government.”

None of this has been revealed to the public.

The rule of law? Meh, whatev dude. Don't get your knickers in a bunch.

Authoritarian propaganda: Powerful, subtle, cynical, aggressive and deeply embedded

I've been harping on the power of authoritarian dark free speech (lies, slanders, crackpottery, irrational emotional manipulation, etc.) for at least the last ~18 years. As American secular democracy continues to be under severe attack from the American radical right authoritarian wealth and power MAGA movement, the situation increasingly looks to be significantly worse than I thought. 

In this series of Q&A with Perplexity, one aspect of a huge problem became a lot clearer. Specifically, Perplexity does not take into account human cognitive biology or social behavior. That makes it shockingly vulnerable to MAGA propaganda. This is one of the Q&As buried deep in the string:

Q: Yes, the contemporary political landscape has seen a shift in what's commonly referred to as "conservatism." That is obvious. What you fail to understand in your search materials is that it is propaganda, i.e., a lie, for "bad" authoritarians to assume the mantle of "good" conservatism. You apparently misunderstand the power of propaganda on the human mind. Your searching apparently does not take into account human cognitive biology or social behavior. That is where the awesome power of lies, deceit, slanders and crackpot thinking comes from. If you want to get politics right, you can never lose track of cognitive biology and social behavior.

A: You raise an excellent point about the power of propaganda and its impact on political discourse. Indeed, the shift in what's commonly referred to as "conservatism" is a prime example of how propaganda can reshape political identities and ideologies. Propaganda's effectiveness stems from its ability to exploit human cognitive biases and social behaviors 1. It often appeals to emotions like fear and anxiety, which can [comment: and routinely does] override rational thinking. This emotional manipulation can lead people to accept ideas or support figures that may contradict their previously held beliefs or values.

In the case of contemporary "conservatism," propaganda techniques have been used to redefine the term, associating it with authoritarian tendencies that are fundamentally at odds with traditional conservative principles 4. This redefinition exploits people's desire for belonging and their fears about societal changes 3.

The power of propaganda lies in its ability to create an "us vs. them" narrative, which taps into our tribal instincts. This can lead to the acceptance of authoritarian figures or ideas, as people become willing to trade some of their rights and freedoms in response to perceived threats.

You're correct that understanding cognitive biology and social behavior is crucial for analyzing political phenomena. Propaganda exploits these aspects of human nature, using techniques like bandwagon effects, fearmongering, and name-calling to shape public opinion 3.

The misappropriation of terms like "conservatism" by authoritarian movements is indeed a form of propaganda. It's a deliberate attempt to clothe authoritarian ideas in the language of a more respectable political philosophy 4. This linguistic sleight-of-hand can confuse voters and blur the lines between genuine conservative principles and authoritarian tendencies.

Your insight highlights the importance of critical thinking and media literacy in navigating today's complex political landscape. By understanding the mechanisms of propaganda and our own cognitive vulnerabilities, we can better resist manipulation and maintain a clearer perspective on political realities. (emphasis added)

What prompted this post is me being told this morning that my post from a NYT opinion yesterday was written by a hard core Christian nationalist theocrat. I was unaware of who he is. That theocrat, Christopher Caldwell, is openly anti-democracy and anti-civil liberties. He advocates authoritarianism, but tries to deceive by calling it "populism." What a "Christian." 

Perplexity calls him a "conservative" because Perplexity does not "understand" anything, including the overwhelming role of human cognitive biology and social behavior in politics. If I were to go back and ask the same questions, I imagine I would get the same answers. Perplexity does not learn. All it can do is get occasional data updates.

We are in a worse situation than I thought. And even AI is more clueless than me. Crud.

An analysis of capitalism, market deregulation and populism

Happy Thanksgiving!

Hm, the bird looks

a bit undercooked

NOTE: In the comments below, it is made clear that the author of this NYT opinion, Christopher Caldwell, is a radical right Christian nationalist theocrat. In the opinion, he is subtly arguing against democracy and disguises his argument for authoritarianism as populism. However, that does not necessarily hold true for the Wolfgang Streeck, the person that Caldwell uses to try to deceive us into believing that democracy is dead. That comment is featured. It was my mistake to not look Caldwell up to see who and what he really is, an ice-cold, cynical authoritarian deceiver. 

A fascinating NYT opinion lays out a plausible analysis about most of what went wrong, and still is going wrong. In essence, the wrongness is the Titanic and now it’s not easy to control, maybe impossible. Bullet points in the post summarize parts of the essay, which is long.

Wolfie

Long story short: (i) Power flowed from the masses to business and finance interests in the name of globalism, (ii) failed political leadership made it worse by deficit spending, and (iii) people’s deteriorating economic situation sparked populism, which made things even worse. This is may not be 100% an explanation, but it feels pretty darn good, especially if one considers toxic populism in the mix. The opinion (not paywalled):

Who could have seen Donald Trump’s victory coming? Ask the question of an American intellectual these days and you may meet with embittered silence. Ask a European intellectual and you will likely hear the name of Wolfgang Streeck (rhymes with cake), a German sociologist and theorist of capitalism. .... His latest book, “Taking Back Control? States and State Systems After Globalism,” published this month, asks whether the global economy as it is now set up is compatible with democracy. He has his doubts. [So do I]

The problems started in the 1970s. Working classes in Western countries won good incomes and extensive protections, the “postwar settlement”, but profit margins suffered. What economies lost in dynamism, they gained in social stability [arguably that’s only partly right today]. However, after the Arab oil embargo of 1973, investors got nervous. The economy began to stall.

• That put politicians in a bind because workers had the votes to demand more services. That required making demands on business, and business was having none of it. Countries finessed by expanding the money supply. For a while the trick worked and workers got more but businesses didn’t pay for it. But in reality, governments had started borrowing from the next generation. They never broke the habit. 

• Soon borrowing from the next generation sparked inflation, but investors balked again. A painful tightening of money was needed to stabilize prices. Ronald Reagan’s supply-side regime eased the pain a bit on the back record government deficits. Bill Clinton was able eliminated those, but only by deregulating private banking and borrowing

• A series of mostly American attempts to calm the economy after the ’70s produced neoliberalism, which was a political-economic project to end the inflation state and free capital from its imprisonment in the “postwar settlement.” This debt-increasing mode of governing was never seriously reconsidered. One administration’s fix turns into the next generation’s crisis. At each stage of neoliberalism’s evolution, key decisions were made by technocrats, experts and other actors relatively insulated from democratic accountability. [Can you feel the power flowing away from the public interest?]

Mr. Streeck has a clear vision of something paradoxical about the neoliberal project: For the global economy to be “free,” it must be constrained. What the proponents of neoliberalism mean by a free market is a deregulated market. But getting to deregulation is trickier than it looks because in free societies, regulations are the result of people’s sovereign right to make their own rules. The more democratic the world’s societies are, the more idiosyncratic they will be, and the more their economic rules will diverge. But that is exactly what businesses cannot tolerate — at least not under globalization. Money and goods must be able to move frictionlessly and efficiently across borders. This requires a uniform set of laws. Somehow, democracy is going to have to give way.

A uniform set of laws also requires a single international norm. Which norm? That’s another problem, as Mr. Streeck sees it: The global regime we have is a reliable copy of the American one. This brings order and efficiency but also tilts the playing field in favor of American corporations, banks and investors.

• Non-technocrats, including a resentful old working class, are not going to be permitted to tangle up the system with their demands. Since economic policy is not democratically managed, it should not unfair outcomes happen. After the mortgage crisis, COVID, the war in Ukraine and so-called Bidenflation, this unfairness would gave rise to “tendencies toward deglobalization” — such as those that emerged with a vengeance on Nov. 5. The “global economy” is a place where common people have no leverage. 

• Parties of the left lost sight of these problems after the 1970s. They allowed their old structure, oriented around industrial workers and primarily concerned with workers’ rights and living standards, to be infiltrated and overthrown by intellectuals primarily concerned with promoting systems of values, such as human rights and lately the set of principles known as wokeism.

The essay continues, mostly making sense, but this concluding paragraph offers nothing at all encouraging or rational in my opinion:

Streeck’s new book is not about Mr. Trump’s triumph. But his message (or his warning, however you choose to read it) is not unrelated: The left must embrace populism, which is merely the name given to the struggle over an alternative to globalism. With globalism collapsing under its own contradictions, all serious politics is now populist in one way or another.

But if I am wrong and populism really is the only way out, that tells me that if the definition of populism I posted yesterday is basically correct, then democratic politics has to be populist and necessarily significantly irrational. That’s arguably a recipe for catastrophic self-annihilation, but that’s just my opinion.

When I try to embrace populism, it rejects me. I cannot be a populist, but humans doing politics cannot be much more rational rational than it is now. 

It makes me wonder if I am self-deluded and significantly more irrational than I think I am. . . . . . think, think . . . . . Nah, don’t think so. Sometimes wrong? Sure, but not intentionally or consciously so. My mistakes are in good faith. Populist mistakes are more in bad faith than good faith, at least as populist MAGA practices mistakes (lies, slanders, crackpottery, etc.).

Hm, what happens when 

the big hand hits 12?

This?

Rational populism, is that a real thing?

I've been in an introspective mindset for about 4-5 months. This one has lasted a lot longer than my past bouts of re-thinking my thinking. The appeal or pragmatic rationalism or rational politics to the public is extremely low. That appears to be mostly because it is too reality- and reason-tethered, cognitively way too hard and not nearly enough self-affirming fun. 

I tried the Bluesky social media, but it isn't a place for serious politics. Also, there's no interest there in rational politics. 

What about rational populism? It sounds like an oxymoron, but what do I know? I thought that populism wasn't a bulwark of rationality. Perplexity:

Q: How can a person act like a populist?

A: To act like a populist, one would typically adopt the following behaviors and characteristics:

1.  Present yourself as the voice of "the people" against a corrupt elite. 

2. Use simple, direct language and short slogans to appeal to a broad audience.

3. Engage in provocative or "bad-mannered" behavior that breaks political norms.
4. Criticize established institutions, including the media, academia, and government.
5. Promote an "us vs. them" mentality, often targeting minorities or outsiders.
6. Make bold promises and offer simple solutions to complex problems.
7. Claim to represent the "silent majority" and dismiss opposing views as illegitimate.
8. Use social media and public rallies to communicate directly with supporters.
9. Emphasize your outsider status, even if you come from a privileged background.
10. Perpetuate a sense of crisis or urgency to justify unconventional actions.

It's important to note that these behaviors are often criticized for undermining democratic norms and institutions.

Hm. I'm pretty much on board with 1, 4, 8, and 9. I don't know how to do 2.  Points 3, 5, 6 and 7 suck. I won't do those things, at least not intentionally. 10, justifying unconventional actions, sounds like the opposite of democracy, i.e., authoritarianism.

So no, rational populism isn't a real thing. I'm not a populist, rational or irrational. 

Also from the same Perplexity search:

Rhetorical Techniques:

Use phrases like "drain the swamp" or attack the "liberal elite." Employ an "anti" stance - anti-politics, anti-intellectualism, or anti-elite. Adapt your message to current crises or societal changes.

Remember that populism can manifest across the political spectrum, from left-wing figures like Bernie Sanders to right-wing leaders like Donald Trump. The key is to present yourself as the authentic voice of the people against a corrupt establishment, regardless of your specific policy positions.