Revolt of the Liberals

An old liberal has figured out that today’s progressives are not liberal. In an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal Michael Blechman writes:

I had always thought it was only bigoted Jim Crow juries and redbaiters like Joe McCarthy who rode roughshod over due process. Yet in 2011 the Obama Education Department sent a “dear colleague” letter to colleges and universities, threatening to cut off federal funding unless the schools changed their procedures to make it easier to discipline students accused of sexual assault. As a result, many students were stripped of their rights to counsel, cross-examination of their accusers and discovery of the evidence against them. Those procedures were re-examined by the current secretary of education, a step that was bitterly criticized by progressives because it may make it more difficult to punish the accused—the price of all due-process protections.

My first reaction to the #MeToo movement was satisfaction that victims of sexual harassment could feel safer about speaking out. Then, during the Brett Kavanaugh hearings, “women deserve to be heard” transformed into “women deserve to be believed.” A presumption of guilt replaced the presumption of innocence, and progressives seemed unconcerned. I can imagine a #MeToo version of “To Kill a Mockingbird,” with Mayella Ewell as the heroine, Atticus Finch condemned for “toxic masculinity” and the lynch mob cheered as an engine of popular justice.

Another tenet of American justice that inspired me to lean left was the idea that every defendant, however unpopular, is entitled to legal representation. Here my childhood heroes were lawyers like William Kunstler, who defended politically unpopular leftist clients, and the American Civil Liberties Union, which defended clients of every stripe when their constitutional rights were threatened.

This year, however, Ronald Sullivan, a Harvard Law School professor, became the object of student protests after joining disgraced movie mogul Harvey Weinstein’s defense team. The protests led Harvard to fire Mr. Sullivan and his wife as faculty deans at Winthrop House, a campus residential college. The right of an unpopular defendant to counsel, it seems, is no longer a progressive value.

Another of my core values is free speech. In the McCarthy era, one often heard of professors and screenwriters being forced out of their jobs for expressing far-left views. Today it’s conservative professors that are an endangered species on campus. Progressive students have become expert at forcing the dismissal or resignation of professors who allegedly display insufficient sensitivity about racial or gender issues. All too often, such students are able to keep anyone they disagree with from even speaking on campus. Once again, progressives have become the most visible enemies of a core “liberal” value.

I know that young people are often idealistic and attracted to anything that seems like a fight against injustice. But progressives today are riding roughshod over much of what liberalism once stood for. I hope that old 1960s liberals like me will stand firm, not be shamed into silence, and call out those who challenge our core values, whether from the left or the right.

He’s right that liberalism is dying a hard, painful death. I think he’s whistling past a graveyard in hoping that “liberals like me will stand firm”. Most are either too old and tired or dead.

The news that came this week of a decision to cover up a WPA mural of Washington in San Francisco because students found it offensive is an epitome. It isn’t only that Washington owned slaves that today’s young find offensive. It’s what he has come to represent as well.

3 comments

Print the Legend

In his New York Times column Jonathan Alter says that Democrats are “reviving Roosevelt”:

From the 1930s through the 1970s, American politics took place largely on Roosevelt’s liberal terrain. Since then, even Democratic presidents have often been forced to play on Ronald Reagan’s conservative side of the field.

Suddenly, though, Roosevelt is alive again in the 2020 Democratic primary campaign: His ideas for using government to improve lives echo through stump speeches across Iowa and New Hampshire.

If so it will need to be a carefully edited version of Roosevelt. There are a number of actions by Roosevelt, not the least being the Japanese internment, that would suggest that he is a model that modern Democrats might want to shy away from. These include:

  • Mexican repatriation. Roosevelt continued the policy, begun under Hoover, of forcibly transporting people of Mexican ancestry from the United States to Mexico. Estimates of how many people were involved vary from 400,000 to several million. It is believed that a majority of those transported were American citizens—if you looked Mexican you were a candidate for repatriation.
  • Roosevelt was a fiscal conservative. Throughout his first two terms he steadfastly maintained his belief in a balanced budget.
  • His policies may have prolonged the Great Depression. The Great Depression was a double-dip recession. The first dip occurred in 1929-1930. The second was in 1937 and was probably due to a combination of bad monetary and fiscal policies. Certainly increased taxes on businesses resulted in the “capital strike” of 1937.

Maybe the question is which Roosevelt? Not the Roosevelt of his first two terms, the pragmatic Christian Democrat who would be mostly unrecognizable to today’s Democrats.

2 comments

Stranger Than Fiction

A “Perry Mason moment” is a dramatic revelation from the witness box during a trial that completely up-ends the proceedings. They are extremely rare in real life. A real-life Perry Mason moment has just occurred in a highly publicized trial. NPR reports:

The war crimes trial of Navy SEAL Chief Edward Gallagher took a dramatic turn Thursday when a lead prosecution witness — another SEAL who has been granted immunity to testify — confessed that he was the actual killer of a 17-year-old ISIS prisoner.

Special Warfare Operator 1st Class Corey Scott stunned prosecutors as he described a previously unheard version of events, saying he asphyxiated the teenage Islamic fighter as an act of mercy.

Among other charges related to his 2017 military service in Iraq, Gallagher is accused of killing the insurgent.

Scott began his witness testimony as prosecutors had expected, KPBS reporter Steve Walsh told NPR. Like several other witnesses who have taken the stand earlier this week, Scott first said Gallagher plunged a knife into the neck of the wounded ISIS captive as they were providing him with medical care.

But Scott’s account radically diverged from the familiar narrative during the defense’s cross-examination when he revealed that “it was in fact he who killed [the combatant] by closing off an airway to a breathing tube for the wounded fighter and then he slowly watched him die,” Walsh said.

He claims that he was convinced that the Iraqis would have tortured the boy to death and his intention was to save him from that.

Was it murder or mercy? Or both? Was it a war crime?

2 comments

Just How Honest?

Here’s an interesting study. Researchers dropped wallets containing various objects including money in cities around the world and kept track of how many were returned and whether the contents made a difference. It did. From Science:

Does temptation shape dishonesty? For example, when a person finds a wallet on the street and decides to return it to its owner, it may be because the contents of the wallet are not very tempting or, alternatively, because people care about complying with norms of good conduct, that is, civic honesty. Scientists commonly explore such questions about human honesty through artificial laboratory tasks, but such studies have not provided conclusive evidence about the extent to which people are honest in natural circumstances. Cohn et al. (1) describe a field experiment involving 17,000 people in 40 countries to provide a new measure of honesty. The results show just how prevalent civic honesty is, and they raise many questions, such as how environments can be designed to foster civic honesty.

The more money a wallet contained the more likely it was to be returned. The researchers attributed that to a combination of altruism and “theft aversion” (they didn’t want to feel like thieves).

The results varied by country, too, with the Swiss, Norse, Dutch, Danes, and Swedes the most likely to return the wallets (in that order) and the Chinese the least likely with the U. S. somewhere in the middle.

I also think that the results form a fair proxy for the degree to which people trust their governments and why. We have good reason to trust our government half as much as the Swiss do theirs.

Hat tip: Gizmodo

2 comments

A “Rare Earths Trade War”?

At RealClearWorld Jeffrey Wilson warns of the risks of a “rare earths trade war”:

Rare earth minerals have emerged as the latest front in the escalating US-China trade war. Nearly a decade after the Chinese government controversially suspended rare earth exports to Japan during the 2010 Senkaku dispute, similar threats are now being made if the bilateral trade dispute with the US deepens.

How prepared is the global economy for another deployment of the so-called “rare earths weapon”?

Rare earths are an ideal instrument for economic coercion. They are an essential input into a wide range of high-technology products, across the electronics, petrochemical, renewable energy and defence sectors. As there are few economically-feasible substitutes for their use, any suspension to rare earth value chains would have a disastrous impact on an economy’s technological ecosystem.

China also possesses an extraordinary degree of market power. While not strictly a “monopolist”, in 2017 it produced an estimated 79% of the world’s rare earth oxides. By comparison, OPEC – a longstanding and sometimes-feared energy cartel – accounts for only 41% of global oil output. Outsized market power gives the Chinese government considerable scope to use rare earths as leverage in diplomatic disputes.

How long could the U. S. military continue operations if the supply of rare earths were disrupted? It’s a serious question. What in the heck do we have a military that can’t continue operations for?

This is entirely a self-inflicted wound. The U. S. used to be the world’s primary supplier of rare earths. We stopped due to environmental concerns and China’s illegal subsidies to its own industries. At the very least we should be producing enough to supply our military.

4 comments

47 to Go

That was my reaction to the news that Alderman Carrie Austin’s office on the South Side had been raided by the FBI. From the Sun-Times:

Ald. Carrie Austin (34th) was praising the Lord at a school event Wednesday morning, saying “today is a day truly that God has made because he made us the star of the show,” when federal agents a few miles away were thrusting her center stage into Chicago’s hottest criminal investigation.

While Austin was talking about a school mentoring program, alongside Mayor Lori Lightfoot at Percy Julian High School, FBI agents were raiding her ward office as part of the ongoing political corruption investigations of Chicago aldermen.

With the public raid, Austin, 70, joins the select company of veteran, powerful Chicago aldermen implicated in the investigations.

47 more to go.

1 comment

Getting What They Deserve

Speaking of what people deserve, I found the editors’ of the Washington Post’s umbrage over Congressional pay bordered on the unhinged:

Limits on lawmakers’ pay affect congressional staffers who are not allowed to make more than members, which, in turn, puts Congress at a clear disadvantage in competing for talent. Others who support a raise, including Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), point to the effects of pay and financial pressures on those who serve. “I do not want Congress, at the end of the day,” said Mr. McCarthy, “to be a place where only millionaires serve.”

Presently, Congress includes members who never earned more than $40,000 a year in their lives before getting elected to Congress and those who earned millions. I’m not as concerned about Congress being a place where millionaires serve as I am about the many Congressmen who became millionaires as a consequence of what is euphemistically called “serving”. The evidence that more pay would attract more talent is nonexistent. The sole talent required to be elected to Congress is a talent at getting votes. Is that really worth paying for?

How about this for a proposal for Congressional pay. Total income for a member of Congress should be limited to three times the median income of his or her district. At least that would align incentives in the right direction. Those earning more than that would have the balance taxed away; those earning less would have their incomes topped off.

While I’m on the subject, why is the federal government the only major organization in the United States that doesn’t do its business by teleconferencing? Being able to remain in their home districts would certainly take the pressure to maintain two residences away.

0 comments

How to Ask the Wrong Question

The New York Times considers the answers of the candidates seeking the Democratic presidential nomination the question “Does anyone deserve a billion dollars?” Some of the answers are, frankly, disqualifying. The correct answer is “I’m not the one to say”. Put another way does Beyonce deserve a half billion dollars? Does Taylor Swift deserve a third of a billion dollars? Those are their net worths. I wouldn’t give either of them a penny but it’s not for me to say. Lots of people think they are. Do they deserve that much money while the average musician earns $20,000 a year? Same answer: it’s not for me to say.

The question assumes that you believe in “true value” or that anybody deserves to receive the amount they need to live the lifestyle they desire. If that weren’t the case we’d never be giving benefits greater than were necessary to maintain a subsistence living in rural Mississippi.

Here’s the question I would ask: does anyone deserve to earn a billion dollars based on rents, royalties, patents, government grants, professional licensing, or arbitraging any of the thousands of federal, state, and local laws and regulations? I don’t believe that anyone deserve to earn more than three standard deviations above the median income based on any of those things but it’s not for me to say.

1 comment

Comparing U. S. Health Care With That of Other Countries

I was very much struck by this analysis from Peterson-Kaiser comparing the quality of U. S. health care with that of other countries. It’s full of graphs and charts. I would summarize it as that care is better here but health is better in many other OECD countries.

Consider this graph, for example:

What it seems to say is that age-adjusted mortality per 100K population tracked pretty closely between the U. S. and other OECD countries until 1985. Since then the statistic has improved for both the U. S. and other OECD countries but it has improved less in the U. S. Why?

13 comments

No Contest

Okay, let’s do a little poll. Consider this description of a statement by European Central Bank head Mario Draghi, quoted by Ferdinando Giugliano at Bloomberg:

The ECB chief sounded particularly exasperated by politicians’ foot-dragging over the creation of a common budget for euro members, which would help them stabilize weaker economies if they faced a shock. Euro zone finance ministers announced the first steps toward such a fund last week. Draghi is justifiably unimpressed.

Which of the following is the best explanation for the problems of Europe’s economy?

  1. German policy
  2. “politicians”
  3. The European Central Bank
  4. It’s the Americans’ fault
  5. Other

I think it’s A. No contest.

4 comments