But what if that wasn't true?
This is a piece I've been thinking about for a long time. One of the most dominant policy ideas in Washington is that policy should, always and everywhere, move parents into paid labor. But what if that's wrong?
But what if that wasn't true?
I appreciate his intellectual curiosity and effort. I have quibbles. But my big disappointment is there was no mention of unintended consequences, which we discussed and which are kind of THE core conservative concern on this issue.
— \U0001d682\U0001d68c\U0001d698\U0001d69d\U0001d69d \U0001d686\U0001d692\U0001d697\U0001d69c\U0001d691\U0001d692\U0001d699 (@swinshi) February 18, 2021
More from Ezra Klein
So I'd recommend reading this thread from Dave, but I thought about some of these policies, and how they fit into the whole, a lot, and want to offer a different interpretation.
I think California is world leading on progressivism that doesn't ask anyone to give anything up, or accept any major change, right now.
That's what I mean by symbolically progressive, operationally conservative.
Take the 100% renewable energy standard. As @leahstokes has written, these policies often fail in practice. I note our leadership on renewable energy in the piece, but the kind of politics we see on housing and transportation are going foil that if they don't change.
Creating a statewide consumer financial protection agency is great! But again, you're not asking most voters to give anything up or accept any actual changes.
I don't see that as balancing the scales on, say, high-speed rail.
CA is willing to vote for higher taxes, new agencies, etc. It was impressive when LA passed Measure H, a new sales tax to fund homeless shelters. And depressing to watch those same communities pour into the streets to protest shelters being placed near them. That's the rub.
It's very in vogue to bash California and this doesn't even reach to some things that deserve scorn, like the continuing control of the Western States Petroleum Association and the state Chamber of Commerce in policymaking. And yet-https://t.co/vHZ6GM7QF8
— David Dayen (@ddayen) February 11, 2021
I think California is world leading on progressivism that doesn't ask anyone to give anything up, or accept any major change, right now.
That's what I mean by symbolically progressive, operationally conservative.
Take the 100% renewable energy standard. As @leahstokes has written, these policies often fail in practice. I note our leadership on renewable energy in the piece, but the kind of politics we see on housing and transportation are going foil that if they don't change.
Creating a statewide consumer financial protection agency is great! But again, you're not asking most voters to give anything up or accept any actual changes.
I don't see that as balancing the scales on, say, high-speed rail.
CA is willing to vote for higher taxes, new agencies, etc. It was impressive when LA passed Measure H, a new sales tax to fund homeless shelters. And depressing to watch those same communities pour into the streets to protest shelters being placed near them. That's the rub.
This is a good @mattyglesias post about techno-politics but I want to quibble with the part of it that’s about my essay on the policy feedback loops you can build by Just Helping People Fast. Matt writes: https://t.co/MuBlgQV6LW
Over at Mischiefs of Faction, @Smotus makes a similar point: https://t.co/al6fS5tZXP
I want to be clear here: I’m saying that the Affordable Care act was, from a political perspective, badly designed, and that *a different health care plan* might’ve led to a better Dem performance in 2010. But these arguments don't grapple with that.
To @Smotus’s point, Pelosi released those House Democrats at the end, not the beginning. Having covered the beginning of this, I can tell you a lot of those Democrats thought a bipartisan health care bill would be great politics for them!
But they didn’t get that.
This is key. The ACA was built on the political theory that:
1. Bipartisan policy is easier to pass — and more popular once passed.
2. Working off of the Heritage Foundation/Romney template could get you a bipartisan health bill.
1 was probably right. 2 was utterly wrong.
Over at Mischiefs of Faction, @Smotus makes a similar point: https://t.co/al6fS5tZXP
I want to be clear here: I’m saying that the Affordable Care act was, from a political perspective, badly designed, and that *a different health care plan* might’ve led to a better Dem performance in 2010. But these arguments don't grapple with that.
To @Smotus’s point, Pelosi released those House Democrats at the end, not the beginning. Having covered the beginning of this, I can tell you a lot of those Democrats thought a bipartisan health care bill would be great politics for them!
But they didn’t get that.
This is key. The ACA was built on the political theory that:
1. Bipartisan policy is easier to pass — and more popular once passed.
2. Working off of the Heritage Foundation/Romney template could get you a bipartisan health bill.
1 was probably right. 2 was utterly wrong.
What we're seeing from Trump and his allies today is an autocratic attempt. It's not a competent one, and it probably won't be an effective one. But that's what it is. And far worse would follow if it succeeded.
As @mashagessen explained in this interview, using Balint Magyar's framework, an autocratic attempt is "the first stage when autocracy is still reversible by electoral means."
The point is to make the regime's rule irreversible by electoral means, which is explicitly what Trump, et al, are trying right now.
"Then, at some point, there comes the autocratic breakthrough when you can no longer use electoral means to reverse that autocracy."
"Then autocratic consolidation, where it’s just consolidating ever more power and money, making it ever less possible to change."
There is an element of farce to Trump's tweets, his actions, his cronies. It makes it easy for many to discount what he's actually saying, and trying. https://t.co/GwC3KGbpkC
It's fitting for the internet era, when the worst ideas and figures come layered in irony.
STOP THE COUNT!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 5, 2020
As @mashagessen explained in this interview, using Balint Magyar's framework, an autocratic attempt is "the first stage when autocracy is still reversible by electoral means."
The point is to make the regime's rule irreversible by electoral means, which is explicitly what Trump, et al, are trying right now.
"Then, at some point, there comes the autocratic breakthrough when you can no longer use electoral means to reverse that autocracy."
"Then autocratic consolidation, where it’s just consolidating ever more power and money, making it ever less possible to change."
There is an element of farce to Trump's tweets, his actions, his cronies. It makes it easy for many to discount what he's actually saying, and trying. https://t.co/GwC3KGbpkC
It's fitting for the internet era, when the worst ideas and figures come layered in irony.
— Brian Beutler (@brianbeutler) November 5, 2020
More from Society
Krugman is, of course, right about this. BUT, note that universities can do a lot to revitalize declining and rural regions.
See this thing that @lymanstoneky wrote:
And see this thing that I wrote:
And see this book that @JamesFallows wrote:
And see this other thing that I wrote:
One thing I've been noticing about responses to today's column is that many people still don't get how strong the forces behind regional divergence are, and how hard to reverse 1/ https://t.co/Ft2aH1NcQt
— Paul Krugman (@paulkrugman) November 20, 2018
See this thing that @lymanstoneky wrote:
And see this thing that I wrote:
And see this book that @JamesFallows wrote:
And see this other thing that I wrote:
Patriotism is an interesting concept in that it’s excepted to mean something positive to all of us and certainly seen as a morally marketable trait that can fit into any definition you want for it.+
Tolstoy, found it both stupid and immoral. It is stupid because every patriot holds his own country to be the best, which obviously negates all other countries.+
It is immoral because it enjoins us to promote our country’s interests at the expense of all other countries, employing any means, including war. It is thus at odds with the most basic rule of morality, which tells us not to do to others what we would not want them to do to us+
My sincere belief is that patriotism of a personal nature, which does not impede on personal and physical liberties of any other, is not only welcome but perhaps somewhat needed.
But isn’t adherence to a more humane code of life much better than nationalistic patriotism?+
Göring said, “people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”+
\u0926\u0947\u0936 \u092e\u0947\u0902 \u092a\u0939\u0932\u0940 \u092c\u093e\u0930 \U0001f1ee\U0001f1f3
— AAP (@AamAadmiParty) March 12, 2021
\u0926\u0947\u0936\u092d\u0915\u094d\u0924\u093f \u0915\u0940 \u0938\u094d\u092a\u0947\u0936\u0932 \u0915\u094d\u0932\u093e\u0938 \u0932\u0917\u093e\u090f\u0917\u0940 @ArvindKejriwal \u0938\u0930\u0915\u093e\u0930\u0964
\u090f\u0915 \u092a\u093e\u0920\u094d\u092f\u0915\u094d\u0930\u092e \u092c\u0928\u093e\u092f\u093e \u091c\u093e\u090f\u0917\u093e, \u091c\u093f\u0938\u0938\u0947 \u092c\u091a\u094d\u091a\u094b\u0902 \u092e\u0947\u0902 \u0915\u0942\u091f \u0915\u0942\u091f \u0915\u0930 \u0926\u0947\u0936\u092d\u0915\u094d\u0924\u093f \u092d\u0930\u0940 \u091c\u093e\u090f\u0917\u0940\u0964 pic.twitter.com/iO6WMBh4YG
Tolstoy, found it both stupid and immoral. It is stupid because every patriot holds his own country to be the best, which obviously negates all other countries.+
It is immoral because it enjoins us to promote our country’s interests at the expense of all other countries, employing any means, including war. It is thus at odds with the most basic rule of morality, which tells us not to do to others what we would not want them to do to us+
My sincere belief is that patriotism of a personal nature, which does not impede on personal and physical liberties of any other, is not only welcome but perhaps somewhat needed.
But isn’t adherence to a more humane code of life much better than nationalistic patriotism?+
Göring said, “people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”+
