Saturday, January 8, 2022

If You Really Want to Safeguard Democracy, Concentrate on the Main Problem

It's really as simple as that. And the Democrats have fallen short again and again of understanding and acting on this simple truth. Why does it take David Brooks to point out the obvious here?
"Elections have three phases: registering and casting votes, counting votes and certifying results. When it comes to the first two phases, the American system has its flaws but is not in crisis. As Yuval Levin noted in The Times a few days ago, it’s become much easier in most places to register and vote than it was years ago. We just had a 2020 election with remarkably high turnout. The votes were counted with essentially zero fraud.
The emergency is in the third phase — Republican efforts to overturn votes that have been counted. But Democratic voting bills — the For the People Act and its update, the Freedom to Vote Act — were not overhauled to address the threats that have been blindingly obvious since Jan. 6 last year. They are sprawling measures covering everything from mail-in ballots to campaign finance. They basically include every idea that’s been on activist agendas for years.
These bills are hard to explain and hard to pass. By catering to D.C. interest groups, Democrats have spent a year distracting themselves from the emergency right in front of us....
Given the racial history of this country, efforts to limit voting, as some states have been implementing, are heinous. I get why Democrats want to repel them. But this, too, is not the major crisis facing us. That’s because tighter voting laws often don’t actually restrict voting all that much. Academics have studied this extensively. A recent well-researched study suggested that voter ID laws do not reduce turnout. States tighten or loosen their voting laws, often seemingly without a big effect on turnout. The general rule is that people who want to vote end up voting.
Just as many efforts to limit the electorate don’t have much of an effect, the Democratic bills to make it easier to vote might not have much impact on turnout or on which party wins. As my Times colleague Nate Cohn wrote last April, “Expanding voting options to make it more convenient hasn’t seemed to have a huge effect on turnout or electoral outcomes. That’s the finding of decades of political science research on advance, early and absentee voting.”...
Th[e] popular assumption [that higher turnout helps Democrats] is ...false. Political scientists Daron R. Shaw and John R. Petrocik, authors of “The Turnout Myth,” looked at 70 years of election data and found “no evidence that turnout is correlated with partisan vote choice.”
Got it? The critical thing for American democracy really is certifying election results, not the other stuff. Why don't Democrats have the discipline to concentrate on the real danger here? It's really kind of shocking when you think about it.

Friday, January 7, 2022

Class, Race and Covid

New York and several other states have issued guidance for allocation of scarce monoclonal antibody and oral antiviral treatments that designate being of a nonwhite race a "risk factor" that can lead to preferential access to these treatments. This is a really, really bad idea. John Judis and I explain why in a Wall Street Journal commentary that is now online and should be in tomorrow's paper.
New York state recently published guidelines for dispensing potentially life-saving monoclonal antibodies and oral antivirals like Paxlovid to people suffering from mild to moderate symptoms of Covid-19. These treatments are in short supply, and they must be allocated to those most in need.
According to these guidelines, sick people who have tested positive for Covid should be eligible to receive these drugs if they have “a medical condition or other factors that increase their risk for severe illness.” These include standard criteria like age and comorbidities like cancer, diabetes and heart disease—but, startlingly, they also include simply being of “non-white race or Hispanic/Latino ethnicity,” which “should be considered a risk factor, as longstanding systemic health and social inequities have contributed to an increased risk of severe illness and death from COVID-19.”
Consider the following cases: A middle-aged investment banker born in Colombia shows up at a physician’s office in Manhattan; a laid-off middle-aged worker of Italian ancestry shows up at a doctor’s office in Rochester, N.Y. Neither has medical risk factors, but both have mild to moderate symptoms of Covid-19. The wealthy Colombian-American could be given Paxlovid; the laid-off auto worker would be turned away. You can construct thousands of these comparative cases using well-off Hispanics, Asians or blacks and working-class whites.
This is unfair and possibly illegal. With these kinds of regulations, the Democrats who control New York reinforce the racial and ethnic divisions that grew during Donald Trump’s presidency."
Follow the link to read whole article.

Thursday, January 6, 2022

The Democrats’ Coming Asian Voter Problem

My latest at The Liberal Patriot discusses the Democrats' emerging Asian voter problem. If you're not paying attention, you should be.
"The Democrats’ problems with Hispanic voters are, at this point, well-known and well-documented. But what of Asian voters, the other fast-growing part of the nonwhite population? A close look at political trends suggests that here too a problem could be emerging.
The Asian vote in 2020 was a relative bright spot for Democrats in that, unlike other components of the nonwhite vote, Democrats’ Presidential margins compared to 2016 suffered only a tiny decline (less than a point) compared to a 7 point decline among black voters and a 16 point decline among Hispanic voters (Catalist two party vote data). In addition, Asian turnout went up more than other racial groups including whites according to both the Census Bureau and Catalist.
Add in the fact that Asians are the fastest-growing racial group in the country and Democrats might have thought that, at least here, the nonwhite vote was an uncomplicated and burgeoning asset for them.
However, even in 2020 there were troubling signs of attrition in Asian support for Democrats. The Asian vote for Democratic Congressional candidates weakened in some key races, particularly in California. And in Presidential voting in New York City, the very fast-growing Asian population in Queens swung strongly toward Trump....
Since 2020, the danger signs have increased significantly...."
Read the whole thing at The Liberal Patriot. And subscribe--it's free!

Tuesday, January 4, 2022

Enough With the Crazy Already!

John Halpin argues at The Liberal Patriot that hyperbolic rhetoric across the political spectrum is undermining our democracy. It's time for citizens of all persuasions to insist on civil, non-crazy discourse that doesn't leap to the most extreme interpretation of every political conflict.
"Given the direction of modern politics and media discourse, it is plausible that more Americans across the ideological divide could start interpreting things they don’t like—such as public health efforts, a favored candidate losing an election, the passing of a bill, or a Supreme Court ruling that goes against their beliefs—as a form of authoritarian repression and tyranny that warrants a violent response.
This is objectively nutty.
Yet despite the obvious deficiencies in this style of thinking, how many of the ideological forces running the Republican and Democratic parties today—or the major media operations and activist groups shaping public discourse—can we count on to tamp down and confront these anti-democratic sentiments? Unfortunately, genuine pro-democracy forces are few and far between. Too many political leaders and activists today purposefully fuel insane interpretations of normal politics that in a more benign manner produce senseless political divisions that undermine American interests, and at their worst, threaten democratic stability.
What’s to be done about this irrational shift in politics? We clearly need to shore up our laws and court rulings to defend the proper functioning of elections and the peaceful resolution of political disputes in the country.
But policy alone can’t fully fix the problem of rising threats to democratic stability.
Normal Americans need to take back control of democratic discourse and end the toxic drift in politics towards treating people or officials who think differently as enemies of the state. Patriots across the spectrum should refuse to engage in hyperbolic political fights or give money and online oxygen to the forces that promulgate these views. Call out the ideologues of any persuasion who threaten democracy by fomenting sectarian racial, religious, or partisan divisions. Stand up for solid American values like equal dignity and rights for all people and a unifying commitment to economic opportunity for everyone."
Read the whole thing at The Liberal Patriot. And subscribe!

Monday, January 3, 2022

Is Jared Polis a Model?

Maybe, maybe not. But I am persuaded he is doing a number of things right. Josh Kraushaar makes an interesting case for the Colorado governor in his National Journal column. Perhaps to get the credit for getting things back to normal, you have to act like that really is your top priority.
“In Colorado, we’ve had one of the shortest stay-at-home periods of any state. We’ve been open and very proud of that,” Polis said in an interview with National Journal. “At the same time, unlike some Republican governors, we strongly encourage vaccinations, we put the facts out, made testing available, and never tried to minimize this deadly virus. You try to lead through educating people rather than using the orders.”
Polis’s pragmatic positioning on COVID, at a time when most Democratic governors and mayors have tried to outcompete each other on issuing the most onerous regulations and mandates, should be a lesson to the Biden administration about where the political sweet spot is on the pandemic. As the more-transmissible but less-severe Omicron variant begins to spread in Colorado, Polis is again urging a get-vaccinated, get-back-to-normal approach that contrasts significantly from most of his Democratic gubernatorial counterparts.
“Initially this was a biological struggle with the virus, but now it’s more of a psychological struggle, given the endurance of this thing. It’s about how people can continue to live their lives in a fulfilling way and keep themselves reasonably safe,” Polis said. “People need to get on with their lives. This has been two years of it. People are only on this planet for 70 to 80 years. This is a significant part of their lives. Kids missed out on social activities in school; seniors in senior centers missed going out to movies.”
Polis went on to lament the mental-health consequences that indefinite COVID disruptions cause: “People always say, ‘Oh, the economy,’ but it’s also about if you’re young and single, you want to date, you want to go out, right? If you live in a senior center and only have a few years left, you want to have poker night with your friends, you know? It’s not just about economics; it’s about people’s lives,” he said. “If you’ve had three doses of the vaccine, you shouldn’t live your life in fear of it. You may well get it at some point but it probably won’t knock you out more than a couple of days, like the seasonal flu.”

Saturday, January 1, 2022

New Year's Resolution: Let's Stop Pretending the Democratic Party Doesn't Need a Rebrand

Lauren Gambino at the Guardian has an article about Republican plans for 2022 and different Democratic party strategies for countering them. She quotes the following from one influential wing of the party:
“It’s the oldest trick in the book,” said Anat Shenker-Osorio, a messaging expert and host of Words To Win By. “It’s creating some sort of an ‘other’ so that we don’t notice that they’re actually the cause of our problems.”
In Virginia and elsewhere, she said Democrats were caught “flat-footed” by concerns over critical race theory, a concept that, until recently, few outside of academia had ever heard of. Instead of confronting it, she said Democrats’ instinct was to deny support and dismiss the charge as a right-wing talking point, neither of which satisfied voters.
Democrats need “an explanation for the rightwing’s origin story of ‘this is why you’re suffering white man in the post-industrial midwest’,” Shenker-Osorio said. “Unless we can talk about race, about gender, about gender identity, our economic promise isn’t going to land.”
This seems certifiable to me but I guess YMMV. On the other hand Gambino notes an alternative perspective.
"An increasingly vocal coterie of liberal critics believe ....that Democrats are staring into the political wilderness unless they are able to win back some of the non-college educated voters who abandoned the party.
Ruy Teixeira, a demographer and election analyst, believes Democrats have moved too far left on social issues like crime and immigration and is in need of a complete rebrand. He said Trump’s gains with non-college educated Hispanic voters was a “real wake-up call” that Democrats need to change course.
“We need a durable majority,” he said. “You can’t build a durable majority by ignoring socio-cultural concerns and the values of these huge swaths of the population.”
Where Democrats agree is that they must deliver on their promises while in power.
“We’re really just at the beginning of what needs to be a substantial change in the way the American economic model works,” Teixeira said. “And to do that, it’s not enough to just win one election and pass some stuff. We need to win a number of elections and pass even more stuff … It’s not much more complicated than that.”
Whoever this guy Teixeira is, I think he's onto something. I also like what Freddie deBoer has to say about the need for a profound attitude adjustment on the part of the American center-left:
"Sometimes I get people asking me why I don’t write more criticism of Republicans and conservatives. I’ve made the basic point many times before: those with influence within the conservative movement are too craven or crazy for meaningful written engagement to be worth anything, and those who are interesting and honest have no influence within the conservative movement. You can engage with Ross Douthat, who’s sharp and fair but who the average conservative would call a RINO or you can engage with a roster of interchangeable lunatics who lie and dissemble in defense of a cruel revanchist movement. I tend to train my fire on the broad left of center because, as much as I would sometimes like to wash my hands of the whole damn lot of them, they are the half of American politics that could actually reform, that could improve. I see no positive outcome from going through Breitbart posts and pointing out the lies. But [Chris] Hayes, and other liberal Democrats who grumble and groan about left on liberal criticism, seem to think that if we just keep talking about how awful Josh Hawley and the Proud Boys are, somehow these problems will all sort themselves out.
They won’t. If you’re obsessed with defeating Trumpism, you should realize that you can only do that through securing a broad multicultural coalition, and you can’t do that when you’re alienating Hispanic voters or failing to challenge people in your political orbit when they insist that white children should be taught that they’re inherently and irreversibly racist. 70% of this country is white, Hispanic voters are not remotely as left-leaning as people assumed, immigrants are far from uniformly progressive, women were never actually a liberal stronghold, and you can’t win national elections by appealing only to the kinds of people who say “Black bodies” instead of “Black people.” This is the simple point David Shor has made for over a year, and for his trouble he gets a columnist in the Nation flat-out lying about him. Imagine a political tendency where popularism – literally, the idea that you should do things that appeal to voters – is immensely controversial. Liberalism is not healthy."
DeBoer goes on to quote Democratic ex-Senator Harry Reid, who, when asked what message he wanted to leave with America, answered “I want everybody in America to understand that if Harry Reid can make it, anybody can.” In regard to this deBoer comments:
"Does that sound anything like the message American liberalism wants to deliver now? Absolutely not. Today, American liberalism wants to tell you not that America can be a place of justice and equality where we all work together for the good of all, even as we acknowledge how badly we’ve failed that ideal. In 2021 liberalism wants to tell you that the whole damn American project is toxic and ugly, that every element of the country is an excuse to perpetuate racism, that those groups of people Hayes lists at the bottom are not in any sense in it together but that instead some fall higher on an hierarchy of suffering, with those who are perceived to have it too good in that hierarchy deserving no help from liberalism or government or the Democratic party – and, oh by the way, you can be dirt poor and powerless and still be privileged, so we don’t want you, especially if you’re part of the single largest chunk of the American electorate. Anyone who tows the line [sic] Harry Reid takes here is either a bigot or a sap, and politics is a zero-sum game where marginalized groups can only get ahead if others suffer, and Democrats fight to control a filthy, ugly, fallen country that will forever be defined by its sins. That’s the liberalism of 2021, a movement of unrelenting pessimism, obscure vocabulary, elitist tastes, and cultural and social extremism totally divorced from a vision of shared prosperity and a working class movement that comes together across difference for the good of all. In fact, I think I learned in my sociology class at Dartmouth that a working class movement would inherently center white pain! Better to remain divided into perpetually warring fiefdoms of grievance that can accomplish nothing. Purer that way. Now here’s Chris with part 479 of his January 6th series, to show us the country’s biggest problems.
Conservatives run roughshod over the country, and liberals are powerless to stop them, because liberalism has been colonized by a bizarre set of fringe cultural ideas about race and gender which they express in abstruse and alienating vocabulary at every turn. If anyone complains, liberals call them racist or sexist or transphobic, even when those complaining are saying that we can fight racism and sexism and transphobia more effectively by stressing shared humanity and the common good. Republicans tell the American people batshit conspiracy theories about communists teaching Yakub theory in kindergarten; Democrats fight back by making PowerPoint slides about why resegregating public schools is intersectional. We have reactionary insanity that expresses itself in plain, brute language and an opposition that insists that most voters don’t actually have any real problems, using a vocabulary that should never have escaped the conference rooms of whatever nonprofit hell it crawled out of. I cannot imagine a more obvious mismatch, the gleeful conspiracist bloodletting of the right against the sneering disdain and incomprehensible jargon of the left. I wonder who’ll win politically, an army of racist car dealership owners who have already taken over vast swaths of America’s state and local governments, keening for blood and soil? Or the guy in your anthropology seminar who insisted they were the voice of social justice while simultaneously making every conversation all about them?"
So, Happy New Year y'all. Let's see if we can make some progress toward a saner left in 2022.