All posts by Chris Evans

Sundry Musings

Isn’t this exactly what the supreme court was created for?

Gerrymandering is a clear violation of the democratic principles that define a representative democracy. Both political parties are logically driven to use it when they can to gain an electoral advantage so neither will ever vote to stop it. As the 3rd branch of government, intended to be objective, it falls on these nine people to correct this. They shouldn’t throw up their hands and say it’s all too complicated. They should demand a serious quantitative measure to judge these districts. If the first solution doesn’t work well then they can accept another case and rework it. Our republic depends on them having the grit to fix this problem – not ruling on gay wedding cakes.

Should (Free) Health Care Be a Right?

No! You can’t have rights that demand other people’s labor. My right to freedom requires people to leave me alone. My right to happiness requires others to NOT hurt me. Health care requires medical professionals to work on my behalf. I can’t command them to do so so it can never be right – a privilege, maybe.

The INS Must Hire (virtually) Illiterate Agents.

We need to enhance our sense of community rather than divide it as we are doing with identity politics. How about this: Part of the inadvertent success of Ellis Island was its use of unilingual processing agents. If you gave them a hard to spell Polish or Italian name they butchered it into an anglo version that English speakers could pronounce and spell.  This inadvertently served to give people a new American identity – Katarzyna  Kowalewicz became Cassie Cowel. When Cassie gave up her old Polish name she truly felt more American. (I don’t doubt she was somewhat aggravated.) Everyone got on the same page without foreign names and impossible spelling that creates distance between people. What if every Middle Eastern person emigrating to Belgium was forced to change their name to a generic french one? Mohammed Hussein would become Hubert Fournier. A new British (former Afghani) would be renamed, Bob Pence. This would immediately reduce the distance between people that exists simply because of their names. It would also help people avoid bias and get work in a world of electronic resume applications. (See this Freakonomics podcast)

Authoritarians Who Love Well Armed Police 

The federal government (The Homeland Security Dept.) has provided local police departments with high powered weapons and war vehicles. Republicans applaud all these tools since they love such toys and they support “aggressive policing. But don’t these weaponized police geld private militias and private gun fanatics/owners? How can one be in favor of the former while obsessing over the second amendment?

Stop saying – The 2008 Crisis had nothing to do with banks.

This is becoming a common trope thanks to the statements of Hillary on her book tour and those of Lawrence Summers. Yes, the firms that went under were AIG (an insurance company) and 2 investment banks (Bear Stearns and Lehman Bros.) but that doesn’t prove the point. If the problem was localized to them then the government wouldn’t have had to get involved. The fear was that their obligations to commercial banks and the impact on those banks holdings, would destroy the institutions that hold our savings. Have they forgotten that Citibank was propped up with a $20bn cash infusion and a $300bn guarantee of its obligations? Financial crises are always about retail banks.

Originalists must strictly follow the text.

If you are a firm believer in the sacred writings of the bible then you must be forced to follow everything in it. You must stone your children when they are insolent, cut your hair precisely as Paul advocated (very short), eat strictly ancient middle eastern food and spend a lot of time washing other people’s feet. Supreme court justices who believe in the infallibility of the constitution may enforce the right of militias to own muskets but not AK-47s.

Is this Tax Reform or a Tax Cut?

Maybe it’s both so let’s look at five (Republican) axioms for their veracity:

  1. Flattening, simplifying and reducing the corporate tax rate will help business which will stimulate the economy. Why? Corporate taxes are too high so corporations are not locating here anymore. Really, name some. Last I checked Silicon Valley wasn’t having a problem with new business formation (and they’re in a high tax state too). So how much higher are our rates?The countries with meaningful lower rates are ones where infrastructure and talent are severely lacking. They have lower rates to make up for these (and other geographical) shortcomings. Please note – the effective rate is nowhere near the “statutory” rate.
  2. Corporations have a ton of money locked up offshore. Give them a tax holiday and it will come home and be spent on new plant and equipment -jobs!! (Yes I have already written about this.) US corporations are awash with cash and rather than spend it on new capacity (or higher wages) they are buying back stock with it. Is this just a plan to increase stock buybacks?
  3. We are in year 8 of an economic expansion – that’s when we should be raising taxes to balance the budget, not cutting them. Has no one read Keynes?
  4. If I pay taxes to the state and town, is that money still taxable by the Feds? Let’s say I earn $100,000 and pay $80,000 (total) to the state and my municipality (easy for someone with a big house in Westchester NY). Can the Federal government still come along and ask me for $30,000 more? They have been prevented from doing this ever since the inception of income tax in 1918 so as to protect state revenue from the evil Feds and to prevent income tax rates from exceeding 100%. I feel a supreme court challenge coming.
  5. Can we please stop saying that tax cuts pay for themselves. Until they come up with one perfectly clean example of this, it must stop. In fact, they don’t really have the right to say that tax cuts are good at all unless they find a case where interest rates rose, taxes were cut, and GDP rose without some corresponding budget deficit nightmare. That leaves the 80’s out. How about the EGTRRA of 2001?  Yes – the one that took the budget from a surplus of $600bn/yr to a $200bn/yr deficit. Does anyone want to talk about the Kansas tax cutting disaster? Does anyone remember that Clinton raised rates (in 1993) and economic growth accelerated? In economics, like all social sciences, nothing is cut and dried.
  6. All LLC’s must have low tax rates to compete with corporations or else they’ll all just incorporate. If the LLC rate falls way below the maximum tax rate then everyone will quit working for wages and become an LLC. Wait, have I seen this ridiculous idea before – Yes, Kansas did it!

If you hear an expert espouse the magic of tax cutting like a religious zealot – change the station.

Where have you gone Walter Cronkite?

As President a Trump creates fake news with his lies, he tries to gain political advantage by denouncing accurate news reporting. This is straight from the totalitarianism playbook. I once met an older man in LA who had moved to the US in 2003 from Spain. He said “I spent most of my life (under Franco) digging for the truth, fighting through the ubiquitous state media which polluted everyone’s heads with lies. Now that I have arrived here I find that a form of Pravda (Fox News) has begun to infect people’s heads with lies and people are happy to watch!”

Is this split in the media a cause or an effect of our national political divides?

Some historians like to tell us how our political divisions were just as bad during the Vietnam war. There are differences that make the comparison useless. The political split in the 60’s was essentially a generational one – baby boomers with “modern” values vs their parents who were holding on to (largely) out of date beliefs.

Today’s divisions are more heterogeneous. The problems of the 60’s evaporated as baby boomers aged and got jobs. They became more conservative and much of their once-radical agenda – women’s rights, civil rights, greater government transparency, became accepted as indisputable truths. This time the split is based on irreconcilable views about the purpose and role of government, immigration, and income distribution. There is no demographic shift that will settle (or explain) these issues.

The severity of these divisions has led us to such a polarized state that there are almost no swing voters left. We have no authorized media that pull us together like say Walter Cronkite once did. Don’t tell me I’m mired in the past. Most other countries still have a government assisted TV station that the citizenry watch and trust. England has the BBC, France has RFI, and Germany has ARD.  A modern national voice need not have a political view but it would help settle  issues using facts like:

  • Climate change is real.
  • Russia really did interfere in our election.
  • The massacre in Newtown CT was real.
  • Al Quaeda was solely responsible for the destruction of the twin towers.
  • Barak Obama was born in the United States.

Wouldn’t it be nice if such things were indisputable? A common sense fact-based national voice would push InfoWars et al to political irrelevance. It could also provide the people with a common entertainment experience. It’s part of being French to listen to RFI. The BBC has comedy shows, human interest stories, international coverage and economic reports. It’s the first choice of news searchers in the UK.

Americans don’t share a common set of facts and this a huge problem. We’ve lost all our 60 Minutes heavyweights who spoke with authority. NPR is denounced as socialist. We desperately need a new Walter Cronkite – not the staid dull one, the one that denounced the Vietnam war after visiting the front. Opinions can and must be changed by new knowledge. Myths and conspiracy theories now take up as much space as the truth. Who would have thought that in an internet world so many lies could survive? Media leadership (and commonality) is desperately needed. Most other democracies have such national voices. We suffer every day by not having any.

Google alone isn’t getting the job done.

 

Nukes versus iPhones

President Trump proposed the idea that in order to stop North Korea we should stop enabling it by trading with any country that trades with it. This is necessary because US sanctions are worthless since we don’t trade with Nort Korea. The biggest impact would be on China since they are N. Korea’s biggest (only) trading partner and a large part of the Chinese economy depends on western (US) buyers so we have leverage.

We can argue about the efficacy of such a policy. If Europe doesn’t go along then China could just reroute exports to other countries which are not being sanctioned. We can worry about the time it would take to replace critical imports with locally produced substitutes. There are some goods that would become more expensive since you can’t really replace a billion peasant laborers. Inflation would rise as would wages. Finally, we could discuss the impact on raw material suppliers (to China) that would lose business by virtue of a big decline in Chinese economic activity.

What I hear instead is a lot of contempt and outrage over the idea simply because it would affect our supply of cheap stuff. The idea that we would use a powerful stick like trade as an incentive to get countries to behave appalls people. Is it not reasonable to ask: Why do we trade with Russia (or Turkey or Azerbaijan or…) at all? These are totalitarian states engaged in global crime, sometimes devoted to wrecking our elections. How many more reasons do you need to cut them off?

China keeps North Korea functioning and North Korea is considering nuking Los Angeles!

We have seemed to reach the ultimate victory of consumerism over sovereignty and safety. How many tainted elections can you accept to keep Russian oil flowing? How many lives are you willing to spend in LA to keep your iPhone below $35/month? The one weapon we wield is the power of the US consumer to buy foreign stuff. Every country in the world sets policy and obsesses over us. Yet when we need something, they are utterly indifferent. Their nerve makes me crazy.  When our own press and corporate lobby facilitate it, we become our own worst enemy.

The artificiality of social media tells us that such real, bad things, can’t actually occur – not at least while we’re taking a selfie with our beautiful dinner salad. What’s real is Facebook updates, Twitter attacks, and Instagram bikinis. In that world, a real nuclear attack is only something you might see on an old youtube video. Politicians don’t want to disturb those people from their virtual world…

It would be bad for business.

Why did Jerry Seinfeld go to jail?

Do you remember why the Seinfeld cast were put on trial in the final episode? They watched someone get robbed and did nothing (in fact Kramer filmed it). They all decided that a person in distress wasn’t their responsibility. The cast were arrested for violating the Good Samaritan laws of Massachusetts. Normally Such laws protect you from liability in case you injure the perpetrator of the crime.
In England the laws are more aggressive (Seinfeld style):
In instances where there has been an assumption of responsibility by the bystander, a dangerous situation was created by them, or there is a contractual or statutory duty to act, criminal liability would be imposed on the bystander for their failure to take action.”

England already has the solution to terrorism!

All they have to do is enforce this law with new vigor. Anyone with knowledge of a person’s plans or desire to kill innocent people would be guilty as an accessory to murder. Yes, that would include girlfriends, Imams, parents, and roommates. If you don’t inform on suicide bombers then their sentence will also be yours. One of the men in the last British attack was in a video about the glories of Jihad. All the people who were in the movie with him and the director should be arrested. Call it aiding and abetting, or involuntary manslaughter if you like. We want every citizen to be an informant.
If a girl can be put in jail in the US for involuntary manslaughter because she told her boyfriend to kill himself, then an Imam can certainly put be put in jail for telling people to wage Jihad. He would have to be very sure that no one in the crowd would ever do anything violent.

It’s very hard to prepare to commit suicide while killing as many people as you can and stay totally silent during the planning (or contemplation) stage. We don’t need to find accomplices we just have to put the fear of God into the perpetrator’s friends and family. This could trigger a lot of false positives but it would also produce a lot of serious conversations with the prospective Jihadist about how he is putting all his friends and family in jeopardy. People would have to choose their friends carefully.

You may say this is too extreme and would create a society overloaded with informers like in East Germany during the cold war. The test question to ask is – If you knew someone who told you he was planning such an attack would you keep quiet? I wouldn’t.

So why can’t I demand the same level of civic duty from every citizen?

Tribalism and Cognitive Dissonance

Do you remember the scene in Casino Royale when James Bond runs through a courtyard in Venice. An expert marksman with a machine gun manages to miss him completely. A piece of you thought: that is ridiculous, but most of you said – let it go, after all he is James Bond. Such movies consistently test our willingness to accept absurd outcomes so that our hero can survive. We are left to reconcile (and ignore) what we know about physics and human biology [death] with what appears on the screen. Cognitive dissonance is the effort to think consistently. It’s OK for James Bond to be special but it’s not OK for him to be superhuman.


Apparently cognitive dissonance occurs less often among extroverts. Perhaps their higher level of emotion prevents them from appropriate introspection. Are all Donald Trump voters extroverts? Are Republicans less inclined to reconcile inconsistent facts then Democrats? The first question is impossible to answer but the second one is not. Republicans are more tribal simply because they come from a more homogenous demographic group than Dems. It is hard to break the bonds of tribalism. Even when clear evidence is presented to show that their beliefs are flawed or based on fiction, they feel the obligation to band together and fight back for group survival. Scientology still exists in spite of the exposure of fraud and criminal behavior within the sect.
Paul Krugman marvels at the inability of West Virginians to see that every part of the AHCA and the new Trump budget will hurt them. Tribalism guarantees that these believers won’t abandon their faith until their healthcare is completely gone. They won’t believe that Trump and his cronies are criminals until they are actually in jail.
There is one source of hope: People’s love of scandalous news. What would you do if you worked at Fox or Breitbart News and your guy offered a healthcare bill that destroyed health care, or a budget that blew up the deficit and included a huge adding mistake. Should they mention that Trump’s son in law felt a need for secret talks with the Russians? We know the answer: Bury the story or wave it off as absurd. Both reactions guarantee that neither outlet is where anyone would go to hear about these stories. The result – ratings implosion. Breitbart has gone from a website ranking around 63 last year to #284 now. Fox News ranks below CNN and MSNBC for the first time in 17 years. Trump believers are either changing the channel or turning the TV off.
There is another big problem for these media outlets. For decades their listeners have been programmed to believe in conspiracy theories. We thought the Glenn Beck had taken it to ridiculous extremes but now Alex Jones is out doing him. These talking heads play into a fundamental human weakness. Everybody is fascinated by the idea that powerful people are conspiring against us. What secrets are not being revealed? We are now being offered some of the best conspiracy stories we’ve ever seen from the presidency and there will be more. Trump is so stupid and so devoted to his business and ego over the office that he will have special private discussions and plots. There will be leaks. Everyone will want to hear the news and speculate about what it all means. If Fox and Rush and Drudge refuse to give credence to the stories by investigating them then their rabid listeners will go to CNN. Then the Repubs have a huge problem – tribalism depends on solidarity. They must stay together and constantly reinforce their mythology with rhetoric and rituals.
Belief will wither and die in direct proportion to the number of words heard from Anderson Cooper’s mouth.

The Populist Scam

We have had populists rise to the top of the American political system in the past. In each case, we saw a relationship between the man and the message. Take a look at the style and wealth of Eugene Debs, William Jennings Bryan, Henry Wallace, and Bernie Sanders. Their message was clear and no one doubted their sincerity.

It became hard to understand the commitment of a real estate millionaire to populist policies such as trade tariffs, more healthcare for the lower and middle classes, lower levels of immigration and less international engagement. Trump’s believers bought into the inconsistency because the man seemed so different from the standard polished lawyers who competed against him. They couldn’t be trusted/believed. Trump spoke his mind and had no history of flip-flopping on policy because he had never been a policy maker.  The fact that his promises were altered to suit his audience never shook their faith.

Trump has abandoned all his populist positions in record time:

  • Repeal and replace became – dump coverage for all those middle-class voters.
  • China (and India and Mexico) were not declared to be currency manipulators as promised, and his talks with the leaders of Japan and China seem to be warm and fuzzy. Wasn’t China our economic archenemy?
  • The tax bill that was to include a Border Tax Adjustment seems to be dying as the retail industry gets its way.
  • No NATO countries are being asked to contribute more or raise their level of defense spending.
  • NAFTA cancellation has become NAFTA renegotiation – light.
  • Where’s the wall?

He seems to need love from whoever is in the room more than the satisfaction of actually doing anything he promised. There are always far more people in the room who favor corporate interests over those of the people. That was supposed to be the problem he was going to change. As we watch the demise of Steve Bannon and the rise of Xi Jinping and Jared Kushner we are watching the logical failure of a millionaire who never believed in the cause.

You can tell by how Bernie Sanders combs his hair, that he is a true believer. No one can doubt that when confronted by Wall Street lobbyists he would be deaf to their remonstrations. Trump says he wants to make deals. Did it occur to anyone that blowing up a trading relationship is the opposite of a deal? China will always offer us a “good” deal. After all, they just want to sell us cheap stuff. It will be far easier for Trump to take the easy path.

Inertia is powerful.

The question then becomes – when do his supporters realize they have been had? Do they maintain hope because of his unconventional (moronic) approach/appearance? How will he defend his failure to deliver on anything other than a bombing raid in Syria which is exactly the sort of thing his voters really don’t care about?

The conventional forces of the Washington political quagmire are taking hold – they have sucked this neophyte into their black hole of dysfunction and failure.

What is the constituency of an interloper?

Donald Trump entered the political realm as a self-proclaimed pragmatist with no perverted loyalties, free from the corruption of Washington. He sold us on the idea that as a businessman he would get things done. He then chose various issues somewhat at random based on (presumably) populist outcry – the chanting of crowds. There were so many contradictions and absurdities that we could never trust his sincerity or commitment to any of his promises.

Now that he is in office we find that many of his ideas – a Mexican wall, punishing trade cheaters like China, and healthcare for all (but not Obamacare) are falling by the wayside. Since Trump is not a politician and not (really) a committed party member he can take or leave various policies as it suits him but that causes a natural problem. Who are his true-blue followers that will stick with him through thick and thin?  His voters were with him for what he was handing out. Some media members may stay loyal (Sean Hannity) because he’s good for ratings but everyone else is now figuring out that he will betray you – eventually. The wall will never happen and your healthcare may be taken away – still OK? How about a budget with no improvement in the deficit and a giant increase in the defense department budget? Did you really expect to see new trade deals and manufacturing jobs?

After Trump abandons all of these promises and gets buried in Twitter scandals, his voters will melt away like an iceberg in Jamaica. Populists will have to go back to Bernie and Repubs will fall back on Paul Ryan or maybe Mike Pence. Trump will find himself naked and afraid – friendless and mocked.  Steve Bannon may cling to power for as long as he can but a better test will be what all the (cabinet) oligarchs and generals will do when they see that their reputations are getting destroyed. So far Trump seems to think that following the extreme right wing of the Republican Party and abandoning his populist crowds will be safer. It won’t be.

Donald Trump is a political interloper who succeeded by promising everything and lying when asked to reconcile those promises. He doesn’t have the backing of a green party, the socialists, or the libertarians. He is an atheist fighting for the religious right on abortion and LGBT issues. He seems to like single payer healthcare but is (sort of) supporting Paul Ryan’s plan to take away coverage for 24 mm people. His only hope to succeed is to stick to his brand of populism. That means more, not less healthcare. It means new trade deals and new high-paying manufacturing jobs. It means big cutbacks in immigration. If he gets none of this done and only delivers  Ryan-style tax cuts for the highest earners or Pence-style destruction of Planned Parenthood then 2018 could be a mess for the Repubs, to say nothing of 2020.

There is one way I get this all wrong: We find out that the Republican party is a rotting corpse full of racists and moronic Ayn Rand followers. They have no coherent vision of the country or of social and economic policy. Since they have no plan they’ll stick with Mr. Crazy in the White House because that’s all they’ve got. By their tortured standards, he is the most electable in their party so they use him to pass whatever laws they can think of for two years – until the voters come back with a new verdict.

Does immigration produce economic prosperity?

There seems to be a popular narrative that says that immigration acts as a sort of economic engine. People arrive, many without skills, and get trained. They work their way up feverishly. They use their new money to educate their children. The next generation is entirely American. They know little of their parents’ homeland and have no desire to move there. They see that they would have never have been so well off if their parents had not emigrated.

The twentieth century provides a sort of glorious history with regard to labor empowerment and enrichment as long as you can live it in fast forward by reading a textbook and avoid one critical fact.

Hordes of people arrive in the 19th century and live horrible lives in poverty and misery while robber barons become rich on the back of labor’s woes. By 1910 everyone understands that the labor glut is killing any chances for labor advancement. Teddy sets up an arbitrator to rule on the coal strike of 1910. The union/labor movement is born. 

Before we continue, allow me to inject an irritating fact:

immigration

As you can see the percent of foreign born people peaked in 1910 – at the exact same time as the labor movement was born. What allowed it to succeed was the steady decline in new cheap foreign labor – until 1970. I’d like to continue my history of economic success and upward mobility by virtue of innovation, foreign wars, government stimulus and the accumulation of skills and education by the great American workforce but, unfortunately, this chart has ruined the narrative.

All those factors put the wind at the backs of labor. When we virtually stopped immigration we saw wages grow with GDP and productivity. An economist must make a hard argument to claim that everything will be fine this time just like it eventually was for our great grandparents in 1910. They have to argue for foreign wars that kill lots of people in countries we trade with and we need a sort of reverse industrialization where labor is needed to boost production rather than machines. If you can’t see either of those two things happening then there is only one way labor recovers from the hole it’s in – we must stop immigration or at least slow it to a trickle. (Need I point out that median wages peaked in 1974?)

Immigration by Another Name

But what about all those poor desperate people who just want a shot at the American dream? (You cry.) I see examples of them every night on the news. Well, there is another answer. Foreign immigrants come into the country in another way: They trade their way in. If we have no tariffs with China then we essentially allow every Chinese peasant to work here. There are hundreds of millions of them. If you want to help a poor Guatemalan immigrant you have to stop buying goods made by that Chinese peasant. Think what the chart would look like if I added in all those Chinese peasants.

This is, of course, nothing more than an argument based on supply and demand. If you expect to have a system that will benefit US labor then you have to have less labor. If you are an open border person (such as Mayor de Blasio) then you have to live with this:

Corporate-Profit-Margins

Once again, I must point out that labor’s share peaked in the 1970’s. Maybe it was too high? It couldn’t last and it wasn’t fair that an hourly worker at Ford without any education at all could make more than a college professor. True. Foreign competition and corporate outrage broke up union power but did we want it all to be completely destroyed so we could go back to the gilded age?

When I hear Silicon Valley whining about immigration bans I have no sympathy. Let the price rise and a labor shortage ensue. Let them train people and push them up the system. Sorry Mr. Zuckerberg, your costs may rise a little and your next useless feature may get delayed. Is there a foreign competitor you are worried about? I don’t hear China whining about not being able to hire Indian programmers. They buried and replaced Google and their economic growth seems to be unaffected. The arguments that begin by decrying our prospective loss of competitiveness are absurd and self- serving. If you repeat them then you have become a dupe for CEO’s desperate to pad their own pockets.

Alas, Trump the idiot has stumbled upon the correct policy of America First = less immigration and a tax system that favors “insourcing”. Beware of malevolent morons executing good policies. The policy may end up being desecrated.

A Reply to the Madison Initiative

Last week I went to a talk by Larry Kramer, a lawyer at the Madison Initiative – a subsidiary of sorts of the Hewlett Foundation. I struggled with his balanced assessment of blame regarding the dysfunction of Congress so I wrote him this letter as a retort:

The Problem: Congressional Dysfunction

The Madison Initiative: The objective is to find solutions to congressional dysfunction so that government works as it should for the benefit the country as a whole. You argue that unwillingness to compromise has spread evenly throughout both parties and therefore we cannot blame either party for this dysfunction.

This is a false assumption/belief.

If we can show that one party has moved significantly away from its traditional position in the political spectrum, then it naturally follows that both parties will become unwilling to compromise. For example, if the Democratic Party becomes a Marxist party, it will dig in and only accept legislation that promotes or advances its new radical ideology. Similarly, the Republican Party will find this new agenda to be completely unacceptable, so it too will try to veto every Democratic initiative. The fact that both have become intransigent is not a sign that both are equally to blame. One has completely stepped away from representing the American people and so it is solely to blame.

The Republican Party over the last 30 years has become dominated by media ideologues. The Democratic Party has no equivalent set of influencers. There is no one on the left as extreme as Michael Savage or Rush Limbaugh on the right. It is an easy task to show that the Republicans have moved to the right in lockstep with the demands of their entertainers (http://wapo.st/2kUj5mK). The Democrats have responded appropriately with intransigence.

This means we have a new task. If we are to improve functionality, then we must make sure that congressional representatives are voted in that represent the views of the population [more or less). The problem with a radical party is that it may pass laws that are completely out of sync with the beliefs of the country (See NSDAP in Germany) even, or especially when, they are elected in disproportionately large numbers.

Solutions:

  1. The Democratic Party could finance a more extreme left wing [radio or Internet] media program to energize its own base. This may help offset the influence of “hate” radio.
  2. A legal battle must be made to eliminate Gerrymandering at all levels of government. Proportionality is critical to any democracy. (I shall dodge Hamilton’s apprehension about mob power.)
  3. Term limits must be enacted. This will prevent old and famous politicians from gathering too much power.

Final Thoughts

The intransigence of Democrats during the Bush II years was an appropriate response to a government that was engaged in radical policies. One would expect and demand such inflexibility from the opposition. It does not prove that Democrats are equally responsible for dysfunction unless you can show that Bush’s wars, support for torture and warrantless wiretapping (to name 3 easy cases) were well reasoned and consistent with American values.

Greater proportional representation may not prevent stalemates. These will still occur when no significant polarization exists on a specific issue in the voting population. The goal must be to prevent majority power accruing to a radicalized few – that is far worse than dysfunction.

History is replete with examples.