Scientific American for Policy Issues

I recently subscribed to Scientific American thinking that it wouldn’t really have any political / policy applications but would be good to keep up to date on major science developments (after reading Bill Bryson). Instead, there are lots of articles about policy*. I feel stupid now for not realizing how much science and policy interacts.

Here are just a few of the recent examples: from the most recent issue, the magazine had stories on the climate change debate, phosphorus in lakes (ie pollution due to fertilizer manufacturing), the super grid, and a brief on chemicals in our environment. Previous issues discussed hydraulic fracturing for natural gas, robots in war, and technology in government, among many other topics. And the beauty is that I feel you can trust Scientific American more than most other sources that might also cover these issues. Amazing.

And yes, tonight is the night of short posts.

*Note: I had originally said "science" here. Clearly I meant to say policy.

Self-Funded

The NY Times blog 538 had an interesting post about self-funded candidates, and here is the line that really caught my eye:

But individual contributions are often a good proxy for grass-roots support, and a candidate who bypasses the routine of building fund-raising networks may also miss an opportunity to build volunteer networks, which can be useful in motivating turnout. Moreover, self-financed candidates have had a fairly poor track record on Election Day in recent years. Ms. McMahon is an unusual candidate running an unusual campaign in an unusual cycle, so we’ll have to see how this all plays out.

I had never thought this way about self-funded candidates. It makes me think of Bloomberg's 2009 campaign in a whole new light and could be another way of understanding his relatively poor showing (and Thompson’s surprising competitiveness) in the 2009 elections. I had chalked it up to voter anger at Bloomberg, but this makes a little more sense - or at least adds another dimension.

Another Note on Moderates

Since the beginning of Obama's presidency, Democrats have been criticizing Republicans for their unwillingness to compromise. The problem is that both parties have been punishing and chasing away moderates in their party that otherwise might be willing to be bipartisan (Blanche Lincoln, Arlen Specter, John McCain, Lincoln Chafee, etc). We can’t expect compromise if both parties punish compromise. I'm just saying.

Another Quick Election Update

The 538 blog on the NY Times, which has great commentary on the election polling, has the Senate at 52 Democrats and 48 Republicans (although I can’t make the math work - looks to me like 51 Dem...) and the House at 232 Republican and 203 Democrat. Not bad, all things considered.

More Thoughts On Obama Year 2

I want to be clear (to myself and to you) about why I think Obama has not been doing a great job. Overall, my problem is not that I feel he has been too moderate (ie that he hasn't been liberal enough). I don’t begrudge compromises on health care, financial services reform, or even a lack of progress on Guantanamo. I do think that on health care in particular, he has failed to defend it adequately.

I do have a problem though with his relatively weak foreign policies. He has not been strong enough with Israel, he has not done much on Darfur, and now this report on child soldiers.

And I think his economic policies have been weak. While his rhetoric with the banks has been strong, his policies with them have been scared (his work on foreclosed homes is a prime example). And his stimulus was too weak, but he is sticking to it instead of fighting for more.

Elections Prediction: 10/24/2010

Traders at Intrade are predicting that Republicans will take the House and Democrats will keep the Senate. Rasmussen has the Senate as 48 solid Democrats, 46 solid Republicans and 6 toss-ups. My prediction is that Democrats will win in Washington and California (and Connecticut). That gives them 50 plus Biden. I think Nevada will be a nail biter. I think Reid might be able to pull it off, although his debate performance seems to have been weak and I read that he isn’t campaigning as hard. I will not be surprised if Rand Paul wins. He seems somewhat smart (if lacking judgement and thoughtfulness). But I will be appalled if Sharon Angle wins.

James Carville et al have an interesting column in today's NY Times comparing this election to the midterms in 1998. I wonder if Democrats have enough time to make the point that Carville thinks voters will listen to (ie middle class and American jobs).

I don't know why we can't once and for all quiet the calls for ideological purity. And I thought we would have learned already from 2006 and 2008 that a big tent is a winning strategy. But of course there will always be people who learn the wrong lessons from history.

There is so much wrong with the logic in the column I linked to above. It blames the Blue Dog Democrats for current legislative troubles, which is completely absurd. If some of the more conservative Democrats had been Republicans, we would have likely gotten an even more moderate health care bill (and stimulus and financial reform), if any at all.

A Blue Dog only wants to moderate Democratic tendencies, where as Republicans want to thwart all Democrat efforts. And thinking that we can make up for the loss of numbers through being better motivated (because moderates apparently demotivate the party) is just naive. The columnist also realizes that Republicans are going to lose some races because of ideological purity, but doesn't see the same for Democrats.

The biggest mistake though comes from not understanding basic human behavior. Whether we are in a center-right or center-left country - we are near the center. And thinking you will be more successful by becoming more extreme is just ridiculous. You make progress by convincing the independents to move a little in your direction, and you can only do that with moderates in your party.

I don't know if there is really a trend of increasing partisanship - it seems like it, but then again, I think we underestimate how partisan the past was. But I did mourn the loss of reasonable moderate Republicans in 2006 (only slightly since it did increase Democratic majorities) and I will mourn the loss of moderate Democrats this year. The moderates keep both parties from going too far to the extreme and actually allow us to make positive changes. Within both parties there are voices calling for ideological purity. Not only is it a losing strategy for elections and governing, but it is bad for compromise and our discourse.