Malicious Extrapolation

Filmmaker Ken Burns delivers the Stanford commencement address. (Image credit: L.A. Cicero)

The current Republican Party nominee for President is characterized as having extremely negative personal characteristics.  We hear repeatedly that Donald Trump hates women, Mexicans, and disabled people.

The technique used to create these characterizations is called Malicious Extrapolation.  Here’s how it is employed:

--Donald Trump criticizes his political adversary, who happens to be female.  Donald Trump hates women!

--Donald Trump accuses District Judge Gonzalo Curiel of having a conflict of interest as he presides over a civil fraud lawsuit against Trump University.  (The judge is Hispanic.)  Donald Trump hates Mexicans!

--Donald Trump makes fun of a journalist who is critical of him.  The journalist has a physical disability.  Donald Trump hates people with disabilities!

In each case, a particular incident is extrapolated to become an expression of extreme prejudice toward a particular identity group.  Coincidentally, in these examples, each identity group is aligned with the Democratic Party.

Let’s put all this in context.

Kristen Wiig is an entertainer known for her sketches on “Saturday Night Live.”  She has portrayed several characters, one of whom is “Dooneese.”  Dooneese appears to have various physical impairments, but never has Kristen Wiig been accused of mocking people with disabilities.  Instead, our culture seeks out Donald Trump.

Malicious extrapolation is wildly successful in the realm of political theater.  Two public figures recently demonstrated how malicious extrapolation became a transformational event in their personal lives.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg is a justice on the Supreme Court of the United States.  She aligns with the liberal wing of the bench, but tries to maintain an air of impartial objectivity.

That broke down in July of 2016.  NY Times reporter Adam Liptak wrote an article describing her as thinking she would move to New Zealand if Donald Trump were to become president.

Her remarks, while heartfelt, were impolitic.  Members of the judiciary are expected to avoid taking sides in political campaigns.  Justice Ginsburg was overcome by the impact of malicious extrapolation.  It transformed her.

Another example comes from documentary film maker Ken Burns.  He is well respected in his field, and took the opportunity of a speaking engagement at Stanford University to illustrate the transformative power of malicious extrapolation.

Mr. Burns (pictured above) was asked to speak at the graduation ceremony for the class of 1916.  He began his remarks with information on his work over the past few decades, but felt obligated to display his extreme prejudice against Donald Trump.

His remarks were well-received by the attendees.  Nonetheless, his comments were well outside the norms for a graduation speech.  Malicious extrapolation moved him to inappropriately lash out against a fellow American.

Malicious Extrapolation helps diminish and isolate its targeted victims, but as Mr. Burns and Justice Ginsberg have learned, it also causes people to mistrust the authority figures that use the technique or come under its spell.

This week another example came from a blog by Scott Shackford at reason.com.  Mr. Shackford describes how various reporters have styled the content of a speech by Donald Trump as being anti-military.

The actual transcript of the speech doesn’t support this notion, but those reporters chose to portray Mr. Trump’s remarks in that fashion.  They practiced malicious extrapolation.

Political Religious Movements tend to use this technique to a greater degree than other entities.  It serves them as the vehicle for instilling hatred against a particular identity group.  Our cultural leaders simply repeat the malicious extrapolation over and over until it becomes Truth.

Malicious Extrapolation: It just works.

Return to Top

Return to Bottom

The Art of Rhetoric

Statue of Aristotle at the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki in Greece via Flickr.

On September 5, 2014, The Denver Post presented opposing points of view on the issue of repeal of broadband regulation (Senate Bill 152) in Colorado.  The “No” opinion was presented by Dr. Ron Rizzuto of the Daniels College of Business at Denver University.  The “Yes” opinion was given by Tim Wirth and Ken Fellman.

The two presentations differ markedly in style.  The work by Dr. Rizzuto is data-driven:

--SB 152 serves as an important protection for Colorado citizens.

--I have reviewed the financial track record of more than 75 municipal telecom systems that are competing with existing providers.

--My research shows that 75 percent of the competitive municipal systems do not “pay their own way.”  All are operating below the break-even point.

--Given the risky nature of municipal broadband operations and the sizable financial investments required, laws such as Colorado’s are necessary to provide citizens sufficient transparency and oversight of municipal decision makers.

--Why on Earth would Colorado want to take a step back from this level of transparency, voter empowerment, and accountability?

The work of Tim Wirth and Ken Fellman makes an appeal for us to “just do the right thing:”

--Competitive high-speed broadband networks are critical to the future of Colorado’s communities.

--Indeed, broadband access should be considered an essential service just like water, sewer and electricity.

--Incumbent service providers that do not want competition are blocking access to competitive, high-speed broadband.

--Colorado’s statute causes delay in local decision-making and increases costs.

--Our schools, businesses, health care facilities and service institutions deserve nothing less than the highest quality of service, at affordable rates.

--Our [state] legislature should not continue to hamstring our local officials in order to protect incumbent service providers from competition.

--SB 152 should be repealed, and unrestricted authority to make broadband decisions should be returned to the local level.

 Which technique appeals the most to you?  If you were a decision maker in our state legislature, which approach would sway you?

Your choice could indicate a susceptibility to authoritarian techniques.  Depending on your degree of left-brain dependence, you will be attracted to one argument or the other.

Note how the second argument brings in the pairing of idealism and hatred.  Idealism is validated with the understanding of broadband being “critical to the future of Colorado’s communities.”  (It is as essential as water!)

The hatred is directed at “incumbent service providers” who are shielded from competition.

This argument makes us feel very comfortable.  We are all part of the same mindset.  We know who the bad guys are, and we keep our idealism intact.

Dr. Rizzuto’s argument brings a “power to the people” libertarian appeal.  He believes local governments should have restrictions placed on their authority, and the people being governed are just the ones to do that.

It turns out the principle of this debate is really about control: How should local governments be restrained by the electorate?

Not surprisingly, the argument for unrestrained government is made by two Democratic Party politicians.  Tim Wirth, currently Vice Chair of the United Nations Foundation and the Better World Fund, is a “high priest” within the Democratic Party.  Ken Fellman is more associated with the Democratic Party’s “muscle.”  (He has been accused of stealing political yard signs while serving as mayor of Arvada, Colorado.)

For reference, posted below are the two articles.  Note how The Denver Post describes the question as allowing “communities” more flexibility.  This obscures the central differentiation between local government and the people being represented.  Also, the description of the participants fails to note Dr. Rizzuto's PhD and omits the Democratic Party affiliation of Tim Wirth and Ken Fellman.  (Just an oversight, no doubt.)

First the Wirth/Fellman article:

Should Colorado broadband law be revoked? Yes

Eliminate barriers to local decisions on broadband networks

By Timothy E. Wirth and Ken Fellman

Updated:   09/08/2014 12:12:40 PM MDT

Editor's note: Colorado Senate Bill 152, which was passed in 2005, prevents the state's municipalities from creating their own broadband networks. Nearly a decade later, some say the law is outdated. We asked key players in the debate to answer this question: Should SB 152 be revoked or changed to allow communities more flexibility for broadband accessibility?

Competitive high-speed broadband networks are critical to the future of Colorado's communities. Access to fast, affordable and reliable Internet service is required for job growth, enhanced educational opportunities, and improved health care.

Indeed, broadband access should be considered an essential service just like water, sewer and electricity. Communities without access, or those relying on first-generation networks will find themselves on the wrong side of the digital divide.

The Federal Communications Commission has challenged us to create "gigabit communities." Only a handful exists today. In places like Chattanooga, Tenn., and Lafayette, La, city-owned fiber networks provide high speed, cost-effective connectivity, and have resulted in private companies upgrading their networks and lowering prices due to the competition. This has led to significant job growth and investment. Why don't we see these activities in Colorado?

Incumbent service providers that do not want competition are blocking access to competitive, high-speed broadband. These are usually the largest telecommunications companies that want to expand their monopoly or duopoly positions at the expense of consumers. This monopoly-like behavior takes many forms: lobbying at local town meetings; millions of dollars spent lobbying at the national decision-making level; and more lobbying dollars spent to convince legislatures to pass laws either prohibiting or creating barriers for local governments from building broadband networks.

Colorado's state law, Senate Bill 152, was passed in 2005, and generally prohibits local governments from providing broadband without a local vote. When Longmont tried to re-establish its local authority through a vote in 2009, the industry spent $240,000 to defeat it. In 2011, despite another $400,000 spent by the industry, Longmont prevailed. Now Longmont is poised to become a gigabit city.

We don't suggest all cities should provide broadband services. Communities can leverage excess capacity on internal government networks to incentivize the private sector to provide new and better broadband. Cortez, which was not affected by SB 152 because it had a pre-existing network, has been collaborating with the private sector for years. Montrose tried to get its incumbent providers to upgrade broadband networks, to no avail. After passing an election to re-establish local authority to build broadband networks, the telecom companies are now interested in upgrading their networks in Montrose. Imagine that! And imagine how interested they'd be in upgrading networks throughout Colorado if they knew that the failure to do so might result in local government stepping in to make 21st century services available.

Municipal broadband networks are not perfect. There have been local failures, just as there have been private telecom ventures that have gone bust. Yet opponents of municipal broadband often cite examples from the mid-2000s or earlier, and do not acknowledge the hundreds of communities around the United States that successfully provide broadband today — either directly or through public-private partnerships.

Colorado's statute causes delay in local decision-making and increases costs. It's one of the reasons Google chose to bypass Colorado and invest millions in new broadband networks in neighboring states. Localities took the lead a century ago to ensure that Colorado communities would not be without reliable, affordable electricity. In the 21st century, broadband is an essential service. Our schools, businesses, health care facilities and service institutions deserve nothing less than the highest quality of service, at affordable rates. Our legislature should not continue to hamstring our local officials in order to protect incumbent service providers from competition. SB 152 should be repealed, and unrestricted authority to make broadband decisions should be returned to the local level.

Timothy E. Wirth served Colorado in the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives. Ken Fellman is a former Arvada mayor and is currently Littleton city attorney.

 And now, Dr. Rizzuto’s piece:

Should Colorado broadband law be revoked? No

Municipal broadband is a risky financial proposition

By Ron Rizzuto

Updated:   09/08/2014 12:12:21 PM MDT

Editor's note: Colorado Senate Bill 152, which was passed in 2005, prevents the state's municipalities from creating their own broadband networks. Nearly a decade later, some say the law is outdated. We asked key players in the debate to answer this question: Should SB 152 be revoked or changed to allow communities more flexibility for broadband accessibility?

The two most commonly cited reasons for wanting to revoke or change the 2005 law governing broadband services in Colorado, Senate Bill 152, are:

1) It hinders the expansion of high-speed broadband networks across Colorado.

2) It prohibits cities from providing free Wi-Fi in libraries or other public buildings.

Neither claim is correct.

In fact, SB 152 serves as an important protection for Colorado citizens.

First, Colorado law does not prevent local governments from selling broadband services.

Rather, the existing statute simply empowers citizens to vote on whether their local government should enter this risky, high-stakes industry. And that's a prudent requirement, given that publicly subsidized missteps could hit the wallets of these same citizens.

The record of municipal broadband throughout the nation is very uneven and cities have made costly mistakes.

Two very recent examples include Groton, Conn., and Alameda, Calif.

Groton was in the telecom business from 2004 until 2013. The municipality invested more than $34 million and never generated any positive cash flow. Each year the municipal utility in Groton had to subsidize the telecom operation.

In 2013, the municipality sold the operation for $150,000 but is still required to repay the $34 million that it borrowed to build and operate the business.

Likewise, Alameda sold its telecom operation to Comcast in 2008 for $17 million after operating it for 10 years. It is estimated that the municipality lost $60 million on this venture.

In April, the city just completed dealing with the lawsuits from its bondholders and third-party partner in this venture.

I have been doing research on the economics of municipal telecommunications since 1997. In the course of my research, I have reviewed the financial track record of more than 75 municipal telecom systems that are competing with existing providers.

In reviewing this performance, I have used the annual reports prepared by the municipal utilities and the financial performance from the date of inception to the current period.

My research shows that 75 percent of the competitive municipal systems do not "pay their own way." All are operating below the break-even point.

Given the risky nature of municipal broadband operations and the sizable financial investments required, laws such as Colorado's are necessary to provide citizens sufficient transparency and oversight of municipal decision makers.

Second, local governments in Colorado can legally today offer free Wi-Fi in public places like parks, and libraries — and they do so.

There are prominent examples of local governments providing free Wi-Fi, including Denver International Airport, the Denver Public Library system, the Golden Library, and Boulder Public Libraries. This is just a sampling.

Beyond these real-life examples, there are legal bases to support the idea that free Wi-Fi at a public park, library, government office or the like is permissible under Colorado law without a vote. Free Wi-Fi could satisfy the "internal and intergovernmental purpose" exception in the law, for example.

Given these realities, it is no wonder that free public Wi-Fi is increasingly available in certain communities.

Time and again, Coloradans have demonstrated their desire to vote on important financial questions that impact them. If a local government can make a compelling case to voters for investing in broadband, no doubt these voters will support the investment — just as they support ballot questions to fund schools or other public priorities.

Why on Earth would Colorado want to take a step back from this level of transparency, voter empowerment, and accountability?

Ron Rizzuto (rrizzuto@du.edu) is a professor of finance at the University of Denver.

UPDATE 9/25/2014:
Cory Gardner, running to replace Mark Udall as U.S. Senator from Colorado, has the following ad playing on Colorado television:

Note his use of statements of fact.  Contrast that with the DSCC response:

Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Communications Director Justin Barasky released the following statement on Congressman Cory Gardner’s disgusting attack on Senator Mark Udall’s family:

“It’s clear Congressman Cory Gardner’s campaign is struggling to overcome the damage done by his support for laws that could block a woman’s access to common forms of birth control, take away women’s personal health care decisions even in cases of rape or incest, and roll women’s health care rights back decades. It’s disgusting that Congressman Gardner would stoop as low as attacking Senator Mark Udall’s late father and it is beneath a candidate running for the U.S. Senate. Congressman Gardner should apologize to Senator Udall and his family and pull the ad off the air.” 

Mr. Barasky uses rhetoric to (once again) pair up idealism and hate.  The idealism is the protection of women and respect for the deceased.  The hate is the "disgusting" Representative Cory Gardner.

It's formulaic, and it works.

Return to Top

Return to Bottom

 

Labeling Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Photo of Ayaan Hirsi Ali by Gianluca Colla/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Ayaan Hirsi Ali has a label attached to her.  It is “Women’s Rights Activist.”

She is in the news this week because she was scheduled to speak at the Brandeis University 2014 commencement ceremony in Waltham, Massachusetts, outside Boston.  The university wished to award her an honorary degree.

That all changed on Tuesday, April 8, 2014 when Brandeis withdrew its offer.  The university said that Ms. Ali makes statements that are inconsistent with the university’s core values.  They label Ms. Ali an Islamophobe.

I commented on the use of that label in a post titled “A New York Mosque.”  That was in 2010.  Here is where we are today…

Abdullah Antepli posted an article yesterday titled “Hats off to Brandeis University!”  Mr. Antepli is a Muslim chaplain at Duke University.  This is the concluding paragraph from his Duke Chronicle article:

From the bottom of my heart, thank you, Brandeis University, President Frederick Lawrence and all others who are behind this exemplary moral act. Thank you for not damaging already fragile, Jewish-Muslim relations any further. Thank you for not pulling the rug from under the feet of people who are admirably trying to repair the relationship and bridge the gap between these divided communities. As my Jewish brothers and sisters say, “Yashar Koach!” Well done, hats off to all of you and thank you.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali has a piece in The Wall Street Journal this morning.  It is titled, “Here’s What I Would Have Said at Brandeis.”  This is the complete text of Ms. Ali’s article:

One year ago, the city and suburbs of Boston were still in mourning. Families who only weeks earlier had children and siblings to hug were left with only photographs and memories. Still others were hovering over bedsides, watching as young men, women, and children endured painful surgeries and permanent disfiguration. All because two brothers, radicalized by jihadist websites, decided to place homemade bombs in backpacks near the finish line of one of the most prominent events in American sports, the Boston Marathon.

All of you in the Class of 2014 will never forget that day and the days that followed. You will never forget when you heard the news, where you were, or what you were doing. And when you return here, 10, 15 or 25 years from now, you will be reminded of it. The bombs exploded just 10 miles from this campus.

I read an article recently that said many adults don't remember much from before the age of 8. That means some of your earliest childhood memories may well be of that September morning simply known as "9/11."

You deserve better memories than 9/11 and the Boston Marathon bombing. And you are not the only ones. In Syria, at least 120,000 people have been killed, not simply in battle, but in wholesale massacres, in a civil war that is increasingly waged across a sectarian divide. Violence is escalating in Iraq, in Lebanon, in Libya, in Egypt. And far more than was the case when you were born, organized violence in the world today is disproportionately concentrated in the Muslim world.

Another striking feature of the countries I have just named, and of the Middle East generally, is that violence against women is also increasing. In Saudi Arabia, there has been a noticeable rise in the practice of female genital mutilation. In Egypt, 99% of women report being sexually harassed and up to 80 sexual assaults occur in a single day.

Especially troubling is the way the status of women as second-class citizens is being cemented in legislation. In Iraq, a law is being proposed that lowers to 9 the legal age at which a girl can be forced into marriage. That same law would give a husband the right to deny his wife permission to leave the house.

Sadly, the list could go on. I hope I speak for many when I say that this is not the world that my generation meant to bequeath yours. When you were born, the West was jubilant, having defeated Soviet communism. An international coalition had forced Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait. The next mission for American armed forces would be famine relief in my homeland of Somalia. There was no Department of Homeland Security, and few Americans talked about terrorism.

Two decades ago, not even the bleakest pessimist would have anticipated all that has gone wrong in the part of world where I grew up. After so many victories for feminism in the West, no one would have predicted that women's basic human rights would actually be reduced in so many countries as the 20th century gave way to the 21st.

Today, however, I am going to predict a better future, because I believe that the pendulum has swung almost as far as it possibly can in the wrong direction.

When I see millions of women in Afghanistan defying threats from the Taliban and lining up to vote; when I see women in Saudi Arabia defying an absurd ban on female driving; and when I see Tunisian women celebrating the conviction of a group of policemen for a heinous gang rape, I feel more optimistic than I did a few years ago. The misnamed Arab Spring has been a revolution full of disappointments. But I believe it has created an opportunity for traditional forms of authority—including patriarchal authority—to be challenged, and even for the religious justifications for the oppression of women to be questioned.

Yet for that opportunity to be fulfilled, we in the West must provide the right kind of encouragement. Just as the city of Boston was once the cradle of a new ideal of liberty, we need to return to our roots by becoming once again a beacon of free thought and civility for the 21st century. When there is injustice, we need to speak out, not simply with condemnation, but with concrete actions.

One of the best places to do that is in our institutions of higher learning. We need to make our universities temples not of dogmatic orthodoxy, but of truly critical thinking, where all ideas are welcome and where civil debate is encouraged. I'm used to being shouted down on campuses, so I am grateful for the opportunity to address you today. I do not expect all of you to agree with me, but I very much appreciate your willingness to listen.

I stand before you as someone who is fighting for women's and girls' basic rights globally. And I stand before you as someone who is not afraid to ask difficult questions about the role of religion in that fight.

The connection between violence, particularly violence against women, and Islam is too clear to be ignored. We do no favors to students, faculty, nonbelievers and people of faith when we shut our eyes to this link, when we excuse rather than reflect.

So I ask: Is the concept of holy war compatible with our ideal of religious toleration? Is it blasphemy—punishable by death—to question the applicability of certain seventh-century doctrines to our own era? Both Christianity and Judaism have had their eras of reform. I would argue that the time has come for a Muslim Reformation.

Is such an argument inadmissible? It surely should not be at a university that was founded in the wake of the Holocaust, at a time when many American universities still imposed quotas on Jews.

The motto of Brandeis University is "Truth even unto its innermost parts." That is my motto too. For it is only through truth, unsparing truth, that your generation can hope to do better than mine in the struggle for peace, freedom and equality of the sexes.

I come down on the side of Ms. Ali.  I get to be labeled an Islamophobe by our American academic community.

UPDATE 4/14/2014:
Zev Chafets, writing for Fox News, Characterizes Ayaan Hirsi Ali as a "Victim of an honor killing, Brandeis Style."

UPDATE: 5/9/2014:
Ayaan Hirsi Ali refuses to be silenced.

UPDATE 9/16/2014:
Yale University allows Ayaan Hirsi Ali to speak.

Return to Top

Return to Bottom

Steven Hayward and The State of the Union

Illustration of Steven Hayward by Julian Puckett

Steve Hayward is the University of Colorado Visiting Scholar in Conservative Thought and Policy.  It’s a title that smacks of academia and the attendant disdain, but it is a good thing for Colorado.

CU seems to acknowledge that conservative thought isn’t going away gently into the night.  The university has enlisted Dr. Hayward to teach undergraduate classes in the College of Arts and Sciences.  I imagine his classes are instructive and entertaining.

While not mentioned in the biographical information noted above, Dr. Hayward has roots in California (San Luis Obispo) and in the blogging community.  He regularly contributes articles to Power Line and has a particularly interesting post today.

Steve’s article highlights Kurt Vonnegut and the work of Bret Stephens.  The reference to Kurt Vonnegut is his short story “Harrison Bergeron.”  The reference to Bret Stephens is his column in today’s Wall Street Journal.

Mr. Stephens uses his column to predict the content of president Obama’s State of the Union address this evening.  He focuses on the equality theme that is sure to dominate the president’s remarks.

Dr. Hayward senses the historical impact, and provides background and visual context in the form of a trailer from Chandler Tuttle’s film.

This year’s State of the Union just might be an awakening for Americans!

UPDATE 4/4/2014:
Professor Hayward gets to experience those feelings of minority status so frequently visited upon Republicans.  The Chairman of the Boulder Faculty Assembly (Paul Chinowsky), the President of CU Student Government Student Affairs (Chris Schaefbauer) and the Director of Safety and Inclusion for CU Student Government (Caitlin Pratt) call out Dr. Hayward for not building a community where everyone is comfortable in the classroom, creating power dynamics where it is difficult for victims to express feelings of discomfort over unwelcome conduct, and failing to support all members of the university community.  They cite Dr. Hayward as being representative of a larger problem at CU where the rights of women (and LGBTQ individuals) are denied, dissected and refuted.  They declare that Dr. Hayward is bigoted and makes comments that border on hate speech.

They characterize their statements as being representative of the students and faculty at the University of Colorado and that the University of Colorado must never allow this behavior.  Dr. Hayward must be cast out!

This is what is "right and natural' at the University of Colorado.

Return to Top

Return to Bottom

Philomena and The Book of Mormon

Dame Judi Dench is an actress of fascinating ability.  She can play everything from the head of a spy agency to a little old lady.  Her latest movie “Philomena” has her playing the latter role with great sensitivity, depth and flair, and she does it while suffering from the real-life disability of age-related macular degeneration.

“The Book of Mormon” (now on national tour) came to Denver this past month.  It is a send-up of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and has received numerous honors.  When it opened on Broadway in 2011, it was awarded the Tony for Best Musical.

Both of these shows deserve acclaim for their creativity and entertainment value, but they also should receive notice for their political posturing.  “The Book of Mormon” leaves you with the notion that followers of the LDS faith are sexually naïve and cloistered in their understanding of national and international events.

That perspective created a powerful political theme leading up to the 2012 Presidential election.  Even now, one leaves the theater thinking, “Thank God one of those people didn’t become President of the United States!”

“Philomena” is a story about a personal search for reconciliation.  It deserves critical acclaim, but like “Julie and Julia” it takes a perfunctory swipe at Republicans, characterizing supporters of the Reagan presidency as homophobic.

Americans take these theatrical conventions in stride and without comment.

It’s just those with a more humanist view who are left wondering, “Why must these anti-Republican sentiments be so prevalent in American entertainment?”

Return to Top

Return to Bottom

Healthcare Messaging

Hugh Hewitt’s blog contains the Weekly Column from Clark Judge.  It covers Republican plans for reforming healthcare.  There are just four components:

--Mobility

--Equality

--Tort Reform

--HSA

How simple is that?  We have four straightforward ideas that are easy to communicate and relatively easy to implement.

Mobility means allowing insurance policies to be sold across state lines.  A policy approved in Maryland could be sold to people in Colorado.  Competition comes to healthcare!

Equality means evening out the tax treatment between employer-sponsored and individual policies.  Leveling the playing field!

Tort Reform means changing the legal system to reduce incentives for high-dollar medical liability suits.  Medical malpractice premiums go down!

HSA means continuing the ability for Americans to directly fund their own health expenses.  Healthcare becomes an IRA!

Yes, Republicans have four simple reforms contained in four simple ideas.

I don’t mean to sound like a rabble rouser, but Republicans should commit these four reforms to memory and spread the word!

UPDATE 11/19/2013:
After further thought, I think the slogan should be "Legality! Equality! Mobility! (and HSAs)."  That has an 8 beat cadence to it (if you pause after the "Mobility!") and puts things in their proper order.  Making healthcare legislation conform to the Rule of Law must be the first priority (to include tort reform), and then should come the leveling of the playing field between individual and employer policies.

Return to Top

Return to Bottom

Always Trying to do the Right Thing

AP Photo by Brennan Linsley at Boulder Municipal Airport, 9/14/2013

The Democratic Party cultivates the notion that it is always “trying to do the right thing.”  The photo above is of Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper, along with U.S. Senators Mark Udall (on the left) and Michael Bennet (on the right).  The left shoulder of Representative Jared Polis and the chin of Representative Ed Perlmutter are also shown in the photo.

This is a picture of Colorado politicians expressing concern for victims of our recent floods.  Please note that they are all members of the Democratic Party.

America’s cultural understanding that the Democratic Party is always trying to do the right thing is a huge advantage in the world of politics.  It vests moral authority in the Democratic Party, and works to shield affiliates of the Democratic Party from scrutiny.

Here’s a recent example:

The Atlantic Wire covers the story, showing that Time Magazine displays its content differently, depending on whether it is for American consumption or world consumption.  Should we be concerned about the motives of Time?  Not when Americans believe:

            Time Magazine is always trying to do the right thing.

How about the unusual scrutiny of Tea Party organizations by the IRS?   What about the DOJ looking the other way when Colorado citizens violate federal marijuana statutes?  It’s helpful when Americans know:

            Federal agencies are always trying to do the right thing.

With the recent war crimes in Syria, should actors like Ed Asner be concerned about their anti-war message and presidential policy?  Not when they know:

            Hollywood is always trying to do the right thing.

What about a liberal arts college covering up a racism hoax?  Should we worry that colleges are not teaching students the right lessons?  Not when we think:

            School administrators are always trying to do the right thing.

Consider the recent recall of a couple of Democratic Party state senators in Colorado.  Some think the recall was based on a “betrayal in leadership.”  However, the legislators involved do not see it that way.  They believe their Democratic Party ideology is more important than representing the views of their constituents.  Angela Giron and John Morse are confident in knowing:

            They are always trying to do the right thing.

American culture affords the Democratic Party wide latitude because the Democratic Party is accomplished at delivering this narrative.  Our media, the entertainment industry, government agencies and those politicians supporting the Democratic Party relish the power.  Jesse Jackson, Jr., Anthony Wiener, John Edwards, and even Melowese Richardson know their personal problems don’t matter, because:

            They are always trying to do the right thing.

Return to Top

Return to Bottom

Disparate Impact

 

The Wall Street Journal Editorial Report is a weekly program that covers news events in an analytical format.  The 3/24/2013 broadcast had a segment on President Obama’s nomination of Thomas Perez for Secretary of Labor.

In the discussion, Jason Riley, editor of Political Diary brought up “disparate impact” as a theory of racial discrimination.  Here is his explanation:

Adherents of disparate impact believe that statistics can be used to prove discrimination. They sort of worship at the altar of racial parity in outcomes. Blacks are 13% of the population? They should be 13% of dentists and 13% of the freshman class of UCLA or 13% of the firemen. And if they're not, then legal action should be taken, and discrimination can be shown on that basis alone.

That’s a powerful concept.  If a policy is in place and it produces disparate outcomes (regardless of how race neutral that policy might be) it is deemed “discriminatory” and action must be taken. 

We see multiple case studies on this effect at the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

If “disparate impact” has achieved legitimacy with issues of race, can it achieve legitimacy on issues of politics?  Consider the situation of people with dark skin tone.  In the United States, the odds are ten to one that a given adult from this group is affiliated with the Democratic Party.  “Disparate impact” in matters of race is thus a measure of disparate impact on the Democratic Party, with race being used as a proxy.

Does it make sense to contrive public policy to favor a political party, regardless of the subterfuge?

Maybe.  It is (of course) what politics is all about, but to hide behind a veneer of racial pretense seems awkward.

Return to Top

Return to Bottom

Shifting Blame

New York Daily News photo of Hillary Clinton by Kevin Lamarque/Reuters

This past week, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton engaged in congressional testimony to determine facts associated with the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012.

Think Progress has a transcript of portions of the Secretary’s remarks.  Here is an exchange between Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) and Mrs. Clinton over why she failed to set the record straight on the cause of the attack:

JOHNSON: Madam Secretary, do you disagree that a simple phone call to those evacuees to determine what happened would have ascertained immediately there was no protest? That was a piece of information that could have been easily, easily obtained; within hours if not days.

CLINTON: Senator, you know, when you’re in these positions, the last thing you want to do is interfere with any other process.

JOHNSON: I realize that. I realize it’s a good excuse.

CLINTON: No, it’s a fact.

JOHNSON: Again, we were misled.  There was supposedly protests and something spraying out of that; assault spraying out of that. That was easily ascertained that was not the fact and the American people could have known that within days and didn’t know that.

CLINTON: With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans! Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night decided to go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again.  (My emphasis)

I would have liked Senator Johnson to come back with this response…

JOHNSON: Mrs. Clinton, it is true that America has suffered the death of four of its citizens.  Keep in mind that we confirmed you to head our State Department.  You allowed four employees to die on your watch.  You allowed a false narrative to be imposed on the American people.  And now, you are shifting blame by intimating that “we” are all responsible.

Mrs. Clinton shifts blame either to her underlings (for whom she apparently has no presumed accountability), or to the American people in general (who must bear the shame of underfunding her operation).  As Secretary of State, she assumes the role of an advisor who only has responsibility for trying to do the right thing.

It is a familiar tactic.

The Democratic Party takes no blame for bringing civil war to America.  Slavery is America’s stain.

The Democratic Party takes no blame for segregating the South.  It is conservatives who are to blame.

Why do we give Democrats a pass in this shifting of blame?  It is because our culture assumes the Democratic Party is trying to do the right thing.  That is a wonderful trust relationship to have with the American people, but the part that’s missing is the “for whom” that comes after “trying to do the right thing.”

In the case of Mrs. Clinton, she is trying to do the right thing for the Democratic Party.  Americans assume this has congruence with a desire to do the right thing for America.

What should be of concern is, “What if that assumption is false?”

Return to Top

Return to Bottom

Trust

Aaron Swartz (on the left) with Lawrence Lessig, Professor of Law at Harvard University

Glenn Reynolds points to a poignant post by Larry Lessig on the death of Aaron Swartz.  Here are the final two paragraphs:

But for now, I need to step away. I apologize for the silence. I am sorry for the replies I will not give. Aaron was wrong about very few things, but he was wrong to take his life. I have to return to mine, and to the amazingly beautiful creatures who are trying to pull me back.

I will always love you, sweet boy. Please find the peace you were seeking. And if you do, please find a way to share that too.

Professor Lessig is grieving for a friend.  Aaron Swartz was victimized by our political system, and he chose to extinguish his life.  It is an American tragedy.

We give our trust to institutions and to people, and when that trust is broken, it is difficult to comprehend.  Aaron Swartz trusted the “rightness” of America and its institutions, and that trust was betrayed.

My post on gender-based authoritarianism touches on authoritarian figures who have broken our trust.  The betrayals don’t resonate with the authoritarians themselves, as they have an expectation of unquestioning loyalty.  They don’t reflect on the feelings of those who view that trust relationship with a sense of intimacy.

Lawrence Lessig gives us a sense of what a non-authoritarian feels.  He dwells on the intimacy of trust.  When that perceived intimacy is revealed as inauthentic and political, it causes a realignment of feelings and perspective.

Sure, it’s not a big deal that Nancy Pelosi digitally enhances historical pictures or that Beyonce Knowles (maybe) lip-syncs our national anthem, but each action is a betrayal of trust.

Human beings don’t like that.

UPDATE 1/31/2013:
The Los Angeles Times characterizes Aaron as a martyr in the fight for Internet freedom.

Return to Top

Return to Bottom

Gender-Based Authoritarianism

 

Lisa Jackson, former head of the Environmental Protection Agency

This post is about the central tenet of authoritarianism:

An authoritarian is never wrong.

Within the past week, there have been three instances of authoritarian figures giving us a tutorial on their techniques.  Each of them is a woman, and each shows how to foster that authoritarian sense of infallibility.

First is Hillary Clinton.  The issue is the reaction of our culture to her recent conduct as Secretary of State.  According to the New York Times, Mrs. Clinton has “indomitable stamina and work ethic.”

Contrast that with the observations of Ann Althouse, where she questions the characterizations of Mrs. Clinton.  Ms. Althouse gives voice to the minority report against our culture’s portrayal of Mrs. Clinton.

Second is Elizabeth Warren.  The issue here is Senator Warren’s use of ethnic heritage to achieve competitive advantage.

William Jacobson notes the use of Wikipedia to cleanse the public record of certain facts about Mrs. Warren.  If Wikipedia is our source, we find a “new and improved” version of Elizabeth Warren.

Third is House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi.  She demonstrates how authoritarians perceive truth.

Roll Call reports that the “official” picture of House Democratic women was modified by Mrs. Pelosi so that it became an “accurate historical record.”  (Does George Orwell come to mind?)

Yes, this is America in the 21^st century.  Official photos and official records are edited to reflect what our culture sees as the correct representation.  It no longer matters what is real; the characterization is what counts.  We now must put the word “reality” in quotation marks.

Should I mention Susan Rice or Lisa Jackson?  Some of our female leadership figures have become caricatures of authoritarianism!

If they aren't careful, they just might give the female gender a bad name.

UPDATE 5/19/2013:
A blog post by William Yeatman highlights the acceptance of authoritarianism (and in fact its celebration!) at the University of Colorado-Denver.

Return to Top

Return to Bottom

A More Perfect Union

Photo of George Orwell from his 1933 press card

Sasha Issenberg has written a three-part article that appears in MIT Technology Review.  The title of the article is also the title of this post, but here’s the subtitle:

How President Obama’s Campaign Used Big Data to Rally Individual Voters

If you look at the title of the directory in which the Web content for the third article is contained (hotlink above), you see this title:

obamas-data-techniques-will-rule-future-elections/

Mr. Issenberg’s story is about how the Democratic Party uses data mining techniques to predict the voting behavior of Americans.  This is the money quote:

The campaign didn’t just know who you were; it knew exactly how it could turn you into the type of person it wanted you to be.

The article (h/t Instapundit) describes the Democratic Party’s EIPs (experiment-informed programs) that “measure how effective different types of political messages were at moving public opinion.”  One technique was to sequence direct mail to individual voters and then follow-up with survey calls to isolate the particular piece of direct mail that changed voter opinion the most.

The article describes EIP testing done in July of 2012 that focused on equal-pay and health issues for women.  The idea was to pull women to Obama based on a specific message.

It all sounds very academic and innocuous.  That is, until you see one of the ads involved.

In EVERY case, the advertisements depict Mitt Romney as a bad person.  (See my Rope-a-Dope post for a partial listing.)  These are the ads that characterize Mr. Romney as a liar, a person who wants to hurt the middle class, someone who wants you to lose your job, and a rich person out of touch with reality.

The ads were tested with the EIP methodology, and they achieved the necessary outcome.

The MIT article makes no mention of the ramifications of the political techniques being employed.  It simply features the article as a technological extension of focus-group techniques.

If you are a Republican, you might want to focus on the ramifications.  The Democratic Party is using information about voters to manipulate voting preferences.  The Party is honing its negative advertising to create a sense of fear about a certain class of people so that Americans will keep them out of government stewardship.

To think this is not worth noting is a mistake.  Republicans should be concerned that they are being politically “played.”  A couple of instances from current events come to mind…

Republicans are concerned about the “fiscal cliff” and its consequences on the American people, but the Democratic Party has no such concerns.  It simply wants to ensure Republicans come out of the encounter labeled as “uncompromising zealots.”

Republicans are concerned about school safety and practical measures to thwart school shootings, but the Democratic Party simply wants to ensure Americans see Republicans as “violent extremists.”

Watch it unfold on Twitter.

The clear and present danger is that if Republicans continue to focus on policy issues and not political issues, there will be no Republican Party to focus on any issue.

UPDATE 12/20/2012:

Was Mitt Romney the first Republican to be Electro-Borked?

The death of Robert Bork reminds us of character assassination by Senate hearing.  The Democratic Party has now "progressed" to the arena of consumer electronics.  Who will be the next Republican to be Electro-Borked?

Return to Top

Return to Bottom