"The Unheavenly Chorus is the first book to look at the political participation of individual citizens alongside the political advocacy of thousands of organized interests--membership associations such as unions, professional associations, trade associations, and citizens groups, as well as organizations like corporations, hospitals, and universities. Drawing on numerous in-depth surveys of members of the public as well as the largest database of interest organizations ever created--representing more than thirty-five thousand organizations over a twenty-five-year period--this book conclusively demonstrates that American democracy is marred by deeply ingrained and persistent class-based political inequality. The well educated and affluent are active in many ways to make their voices heard, while the less advantaged are not. This book reveals how the political voices of organized interests are even less representative than those of individuals, how political advantage is handed down across generations, how recruitment to political activity perpetuates and exaggerates existing biases, how political voice on the Internet replicates these inequalities--and more."

It's the last line which seals it.

"With that said, these op-eds bemoaning partisanship, clutching pearls at the radicalism of Rick Santorum, and praying for candidacy in the mold of Mike Bloomberg always seem a little too close to home. Is it a mistake that they tend to reflect the political biases of a news media that is as freaked out by radical pro-lifers as it is by radical anti-war protesters? I allow that that is a subjective observation, it's mostly based on my 15 years in media. But the person Keller describes sounds suspiciously familiar to me. I've usually referred to him (or her) as "my editor." "

"The story of the rise of radicalism in the early nineteenth century has often been simplified into a fable about progressive social change. The diverse social movements of the era—religious, political, regional, national, antislavery, and protemperance—are presented as mere strands in a unified tapestry of labor and democratic mobilization. Taking aim at this flawed view of radicalism as simply the extreme end of a single dimension of progress, Craig Calhoun emphasizes the coexistence of different kinds of radicalism, their tensions, and their implications."

As Henry says, se non e vero, e bene trovato.

It's as though they look at public choice theory and see a blueprint not a critique.

"There is no plausible way based on these data in which elites can be considered a Democratic voting bloc. To create a group of strongly Democratic-leaning elite whites using these graphs, you would need to consider only postgraduates (no simple college grads included, even if they have achieved social and financial success), and you have to go down to the below-$75,000 level of family income, which hardly seems like the American elites to me."

"This history is truly what makes the lamentations of present-day conservatives for a conservative think tank (or think tanks in general) dedicated to rigorous policy development so hard to accept. In the sixties and seventies conservatives in places like AEI, the Heritage Foundation, and the Cato Institute did more than anyone else to discredit the idea of policy making as a social-scientific endeavor. Instead, policy debates became primarily concerned with political identities and political combat and provided the foundation for the elite media discourse within which Americans live today, where “balancing” public policy debates between “two sides” in a “marketplace of ideas” effectively takes precedence over policy content and, dare I say, truth.
"Likewise, this history makes the lamentations of Julian Sanchez at Cato equally hard to have sympathy for. As the brief history I’ve outlined here suggests, the political subjectivities and biases of the wealthy funders of conservative think tanks were integral to the success of these institutions. Obviously, such monies were used to develop the institutional infrastructure, but even more importantly their biases and subjectivities were used as a way to change and enter public policy debates. So, it is hard to feel sorry for those at Cato who are now lamenting what Koch may or may not do to the institution. When the history of the institution is wrapped up in a project which uses the biases of wealth funders to gain power and change the way people discuss politics and public policy, you can hardly be angry when those funders want to change the political identity that you’re promoting.
"And this, ultimately, is what the debate at Cato is about. Since it has been a long time since the technocratic ideal held (if it ever truly did—that is a discussion for another post) this is not a debate between one side that wants an institution dedicated to Republican Party political combat (Koch) and one side that wants rigorous truth-seeking and a development of policies that “work” (people like Sanchez at Cato). No, it is instead the battle that conservatives (in think tanks and elsewhere) have been wanting for the last four decades—a battle of identities in a political marketplace. Who will win: the millionaire who is seeking to “re-brand his product” or the old-school libertarian brand? According to the narrative conservatives have been offering us, only “the market” can decide."

Oooh, shiny.

"Republicans are worried this election could be their last chance to stop history. This is fear talking. But not paranoia."

Not sure how useful this is as an actual visualization, but very nice as eye candy. (And, if you look at the department totals, as an illustration of "an insurance company with an army".)

"To understand what Murray does in Coming Apart, imagine this analogy: A social scientist visits a Gulf Coast town. He notices that the houses near the water have all been smashed and shattered. The former occupants now live in tents and FEMA trailers. The social scientist writes a report: 'The evidence strongly shows that living in houses is better for children and families than living in tents and trailers. The people on the waterfront are irresponsibly subjecting their children to unacceptable conditions.'
"When he publishes his report, somebody points out: "You know, there was a hurricane here last week." The social scientist shrugs off the criticism with the reply, "I'm writing about housing, not weather." "

---All parts of Frum's review are worth reading.

Coates contra Paul, III. (The echoes of Lincoln's 2nd inaugural are a nice touch.)

Coates contra Paul, II.

Coates contra Paul, I:

"The fervency for Ron Paul is rooted in the longing for a reedemer, for one who will rise up and cut through the dishonest pablum of horse-races and sloganeering and speak directly to Americans. It is a species of saviorism which hopes to deliver a prophet onto the people, who will be better than the people themselves. 

But every man is a prophet, until he faces a Congress."

"The Motion Picture Association of America, chief sponsor and financier of SOPA and PIPA, addresses Wikipedia, Reddit, and other major sites going dark tomorrow, accusing them of “abuse of power.” “It’s a dangerous and troubling development when the platforms that serve as gateways to information intentionally skew the facts to incite their users in order to further their corporate interests.” In related news, the mutilated body of Irony was found washed up against a pier in the East River. She was pronounced dead at the scene."

"If we are to take the version of events proffered by Ron Paul's defenders, the Congressmen voted for a holiday which his Chief of Staff publicly denounced as "Hate Whitey Day." In Ron Paul's own name, no less. This version of events should inspire skepticism even in a Paul admirer. I am happy to report that in some, it did.  

I want to reiterate--again--that I make no claims on the heart of Ron Paul. How he truly feels about black people is best left to Paul and his conscience. His actual record, however, is wholly subject to the wiles of google."

"As recently as the early 1970s, the news media was one of the most respected institutions in the United States. Yet by the 1990s, this trust had all but evaporated. Why has confidence in the press declined so dramatically over the past 40 years? And has this change shaped the public's political behavior? This book examines waning public trust in the institutional news media within the context of the American political system and looks at how this lack of confidence has altered the ways people acquire political information and form electoral preferences.

Jonathan Ladd argues that in the 1950s, '60s, and early '70s, competition in American party politics and the media industry reached historic lows. When competition later intensified in both of these realms, the public's distrust of the institutional media grew, leading the public to resist the mainstream press's information about policy outcomes and turn toward alternative partisan media outlets. As a result, public beliefs and voting behavior are now increasingly shaped by partisan predispositions. Ladd contends that it is not realistic or desirable to suppress party and media competition to the levels of the mid-twentieth century; rather, in the contemporary media environment, new ways to augment the public's knowledgeability and responsiveness must be explored.

Drawing on historical evidence, experiments, and public opinion surveys, this book shows that in a world of endless news sources, citizens' trust in institutional media is more important than ever before."

"That’s my wife Veronica giving her brother Vincent a shave. Oddly enough, people who perform such rituals every day are rarely Ron Paul supporters. Vincent lived until the age of 38 with his parents. He moved in with us after his mother died. He then made the transition to a nearby group home. He spends his weekdays with friends, coworkers, and staff at a sheltered workshop. He receives good medical care for various significant challenges.

Because of Social Security’s disabled adult child program, Medicare, Medicaid, and a host imperfect, sometimes costly, often essential programs, Vincent has been able to spend his adult life in relative dignity, safety, and comfort. Because of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act and subsequent legislation, Vincent was able to attend public school, where he received important services. Because of those onerous class action lawsuits and the like, conditions at public and private care facilities are much better, much more community-based than they used to be.

Were it not for a host of policies that Ron Paul has consistently opposed, Vincent might well have exercised his individual liberty curled up medicated on a cot in the back ward of a gigantic state mental facility. His mother might have spent her final years going bankrupt, struggling to care for him at home or sending him away for institutional care. These comments might strike you as blogosphere hyperbole. They are not. These were common experiences across the country for hundreds of thousands of disabled people and their families well into the 1960s. In many places, inhumane policies persisted long after. Federal money and federal mandates were absolutely essential to address these concerns."

Of COURSE Amazon sells pepper spray.

"Smithfield, England (London Gazette, 1381) - Leaders of the so-called "Occupy London" movement have announced a meeting tomorrow with the King to discuss and air greviances relating to feudal abuses amongst the top 1% of the gentry. ... "

"Then, as now, conservative opinion and elite bipartisan opinion was mostly contemptuous of the protesters. Well-fed, well-educated, well-salaried pundits looked on the shaggy protesters and remarked: how unsophisticated were the protesters' opinions, how disorganized their complaints! Fortunately, the nation was run by a select few who understood the harsh realities of a world where some suffering was necessary (for other people) so that the existing order could be maintained. And the march to war rolled on.

In all likelihood, the protests today are likely to be as futile as those were. It's taken a couple hundred years, but the system of governance by elected representatives has evolved an immune system with nearly impervious defenses against street protests. Nevertheless in a society supported by the many and operated for the few, it is perhaps useful, for aesthetic reasons if nothing else, to have some people calling attention to that fact. If you, as a critic, imagine yourself on the side of the angels in damning the protesters, then you should perhaps reconsider."

Is this the first time Kalecki got mentioned on the Times editorial page?

I think Lithwick is, for once, too optimistic.

"The 2004 US Presidential Election cycle marked the debut of Internet-based media such as blogs and social networking websites as institutionally recognized features of the American political landscape. Using a longitudinal sample of all DNC/RNC-designated blog-citation networks we are able to test the influence of various strategic, institutional, and balance-theoretic mechanisms and exogenous factors such as seasonality and political events on the propensity of blogs to cite one another over time. Capitalizing on the temporal resolution of our data, we utilize an autoregressive network regression framework to carry out inference for a logistic choice process. Using a combination of deviance-based model selection criteria and simulation-based model adequacy tests, we identify the combination of processes that best characterizes the choice behavior of the contending blogs."

(checks table) Yep, this applies.

"Apparently the demonstrators have had some unkind words to say about capitalism. I have my doubts as to whether very many of them are serious about wanting to abolish it. Put me down as opposing any effort to overthrow capitalism in America. But American capitalism is overdue for reform more drastic than anything under current consideration within the polite mainstream. As I've been trying to point out lately, many of the more forceful criticisms are coming from the capitalists themselves. We need to resist tax simplification if it means reducing rather than increasing the number of tax brackets, because as the income share of the top 1 percent increases new tax brackets are needed for the highest incomes just to keep up. We need to revive the private-sector labor movement in this country, a goal most mainstream liberals are unwilling to take seriously. We need to break up the biggest banks, so that we won't be in danger of having to bail them out again in the future. We need to impose some form of federal price controls on college tuition increases, because, like health care, higher education has unmoored itself from the laws of supply and demand. I promise you the liberal establishment at college campuses across the country isn't going to take that one sitting down.

A year ago I wrote, from my former perch at Slate: "Today, the richest 1 percent account for 24 percent of the nation's income, yet the prospect of class warfare is utterly remote. Indeed, the political question foremost in Washington's mind is how thoroughly the political party more closely associated with the working class (that would be the Democrats) will get clobbered in the next election. Why aren't the bottom 99 percent marching in the streets?" Well, now they are marching in the streets, waving signs that say "We Are The Bottom 99 Percent." Do I wish they were paying more attention to the Federal Register so they could properly support the writing of forceful regulations under the undeniably valuable Dodd-Frank financial reforms? Of course. Do I wish they'd stop occasionally trying to perform the latter-day equivalent of trying to levitate the Pentagon? What do you think? But until they give me a concrete reason to feel otherwise, I'll be glad that protesters are finally taking notice of America's 30-year income-inequality binge. It's long overdue."

Why, at this late date, would anyone think that the New Republic _wants_ to advance liberal goals? (Which is Andrew's point, I think, when one unwraps all the nested ironies.)

Why did no one tell me about this before? "A hilarious, shocking, terrifying thrill-ride across the American landscape, The Damned Highway combines two great flavors of weird: the gonzo journalism of Hunter S. Thompson and the uncanny terrors of H.P. Lovecraft Horror legend Brian Keene and cult storytelling master Nick Matamas dredge up a tale of drug-fueled eldritch madness from the blackest depths of the American Nightmare. On a freaked-out bus journey to Arkham, Massachusetts and the 1972 Presidential primary, evidence mounts that sinister forces are on the rise, led by the Cult of Cthulhu and its most prominent member - Richard M. Nixon."

Later: They do a good job of capturing Thompson's style, not just the verbal tics but also the concerns, and the Mythos fits in... surprisingly well.

" Specifically, there seems to be some serious misunderstanding of the dynamics of national elections in the US.  So let me try to clear this up once and for all.  You are welcome."

"Dick Cheney was a self-aggrandizing criminal who used his knowledge as a Washington insider to subvert both informed public debate about matters of war and peace and to manipulate presidential decisionmaking, sometimes in ways that angered even George W. Bush. 
After his early years of public service, he capitalized on connections he made while being paid by taxpayers to earn tens of millions of dollars presiding over Halliburton. While there, he did business with corrupt Arab autocrats, including some in countries that were enemies of the United States. Upon returning to government, he advanced a theory of the executive that is at odds with the intentions of the founders, successfully encouraged the federal government to illegally spy on innocent Americans, passed on to the public false information about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and became directly complicit in a regime of torture for which he should be in jail."

"You can’t make any sense of American political discourse if you give everyone credit for really wanting what they claim to want. My sense is that there are very few true deficit hawks; the vast majority of those who claim that title are really just using the deficit to pursue the goal of a more unequal society."  Well, yes.

Nooo!! See comments for a link to a petition agains this petty idiocy.

"in the spirit of a pop psychology of the masses, let me offer the diagnosis that a large segment of the US population may be experiencing something somewhat similar to the Capgras delusion. That is, when they switch on their TVs and watch the news, they see someone who has all the trappings of a President, acts like a President, lives where the President lives, is treated by everybody as the President, signs bills like the President, gives a State of the Union address to Congress every year like the President… But these people at the same time have a clear and vivid intuition that: _This man is not the President_"  --- That a president who was _more_ stereotypically black than Obama would have _less_ trouble with people denying their legitimacy seems remarkably implausible to me.  It might, however, be done via less outlandish myths.

"After five or ten more years, the mess they’re making in public schooling might be so undeniable that they’ll say, “Oops, that didn’t work” and step aside. But the damage might be irreparable: thousands of closed schools, worse conditions in those left open, an extreme degree of “teaching to the test,” demoralized teachers, rampant corruption by private management companies, thousands of failed charter schools, and more low-income kids without a good education. ...All children should have access to a good public school. And public schools should be run by officials who answer to the voters. Gates, Broad, and Walton answer to no one. Tax payers still fund more than 99 percent of the cost of K–12 education. Private foundations should not be setting public policy for them. Private money should not be producing what amounts to false advertising for a faulty product. The imperious overreaching of the Big Three undermines democracy just as surely as it damages public education."

Observation: the longer Krugman keeps writing about political economy, the more he sounds like an angrier John Kenneth Galbraith.  Here he's calling for counterveiling power.

I am happy to endorse this, despite having read and admired Gross & Levitt's book as soon as it came out.  In retrospect, there was a fair amount of quarreling among natural allies "while Sauron was gathering his forces in Mordor" (as Krugman put it) going on in the 1990s.  (Which is not to say that irritating relativists weren't and aren't irritating, and wrong, just that they were never the real threat.)

Something very strange is going on here.  Even granted that people might have an understanding of "government programs" which doesn't include Social Security, what is happening when 1/4 of those who've received food stamps say they haven't benefitted from a government program?

Hear, hear, hear.

Shorter Balkin: If, in 1792, the government could require people to join the militia and buy guns and ammunition, asking them to buy health insurance to join in actuarial risk-sharing is not much of a stretch.

The ownership society, brought to you by a promiscuous causal interpretation of logistic regression coefficients.

Not that it's not great, but WTF is this doing in _Esquire_?

The link should go to Tomkins's comment (#8); it's a really great thing, a bit long for a comment, but wonderful.

Sometimes, good taste is inappropriate.

To be fair, without a similarly-constructed list for earlier times, this does make it hard to say whether the problem is actually getting _worse_.

"The 'H' obviously stands for 'Hussein'."

"This whole business makes me think the British have the right idea regarding the commemoration of treason. We should have an annual Jefferson Davis day, but along the lines of Guy Fawkes day, not a fancy-dress ball for neo-confederates. If we'd spent the last century and a half burning them in effigy, maybe we wouldn't have to suffer people with confederate flag decals on their trucks questioning the patriotism of New Yorkers."  (The video clip is actually worth watching.)

Economic theory as slaved to the political tides. "Starting around 1968 the majority of Americans, at least, moved from being grudgingly willing to make small sacrifices in order to improve the lives of others, to a more enthusiastic willingness to make small sacrifices in order to make sure that others get hurt."

Shorter DeLong: fucked is the new normal.

The thing is, despite my "modest proposals" tag, the numbers make sense. You'd have to bet against the program working at (back of the envelope) more than 10:1, and think it would deliver _no_ benefits if it didn't completely cure diabetes...

"At long last, then: all this is to not to deny that the rich, many of them, haven’t done impressive things that have in many cases dramatically improved one aspect or another of human experience.

It is to say that they have already been very richly rewarded for their accomplishments, that even the most original of them have reached their happy state within a framework of public goods, owned in common, and paid-for-by-others – and to note that a substantial proportion of them have less reason than others to claim particular personal credit for their fortunate situation.

And that in that context, being obscenely wealthy ought to be its own reward; taxation the fortunate result of success and the down payment made on future prosperity. It is the price owed, not confiscated, to support a system, a government and a society that however imperfectly did and does so much to create the opportunities in which many of these folks got so rich."

I can't believe I'm agreeing with William Saletan, but I am: "A party that loses a House seat can win it back two years later, as Republicans just proved. But a party that loses a legislative fight against a middle-class health care entitlement never restores the old order. Pretty soon, Republicans will be claiming the program as their own. Indeed, one of their favorite arguments against this year's health care bill was that it would cut funding for Medicare. Now they're pledging to rescind those cuts. In 30 years, they'll be accusing Democrats of defunding Obamacare. ... Politicians have tried and failed for decades to enact universal health care. ... In 2008, Democrats won the presidency and both houses of Congress, and by the thinnest of margins, they rammed a bill through. They weren't going to get another opportunity for a very long time. It cost them their majority, and it was worth it. And that's not counting financial regulation, economic stimulus, college lending reform..."