Recommended Links

Why Trump Persists
Voters are less tolerant, less empathetic and less interested in integrity than many political analysts thought.
By Thomas B. Edsall

+++

Ten Political Podcasts For The Savvy Citizen
By iHeart Radio

NOTE: Feminista Jones, from the excellent Pod Save the People podcast, is now a regular on MSNBC.

+++

The Myth of Middle-Class Liberalism
The bourgeois are supposed to ensure open, democratic societies. In fact, they rarely have.
By David Motadel

+++

The war on Muslims (with Mehdi Hasan)
Ezra Klein Show

 

Guaranteed Public Service Employment

Essays

Guaranteed Public Service Employment
By Wade Lee Hudson

Growing interest in a federally funded public-service job guarantee — as reflected in the Job Guarantee Manifesto — challenges the assumption that avoiding poverty is primarily an individual responsibility. In fact, a personal deficiency is not the main reason workers can’t find a living-wage job.

According to conventional wisdom, the cause for poverty is lack of skill, lack of discipline, or emotional instability. The solution therefore is assumed to be more education and training, better habits, or mental health treatment — so poor people can get a job, gain experience, and find jobs that pay a non-poverty wage.

Based on these assumptions, society only provides minor, stigmatizing relief, claims its apparent lack of compassion is justifiable tough love, and denies any responsibility to prevent poverty. People say to the poor, Get your act together. Climb the ladder.

If you focus only on the individual, there can be some logic to this argument. Any one individual may be able to do more to improve their situation. But if you look at society as a whole, the flaw in the argument is clear. There aren’t enough living-wage jobs for everyone. If one individual finds a living-wage job, countless others can’t get that job. It’s a game of musical chairs.

READ MORE

Liberals Do Not Want to Destroy the Family

By Thomas Edsall

…The most telling critique of the claims of social conservatives is that their single-minded focus on the destructive forces of liberalism offers a facile (and erroneous) answer to developments that do not fit simple categories of good and evil.

Isabel Sawhill, a senior fellow at Brookings and author of “Generation Unbound: Drifting into Sex and Parenthood without Marriage,” emailed the following to me:

Some people believe that humans are born good and are only later corrupted by society. They emphasize the importance of a society that collectively helps each individual achieve their inherent potential. Others believe that individuals are inherently flawed, often ill-disciplined, weak-willed, and capable of evil as well as good. They emphasize the importance of social structures that help people, in the words of Edmund Burke, “to put chains upon their appetites.”

Under current conditions of stark political polarization, these two sides are at loggerheads. Sawhill argues that:

What a functioning and tolerant politics would permit is a negotiated settlement of this dispute. We would devise institutions and norms but also laws and practices that bring out, in Lincoln’s famous words, the “better angels of our nature.”

What are some of the roadblocks to “a functioning and tolerant politics” that could produce a “negotiated settlement”?

Interestingly, the willingness to accommodate the opposition — an essential step toward compromise and reconciliation — appears modestly stronger on the left than the right.\

more

Left-Right, Top-Down, or Multiple Identities? 

Our primary problem is not “conservatism” or Donald Trump. Our most pressing problem is the Republican Party: an anti-government cult based on racist, populist resentment that serves the interests of would-be plutocrats. This cult scorns compromise, ignores fact, demonizes the opposition, and will accept virtually any abuse of power by the President. This dereliction of duty will open the door to untold abuses in the future unless Trump loses in November. Even then, the dogmatic, irrational Republican cult will remain intact and more effective leaders could be more dangerous.

Republicans frame this conflict as “liberalism” vs “conservatism,” and hurl “liberal” as a label to rile up their base. But this frame is false. Trying to place all political opinions on the left-right spectrum creates confusion. No one spectrum can capture the full range of political beliefs. Multiple spectrums intersect. 

The conflict is actually between autocracy and democracy. If Democrats accept the left-right frame and attack Republicans for being “conservative,” they reinforce the Republican strategy. In so doing, they undermine the potential for gaining support from people who embrace a “conservatism” that includes (at least some) positive values. 

Weaponizing left-right labels inflames destructive polarization. Not all polarization is destructive, but the polarization we witness today is asymmetrical—only the Republicans are cultish. Alternative frames that are more accurate could counter the Republican strategy.

The Democratic platform is labelled “left,” or “liberal,” and the Republican “right,” or “conservative.” Partisans use these labels to tarnish the opposition and motivate supporters. Aggravated by winner-take-all elections and single-member districts, “liberals” want to crush “conservatism,” and vice versa. But there’s no clear agreement on the meaning of the terms “liberalism” and “conservatism.” 

The Democratic and Republican platforms are cobbled together for tactical reasons—to form diverse coalitions of interest groups large enough to win a bare majority in the next election. The planks in their platforms are not tied together with a coherent abstract philosophy rooted in concrete beliefs. 

Rather than talk about certain candidates wanting to “move the Democratic Party to the left,” it would be more accurate to say those candidates are more transformational, expansionary, ambitious, aspirational, idealistic, radical, revolutionary, extremist, utopian, or some other similar term. Given the distinctiveness and stability of Republican Party policies, Democrats can simply call objectionable proposals Republican, radical, dogmatic, doctrinaire, ideological, or some similar term. There’s no need to rely on the left-right spectrum. 

Issues can be placed on one of many spectrums with polar opposites at each extreme. When issues are considered concretely, positions often do not correspond to the traditional left-right spectrum. When they do so correspond, there’s no need to use left-right terms. Regardless, the assumption that “liberals” or “conservatives” must defeat the other side due to irreconcilable differences is incorrect. Consider these examples.

Income equality/Concentrated wealth. On one end of this spectrum, unrestrained capitalism allows wealth to accumulate with no governmental intervention, even if the rich get richer and the poor get poorer forever, and corporations form monopolies and set prices at whatever level the market will bear. On the other end of the spectrum, everyone would hold the same amount of wealth and receive the same income. At various points on this spectrum, economic egalitarians advocate more or less progressive taxation and enlightened capitalists accept more or less income redistribution. 

Hierarchy/Equality. At the ends of this spectrum are totalitarianism and anarchy. Authoritarianism and egalitarianism are near the ends. Their position on the spectrum is determined by the degree to which established power is unquestioned. Authoritarians nurture domination and submission. Egalitarians nurture co-equal partnerships and cooperation, want to delegate power democratically, hold representatives and administrators accountable democratically, and develop collaborative leadership as an alternative to traditional leadership, which defines leadership as the ability to mobilize followers. “Liberals” are said to favor equality, but in fact they rarely talk about social equality and often favor policies that are paternalistic, meritocratic, and elitist—and some “leftists” have been very authoritarian. “Conservatives” are said to favor hierarchy, but they agree that all people are created equal and should be equal under the law. Almost everyone accepts that some hierarchy, or power inequality, is essential. 

Permissiveness/Cruelty. On one end: an emphasis on compassion, lax discipline, and few boundaries. On the other: strict, harsh punishment and torture. Toward the cruel end: policies like separating migrant children and cancelling Native American treaties. Near the middle: private charity, tough love, and the “success sequence.” 

Small government/Big government. “Conservatives” are said to oppose “big government,” but many support “strongman leaders,” the “imperial Presidency,” military spending, and massive programs such as Social Security. “Liberals” are said to favor big government, but oppose governmental powers on many issues and want to limit government to needed functions. Arguments about small government versus big government tend to be disputes about abstract ideologies disconnected from opinions about concrete realities. 

Individualism/Communitarianism. On one end: isolated, selfish individuals. On the other: tight-knit, oppressive communities. Both “liberals” and “conservatives” affirm both individualism and strong communities. Supportive communities that affirm mutual responsibility.can nurture self-determination and avoid being oppressive. Strong individuals can build strong communities, and strong communities can build strong individuals.

Unconditional welfare/Personal responsibility. On one end: unconditional cash. On the other: oppressive work requirements. Many conservatives” who are said to oppose government spending for poor people support the Earned Income Tax Credit, Medicaid, childcare subsidies, and Social Security. Many “liberals” who are said to favor welfare prefer assuring good, living-wage job opportunities and argue that traditional welfare has often been a debilitating tool of social control.

Free Speech/Censorship. Absolutely no limits vs very tight control. With regard to the government, private institutions, and informal social interactions, there’s no clear distinction between “liberals” and “conservatives” that predicts what stance an individual or group will take on specific issues. Both affirm individual rights and free speech.

War/peace. “Liberals” are said to be anti-war, but many supported the Vietnam War for years and more recently have supported the War Against Yugoslavia and the War Against Terror. “Conservatives” are said to be pro-war, but many are isolationist.

Local/Federal. What position “liberals” and “conservatives” take on specific questions about the relative powers of different levels of government depends more on the concrete issue than it does on abstract notions. Almost everyone agrees that a balance of powers within “federalism” is viable, federal revenue sharing can minimize wasteful bureaucracies, and only the federal government has available the resources to fund many valuable programs. 

Socialism/Capitalism. On one end: government ownership and control of major businesses. On the other: totally free markets. In fact, almost everyone accepts a mixed economy with some government intervention, regulation, and ownership, as with water supplies. The differences derive from various opinions about the degree and nature of government intervention. On this spectrum, there’s no clear dividing line between “liberalism” and “conservatism,” as reflected by “left-wingers” who want to strengthen free markets by busting up monopolies, and “right-wingers” who want the government to weaken free markets by imposing tariffs on China. 

Materialism/Quality of life. “Conservatives” are said to support the accumulation of wealth, while “liberals” are supposed to be less materialistic. But most “liberals” strongly affirm economic growth and social mobility, accept an extreme concentration of wealth, and merely seek to equalize opportunity at the starting gate. Almost all Americans are very materialistic. 

Many other similar spectrums could be addressed with the same result: No one spectrum can capture the full range of political beliefs and left-right terms are not necessary. The rational position seems to affirm multiple identities. Nevertheless, a coherent political program needs to “market” a single identity. At the moment, my option is to affirm libertarian-communitarianism — supportive communities that affirm individual rights and nurture self-development.

Originally posted here.

Buddhism Without Beliefs

A Contemporary Guide to Awakening

A national bestseller and acclaimed guide to Buddhism for beginners and practitioners alike

In this simple but important volume, Stephen Batchelor reminds us that the Buddha was not a mystic who claimed privileged, esoteric knowledge of the universe, but a man who challenged us to understand the nature of anguish, let go of its origins, and bring into being a way of life that is available to us all. The concepts and practices of Buddhism, says Batchelor, are not something to believe in but something to do—and as he explains clearly and compellingly, it is a practice that we can engage in, regardless of our background or beliefs, as we live every day on the path to spiritual enlightenment.

Ezra’s “Climate Cluster”

We live in The Good Place. And we’re screwing it up.
Ezra Klein Show podcast

Welcome to the first episode of our climate cluster. This isn’t a series about whether “the science is real” on climate change. This is a series about what the science says — and what it means for our lives, our politics, and our future.I suspect I’m like a lot of people in that I accept that climate change is bad. What I struggle with is how bad. Is it an existential threat that eclipses all else? One of many serious problems politics must somehow address?I wanted to kick off the series with someone who knows the science cold. Kate Marvel is a research scientist at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies and a professor at Columbia University’s Department of Applied Physics and Mathematics. But Marvel isn’t just a leading climate scientist. She’s also unique in her focus on the stories we tell each other, and ourselves, about climate change, and how they end up structuring our decisions. We discuss:- How a climate model actually works- Why this is the good place- Why there is so much variation in climate scientists’ predictions about global temperature increases- Why global warming is only one piece of the much larger problem of climate change- Why a hotter planet is more conducive to natural disasters- The frightening differences between a world that experiences a 2°C temperature increase as opposed to a 5°C temperature increase- Whether the threat of climate change requires solutions that break the boundaries of conventional politics- The underlying stories that animate much of the climate debate- Whether the planet can sustain continued economic growth- What it means to “live morally” amid climate change