Politics

Effective Democracy

/ ontheoutside / Leave a comment

Let’s start with facts:  we live in a failed democracy that has transitioned to incompetent dictatorship. Given that kind of mess, it is worth going back to first principles to think about effective government.

First of all it should be noted that there is an intrinsic conflict of interests in any national government.  This isn’t complicated; it is basically parallel to what goes on in any corporation between the interests of labor and interests of management.  Near term they are dividing up profits, but longer term both have a common interest in the success of the company.   Successful companies are able to manage the conflict.

In government you have the economic powers-that-be versus the population as a whole.  Both have to benefit for success, but immediate interests are opposed in much the same way.  It should be emphasized that here too exclusive power to one or the other is disastrous. We’re accustomed to hearing one side of that story—uncontrolled spending on government benefits for the population will bankrupt the economic engines of the country. But an exclusive focus on the business side is equally bad and it’s not just a matter of living standards:  business interests are myopic both in terms of time scales and in terms of the environment needed for success.  You won’t have the technologies, or the people, or the physical environment necessary for the economy (and as we’ve seen recently, business people can risk bankrupting the country too!). Government has to speak for the whole picture.  Even the patron saint of free enterprise—Adam Smith—was well aware of this issue.  “The government of an exclusive company of merchants is, perhaps, the worst of all governments for any country whatever.” There is nothing sacred or proven about claims that government should never interfere with the marvelous natural workings of the marketplace—that’s just self-serving propaganda for the “haves” side.

This intrinsic dichotomy is very important for effective government.  Both sides must be present but neither side can win.  That’s one of the reasons we’re in such bad shape right now.  What we have today is business capture of government—exactly what Adam Smith worried about.  To be effective government needs to provide means for functional negotiation and cooperation between both sides.  Those sides don’t map exactly to the Republicans and Democrats, but that’s pretty much what it comes down to.  Bipartisanship is not about being nice; it’s working out fundamental tradeoffs between the two sides.

That is precisely what we have lost–structurally.  There are three immediately obvious issues.  The first is the primary system.  Since primaries are partisan, candidates are chosen exclusively based on appeal to one side or the other.  That guarantees extreme positions and more importantly disenfranchises the center of the voting population.  A second example is the way partisan power is used to control legislation offered in Congress.  In the House the so-called Hastert rule only allows on the floor measures that are supported by a majority of Republicans.  In the Senate the majority leader Mitch McConnell routinely blocked anything he disagreed with—regardless of overall support.  Both rules disenfranchise the center and make the country effectively ungovernable except in extremes—so whiplashing policies are a matter of course.  Finally there is the Supreme Court: lifetime appointments plus limitless power give a huge incentive for partisan appointees.

All of this is bad news and good.  The bad news is that it isn’t clear when we’ll be in a position to fix any of it. The good news is that there are significant items that really aren’t so hard to fix.  For primaries, there are a number of possible variants, including non-partisan primaries with rank choice voting.  For the Congress, you don’t need to change the constitution to change the rules.  And there are many proposals to fix the terrible mistake that is the Supreme Court—an undemocratically-chosen body with lifetime appointments and no constraints on its power.   With a decent Supreme Court we should be able to fix gerrymandering, for example.  That is a math problem we chose to turn into a political mess.

Bipartisan cooperation is fundamental, and we can stop going out of our way to make it hard.  That way we can make the tradeoffs for the country to be governable.  Then we can move on to two other necessary and straightforward matters:  direct election of the President (the current system is grossly inequitable and invites fraud) and adding the few extra Senate seats needed to compensate the ill-represented largest states. Such measures won’t solve everything (not control of media for example), but we can make things quite a lot better.  We can make our democracy work.

It’s not so complicated–if we ever get a chance to do it.

The Revision of IPCC’s Climate Scenarios

/ ontheoutside / Leave a comment

The UN’s international climate group has revised its set of possible climate change scenarios. They eliminated the most damaging scenario, because of progress in sustainable technologies and because details of the scenario itself seemed unlikely to occur. Trump and other climate deniers have seized upon this change to claim it shows all discussion of climate change is bogus. The following piece was done as a comment to an article in the NY Times.

It seems to me one of the problems with this discussion of scenarios is that people want the scenarios to tell them something different than what the scenarios are trying to do. The scenarios are attempts to model different levels of response to the problem of climate change. There is no default case where we do nothing. For that case the only limit to the temperature is the end year in the study—the temperature would just keep increasing.

The main thing that has happened since the original scenarios is that the world has taken some measures that help: costs of wind and solar solutions have come way down to the point that those make up the majority of new electricity generation worldwide. Electric cars have become cheaper, better, and more prevalent. So it’s not surprising that the current view is somewhat more optimistic.

Where that actually leaves us can never be completely clear. I’m willing to bet the models never considered that the most powerful country in the world would be run by someone trying to sabotage the whole effort. Or that data centers would suddenly demand more power than cities. Or that the Iran war would show everyone the risks of imported oil. There will always be reassessments.

This new set of scenarios should make us appreciate the work that has been done. We can make progress against climate change. But there is much that needs to happen and very strong forces against it. This will never be easy, but it needs to be done.

Problems with the Constitution

/ ontheoutside / 1 Comment

There has always been plenty of talk about what is right and wrong with the Constitution of the United States. However much of that was on the back burner until recently. Now it is different. First we saw government collapsed into non-functional partisan chaos, and then Trump demonstrated that what we thought was a government of laws was actually a government of unenforceable traditions.

So what follows is a list of issues. I won’t say it is complete or well-organized, but the problems are all serious.

  • Open to dictatorial takeover

The Supreme Court was a terrible mistake.  There are no limits to its power, and it doesn’t even have to justify its decisions.  The Justices are chosen undemocratically and serve for life.  We’ve now seen they can even declare a President above the law, so that the entire Constitution is out the window.  It is a dictatorship waiting to happen.

  • Open to corruption (only works because of tradition, not law)

The entire electoral apparatus belongs to the states, where it is operated by partisan officials.  It is common practice to make voting difficult in opposition districts, but that is just the beginning. The whole voting apparatus is controlled by people who gain from controlling results.  It works if people are committed to democracy, but not otherwise.  Other democratic countries have established separate, nominally non-partisan organizations to administer voting.

  • Unrepresentative

The Senate is phenomenally unrepresentative.  Two senators per state means residents of small states have astonishingly outsize power.  At the very least, very large states such as California need additional Senators.  The problems of the Senate also affect the Electoral College, so that not only legislation but also Presidential elections are affected.

Then there is the whole question of gerrymandering. Computers have made this both easy and effective. The US Congress is currently so gerrymandered that very few districts have real elections. That severely limits democracy.

  • Doesn’t work for states

These is an urgent need for clarify the division of responsibility between the states and the federal government.  As an example, the federal government has traditionally backed up the states for emergencies of all kinds.  That is necessary because it has greater resources as well as the ability to run deficits if necessary (which many states can’t).  With both Covid and the operation of FEMA Trump decided he was either opposed or lukewarm about it, and that was that.  The Constitution has to be explicit about responsibilities.

  • Doesn’t work for the federal government

The federal government simply doesn’t work as intended.  We’ve reached an era of non-cooperation between parties, so government only works when a single party controls everything.  Between the “Hastert rule” in the House and the filibuster in the Senate, it’s easy to block everything otherwise.  That means the so-called separation of powers in government is largely non-functional  Furthermore the primary system for the nomination of candidates basically disenfranchises the political center, so that parties are by definition extreme.  That means government is either functionally blocked or unrepresentatively extreme.

  • There is no protection for governmental expertise

A functioning national government needs expertise upon which to base its conclusions.  For that reason Congress created a number of bodies intentionally buffered from Presidential politics.  More recently the Supreme Court has decided that any body working in the executive acts at the discretion of the President.  It is now impossible for anyone with necessary expertise to make a career in the federal government.

  • Unclear dividing lines between branches of government

The Trump administration is legislating by executive order, and the Supreme Court has decided that is okay.

  • The unspecified role of parties can undercut everything else

Everything about our two-party system is outside the Constitution.  So that, as mentioned earlier, we have a primary system that disenfranchises the political center, and there is nothing in the Constitution that has any bearing on it.  The Constitution needs at the least to say how elections work.  Anything not specified is vulnerable to corruption and takeover. Non-partisan primaries with rank choice voting is a possible step in that direction.

The Zero-Sum Trap

/ ontheoutside / 1 Comment

It’s not unusual to talk about zero-sum games as a political issue. Probably the most common example is in international relations, where the Trump people treat countries as ordinary business competitors: what profits them is lost to us. That’s a false analogy as we’ll discuss later, but that’s not the main point here. What we want to emphasize is that the notion of zero-sum games—where all gain is someone else’s loss—is even more pervasive and dangerously wrong than commonly believed.

There are many kinds of zero-sum examples:

  • Our progress means taking it from someone else (as just mentioned)
  • Anyone else’s progress means taking it from us (racial progress means blacks taking from whites)
  • Hurting others means helping us (the party line with DOGE).

Notice the logic runs both ways: not only does our progress require hurting others, but also hurting others can be assumed good for us!

The issue is not that such things can’t happen; the problem is assuming that they always do. The chaos around DOGE produced wild enthusiasm in Trump’s base even though there was no logical connection to anyone’s well-being (either in theory or in the One Big Beautiful Bill). Moreover, paradoxically, all the publicity about DOGE viciousness seemed to increase confidence in the unstated zero-sum assumption. “Look at all the progress in the first 100 days!”

To start with it is not surprising that a zero-sum situation is more the exception than the rule: that two different phenomena are so directly related means there is an explicit causal connection, and the costs and benefits need to more or less match up. There are such connections in budgeting decisions for example. However the connections between tariffs and anyone’s well-being, for example, are so circuitous and filled with logical gaps that no one is trying very hard to argue for them. Instead promoters fall back on a kind of instinctive belief in the zero-sum game. The more Trump talks about making others poorer, the more it must be the path of progress.

It’s useful at this point to review just how far the tariff argument is from being true. What companies are the pillars of US economic strength? They are the big tech companies that dominate market valuations, earnings, and international influence. Just eight such companies represent 40-50 percent of market valuations. What is the basis of their success? Are they winning because they can make better cheaper products that anyone else can make, so that tariffs can lead to even greater success and lots of new good jobs for US workers?

Actually not. Those companies represent technological advances that led to monopoly powers in their chosen sectors (those sectors are now starting to merge, but that’s another story). They have clear profit advantages over businesses in competitive sectors, and in fact they can force those companies in competitive sectors to bid against each other to supply them. These are primarily software companies (so they are not well-counted in balance of payment figures that ignore services) and their reason for success is technological advancement—often predicated on government-funded basic R&D—and ability to attract the best and brightest from everywhere to contribute to their success. Such monopolies are actually not new. In the good old days of American manufacturing it was the high-tech of its time. We don’t get to choose where the money is.

Tariffs have little or nothing to do with this picture. Somehow tariffs are supposed to create a new golden age for factory workers, recreating the good old days. However that is without the technology advantages that fueled the wages, without unions, and after many decades of automation that mean far fewer (and more skillled) people are needed in production. Tariffs have of course been threatened as retaliation for restrictions on tech company activities in other countries, but those are different fights over different issues. None of this means extracting blood from evil foreigners will deliver gold to Trump supporters here.

How about the benefits of white racial dominance and the deporting of immigrants? Most of the arguments for those come down to “everything they’ve gained is taken from us”. That’s easy to believe (one thinks of Vance’s performance in the VP debate where immigrants were the answer to every issue raised) but is it true? You can certainly find examples, black people promoted for their race or professions where desperate immigrants have depressed wages. But that isn’t the same as the net effect of what has happened. You can’t argue that by assuming it’s true.

What made this country’s historical success is the (relative) freedom of US society from the centuries-old societal hierarchies elsewhere. Anyone could come here and succeed. The US pioneered mass education, and its own aristocracies just didn’t have the powers to exclude that existed elsewhere. We have prospered from everyone’s contributions, people of all races and from everywhere. That there are more people in the picture does not mean everyone is poorer; historically it has made us richer. Even today the immigrant population (including the illegal part) is paying taxes, using fewer social services, committing less crime, and staffing difficult jobs (in agriculture, eldercare, and construction) that locals don’t want to do. The big technology companies are filled with immigrants and children of immigrants who are making the country richer for everyone. (As is evident from any discussion of AI for example, this is more a matter of scarce talent than outsourced jobs.)

When you think about it each zero-sum argument assumes a static world where all that matters is dividing up a fixed pot of goods. That’s where the zero-sum comes in—who is giving or taking. But the picture is completely wrong. It’s not just that the overall pot is growing, it’s that the pot is being redefined entirely. And it’s that effort—the creation of the new pot—that will determine our success as a nation. And again looking at the new corporate leaders of our economy, that new pot (as noted) is being created in large measure by immigrants and children of immigrants of all races and nationalities.

(It’s important to be careful about the conclusion here. This isn’t an argument for uncontrolled immigration or even for what rules should be applied for who gets in. It’s also not an argument either for or against any kind of affirmative action. In both cases there are tradeoffs that have to be made rationally. Every country decides how many immigrants it can absorb annually, but that decision should not be based on false stereotypes of what those immigrants represent. In the case of affirmative action, you don’t want to create new forms of favoritism, but at the same time you need to find ways to prevent existing prejudices from perpetuating past discrimination. That those subjects are out of scope here doesn’t mean they can’t be addressed.)

Government’s task is providing the environment for both economic progress and well-being of the population. A key objective is equality of opportunity, as we need contributions from all. And it is up to government to see that the two objectives—for the economy and for the population—are both satisfied. That is always a political challenge.

Government structure is important. That the private sector will miraculously do it all is a myth understood perfectly even by Adam Smith. That myth only persists (without evidence) as an excuse for government to neglect its second objective—for the population. Expecting arbitrarily-powered dictatorship to be more dynamic and effective is even worse—for reasons that are already evident. Dictators make uncorrectable mistakes and ignore what they don’t want to hear. We’re cutting basic research in all domains and treating climate change as treason, exactly what we don’t need in a technology-based world economy. That hurts BOTH the economy and the population. By our own history, democracy is a good thing.

Finally we need to return to the issue we started with—international relations. Are nations just a bunch of business competitors fighting for market share? The answer is no, because we all share one world and there is an enormous (if not always recognized) common interest in making it work. Without thinking hard we are all confronted with the pressing problems of climate change and the ever-present threat of war. Chaos risks disaster. And there is a positive push also. Over the past decades we have proven that by cooperation (admittedly incomplete) we have been to grow the pot of benefits enormously for all. This could hardly be farther from a zero-sum scenario.

Zero-sum reasoning is a big problem, because it is instinctive and can be crucially wrong. We can’t prosper by believing life is all about fighting it out for advantage. If we want to be successful the task is to build prosperity for the future—for our entire population and for the world. Nothing says that’s easy, but it’s the only game there is.

Mathematics and Politics

/ ontheoutside / Leave a comment

It strikes me that there is something to be said about mathematics and politics that goes beyond just numbers.  Mathematics, because it is a logical system, guards against some kinds of sloppy thinking that can get in the way or be exploited in propaganda.  Here are a few examples.

  1. Not every function is bounded or even linear.

I’m starting here because it came up in a previous discussion of climate change. Damage from climate change is not bounded or even linear.  The world just gets that much farther from what human civilization was built to deal with.

Destruction from climate change increases exponentially with the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.  As noted there is no such thing as a “new normal” or even a price limit for the damage done by a ton of CO2.   So there is no alternative to preemptive action, hard as that is for any society to achieve.

2. Negative numbers are just as real as positive ones.

In our national budgets positive expenditure are discussed in terms of things bought:  for infrastructure, education, healthcare, safety net.  Deficits are abstractions: possible effects on the financing costs for the national debt for example.  In fact deficits are negatives of things bought—things not bought.  They have to be evaluated by tradeoff of what that money was spent on versus what now isn’t going to be bought—for infrastructure, education, healthcare, safety net. The deficit in the Big Beautiful Bill rmeans quite a lot of that can’t happen in this administration and even beyond.

3. You can’t understand a function of two variables without looking at values for both.

It may seem obvious, but it is still worth stating: if you have a function of two variables, you can’t understand anything by looking at variation in one.  Performance of Trump’s golden dome depends on how well the new defense handles the offense coming at it.  We already had a much-touted proposal like that under Reagan—his Star Wars.  That was an expensive program that sounded great and went absolutely nowhere—no successful tests even of highly-simplified versions!

We’re told the time has come to build another one, because defensive capabilities have increased so much that it’s time to finish Reagan’s job.  To my knowledge, no one has said a single word about what has changed with the offense.

4. You have to be able to learn from applicable results in different contexts.

This may seem abstract, but some of the greatest advances in mathematics have been made by recognizing that results in one area can be brought to bear on seemingly different classes of problems.  Life is like that, just generally.  You have to understand how things work, so you can apply what you know to new problems.

What have we as humans learned about how a society should function?  Most of all that chaos is a bad thing.  If we are going to live together successfully, we need rules of behavior and at least mutual tolerance.  There is also some notion of caring for the weak as an essential part of social cohesion.  That is built into essentially all successful cultures and all religions, because chaos is unstable, exhausting, and dangerous. It also undermines the stability needed for economic growth and prosperity.

For international relations we have nonetheless chosen to ignore that experience, on the grounds that of course we are going to win, rule the world, and steal everything of value from everyone else. That’s not new as motivation, but it is precisely the mentality that our species has learned is self-destructive.  Christianity has a few apt quotes:  “As a man sows so shall he reap” or more to the point “For they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind”.

 In a age of proliferating nuclear weapons and accelerating climate change, that’s not something you want to think about too much.

5. There is one more relevant point:  not all functions are continuous.

It is natural to believe in continuity, that the features of one’s current life are somehow normal and can be relied upon.  That is felt as reality, not complacency.

But history has shown over and over again that there are no guarantees.  It’s all up to us.

Do We Neeed More Proof that Dictators are Bad for the Economy?

/ ontheoutside / Leave a comment

When dictators make bad decisions no one can stop them. Here are a few:

  • Trump likes oil, so we’re doing everything possible to push fossil fuels in the economy, and eliminating anything to support sustainable energy.   We are even so petty as to take out installed car charging stations for government employees.  So we’ve pegged our economy and everything in it to fossil fuels, a future that is going away–not tomorrow but necessarily soon, whether we like it or not.  We’re not just a non-player in the coming economy (presumably the US auto manufacturers will be lucky if they’re picked up–instead of closed down–by the dominant Chinese players), we’re tying a weight around the neck of all our industrial production.
  • We’re killing any kind of government supported research.  We have made ourselves non-players in anything beyond current mainstream production.  If you ask business leaders how much basic research is done by the private sector they will tell you the answer is pretty much none.  Business deals with current and coming product.  We as a country will no longer be inventing the future.  We can ask the Chinese for help when we need it.
  • We have decided there is no need for competence in government employees.  Instead for the entire federal government all that matters in loyalty.  There are no more real government jobs—just political appointees.  If these are the rules of the game, there will be no more competence or help from Washington.  If you don’t think that matters you should look at the mess today.  That’s the tiniest piece of what is coming.
  • We have decided to convert all of our alliances to protection rackets.  Unfortunately we’re not the only game in town.  We have opponents in China and Russia.  They, not us, have understood there is strength in numbers.  We have given them an enormous present with no positives in return.  For Russia we have even descended to flattery.
  • Our now to be jettisoned international order was established to provide stability and reduce the danger of war. It wasn’t perfect but it gave us many years of growth and peace. The danger to growth has been much talked about, but the danger to peace less so. In this new era of every land for itself, all efforts to manage nuclear proliferation are now out the window. On the contrary, every country had better get its own nuclear weapons fast–or be prepared to face defeat. In our glorification of selfish greed we’re stupidly asking for disaster.

Many people have figured out these are mistakes.  But as long as this dictatorship continues, we as a nation we have no way to fix it.