I heard from Jonathan Chait that, The New Conservative Argument to Ignore Climate Change Is Even Dumber Than the Old One. It seems that National Review came up with a “clever” question they wanted the Democrats asked at Tuesday’s debate, “Do you support President Obama’s EPA restrictions on emissions even though science reporters at The New York Times admitted in a recent story that restrictions will do nothing to combat climate change by themselves?” Chait noted what should come as no surprise to readers here: that’s not actually what the Times article said.

But what I thought was interesting was the idea that we should do nothing about climate change if that thing all by itself doesn’t fix the problem. It’s kind of like they took Zeno’s Paradox as a proof: if you add up a bunch of small thing the end result is nothing! I know, I know: because National Review started in large part to push back against the stupidity of the conservative base, you think it still ought to do that. But those days are gone and the most you can expect of conservative elites is a resigned acceptance of the way things are. After all: how else are they going to get their regressive tax cuts?

So I present you with a few of my own examples of things that are not worth doing because they alone will not fix a problem. Chait offered this own: calling 911 when you have a heart attack and buying groceries to feed your children. In addition, I offer the following, which I’m sure National Review (actually, Stephen L Miller) obviously thinks (because consistency is the cornerstone of conservative thinking):

• Why work out in the gym when that one work out isn’t going to make you stronger?
• There’s no point of driving on the right side of the street, because that alone is not going to keep you safe.
• Why practice a musical instrument when that one session isn’t going to make you a good musician?
• There’s no point of starting a diet, because that first day of eating less isn’t going to make you thin.
• Why put on the brakes when it is clear you are going to hit the car in front of you? In fact, why not hit the accelerator?

There are obvious political cases too: we shouldn’t enact any healthcare reform because nothing will fix all of the problems. Basically National Review would make that case since they want the government to do nothing other than those things it does now that funnel wealth from the bottom of the economy to the top. Of course, with global warming, it’s clear that addressing the problem would be a good thing even if it didn’t fix the problem. The National Review position reminds me very much this cartoon:

As Chait noted, “The new talking point rests on grade-school-level sophistry.” You would think that conservative thinking would have nowhere to go but up. Instead, they always find a way to go down.

Last year, I wrote an article that got quite a lot of attention thanks to a tweet by Max Blumenthal, News Bias Is a Choice to Lack Diversity. The article was about the implicit bias in the press because the reporters are all of the upper-middle and upper classes — cut off from the worlds of middle and lower class workers. I wrote, “This is why business reporters seem to only find news about the management side of business interesting. They don’t have any friends who are in labor unions.” The article got enough attention that Matt Yglesias read it and responded that reporters do known people in unions because most newspapers are unionized. Note the change from “are friends with” to “know.”

It’s a telling comment. I like Yglesias’ work very much. But he is blind to the interests of lower class workers who were so very well represented by unions in the decades before he was born. And he’s very much typical of a particular group of “data journalists” most symbolized by Vox. Again, I read Vox every day — they put out great work. But despite the publication’s claim that it is all about data, it is constrained as much by ideology as every other news outlet. It is just that their brand of soft neoliberalism is easily mistaken for the truth.

Erik Loomis over at Lawyers, Guns & Money has been on this beat for a while. I first noticed it with an article earlier this month, What Does Dylan Matthews Think The Worst New York Times Article Published in the Last Decade Is? It turned out that it was article by Paul Theroux, The Hypocrisy of “Helping” the Poor. Basically, the Vox senior correspondent thought that it was wrong — Really wrong! — to complain about globalization hurting poor people in America when it was helping poor people in Bangladesh.

Matthews original complaint was just a tweet. Now, two articles have been published attacking the original article. Loomis has all the details, More on Paul Theroux, the Greatest Monster in Known History for Caring About American Workers. And he dives pretty deeply into the subject of the Washington data journalists’ ideological dysfunction. It is a mindless acceptance of globalization as a Good Thing™. We all know that, all things equal, more trade is a good thing. Thus, any given worker complaining about their troubles should just shut up.

This is almost literally true of Annie Lowery. A woman in Theroux’s article was complaining about how the Clinton Foundation did all this work in Africa, “Don’t they realize our people need help?” To which Lowery responded, “Not in the way that people in Zimbabwe do, lady. Not even close.” It’s a shocking display of class based disdain. As if a paraplegic can’t complain so long as there are quadriplegics in the world. And as Loomis points out, it shows that they approach the problem of poverty “from 30,000 feet.” They have no connections to these people, just as their analyse of Uber is all about them getting more convenience in their urbane lives and not about struggling low-middle class drivers.

Jeff Spross at The Week provided a far more expansive view of the issue, Us against them? Why Globalization Doesn’t Have to Pit American Workers Against the World’s Poor. Basically, he’s making a Dean Baker kind of argument: globalization hurts the poor in America because our government has made it that way; we can have globalization that works for everyone. But what I want to focus on is Spross’ criticism of the “American preference for ‘absolute’ poverty measures.”

The reason I bring it up is because of this great lecture by Richard Wilkinson, where he looks at economic inequality. Between countries, inequality doesn’t seem to have much effect on broadly defined health measures. But it has a clear and large effect within countries. Clearly, this is a study only of advanced economies, and Zimbabwe is seriously messed up. But the idea that poor people in Mississippi should just shut up because other people are doing worse outside the country 10,000 miles away misses the whole point.

My takeaway from this is just how callous we all are. I don’t believe that the Vox crowd really cares any more about the people in Zimbabwe than they do the people in Mississippi. They certainly don’t have any experience with the people who are suffering there. But it is really the fact that having a callous disregard for the suffering in Mississippi and a deep concern for the suffering in Zimbabwe pushes their existing belief that globalization is a Good Thing™. All of the neoliberal data journalists should listen to Lowery’s own inadvertent wisdom, “The reality, you’ll be surprised to hear, is more complicated.”

Afterword

After I wrote this, I noticed that the brilliant Matt Bruenig wrote, The Muddled Globalization Debate. He looks at the issue in an economic way and notes, “The fact that goods cost 10% less than they would in the alternative doesn’t help someone whose income is 30% less than the alternative.” It gets to the same issue, which is just that Lowery and company are clueless about the effects of globalization on actual people. They can wave a hand and say that there are things we could do to minimize the harm, but the fact remains that we don’t. It’s like I wrote earlier this year, No Trade Deals Until Our Economy Is Fixed. I’m not interested in trade deals even if they do increase GDP as long as the vast majority of the gains all go to the top.

The big news over the past few of years has been the rise of voter ID laws and many other efforts designed to make voting harder than it already is. This is being done almost exclusively by conservatives. I don’t doubt the sincerity of conservative voters; they’ve been manipulated for years into thinking that if only voting were fair then Ted Cruz would be President for Life. It’s the conservative elites who have pushed this disingenuous narrative that voter fraud is a problem that must be fixed.

Think about it in the opposite way. If there is a legal voter who is stopped from voting, this is what I will call institutional voter fraud. Voting, as it is construed by most people, is a right. It isn’t something that one should have to earn. On the right, people are concerned about votes being “canceled out” by fraudulent votes, but there is no concern about votes being canceled out by them simply not being allowed. This is where the pathetic number of actual fraudulent votes is important: to stop a handful of cases of voter fraud, we create a hundred or thousand times as many cases of institutional voter fraud. That is what the voter ID campaigns are: a form of (currently legal) voter fraud.

Even as conservatives have been working to stop democracy, there are places where work is being done to expand voting rights. The Brennan Center for Justice puts out a Voting Laws Roundup each year with the good and bad news. And it isn’t all blue states either. For example, Louisiana recently passed a law that would allow 16- and 17-year-olds to pre-register to vote when they apply for driver’s licenses. And Oklahoma expanded access to absentee ballots to people living on tribal lands. But as usual, the only red state doing anything big was Utah, which established a “pilot program for election day registration.”

I’m very pleased that my home state of California has been on the leading edge of this, and we made a massive step forward over the weekend. The Los Angeles Times reported, Governor Brown Approves Automatic Voter Registration for Californians. It isn’t perfect. It is tied to the state DMV. When people get or renew a driver’s license, they will automatically be registered to vote. But given this is California, that is the vast majority of people. The system doesn’t require people to register, of course. They may opt-out if they wish. But the default will be to register them. This will result in up to 7 million more people registered to vote. The system will not be fully operational until June 2016.

I wonder about my own commitment to democracy. If I were a conservative, would I say what I hear so many conservatives say, “I don’t want people to vote unless they are well informed like me!”? I’d like to think that I would be in favor of democracy regardless. But I recall when I was a libertarian being fairly disinterested in voter turnout. Regardless, I think that most people in America do believe in democracy. And like so many things in US politics, the distinction between the left and the right is clear: the left believes in people voting and the right does not.

Brian Beutler was definitely right, The Adults Take the Stage in the Democratic Debate. I’m a Sanders supporter, but not enough to want to see any of the candidates attacking each other. So I didn’t like seeing that. But in an absolute sense, there was very little of it. And it was all substantive. Overall, I thought it was a great debate.

I agreed with Lincoln Chafee when he said that he hadn’t changed — it was the Republican Party that had changed. He’s right. I’m constantly amazed at the people who stay in the Republican Party, even though it has clearly gone on tilt. I welcome former Republicans into the Democratic Party — often they are more liberal than long time Democrats.

Speaking of long time Democrats, what’s up with Jim Webb? After Chafee made his statement about the Republican Party, Webb implied the same thing about the Democratic Party: that somehow he was the guy who represented the tradition of the Democratic Party. How can anyone seriously think that?! But if the purpose of the debate was to mention Vietnam and veteran the most times, Webb won!

Martin O’Malley had a strong debate. I don’t think he answered the question about his “lock ’em up” policies, but otherwise, he was good. And his final statement was the best of any of them. Was it enough to move him in the polls? I doubt it. And it certainly wasn’t enough to move me. If he becomes the nominee, I’ll support him. But he doesn’t shine when it comes to my issues — economics.

Clinton and Sanders did about as well I expected them to. Clinton came off as serious and competent. But she also lacked a great deal of passion for the most part. Sanders was full of passion — especially on economic issues. And he’s absolutely right. At the same time, he came off a bit scattered and, frankly, old. Still, I will be donating some money to his campaign tomorrow.

Overall, I think the Democratic Party did itself proud. We don’t have to be embarrassed by our candidates. Even the worst of them is better than the best that the Republicans have to offer: Marco Rubio. It was a good night. But will the American people notice? I doubt it.