Paul Krugman wrote about the current partisan nature of environmental laws and how it wasn’t always this way, Pollution and Politics.

I think it is important to understand why doing something about pollution is good for the economy — at least when economic demand is low as it is now. As you have no doubt seen, since the economy crashed in 2008, corporate profits are at an all time high. Because there are so many more people looking for jobs than there are jobs, there is no pressure to raise wages, so the the owners of capital can keep more of the profits of productivity gains to themselves. It’s funny that conservatives think that in this environment, businesses need incentives in the form of lower taxes and fewer regulations in order to “create” jobs.

The problem with this situation is that the rich — the owners of capital — end up just sitting on the money. There is no incentive for them to invest the extra money, because demand is low in the economy and they are likely to lose on the investments — in the short term at least. But by requiring that the owners of capital invest to improve their infrastructure, this money that would be sitting around in the pockets of the rich doing nothing would be cycling in the economy. (Say’s Law is a myth!)

It is understandable why corporations would not want to be forced to upgrade their physical plant. But the effect on the macroeconomy is win-win: there is less pollution and the economy is stimulated. And given that the corporations are sitting around harming the economy with a kind of paradox of thrift, there is no reasonable political complaint against environmental regulations in a depressed economy.

Of course, what we hear from conservatives is that a depressed economy is a bad time to enact environmental regulations because it will kill jobs. To start with, this is a disingenuous argument because they would make the same argument in a booming economy: we can’t harm the good economy! This second claim actually has a theoretical basis. But environmental regulations in a depressed economy is a jobs program. It takes money that the rich are refusing to spend and makes them spend it to create jobs. And meanwhile, we get a better economy and become more competitive compared to other countries.

Conservatives always argue for their policies of letting the business community do whatever it wants because this will somehow create jobs. It is similar to their healthcare logic, “High cost healthcare; then a miracle occurs; low cost healthcare.” But in this case it is: cut taxes and regulations on corporations; then a micacle occurs; jobs are created.

Krugman suggested that the issue is primarily rising income inequality. But I really think it is mostly ideology. Environmentalism poses a huge problem for conservatives and that is especially true when it comes to global issues. Conservatives cannot accept that collective action is sometimes needed. This is actually quite a typical conservative-liberal divide. Liberals have no problem with individual action. In fact, if we could have a good society without government, liberals would have no problem with it. As I note a lot around here: liberalism is a very practical ideology. But conservatives are not okay with collective action. To them, the need for any collective action other than getting together occasionally and killing hundreds of thousands of people would prove that the government isn’t always the problem. Ronald Reagan would be wrong about, “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.'”

This is why distinguishing between different economic situations is anathema to conservatives. Monetary stimulus is always inflationary. Deficit spending never creates jobs. And environmental regulations always kill jobs. My atheist friends rightly mock fundamentalist Christians who are immune to proof. But perhaps they should spend more time looking at political conservatives who seem to be no less immune to proof.

Afterword

Note that in practice, conservatives are not for a small government. But because they hate government, they simply turn it into a corrupt system that enriches their already rich friends. And the one area where they think the government absolutely much be small is in its role to help the weak.

I came upon an article by Chad Nelson, The Inherent Flaw of the Criminal Justice System. It is from the Center for a Stateless Society. Their slogan is, “A left market anarchist think tank & media center.” I just want to give them a big wet kiss and pat them on the head. They are so adorable! They are also deeply pernicious. These are the kind of guys that I was when I was a libertarian. And just as I was then, they are now fooling themselves. Who thinks that if you get rid of government all will be well? It takes studied ignorance to think that absence of government wouldn’t create a power vacuum filled by organized business interests that would be totally unaccountable. Neo-feudalism, here we come!

The article at hand is about how there is a conflict of interest when police officers are being prosecuted because the prosecutor’s office works so closely with the police. This is true. It is hardly the biggest problem with prosecutors in this country, but it is definitely a troubling issue that we should give serious thought to. But according to Nelson, this is just a sign that the government is out of control. The different branches of government don’t keep each other honest because they are all dedicated to the same government. Did you catch that?

Because there is a problem inside one branch of government, the different branches of government can’t work to limit power grabs. That’s kind of like saying, “My home network is down; the internet doesn’t work!” But what Nelson is really saying is that he hates the government and any part of the government will understandably support the idea of government and so this is bad. But he doesn’t come right out and say it because it sounds stupid. Because it is. Basically: the government is bad because I think the government is bad.

What Nelson thinks should have happened is that Michael Brown’s parents should have hired their own attorney to prosecute Darren Wilson. But where exactly the court for such a case would come from is not clear. Would the Brown family have to purchase a legal system on the free market? And if that was the case, why would Darren Wilson feel that he was bound by its findings? So that can’t be what Nelson thinks. Instead, it must be that like most libertarians, he thinks that the legal system is one proper governmental function. But given that he thinks that the government is completely useless in all other ways, why should we accept that collective action would work in terms of the courts?

As with all things libertarian, it only takes the slightest scratching to find gaping holes. If we can work with a government court system, we can certainly make the different parts of the larger court system work. In this case, it is hardly necessary for the Brown family to have their own lawyer (especially since in Nelson’s utopia, they would have to pay for it). What the Brown family actually asked for would have been far better: a special prosecutor. The problem in this case was that democracy didn’t work. It wasn’t that government didn’t work.

The problem here is that Chad Nelson, and I’m sure everyone at the Center for a Stateless Society, thinks that government is always the problem. Like voters in a general election, he really ought to grow up. The question is not between government and his utopia. It is between this government and the other that we would necessarily get. And history shows us that we are a whole lot more free than we would be under the rule of Walmart.

See also: There Are No Libertarian Republicans

This whole Darren Wilson grand jury thing is really starting to bug me. I’ve always thought that the police were above the law and they can get away with anything at all. But really, that is just a matter of trials — not grand jury indictments. And in this one, the more I learn, the more it is clear that all the evidence was dumped on the grand jury and then the prosecutors acted as defense attorneys. That’s just amazing, and of course, it just shows that all the discriminatory policing that the African American community suffers under in Ferguson is just one part of the problem.

The most recent bit of evidence regarding this came from a German Lopez article in Vox, Grand Jury Testimony Suggested Marijuana Made Michael Brown Violent. That’s Unlikely. That’s an obvious point on its surface. When Ezra Klein first tweeted out his article about Darren Wilson’s testimony seeming bizarre, there was one guy who responded multiple times with things like, “Brown had THC levels in his blood high enough to induce paranoia.” I just love this kind of thing because it is used every time to claim that this or that person must have been acting strange as though they were on PCP. (And people’s “strange” behavior on PCP itself is greatly exaggerated.)

What really struck me was Lopez’s description of a forensic pathologist who testified that it was unlikely that cannabis would have made Brown aggressive. After saying this, a prosecutor followed up:

This is a prosecutor at a grand jury throwing cold water on testimony backing up the victim in the crime. This is shocking. Truly shocking.

What I think happened was that Robert McCulloch had absolutely no intention of indicting Darren Wilson. But the political environment was too toxic for that. So he not only decided to throw all the evidence at the grand jury – he decided to put his department in charge of mounting what is undoubtedly a illegal defense of Wilson.

It is now clear how the whole thing went. The prosecution led with Darren Wilson’s testimony and everything followed from there. So once he talked about Michael Brown acting like a “demon,” the grand jury (which lots of help from the “prosecution”) latched onto Brown’s use of cannabis. There you have it: Brown was high and those people are cable of anything. And if one forensic witness disputes that, he can be beaten down. And don’t worry: the prosecution will absolutely, positively not bring in any witnesses that they consider are experts in that field. Because the prosecution absolutely, positively was on Darren Wilson’s side.

The whole thing is shameful, and I now feel far worse about the grand jury in particular and the judicial system in St Louis County than I did when I first heard that Darren Wilson would not be indicted. I would be all for this if it were the new normal — that all accused will get this treatment. But, of course, we know that such special treatment will only be offered to police and other representatives of the power elite.

I continue to be amazed at what pussies police officers are. But no one seems to notice — most of all the officers themselves. Every time one of them — usually with other officers and armed with clubs, mace, tasers, and guns — shoots, tases, or otherwise brutalized an unarmed civilian, they show not the slightest embarrassment in explaining that they were afraid for their lives. And no media organizations are willing to call them on their public expressions of cowardice because they supposedly have such dangerous jobs.

It was thus not at all a shock that Darren Wilson testified in the no-prosecution grand jury that he was vewy vewy scared. This is my favorite line, “And when I grabbed him, the only way I can describe it is I felt like a 5-year-old holding onto Hulk Hogan.” Translation: “I’m used to the people I oppress being easy to manhandle!” Okay. Whatever. But if Wilson is going to admit that he couldn’t handle an unarmed 18-year-old and that he was justified in shooting Michael Brown six times, can we at least all admit quite publicly that Wilson is a pussy who can only manage confrontations with his club, mace, taser, and gun? Must we continue on with this fantasy that it is perfectly all right to totally blow confrontations like this and that it shows police officers like Darren Wilson are strong and capable?

I’ve also been impressed with the pictures of Wilson in the hospital. I’m not saying that I’m some tough guy, because I’m not. I take great pride in avoiding conflict and being a coward. Being brave is overrated. Brave people get killed. But Darren Wilson’s wounds just don’t look that bad to me. They look like the sort of things that can happen during a collision on the basketball court. That’s not to say that they aren’t serious. That’s not to say that I wouldn’t feel as though my life had been in danger if I had received such wounds. But we’ve already established: I’m a coward. All I want is a public admission that Darren Wilson is too. Of course, I’m not a bully who hides behind a badge, club, mace, taser, gun, and a whole department of other armed men — most of whom I assume are not pussies:

I don’t think all cowards are created equal, however. For example, I’m not sure that in the cold light of day, I would just make stuff up to save my skin. And I can’t say that Darren Wilson did that either. But I am very much in agreement with Ezra Klein, Officer Darren Wilson’s Story Is Unbelievable. Literally. The story seems made up — or at least coached. Wilson’s narrative includes “plot points” like this one that highlights the stolen cigars:

Shorter, “He was beating me up; he stopped to flash the evidence of his crime; he continued beating me up.” It’s not credible.[1] And that’s especially true when you consider that he testified a month after the shooting — more than enough time to hone his testimony. Again, that doesn’t mean he is lying. When you are in the middle of a confrontation, you don’t necessarily process events carefully. That’s especially true if you are a coward. And after days and days of working with attorneys, one isn’t necessarily even aware of how “truth” is being manufactured.

So Michael Brown is dead. Darren Wilson faces no consequences. Now he will probably get a job for another police department. (I assume it would be difficult to integrate him back into the Ferguson Police Department.) And I suppose that we’ve decided that this is just fine. Pussies are welcome everywhere in law enforcement. Who needs bravery and manliness when you have clubs, mace, tasers, and guns? And tanks; don’t forget the tanks!

[1] According to Dorian Johnson, Michael Brown’s companion, the cigarillos were transferred to him in the middle of the fight. However, Brown does this because he’s trying to get free from Wilson who has him by the collar. That makes a whole lot more sense. Wilson isn’t in a position to do much more than pull on Brown. Brown was trying to extricate himself and could use another hand. The whole of Johnson’s testimony is far more credible. Wilson would have us believe that he was “officer friendly.” But we’ve seen what he is like in a general sense: a little man with a chip on his shoulder and a gun in his hand.

Eric Alterman wrote a thought provoking article at Democracy, Why Liberals Need Radicals — and Vice Versa. He has divided the political left into the liberals and the radicals. Basically, they are the pragmatists and the idealists. It’s a good breakdown. And he noted that the liberals need the radicals to show them what they are fighting for. And the radicals need the liberals in order to get things done, because this is America and there ain’t gonna be no stinking revolution. I’m with him on this.

What’s more interesting is an implicit point in his article: there isn’t much remaining of radicalism on the left of the political spectrum. For example, I generally find myself on the left left edge of American politics — and often I find myself quite far to the left of that “respectable” edge. Yet I am incredibly practical. I think that income inequality is the biggest problem that we face. The solutions I propose, however, are things like increased estate taxes and a higher inflation target. These have traditionally been extremely mainstream ideas. It does not speak well of our country that they are considered radical.

But the reason that such vanilla economic remedies have come to be seen as “Socialism! Socialism, I tell you!” is because the conservative radicals, the ideologues, have been so successful at moving the playing field. That isn’t just due to their brilliance, although I will give them high marks on that front. Whereas liberal radicals have to push ideas mostly through force of will, conservatives get billions of dollars to develop and push their ideas. But I still maintain that the biggest reason that conservatives have recently been so successful has nothing to do with leftist radicals. It is rather that conservatives managed to take over the Democratic Party. They had a brilliant idea: they could redefine liberalism as social liberalism. And hence you get people like Clinton (pick one), Obama, and Andrew Cuomo.

Alterman went wrong, I think, in trying to distinguish between constructive radicalism and destructive radicalism. According to him, constructive radicalism is when people on the left start a conversation that moves liberals in a positive direction. And as an example of this, he mentioned Ta-Nehisi Coates’s excellent article, The Case for Reparations. Destructive radicalism is embodied in Ralph Nader’s failed 2000 presidential run. But is this distinction really valid a priori? Isn’t Alterman just looking at the negative effects of Nader’s campaign and saying it was an example of destructive radicalism?

I assume that Nader’s campaign was always meant to push Gore more to the left. I find it hard to believe that Nader thought he might win the election, along with a Congress of like minded people. I think what Alterman is getting at is found even more clearly in his second example, “Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement directed against Israel.” Again, his argument is basically that it can’t work. But I have never seen the BDS movement as anything but a way to get a message out and to highlight the apartheid nature of the situation in Israel-Palestine. I don’t know how I feel about the issue, but it is clear that Alterman thinks it is destructive radicalism simply because he disagrees with it.

I like the prism through which Alterman sees the political left. But breaking down radicals into constructive and destructive is just a way of silencing them. If radicals are not making liberals uncomfortable, they have no purpose. Alterman understands this. But he’s applying an irrational theoretical construct to it. All radical proposals are impossible. Until they aren’t. Each liberal has to decide what radical ideas are useful to them. That’s going to depend on each specific liberal and each specific radical idea. I get it: Alterman doesn’t like the BDS movement. But he is wrong to generalize based upon that.