Wreck of the Tennessee Gravy Train

"The engineer pulled the throttle, the conductor rang the bell,
 The brakeman hollered all aboard and the banks all went to hell."

I love pretty much any type of American folk music (pre-WWII; afterwards, things can get a little less pleasant). Likewise I am someone who is very interested in American politics, especially American political history. And, being of a particular vintage, I always love the crossover. So obviously older political folk songs pretty much get my engines going. "The Wreck of the Tennessee Gravy Train refers" to a scandal in in 1930, involving the Governor, Senator Luke Lea, the floating of bonds, and bank failures. That is to say, what's not to love about this song.



I find that the Harry Smith Anthology of American Folk Music has some excellent examples of the genre, including the "The Wreck of the Tennessee Gravy Train," "Governor Al Smith," and (I believe it's on this album) my personal favorite, "White House Blues."

The latter, about the assassination of President McKinley (and the rather pathetic train ride from Buffalo to Washington that followed) is based on "Wabash Cannonball" and includes two of my favorite lines in American folk music: "Roosevelt in the White House, drinking out of a silver cup, McKinley's in the graveyard ain't ever going to wake up" and "Hush now children, don't you fret, you'll draw a pension from your daddy's death." The second line refers, somewhat sardonically, to the fact that McKinley was the last President to have fought in the Civil War and so they would be the recipients of the great federal pork that was the Veterans' Pensions. And I'm not sure, but I've occasionally read or seen hints that there was some belief throughout the South and West that Roosevelt might have been a secret free-silver politician, willing to dump the gold standard and replace it with the free-minting of silver (I find it ironic that the Tea Party, which has occasionally embraced comparisons with the Populists, tend to be much more anti-inflationists wanting a 'sound dollar'---with 10% unemployment and steady disinflation upon us, deliberately inflationary policies would probably do us some good).  Not sure about this reference, but that's how I read it.

Millions of working moms breathe a sigh of relief....

....upon the publication of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Study of Early Child Care. Or at least this is what the Washington Post would have us believe, given sentences such as 

The study may bring hope to working mothers, who have labored under a collective societal guilt since the 2002 publication of landmark research showing that early maternal employment hampered child development. 

Now I don't have any hard numbers to back this up, but I suspect that any guilt that working mothers have is not the result of a 2002 publication. Nor is another report likely to create collective relief for them. It's certainly not clear that there is any collectively felt guilt at all: some mothers probably feel bad that they have to work, while other mothers feel liberated by the opportunity to work, and still other mothers have nannies and think that any guilt for not being at home should be borne by those other, nanny-less mothers. That is, while there are certainly some individuals who feel guilty for working while having young children, this does not aggregate to a collective sense of guilt.

But that really isn't what the Post is suggesting: the "collective societal guilt" is not a guilt felt by the mothers, but rather a condemnation that society imposes on working mothers. And since society itself is not a unanimous voice, we can say more specifically that this is a condemnation that the Post and the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, and other organizations have been making.

The new study is "every bit as important as you might think," because it suggests mothers can decide, without guilt, "whether they want to stay home with their children," said Greg Duncan, a scholar at the University of California at Irvine, who is president of the Society for Research in Child Development.

 In fairness, it isn't clear whether Greg Duncan himself is suggesting that before this study mothers should have felt guilty for working--the staff writer Daniel de Vise makes that inference for us. But unless this research is part of a broader move away from blaming women for balancing career and child-raising, towards general acceptance of male child-rearers and female breadwinners, and, yes, a rejection of the current double stigmatization of single mothers who are called lazy if they are on welfare, and deemed to be terrible mothers if they work and leave their children at home, then I suspect that this publication isn't going to do much for relieving the various burdens under which working mothers labor.*


*Just to be clear, I have no problem with the research. I think it is am important topic for study. I just am reacting to the premise that working mothers should feel guilty, which allows us to avoid framing the issue around other premises, like society should make it easier for mothers to work, out of choice or necessity, through day-care initiatives, more generous maternity and paternity benefits, and social insurance income so that single mothers will not be forced to work out of home instead of working to raise their kids. 

I got my motorcycle jacket but I'm walking all the time

Excellent song, despite being post Topper and Jones (explaining the drum machine and uninspired guitar). Ironically, it has become a favorite of the St. George's bunch.

"this is England, we can kill you in a jail"

Excellent news from Indian Country

&nbdip;News From Indian Country - Obama says he’ll sign Tribal Law and Order Act&nbdip;

Now by no means is this actually institutionalizing a relationship of justice, mutual accommodation and non-domination (in the sense used by Iris Marion Young and Philip Pettit) but it certainly is a step in the right direction.

I'm pleased to see greater opportunities for the Indian nations to prosecute non-natives for crimes committed on native land. Hopefully this will help move us away from the virtual impunity that non-natives enjoy if they commit "major crimes"* against natives. It does not change the fact that native sovereignty remains undermined and rejected, despite occasional language to the contrary, but definitely an improvement over the existing mess of limited jurisdiction for the Indian nations and limited interest and attention by the US government.

I had heard that the Obama administration had been intending to push through some major reforms in Indian law, and this definitely counts as both major and positive.**

*They are indeed major crimes. The inverted commas is not intended to diminish the significance of the crime but rather to emphasize the awkward and unique nature of this legal category as it applies to Indian country.

** The health reform act also had some important sections for the provision of health care on the res, if I remember correctly.

Ta-Nehisi Coates...

...once again speaks the truth, his incomparable nuance and forceful articulation of injustice in full bloom.

Taking it all in, it must be said that the landscape is as follows: We have an administration that will contort itself to defend a movement whose convention speakers call for the reinstatement of the tools of segregation. That same administration will swiftly jettison an appointee, herself the victim of homegrown terrorism, for echoing the kind of message of redemption and personal responsibility that has become the president's hallmark on race. Andrew Breitbart says that Sherrod's speech, not the Tea Party's rhetoric, is the real racism. It is an argument that is as old as American white supremacy, and one that this administration, through its actions over the past week, has tacitly endorsed.

The argument has been made that this isn't Obama, just the people working under him. That theory elides the responsibility of leaders to set a tone. The tone that Obama has set, in regards to race, is to retreat with great velocity in the face of anything that can be defined as "racial." Granted, this has been politically smart. Also granted, Obama has done it with nuance. But it can not be expected that the president's subordinates will share that nuance.

More disturbingly, this is what happens when you treat the arrest of a black man, in his home, as something that can be fixed over beers. This is what happens when you silently ascent to the notion that racism and its victims are somehow equally wrong. The ground, itself, is rigged with a narrative of inversion that goes back centuries. When you treat the two side as equals, expect not just more of the same. Expect worse.

truly appalling...

I don't have much to add to what has been said elsewhere. Jonathan Bernstein I think puts it best:  "Appalling. Disgusting. Awful." The knee-jerk speed with which Ms. Sherrod was let go points to an executive department that quivers in fear, unwilling to stand its ground on issues of race [1]. The possibility that the White House, as Greg Sargent notes, "will not lean on Vilsack to reinstate Sherrod," and that even having been given the opportunity to put things right chose instead to distance themselves from the entire matter, is deeply disappointing. 


I was, however, pleased to see Anderson Cooper come out swinging tonight. While stating that he'll let the viewer decide, it was clear that he was not willing to pull many punches in his coverage of Ms. Sherrod's firing, or the role of Andrew Breitbart in disseminating the video (although apparently he did not edit it). Even Glenn Beck was defending her, or at least suggesting that something was amiss (he did of course get in his jabs at the NAACP--"When was the last time the NAACP didn't give someone the benefit of the doubt right away who was African-American?")[2]. 


Ta-Nehisi Coates writes "I'll talk a bit later. In all honesty , I need to calm down.... I feel like the last week has radicalized me in the worst possible way." Until he does, probably the most insightful comments came from Breibart himself, who noted that "This was about the NAACP attacking the Tea Party and this [the video of Sherrod] is showing racism at an NAACP event." Breitbart was hoping for an excellent day, between this and the failed take-down of Spencer Ackerman. Did things go as planned? Ultimately I think they did, even if Ms. Sherrod gets her job back and despite Ackerman's holding onto his. The purpose was to draw blood, to create an atmosphere of fear, and to show anyone who was paying attention that the right has no qualms about fighting a bloody war of attrition on this issue. In a sense, the right has been doing what Spencer Ackerman suggested the left needed to do in the leaked Journolist emails: "What is necessary is to raise the cost on the right of going after the left. In other words, find a right winger’s [sic] and smash it through a plate-glass window. Take a snapshot of the bleeding mess and send it out in a Christmas card to let the right know that it needs to live in a state of constant fear. Obviously, I mean this rhetorically.”


This is not new politics, not by any means. But it is certainly ugly politics. It is slimy and vicious, zero-sum for the participants, and probably a negative sum for everybody else.


[1] Which I think is the exception, rather than the pattern for this administration. Obama has chosen his battles carefully for sure, but when engaged, the behavior of the administration has been better characterized by constancy of purpose rather than anxious, expedient and knee-jerk responses. Again, I think Bernstein said it best: "The White House, in my opinion, did an excellent job of handling these things last year, letting Van Jones go when something specific they were wise not to defend surfaced, but ignoring other attacks if they were based on phony smears.  This one doesn't fit the pattern."

[2] The answer? Far too damned often. The NAACP has been slow to recognize mass imprisonment as an important issue, with various local chapters supporting "martial law" and "zero-tolerance" policies that have been marked by problems of racial profiling. 

What I like about Sarah Palin...

...to be honest, I do like the degree to which I recognize and can relate to Sarah Palin's family. Theirs is a family much like that of many of my friends, loved ones, and relatives. Of course Bristol and Levi are back together. And of course this is a screw-you to Sarah Palin. So here's an opportunity for me to suggest one of the only enduring truths I've learned from my years of study.

When your child (or friend) breaks up with their significant other: don't shit talk the ex- cause they'll be back together soon enough, and they'll hate you and blame you for driving them apart.

The second part of this rule, "they'll hate you and blame you for driving them apart," will manifest itself in various forms of subtle and not-too subtle swipes in your direction. Most commonly, the former ex- and now back-on again significant other, will be increasingly invited over to the house, or if not your child, will be invited to events where you will be certain to see each other. The purpose is to test you, to confront you with the fact that they were able to overcome whatever petty personal vendetta had led you to your misplaced antagonism in the first place. The fact that your opposition to their relationship, often voiced only after the breakup, was (1) only an attempt to cheer them up by pointing out the ex-'s obvious deficiencies or (2) based on the accurate observation that the ex- was a terrible and inconsiderate partner, is absolutely beside the point. This is time-worn truth.

Celebrity-status does not change the dynamic; rather, it changes the venue. Instead of coming home to find that your daughter and her former ex- have been hanging out in the basement, with the door closed, 'listening to music' and are now going to 'go out'--daring you to even try and punish her!--you get the pleasure of reading all about it in Us Weekly.

Now obviously none of this should be seen as either disqualifying or qualifying for political office (although the fact that Sarah Palin failed to recognize and adhere to this rule raises some questions about her political judgement). But I do think that there is a symbolic component to political leadership: the extent to which we believe our political leaders are immersed in situations that we can relate to indicates to us the extent to which we ourselves are included in the polity. And so I think the candid and clumsy way in which Palin's family assert themselves into the national discourse is not only refreshing, but potentially positive if it works to expand the symbolic scope of our understanding of political belonging in the United States.

But to paraphrase Ice-T, I live in 21st century America. And around here, shit ain't like that. It's real fucked up. Most likely, the symbolic expansion of the polity that Palin represents will be limited to rural whites. Tim Wise puts it well,

White privilege is when you can get pregnant at seventeen like Bristol Palin and everyone is quick to insist that your life and that of your family is a personal matter, and that no one has a right to judge you or your parents, because “every family has challenges,” even as black and Latino families with similar “challenges” are regularly typified as irresponsible, pathological and arbiters of social decay.White privilege is when you can call yourself a “fuckin’ redneck,” like Bristol Palin’s boyfriend does, and talk about how if anyone messes with you, you'll “kick their fuckin' ass,” and talk about how you like to “shoot shit” for fun, and still be viewed as a responsible, all-American boy (and a great son-in-law to be) rather than a thug.

I think that "everyone" should be "quick to insist that your life and that of your family is a personal matter, and that no one has a right to judge you or your parents, because 'every family has challenges.'" I would love if what Wise call's "white privilege" were extended, if it were no longer seen as a privilege but rather as a presumption. But more likely is the non-reflexive double-standard that Wise highlights. The expansion of the understanding of who is a proper and legitimate member of the polity to "families with challenges" should be a cause for celebration; it is more likely, however, to be coupled with an contraction of the symbolic boundaries of the polity, excluding African American, Hispanic, and other stigmatized minority "families with challenges" as capable, responsible, and full citizens.

The formation of political coalitions

An excellent post by Timothy B. Lee on the institutional basis for the conservative-libertarian alliance. What I find most compelling is Lee's description of the basis for political coalitions:

"political alliances are built by concrete actions toward shared goals, not by abstract statements of philosophical agreement."

Given a shared set of goals, coalitions are necessarily exclusionary toward other political projects. In order to agree to do things you need to shut up about other things. I think Lee underestimates the importance of crafting articulation of philosophical agreement, but I see these, which are the staple of the political entrepreneur, as efforts to consolidate the earlier ties of cooperation that Lee highlights.

The articulation of philosophical principles that supposedly undergird the alliance does matter, in part by creating the sense of cohesion and almost natural-seeming alliance that Lee suggests many libertarians feel toward the conservative movement.

"After a couple of decades, you reach the point where a smart guy like Ilya Somin can claim that “liberals and libertarians have much in common in terms of ultimate values, but relatively little common ground in terms of practical policy agendas.” There are, in fact, lots of practical policy issues on which libertarians and liberals see eye to eye. The reason it doesn’t seem that way is that most libertarian organizations (with Cato an honorable exception) have made it a matter of policy to avoid writing about them."

I suspect its not just this avoidance of issues where the libertarians and conservatives diverge that leads smart guys such as Somin to discount the convergences between liberals and libertarians. Rather, it has been the success of the repeated articulation of a philosophical agreement on the desirability of small government that have made many in both of these camps believe their 'natural' allies are each other.*

All of this reminds me I need to re-read  Riker. 

* one thing Lee discounts is the possibility of conflict extension, the development of shared positions on other areas as the result of the alliance itself. Given that this is a fairly natural psychological process, if it is happening very little in this alliance might suggest the alliance is more fragile than its proponents believe. Or maybe not. It is an open empirical question as to whether libertarians are becoming more conservative and conservatives more libertarian as a result of their alliance. I think that the more it does happen, the stronger the coalition but the more it becomes divorced from its non-activist social base.

Political science and political advisors

I'm on a political science softball team. We are regularly defeated by our nemeses (can you have multiple nemesis?) The RNs and the business school team. So I have a fair amount of sympathy for those who believe that its the Obama political team that OS screwing things up.

Rahm's an asshole. That was originally his appeal but is increasingly seen as a liability. Axelrod seems to believe that his polls, presumably focusing on independents, are a better arbiter of economic policymaking than the advice of economists (the economics softball team is regularly defeating us as well). The communicators can't communicate. And so on.

But articles such as this one in Politico always make me wonder why there are no political scientists in the political team of American Presidents. Harris and Vandehei write:

"on the issues voters care most about — the economy, jobs and spending — Obama has shown himself to be a big-government liberal. This reality is killing him with independent-minded voters — a trend that started one year ago and has gotten much worse of late."

There is of course no evidence for this, other than a diffuse opposition to the health care bill. And on the issue of jobs, most polls show Ameicans-and even the over-hyped independents-want the government to do much much more. But that's the fault of the journalists, who are just making shit up. My concern comes from the fact that this article is supposedly based on interviews with members of the administration, some of whom seem to believe this. And that makes me think the political team could use some political scientists.

Now don't just have political scientists; the sad results of that lineup can be seen every Tuesday and Thursday evening on B Field. But maybe throw one into the rotation, who might be able to remind the others that American presidential and congressional elections are largely driven by the fundamentals: the economy, partisan identification levels, war. That campaign effects are very marginal. And that virtually nothing inside the Washington gossip loop matters at all.*

Now this presumes that, given the lengthy campaigning season, both campaigns will effectively spend all their ammunition, canceling each other out. And this is probably true. And in midterm elections campaigns will matter more as turnout in the base is more important. So by no means get rid of the Axelrods and their ilk.

But as  Ezra Klein points out  (quoting Larry Mishel), ""At this point, the economic outcome is pretty much set.” And that probably means the election is, too."

Which is probably why political scientists rarely find employ as political advisors. Telling your boss that his loss has already been written and was written months, possibly even a year before is not if much practical help. But this is not simple economic determinism. Economic growth is in part endogenous to the political sphere. The political scientist might be of less help in September (although we do have some positive things to say about campaigns) but is necessary to be there in the February prior, hello even the prior September, to say "we need to support policies that will be leading to job growth come election time." Which is what both Brad Delong and Paul Krugman were arguing in 2009. So maybe once again the economists have defeated the political team.

*There are exceptions to this, but they largely reveal the marginal importance of campaigns: they matter only when the campaigns themselves are remarkably close. Richard Johnston has a book on the 2000 election making this case.

Scott Nearing Award

In the UPenn political science department there is an lecture presented by the graduate students (it used to be an award, but contention ensued) on the subject if academic freedom. Past lectures were given by Peter Singer, Juan Cole, and Joseph Massed, and while Singer was well received the selection of Massed and Cole (especially the former) was controversial (see above, now a lecture not an award).

The spirit has always been to invite scholars, whether we agree with them or not, who have faced institutional resistance for their academic work. The last three have tended to be on the left, although both Singer and Massed are difficult to place, and the department seems interested in balancing this out.

So I'd like to suggest Kenneth Howell, an adjunct professor at the University of Illinois Urban, who was let go because he apparently taught that the Catholic Church's position on homosexuality is that it's immoral. I say apparently because the student complaint suggested explicitly that he was not simply teaching this but suggesting that the students were not in a position to argue otherwise. The "he said, she said" quality to these disputes make this award/lecture kind of a mug's game.

Nonetheless, teachers should be able to express their views, even when hateful, so long as they don't create an environment that is itself destructive to learning and civil engagement. Where that line is tends to be the focal point of dispute in these cases. And so while I strongly disagree with Kenneth Howell and believe that his understanding of natural law is facile, he might nevertheless make a reasonable conservative candidate for giving the lecture.

But one thing he said struck me as deeply problematic:

"All I ask as your teacher is that you approach these questions as a thinking adult. That implies questioning what you have heard around you. Unless you have done extensive research into homosexuality and are cognizant of the history of moral thought, you are not ready to make judgments about moral truth in this matter. All I encourage is to make informed decisions."

This is a remarkably aristocratic position in regards to how questions of moral controversy should be resolved. In order to make an informed decision you must (1) have done extensive research on homosexuality, and (2) be cognizant of the history of moral thought? This implies that the question should be left to the smallest coterie of dedicated scholars. It is the hyper professionalization of morality. And apparently the rest of us are supposed to wait and hope for a consensus to emerge from the moral aristocrats and then follow their decision.

In practice he is setting up a standard which his students can't meet, asking them in the process to ignore the wisdom of their friends, family, priests (few priests know the history of moral thought in its entirety, let alone have extensively researched homosexuality), and their own sense of right and wrong. He will be the only one in the room, and possibly in the students' circle whose position will have met the necessary standard.

He was silenced for his views and as such is a valid candidate for a lecture on institutional residence to controversial opinions in the academy. But his subsequent comments suggest that frank debate and discussion was being ruled out by a presumption of aristocratic authority. And I would like to hear him speak so I could ask whether he would disagree with my characterization of his position and see whether he would defend it. A democratization of morality, not in the sense of majority rule but in the equal opportunity for each individual to question for themselves the authority of moral commands, is one of the great achievements of the last five hundred years, and is worth defending in the various moments, small and large, in which it is questioned.

 http://www.news-gazette.com/news/university-illinois/2010-07-09/instructor-catholicism-ui-claims-loss-job-violates-academic-free 

This movie has been seen before...

From Kousser's "The Shaping of Southern Politics":

A massive shift in the 1890 election swept in a 147-seat Democratic majority. The deepening depression and the Populist revolt, however, unmade the Democrats as quickly as those events had made them: the GOP enjoyed a 140 seat edge in the 1895-1896 House and maintained a majority until the Bull Moose split of 1912.

Of course there are important differences between then and now. The Democrats were hardly a party of racial progress, and the Populist were more than just Republicans by another name, which seems to be the case with the Tea Party.

The nihilism of David brooks.

A number of people have critiques David brooks' op-ed puece, and as usual I'm somewhat late to the game. But despite the excellent critiques of krugman, Klein and Delong the fundamental disingenuousness of Brooks' piece has been overlooked.

Krugman suggests that Brooks has missed what Krugman believes should have been the key take-away of the last decade, the need to question authority. Instead, Brooks has fallen back on what may be the central theme of his political thought: systems of great complexity require humble policy. Ive noted before that his humbleness drops away at certain convenient times, as evidenced by his claim that poor academic performance amongst minorities is the result of cultural deficiencies which he believes can be changed by a massive and explicitly coercive effort on the part of the federal government.

But this article I think highlighted a deeper problem with Brooks' political thought, namely his willingness to embrace nihilism if it will lead to policy postures that he is comfortable with. Contrary to Krugman, Brooks was questioning authority. When he writes...

The Demand Siders write as if everybody who disagrees with them is immoral or a moron. But, in fact, many prize-festooned economists do not support another stimulus. Most European leaders and central bankers think it's time to begin reducing debt, not increasing it — as do many economists at the international economic institutions. Are you sure your theorists are right and theirs are wrong?

... he is questioning authority. Specifically he is trying to support those in the administration-the political advisors-against the intellectual authority of the economists on this issue. He is questioning the authority of krugman, suggesting that his arguments and the arguments those in the administration should not be listened to without skepticism just because they are economists making economic arguments.
And this is good! He is right that economists differ on this, that economists might not be right even if they were unanimous, that their models might be hubristic and flawed. Certainly that wouldn't be the first time. But this is where he ends. The models might be flawed so let's just ignore them.

Instead of actively questioning authority, he leaves is with a passive doubting. He does not even try to do what has so impressed me with krugman and Delong and others, namely ask the question "how could we be able to know, what evidence should there be if the debt worries were right?"

This is a recurring pattern in his writing, one that is most prominent when actually asking this question and lookin at the evidence might lead to a policy prescription whose posture and tone does not like. In short, he tells us we shouldn't blindly trust models because after all there are serious disagreements, but that actually weighing the evidence and making a determination, one that admittedly might still be wrong, is too rammed hard and instead we should take as little action as we can. It is a nihilism, but it is a nihilism that comes out when following the evidence and actually deciding between different policy prescriptions might lead to a governmental role that disturbs his beliefs as to what the appropriate governmental posture ought to be.