http://roarmag.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Paris-Police-Indignados.jpeg
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_nhb9czPDF80/R3i61lLdO_I/AAAAAAAAAFI/UuzFsGZe8pc/s400/paris-police.jpg
http://sassbrassnbullets.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/beth-w-paris-police.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/anglofille/276025173/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jmoo/2381622255/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/farbgeistfee/5039345044/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/philippeleroyer/2403676187/in/photostream/

“Minority rule has brought our state to near bankruptcy, causing crises throughout the state.”

“One sentence can end economic uncertainty and provide for an improved credit rating, for payment of our bills with money instead of IOUs, and will bring stability to our schools, nursing homes and universities. One sentence can make California a well-run state again.”

“Minority rule is closing California. State parks: closed. Schools: closed. Fire departments: closed. Nursing homes: closed. Medical clinics: closed. Libraries: closed.”

If there are mitigating remarks, I missed them despite careful reading and re-reading, but would be glad to have the error pointed out.

In fact he is just trying to push the progressive agenda:

“Since the minority is a strongly conservative Republican minority, progressive Democrats running for the legislature in 2010 can run on a prodemocracy platform, placing the blame for gridlock where it belongs, on their opponents. The main question is whether we can run such a campaign successfully.”

A web search will reveal many many liberal organizations suddenly rising to dispel the evil supermajority. I say suddenly, because in 2008 the Democrats recommended changing the vote requirement for constitutional amendments (the type of vote needed to change supermajority) from the current simple majority, to…you guessed it, 2/3rds supermajority! But wait there’s more. They suggested the requirement for constitutional amendments should be 2/3 majority vote in two consecutive elections! Oh, but that was way back in ’08.

So this fellow should be ignored completely. Pat, however, we should listen to. It turns out 3 states have a 2/3 rule like California. Would seem to me if 47 states use simple majority, there is little for California to fear and they should change. It is certainly true it leads to delay, which isn’t helpful or apparently necessary.

I have always had a problem with supermajority dictates
in spending matters, though. I think it is hard to get
around Lakoff’s basic premise: why should one third of the legislature–or the electorate, in supermajority bond
issues–have what amounts to veto power over the wishes
of the (clear) majority? This stands majority rule on its
head. Does a 51% majority impose a heavy burden on the
49% in opposition? Yes, but that is a risk of majority
rule, whether in spending matters or choosing candidates.
That burder, however, is only more onerous when one
third or thereabouts of a body imposes its will on the
majority.
If Lakoff intends to blame all of California’s governance
problems on supermajority rule that is undoubtedly grossly oversimplified, but I still agree with the indignation behind his premise.

The arguments for and against super majority votes turn on issues like tyranny of the majority. The argument for it tends to be along the lines that whatever is being proposed is sufficiently important/intrusive/disruptive that we must be all the more certain. For example, should jury trials be decided by majority rule? How about impeachment of the President? The argument for supermajority in the case of spending legislation is that 51% can potentially impose heavy burdens on 49%. I don’t have an opinion myself, but surely this is the sort of discussion the issue needs.

It does not need unfounded, thinly veiled partisanship. The repeated assertions that California is on it’s knees because of the supermajority requirement is simply that, an assertion. He makes no argument whatsoever that one caused the other. What about the massive financial disruption caused by energy trading that crushed California’s finances and led to the recall of it’s Governor? California is in crisis because it’s tax revenue has dropped off a cliff. Why? Most commentary points to it’s regressive tax structure that doesn’t work when the rich are getting poorer, which they tend to do much faster than average in an economic downturn. It also hurts when the rich leave, which they are doing in droves.

Funny these things escaped his attention. Perhaps he will notice the bipartisan tax commission that released it’s recommendation to overhaul the tax structure yesterday. At UC Berkeley.

That is the regrettable core of elitism. The elitist through education or other avenues comes
to believe that human frailties, biases, and limits to understanding don’t really apply to him
or her. Again, I don’t believe that either liberals or conservatives have cornered the market
on this particularly dangerous habit of mind, although as a liberal I think the conservative
variety of elitism has generally been more iniquitious in recent years, but that is another
subject.

So when anyone advocates government by elites, alarm bells should be going off.

“Another reason to take heart right now is a recent report by Giving USA Foundation, “Giving During Recessions and Economic Slowdowns.” The report looked at charitable giving during each recession between 1967 and 2007. It found that in every year but one, total giving in current dollars has risen. The exception was 1987, when a change to a tax law the previous year prompted some people to give early.”

As to trusting the private sector vs. the public sector, curious on your thoughts regarding the earlier posts, Is end of life planning pro end of life?, and Wouldn’t this be NICE? When the public sector actor executes his pledge to act in the common good, who’s definition of common good is he executing? Is it in the common good to defend life and prevent abortion, or is it in the common good to defend choice and allow abortion? As all such questions can’t possibly be answered, the health care legislation is riddled with mandates to newly created agencies to “do good”. The dangers of such ambiguous legislation are noted here.

As to health insurance, perhaps your economist friend can help us understand the vilification of the industry. ABC reports “Among insured Americans, 82 percent rate their health coverage positively. Among insured people who’ve experienced a serious or chronic illness or injury in their family in the last year, an enormous 91 percent are satisfied with their care, and 86 percent are satisfied with their coverage.” Forbes tell us the health insurance industry ranks a lowly 35th in profit margins, a very small 2.2%.

Great article by David Brooks, thanks for the reference.

“Congressional insults — and apologies — had their heyday in the first half of the 19th century…Men pulled knives and guns on one another. There were shoving matches and canings…Occasionally there was a grand melee with dozens of congressmen pummeling one another, emerging after a few minutes of mayhem with torn clothing, assorted bumps and bruises, and toupees askew. Not surprisingly, accompanying all of this tumbling and punching was a slew of insults.

Most powerful of them all was “the lie direct.” According to the formal code of honor then in play, a man who didn’t keep his word was no man at all, so there could be only one response to such a charge: a duel (or very careful negotiations to avoid one). For that very reason, “throwing the lie” was a handy strategy in Congressional debate. The gasp-inducing drama of the moment was precisely the point. Nothing called an audience to attention as quickly as the threat of gunplay. Whether one was trying to attract attention from the press, derail a debate or humiliate an opponent, the lie direct was a grand slam in the game of politicking.

But untarnished victory required one final step: an immediate apology to the House or Senate — delivered on the floor. In part, this was the logic of the code of honor. The only way to offset a public insult was with a public apology; the audience that had witnessed the insult needed to witness the making of amends. And when a combatant voluntarily apologized as soon as a fight was reconciled, he prevented the opposition from milking his misbehavior for partisan gain.

No one assumed that such apologies were heartfelt…Even so, these apologies meant something. By publicly apologizing to his colleagues, a congressman not only paid obeisance to the dignity and order of the House or Senate, but he also upheld the civility of Congressional proceedings as a whole.”

“In the psychological community, where almost all of us are politically liberal, our diagnosis of conservatism gives us the additional pleasure of shared righteous anger…But how can Democrats learn to see—let alone respect—a moral order they regard as narrow-minded, racist, and dumb? [that edit is a fairly big jump in the text]

In several large internet surveys, my collaborators Jesse Graham, Brian Nosek and I have found that people who call themselves strongly liberal endorse statements related to the harm/care and fairness/reciprocity foundations, and they largely reject statements related to ingroup/loyalty, authority/respect, and purity/sanctity. People who call themselves strongly conservative, in contrast, endorse statements related to all five foundations more or less equally. (You can test yourself at http://www.YourMorals.org.) We think of the moral mind as being like an audio equalizer, with five slider switches for different parts of the moral spectrum. Democrats generally use a much smaller part of the spectrum than do Republicans. The resulting music may sound beautiful to other Democrats, but it sounds thin and incomplete to many of the swing voters that left the party in the 1980s…”

Pretty clear who the Professors regards as “narrow-minded”.

Liberals can’t be too sanguine, though, because an overemphasis on respect and compassion can result in
a quagmire of moral relativisim where standards fall to confusion and chaos. So. Liberals need to acknowledge
that morality is dependent on institutional authority and constraints, conservatives should acknowledge that
such authority and constraints should be hedged about with tolerance and skepticism. A truism, but a truism
with a utopian tinge and therefore forever receding over the horizon.

Where am I going with this? I don’t know. Maybe that where morality is concerned there really are no liberals, or
conservatives, but only an ongoing struggle over a liberal/conservative dynamic always tending toward a muddle,
or middle. At any rate, I think we shoud be wary over neat liberal/categoies in the moral sphere, which may be
germaine to Haidt’s argument.

Of course I have’nt yet read the article. If these comments don’t apply, please cancel.