Rand Paul Is Making Sense

Well, not to me of course.  But what he's done is very important.

He isn't saying anything that isn't entirely consistent with decades of conservative rhetoric.  For years all we have heard is how terrible the federal government is.  Regulations are evil.  Taxes are evil.  Progressive legislation and judicial philosophy is evil.

Now, what conservatism used to mean was that government had a tendency to be wrong.  Government wasn't necessarily wrong in principle.  Sure, the real crazies thought that.  But they were sidelined to the fringes of mainstream conservative thought.  Of course we had to have government.  It did important things.  The rhetoric was OK because it was merely hyperbole; it was useful as a bludgeon against the steady leftist march towards more social protections, environmental regulations and higher taxes.  But the intelligent conservatives knew that it could only ever be talk.  Actually following the rhetoric would be politically and practically insane.

But then something happened and the smart conservatives left the room.  Maybe they were drummed out.  Or maybe times changed.  But suddenly the voices of responsibility and reason were no longer there to keep the boat from capsizing.  Instead of being the hyperbolic froth above the ideology, the rhetoric became the ideology.  The tradition of temperance and moderation had faded away and all that was left was the crazy.

So, after the worst financial crisis since the depression forces the government to take drastic measures, bailing out the financial industry, then the auto industry, then pouring nearly as much into a Keynesian stimulus plan for economic recovery and stability - up pops the tea party, with the force of a thousand blustering AM radio jockeys and the FOX broadcasting corporation supplying a steady infusion of rhetorical red-meat.  Yet it is incoherent and preposterous.  Beyond the anger and recrimination, there is little substantive political philosophy.  Conspiracy theories are flung out left and right, and in the profound ideological vacuum, each seems as acceptable as the next.  The list is breathtakingly long: Birthers, FEMA camps, NAFTA superhighway, Socialism, Death Panels, Federal Reserve, Acorn, Secret Muslim, etc.  Each seems as plausible as the next because the ignorance at the bottom and and crazy at the top is so profound.  Medicare is something to be protected from the government.

And Rand Paul gets elected, claiming and claimed as the Tea party's first big success.

Sure, he wasn't the first nutter.  His father made sure of that.  But when Ron Paul talked about returning to the gold standard, pulling out of the UN or shutting down most Federal Agencies people mainly rolled their eyes.  I mean really, who the heck wants to try and understand fiscal and monetary policy?  But that was before.

Now people are really listening.  They want to find out what they really believe.  And by golly, he's telling them!  It turns out that if government is evil, and taxes are evil, and regulations are evil, then a lot of what we've been doing for the past century is really, well... evil.  It turns out that we can't make people pay taxes for the government to regulate private businesses anymore - whether they put rotten meat in hotdogs, pay their workers $3 an hour, dump sewage into the creek, or deny minorities employment.  I suppose you could add any number of other things to the list - things that we as a nation have fought very contentiously over for decades, but that now seem as American as apple pie.

These are Rand Paul's principles.  They are libertarian principles.  And they are now the principles of the modern conservative movement.

The nice thing about a democracy is that we get to elect our leaders based on what they tell us.  The problem has been that Republicans have been taking advantage of the fact that the public hasn't understood the difference between the rhetoric and the policies their party has supported - if often grudgingly - for the past century.  The trick was simple: just say one thing and do another.  One wonders if they were able to do this because their candidates were either ignorant of simple political philosophy or just dishonest.

Yet somehow this trick just didn't work so well anymore and for whatever reason they elected a man who wasn't afraid to make sense of what they have been saying.  Not only that, but he actually believes it.

So I say, "Good for you Rand Paul!"  An honest Republican for once.  "Don't let those handlers keep you down.  Preach it, brother!"  He's like a big bullshit magnet.  I just hope he can get as many of the other tea partiers to sign on with his brilliant plans so we can watch as many of them as possible get flushed down the drain when the public is finally able to see what enormous a-holes they all are.

Different District, Different Results

Matt Yglesias posted this chart showing demographic data from the NAEP Trial Urban District Assessment program.

The Trial Urban District Assessment (TUDA) is designed to explore the feasibility of using National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) to report on the performance of public school students at the district level. As authorized by federal law, NAEP has administered the mathematics, reading, science, and writing assessments to samples of students in selected urban districts public schools.

 Yglesias writes:

You see here that Detroit’s schools aren’t just doing poorly because the city contains so many poor people. Poor kids in Detroit do worse than the average poor kid.

I think that's completely fair.  Even accounting for SES, some districts do vary wildly in their achievement levels. Modern testing does do a good job at emphasizing broad trends.


The problem then comes in what you do about it. The News Hour last night did a piece on Detroit that highlighted some of the problems. It could only go so deep in 10 minutes, but you got an idea of what you’re dealing with. In places like Detroit, the economic and social environment is just kind of disastrous overall. And the takeaway was that the leadership failed repeatedly to take the proper steps.

One thing is clear however is that all poor districts have both poor teachers and unions – the main new-reform bugaboos. So the fact that some districts do a lot better than others clearly shows that we need to be taking a more nuanced view of performance.

What is a "Christian Nation"?

 “Go back to what our founders and our founding documents meant — they’re quite clear — that we would create law based on the God of the bible and the ten commandments. What in hell scares people about talking about America’s foundation of faith?  It is that world view that involves some people being afraid of being able to discuss our foundation, being able to discuss God in the public square, that’s the only thing I can attribute it to." - Sara Palin, on the O'Reilly Factor

It's a common, reactionary trope on the right that America is a "Christian Nation".  The defensiveness is in response to a perception that the left, by upholding secular values, is seeking by degree to infringe upon their Christian principles.  So when it is argued, say, that the ten commandments not be hung in a court room, or that we ought not to mention God in national pledges, or favor one or another religion (or even religion at all) in any other way, it is not to preserve everyone's right to spiritual respect, but rather an assault on their specific Judeo-Christian values. 

This position is not just paranoid, but intellectually dishonest. Instead of an attempt to hear the opposition's arguments fairly, a motive of aggression is being assumed where there is none.  We can all agree that the founders were Christians and that they derived much of their constitutional ideas from Judeo-Christian tradition. But that has zero to do with whether any of it is correct. The only reason any of it is still around is that we, as a democracy, have agreed to it. We finally figured out that slavery was wrong and so we changed that. Ditto with women's suffrage, etc.

The intellectually dishonest part is when conservatives play the "Christian Nation" card. Because they aren't saying anything contrary to what I said in the last paragraph - but they mean to. Because by "Christian Nation" they mean a specifically Christian nation, where biblical law has bearing on constitutional law. It's an appeal to theocracy. Yet they can't come right out and say this (at least publicly) because it's so obviously bullshit that they'll never get anywhere politically. So what they do is fiddle around the edges, weaseling in 10 commandments in the courthouse here, "under God" pledges there, all with the implicit intent of establishing the codification of biblical law.

The real question, when any one brings up this "we are a Christian nation" crap, is what does that actually mean? Because the founders were a lot of things that we wouldn't agree with today. That's why we have laws, and this is a democracy. We sort things out through reasoned arguments, not dishonest and hubristic declarations of half-true rhetoric. If you truly want this to be a "Christian Nation" - not a secular nation of Christians, Muslims, Atheists, Jews. etc. united under common law - then you have your work cut out for you.

We Don't Treat Education as an Equal Right

A common view among education reformers is that the problem is simply too great to really solve.  While dressed up in soaring language and promises - "No Child Left Behind", "Race to the Top" - actual policy  instead amounts to half-measures and marginal reform.  Marking yesterday's 56 anniversary of the Brown Vs. Board of Education, Education Secretary Arne Duncan stated:

We reaffirm our collective commitment to providing a high quality education to all children regardless of race or background so they can succeed in college and careers and prosper in life. Education is the civil rights issue of our time.

I would like to think that Secretary Duncan really believes these words.  He may, deep down, favor the type of paradigm shift in thinking and large-scale intervention that his soaring rhetoric would actually require.  Unfortunately, this sort of endeavor is not on the table in contemporary politics, and so he may simply be engaging in the politics of the possible.  But just because something is hard doesn't mean it isn't the right thing to do.  There are moral as well as economic arguments that it is worth it.

Opponents of early childhood intervention point out that there exists a sort of "drop off" effect, in which early gains are eventually lost as the child ages.  The two main problems with this are A) some intervention programs are much better than others, and B) you would expect to find a "drop off" when you have a reduction in services.

For instance, simply sending in crates of books to preschools might sound like a good idea, but without curriculum and implementation training, its a huge waste.  The quality of the program is everything, and there is a lot of evidence for programs that do work very well.  Low income kids tend to come in to Kindergarten well behind their middle class peers and from an academic standpoint, anything you can do to get them up to grade level before day 1 is incredibly helpful.

That leads us to the next problem: longevity.  Poor kids under-perform for a reason.  They have simply not had the exposure to facilitate adequate emotional and academic development.  Head start makes up for this somewhat, but once they enter Kindergarten, they are treated no different than middle class peers.  They have the same teacher/students ratio, same access to resources, and generally same facilities.  Actually, resources tend to be quite diminished, owing to the demographic and financial resources of different SES groups.  You see a drop-off because of what doesn't go on before and after school hours and in the summer months, as well as the simple fact that there is a high concentration of low-achievers bringing the classroom down.

So the obvious solution to this is start early - hopefully at birth, and fund programs with a proven track record of success.  It isn't really very hard.  You then continue to assess through grade school.  Resources are targeted according to needs, and not only standardized testing, but demographic SES is accounted for.  So, for instance, if you have high rates of drug use, crime, single or young parenthood, low family education levels then you allocate more resources for things like parent education, home-visits, after-school support and counseling services.

We have no problem doing this if a child has a physical or mental disability - special ed services are a right.  Yet we pretend that SES disadvantage isn't just as important a factor.  Sure, it's more difficult to assess than say, mental retardation, speech or vision problems, but is just as powerful.  Some kids who's father is in prison might be dealing with it very well, but others won't.  On average, it is just another risk factor.  We would never think of sending a special needs child into a classroom and expecting the teacher to provide them with an adequate education.  We should treat SES no differently.

If we were honest with ourselves as a society, we would recognize how powerful a factor SES is in child development and allocate resources accordingly.  It isn't because the effective programs aren't there, or they aren't scalable.  It's because we lack the political will, and the sociological and philosophical sophistication to deal with complicated social processes.  Ghettos are out of sight, out of mind.  So when budgets get cut on the backs of poor kids, no one really notices until the children develop into criminals, who we then blame for making "poor choices".  Well, it was really us who made the choice to ignore them for the past 18 years of their lives.

Privilege as Philosophy

Matt Yglesias points to a sort of glee with which conservatives have hailed Iraqi war veterans who, despite having been charged with crimes against detainees, are now running for congress.

Love of violence and brutality is deeply ingrained in the conservative worldview, which I think is what you can see here.

While I think this is true, it is also the sort of thing that liberals are always saying about conservatives, and that conservatives are always complaining about being accused of by liberals.  So it's important to look at where this accusation comes from, and why it is important.

Conservatives by definition have a much more closed view of what their group is. It is established authority – white, western, American, Christian, wealthy, heterosexual patriarchy. Because the group is so limited and narrowly defined, it is felt to be constantly under threat. As a movement, conservatism is, by definition, about exclusion. This creates a state of permanent fear. Look at all the issues they care about: free markets, abortion, guns, gays, religion, government… the common denominator is a fear that their group is under threat.

So you have a toxic mixture of groups exclusivity and existential fear. It is understandable that such a worldview would be highly susceptible to resorting to violence and brutality. Conservatism has been at the heart of oppression throughout history. It is no wonder they have little concern for possible infringements on the rights of Hispanics, Muslims, prisoners in Guantanamo Bay, Gays, or possible Iraqi & Afghan civilian casualties. It is no wonder they demonstrate little concern for poor, minority children, whether in policy or media coverage.

Of course they will deny all of this, and make excuses that each is merely about policy. But the pattern is clear. Bill O’Reilly doesn’t talk about the “War on Christmas” for nothing. They don’t want to kill ethnic studies programs in Texas for nothing. They don’t oppose gay marriage or hate crime laws, call illegal immigrants “illegals”, hate welfare passionately, maintain that America is a “Christian Nation”, talk about bombing the middle east back to the stone age (joke that it’s already there), and generally belittle and devalue anyone outside their exclusive group for nothing.

The fact that they are so quick to deny this reality, and so defensive when anyone accuses them of acting on it, is evidence that they have a very limited knowledge of self. Any liberal who has been through an ethnic studies 101 class recognizes this as privilege bias: we tend not to notice, and to take for granted, the ways in which we benefit as members of the privileged group. Yet because conservatives identify this group as being superior, and see out-groups as a threat, they actively resist any critical self-reflection that might weaken their sense of superiority. When they decry secular humanism and moral relativism, what they are really talking about is any attempt to critically evaluate this group from an objective standpoint. They assume that the world revolves around them, and they want to keep it that way. When Sarah Palin refers to “real Americans”, she is unconsciously stating this bias. What she really means is white, Christian, heterosexual, patriarchy-identified conservatives; i.e. people just like her.

Fighting Hatred with Compassion

With  nativist anti-immigrant fervor in full swing, I felt like I needed some solidarity.  So I finally got around to watching Sin Nombre tonight.  It's a beautiful, epic, tragic movie, and clearly demonstrates the socioeconomic realities behind illegal immigration.

The main two main arguments for a harsher stance on illegal immigration are economic strain and simple criminality.  The first is contentious, but I think one can reasonably say that at current levels, illegal immigrants present - at the least - a zero sum effect on the economy.  The non-profit website Factcheck.com has just released a convincing article that shows immigration actually having a positive effect on the economy.

Most economists and other experts say there’s little to support the claim. Study after study has shown that immigrants grow the economy, expanding demand for goods and services that the foreign-born workers and their families consume, and thereby creating jobs. There is even broad agreement among economists that while immigrants may push down wages for some, the overall effect is to increase average wages for American-born workers.

The second argument, that crossing the border illegally is a crime and justifies harsh measures to "crack down" on lawbreakers,  begs the question: what kind of crime is illegal immigration?  Every crime has a supposed cost, and presumably we would be able to place it somewhere on a spectrum.  If, say, jaywalking presents the most minimal type of crime, with a very slight penalty commensurate with its slight social cost, and murder presents the worst kind of crime, and the punishment reflects its high cost to society, what kind of crime is illegal residence?

This is obviously going to be a contentious assessment.  But surely we can hazard some guess.  It isn't as bad as murder.  It isn't really stealing from anyone - abstract notions of economic damage aside.  It is certainly trespassing in a sense.  But then only in the abstract, as no individual is directly bearing the burden on their own property.  The real crime can be thought of against the state.  Although unlike a traffic citation, or a permit violation, no direct harm - or endangerment is occurring.

Yet whatever the actual crime ends up being, the definitional punishment is almost absurdly harsh: deportation.  (Exile, for all intents and purposes).  As a punishment, this would be seen as an inappropriate response to all but the most serious crimes.  Considering that as a sole offense, an otherwise productive, honest and valuable member of society could be thrown out of the country for nothing more than standing on the wrong side of a line.

The characters in Sin Nombre undertake the journey to America for nothing more than access to its economy.  And for this they expose themselves to incredible levels of risk and deprivation.  Had they been lucky enough to have enjoyed the social capital to find rarefied social mobility in their home countries - all desperately poor economies - they surely would not have had to make the choice they did.  But what kind of ethical judgment did they face?  They could have stayed home, facing almost certain wretched poverty for themselves and their families.  Or they could have made what seems a minor and abstract transgression by sneaking into America illegally?

Who among us, would not jaywalk daily for such opportunity?  Or speed down highways?  Or lie on our IRS form?  Or act in numerous other abstracted criminal ways in order for a shot at making something of our lives - as well as likely those back home for whom our monthly remittance might mean clean drinking water, money for school, starting a business, or health care?

A third argument against immigration is the one that may be the most powerful as a motivating force, yet will never be spoken or admitted to.  It is simple nativism and ethnic bigotry.  Like the other arguments it is based in authoritarian fealty to cultural insularity and fealty to authority.  It objectifies immigrants in dehumanizing terms like "illegals", and makes no attempt to sympathize with their plight.  It makes no attempt to imagine what life might be like in their shoes.  It has been around since the founding of the country.  It is hypocritical in that it holds certain people to different standards.  It favors the majority and those with privilege.  It is dangerous: rather than loving or rational, it is fearful and angry.

At this point I'm not sure what there is to do but stand for truth and compassion, and solidarity with our brothers and sisters to the South.  We shall prevail.  Somehow.

Ethnic Studies and Marginalization

Arizona recently passed a law that among other things aims to remove ethnic studies courses from high schools.  House Bill 2281:

Prohibits a school district or charter school from including in its program of instruction any courses or classes that:
•Promote the overthrow of the United States government.
•Promote resentment toward a race or class of people.
•Are designed primarily for pupils of a particular ethnic group.
•Advocate ethnic solidarity instead of the treatment of pupils as individuals.

 Obviously, to anybody who has actually taken an ethnic studies course, this language in no way describes them.  Yet lest anyone doubt that ethnic studies programs are indeed the target, according to the Arizona Daily Star:

State schools chief Tom Horne, a Republican running for Attorney General, says the district's ethnic studies program promotes "ethnic chauvinism" and racial resentment toward whites.

People sometimes argue that, were ethnic studies programs to include white studies, they would be seen as racist. But this is a misunderstanding of the purpose of ethnic studies: to study the historical issues of oppressed groups. At the college level, this also includes women and gays. The reason it is important to study our interaction with these groups is so that we, as a society, may come to terms with our tendency to mistreat each other. This is a real phenomenon, and deserves attention.

To the extent that it emphasizes ethnic identity - what is wrong with that? As a straight white man I have no need to assert "pride" because it is inherent in the privileges I enjoy by default - society affirms my identity every day. The historical oppression of groups has occurred precisely because of their marginalization and disempowerment. What ethnic studies classes are doing is at worst simply adding what has been taken away, and at best providing us all an insight into how social structures and behavior patterns we take for granted ultimately result in the loss of freedoms for others. We are a nation rich in ethnic diversity and we ought to treasure the opportunity to learn to promote equality for all.

I could only find a piece of it, but Chris Rock does a great bit on the concept of false equivalency and social power structures.