ThinkProgress Logo

Yglesias

Agency Problems And Political Advocacy

By Matthew Yglesias on Jul 19, 2011 at 5:29 pm

Obviously the most important Aaron Swartz story of the day regards his indictment on some kind of crazy charges. But this post he did yesterday about the difficulty of assessing what works in political advocacy is very good:

Delegations are a lot harder than services. In the same way you can be pretty sure that when you buy a pen it will write, you can be pretty sure that when you hire someone to paint your wall white, she’ll actually do it. And if she doesn’t, you can just not pay her.

But if you want to hire an interior designer, it’s a mess. Let’s say you pick one by looking through their portfolio and concluding that you like their work. But when they come to design your place, you hate the result. What can you do? You say that what you got looks nothing like the stuff in the portfolio and they’ll just say that every space is different and so has a different result. There’s no way to ever prove they did a bad job.

Political advocacy campaigns suffer, he notes, from a very extreme version of this problem. Steve Teles and Mark Schmitt wrote a smart article about the problem but I’m not sure they really “solved” it. And yet, as Swartz says it would be really nice to make progress on this: “when you stop to realize that the world is full of huge problems that can only be solved by collective action, figuring out how to inspire coordinated action most effectively doesn’t just seem interesting — it seems essential.”

This is one reason why I put a fair amount of emphasis on disparaging the folk theory of political change which holds something like “change happens because the president shows ‘leadership’ and delivers awesome speeches.” Belief in that theory of change tends, I think, to distract people from the reality that it really takes massive, difficult-to-achieve feats of collective action. How exactly one goes about achieving those feats is somewhat mysterious (I’m partial to Theda Skocpol’s ideas), but if you’re frustrated with the pace of change this is what you need to be working on.

Alyssa

UPDATED: Democratic Politician Dan Adler’s Purchase of A Racist Israeli Soccer Team

By Scott Keyes on Jul 19, 2011 at 5:22 pm

Update

A widely mis-printed spelling of Dan Adler’s business partner’s name led us to misattribute the purchase to Maroon 5′s Adam Levine. We thought it was odd, and turns out it is. We regret the error. And it’s too bad to learn that Adler doesn’t intend to use his purchase of the team to make a statement, telling Haaretz: “”I respect every person’s opinion, and we’re not here to educate or change the fans. Each person should live according to his beliefs. I can tell the fans that we don’t have to love each other, but we must respect each other. We’re here for sports and for the community, not for politics.”

It goes without saying that Israel is a divided society. The conflict between Jews and Arabs is evident throughout Israel, complete with discrimination, double-standards, and regular violence.

Yet like in many areas of conflict around the world, sports have been a bridge for multicultural understanding in Israel. One need look no further than Abbas Suan, an Israeli-Arab who became a national hero in 2006 when he scored a last-minute tying goal against Ireland during a World Cup qualifying match.

But even as most Israelis embraced their newfound hero, regardless of his ethnic background, one group remained notably defiant: supporters of the Israeli soccer club Beitar Jerusalem F.C. When Suan’s club team, Bnei Sakhnin, played Beitar Jerusalem in an Israeli Premier League match, Beitar fans welcomed him to the stadium by holding up a large sign with the words, “You do not represent us.” Beitar fans’ racism is not an isolated incident — instead, it’s an established part of their cheering culture. In games against Sakhnin, Beitar fans regularly chant “Death to the Arabs” and “Muhammad is a homosexual.” Supporters booed during a moment of silence for slain Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, who was assassinated after signing the Oslo Accords. Beitar has never had an Arab player. And while the team’s done things like wear jerseys with “Stop Racism” emblazoned on them, those gestures towards reconciliation are generally considered attempts to avoid or minimize league penalties rather than to actually change fan culture.

So why did two liberal Americans just buy this right-wing Israeli soccer club that’s defined by its distate for Arabs? The first is Dan Adler, an investor with a long history in Hollywood whose projects include Causes.com, a site that encourages activism and philanthropy. Adler recently ran in California’s 36th congressional district special election where his candidacy was best known for an ad highlighting his Jewish background and marriage to a Korean woman, with the message “minorities should stick together”:

Adler is also on the board of directors of the Israeli Policy Forum, a left-of-center American Jewish organization working towards a two-state solution.

The second is Maroon 5 frontman Adam Levine. Levine isn’t notably political — his biggest cause is testicular cancer research, though he did perform at a White House Christmas tree lighting last year — nor is he particularly observantly Jewish. But there’s nothing in his record to suggest he’d be comfortable with a racist fan base. So why did Adler and Levine decide to purchase a team antithetical with values that seem far from their own? Surely they were aware of the team’s culture. Either they turned a blind eye to Beitar’s racism, or they have plans to clean house and reform the team’s culture.

Sensible minds would hope for the latter. Using soccer as a vehicle for social change is not without precedent. Following Abbas Suan’s heroics in 2006, for example, a Jewish ultranationalist fan of Beitar gave an interview in which he declared that he “wouldn’t mind if Abbas married his daughter.” Adler and Levine could, and should, make a quick and strong statement about a new direction for Beitar by trying to sign up Suan when his contract’s up, or signing another Israeli-Arab star to the team. But if they’re going to reckon with their new purchase, it’ll take more than a single gesture and a single player.

Climate Progress

Obama Admin To Whitebark Pines: Drop Dead

By Brad Johnson on Jul 19, 2011 at 5:15 pm

The government is too strapped for cash to prevent the “imminent” extinction of a critical member of the Rocky Mountain forests, the Obama administration has determined. On Monday, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service declared that global warming pollution is causing the spread of the pine bark beetle and white pine blister rust into the the once-cold Rockies, killing off the whitebark pine in staggering numbers. However, because of budgetary limits, the service said it would defer instituting any attempt to save the trees:

The Fish and Wildlife Service determined Monday that whitebark pine, a tree found atop mountains across the American West, faces an “imminent” risk of extinction because of factors including climate change. The decision is significant because it marks the first time the federal government has identified climate change as one of the driving factors for why a broad-ranging tree species could disappear. The Canadian government has already declared whitebark pine to be endangered throughout its entire range; a recent study found that 80 percent of whitebark pine forests in the Greater Yellowstone ecosystem are dead or dying. The Natural Resources Defense Council asked the Fish and Wildlife Service to place the tree on the endangered species list. In its determination, the agency said that it found a listing was “warranted but precluded,” meaning the pine deserved federal protection but the government could not afford it.

There are now 265 candidate species waiting for protection — or until their extinction eliminates the urgency.

The whitebark pine has been in decline for decades. Protection requested over 10 years ago, in February 1991, was rejected in 1994. Since then, the collapse of the species, which sustains the entire ecosystem from nutcrackers to grizzlies, has been “dramatic and catastrophic.”

Our ability to be responsible stewards of the planet is likely to get even worse, thanks to the Tea Party. “This month, the House Appropriations Interior Subcommittee voted to eliminate any funds for listing species under the Endangered Species Act as part of the 2012 budget,” the Washington Post’s Juliet Eilperin notes.

The polar bear, elkhorn coral, and staghorn coral are all species listed as threatened because of global warming, but with the caveat that no action be taken to fight greenhouse pollution.

LGBT

NOM Compares NY Senators Who Supported Marriage Equality To Benedict Arnold

By Zack Ford on Jul 19, 2011 at 5:00 pm

The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) has targeted New York Sens. Mark Grisanti (R), James Alesi (R), and Carl Kruger (D) for their votes on marriage equality last month with a mailing campaign. Though NOM’s goal is to make it harder for senators like Grisanti to raise money, they’ve already seen spikes in their campaign fundraising since the marriage equality vote. The mailers accuse Grisanti of being a Benedict Arnold-style traitor for campaigning against marriage equality and then voting for it, while suggesting that Alesi is immoral and Kruger tried to “redefine the family”:

In addition to asking recipients to send back their contact information for future fundraising efforts, NOM is also encouraging people to attend their “Let The People Vote” rallies this Sunday when same-sex marriage becomes legal. Given that New York does not even have a public referendum process, the rallies in Albany, New York City, Rochester, and Buffalo are more likely direct protests of same-sex couples getting married. Sen. Rubén Díaz, the only Democrat to vote against marriage equality, has endorsed the rallies, calling for “the same drive that the Apostles had after the resurrected Lord filled them with the Spirit.”

 

NEWS FLASH

Civil Rights Leader Rep. John Lewis: ‘Voters ID Laws Are A Poll Tax’ | Joining in a bicameral effort to combat the large number of voter ID bills being pushed by Republicans across the country, long-time civil rights leader Rep. John Lewis (D-GA) slammed these “all too common” bills as “a deliberate and systematic attempt to prevent millions of elderly voters, young voters, students, minority and low-income voters from exercising their constitutional right to engage in a democratic process.” Recounting the U.S.’ dark history of voter suppression efforts, Lewis said, “Make no mistake, voter ID laws are a poll tax.” Watch it:

By Tanya Somanader on Jul 19, 2011 at 4:50 pm

Yglesias

The Distributional Impact Of Barber Licensing

By Matthew Yglesias on Jul 19, 2011 at 4:44 pm

In the comments to Henry Farrell’s latest intervention into the debate over the need for a “theory of politics,” I note that many people seem primarily to be interested in disagreeing with my public policy judgment. Since I, as Farrell notes, am much more comfortable debating policy specifics than hazy theories of politics I’d rather engage in this. In particular, one thing that came up is the old issue of barber licensing. I see breaking up the barber cartel and increasing competition for barbering services as a progressive measure, because if you reduce the cost of things that poor people buy, you increase their real living standards. A contrary view espoused in comments is that since barbering is a working class occupation, we ought to favor cartelization as a means of increasing working class income.

This, for the record, is exactly what I had in mind when in an earlier post I said that policy ideas need to be “workable.” We need to ask ourselves if it’s actually true that barber licensing is an egalitarian measure. I’m almost certain that it’s not. Clearly, if we restrict entry into the barbering industry what we do is redistribute real income away from the customers of barber shops and to the incumbent barbers. In effect, you’re setting a kind of price floor. But the important thing to note about this is that haircuts are already sold at a wide range of price points. Rich people — the kind of people it would be progressive to stick it to — are not buying the cheapest available haircuts. Indeed, they’re not even close. And there’s little reason to think that the de facto price floor on haircuts is having any impact whatsoever on the price that they pay for haircuts. The people impacted by the haircut price floor are going to be the people shopping for the cheapest haircuts. That, by and large, is going to be relatively low-income people.

But to perhaps gesture at a “theory of politics” issue, I think part of what bugs people about the barber issue is that they’ve developed the implicit view that for progressive politics to succeed we need to raise the social status of “big government,” and that it’s counterproductive to this mission to highlight any misguided “big government” initiatives. It’s acceptable to criticize excessive spending on the military and on prisons, because the conservative critique of “big government” often exempts those institutions. But if conservatives attack “regulation,” then “regulation” must be defended or, when indefensible, ignored. My view is that this is backwards, and that the public is skeptical about supporting “big government” precisely because they doubt that its advocates are invested in ensuring that higher taxes will lead to quality services. Progressive insouciance about the question of whether or not regulations are, in fact, serving the public interest feeds cynicism about the role of the state.

NEWS FLASH

Universal Coverage Does Not Translate Into Healthy People | Massachusetts has the nation’s lowest uninsurance rate and is home to some of the nation’s top health care providers, but a new report from the Boston Foundation and the New England Healthcare Institute finds that the state still has a long way to go towards actually keeping its population healthy and avoiding the doctor’s office. Massachusetts “earned no A’s and five B’s for efforts to build walking paths and bike lanes, promote farmers’ markets and encourage workplace health programs”:

Read the full report here.

Security

Glenn Beck Moved Israel Rally Location Fearing Horde Of ‘40,000 Muslims’

By Alex Seitz-Wald on Jul 19, 2011 at 4:15 pm

Yesterday, Glenn Beck announced he is moving his much-discussed upcoming rally in Jerusalem away from the base of the Temple Mount, one of the most sacred and fraught places in the world, over security concerns. Speaking on his radio show yesterday, Beck said that while he was reluctant to change the location because “it was selected for me” (i.e. by God), the notoriously paranoid and security-conscious talker said his security consultants were insistent the spot is too dangerous.

The threat? Beck was specific — 40,000 Muslims apparently looking for any reason to start “World War III.” Beck said he got word that there would be a Muslim multitude on top of the Temple Mount for a religious holiday and got worried. “When we heard about the 40,000 Muslims that were going to be on the Temple Mount, we knew there was trouble,” Beck said, explaining that even an errant light beam from his stage set up could “start a riot.” “Your back is in their direction, and these people play for keeps,” Beck said his security consultants told him. Watch it:

The former Fox News host said he is still considering other venues for the event, but boasted about its signficance regardless of location in a way only Beck can: It “will be remembered by millions in the world, as a turning point in their own personal life, and in the world.”

And how does the Israeli government feel about hosting an event of such monumental importance? Jonathan Peled, spokesman for the Israeli Embassy in Washington, offered tacit support: “We are open to any approach as long as it doesn’t cancel another approach, and respects the laws. We are interested in a big tent.”

Climate Progress

President Of Nauru Calls On Security Council To Respond To Climate Change

By Brad Johnson on Jul 19, 2011 at 4:14 pm

The United Nations Security Council, the most powerful body within the international diplomatic assembly, will discuss climate change tomorrow. In 2007, when the council debated climate policy for the first time, it did so over the objections of many nations, who believed that the issue should be handled by the general assembly and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. Because of the frustrating record of attempts in Copenhagen and Cancun to build a successor to the Kyoto Protocol and the rising impacts of global warming pollution around the world, this time the most vulnerable nations are supporting the Security Council’s involvement. In an impassioned New York Times op-ed, Marcus Stephen, the president of the small island nation of Nauru, called for strong action by the council:

First, the Security Council should join the General Assembly in recognizing climate change as a threat to international peace and security. It is a threat as great as nuclear proliferation or global terrorism. Second, a special representative on climate and security should be appointed. Third, we must assess whether the United Nations system is itself capable of responding to a crisis of this magnitude.

Nauru’s economy is in tatters, as the tiny island, smaller than Manhattan, was denuded for phosphate mining. The planet, he warns, is headed towards a future of resource collapse like his own nation’s, “with the relentless burning of coal and oil, which is altering the planet’s climate, melting ice caps, making oceans more acidic and edging us ever closer to a day when no one will be able to take clean water, fertile soil or abundant food for granted.”

Alyssa

Batwoman And DC Diversity

By Alyssa Rosenberg on Jul 19, 2011 at 4:07 pm

The Advocate asked DC Comics’ co-publisher Dan Didio why they’re making Batwoman an integral part of Batman’s universe, rather than promoting her as a major character alongside one of the other big heroes in the DC roster. According to him:

There’s a lot more characters that inhabit Batman’s world. We knew we were interested in reintroducing the Batwoman character to his mythology and we also wanted to show a [different] point of view…because some of those characters without superpowers come from the same sense of grief in their past. Establishing [Batwoman] as a lesbian early on it givers her a different sensibility, a different point of view, and it also allows us to tell stories from a different angle that sets her apart from the other characters in Batman’s world.

Kate Kane did lose her twin and her mother as a 12 year old, which makes her fit that grief narrative pretty neatly. I have no real quibble with the idea that two characters who are linked by iconography and narrative should appear in the same universe together. At the same time, it’s an interesting acknowledgement that the Batman universe is seen as more diverse within DC, and thus a place where it’s okay to add even more diverse characters. I’d be really interested to know more about the extent to which diversity in culture is a draw for consumers who aren’t members of minority groups. Any group in pop culture that’s made up only of white, straight people doesn’t really look like my life, so I find it somewhat less compelling. But I don’t know if that’s a widespread phenomenon that matches up with younger people’s support for things like equal marriage rights.

Older

Newer

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up