So I've been reporting a story about how you'd fix the impeachment process. It doesn't work for removal, as currently designed. Impeachment was built for a political system without parties. It fails in a system with polarized parties.
I spent a long time talking to @LilyMasonPhD about this and basically talked myself out of the idea this is fixable.
Impeachment is not, historically, a way we convict and remove wayward presidents, and it never reliably will be.
More from Ezra Klein
This is a piece I've been thinking about for a long time. One of the most dominant policy ideas in Washington is that policy should, always and everywhere, move parents into paid labor. But what if that's wrong?
My reporting here convinced me that there's no large effect in either direction on labor force participation from child allowances. Canada has a bigger one than either Romney or Biden are considering, and more labor force participation among women.
But what if that wasn't true?
Forcing parents into low-wage, often exploitative, jobs by threatening them and their children with poverty may be counted as a success by some policymakers, but it’s a sign of a society that doesn’t value the most essential forms of labor.
The problem is in the very language we use. If I left my job as a New York Times columnist to care for my 2-year-old son, I’d be described as leaving the labor force. But as much as I adore him, there is no doubt I’d be working harder. I wouldn't have stopped working!
I tried to render conservative objections here fairly. I appreciate that @swinshi talked with me, and I'm sorry I couldn't include everything he said. I'll say I believe I used his strongest arguments, not more speculative ones, in the piece.
My reporting here convinced me that there's no large effect in either direction on labor force participation from child allowances. Canada has a bigger one than either Romney or Biden are considering, and more labor force participation among women.
But what if that wasn't true?
Forcing parents into low-wage, often exploitative, jobs by threatening them and their children with poverty may be counted as a success by some policymakers, but it’s a sign of a society that doesn’t value the most essential forms of labor.
The problem is in the very language we use. If I left my job as a New York Times columnist to care for my 2-year-old son, I’d be described as leaving the labor force. But as much as I adore him, there is no doubt I’d be working harder. I wouldn't have stopped working!
I tried to render conservative objections here fairly. I appreciate that @swinshi talked with me, and I'm sorry I couldn't include everything he said. I'll say I believe I used his strongest arguments, not more speculative ones, in the piece.
I appreciate his intellectual curiosity and effort. I have quibbles. But my big disappointment is there was no mention of unintended consequences, which we discussed and which are kind of THE core conservative concern on this issue.
— \U0001d682\U0001d68c\U0001d698\U0001d69d\U0001d69d \U0001d686\U0001d692\U0001d697\U0001d69c\U0001d691\U0001d692\U0001d699 (@swinshi) February 18, 2021
This is a good @mattyglesias post about techno-politics but I want to quibble with the part of it that’s about my essay on the policy feedback loops you can build by Just Helping People Fast. Matt writes: https://t.co/MuBlgQV6LW
Over at Mischiefs of Faction, @Smotus makes a similar point: https://t.co/al6fS5tZXP
I want to be clear here: I’m saying that the Affordable Care act was, from a political perspective, badly designed, and that *a different health care plan* might’ve led to a better Dem performance in 2010. But these arguments don't grapple with that.
To @Smotus’s point, Pelosi released those House Democrats at the end, not the beginning. Having covered the beginning of this, I can tell you a lot of those Democrats thought a bipartisan health care bill would be great politics for them!
But they didn’t get that.
This is key. The ACA was built on the political theory that:
1. Bipartisan policy is easier to pass — and more popular once passed.
2. Working off of the Heritage Foundation/Romney template could get you a bipartisan health bill.
1 was probably right. 2 was utterly wrong.
Over at Mischiefs of Faction, @Smotus makes a similar point: https://t.co/al6fS5tZXP
I want to be clear here: I’m saying that the Affordable Care act was, from a political perspective, badly designed, and that *a different health care plan* might’ve led to a better Dem performance in 2010. But these arguments don't grapple with that.
To @Smotus’s point, Pelosi released those House Democrats at the end, not the beginning. Having covered the beginning of this, I can tell you a lot of those Democrats thought a bipartisan health care bill would be great politics for them!
But they didn’t get that.
This is key. The ACA was built on the political theory that:
1. Bipartisan policy is easier to pass — and more popular once passed.
2. Working off of the Heritage Foundation/Romney template could get you a bipartisan health bill.
1 was probably right. 2 was utterly wrong.
What we're seeing from Trump and his allies today is an autocratic attempt. It's not a competent one, and it probably won't be an effective one. But that's what it is. And far worse would follow if it succeeded.
As @mashagessen explained in this interview, using Balint Magyar's framework, an autocratic attempt is "the first stage when autocracy is still reversible by electoral means."
The point is to make the regime's rule irreversible by electoral means, which is explicitly what Trump, et al, are trying right now.
"Then, at some point, there comes the autocratic breakthrough when you can no longer use electoral means to reverse that autocracy."
"Then autocratic consolidation, where it’s just consolidating ever more power and money, making it ever less possible to change."
There is an element of farce to Trump's tweets, his actions, his cronies. It makes it easy for many to discount what he's actually saying, and trying. https://t.co/GwC3KGbpkC
It's fitting for the internet era, when the worst ideas and figures come layered in irony.
STOP THE COUNT!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 5, 2020
As @mashagessen explained in this interview, using Balint Magyar's framework, an autocratic attempt is "the first stage when autocracy is still reversible by electoral means."
The point is to make the regime's rule irreversible by electoral means, which is explicitly what Trump, et al, are trying right now.
"Then, at some point, there comes the autocratic breakthrough when you can no longer use electoral means to reverse that autocracy."
"Then autocratic consolidation, where it’s just consolidating ever more power and money, making it ever less possible to change."
There is an element of farce to Trump's tweets, his actions, his cronies. It makes it easy for many to discount what he's actually saying, and trying. https://t.co/GwC3KGbpkC
It's fitting for the internet era, when the worst ideas and figures come layered in irony.
— Brian Beutler (@brianbeutler) November 5, 2020
More from Politics
Here's why I bother to do the search, and even take the time to check.
This is part of a pattern that as detailed by Mueller, and has been proven by reputable studies since then. Here are parts of an Oxford report on the goals of the ongoing social media operations of Russia. https://t.co/qapD8Eh2SQ
https://t.co/nJPPOwF1MA
The full report can be found here.
https://t.co/1q525xWYZE
Excertps from the 2019 Senate Intelligence Committee Report on Russian Actove Measures Campaigns and Interference:
Also form the Senate Intelligence Committee report
This is part of a pattern that as detailed by Mueller, and has been proven by reputable studies since then. Here are parts of an Oxford report on the goals of the ongoing social media operations of Russia. https://t.co/qapD8Eh2SQ
Here's some from a search of your TL
— \U0001d679\U0001d698\U0001d691\U0001d697 \U0001d686\U0001d68e\U0001d69c\U0001d695\U0001d68e\U0001d6a2 (@thepalemoonlt) April 21, 2021
Uses of the word prison before today: 13.
Tweets for specifically suggesting abolishing prison prior to today: 1 on 06/03/2020
Mentions of prison and abolishing it today: 8
Of all the times to speak out, Why did you choose to now? https://t.co/kl7gx7ky2H
https://t.co/nJPPOwF1MA
The full report can be found here.
https://t.co/1q525xWYZE
Excertps from the 2019 Senate Intelligence Committee Report on Russian Actove Measures Campaigns and Interference:
Also form the Senate Intelligence Committee report
You May Also Like
This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?
Imagine for a moment the most obscurantist, jargon-filled, po-mo article the politically correct academy might produce. Pure SJW nonsense. Got it? Chances are you're imagining something like the infamous "Feminist Glaciology" article from a few years back.https://t.co/NRaWNREBvR pic.twitter.com/qtSFBYY80S
— Jeffrey Sachs (@JeffreyASachs) October 13, 2018
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?
