I’ve moved the blog to blog.nativeforeigner.com. I’d prefer to have local access to everything, rather than be dependent upon wordpress.com
Emotional voters and the Democratic Primary
Voters presumably vote for the person they find to be most qualified, right!?
Well, maybe not.
Clare Malone, a journalist at fivethirtyeight suggested after Sanders stunned Clinton in Michigan that one of the many factors at play may have been that people who would have voted for Clinton instead voted for Sanders, as they were sure because of polling Clinton would win. I have no idea what kind of scale this occurred on, but it makes sense. Unfortunately for her, she was mercilessly attacked on twitter by the Sanders faithful. But I think this happened on some scale.
Anecdotally, I was inclined to vote for Ron Paul in the Republican primary in 2012 simply because the “Romney as Republican Nominee” Romney wasn’t very compelling. And while I’d never vote for Ron Paul if I knew he would win, for a wide variety of reasons it would have felt pretty good to stick it to Romney and vote for a real nice genuine guy with strong principles. I don’t doubt that Bernie Sanders is a real nice genuine authentic individual, and he’s nothing if not consistent. I also think his call for revolution lets those who support him feel as they are part of something bigger. As a friend put it “why not protest in Berkeley, it’s kinda fun.” Similarly, Clinton was just attacked for noting that many of the Sanders supporters may support him for reasons along these lines.
I think it’s pretty possible that there are crossover voters, voting with their heads for Clinton (boring, pragmatic, likely solid candidate) when she seems in danger, and for Sanders (exciting, calling for revolution, consistent, personable) when a Clinton win seems certain. Sure, this may not be a lot of voters, but I’m sure there are a some that identify along these lines.
Also, as alluded to in the Freakonomics link, some of the reason for voting is peer pressure. And in college, with all the Sanders voters around, I do feel pressure that way. I sure as hell wouldn’t want to talk about how I’d vote for Clinton, if I was going to.
Stop Trump? aka Game Theory with imperfect information
On the Republican side we see a different game at play. Many are voting for Trump out of feeling, not thought, but those trying to stop him are trying to coordinate to be able to stop him. Cruz seems to be the annointed one for this task, but Cruz has issues among moderates come the general election. In the Norcal district where I’m registered, I’m not sure whether a Kasich or Cruz vote would be better to stop Trump, but whatever it is, any Republican voters in my district could have real impact. There aren’t many of them, and California could be decisive.
This has been bugging me for a while. My day to day dress is pretty casual, but I have absolutely no qualms with wearing a suit if the situation calls for it. Or wearing khakis and a button down, or anything in between. Yesterday I went to the Experimental Biology Conference at the San Diego Convention Center to help with a Wikipedia event, sponsored by the Simons Foundation and the ASBMB. I’ll blog about this event later, but after the conference I was speaking with a fellow from the Simons Foundation about what one wears to science conferences. We really didn’t have much of a conclusion. We saw people in dress ranging from suits, to sportcoats, to khakis and polos, all the way to shorts and a tank top. While the first and the last were pretty uncommon, it does show the kind of breadth of what is allowable. That being said, this didn’t bother me too much. There wasn’t much of a dress code, and people wore what they thought would work.
I’ve been to a couple events in San Diego that said Business Formal Required. Then you go and it’s the casual end of business casual. Khakis, dark jeans, and casual leather shoes. I’ve felt terribly overdressed, but I’d rather be overdressed than underdressed. I’m not sure what leads to this in San Diego. Perhaps it’s just the sense of casualness that pervades the city. Regardless, I’d much prefer honesty. Just say Business Casual if it’s what you want. Not this weird Business-formal-but-in-San-Diego-so-actually-business-casual. I do wonder if this is a thing in other places. (I know for a sure it isn’t in both DC and NYC)
Yesterday on mass transit I spoke to a fellow who was 80 days out of county jail. He’d been arrested for selling drugs on Craigslist, and he sold to an undercover cop. He was a pretty friendly, reasonable, and well spoken (if not discheveled) guy. He observed that whilst selling drugs marijuana went to all classes of people. Rich and poor, white and black, educated and uneducated. Ecstacy went to lots of younger college students. On and on. But at the end of the day, very few of these people are charged and convicted of felonies. This fellow graduated from a pretty respected state university with a degree in political science. He had a hard time finding a job in the area he wanted, and made the pretty dumb mistake of falling in with a poor crowd and ultimately sold drugs. Should he have? Heck no. But this guy really wanted to make right his transgression. He fairly articulated why victimless crimes shouldn’t be illegal (those buying his drugs were doing so because they wanted to, not under diress). He’s in pretty deep shit for selling, but if he wasn’t selling other people would be. There’s pretty substantial demand for the drugs from a wide swathe of people. Our drug laws are pretty overly strict. They’re oftentimes unduly applied to those at the bottom of society. To those who make a living selling rather than those who spend their living on the consumption. And if drug usage is illegal, why is selling them more illegal than using them? Isn’t the consumption itself more dangerous than the selling. If consumption is illegal and people followed the law, those selling would have nobody to sell it to.
In any case, his argument reolved around the JS Mill, On Liberty based case that the government shouldn’t intrude into peoples actions that dont negatively effect others. Sure, selling drugs does, but a huge part of why it does is those who consume drugs are targeted by the law. Nations which have legalized drugs such as portugal seem to experience fewer of these externalities. I do acknowledge that ther eare other issues at play. It’s hard to test for ‘high driving’ using a chemical test. Such behavior would seemingly be more common if marijuana was legal. That being said, the drinking age rising doesn’t seem to be causative to the lower drunk driving rates we see today. Rather the tremendous PR campaign discouraging and stimatizing it did.
Most of those I know are strongly against such drug laws, arguing along these lines (or along other pragmatic lines) that more drugs should be legalized. Yet many of these same people would argue in favor of laws compelling speech. Laws which, if we argue along the lines of JS Mill, that those actions which do not harm others should not be illegal, pretty clearly should not exist. This is probably because the concept inciting speech (yelling fire in a crowded theater etc) did not exist when Mill was around. Regardless, those who wish to restrict free speech argue along the same lines as those who wish to reject drug use. Both are ‘bad’ and can certainly cause harm, but both are subjective judgments. Both those who argue for restricting speech and restricting drugs don’t do it out of malice, but both are making value judgments.
I think it’s safe to say that all of us have pretty severe limitations on what we know. In thinking about choosing a major and its formative effects (in part the fact we ultimately find out little of the majors we didn’t choose, but a lot about the one we did.), it occurred to me that it’s possible I’m missing out on something I’d really enjoy.
This really came to mind when I read this BBC article talking about a regional election in India. I know that Narendra Modi is the head of the Hindu-nationalist BJP. I believe it’s generally thought he’s generally moderate but his party may be less so. He defeated the INC (and a coalition they led) and ousted the government led by Manmohan Singh. That’s probably a fair bit to know for somebody only tangentially interested in Indian politics.
Ultimately, in the BBC article I wasn’t aware that regional parties were such a large part of Indian politics. I wasn’t aware that Indian elections were regional and held at different times. I didn’t know it badly lost in Delhi or Bihar. (or that Bihar was an Indian state!)
Further looking revealed the Assam based All India United Democratic Front (otherwise, and very verbosely known as the সৰ্ব ভাৰতীয় সংযুক্ত গণতান্ত্ৰীক মৰ্চা अखिल भारतीय संयुक्त लोकतांत्रिक मोर्चा) I also learned that that language was Bengali. Also revealed to me was the fact there is both an upper and lower house in the Indian congress.
Essentially, though I know enough about Indian politics to be considered ‘current’ there is a whole other level of depth and complexity beyond what I’m aware of, and I’m sure another one beyond that. It certainly makes me wonder how much I know about the things I’d like to think I’m well versed in. Every country out there has its own internal politics, and although I may be familiar with the transition in Burma/Myanmar, the longstanding lack of stability in Nigeria, or the BJP’s landslide win in the Indian elections, ultimately I’m totally unsure what is going on in Lithuania, let alone Comoros or Kenya. The news just doesn’t cover these things, so we don’t think of them. But ultimately these events effect millions of people: we just aren’t made to think of it. It’s worth considering how the media effects what we believe to be important, and the false confidence it can give us when considering world affairs.
Trump is a pretty scummy guy, all things considered. Insults, misogyny. He feels much more like a contestant on Big Brother (what a scummy show) than a presidential candidate. Gordon Ramsay is comparatively a paragon of civility and rational discussion. It can be fun to meme about the guy. But faking support, wearing Trump hats on flights to be “cool” or “edgy”(as happened to me on my SAN->OAK flight). It gives credit to Trump in a real election with real consequences. No point in doing that. Meme less, talk to your neighbors about voting for not Trump more. We’ve had eight months of memeing and look where we are.
Better than Expected
Trump has done way better than I anticipated. While talking with a friend in July 2015 I argued Trump would stick around. I thought what seemed to be his message at the time(keep welfare strong, maybe universal healthcare, while being strong abroad) might begin to hurt political parties. It might bring about a seismic shift in politics without him winning. But he’s escalated beyond an outlet for discontent and he is now potentially the nominee. I was wrong.
As time has gone on and I’ve read more David Frum, I think that the Republican establishment is somewhat rotting out. In a similar way to Nietzsche saying that God is dead.Quoting Wikipedia “To Nietzsche, the concept of God only exists in the minds of his followers; therefore, the believers would ultimately be accountable for his life and death.” As the tea party and other disaffected no longer believed in the Republican institutions, the institutions somewhat ceased to exist. The party in The Party Decides ceases to exist. The question is, what, if anything, will Republican voters believe in as a whole after this election. In essence, “Will there be Republican voters?”
Sanders Voters shouldn’t Vote Trump
I know you’re mad. You think the system has failed us. You push for European style democratic socialism. Clinton is a shill. I understand your frustration. But Trump won’t bring the change you’re looking for. Whether we draw comparisons between Trump and outsiders running for office in South America (and either failing or seizing control of countries with weak checks and balances) or Trump and the far right in Europe, things don’t end well by electing Trump. Heck, if your criticism of Clinton is that she’s corporate, Trump is the definition of a profiteering scumbag (see: Trump University).
Clothespin vote Clinton. Worst case you get an uninspired center left career politician. If you vote for Trump, the best you get is a man with no policy positions who thinks little of women and, as I said earlier, makes Gordon Ramsay look like a decorous gentleman.
As Harrison Ford said on the Trump run “Oh… not so much… no, I don’t think so”