CrISIS 2.

Posted on by
2

In a review-essay in the Wall Street Journal, James Traub makes a number of important points about the Islamic State.[1]

Al Qaeda Classic misunderstood the appeal of ISIS just as much as did Western observers. Western powers at least had the excuse that they were busy with many things and on many fronts. Al Qaeda had much easier contact, but still under-estimated its rival.

Americans have debated whether “nation-building” is possible in places like Iraq and Afghanistan. Billions of dollars already have been lavished on the effort in both countries, yet it would be hard to claim that the effort has been a success. However, ISIS appears to demonstrate that it is possible, and on a shoe-string budget compared to what Americans have spent. Recent reports have suggested that ISIS has begun to encounter al sorts of problems, so they may be presiding over the start of a “nation un-building.” Even that will not solve the problem of nation-building however. Can there be an effective alternative approach formulated by the West?

Former Baath Party members have been venting their rage at the Americans for more than a decade, often in alliance with radical Islamists like Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and now Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. How long can this alliance between the former supporters of a secular regime and religious extremists survive? By their excesses, the jihadists once drove many Sunnis into alliance with the Americans and—tacitly—with the Shi’ites. Subsequently, the Shi’ites returned to a policy of persecuting the Sunnis. Nouri al-Maliki gets the blame for this in American media, but the reality is that he had wide support among Shi’ites. This makes it difficult to imagine that the Sunnis will readily abandon the Islamists. So long as it is directed against Shi’ites and Americans, the alliance ought to be able to paper over any other divisions. At least neither party will abandon the alliance until after victory has been won.

The Saudis and their Gulf clients see the struggle in Iraq as part of a larger confrontation between Sunnis and Shi’a Islam that has been going on for a long time. The rift has been open for centuries, but it has been particularly acute since the Iranian Revolution toppled the shah. Defeating ISIS so that the Shi’ite majority in Iraq can sleep better at night isn’t at the top of the Saudi agenda. The uncertainties about the negotiations on the Iranian nuclear program will not make the Saudis more committed to opposing ISIS.

Could all this have been avoided had the self-satisfied, moralizing Baby Boomers who have run American foreign policy for the last twenty years or so been content to leave dictators in place? Saddam Hussein did not have to be overthrown. The Syrian rebels did not have to be encouraged to go on resisting after it had become clear that the Bashar Assad regime was going to hold onto power. The Gaddafi regime in Libya did not have to be bombed out of existence.

It has become a common belief that things would have gone differently had the Obama administration been willing to stay on in Iraq. Regardless of the truth of this belief, will the US be willing to stay on after the defeat of ISIS to prevent a return to stupidity? In ceding so much of the active role in opposing Iraq to Iran, is the US preparing the ground for a partition of the country. Will Saudi Arabia and Jordan absorb the Sunni parts of the country?

How serious a danger is ISIS? To the United States and other Western societies, ISIS is not very dangerous. It isn’t Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union. It may be a loathsome ideology, but it does not control a powerful state. So, a sense of proportion is needed. So, too, is patience. “Keep them penned in and wait for the food riots to start,” as one character in William Gibson’s novel Pattern Recognition described America’s Cold War policy of containment.

[1] James Traub, “The Demonic Wellspring,” WSJ, 14-15 March 2015.

Climate of Fear XV.

Posted on by
Reply

The “Lima Accord”: Almost 200 countries have agreed to burn less coal, oil, and gas.[1] By the end of March 2015 they will publish national plans to cut emissions after 2020 and will state what laws they will pass to achieve these goals.[2]

How will progress be judged? One solution, proposed by developed countries, would be to establish identical measurements for each country. This would allow easy comparisons between goals and achievements and between one country and another. Developing countries rejected this solution. In order to win the formal adherence of developing countries, the developed countries agreed to scrap the plan. However, economists in developed countries believe that it will be possible to find a way to synthesize disparate information. Countries that fall short of their goals will be identified. Todd Stern, a lead negotiator for the United States, put the best face on this that he could: “We see the sunlight as one of the most important parts of this [agreement].”[3]

How powerful is “peer pressure”? Peer pressure is all that will provide enforcement. The agreement includes neither specific targets nor any enforcement mechanism. It is, in effect, another executive agreement. Like other executive agreements, it is not binding beyond the end of President Obama’s term in office.[4] Countries that submit inadequate plans or which fail to meet their goals will be subjected to the withering moral condescension of foreigners.

The possibility exists that the United States will be one of those defaulters. President Obama’s policies already have the United States on-track toward a substantial reduction in emissions by 2025. Further regulations during his last two years in office can reduce emissions still more. Experts appear to doubt that the targets for 2025—a 28 percent reduction—can be brought within reach without Congressional action.

How have developing countries performed with regard to establishing worker-safety laws? This is another example of developing countries responding to pressure from developed countries—often operating through international organizations like the International Labor Office. Like emissions reduction, the worker safety laws work against existing strategies for international development. To take an extreme example, on 24 April 2013 a five story garment factory in Bangladesh collapsed.[5] The disaster killed 1,137 workers. Most were girls aged between 18 and 20 years. They had been working 12-14 hour shifts for 90-100 hours a week. They had been paid between 12 and 24 cents an hour. Most of the clothes they sewed were for export to developed countries. Naturally, this tragedy led to much international criticism.

Do “Name-and-Shame Campaigns”—peer pressure—work, either in domestic or international contexts? To take an extreme example, on 13 March 2015, a factory in Bangladesh collapsed. Fortunately, the building was still under construction and not full of people. At last report, four people had been killed, forty injured, and about one hundred were still missing.

So, the future is still a little cloudy.

[1] Coral Davenport, “A Climate Accord Based on Global Peer Pressure,” NYT, 15 December 2015.

[2] Countries that miss the 31 March deadlines will have until June to publish their plans. Countries that miss the June deadline will have until the next major climate conference in Paris in December 2015. Countries that miss the December deadline,…

[3] So, another step forward for solar power.

[4] However, since 1939, 94.3 % of all international agreements have been executive agreements, rather than treaties. Most appear to have been regarded as remaining valid after a change of government. See: Michael Crittenden and Byron Tau, “GOP Iran Letter Draws Obama Rebuke,” WSJ, 10 March 2015.

[5] See: http://www.globallabourrights.org/campaigns/factory-collapse-in-bangladesh

Red ink as far as the eye can see.

Posted on by
Reply

The US government has been running deficits almost continuously since 1970.[1] So we’re used to them. Things even started to look like they were improving during the late 1990s. Hi-tech industries went through a rapid run-up in value. This produced a lot of extra tax revenue without anyone complaining about it. Bill Clinton left George W. Bush a budget surplus of $236 billion in 2001. By early in 2002 the government was back in deficit by $150 billion.[2]

What we’re not used to are the immense deficits of recent years: the 2009 deficit was $1.4 trillion, the 2010 deficit was $1.56 trillion.

Where did these gigantic deficits come from? They came from a combination of the Bush-era tax cuts with a massive expansion in government spending. Some of the spending could have been avoided: the Iraq war and the Medicare prescription drug benefit proposed by President Bush and passed by Congress in 2003. Some of the spending could not be avoided: enhanced national security after 9/11, the invasion of Afghanistan. However, the biggest source of the deficit is related to the 2007-2008 recession. On the one hand, tax revenues fell during the slow-down by $400 billion (17 percent of revenues). On the other hand, the government pumped money into the economy: $154 billion for the TARP under the Bush administration and $202 billion for the stimulus bill under the Obama administration. That is a total of $756 billion added to the deficit without even counting the lost revenue from years after 2007.

Things got better as the recession ended: government revenue rose while spending fell. Soon, things will get worse again. According to Congressional Budget Office (CBO) forecasts in January 2015, the deficit will start to rise in 2017 as the costs of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid increase.[3] The CBO projects that deficits will bottom-out at $467 billion in 2016. Then deficits are projected to rise: $486 billion in 2017; $953 billion in 2023; over a trillion dollars in 2025. The real burden of these rising deficits will depend on the growth of the economy. Here again, the CBO has bad news: projected growth rates for 2014-2018 are at 2.5%, while those for 2020-2025 will fall to 2.2%.

How large a share of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) will be represented by the deficits? Between 2016 and 2025, Social Security will rise from 4.9% to 5.7% of GDP; health-care spending will rise from 5.3% to 6.2%; and paying the interest on the debt will rise from 1.5% to 3.0%. Discretionary spending—everything else—will fall from 9.2% to 7.4%.

Still, the absolute dollar amounts don’t matter. Ratios between debt and GDP do matter because it is the ability of the underlying economy to support the debt and maintain the credibility of the government’s ability to service the debt that makes deficits supportable. The 2009 deficit amounted to 10% of GDP and the total debt amounted to almost 100% of GDP.

Why does this matter? The government has to borrow the money from private lenders in order to cover a part of our national expenses. IF there is a fixed pool of private savings (capital) from which to borrow, then expanding government borrowing reduces the amount of capital that is available for all other borrowers. (Capital in-flows from the rest of a troubled world can off-set this in large measure–in the US.)  People investing in business or buying homes will compete with the government. The government can and will pay whatever interest rate it needs to in order to not go bankrupt. As a result, interest rates will go up and the total pool of capital available for private investment will go down. Capital is one of the factors of production determining the state of the economy. High interest rates slow down the economy.

[1] “Deficits as far as the eye can see,” The Week, 16 April 2010, p. 11.

[2] So the Bush tax cuts cost the United States Government about $400 billion a year in revenue.

[3] Jonathan Weissman, “Budget Forecast Sees End to Sharp Deficit Decline,” NYT, 27 January 2015.

Yalta.

Posted on by
Reply

From 4 to 11 February 1945, Josef Stalin, Winston Churchill, and Franklin D. Roosevelt met at Yalta in Crimea to “decide” the fate of post-war Europe. In fact, Europe’s fate had already been decided by the course of military operations. The agreements reached at Yalta merely tried to paper-over some of the ugly realities.

During 1944 the Red Army had plowed forward from inside the Soviet Union to a position forty miles from Berlin. In the process, the Red Army—three times the size of the combined British and American armies in Europe–had waded through a sea of blood—their own and that of the German army. The Russians had occupied almost all of Eastern and Central Europe. Meanwhile, from mid-1944 on, the British and Americans had occupied France, the Low Countries, much of Italy, and Western Germany. The war itself had divided Europe into spheres of influence.

The three leaders pursued their own agendas at the conference. Stalin wanted the Western powers to acknowledge Soviet power in the East. Churchill hoped to limit the scope of Communization there and to protect the interests of Britain’s Polish ally. Roosevelt wanted Soviet assistance in the war against Japan and Soviet participation in a post-war United Nations. In the end, Stalin got all of what he wanted; Roosevelt got all of what he wanted, but it turned out to be worthless; and Churchill got nothing of what he wanted, beyond fair words and promises.

At Yalta, the three leaders agreed that Poland would be kicked westward from its pre-war borders, yielding the Soviet conquests of September 1939 in return for territory taken from Germany. The Soviet puppet government in Poland would be reconfigured on a “broader democratic basis” by the admission of members of the government-in-exile in London. Stalin agreed to democratic elections in post-war Poland and in the other Eastern European countries at some unspecified date. Stalin agreed to enter the war against Japan within two or three months after the end of the war in Europe. He also agreed that the Soviet Union would join the United Nations. The Soviet Union would receive reparations in kind and in forced labor from Germany. France would receive occupation zones in Germany and in Berlin, but these would have to be carved out of areas previously assigned to Britain or the United States. Soviet citizens found in the West would be repatriated, regardless of their own preferences.

Filled with hatred and distrust of Western capitalist democracies, Stalin had no intention of honoring his weak commitments to democracy in Eastern Europe. Where the Red Army stood, it would remain. Where the Red Army remained, Communist dictatorships would be imposed by any means necessary. A hard-headed pragmatist, Stalin meant to honor his promise to make war on Japan and to take a seat on the Security Council of the United Nations.

Churchill first, and Roosevelt subsequently, came in for considerable criticism and abuse for their failures to achieve the liberation of Eastern Europe. In fact, this liberation depended entirely upon the balance of power in the area. This tipped heavily in favor of the Soviet Union. The best the two men could have hoped for was to encourage future Soviet co-operation on essential issues. No one wanted a further war after so much blood-shed and with more still to come. Nor would the democracies fight for the “rights” of small states.

Yalta, like Roosevelt’s earlier “destroyers-for-bases deal” in 1940 and Richard Nixon’s Vietnam War peace agreement in 1973, was an “executive agreement,” rather than a treaty approved by the Senate.

 

A Decade of Crime in Ferguson, MO.

Posted on by
Reply

A simple analysis of crime statistics for Ferguson, MO, for the period 2000 to 2012 shows some basic patterns.[1] Property crimes (theft, burglary, auto theft) accounted for an average of 92 percent of all crimes per year. Robbery and Assault in roughly equal numbers accounted for an average of 7.18 percent of all crimes per year. The occasional murder, rape, or arson accounts for the remaining 1 percent of all crimes per year.

Across the period:

Theft fell by 28 percent, with most the most distinct decline coming from 2004 on.

Burglary fell by 21 percent, but there was a huge upward spike in 2007 and 2008.

Auto Theft fell by 51.7 percent from 2012, but the problem fluctuated within that trend (rose from 2000-2004, fell slightly from 2005-2009, and then dropped sharply from 2010 -2012.)

Robbery fell by 22.4 percent from 2000 to 2012, but with a severe spike from 2007 to 2009.

Assault fell by 15.8 percent from 2000 to 2012, but there was a spike up in 2008.

What can we make of these numbers?

Broadly, the Ferguson Police Department could legitimately congratulate itself on having done a good job in making the citizens of the town safer between 2000 and 2012. This may not have been a state of mind in which to conduct a critical self-evaluation of methods or community relations.

Why did Theft fall? This isn’t likely to be a product of policing. Store-owners tend to be on their own in preventing theft by employees and customers. Did store-owners adopt more rigorous security measures? Security cameras in plain sight, electronic tags on goods, a friendly-but-aggressive staff that stays in contact with customers throughout their time in the store are key components of loss-prevention. This can come across as an aggressive display of distrust toward customers.

Why did Burglary fall? Did an increasing number of people in Ferguson get electronic security systems? Did they at least get the little yard signs that announce that the house is “Protected by …”? Was there an expansion of neighborhood watches? Did the police offer advising on the little things that can make burglary more difficult?[2]

Why did Auto Theft fall? Auto theft fell because stealing newer cars is much more difficult than stealing older cars.[3] The introduction of “engine immobilizer systems” from the late 1990s on made it almost impossible to steal new cars. Theft shifted to older cars that could be scrapped and sold for parts. In a poor town like Ferguson, there were probably a lot of older cars. Once stolen, however, they were replaced by newer cars that couldn’t be stolen.

The year 2008 represented a crisis for Ferguson police. Burglary, Robbery, and Assault all spiked. The increase in Burglary might reflect the appearance of a gang of burglars working Ferguson and possibly neighboring communities. The increase in Robbery might reflect the appearance of a group or a few individual criminals on a hiatus between prison sentences. In either case, the police may have been ordered to make their presence felt on the street.

In sum, there is still much to learn about Ferguson, MO in the wake of the two recent reports from the Justice Department. (See: “Ferguson, MO,” November 2014.)

[1] Based on http://www.city-data.com/crime/crime-Ferguson-Missouri.html

[2] Lock your doors and windows. Don’t leave a spare key “hidden” outside the house; don’t put the box for your new computer or television out in the trash; get somebody to take in your mail if you’re away.

[3] Josh Barro, “Here’s Why Stealing Cars Went Out of Fashion,” NYT, 11 August 2014.

Trying to think about American Public Opinion.

Posted on by
Reply

OK, I’ll grant you that “trying” isn’t the same thing as “succeeding.”

What do people think about military intervention in the Middle East?

Couple of things to think about.

First, the war in Iraq, much more than the war in Afghanistan, has put Americans off of military intervention. No, they don’t particularly want to have the reality shoved up their nose by outraged liberal moralists. (See: War Movies: American Sniper.) That doesn’t mean that they are willing to let the government off the leash again. President Obama’s disastrous intervention in Libya—“you set fire to it, then walk away while it burns” as one Baltimore cop told Jimmy McNulty in “The Wire”—just showed people that Democrats can’t be trusted any more than the Republicans. The advantage to air-strikes is that they might do a lot of damage—especially with good intelligence and targeting—but they aren’t likely to get many Americans killed. That’s what Americans are willing to tolerate.

Second, Republicans are ‘realists” who favor blowing up things. Look at John McCain. It’s his solution to everything that crosses his line of sight. God help us if he ever becomes Secretary of Health and Human Services. Democrats are toeing the party line and backing their president. No matter how much Obama’s actions resemble those of George W. Bush. Neither party is actually thinking. In contrast, Independents appear most skeptical of all. They’re used to dis-believing the bumper-stickers of both parties. Look at climate-change, where they fall squarely in the middle. The US—and everyone else—is likely to get a bad policy out-come from bad political in-puts. (See: Yemen Again.)

 

What do people think about opportunity in America?

Couple of things to think about here as well.

First, you can take the extreme views as the most unequivocal expression of the core beliefs of the two parties. Republicans believe that personal responsibility is a cure-all. Democrats believe that a paternalist state is a cure-all. Both probably are wrong, but neither is entirely wrong, just as neither is entirely right. One tricky part is where exactly to draw the line. Neither party seems to be making much effort to figure out a philosophy on this matter. Meanwhile, lots of middle-class Americans want to stick it to rich Americans while paying less in taxes themselves. A second issue is to wonder about the overlap between the extreme Republican view (let people swim for it) and the extreme Democrat view (nobody is responsible for their own actions): no discriminating public policy, just ineffective alternatives.

Second, lots of Americans believe that the game is rigged in favor of the well-off, including many well-off people (who ought to know). On the other hand, and this should disturb any “progressive person,” maybe a big chunk of the people who think that America is basically fair to people come from the poor people-of-color who don’t vote. Just as many well-off people appear to think the game is rigged in their favor, perhaps many poor people think that their own actions had a large role in their fate. What is both groups are correct?

Still More American Public Opinion.

Posted on by
Reply

What do Americans think of the Affordable Care Act (ACA)? The polls have been blurry. In March 2014, 41 percent of people approved of the ACA, while 53 percent of people disapproved. There was a big partisan break-down: 72 percent of Democrats approved it, while only 8 percent of Republicans approved it. Those figures raise their own puzzles. Why are 28 percent of Democrats opposed to the law or unsure if they approve it? If 72 percent of Democrats and 8 percent of Republicans approve the law, where do Independents stand? In another poll in May 2014, 61 percent that they either wanted Congress to leave the ACA in place or—at most—tinker with any flaws. In contrast, 38 percent of people wanted the law repealed.[1] Approval of the ACA appears to have shot up from 41 percent to 61 percent, opposition to have fallen from 53 to 38 percent. Did this mark a sea-change in attitudes toward the ACA or a polling error?

What do Americans think about race relations? In 2009, after the election of Barack Obama to be President of the United States, 66 percent of people thought that race relations were good. Then came the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, MO. In August 2014, 80 percent of African-Americans thought that the shooting “raises important questions about race that need to be discussed.” Only 37 percent of whites agreed. Almost half of whites—47 percent—thought that race was “getting more attention than it deserves.” In December 2014, 85 percent of African-Americans disapproved of the decision by the grand jury to not indict Darren Wilson, the police officer who shot Michael Brown. Overall, 45 percent of Americans disapproved of the decision, while 48 percent approved it. By January 2015, 40 percent of people believed that race relations were “fairly good” or “very good.”[2] There is a rough similarity between the figures for those who had believed that race was getting too much attention, for those who approved the decision not to indict, and for those who believe that race relations are good.

What do Americans think about opportunity in America? In November 2014, 24 percent of people believed that the economy is “fair to most Americans,” while 71 percent think that it “generally favors the rich.” A majority—57 percent–of those who earn more than $100,000 a year agree. However, 43 percent of those who did not vote in November 2014 were African-American or Hispanic-Americans, and 46 percent earned less than $30,000 a year.[3]

What do people think about getting anything accomplished in government? In January 2015, 60 percent of Americans believed that the Congress elected in November 2014 will not accomplish any more than the previous bums. Even more, 72 percent, doubted that the Republican majority in the Senate would accomplish anything more than did the Democratic majority. Some people seem frustrated with this situation, while others are satisfied. Thus, 46 percent of people believed that President Obama should wait on action by Congress to solve the immigration issue. According to the first poll, however, most people expect that such action will not come. In contrast, 42 percent of people favored the president issuing an executive order to deal with immigration. Finally, 59 percent of people favored building the Keystone XL pipeline. This included not only 83 percent of Republicans, but also 43 percent of Democrats.[4] The president vetoed that bill.

[1] “Poll Watch,” The Week, 4 April 2015, p. 15; “Poll Watch,” The Week, 23 May 2014, p. 15.

[2] “Poll Watch,” The Week, 29 August 2014, p. 17; “Poll Watch,” The Week, 12 December 2014, p. 19; “Poll Watch,” The Week, 16 January 2015, p. 17.

[3] “Poll Watch,” The Week, 14 November 2014, p. 19.

[4] “Poll Watch,” The Week, 23 January 2015, p. 17; “Poll Watch,” The Week, 28 November 2014, p. 15.

More American Public Opinion.

Posted on by
Reply

What do Americans think about pornography? Generally, they’re against it. Only 35 percent of men regard watching porn is morally acceptable; only 23 percent of women regard it as morally acceptable. However, a big chunk of Americans beg to differ. Cell-phone porn—“intimate” photographs of self or other—can be found on the phones of 20 percent of Americans. The number is almost twice as high—39 percent—for those under 30.[1]

What do Americans think about the death penalty? In 1996, 78 percent of Americans supported the death penalty. By 2014, support had fallen, but polls differed considerably as to by how much. One poll found that it had dropped to 55 percent. Among whites, 63 percent supported the death penalty, while only 36 percent of African-Americans supported it. Another poll found that 65 percent supported the death penalty ‘for convicted murderers.” Among Republicans, 82 percent supported the death penalty, while 53 percent of Democrats supported it.[2] So, maybe this is another case of how you phrase the question.

What do people at the outer ends of the political spectrum think about opportunity in America? If you work hard, you can get ahead say 80 percent of conservative Republicans, while a mere 36 percent of liberal Democrats believe that to be true. Government programs can help reduce poverty say 62 percent of liberal Democrats, while only 21 percent of conservative Republicans believe this to be true.[3]

What do Americans think about vaccination? The vast majority—83 percent—think that vaccines are safe, versus only 9 percent who think that they are unsafe. However, young people who never saw someone walking in braces from the effects of polio or vomited all over the white dress shirt of the kid in front of him during a Christmas concert because chicken-pox picked a damned poor time to arrive are much more likely to doubt vaccination. Some 21 percent of adults under thirty believe that vaccination can cause autism. In contrast, only 11 percent of adults aged 45 to 64 and 3 percent of those over 65 believe this nonsense.[4]

What do Americans believe about climate change? Most of them believe that government should be doing something to fight it. Thus, 91 percent of Democrats, 78 percent of Independents, and 51 percent of Republicans think that government should be taking action to counter climate change. That is, a majority of people of every political allegiance believe climate change to be a reality and one that can be countered by public policy.[5]

What do Americans think about military interventions in the Middle East? Back in Fall 2013, 67 percent of Americans supported President Obama’s climb-down over air strikes against the Assad regime after it had been alleged that the government had used chemical weapons against rebels. The Russians then brokered a deal to get rid of Assad’s arsenal of chemical weapons. Scarcely a third—37 percent—favored launching air strikes if the Syrians reneged on that deal. A year later, 76 percent supported air strikes against ISIS in Iraq and Syria, but 61 percent opposed sending ground forces even though 70 percent thought that ISIS had the means to attack the United States itself. The legacy of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq is evident: only 35 percent of the military veterans of those wars believe that both were worth fighting.[6]

[1] “Poll Watch,” The Week, 21 March 2014, p. 17; “Poll Watch,” The Week, 19 September 2014, p. 19.

[2] “Poll Watch,” The Week, 11 April 2014, p. 15; “Poll Watch,” The Week, 16 May 2014, p. 19.

[3] “Poll Watch,” The Week, 14 March 2014, p. 19.

[4] “Poll Watch,” The Week, 13 February 2015, p. 15; “Poll Watch,” The Week, 20 February 2015, p. 19.

[5] “Poll Watch,” The Week, 13 February 2015, p. 15.

[6] “Poll Watch,” The Week, 27 September 2013, p. 17; “Poll Watch,” The Week, 11 April 2014, p. 15; “Poll Watch,” The Week, 19 September 2014, p. 19.

American Public Opinion.

Posted on by
Reply

So, regardless of what the politicians say, what do Americans think about some issues?

Back in September 2014, in the wake of the Islamic State’s over-running of much of Iraq, 53 percent of Americans approved of President Obama’s strategy for dealing with ISIS.[1] However, 64 percent of Republicans and 60 percent of Democrats approved. How did those higher numbers end up with an average of 53 percent? This suggests that there is a big group of Independents who don’t like the President’s policy.

In the November 2012 elections, 68 percent of Hispanic voters supported Democrats and 33 percent supported Republicans. In the November 2014 elections, 62 percent of Hispanic voters supported Democrats and 36 percent supported Republicans.

What do Hispanic voters care about? Not immigration reform. Only 16 percent of those polled in November 2014 ranked that as their primary concern. Health care came first for 24 percent. The economy in general came first for 49 percent.[2]

Two thirds of Americans are satisfied with the current US health-care system. [That’s a blurry response. Are they satisfied with the medical care they receive or are they satisfied with how the Affordable Care Act operates or both?] A whopping 74 percent of Democrats are satisfied, but even 60 percent of Republicans are satisfied.

The “war on guns” appears to be headed in the same direction as the “war on drugs.”[3] In 2000 only 29 percent of Americans favored preserving gun-rights over gun-control. By 2013, 45 percent favored gun-rights over gun-control; in 2015, 52 percent favored gun-rights over gun-control. This included 54 percent of African-Americans, up from 29 percent in 2012.

In the immediate aftermath of the “Charlie Hebdo” massacre in Paris, 63 percent of Americans believed that it was more important to preserve free speech than to not offend religious people. Only 19 percent thought it important to avoid offending other people.[4]

In early 2015, 49 percent of Americans identified as “pro-choice,” while 47 percent identified as “pro-life.” However, 84 percent favor liming abortion to the first three months of a pregnancy. This includes 69 percent of those who identify as “pro-choice.”[5]

This is a puzzler. Does it mean that a lot of pro-life people wouldn’t have an abortion themselves, but don’t really want to proscribe abortions for other women who find themselves in a jam? Does it mean that lots of pro-choice people think that abortion is a necessary evil, rather than a categorical right to be exercised at any time?

As of early 2015, 60 percent of Americans thought that middle-class people pay too much in taxes; 68 percent believe that the rich pay too little in taxes.[6]

A huge majority of Republicans—69 percent–agree with Rudy Giuliani that President Obama doesn’t love America. A huge majority of Democrats—85 percent—believe that does too love America.

One of several bizarre things here (aside from so many Republicans agreeing with that idiot Giuliani) is that apparently 15 percent of Democrats either believe that the President doesn’t love America or they’re not sure.

[1] “Poll Watch,” The Week,” 26 September 2014, p. 17.

[2] “Poll Watch,” The Week, 21 November 2014, p. 19.

[3] Timothy Williams, “Poll Finds That More Americans Back Gun Rights Than Stronger Controls,” NYT, 12 December 2014.

[4] “Poll Watch,” The Week 26 January 2015, p. 17.

[5] “Poll Watch,” The Week, 6 February 2015, p. 17.

[6] “Poll Watch,” The Week, 6 March 2015, p. 17.

Long Term Trends 2.

Posted on by
Reply

Back in 1960, 72.2 percent of households included married couples; in 2012, 50.5 percent of households included married couples.[1] Actually, these stark-appearing numbers get a little blurry the nearer that you approach.[2] For one thing, divorce is partly responsible for the increasing number of households without a married couple. For another, there were 450,000 unmarried couples living together in 1960; there were 7.5 million in 2011. So, there are many marriages-in-all-but-name.

There appears to be some kind of reciprocal relationship between marriage and prosperity. Married people are better off financially, while people with early financial problems have trouble getting or staying married. Sharing living space and living costs allows couples to save a much higher share of their combined incomes than is possible for unmarried people. Couples often buy a house (a great investment) and save money for the education of their children. These savings compound over time.

We’re still left with a “chicken or egg” problem. Do serious people get married while frivolous people stay unmarried OR does getting married turn any bone-head into a solid citizen while economic barriers exclude willing candidates?

From one perspective, people are more or less consciously deciding to take a pass on a good thing. By one calculation, if the same share of families were married today as in 1980, “the growth in median incomes of families with children would be 44 percent higher.” In 1960 both the college educated and those with some college or less were about equally likely to marry. In 2011, 64 percent of college-educated Americans were married, while 48 percent with some college or less education were not married. Economists (other than Paul Krugman) have been explaining some of the growth in income-inequality by higher returns to more education. Thus, the decline in the marriage rate since 1970 might be taken as one of the many factors that explain the growth of income inequality.

From another perspective, however, economic difficulties for the less educated dissuade them from marriage. The decline of the old industrial base reduced the earning power of many men. At the same time, women’s liberation allowed many women to enter the labor force, often by means of a college education. As a result, marriage became less of a worthwhile investment for many women. Between 1970 and 2011 the chance that a woman in the bottom 65 percent of income earners would marry dropped by 20 percent.

So much for the fate of married couples. What about their children?[3] In 2013, 40 percent of babies were born outside of marriage. In 2014, 27 percent of children lived in fatherless homes. In one estimate, as of 2009, 35 percent of non-Hispanic white children and 41 percent of all children did not live with married parents.

If the unmarried and no-longer-married have less in the way of economic resources than do the married, then they will be less well-positioned to help their children succeed in many ways. They have less for band camp and football camp and ballet classes. They have less for books in the home and travel. They have less for college tuition assistance. They have less time and resources to shield their children from the negative effects of the culture or—in some cases—from the pull of the streets.

Is it possible for any government program or agency to substitute for a family?

[1] Andrew Yarrow, “Falling Marriage Rates Reveal Economic Fault Lines,” NYT, 8 February 2015.

[2] Kind of like a Chuck Close painting.

[3] Nicholas Eberstadt, “The Global Flight From the Family,” WSJ, 21-22 February 2015.