dagblog - Comments for "Progress and the Pendulum"

1) policies that would lead

Michael Wolraich — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 21:29:30 +0000

In reply to I don't agree that everything

1) policies that would lead to disastrous consequenes and voter rage

It would not be a historical first.

2) policies that are broadly unpopular with the national electorate (if the GOP repeals Roe v. Wade, they go staright to the political wilderness and start eating locusts)

I expect that the changes would be incremental, e.g. making it harder and harder to get an abortion without outright banning it. If Roe were overturned, which could easily happen if Republicans get enough judges, you would see abortion banned in red states where voters support it. At some point, there would be a voter backlash, but that could be decades away.

3) niche or wedge issues that won't suffice to win when candidates don't have an answer for bigger issues.

Yes, the niche focus may be the biggest constraint to growth on the right. Unlike 20th century liberalism, conservatives have no clear vision for domestic policy, which is why G.W. never made, nor even really attempted, sweeping domestic changes.

I don't agree that everything

Doctor Cleveland — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 20:26:29 +0000

In reply to I think there are plenty of

I don't agree that everything on that list isn't dystopic (especially if you pass more than one of them), or at least disastrous. A big tax cut and another big war is a recipe for fiscal meltdown and possible government default. The privatization of Social Security or Medicare would resultin a badly failed system and widespread suffering by the elderly (who vote in large numbers, and are viewed sympathetically by other voters). I mean, if Bush had privatized Social Security (which, you'll note, he didn't manage), the market would have already hurt it badly.

That policy list is basically composed of three kinds of policies: 1) policies that would lead to disastrous consequenes and voter rage 2) policies that are broadly unpopular with the national electorate (if the GOP repeals Roe v. Wade, they go staright to the political wilderness and start eating locusts) and 3) niche or wedge issues that won't suffice to win when candidates don't have an answer for bigger issues. (Talking about three strikes and stem cells will work in times of prosperity and peace; in times of war and recession, you have to have a plan for the war and the recession.) And some of those policies are two-fers: disastrous and unpopular, or unpopular and relatively trivial.

I think there are plenty of

Michael Wolraich — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 13:32:28 +0000

In reply to Yeah, it's true. The analogy

I think there are plenty of frustrated Republicans who would disagree with you. Here are a few highly unpleasant options short of apocalyptic dystopia:

More abortion restrictions
More immigration restrictions
Lower taxes
Reduced gun control
Harsher prison sentences
"Privatization" of Social Security and Medicare
School vouchers
Reduced welfare
Anti-same sex marriage amendment
Elimination of affirmative action policies
Teaching intelligent design in schools
More wars

To name a few.

Yeah, it's true. The analogy

Doctor Cleveland — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 22:09:14 +0000

In reply to The pendulum analogy is apt

Yeah, it's true. The analogy is imprefect. The metaphor is flawed. And no, the pedulum swing isn't perfect or regular.

My relative confidence that we're seeing the end of the swing comes from the fact the policy exhaustion on the right. They have no place to go, really, except some kind of Mad Max-Handmaid's Tale mashup. We're not going further to the right because we can't make any further progress that way without catastrophe. (Or, to try to revive my bad analogy, if we go any further that way the pendulum breaks and the weight goes flying, or the child goes off the swing through the air and breaks various bones).

I think we're in an odd moment where an ideology has exhausted itself, but is still taken seriously by various players.

I can handle the cow. I just

Doctor Cleveland — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 22:04:39 +0000

In reply to You want the cow? YOU CAN'T

I can handle the cow. I just can't get up that early.

I had an Italian math prof

Michael Wolraich — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 23:20:28 +0000

In reply to True story, btw: I actually

I had an Italian math prof who represented the ardor of two lovers, call them Romeo and Juliet, with wave functions. Juliet's ardor increased in proportion to Romeo's, but Romeo's ardor decreased in inverse proportion to Juliet's. The prof couldn't underststand why his students cracked up when he referred to Juliet as an "eager beaver."

Other than this instance, the class was extraordinarly boring.

True story, btw: I actually

Nebton — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 21:58:34 +0000

In reply to I was hoping that there would

True story, btw: I actually had a physics professor assign a problem regarding a cow on a rope that was carving out a spiral with a pair of coupled oscillators on her back.

And people say that physicists don't know how to have fun…

You want the cow? YOU CAN'T

Nebton — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 21:56:28 +0000

In reply to I was hoping that there would

You want the cow? YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE COW!

I was hoping that there would

Michael Wolraich — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 21:25:47 +0000

In reply to Just so. It's more like a set

I was hoping that there would be a cow at the end of that link. The only fun part was making the oscillator beyond the bounds of the applet. I'd rather watch Glenn Beck.

Just so. It's more like a set

Nebton — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 20:57:00 +0000

In reply to The pendulum analogy is apt

Just so. It's more like a set of coupled oscillators rotating on the back of a cow tied to a rope grazing its way along a hillside.

For fun with coupled oscillators, check out this app:

http://lectureonline.cl.msu.edu/~mmp/applist/coupled/osc2.htm

(Although I still like the post for its hopeful optimism.)