dagblog - Comments for ""The Law of Unintended Political Consequences Strikes Again""

It's eye opening how many

artappraiser — Fri, 21 Jan 2022 17:16:40 +0000

In reply to "The Law of Unintended Political Consequences Strikes Again"

It's eye opening how many organizations, left and right, claim to be "nonpartisan" and "evidence-based" while actually being highly partisan and ideology-based. I still think those are worthy goals, but it's a phony commitment if you're unwilling to incur costs in the process.
— Samuel Hammond (@hamandcheese) January 21, 2022

I don’t mind that so much, but I do wish people would pick more clearly whether they want to be partisan or ideological.
— Matthew Yglesias (@mattyglesias) January 21, 2022

Yes absolutely. And just to be clear, I don't there's anything wrong with an org being ideological or de facto partisan. I just worry terms like nonpartisan and "evidence-based" have been diluted into empty rhetoric by orgs that don't actually embody those commitments in practice
— Samuel Hammond (@hamandcheese) January 21, 2022

Yglesias & David Shor opine

artappraiser — Tue, 18 Jan 2022 04:22:18 +0000

In reply to "The Law of Unintended Political Consequences Strikes Again"

Yglesias & David Shor opine with others on related:

One of the most underrated aspects of contemporary politics is the extent to which "activists on the left" and "major funders" are the same people. It's very different from the dynamic of 20 years ago. https://t.co/WbLreSEZkI
— Matthew Yglesias (@mattyglesias) January 14, 2022

This depends on the terminology of "left." The donor class you're referring to is very liberal and to the left of the average Democrat, but I would not associate them with what I would consider leftist activists.
— Sean (@seanschuerman) January 14, 2022

The share of employees at their foundations, their views aside, who would personally identify as socialists might surprise you.
— (((David Shor))) (@davidshor) January 14, 2022

And they’re donating to Biden and Schumer? I do think the socialist activist class donates, but I would assume it would mainly be to Bernie and affiliated politicians like the Squad.
— Sean (@seanschuerman) January 14, 2022

Foundations don't give to candidates, partly because they legally can't. Instead they give to a constellation of generally left wing climate/racial justice/etc groups, originally as a regulatory hack to fund organizing, but now mostly for it's own sake.
— (((David Shor))) (@davidshor) January 15, 2022

This constellation of issue-advocacy orgs/foundations/etc doesn't actually buy a ton of ads, but they have quite a bit of power for the simple reason, among others, that in off-years they are basically the only employers/purchasers of political services.
— (((David Shor))) (@davidshor) January 15, 2022

Foundation/non-profit influence distorts Democratic politics but not on a left-right axis. The distortion promotes identity over economic issues, innovation over proven solutions, performative politics over changing power relations.
— Benjamin Ross (@BenRossTransit) January 16, 2022

I’m back to share this graph again. https://t.co/wYiCBovZBF
— Matt Hodges (@hodgesmr) January 15, 2022

Small non-profits and single activists can be fairly easily manipulated by larger orgs with closer political ties. e.g identity politics was useful to knock off climate initiatives unpopular with Democrats with certain business interests.
— Acronym Required (@acronymrequired) January 18, 2022

It's incestuous. NGO staff go to foundations where they fund former colleagues before being hired for an NGO leadership position by an org they fund. *Then* they are funded by their former foundation. It's equivalent to the incestuousness of K Street and the Hill.
— About House (@abouthouse1) January 16, 2022

$23 billion is about 50% more

artappraiser — Sat, 15 Jan 2022 02:46:48 +0000

In reply to "The Law of Unintended Political Consequences Strikes Again"

$23 billion is about 50% more than the annual budget for TANF. Why not donate that money to state governments to directly close funding gaps in our social services? Truth is that there's a far bigger premium to *be seen* as advancing equity than in actually doing so.
— Samuel Hammond (@hamandcheese) January 15, 2022

edit to add, this is TANF:

https://www.acf.hhs.gov/ofa/programs/temporary-assistance-needy-families-tanf

ironically, exactly the kind of thing that the "defund police" crowd was always yammering about using police funds for....