A Democracy? Not So Sure.

A thought about our representative democracy, stimulated by analyses by David Wasserman over at  Nate Silver’s FiveThirtyEight and some recent data from Cook’s Political Report:

•Fewer than 10% of Congressional districts are competitive.

•Only some 14% or 15% of the electorate vote in primaries. 

•Roughly half of these are from each major party.

•Hence, roughly 95% of the House of Representatives is determined by approximately 7% of the eligible voters.

This set of circumstances is due, in large part, to our polarized political world. In fact, this trend is now so strong that it swamps the impact of gerrymandering. I used to think that if we had more balanced districts laid out that Congress would naturally become a more representative body, simply by virture of the nature of the electorate. Now I’m not so sure.

The deep problem is that the Founders’ rationale for having the entire House come up for election every two years — which was to encourage turn-over — has backfired. Now it encourages retention. Off the top of my head, I can think of several factors that would drive this tendency like name recognition, a preference for continuity over change and a sense of comfort with the current office holder over a newcomer without a significant public record.

So, not surprisingly, the likelihood of re-election is now high, so high that the real election isn’t in November. It’s in the earlier primary. The way to knock someone out of their seat is to go after them in the primary — a tactic now so common that “to primary” has become a common verb.

This political gambit, of course, drives the parties to even greater polarization because it is typically the extreme wing that gets its knickers in a twist over the excessive moderation of the current congressperson and comes swooping in from the radical wing. We saw this in dramatic fashion when Eric Cantor, then the House Majority Leader, got tossed into the dumpster by an obscure economist named David Brat, whom no one had even heard of before and who, according to Cook’s analysis, is a virtual shoe-in for re-election. FWIW, Brat aligned himself with the extreme right-wing Freedom Caucus and has accomplished essentially nothing but be a reliable vote to block any legislation proposed by any Democrat.

This end-point seems to be an inevitable and troubling outcome of our form of government, one that the Parliamentary system avoids. The only solution I can see is for moderates to become so infuriated with the extremists that they primary them with more reasonable candidates. We’ll see if this strategy emerges in any meaningful way in the next couple of election cycles.

Oh look, there's a gun! Where's my foot? Tales from my left flank.

This is the third in an uneven, unplanned series of essays on the lunacy of my people, my left-leaning, progressive, idealists with whom I usually share my hopes, visions and desires for our society, our cultures and our country.

Lunacy? Yes. For reasons unclear and often bewildering, those on the left fringe just seem to lose it. Reason gets pushed off-stage. Clarity of thought takes a hike. Coherency is on furlough and practical, pragmatic thinking is nowhere to be found. I’ve covered some of these issues here and here. Today I’ll take a gander at the Occupy movement, the Black Lives Matter organization and the Bernie or Busters.

Occupy: What a good idea! Occupy the domain of the target organization. It began with Occupy Wall Street and the protestors engaged in classic, peaceful and remarkably effective protest simply by showing up, sitting down and “occupying” Wall St. Then it morphed in Occupy ­­_____ where the blank could be filled in by whatever program, corporation, city, governmental agency needed to have its ugly underbelly exposed. It held the highest ideals, to decrease the income gap, lessen economic disparity, expose corruption and fraud, give more power and control to the people — the little people and do so without violence or aggressive action. A pretty good summary can be found here.

So what went wrong? Why has the movement lost purchase? Why is it now either fading from public consciousness or openly mocked? For the simplest of reasons: naiveté and a failure to recognize that movements need organizers, spokespersons, committees, fund raisers, hawkers, mailbox stuffers, leaders with dreams and an eye toward growth and a coherent vision of ultimate goals.

None of this happened. For reasons that just seem childish the Occupy movement never identified leaders, never found individuals who would speak for the group (each group, any group), who would appear on talk radio, on cable news, on MSNBC or CNN. In fact they refused to do such mundane things. They seemed to embrace some new-age notion that in some mysterian way the world would change just because they sat about, waved signs and chanted. It was reminiscent of when Sun Young Moon’s bizarre church would get large numbers of people to chant all together and assume the planet would tilt on its axis — or something.

Alas, the world does not work this way and the movement with it idealistic utopians and its utopian ideals is slowly fading from our consciousness, from the news programs from our sight. Sad.

Black Lives Matter: This one is tough for me to write because I’m a big fan of BLM — the original movement, the one that was spawned by the horrific deaths of Black Americans by white cops and deluded racists who took the “stand your ground” laws to their dreadful, predictable end point. What happened?

The first big stumble was failing to issue a series of public condemnations of the killing of police by black snipers. We do not know whether the actions and statements of BLM had any direct, causal role to play in these acts but the raw reality of black men murdering police simply because they were police had an eerie parallel with cops killing blacks simply because they were black. These acts produced a significant backlash that damaged the BLM movement and the organization did little to repair it. BLM was created to be a “pro-” movement. Their luke warm response here made it look like they’d become an “anti-” one. There’s no quicker way to lose respect and support.

Then they gave us an astonishing display of insensitivity and unthinking bias. They refused to partake in Pride parades if police also took part.

Think this one through. BLM agitates against police race-based brutality and insensitivity. This is a good position to take and by emphasizing it they snapped the country’s conscience awake. The police have responded by trying to do something about the issue — yes, they really are. Sure, there are racist cops. There are misogynist cops, anti-Semitic cops and anti-LGBT cops. But they’re a minority and police forces around the country are working to root them out, reform the training and recruitment programs and repair the damage. BLM’s proper response here should be to embrace these reforms, to work with police departments to improve sensitivity to race and racial issues, to encourage cooperation with local communities.

What good can possibly come of BLM refusing to be part of a Pride parade because cops are proudly marching alongside them? The police, not so long ago, used to beat the shit out of gays and lesbians simply for being who they are. Now they’ve joined with them in celebration of the diversity of life and proudly marching alongside them. And BLM refuses to join the festivities.

If you want to put a dent in your public image I can’t think of a better way. In one stupid move BLM alienated the LBGT community, confused the cops (not to mention progressives like me), and gave the right wingers more ammunition.

Bernie or Bust: Bernie did the country a big favor. By running as an outsider, a renegade candidate, he touched a nerve, one the insiders in the Democratic Party didn’t know was there — or if they did, had no clue as to how his message would resound. The result was to significantly shift the party, it’s stated ideals and goals far to the left forcing them, and Hillary, to embrace a forgotten progressivism.

The party had been pulled toward the center by Bill who judged, rightly or wrongly, that truly liberal positions would never be passed by a congress that had a significant, right-wing element. The result was not a happy one (DOMA, DADT, Glass-Steagall repealed, welfare “reform”).

Bernie lost the nomination but won the battle by focusing on the results of these (and Bush’s regressive actions). The Democratic platform is the most progressive in decades and Hillary has been clear that she is running on the principles outlined in it.

So all looks good, right? Nope. There’s an element among the more devoted Sanders supporters who say they cannot and will not vote for Clinton. And we have, again, lefties shooting themselves in some body part (the “foot” here seems too inconsequential; this one could be a shot in the heart!).

When pressed some “Busters” seem to suggest that if Bernie isn’t the nominee then there is no one worthy of their vote. Hints that every stay-homer is, in effect, a vote for Trump seem to have no impact. Others suggest that it really never was about Bernie, per se, but about his message. Queries about why they wouldn’t vote for Hillary given that she’s now running on “his message” are greeted with disdain — and equal lack of concern about the impact of not punching that chad for HRC. Even pointing out that Bernie himself has urged everyone to vote Clinton to stop Trump fall on deaf ears (perhaps the result of guns going off too close to their heads).

Note the pattern in all three. They start with high ideals and progressive vision and then, because of poor management skills, incoherent decision-making or simply losing touch with reality in a whirlwind of self-generated empty utopianism it starts falling apart.

I find myself, yet again, bewildered by this. Politics is all about compromise and pragmatics. You have your ideals and work toward them. It’s folly to toss any hope of genuine change on the slag heap of unworkable ideals.

One's Legacy Through Others

One my former students just had a birthday and used the occasion to announce the upcoming publication of his third (fourth? I’ve lost count) major book. It got me thinking about the many who passed through my lab over the years, where they went, what they ended up doing and how their careers reflected the years they spent studying with me.

I was, I guess I still am, a cognitive psychologist with a long-standing interest in human intuition, unconscious cognitive mechanisms, evolutionary biological models and the psychology and philosophy of mind. I’m still at it with a paper on the origins of consciousness just accepted by the journal Animal Sentience. It should be out in a month or so.

Update (8/29/16): It’s out and, if anyone cares, can be downloaded here.

One of the things we research-type academics do is train the new generations of scientists and the “standard approach” is to take them into your lab, school them as best as you can and try your damndest to give them (or allow them to find) the skills, confidence and wisdom to become great teachers, educators and scientists.

Typically, that “standard approach” means you end up with newly minted Ph.D.’s who go out and do research in the area of their training. Now, over a decade since I supervised my last Ph.D., I took a look back at what my students ended up doing and where they’re doing it. And I realized with a bit of surprise but a lot of warmth and good feelings that they are all doing “their own thing.” The “standard approach” obviously wasn’t operating in my lab which, FWIW, was named The Institute for Experimental Epistemology. I called it that because I thought it was an oxymoron. On my last visit to Brooklyn College I noted that the plaque was still affixed to the door (though someone else was occupying the rooms).

In no special order here’s a partial list of what my many students are now up to:

1. Professor and chair of the psychology department and a member of the Board of Governors of a Midwestern college. We still collaborate on research on sport psychology.

2. Clinical psychologist with a focus on sexuality and sexual disorders who has published a number of well-received books.

3. Researcher on the roots of autism and associate director of an autism center in the Southwest.

4. Professor and chair of the psychology department in a New York City liberal arts college and developer of a program for using Internet platforms for research.

5. Senior researcher specializing in outcomes assessment for the New York City board of education.

6. Senior researcher specializing in outcomes assessment for the New York City board of education (yes, two of them ended up in the same department).

7. Senior research fellow in an applied science firm in Israel.

8. Professor of psychology at a university in the Middle East who studies the links between creativity and bilingualism — also a published poet (and, of course, multilingual).

9. Director of clinical services at a community mental health center, now retired.

10. Professor of education at a university in the Pacific Northwest, retired. It’s amusing to realize you’ve been around so long your students have joined you in retirement. It’s like having your grandkids getting married — and that’s happening later this month.

11. Research fellow at a think tank in New York city.

12. Professor and chair of the social sciences department at one of the CUNY community colleges.

13. High school teacher (a job she had when she came into my lab) who continues to do scholarly work in collaboration with her psychologist husband.

14. Clinical psychologist in private practice with a specialty in sex therapy.

15. Distinguished professor of forensic psychology in a CUNY college and the CUNY Graduate Center.

16. Professor of psychology and ESL in a Japanese university. Now fluent in Japanese, he is the university’s liaison with English language institutions.

17. Researcher and clinician with a specialty in marriage and counseling.

18. Professor and chair of the psychology department in a liberal arts college in Pennsylvania. Dozens of his undergrads have gone off to top-flight PhD programs.

19. Professor of clinical psychology at a New York university and a leading expert on family violence and adolescent suicide.

20. Distinguished professor at a Tier I university with a research program on computational models of human cognitive functions.

21. Chair of the psychology department of an elite liberal arts college in upstate New York and a leading authority on the psychology of education and the teaching of psychology.

22. Partner in a market research firm who also retooled and became a psychoanalyst.

23. Professor in a liberal arts college in Connecticut.

24. Researcher in information technology in his native Ontario, Canada.

The thing that just jumped out at me as I compiled this list this was that none of them followed up in research areas even remotely close to mine. This, I can tell you, is not typical. But, in retrospect, it’s not surprising but it is satisfying.

I always tried to nurture ideas, creativity and an expanding vision. I never wanted my students to parrot my ideas or mirror my interests. My favorite students were the ones who fought me at every turn. I never marched in lock-step with my professors and ended up the better for it. And that became my model.

I was startled to see how many of them ended up chairing their departments and heading up programs. I did three years as department chair and was awful at the job. You’d have thought they’d learned. Maybe they learned by watching my screw-ups and knew what not to do…

What’s also intriguing is how many moved into applied and clinically oriented lives. My approach was pure science but I was always ready to support any and all extensions of basic research into applied domains. I’d like to think that my broad vision here was part of what they ended up doing though I suspect that some of them came into my lab because they realized I’d give them a longer leash with more slack in it than others.

So it’s all cool and I think I did the right thing and the world is better for it. Barkeep, pour me another — make it a double.

Another Chicken Thigh Recipe -- Greek Style

A couple of months back I posted a “platform” for cooking chicken thighs with several different preperations and flavors. Here’s another variation I’ve played around with and like enough to post here for anyone interested. As before, use thighs with skin and bones, brown in olive oil and then set aside while you compose the rest of the dish — always use the same pan.

Dressing:

2 T olive oil

1 t each of dried basil, thyme and oregano

1/2 t lemon juice

1/4 t balsamic vinegar

s & p

Veggies and Sauce:

1 tomato, 1 red onion and 2 peppers (different colors for aesthetics) - rough chop

6 olives - pitted (Kalamata are good) - halve if large

1 T flour

1/2 c chicken stock

3 or 4 lemon slices

Garnish:

1/4 c feta (more? up to you), parsley

Prep: Mix dressing ingredients, rub a little on the thighs before browning and drizzle the rest over the veggies and mix. Brown thighs. Sauté all the veggies except the lemon slices. After softened (some 8 minutes or so) dust with flour, add chick stock, stir to thicken. Return the thighs, add lemon slices, cover and simmer for an hour.

Garnish with feta and parsley.

Roasted potatoes with olive oil, oregano, thyme and s & p (or just make extra dressing) works as a starch.

Imagining in POTUS-land

The presidential race (assuming that nothing weird happens and both presumptive nominees become actual nominees) has been referred to lately as a “dumpster fire.” As a simile it doesn’t make a lot of sense but it got me thinking. So, my little head-game for the day: to imagine what a Clinton or Trump presidency might look like.

Hillary first:

a. A continuation of Obama’s foreign policy. Now that’s sort of okay. He got put in a very bad place in the Middle East by the disaster that was Bush/Cheney and he’s tried to extricate us from it. She’d likely follow the same course which means more money, more fighting, battling terrorists and difficult liaisons with friends and foes alike. I’m not crazy about this but don’t see any obvious options.

b. An expansion of social issues including increasing support for minorities, the LGBT community, women, children, the elderly and the disadvantaged. Efforts to improve the ACA and a renewed interest in boosting the reach of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.

c. A shift in the tax code to make it more progressive and a gradual increase in the minimum wage. I suspect we’d see a dangling of the possibility of taxing all Wall Street trades as a way of generating revenue. I know folks think she’s in the bankers’ pockets. I don’t. I suspect there’s a Keynesian lurking inside her. And I think Sanders’ success taught her some important things.

d. Support for science, research and development, a focus on the environment and climate change and offers to work cooperatively with businesses and corporate interests.

e. Efforts to deal with student debt and a gradual move to convince states to provide more funds for public colleges and universities.

f. Liberal appointees to Federal benches including more women and minorities.

g. Ambiguity on TPP. Frankly, I have no idea where she will end up on this issue. Trade is a complex issue and every move we make has wide-spread implications. Globalization is real. Care and tact are called for.

In short, I expect her to be very much like Obama, pragmatic and thoughtful, moderate on matters of the economy and liberal on social issues, temperate in foreign affairs and expansive on issues of culture, science and education. I also hear coherent and balanced language in speeches, pronouncements and dealings with the media.

Now some in the GOP may see this as a disaster approximating a dumpster fire but not me. Is she “likeable?” I don’t know. I don’t care. Bush was likeable.

Now Trump:

Sigh… I’m thinking… I am. I can’t come up with anything coherent. I don’t know where he stands on any of this. Virtually every position he’s ever taken he’s reversed. Almost every program he’s ever supported he’s rejected. The few constants are bizarre like that idiotic wall, an immigration policy that is unconstitutional and an anti-trade stance that is astonishingly naive.

What would he actually do (or try to do) on the economy? taxes? Social Security? education? the Middle East? the environment? the military? judicial appointments? health care? minority rights? abortion? anything? anyfuckingthing at all?

I have no idea. He has no ideas, just slogans and posturing.

But imagining this thin-skinned, puffed-up narcissist who cannot find his way out of a sentence without committing some linguistic, social or cognitive gaff giving major addresses, handling the varied opinions of advisors, dealing with criticism, holding press conferences, working with world leaders, making decisions that must fall within the rule of law and not the fantasies that bounce about in his head actually sitting in the Oval Office produces (at least in my head) a crazy mix of worry, fear and trembling.

Seriously folks, play the game, try to imagine what it would be like to have as POTUS someone who revokes the press credentials of a respected newspaper because they published articles that criticized him, insults reporters who ask him embarrassing questions, who uses racial slurs against a Federal judge because he didn’t like a ruling, who calls for violence against protesters, says he’d murder civilians to defeat ISIS, advocates religious discrimination, accepts endorsements from racists, approves of torture and would ignore the Geneva Conventions, admires dictators, claims he’ll tear up approved international treaties and who wants Korea and Japan to have nuclear weapons.

Just try. Form this image. Let it sit there for a time, festering.

Yet close to half of the electorate seems poised to check the box next to his name. Defenders say he won’t really do what he says he will, that he won’t really act that way, that it’s only for the election, to fire up his base.

Why would they believe that? What do they think he will do?

What if they’re wrong?