Politics/Publics Affairs (The road goes ever on...) [OT]

[allentown]

Dens running in the primary against Biden would be a dream scenario for Trump. It would accomplish nothing apart from splitting the party factions. I'm old enough to have been here before. McCarthy pushed Johnson out of the race before losing the nomination to Hubert Humphrey. The bigger winner in all of that was Richard Nixon. And that was when Vietnam was a bigger issue within the party than any issue today.

[xogfog]

Jazzhead, as a fellow jazzhead myself, having had a wonderful childhood meeting many jazz legends touring with my mom. I do think you believe what you say about Biden, though I disagree wholeheartedly. That said, even if you are right about Biden, the Republicans are going to be slaughtered, unless they make abortion legal again, but all signs point to that not happening. In fact, they are trying to ban it everywhere. They are like the dog that finally caught the car and now they don't know what to do. As long as that dynamic is in play, the Republicans won't win anywhere except in the southern states where they are gerrymandered in or Democrats never win. They will lose the House and the Senate and Biden will win easily. Woman are still up in arms and abortion rights will drive them to the poles for Democrats, book it. Look forward to attack ads about abortion rights against every Republican running. BTW Trump used to be pro-choice before he became a fake Republican. The best thing he could do is go back to being pro-choice and the party will come with him and they could have a shot, but he won't do that.

[Austinfan]

The Israelis have not conducted this war well, they basically made a tactical decision to sacrifice Palestinian lives through an air campaign to minimize Israeli causalities, smart tactically but dumb strategically. The optimal strategy would have been to accept a few hundred more dead soldiers to minimize civilian casualties (which would still have been excessive due to Hamas building everything under civilian infrastructure, those hospitals were all compromised, schools, etc.

Israel has to eliminate the Hamas infrastructure and military power (they can't eliminate Hamas as a movement, but they can neuter it, and create an environment where the civilian population will not tolerate a repeat performance) for the sake of the Palestinians as well as their own security - no one will rebuild Gaza as long as Hamas is a credible military threat - because they'll attack again and the Israelis will be force to retaliate again. So if there is a permanent cease fire the Hamas leadership will come out of their tunnels, declare victory, rebuild their villas and leave the rest of Gaza to rot as no one will finance rebuilding and Hamas will divert funds and materials to their own use.

Arab leaders won't admit this publicly, but they're rooting for the Israelis to decimate Hamas, thus eliminating a fundamentalist threat and showing that Iran is impotent (which is why Hezbollah is staying on the sidelines, they know Iran won't save their bacon).

[Jazzhead]

xogfog, you are quite correct that the SCOTUS decision punting abortion back to the states is politically harming Republicans. Fighting for someone's civil rights (as pro-lifers view their advocacy, seeking civil protections for unborn children) is tough, especially where the consequence is the denial to women of a right to their own self-determination each has enjoyed her entire reproductive life.

Politically, there is no louder voice than one who's rights are being taken away. And that's the problem for pro-life Republicans - civil rights for fetuses is a zero sum game. The pro-life cause is far better served by moral persuasion than by legal compulsion.

Putting aside that this election will be dominated by the choice between two personalities each of whom is despised by a majority of the citizenry, the Democrats have the momentum on the abortion issue. The question will be how that advantage stacks up against the Republican advantages on crime, chaos on the border, inflation and, IMO, pushback against progressive social justice polices.

There are differences on foreign policy, but Americans rarely decide elections on questions of foreign policy that don't directly affect us. And finally there is climate change, where if Europe is any indication the backlash has just begun.

[julio]

I agree with a lot of this, Jazzhead.

On abortion…yes, moral persuasion is the appropriate choice. It will be a tough row to hoe, but it’s essential. Women have been obtaining abortions since…forever…and outlawing the practice (beginning in the 1850s?) really didn’t change that. If you want fewer abortions…persuade women that they have real options, by making sure that they do have real options.

The Republican advantages…to my mind, these are largely illusory. Crime is up from 2019, but down from 2022, and we don’t want to even talk about crime rates relative to, say, the 1980s. The border is a problem, but the “chaos” is largely a creation of right-wing media - and US-Mexico border away from ports of entry is not where fentanyl is mostly coming in. That’s a pure scare tactic.

Inflation was mostly a result of the pandemic, and is coming down rapidly (no, that doesn’t mean prices are falling - that’s deflation, not a low rate of inflation); and the US economy has, in fact, performed better than most of our rivals in this regard.

Pushback against social justice. Yep, it’s real. Not that we should be happy about that - because we’re talking about racism, about hostility (often violent) toward gays and transsexuals, anti-semitism, hostility toward Muslims, anti-union attitudes, etc.

Foreign policy and climate change. You’re right; Americans rarely decide elections on questions that don’t directly affect us, or not much…but I would add, in the short run.. We’re very bad at responding to long-range issues. I would argue that what’s happening in Ukraine will very likely affect us directly - if not when Russia goes into one or more of the Baltic states (NATO allies), then when we and what allies we have left (the UK) have to confront a Russia-dominated European continent. Oceania vs. Eurasia? But yes, that’s longer-term, and beyond the imagination of most of my countrymen.

Ditto climate change. Accept short-term adjustments to prevent long-term catastrophe? That’s not the way we roll. And that’s why we’re seeing a backlash; people don’t want to accept an inconvenience today, to address a problem that won’t be acute for years.

But you’re correct about what the “issues” are likely to be. Some of them real, some of them ginned up for political gain. Some of them pressing, some of them longer-term, but approaching existential seriousness.

[allentown]

We've known how to reduce abortion for a very long time: quality sex ed, easy access to contraception, education and employment opportunity for women, affordable childcare, not penalizing women's career advancement because of maternity leaves or taking a couple year break to be mothers to very young children, better adoption laws. Since abortion was legalized by Roe, the abortion rate has gone down. It's like Prohibition and the War on Drugs. None of these can be solved by reducing supply -- they are demand-side problems.

The problem with dealing with the rising budget deficit and global warming is that politicians get zero credit for solving future problem, but the blame for any pain the solution to a long-term problem will cause. Social Security won't go bankrupt, but it is unlikely to be fixed this far from 2034. Global warming will be seriously tackled, but it will be a hard sell until the pain it causes becomes more intense and clean energy cheaper and more convenient. One reason the battle against global warming is going so poorly is that those who declare it to be an existential crisis treat it as anything but.

To Jazzhead and Xogfog: The Supreme Court decision didn't have to be this bad for Republicans. State politicians insisted upon rousing their base by enacting cruel and extreme laws. The TX approach has been particularly cruel. I'm not sure this will even play in TX; it certainly doesn't play nationally. As se see with pro-choice referenda and state constitutional amendments passing in red and purple states, the majority of the public shrinks in horror from cruel or extreme. Repuiblicans have seriously misread the room on abortion and would be well advised moderate their laws. Nikki Haley is correct, it is total head-in-the-sand to believe the TX/FL approach or national restrictions aren't losers. There are national Rs who have pushed for a more reasonable approach, but too many of their brethren seek political advancement through grandstanding. The extreme base rules the primaries.

[Austinfan]

"Social justice" is a loser b/c it's basically preaching to people who don't like the aura of moral superiority of those who preach (save the Palestinians, but "Arabs" committing real genocide in Darfur, who cares, they're just black Africans).

It would be better if different language was used, stop talking about "Rights" (the only rights you have are those granted by the Constitution, Federal or State, or codified in law), and start talking about individual freedom, tolerance of others, no throwing the first stone, women's freedom to choose, etc. Language that resonates to people who didn't take Marxist sociology classes. So instead of "LBGQ rights" talk about "live and let live." Instead of getting into an uproar about "book banning" (like the kids can't find the book on the internet? much less hard core pornography!), propose putting controversial books on parental permission status (parents want to feel they're in control) and put the book banners on the defensive.

A perfect example are Hispanic activists pressuring Biden on border policy, first thing I'd ask them is how many votes can you actually deliver? B/c a large proportion of Hispanic voters WANT border controls, and Democratc mayors don't want thousands of illegal immigrants showing up without jobs or homes, blowing a hole in their budgets. Progressives are trying to suggest they won't vote for Biden b/c of Gaza or immigration, fine, let them live with four years of Trump. Come October, that reality will sober them up (and hopefully shut them up).

[Jazzhead]

Ditto climate change. Accept short-term adjustments to prevent long-term catastrophe?

If that were the deal, then I (and I think most everyone else) would be fine with making the "adjustments". But it's not. There's no evidence whatsoever that the sacrifices that working Americans would be forced to make would have any impact on the climate, not with new coal plants going up every day in China, India and elsewhere.

I am in favor of spending bucks to (i) address environmental pollution and/or (ii) ameliorate the impacts of warmer global temperatures. Not to sacrifice my mobility and prosperity in some vain and futile attempt to tame Mother Nature.

[andyb]

Not to sacrifice my mobility and prosperity in some vain and futile attempt to tame Mother Nature.

When has this even been remotely asked of anyone? Saving energy might even save you money over the long run. Demanding a perfect solution is just not possible, so we experiment with things that we think will help. Asking someone to pay even 50 cents more per gallon of gas is not taking away anyone's freedom.

[julio]

Jazzhead has a point here. Not the jibe about “Mother Nature,” but the argument that efforts (such as they are) by the United States and Western Europe to move away from fossil fuels to mitigate climate change are futile. He may well be correct.

But that argument is essentially that we are all well and truly screwed. That humanity will not take the steps necessary to limit global temperature increase, and to mitigate the effects of that increase.

The conclusion of that argument is, basically, “Our descendants are screwed; we can’t prevent our descendants from being screwed; so why should we sacrifice to maybe make a difference on the margin.” It’s surrender; it’s giving up, living in the moment because there is no future to preserve or even mitigate.

This is not to say that Jazzhead is wrong. Some days, I agree with that conclusion. But unlike some commentators, I’m not willing to pretend that the future “won’t be that bad,” or that “humans can adapt,” much less that “it’s just Mother Nature.” I can’t delude myself about what I expect the future to look like, and I’m not inclined to try to make others feel better by deluding them, either.

[Jazzhead]

Asking someone to pay even 50 cents more per gallon of gas is not taking away anyone's freedom.

To the contrary, if that 50 cents a gallon were dedicated to fixing potholes and mending bridges, I'd consider it a sound investment in my freedom to travel. If it were merely more tax fodder for the government's other foolish priorities, then I'd object vociferously.

[Jazzhead]

Economic growth is the cure for the climate crisis. And affordable, reliable energy is the linchpin for economic growth.

As for the prospects for my descendants, I am sanguine. Prosperity, technological progress as well as the rising role of women in the workplace have led in most developed countries to smaller family sizes and decreased population growth. When a prosperous middle class and the rights of women come to the global south, smaller families and lower population growth will follow there as well. In time, things will get better for the climate. In the meantime, technology and (dare I wish it) sound government policy can ameliorate the negative impacts of increased temperatures if and when they occur while exploiting the positives of warmer winters. (I'm looking forward to the latter!)

[Austinfan]

The Permian basin is going to peter out come the 2030s, and that's the last big oil field in the US, there's no "hidden" fields to be discovered or new technologies that will perform miracles, even in shale fields, the learning curve is close to the end and the "sweet" low cost reserves are being rapidly exhausted (there will be plenty of higher cost reserves). So just from the viewpoint of national security, moving to renewables and electric cars will keep the world oil price down (most of the money going to asshole countries like Russian and Iran) while keeping us "energy independent."

As far as economic growth, investment in infrastructure, education and basic research has more value than cheap fossil energy - there's far more potential in bringing down the cost of renewables (look for dramatic improvements in solar and battery technology driven by AI) than in finding more cheap fossil fuel.

[allentown]

Economic growth is the cure for the climate crisis. And affordable, reliable energy is the linchpin for economic growth.

No, it just isn't. If you think about it, that's like saying the solution to floods is bigger downpours, because rain is needed to produce good crop yield. The linchpin for sustained economic growth in this age of global warming is getting more GDP per unit of global warming emissions: increased energy efficiency across the whole economy, more clean energy produced and consumed, a greater share of consumption going to those services which require less energy. All of that is already happening.

Clean energy, especially solar, continues to decrease in cost rather rapidly. The same could occur with modular nuclear power generation, with more rational regulation. Wind and geothermal can continue to see some reduction in cost, but not as much. A clean-energy future is reasonably attainable, but our need to have it right now can't speed that time schedule much. That takes more R&D, improvement in regulations and law to reduce NIMBY delays, and just continued production of clean generating capacity to progress along the manufacturing learning curve to lower costs.

I don't see it as gloom and doom. We aren't going to limit warming to the unrealistic 1.5 degree C goal, possibly not to 2 degrees C, but we can peak somewhere around there and then reduce the temperature growth. We can't just command super-fast technology improvement or increased manufacturing capacity. That requires two things IMHO: geoengineering and increased spending on mitigation of the effects of warming. These have the ability to lower the warming peak and help hold society together through that peak.

I often state that government policy is naively wrong for trying to solve a demand-side problem with a supply-side solution. In large measure, we are trying to solve the supply-side problem of insufficient clean energy with a naive demand-side solution that stopping fossil fuel projects right now will somehow conjure up the requisite clean energy capacity by, say, 2035, because we've decided that we absolutely must have it by then as if these are either immutable or achievable time deadlines. They are neither. Mitigation and geoengineering can extend those deadlines and make the overall plan far more realistic.

[julio]

Well, Jazzhead, you’re certainly entitled to your (rosy) opinion - and I hope you’re right! - but my particular education and professional experience (debated a career in scientific research, then dropped out, went into public policy, spent 30 years in government, of which 19 was in advanced technology promotion and economic development) means I have serious doubts about “technological progress” producing magical results in this case. Add in my understanding of the history of civilizations that collapsed because of climate changes - including changes that were human-caused - and I’m much less sanguine than you seem to be.

Oh, and the bit about “the negative impacts of increased temperatures if and when they occur while exploiting the positive of warmer winters”? That’s whistling past the graveyard.

[xogfog]

And you can enjoy your beachfront property in PA.

[julio]

And you can enjoy your beachfront property in PA.

Nah. Given that we’re at about 40 feet above current sea level, and that I’ll be 70 in a few weeks, I don’t think the Atlantic Ocean will get here in time. I suspect that the Delaware will get here before the Atlantic - we’re not officially in the flood plain, and have never flooded… but as sea levels rise, and particularly if warmer systems lead to heavier rains, I wouldn’t be surprised if the river finds its way here sometime, some combination of heavy rains and high tides. The soil is alluvial, so it’s clear that the river has been here.

[Austinfan]

I'm a little more optimistic due to the potential of AI to accelerate technological improvement. I'm not worried about our machine masters - AI is pretty dumb, but really good at dumb things like going through thousands of permutations of molecular structure to identify the best candidates for testing, for example.

[allentown]

'm a little more optimistic due to the potential of AI to accelerate technological improvement. I'm not worried about our machine masters - AI is pretty dumb, but really good at dumb things like going through thousands of permutations of molecular structure to identify the best candidates for testing,

AI causes worries, not because it is super smart but because of the rate at which it is improving. It certainly may speed relevant research, such as on materials for batteries and solar cells. It will have a much larger impact on pharmaceuticals and medical diagnosis and treatments. We are now in the incubation period, as we were for about a decade on personal computers, before the big jump in labor productivity occurs. I don't think the lag time will be as big for AI.

[Austinfan]

I expect an "S" curve in terms of AI improvements, what will be revolutionary is not AI suddenly becoming God-like, but people figuring out how to use AI more efficiently to do the mundane tasks of sorting and organizing data, in the same way heavy machinery replaced ditch diggers.