Yesterday, I learned that Kamala Harris had appeared on Saturday Night Live’s cold open along with Maya Rudolph. (Yeah, even with the extra hour, I didn’t get through Sunday’s emails on Sunday.) Mitch, sweetie that he is, had sent me a link to the NYTimes article on it, which I did archive, but frankly I don’t much care what the NYTimes has to say about anything any more. So here’s a link to the Cold Open on YouTube. Also yesterday I learned that Quincy Jones died Sunday – and I might not have learned that without subscribibg to The Root’s free enail newsletter, so much has the election sucked the life out of all other news (although in the evening I did hear about it on CPR Classical.)
Heather Cox Richarddson has just returned fro a thirteen month book tour, and is admittedly exhausted. But, while o tour, everywhere she went she was asked the same question – to wit, how she managed to maihtain hope in the face of – well, everything. this is her answer. I’m not adding a tissue alert – I needed one, but I think that’s at least in large part because I’m low on antidepressant just now – and I don’t see this history being taught in red states any time soon. But the history itself is filled with hope.
Joyce Vance’s “The Week Ahead” (also from Sunday evening) may not be as radiantly hopeful as Cox Rixhardson, but it is full if information which should not be missed. What we don’t know about, we cannot defend against. And it’s not all bad. There’s some good news also. (And did you know that chickens can purr? The previous day’s column even had a short video with sound which proves it. I am speechless.)
Yesterday, I came across a short post sharing that MSNBC had shown an image of JD Vance over the chron “Look what the cat dragged in.” That gave me a smile. I also attempted making cookies, oatmeal raisin, with a non-wheat flour. I knew I would need more liquid than I normally use on account of the oatmeal (I used instant) but I overdid it a little. So they look odd. But they taste alright.
It may have been done before – but I have not seen this quote about fascism applied to democracy (don’t worry, it’s not negative) in this way – particularly combined with the concept that it happens a lot, in and outside of government in both small and large ways.
(non-paywall link) I don’t know how Rolling Stone does it – but so many scoops that are truly significant seem to start there. The New Yorker used to do that, with reporters like David Remnick and Ronan Farrow, but I’ve lost confidence in them. This story, of course, we’ve known what seems like forever – at least in the general outlines – but the details are now included.
Yesterday, because I forgot about the time difference, I livestreamed the final third of a Capitol Fourth. It was fine. I was glad to see a lot of performers of color, including the host. And the cannon in the 1812 overturewould have done Tchaikovsky proud. I personally wold not have programmed “God Bless America,” simply because it annoys me that Christians seem to think it’s a Christian song so they have a monopoly on iy, when in fact it’s a Jewish song, written by Irving Berlin. But they certainly could have done worse.
I’m not sure why this never occurred to me before … but in view of the fact that so many uptight Republicans live in rural areas, it seems odd that they appear tp think they can “protect” children from learning about sex by regulating porn. Kids living on farms and especilly ranches probably see more sex (granted betweem animals) than even the most enterprising city and suburban kids can manage to access on the internet. Do you suppose this isn’t about morals at all, but rather about rural people reproducing more, and the rest of us reproducing less?
I figure we’ll all be talking about this for a while. This article not only discusses the topic, but provides additional reference to knowledgeable people’s responses which could sstart a lot of conversation. I don’t, owever, think we should lose sight of the facts that our number one priority needs to be re-electing Biden, and our number two (a very close two) is giving him the Congress he needs to work with.
The above is a snapshot. I would not deliberately send y’all to Xitter. The full text is here.
Yesterday, Lona put up a comment on the video thread for the 18th which included a video she hopes everyone hare will look at and read. I can’t link directly to the comment, as I used to be able to do in the old system, but I can link to the thread, so that you only need to scroll down and expand the comment. Between this and the short takes – I’m sorry I had to put up such a downer on a weekend. But it’s important – and it’s important to address this stuff right away before too many people get sucked in to the information silo.
Cartoon – 21 Nelson
Short Takes –
Protect Democracy – Poland just showed the world how democracy wins
Quote – At a gathering of pro-democracy organizations in 2017, a Polish opposition member of parliament named Agnieszka Pomaska was asked: “What’s your number one piece of advice for democracy advocates in the United States?” Poland has been at the front lines between democracy and authoritarianism, between freedom and repression — not just in the current era, but arguably throughout modern history. Pomaska’s response was simple: “Don’t let the pro-democracy coalition fracture.” On Sunday, Polish voters showed the world just how effective that strategy can be. Click through for details. Look, I would never say that, for instance, Hamas would never attack Israel or anything else Jewish for no reason at all. Nor would I ever say that Bibi’s government is desirable, or anything otjher than authoritarian and inhumane. But the timing of this war in the Midddle East looks to me designed to fracture the coalition. Just as attacks on Hillary, mostly made up and even the small errors far less important than Republican crime, were designed to fracture the coalition – and they succeeded. And, yes, there are people who are willing to kill for political theater if it strengthens their position or their base.
The 19th – What it takes to defend diversity
Quote – Just three years after the racial reckoning that made much of society examine the ongoing legacy and harm of systemic inequality, a parallel reckoning has also unfolded. It’s one driven by a sense of grievance from White American men, a movement that often co-opts women and even people of color, making them out to be victims of current efforts that are designed to right historic wrongs. Such efforts, Abrams told me, are part of a larger strategy to roll back attempts to make our country more free and fair for women and people of color. It’s the same playbook that dismantled voting and abortion rights, aimed at rolling back racial progress in institutions across the country. “The through line is that our progress as a nation, our economic uplift, our continued dominance, is predicated on full participation, and diversity, equity and inclusion is the roadmap to get us there,” Abrams said. “The threat of lawsuits, the threat of public castigation, the threat of being called out for doing right, is compelling some to retrench. That is dangerous.” Click through for article. We’ve seen this before. We’re seeing it again. And then things will get better for a while, and then we’ll see it again – those of us who are still around. I don’t know what it will take to make it go away forever, and maybe that’s not possible. I’m pretty sure it’s not possible to eliminate misogyny. It doesn’t appear to be hereditary (Exhibits A, B, and C Stephen Miller, Paul Gosar, RFK Jr), so selective breeding wouldn’t do it, even if that were feasible.
Glenn Kirschner – Trump is indicted in Georgia for RICO conspiracy for trying to steal the 2020 presidential election
Thom Hartmann – God Wants Immigrants To Suffer & Die Says GOP
Robert Reich – 5 Facts About Trump’s Indictments
[There’s more after the VPN commercial]
Liberal Redneck – Ohio and the Future of Democracy
Wild Child Kitten Grows Up Looking After Rescue Puppies
[I chose this basically for one sentence – near the end – you’ll recognie it – it’s the one that ends “and it’s never failed me yet.”
Beau – Let’s talk about Texas, Paxton, the feds, and assumptions….
Experts in autocracies have pointed out that it is, unfortunately, easy to slip into normalizing the tyrant, hence it is important to hang on to outrage. These incidents which seem to call for the efforts of the Greek Furies (Erinyes) to come and deal with them will, I hope, help with that. As a reminder, though no one really knows how many there were supposed to be, the three names we have are Alecto, Megaera, and Tisiphone. These roughly translate as “unceasing,” “grudging,” and “vengeful destruction.”
Originalism. It’s become associated with people like Scalia, and Alito, and the Federalist Society – and, accordingly, with racism, misogyny, and plutocratic capitalism. Not that all the Founders thought that way – and even fewer would have thought that way had it occurred to them to examine that thinking. Just as they didn’t live in ancient Athens, or pre-conquest Anglo-Saxon England – or the Aztec Empire – or the Ottoman Empire – you get the point, I’m sure – they also did not live in the 21st century. What might they have done differently if they had, or if they could have foreseeen it? Might we benefit from the thought experiment of trying to design a more perfect union as if we had no constitution in place and no precedents of any kind, just us and our principles (and technology)? That’s the question the author of this article and his colleagues continue to address.
==============================================================
Re-imagining democracy for the 21st century, possibly without the trappings of the 18th century
Imagine that we’ve all – all of us, all of society – landed on some alien planet, and we have to form a government: clean slate. We don’t have any legacy systems from the U.S. or any other country. We don’t have any special or unique interests to perturb our thinking.
How would we govern ourselves?
It’s unlikely that we would use the systems we have today. The modern representative democracy was the best form of government that mid-18th-century technology could conceive of. The 21st century is a different place scientifically, technically and socially.
For example, the mid-18th-century democracies were designed under the assumption that both travel and communications were hard. Does it still make sense for all of us living in the same place to organize every few years and choose one of us to go to a big room far away and create laws in our name?
Representative districts are organized around geography, because that’s the only way that made sense 200-plus years ago. But we don’t have to do it that way. We can organize representation by age: one representative for the 31-year-olds, another for the 32-year-olds, and so on. We can organize representation randomly: by birthday, perhaps. We can organize any way we want.
U.S. citizens currently elect people for terms ranging from two to six years. Is 10 years better? Is 10 days better? Again, we have more technology and therefor more options.
Indeed, as a technologist who studies complex systems and their security, I believe the very idea of representative government is a hack to get around the technological limitations of the past. Voting at scale is easier now than it was 200 year ago. Certainly we don’t want to all have to vote on every amendment to every bill, but what’s the optimal balance between votes made in our name and ballot measures that we all vote on?
Rethinking the options
In December 2022, I organized a workshop to discuss these and other questions. I brought together 50 people from around the world: political scientists, economists, law professors, AI experts, activists, government officials, historians, science fiction writers and more. We spent two days talking about these ideas. Several themes emerged from the event.
Misinformation and propaganda were themes, of course – and the inability to engage in rational policy discussions when people can’t agree on the facts.
Another theme was the harms of creating a political system whose primary goals are economic. Given the ability to start over, would anyone create a system of government that optimizes the near-term financial interest of the wealthiest few? Or whose laws benefit corporations at the expense of people?
Another theme was capitalism, and how it is or isn’t intertwined with democracy. And while the modern market economy made a lot of sense in the industrial age, it’s starting to fray in the information age. What comes after capitalism, and how does it affect how we govern ourselves?
Many participants examined the effects of technology, especially artificial intelligence. We looked at whether – and when – we might be comfortable ceding power to an AI. Sometimes it’s easy. I’m happy for an AI to figure out the optimal timing of traffic lights to ensure the smoothest flow of cars through the city. When will we be able to say the same thing about setting interest rates? Or designing tax policies?
How would we feel about an AI device in our pocket that voted in our name, thousands of times per day, based on preferences that it inferred from our actions? If an AI system could determine optimal policy solutions that balanced every voter’s preferences, would it still make sense to have representatives? Maybe we should vote directly for ideas and goals instead, and leave the details to the computers. On the other hand, technological solutionism regularly fails.
Choosing representatives
Scale was another theme. The size of modern governments reflects the technology at the time of their founding. European countries and the early American states are a particular size because that’s what was governable in the 18th and 19th centuries. Larger governments – the U.S. as a whole, the European Union – reflect a world in which travel and communications are easier. The problems we have today are primarily either local, at the scale of cities and towns, or global – even if they are currently regulated at state, regional or national levels. This mismatch is especially acute when we try to tackle global problems. In the future, do we really have a need for political units the size of France or Virginia? Or is it a mixture of scales that we really need, one that moves effectively between the local and the global?
As to other forms of democracy, we discussed one from history and another made possible by today’s technology.
Sortition is a system of choosing political officials randomly to deliberate on a particular issue. We use it today when we pick juries, but both the ancient Greeks and some cities in Renaissance Italy used it to select major political officials. Today, several countries – largely in Europe – are using sortition for some policy decisions. We might randomly choose a few hundred people, representative of the population, to spend a few weeks being briefed by experts and debating the problem – and then decide on environmental regulations, or a budget, or pretty much anything.
Liquid democracy does away with elections altogether. Everyone has a vote, and they can keep the power to cast it themselves or assign it to another person as a proxy. There are no set elections; anyone can reassign their proxy at any time. And there’s no reason to make this assignment all or nothing. Perhaps proxies could specialize: one set of people focused on economic issues, another group on health and a third bunch on national defense. Then regular people could assign their votes to whichever of the proxies most closely matched their views on each individual matter – or step forward with their own views and begin collecting proxy support from other people.
This all brings up another question: Who gets to participate? And, more generally, whose interests are taken into account? Early democracies were really nothing of the sort: They limited participation by gender, race and land ownership.
We should debate lowering the voting age, but even without voting we recognize that children too young to vote have rights – and, in some cases, so do other species. Should future generations get a “voice,” whatever that means? What about nonhumans or whole ecosystems?
Should everyone get the same voice? Right now in the U.S., the outsize effect of money in politics gives the wealthy disproportionate influence. Should we encode that explicitly? Maybe younger people should get a more powerful vote than everyone else. Or maybe older people should.
Those questions lead to ones about the limits of democracy. All democracies have boundaries limiting what the majority can decide. We all have rights: the things that cannot be taken away from us. We cannot vote to put someone in jail, for example.
But while we can’t vote a particular publication out of existence, we can to some degree regulate speech. In this hypothetical community, what are our rights as individuals? What are the rights of society that supersede those of individuals?
Reducing the risk of failure
Personally, I was most interested in how these systems fail. As a security technologist, I study how complex systems are subverted – hacked, in my parlance – for the benefit of a few at the expense of the many. Think tax loopholes, or tricks to avoid government regulation. I want any government system to be resilient in the face of that kind of trickery.
Or, to put it another way, I want the interests of each individual to align with the interests of the group at every level. We’ve never had a system of government with that property before – even equal protection guarantees and First Amendment rights exist in a competitive framework that puts individuals’ interests in opposition to one another. But – in the age of such existential risks as climate and biotechnology and maybe AI – aligning interests is more important than ever.
Our workshop didn’t produce any answers; that wasn’t the point. Our current discourse is filled with suggestions on how to patch our political system. People regularly debate changes to the Electoral College, or the process of creating voting districts, or term limits. But those are incremental changes.
It’s hard to find people who are thinking more radically: looking beyond the horizon for what’s possible eventually. And while true innovation in politics is a lot harder than innovation in technology, especially without a violent revolution forcing change, it’s something that we as a species are going to have to get good at – one way or another.
+============================================================== Alecto, Megaera, and Tisiphone, this is really radical – radical in the best, the original, sense – go all the way to the root because everything stems from it. I invite y’all to try it – empty your minds of present politics – how would you design the system? For instance, I know I would not want one suggestion – AI voting for me on a minute-by-minute basis, based on analysis of my actions. Because, for one thing, my actions are not always my best self. If it were going to vote on my behalf based on my principles, I might consider it. But then I’d hve to figure out how I wanted my principles to be determined by the AI. And then there’s the fact that I change my mind when I learn I am wrong. Not everyone does. And there are a number of radical thoughts here – for example, haveing representation, but having it be on a different basis than geography – for example, by birth year. Maybe you have ideas that are completely different from anything mentioned.
