Wired.com Names Laura Hudson Culture & Entertainment Editor

Daughter Laura continues to move her career through the world of online entertainment journalism. Earlier this year, she left her position as Editor-in-Chief of the best-of-class blog site Comics Alliance, which she founded and built for AOL/Huffington Post to address the world of comics, graphic novels, and the movies that follow from them. She wanted to do more freelance writing as she had occasionally done for Publishers Weekly, The Los Angeles Times, Complex magazine and, yes, Wired magazine.

But a funny thing happened on her way down that new road: a car named Wired.com stopped and asked her if she wouldn't rather take a ride with them as their new Culture and Entertainment Editor. An offer, an opportunity, that would be hard to turn down.

And after the requisite soul-searching, she accepted the offer, of course. She recently moved to the San Francisco area, spent Thanksgiving with us at brother Adam's house in Irvine CA, and began work at Wired this past Monday. So, from Brown to Toyohashi, Japan to New York City, then to Portland, OR, and now San Francisco.* That's my girl, and I'm very proud of her.

Click the following link to see the announcement:
http://www.minonline.com/news/Wired-com-Names-New-Culture-and-Entertainment-Editor_21528.html

[* Following her brother Adam's peripatetic example: he from Colby to Amica where he has worked in their Boston, Rhode Island and Ann Arbor, MI offices, was general manager of their West Coast call center in Spokane, WA, and now is Southern California sales and service manager in Costa Mesa, CA. I'm very proud of him, too. We raised our children to follow their opportunities, and the lessons seem to have stuck!]

Narrowing Notions of Higher Education & Narrowing of the American Mind

More and more, entering college students tie their choices of degree program and curriculum to its immediate prospects for employment and salary. Those choices have too often become narrowly utilitarian, and oriented too much to short-term horizons. Too often, they forego a broader education and the valuable skill set offered in the liberal arts. There the focus is more on analytical reading, critical thinking and effective writing about the world from a science, social science, humanities, mathematics and historical perspective. And that provides the kinds of knowledge and skills that make you better and wiser at whatever you choose to do professionally, and in serving your family and community, too. More, it just opens more horizons for exploration and enjoyment, for life-long learning and better understandings.

 

It’s easy to understand the phenomenon. It also makes some sense, even if only along a very narrow path of thinking and decision making for the here and now. Given the increasingly out-of-reach cost of higher education for low- and middle-income families and students, and given the realities of a struggling economy and the lack of jobs for college graduates, it‘s even more understandable.

 

The fact that there are now educational research data available that reveal which degree programs and which majors usually command the highest salaries is only fueling the march to misguided notions of a higher education experience and its value. Of course, that is not the purpose of this research and data, but that is the purpose to which it has too often been misappropriated.

 

A recent article in the Chronicle of Higher Education addresses both these issues: the narrow thinking about what constitutes a good education, and the misappropriation of data that supports it. It begins with a hypothetical job interview:

 

"I'm in it for the money," she explains. "I make all my choices on the basis of how much I can expect to earn. I chose my major based on earnings reports. I applied for this particular position because you pay more than any other company in the region. Actually, I'm a bit sorry that I didn't stop with a two-year degree, since I read in the newspaper last week that I could have made almost as much in my first job with half the time spent on college. I hate thinking about all the time I wasted."

 

You have no difficulty deciding not to hire this new graduate. The job applicant who arrives talking money first, money only, lacks common sense, and career sense, too. And yet our candid candidate did nothing more than parrot—with chilling accuracy and very recent data—the current national dialogue about what really matters in college.

 

---“The Narrowing of the American Mind,” by Carol Geary Schneider, The Chronicle of Higher Education (10.22.12)

 

But Ms. Schneider understands fully the social and economic backdrop for the expansion of this kind of thinking among prospective and new college students. And while she sees great potential value in the broader sets of data that research will produce, she is very concerned about its narrow, short-term application by prospective or new college students. From the article:

 

With Americans now experiencing acute anxiety over jobs, money, and our larger future, policy analysis and public discussion of higher education—from the White House down—have focused with laser-like intensity on the connections between college and earnings. The U.S. Department of Education has led this effort with its "gainful employment" regulations—ostensibly aimed at for-profit excess, but all too clearly a blunt instrument waiting to be used on all parts of postsecondary education.

 

Over the past year, numerous wage studies have analyzed which majors correlate with the highest earnings. And last month, the American Institutes for Research [AIR] helped produce an even more finely honed analysis, which ties specific programs—for example, business or health—in specific Tennessee colleges to the wages that graduates earned when they entered the job market. Virginia has announced its own program-level wage-data system, and other states are poised to follow.

 

The larger development behind the AIR study is the emergence of unit-record systems that can tie together, over time, information about an individual student's educational history and other parts of her postgraduate history, including employment. Speaking only for myself—the Association of American Colleges and Universities has taken no position on unit-record systems—this is potentially a very positive development. Given the importance of higher education to America's ability to compete, we urgently need the capacity to track achievement by individuals, and not just by institution.

 

There is good reason to worry, however, that if these systems focus on only a few data points—such as students' major fields and salary levels—they will end up distracting attention from the very components that matter most in education: individual opportunity, the health of our democracy, and economic vitality and resilience.

 

And Ms. Schneider also points up the problems with an approach to higher education that is more likely to fulfill short-term income hopes than the best long-term interest of the individual and the nation. The article, in closing:

 

The basic problem with the recent spate of wage studies is that they start not with a full analysis of what society needs from its commitment to college, but rather with data sets that are now available and can be correlated…

 

The fact is that society needs many kinds of talent and knowledge development from the nation's colleges. This is a global century, so wherever a student enrolls and whatever the major, college needs to help build citizens' global intelligence—the knowledge and skills to navigate an era of economic interdependence and cross-cultural intersection. This is a science- and technology-fueled century, so everyone needs science, technology, and mathematical savvy and experience. This is a democracy, so students' ability to engage in collaborative civic problem solving is, in the long run, just as important as their capacity to engage in job-related problem solving. This is an economy where innovation is all-important, so students must develop adaptive and problem-solving skills in addition to critical thinking and quantitative capacities.

 

In short, whatever students choose as their particular majors, we need to ensure that their choices—majors and core studies combined—help them develop all these capacities. We need to make sure, in short, that college provides students with an opportunity-creating education—a liberal and liberating education—and not just with knowledge specific to a particular field.

 

Even if we focus strictly on the learning needed for success in the economy, employers who advise the Association of American Colleges and Universities' work on educational quality emphasize that the major is only a part of the job-success equation. What they really want to know, they say, both in national surveys and in focus groups, is whether a graduate can tackle new questions and complex problems. Have graduates developed the capacities and commitment not simply to apply what they learned in their majors, but rather to keep pace with the dizzying pace of change in every field, in organizational ecologies, and in the wider society? Are graduates ready for a lifetime of new learning that will challenge them to make connections across many kinds of evidence and many areas of endeavor?

 

Wage studies that look only at the graduate's choice of major may well accelerate the narrowing of the American mind at the very moment in history when multidimensional learning—liberal learning—has become essential to success.

 

[Carol Geary Schneider is president of the Association of American Colleges and Universities.]

 

Amen, and Amen.

 

The "Cliff," the Deficit, and Progressive Tax Reform

We’ve talked a lot about the dismal state of American political leadership, and the despair it has brought us. And even those of us who take heart in the flashes of strong leadership President Obama showed earlier in his first term, and see his potential and promise, feel that too often he has lacked boldness and strength. But this is his time, if there is truly to be one. The opportunity, the necessity, is a bi-partisan deal to avoid the “fiscal cliff” and set in place the first substantial step to a plan that will wisely and effectively reduce our gaping budget deficit, but without throwing us back into recession. And just as important, we’ll need the same brand of leadership from Speaker Boehner. It is his time, too.

 

We know from the debt ceiling debacle that Mr. Boehner can be worked with and can be reasonable. And now he is as empowered as he will ever be to bring his party to the table. The nation demands it. And I believe he will. But the President has to be open to the Speaker’s opening bid of tax reform as a way to raise tax revenue from the financially well off. And I believe he will be. I’m sure Mr. Obama is well briefed on the long-term benefit and rightness of tax reform that would jettison a lot of inefficient, wasteful tax benefits (deductions, credits and exemptions) for various industries and well-off individuals.

 

Just as much revenue could be raised in that manner, and it leaves us with a stronger tax structure in the end. Yes, it would be good “liberal” politics to raise the rates on high-income folks, and it could contribute to the deal, but it would be more progressive in fact to reform the tax code—and have the Republicans taking or sharing the lead on it. That way, you get revenue and reform. Better, much better. (And by the way, some or all of those individual deductions—the home mortgage interest deduction, for example—could and likely would be means-tested or capped so as to still be available for lower- and middle-income families.)

 

A few issues ago, The Economist presented its well-researched, thorough and even-handed treatment of economic inequality and the implications for economic growth. A notable element of their prescription for needed change in the U.S. was tax reform. In the more recent November 17 edition, they follow up on that prescription with a “Leaders” editorial and a complementary article in the “United States” section. From the Leaders piece:

Setting a cap on deductions is a better starting point than raising tax rates. 

[…] Mr Obama has long argued that repairing America’s finances will require raising more tax as well as cutting spending. Influential Republicans, most importantly including John Boehner, the Speaker of the House, now appear to agree. This comes not a moment too soon. In less than two months America will reach a “fiscal cliff”, when George W. Bush’s tax cuts will expire and automatic spending cuts will take effect (see article). The economy could suffer a fiscal tightening of as much as 5% of GDP over a full year, easily enough to bring on recession. 

Before any deal to avoid this can be struck, though, big issues must be resolved. What categories of spending are to be cut? And, on the revenue side, which taxes should go up? Ever since taking office, Mr Obama has pressed to make Mr Bush’s tax cuts permanent for 98% of households while ensuring that the wealthiest 2% pay more. Mr Boehner says that tax rates should not go up for anyone; but he is open to raising revenue by eliminating tax breaks. The good news is that there may be a deal to be had that meets both objectives. 

Returning the two top marginal rates to 36% and 39.6% from their current 33% and 35% would hardly capsize the economy, but it is not the most efficient way to raise revenue. At the margin, higher rates discourage work and investment and encourage tax avoidance. It would be better to revamp the tax code, starting out by leaving marginal rates alone and instead raising revenue by curbing the deductions and exemptions that pockmark the system and cost the Treasury as much as $1 trillion a year in forgone revenue. These “tax expenditures” are camouflaged government subsidies and create damaging distortions: the mortgage-interest deduction, for instance, encourages supersized houses and debts to match; the charitable deduction forces taxpayers to subsidise everyone else’s pet cause, whether that be Planned Parenthood or the George W. Bush presidential library; and the tax break for employer-provided health insurance helps fuel the relentless rise in health-care costs. 

[…] Cap in hand 

There are many routes to reforming these exemptions. One would be to single out particular tax breaks for elimination. But the likelihood is that the process would crumple under the onslaught of lobbyists who defend every loophole, resulting in too many exceptions and too little revenue. An easier first step would be to cap all deductions, an approach advanced by none other than Mitt Romney. Set at $50,000 such a cap would raise some $750 billion over ten years, estimates the Tax Policy Centre, a think-tank—more than would be obtained by restoring the top two rates to pre-2001 levels. The cap would barely touch the bottom 60% of taxpayers while only slightly hurting the upper-middle class. Most of the money would come from the top 1%. 

---“Higher taxes the easier way,” The Economist, Leaders section (11.17.2012) 

 At the cost of some redundancy, let’s look at the second article, which explores the contours and possibilities of a political deal, and also shares the estimated budget impact of various reforms or changes to the tax code. From the article:

Barack Obama and Republicans grope towards common ground on taxes 

THE election dust had barely settled when Barack Obama and his Republican adversaries returned to their traditional rhetoric over taxes… Optimists, however, took note of what the men did not say: Mr Boehner did not rule out raising tax revenues. Mr Obama did not explicitly insist that the two top income tax rates, now 33% and 35%, return to 35% and 39.6%, as they are scheduled to do when George W. Bush’s tax cuts expire at the end of this year. 

This has aroused hopes that the two men can find common ground on tax reform that leaves marginal tax rates where they are while raising new revenue by curbing credits, deductions and exemptions (collectively called tax expenditures), which distort economic activity. Numerous such proposals have been aired in recent years, some of which Republicans hated because they raised new revenue; others Democrats rejected because they gave a windfall to the wealthy. 

One way this could be done is to target deductions that primarily benefit the rich. During the election campaign, Mitt Romney proposed paying for big marginal rate cuts by setting a cap on total deductions. The Tax Policy Centre, a think-tank, reckons a cap of $50,000 would raise $749 billion over ten years, comparable to the $800 billion that Mr Boehner entertained during failed negotiations with Mr Obama in 2011. Importantly, this fix would make the tax system much more progressive: 80% of the additional money would come from the top 1% of earners. This has helped draw interest from some Democrats. 

A slightly different proposal by Martin Feldstein, a prominent Republican economist, and Maya MacGuineas of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a think-tank, would cap the tax benefit of itemised deductions at 2% of income for all households. Mr Feldstein reckons that would raise more than $2 trillion over ten years, although almost all families would pay more tax, not just the rich.

 

 

As it happens, Mr Obama has already proposed curbing tax breaks for the wealthy (see table). His budget would restore the limits on their exemptions and deductions that Mr Bush’s tax cuts eliminated. A separate proposal would limit the tax benefit of deductions for mortgage interest, charitable contributions, municipal bond interest, employer-provided health care, and individual retirement plans to 28%, even for taxpayers paying a 35% or 39.6% marginal rate.

Despite their superficial appeal, such proposals face daunting obstacles. Foremost is that they may not raise enough revenue to satisfy Mr Obama. In the run-up to formal negotiations due to begin on November 16th, Mr Obama signalled he would begin by asking for $1.6 trillion in revenue over the coming decade, as his latest budget does. At a press conference on November 14th, he said “it’s very difficult to see how you make up” the revenue lost from failing to restore the higher rates just by closing deductions: “The math tends not to work.” But, he added, “I’m not going to just slam the door” on alternatives that accomplish what he wants. 

 The second obstacle is the calendar. Politicians are racing against a year-end deadline when Mr. Bush's tax cuts are triggered. The collective fiscal tightening, if sustained, could push the economy into recession. Even if the two sides agreed that tax reform would be the main vehicle for raising more revenue, the task would be too complex to accomplish by year-end.  A smaller deal would be needed to avert the cliff, leaving bigger tax and entitlement changes for next year. The challenge then would be to bind the hands of both parties to consummating a big deal next year.

For all the appeal of curbing loopholes, each has vocal and influential defenders. When the Obama administration first proposed its 28% cap on tax expenditures, “we got killed,” Peter Orszag, Mr Obama’s first budget director, recalls, in particular by charities and non-profit groups. For Mr Obama and Mr Boehner, finding agreement with each other may very well prove to be the easy part.  

---“Opening bids,” The Economist, United States section (11.17.2012)

A form of capping or means-testing along those lines, or for some of those items, is likely what Mr. Obama has to be ready to work with if he is going to have credibility and success at the bargaining table. But if lobbying and politics deny the deal sufficient revenue from tax reform, then Mr. Boehner and the Republicans will have to show flexibility on increasing tax rates for high-income individuals to some material extent. Both the Dems and the GOP must engage and partner responsibly to get something useful and lasting done. Courage and flexibility in leadership must in fact to be present and on display by both sides. It’s about successfully restoring and strengthening the country—not party or ideology, not selfishness or political victory. Let’s hope that sentiment is sufficiently shared to carry the day.

"O Captain! My Captain!" On Political Duty, Courage and Leadership

Yesterday the words kept coming to me: "O Captain! My Captain!" Perhaps it
was the two Lincoln biographies that faced me from the shelf, or the new and
promising movie about him. Or perhaps it was just the dejection, the
dispirited hangover of a political campaign season marked to an unnerving
degree by an abundance of purposeful mendacity and misdirection of the
electorate. Perhaps it was also the polarized, polarizing and dysfunctional
public process of government that has costumed itself as serious
representatives and servants of the public, and more unlikely still, as
statesmen. Sadly, precious little resembling public responsibility, courage and honor is to be found in our politics or governance.

More likely it was all those things, and a book of "best loved" poetry
recently read also facing me from the shelf. But the current state of
government affairs, bereft of political courage and leadership as it is, was
doubtless weighing heavily on my subconscious. (Yes, Mr. Obama offers promise, but promise as yet unfulfilled.)

So why wouldn't Abraham Lincoln come to mind, even if indirectly? Something
more like the leadership of Lincoln is what we hope for in our too quiet
desperation. It is what we need.

"O Captain! My Captain!" was Walt Whitman's poetic tribute to the fallen
President Lincoln, to the end undaunted in his duty, and likely first in
political courage among our presidents. It is only possible for me to
consider today's American leaders in the same discussion with the good Mr.
Lincoln for the purpose of pointing out how far they fall short of the
mark.

With that introduction, Mr. Whitman's poetic lament:

O Captain! My Captain!

O Captain! my Captain! our fearful trip is done;
The ship has weather'd every rack, the prize we sought is won;
The port is near, the bells I hear, the people all exulting,
While follow eyes the steady keel, the vessel grim and daring:
            But O heart! heart! heart!
               O the bleeding drops of red,
                   Where on the deck my Captain lies,
                       Fallen cold and dead. 

O Captain! my Captain! rise up and hear the bells;
Rise up—for you the flag is flung—for you the bugle trills;
For you bouquets and ribbon'd wreaths—for you the shores a-crowding;
For you they call, the swaying mass, their eager faces turning;
            Here Captain! dear father!
               This arm beneath your head;
                  It is some dream that on the deck,
                     You've fallen cold and dead.  

My Captain does not answer, his lips are pale and still;
My father does not feel my arm, he has no pulse nor will;
The ship is anchor'd safe and sound, its voyage closed and done;
From fearful trip, the victor ship, comes in with object won;
             Exult, O shores, and ring, O bells! 
                But I, with mournful tread, 
                   Walk the deck my Captain lies, 
                       Fallen cold and dead.

How distant the time and how far our lost wandering from the leadership of
Lincoln to what pretends to political leadership today. We too should loudly
lament its passing. And we should demand better.

A Poem of Hafiz, A Teaching of Paul (Revisiting a 2009 Post)

Would You Think It Odd? *

 

Would you think it odd if Hafiz said,

 

"I am in love with every church
And mosque
And temple
And any kind of shrine

 

Because I know it is there
That people say the different names
Of the One God."

 

Would you tell your friends
I was a bit strange if I admitted

 

I am indeed in love with every mind
And heart and body.

 

O I am sincerely
Quite crazy
About your every thought and yearning
And limb

 

Because, my dear,
I know
That it is through these

 

That you search for Him.

 

 

The Apostle Paul, in Colossians 3

 

[Y]ou laid aside the old self, with its evil practices,
and put on the new self
who is being renewed to a true knowledge
according to the image of the One who created him—

 

a renewal in which there is no distinction
between Greek and Jew,
circumcised and uncircumcised,
barbarian, Scythian, slave and freeman,
but Christ is all, and in all.

 

And so,
as those who have been chosen of God,
holy and beloved,
put on a heart of compassion, kindness, humility,
gentleness, and patience;
bearing with one another, and forgiving each other,
whoever has a complaint against anyone;
just as the Lord forgave you, so also should you [forgive].

 

And beyond all these things,
put on love,
which is the perfect bond of unity.
And let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts,
to which indeed you were called in one body,
and be thankful.
 

 

* From I Heard God Laughing: Poems of Hope and Joy (1996, 2006), poems of Hafiz as freely interpreted in English by Daniel Ladinsky.
 

 

The Economist's Unenthusiastic Presidential Endorsement: Barack Obama

In a difficult call for them, and saying that America could do better than Barack Obama, The Economist has nonetheless endorsed the re-election of "the devil we know" rather than candidate Mitt Romney, whom they do not feel can be known, understood, or predicted--and on whom there are so many frightening political claims to support bad policies by those at the ideological or political margins of the GOP or conservative groups. But the publication gives both credit and criticism even handedly, providing a fair review of the things the President has done well, the things that should have been done, and those that now must be done.

I'm a little surprised by the endorsement, but relieved and pleased by it. There have been tentative signals in a number of articles. But candidate Romney left them with too little to build a principled, consistent and confident case on the key issues of our time--and too little to know who he now is. They had no other choice, not really.

 

Link to article:

http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21565623-america-could-do-better-barack-obama-sadly-mitt-romney-does-not-fit-bill-which-one?spc=scode&spv=xm&ah=9d7f7ab945510a56fa6d37c30b6f1709

 

Time Magazine: The Case for Obama, The Case for Romney

Time magazine offers us two strong and well-informed advocates, each making the case for his candidate. These authors, and an endorsement by The Economist to follow, may help you broaden or sharpen your understanding of the men and the issues.

 

First, making the case for presidential candidate Mitt Romney is Rich Lowry, the editor of the National Review, a respected conservative publication:

 

Link to article:

http://swampland.time.com/2012/11/01/the-case-for-mitt-romney  

 

Second, making the case for President Barack Obama's re-election is E. J. Dionne Jr., a Washington Post columnist, author, and professor at Georgetown University.

 

Link to article:

http://swampland.time.com/2012/11/01/the-case-for-barack-obama

 

 

Fiscal Austerity: A Deficit of Common Sense | The Economist

We hear so much about the need to responsibly reduce the budget deficit. Some are unmovable in their support of cold, program reducing austerity or tax increases, others intractable in their arguments for economic stimulus. The Economist explains that under a range of different circumstances, one or the other could be the better answer--or a combination of both. But with interest rates so low, the recovery so fragile, and program reform nowhere in sight, it appears clear austerity is the greater threat to America right now, especially as we must soon look over the so-called "fiscal cliff."

 

Link to article:

 

http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21565211-debate-about-budget-cuts-has-become-dangerously-theological-deficit-common-sense  

 

Of Swans, and Love, and Such Things

How long do you have to read and reread a poem before it shares its truth with you? For a poem that holds promise, as long as it takes. In this case, three years.

 

 

Swans* (by Mary Oliver)

They appeared
   over the dunes,
     they skimmed the trees
       and hurried on

to the sea
   or some lonely pond
     or wherever it is
       that swans go,

urgent, immaculate,
   the heat of their eyes
     staring down
       and then away,

The thick spans
   of their wings
     as bright as snow,
       their shoulder-power

echoing
   inside my own body.
     How coud I help but adore them?
       How could I help but wish

that one of them might drop
   a white feather
     that I should have
       something in my hand

to tell me
   that they were real?
     Of course
       this was foolish.

What we love, shapely and pure
   is not to be held,
     but to be believed in.
       And then they vanished, into the unreachable distance.

 

 

*From Evidence, Poems by Mary Oliver (2009)
 

True Progressivism: Inequality and the World Economy [The Economist's Study]

At long last, a strong and respected voice has raised the clarion call: we should be concerned about the retarding economic effects of inequality. Yes, inequality is not just a social issue; it is, as many of us have long argued, just as much a threat to long-term economic health and growth.

 

The Economist confidently shoulders its responsibility to address the threat of economic inequality around the world, but especially here in the U.S.  I could not have been more relieved to see the topics of inequality, government subsidies to various industries and the wealthy,  as well as reform of social programs, elevated so prominently and with such a sense of immediacy. Its cover story and a special report offer a research-based approach to understanding the nature of the problem and fashioning a new, more responsible progressivism based on it.

 

From the Leaders section editorial:

 

A new form of radical centrist politics is needed to tackle inequality without hurting economic growth.

 

[…] Does inequality really need to be tackled? The twin forces of globalisation and technical innovation have actually narrowed inequality globally, as poorer countries catch up with richer ones. But within many countries income gaps have widened. More than two-thirds of the world’s people live in countries where income disparities have risen since 1980, often to a startling degree. In America the share of national income going to the top 0.01% (some 16,000 families) has risen from just over 1% in 1980 to almost 5% now—an even bigger slice than the top 0.01% got in the Gilded Age.

 

It is also true that some measure of inequality is good for an economy. It sharpens incentives to work hard and take risks; it rewards the talented innovators who drive economic progress. Free-traders have always accepted that the more global a market, the greater the rewards will be for the winners. But as our special report this week argues, inequality has reached a stage where it can be inefficient and bad for growth.

 

---“True Progressivism: Inequality and the World Economy,” The Economist, Leaders section (10.13.2012)

 

That special report includes a summary overview article, “For richer, for poorer,” and eleven supporting articles organized by both topic and regions of the world to reveal what research has led them to conclude and the policy recommendations they feel are necessary. I will not attempt to cover the supporting articles, except for quotes from the concluding two pieces, “Having your cake,” and “Policy Prescriptions.” The others may be accessed directly from margin links in the overview article, “For richer, for poorer.” I often suggest that reading the rest of an article I quote from is worth the time invested. For those who would understand all the pieces of this puzzle, all the steps that lead to their conclusions and recommendations, for those who care to understand this critical and changing area of threat to our economic well-being, this is essential reading.

 

Now let us return to our summary treatment of the Leaders editorial:

 

[Inequality] is most obvious in the emerging world. In China credit is siphoned to state-owned enterprises and well-connected insiders; the elite also gain from a string of monopolies. In Russia the oligarchs’ wealth has even less to do with entrepreneurialism. In India, too often, the same is true.

 

In the rich world the cronyism is better-hidden. One reason why Wall Street accounts for a disproportionate share of the wealthy is the implicit subsidy given to too-big-to-fail banks. From doctors to lawyers, many high-paying professions are full of unnecessary restrictive practices. And then there is the most unfair transfer of all—misdirected welfare spending. Social spending is often less about helping the poor than giving goodies to the relatively wealthy. In America the housing subsidy to the richest fifth (through mortgage-interest relief) is four times the amount spent on public housing for the poorest fifth.

 

Even the sort of inequality produced by meritocracy can hurt growth. If income gaps get wide enough, they can lead to less equality of opportunity, especially in education. Social mobility in America, contrary to conventional wisdom, is lower than in most European countries. The gap in test scores between rich and poor American children is roughly 30-40% wider than it was 25 years ago. And by some measures class mobility is even stickier in China than in America.

 

Some of those at the top of the pile will remain sceptical that inequality is a problem in itself. But even they have an interest in mitigating it, for if it continues to rise, momentum for change will build and may lead to a political outcome that serves nobody’s interests. Communism may be past reviving, but there are plenty of other bad ideas out there.

 

Okay. Having come that far, let’s take a closer look at the economic impact of reducing inequality? I will quote liberally from this penultimate supporting article in the study, the one that deals more directly with the studies and experience that indicate there are inefficient types or aspects of inequality. And while more research is needed for certainty in some areas, others are now quite clear.

A century ago inequality was deemed an essential condition for investment and growth because rich people save more...More recently the focus has been on its incentive effect…Redistribution, in contrast, brings inefficiencies as higher taxes and government handouts deter hard work. The bigger the state, the greater the distortion of private incentives.

That logic remains as powerful as ever. Economic freedom and better incentives boosted growth in China, India and elsewhere. Sweden’s experience shows that deregulation, lower taxes and fewer benefits increase economic dynamism even as they reduce equality. Yet the analysis in this special report suggests that logic is incomplete. Some of today’s inequality may be inefficient rather than growth-promoting, for several reasons. 

First, in countries with the biggest income gaps, increasing inequality is partly a function of rigidities and rent-seeking [political or economic manipulation for uncompensated gain] —be it labour laws in India, the hukou system and state monopolies in China or too-big-to-fail finance in America. Such distortions reduce economies’ efficiency. Second, rising inequality has not, by and large, been accompanied by a smaller (and hence less distortive) state. In many rich countries government spending has risen since the 1970s. The composition has changed, with more money spent on the health care of older, richer folk, and relatively less invested in poorer kids. Modern transfers are both less progressive and less growth-promoting. 

Third, recent experience from China to America suggests that high and growing levels of income inequality can translate into growing inequality of opportunity for the next generation and hence declining social mobility. That link seems strongest in countries with low levels of public services and decentralised funding of education. Bigger gaps in opportunity, in turn, mean fewer people with skills and hence slower growth in the future. 

[…] More recent studies support the idea that inequality can be inefficient. In an influential analysis in 2011 two IMF economists, Andrew Berg and Jonathan Ostry, looked at the length of “growth spells” rather than simply comparing growth rates. They found that growth was more persistent in more equal countries, and that income distribution mattered more for the length of growth spells than either the degree of trade liberalisation or the quality of a country’s political institutions. 

Other researchers have tried to isolate the “unhealthy” types of inequality using the two indices of inequality of opportunity first developed by the World Bank and described earlier in this special report. Two Spanish economists… built an index of economic opportunity for individual American states. They found that states’ GDP growth was inversely correlated with their inequality of opportunity, but not with overall inequality. In a forthcoming World Bank working paper, [it was found] that countries with lower educational equality, as measured by the Human Opportunity Index, grow more slowly. 

This line of research is in its early stages, but a second strand of evidence, which examines the link between inequality and social mobility, is more developed. There are now plenty of studies which use the inter-generational elasticity of income to measure social mobility in different countries. Miles Corak, a Canadian economist, first plotted the results of these studies on a single graph. It is known as the “Great Gatsby Curve” (see chart 4), and suggests that countries with higher Gini coefficients [0=perfect equality, 1=one person has all income; Sweden increased to .24, US increased to.39, China=.42-.48] tend to have lower inter-generational social mobility. 

[…] Perpetuating advantage 

In some ways the link between wider income gaps and lower social mobility is unsurprising. From violin lessons to tutors for tests, richer parents can invest more in their children, improving their chances of getting into the best universities. The meritocratic assumption is that public provision of basic services, particularly education, does enough to counter this advantage to give everyone a reasonable start. That was never true in poor countries with rudimentary social services. Increasingly, it does not seem to be true in rich ones either, particularly America. But the link between inequality and declining mobility is not inevitable. Countries such as Sweden that invest heavily and progressively in public services are more likely to prevent widening income inequality from reducing opportunity. And Latin America shows that investing more in education at the bottom can improve social mobility even in the most stratified places. 

[…] Quite legitimately, different people have different notions of what is fair, and what is the right balance between fairness and efficiency. But whatever their views, there is a reform agenda which both sides should embrace, one that both boosts efficiency and mitigates inequality. 

---“Trade offs: Having your cake,” The Economist (10.13.2012)

Now that we’ve surveyed some of the analysis, let’s look to the last supporting study, the prescriptions The Economist believes are called for by this research, what they call a true progressive agenda, and one which borrows some of the best thinking from both the right and the left.

Bold moves are needed to tackle inequality and boost growth at the same time.

One is to curb cronyism and enhance competition, particularly in emerging markets. Just as Roosevelt broke up America’s trusts (monopolies) and cracked down on political corruption, China, India and many other emerging economies need to do some trust busting and graft-attacking of their own… 

In advanced countries, removing subsidies for too-big-to-fail financial institutions should also be high on the new progressive agenda. That, too, would result in more balanced economies and remove the rents that lie behind a lot of the surge in wealth at the top. Rich countries also need more competition in traditionally mollycoddled sectors such as education. Governments have a responsibility to invest in the young, but also to ensure that teachers have incentives to do their best. 

The sooner the better 

A second priority is to attack inequality with more targeted and progressive social spending. In emerging economies, especially in Asia, that means replacing expensive universal subsidies for energy with tailored social safety nets. It means wider use of conditional cash transfers. Latin America’s models are gradually being copied elsewhere, but there is much farther to go: rich countries would do well to adopt the idea of tying social assistance to individuals’ investment in skills and education. 

Both rich and emerging economies must bring about a shift in government spending—from transfers [payments under social programs] to education, and from older and richer people to younger and poorer ones. Even if inequality were irrelevant, developed countries would need to reform their pension and health-care systems because today’s promises are simply unaffordable. Concerns about distribution and its effect on future growth add impetus: the longer that governments prevaricate about reforming entitlements, the more will be squeezed from investment in the young and poor. 

These days, public investment in education needs to go beyond primary and secondary school. Giving the less advantaged a leg up means beginning with pre-school and includes retraining for the less skilled. In both areas America, in particular, is found wanting. Its government spends barely more than 0.1% of GDP on “active labour-market policies” to get the less skilled back to work, one-fifth of the OECD average. Only half of American children attend pre-school. China plans to have 70% of its children in three years of pre-school by 2020. 

The third priority is to reform taxes, to make them a lot more efficient and somewhat fairer. Critics of inequality often tout higher marginal taxes on the rich. Yet in most countries other than America, government spending is a much more important tool for combating inequality than the tax system. Tax revenue is better seen as a way to fund the state, not a tool to punish the rich. Economists argue about the disincentive effects of higher tax rates. (Messrs Piketty and Saez, the economists who have transformed analysis of income concentration at the top, reckon, controversially, that the optimal top income-tax rate could be as high as 80%.) But no one doubts that there are trade-offs. 

In countries where the state is already large, rebalancing government spending should take precedence over raising more revenue. But given the mess that public finances in most countries are in, more tax revenue is likely to be necessary, particularly in less highly taxed countries such as America. Even there, though, higher marginal income-tax rates should not be the first choice. Instead, the focus should be on eliminating distortions that reduce both progressivity and the tax system’s efficiency. 

The “carried-interest” loophole, which allows private-equity managers to pay (low) capital-gains rather than (higher) income tax on their earnings, is one such sore. So are many tax deductions, from those for charitable contributions to mortgage interest, most of which disproportionately benefit the wealthy. An overhaul of the tax code to reduce corporate tax rates and narrow the gap between individuals’ tax rates on capital and labour income would improve its efficiency and make richer people pay higher average tax rates. Higher property taxes would be an efficient and progressive source of revenue. Inheritance tax could be reformed so that it falls on individual beneficiaries rather than on the estate as a whole, as it does in Germany. That would encourage the wealthy to distribute their wealth widely, thereby making a hereditary elite less likely. 

[…] The most shocking shortcomings are in America, the rich country where income gaps are biggest and have increased fastest. The Republicans are right to say that Medicare, America’s health-care system for the old, must be overhauled. But by slashing government spending on basic services such as education and advocating yet more tax cuts at the top, they undermine equality of opportunity. 

The Democrats are little better. Barack Obama gave his own speech at Osawatomie last year, wrapping himself in Roosevelt’s mantle. Inequality, he said, was the “defining issue of our time”. But his response, from raising the top income-tax rate to increasing college-tuition subsidies, was just a laundry list of small initiatives. Roosevelt would have been appalled at the timidity. A subject of such importance requires something much bolder. 

---“Policy prescriptions: A True Progressivism,” The Economist (10.13.2012)

I have little to add to this bold, well-researched analysis and the responsible set of recommendations that logically follow. The fact that I have long agreed with most of it makes it easier to be a cheerleader, of course.

 

Many thanks to The Economist for bringing this most thoughtful synthesis of research, economic and social wisdom to us at this time when our country, our electorate and our politicians, desperately need to hear it.

 

The Ponds, A Poem by Mary Oliver

It’s been too long since I’ve shared any of Mary Oliver’s poetry, or anyone else’s for that matter. I’ll try to do better. And let me begin with a poem I’d not read from a collection* that I’d not been drawn to. My mistake. It’s a poem about ponds and pond lilies, but just as much, I think, about communities and people, about seeing the brighter light and greater beauty that embraces both the seemingly perfect and the clearly imperfect, the promise of the blooms, each and all, and their eventual passing.  See what you think.

The Ponds, by Mary Oliver* 

Every year
the lilies
are so perfect
I can hardly believe  

their lapping light crowding the black,
mid-summer ponds.
Nobody could count all of them— 

the muskrats swimming
can reach out and touch
only so many, they are that
rife and wild.

But what in this world
is perfect?

I bend closer and see
how this one is clearly lopsided--
and that one wears an orange blight--
and this one is a glossy cheek

half nibbled away--
and that one is a slumped purse
full of its own
unstoppable decay.

Still, what I want in my life
is to be willing
to be dazzled--
to cast aside the weight of facts

and maybe even
to float a little
above this difficult world.
I want to believe I am looking

into the white fire of a great mystery.
I want to believe that the imperfections are nothing--
that the light is everything--that it is more than the sum
of each flawed blossom rising and fading. And I do.

And shouldn't we all?


*A poem from House of Light (1990)

One More Time: Van Morrison - Caravan

Okay. One more time. Got to do it. A younger Van Morrison. Still the man, then and now.

Van Morrison, Vanlose Stairway, BBC Sessions

Van the Man. Vanlose Stairway. What more can I say?

Winning By Gerrymandering, the Nastiest Politics

In my most recent post, we reviewed Time magazine's illuminating, if dispiriting, look at how presidential campaigns now purposefully deceive and lie, both of them—and why it doesn't hurt them. Today, The Atlantic  takes us deeper into the murky, insidious world of "gerrymandering"—or voter redistricting constitutionally required after each decennial census, and the arcane, furtive, often blunt-force process by which the party with power or influence at the time reshapes the make-up of voting districts to their own advantage. It's all about each party's quest for more "safe seats." Says the Republican redistricting vice chair in the House of Representatives; it is "the nastiest form of politics there is." But let's back up and fill in some background on the issue.

 

Every 10 years, after U.S. census workers have fanned out across the nation, a snowy-haired gentleman by the name of Tom Hofeller takes up anew his quest to destroy Democrats. He packs his bag and his laptop with its special Maptitude software…and departs his home in Alexandria, Virginia, for a United States that he will help carve into a jigsaw of disunity.

 

Where Hofeller travels depends to some degree on the migratory patterns of his fellow Americans over the previous decade. As the census shows, some states will have swelled in population, while others will have dwindled. The states that gained the most people are entitled, under the Constitution, to additional representation in the form of new congressional districts, which (since the law allows only 435 such districts) are wrenched from the states that lost the most people. After the 2010 census, eight states (all in the South and the West) gained congressional districts, which were stripped from 10 others (in the Midwest and the East Coast, as well as Katrina-ravaged Louisiana).

 

The creation of a new congressional district, or the loss of an old one, affects every district around it, necessitating new maps. Even states not adding or losing congressional representatives need new district maps that reflect the population shifts within their borders, so that residents are equally represented no matter where they live. This ritual carving and paring of the United States into 435 sovereign units, known as redistricting, was intended by the Framers solely to keep democracy's electoral scales balanced. Instead, redistricting today has become the most insidious practice in American politics—a way, as the opportunistic machinations following the 2010 census make evident, for our elected leaders to entrench themselves in 435 impregnable garrisons from which they can maintain political power while avoiding demographic realities.

 

--"The League of Dangerous Mapmakers," by Robert Draper, The Atlantic (October 2012)  

That is the context and summary of the what and why questions; now let's explore more about the how question. Just how does the practice and process work? And what was it about the coincidence of the 2010 census and the 2010 mid-term successes of the Republicans that presented them such a unique gerrymandering opportunity? And how did all that work out?

 

And so his cyclical travels take him mainly to states where the Republicans are likely to be drawing the new maps. (In most states, an appointed committee consisting of legislators from the majority party produces the map, which is then brought to the legislative body for a vote. Other states relegate the duties to an appointed commission.) At meetings, Hofeller gives a PowerPoint presentation titled "What I've Learned About Redistricting—The Hard Way!" …He warns legislators to resist the urge to overindulge, to snatch up every desirable precinct within reach, when drawing their own districts.

 

[…] Be discreet. Plan ahead. Follow the law. Don't overreach. Tom Hofeller relishes the blood sport of redistricting, but there is a responsible way—as Hofeller himself demonstrated this past cycle in the artful (if baldly partisan) redrawing of North Carolina's maps—and also a reckless way. So that his message will penetrate, he tells audiences horror stories about states that ignored his warnings and went with maps that either were tossed out by the federal courts or created more political problems than they solved.

 

Already Hofeller has picked out which cautionary tale he will relay during the next decennial tour. The new horror story, he's decided, will be Texas, which stood, this past cycle, as a powerful example of how reckless a redistricting process can become. That mangled effort also provides a stark contrast to the maps Hofeller helped create in North Carolina—drawings that demonstrate how in the blood sport of redistricting, the most cravenly political results are won with calculating prudence.

 

                            *       *       *       *       *

 

As the election returns rolled in on the evening of November 2, 2010, Hofeller had already started gearing up for the next round of redistricting. "I'm sitting and watching, less interested than many in the congressional races," he recalled. "I'm the one saying 'Okay, so we won Congress. The question is, are we going to keep it?' And then what I see is that we gained 700 state legislative seats. The night just kept getting better and better. Things happened in some states"—in terms of controlling whole legislative bodies—"that we never expected. Alabama! North Carolina!"

 

It seemed like Reconstruction all over again for the GOP. Because the Republican tsunami coincided with the 2010 census, Tom Hofeller's party was suddenly able to redraw many of the 435 congressional maps to its own partisan advantage.

 

Without asking for guidance from Hofeller or other veterans of the trade, delirious party officials predicted that after all the connivances were set in motion, the GOP would be able to reward itself with an additional 15 safe House seats before a single vote was cast in the 2012 elections.

 

It hasn't quite turned out that way. Partly this is because Democrats understood the stakes and went to extraordinary lengths to blunt the assault. In California, the Democrats (according to e-mails obtained by ProPublica) successfully swayed a newly formed independent citizens' redistricting commission, through an intricately coordinated guerrilla operation that will likely accrue them six or seven new seats. In Republican-controlled Florida, Nancy Pelosi—in relentless pursuit of the House speakership she lost after the 2010 midterms—helped fund the successful "Fair Districts" referendum to ban partisan redistricting. The measure seems to have persuaded Florida map-drawers to exhibit some self-restraint, and thus a number of surefire Republican seats were wiped from the boards. Of course, Pelosi has not suggested that the Fair Districts concept be applied to states where her party wields legislative control, such as Maryland and Illinois, where the Democrats further cut into the GOP's gains by drawing nakedly partisan maps that simply vaporized Republican-held districts.

So, we're starting to get a sense of how intensely the political parties attend to this furtive process, the pre-game game of drawing the playing field so that the pitch of it more clearly assures victory for their candidates—and how well they understand how this pre-game game is played. So much, so well, that they have party teams, chairmen, and full-time strategists working on it. Now let's look at some in-the-trenches examples of just how it works, and especially that Texas example Mr. Hofeller is so eager to share.

 

By July 2011, Hofeller had helped produce what a Democratic operative ruefully terms "exceptionally smart" maps—ones that, assuming they survive a lingering court challenge, may very well install a 10–3 GOP stronghold in place of the present 7–6 Democratic congressional majority.

 

Hofeller already knew North Carolina, the focal point of several landmark redistricting cases in which he'd testified, well. The Tar Heel State has a history of election discrimination and is therefore one of the jurisdictions covered by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which requires that electoral maps be approved by either a federal court or the Justice Department. (Like all other states, North Carolina is also covered by Section 2, which forbids discriminatory practices more broadly.) Hofeller and the other Republican mapmakers therefore took particular care not to "retrogress" the racial makeup of the districts represented by the African-American Democrats G. K. Butterfield and Mel Watt—since doing so would have meant running afoul of the Voting Rights Act.

 

Instead, he reserved his chief mischief for the remaining districts. Hofeller and his cohort hoarded several of Raleigh's white precincts and moved them into the 2nd District, which had been held by Democrats for 108 of the previous 110 years, until a former intensive-care nurse named Renee Ellmers rode the Tea Party wave to an upset victory in 2010. The new drawings would give the neophyte Ellmers a safe Republican district to last at least at decade. Recognizing that North Carolina's many Democratic voters had to be put somewhere, the mapmakers shoveled as many as possible into the Democratic districts of Watt and of David Price, a former Duke professor who represented the liberal bastion of Chapel Hill. Most of those Democrats, however, were stripped from the districts of the moderate Democratic incumbents Mike McIntyre, Larry Kissell, and Brad Miller. In the Democrat Heath Shuler's 11th District, the mapmakers simply gouged out the progressive core, Asheville, and affixed it to the 10th, the state's most Republican district over the previous 60 years. The new maps have made quite an impact. Shuler and Miller have announced that they will not seek another term. McIntyre (whose house has now been drawn out of his own district) and Kissell are widely viewed as among the most imperiled Democrats facing reelection in November.

 

Progressive groups immediately filed suit challenging the North Carolina maps, contending that the state deliberately diluted minority voting power. Hofeller happens to be an old hand at redistricting litigation, and the maps will probably survive into the next decade. Still, legal battles have been the other major factor in diminishing the Republican Party's success.

 

Given that blacks and Latinos tend to vote overwhelmingly Democratic, Republicans have often taken pains to maximize their control of the districts in a way that does not violate the terms of the Voting Rights Act. But the new census results have presented the GOP with a particularly confounding puzzle—one that lies at the center of this cycle's redistricting controversies. On the one hand, the biggest gains in U.S. population over the past decade have been in two Republican-controlled states: Florida, which thereby received two new congressional districts, and Texas, which was granted a whopping four.

 

But on the other hand, most of each state's new residents are African Americans and (especially) Hispanics. In Texas, the population has swelled by 4.3 million over the past decade. Of those new residents, 2.8 million are Hispanic and more than half a million are African American. While those groups grew at a rate of 42 percent and 22 percent, respectively, the growth in white Texans was a meager 4.2 percent. In other words: without the minority growth, Texas—now officially a majority-minority state—would not have received a single new district. The possibility that a GOP map-drawer would use all those historically Democratic-leaning transplants as a means of gaining Republican seats might strike a redistricting naïf as undemocratic.

 

And yet that's exactly what the Texas redistricting bosses did last year. Shrugging off the warnings of Tom Hofeller and other Washington Republicans, the Texans produced lavishly brazen maps that resulted in a net gain of four districts for Republicans and none for minority populations. The entirely predictable consequence is that the Texas maps have spent more than a year bouncing between three federal courts, including the Supreme Court. The legal uncertainty has had national ramifications. It meant, for example, postponing the Texas primary from March 6 until May 29, which cost Texas its role as a prominent player in the Super Tuesday presidential sweepstakes—a very lucky break for the eventual nominee, Mitt Romney, who likely would have lost the state to Newt Gingrich or Rick Santorum.

 

But the chaos produced by the overreach in Texas isn't anomalous. Rather, it is very much in keeping with the new winner-take-all culture of redistricting, an endeavor that has somehow managed to grow in both sophistication and crassness, like an ageless strain of cancer that inhabits a host body for so long that the two seem inseparable, even as the former quietly destroys the latter from the inside out.

What, then, are the implications for democracy in America? What does it mean in terms of the equal protection and influence of each person's vote? Based on what we've covered so far, it is understandable that some well-informed insiders see the aggressiveness of redistricting as having reached a point that undermines our democracy and notably diminishes the voting power or influence many minority voters, effectively disenfranchising them. Let's consider the reflections of a veteran of the process who is very much concerned for where the unfettered and unapologetic aggressiveness in this arcane but central process has taken us as a democratic country and representative government—and how far it has taken us from the protective intent of the founding fathers and drafters of the constitution.

 

During his last few years in the House, John Tanner of Tennessee pursued a lonely quest to interest his colleagues in a redistricting-reform bill. Tanner was a co-founder of the fiscally conservative Blue Dog Democrats, who were all but wiped out in 2010, the year Tanner himself decided to head for the sidelines. He had introduced his bill first in 2005, when the Republicans controlled the House, then in 2007 and again in 2009, when Democrats were in charge and Nancy Pelosi was the speaker. "She and Steny [Hoyer, then the majority leader,] said, 'That's a good idea, we'll take a look at it,' " he recalled with a smirk. "But the hard left and the hard right don't want it."

 

Tanner says that redistricting's impact has evolved over time, from simply creating safe seats for incumbents to creating rigid conservative and liberal districts, wherein the primary contests are a race to the extremes and the general elections are preordained. "When the [final] election [outcome] is [determined] in the party primary—which now it is, in all but less than 100 of the 435 seats—then a member comes [to Washington] politically crippled," the retired congressman told me. "Look, everyone knows we have a structural deficit, and the only way out of it is to raise revenues and cut entitlements. No one who's reasonable thinks otherwise. But what happens? The Democrats look over their left shoulder, and if someone suggests cutting a single clerk out of the Department of Agriculture, they go crazy. Republicans look over their right shoulder, and if someone proposes raising taxes on Donald Trump's income by $10, they say it'll be the end of the world. So these poor members come to Washington paralyzed, unable to do what they all know must be done to keep the country from going adrift, for fear that they'll get primaried.

 

"It's imposed a parliamentary model on a representative system," Tanner went on. "It makes sense for Democrats to vote one way and Republicans to vote another in a parliamentary system. It's irrational in a representative form of government. So what that's done is two things. First, it's made it virtually impossible to compromise. And second, as we've seen in this past decade, it's damn near abolished the ability and responsibility of Congress to hold the executive branch of the same party accountable. The Bush years, we were appropriating $100 billion at a time for the Iraq War with no hearings, for fear that [those would] embarrass the administration. Hell yeah, that's due to redistricting! The Republicans in Congress and the Bush administration became part of the same team. We're totally abdicating our responsibility of checks and balances."

 

Of course, Hofeller and some other redistricting experts are quick to dismiss or play down the impact or entrenchment of gerrymandering's polarizing role and results, or to emphasize other factors at play. Some points worth considering are made. You can be the judge of just how dominating the role of gerrymandering is, and whether that makes you feel any better about it.

 

Tanner's bill (which fellow Blue Dogs Heath Shuler and Jim Cooper reintroduced last year, to similar non-effect) would have established national standards for redistricting and shifted the map-drawing duties from state legislatures to bipartisan commissions. Such commissions already exist in a handful of states, while Iowa relies on nonpartisan map-drawers whose end product is then voted on by the state legislature. Tom Hofeller points to the California citizens' commission as evidence that politics will inevitably find its way back into the process. "There's no such thing as nonpartisan," he told me.

 

Perhaps unsurprisingly, Hofeller insists that the dire consequences of his vocation are overblown. "We've had gerrymandering all along, so there's no proof that that's the cause of all the polarization," he told me. "I'm here to tell you that there are two other major factors that are much, much more prevalent than redistricting. One is the 24-hours-a-day, 7-days-a-week news media, where you only get noticed if you're extreme. And the other is McCain-Feingold, which pushed a great deal of money to the extremes." In limiting the size of financial contributions to national parties, the campaign finance–reform law encouraged donors to funnel their cash to opaque outside groups. (See James Bennet's cover story on this subject.)

 

"That's part of the problem," Tanner conceded when I asked him about the super-PAC ads flooding the airwaves. "But you can trace how the members got here back to gerrymandering. I don't give a damn how much money you spend. These guys are gonna be responsive to the people that elected them, to avoid a party primary. And so they come here to represent their political party, not their district or their country. That attitude has infected the Senate, too. Look at Orrin Hatch," he said, referring to the veteran Utah senator who fought off a primary challenge from an ultraconservative. "Now you'd think he was an original member of the Tea Party. It makes you sick to see him grovel."

 

Some redistricting experts argue that Americans have polarized themselves, by gravitating toward homogenous communities, a demographic trend observed in Bill Bishop and Robert Cushing's 2008 book, The Big Sort. But, says one Texas Republican map-drawer, "redistricting has amplified the Big Sort by creating safe Republican and safe Democratic districts. Look at Texas. If you count [Blake Farenthold's] 27th as the result of a fluke election, the [racially polarized West Texas] 23rd is the only swing district in the state." In this sense, the only difference that the new maps will make is that instead of one swing district out of 32, there will now be one out of 36. As to what this portends, former Texas Congressman Martin Frost, a Democrat, told me, "I won't mention anyone by name, but I know certain Republicans in the Texas delegation who would be inclined to be more moderate, if they didn't have to fear a primary challenge."

 

After considering it all, I'm guessing that you are not much uplifted or comforted by this story, this more aggressive, hyper-partisan mode of gerrymandering--and that you likely had no idea it was going on to this degree. And the dismissive views, or contributing factors noted by some professionals probably don't make you feel a lot better about it, either. If you want to read more on the history of gerrymandering, which actually goes back to the earliest years of the republic, or on troubling examples of the practice of these dark arts by modern political party machines, then do read the entire article. It's long, but as informative as it is distressing.

Link:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/10/the-league-of/309084/2/