Matthew Yglesias's Blog, page 2528

Awkward

Ricks on Shelton:

First, he reports, a bit mysteriously, that late in the Clinton administration, the president's authorization codes to use nuclear weapons strike were lost. He doesn't really explain what happened or who knew about it, except that the guy who was supposed to make sure once a month that an aide to the president had the codes kept getting the runaround, and putting up with it. It turned out that an aide to the president had misplaced the codes, and had no idea where they were. The situation only came to light when it was time to collect the old codes and replace them with new ones, and the aide apparently confessed. Shelton tells the story a bit oddly — I had to read this section a few times. I am guessing that the story is about the nuclear "football" that a military aide carries. It made me wonder what happened to that aide. Also, what would have happened if the president had decided to launch a nuclear strike? (392-393)

And what happened to the aid?

Density and Transit Must Go Together

Here's an article about proposals to increase the level of permitted density in Reston as Metro extends heavy rail access out to the area. As you know, I'm generally pro-density, so of course I support this.

But more broadly I would say that state and federal transportation funders should make local approval of increased density a condition of appropriating money for new transportation infrastructure. You wouldn't build a road network in an empty area unless you were planning on putting some development there. And by the same token, the thing that makes rail transportation useful is that it makes high densities logistically feasible. Of course in any given location there will be a market limit to how much density can be supported, but if you build the infrastructure without increasing the regulatory limit you're basically just transferring wealth to owners of existing structures.

The iBookstore

Dave Winograd on the failure of the iBookstore:

The Kindle store currently advertises that they have over 700,000 books, magazines, and blogs available for download. Apple hasn't released statistics on the number of currently available books, so an accurate comparison isn't easy to make, but it's a safe bet to say that once you eliminate the ability to load .pdf files, the availability of e-books from the iBookstore pales. At launch, it was reported that the iBookstore contained somewhere between 46,000 and 60,000 titles, 30,000 of which came from the Project Gutenberg library of free out-of-copyright books. However, since these are also available on the Kindle, we can reduce both sides of the equation by 30,000. This brings the number of titles at launch for the iBook to a generous 30,000. That's a big difference, but outside of raw numbers, there are many factors constraining a massive increase in iBookstore sales.

I love gadgets more than anything, so I got a Kindle when it came out and loved it. Then I got an iPad when that came out and I love it. I never use my Kindle anymore. But one of my very favorite iPad aps is Kindle for iPad, which syncs nicely with Kindle for iPhone and even in a pinch with Kindle for Mac.

Which is just to say that I think the whole business concept underlying the iBookstore is kind of misguided. Apple makes electronics that I think are great, and Amazon is a great retailer. In retrospect, the whole success of iTunes (as opposed to the iPod) is really just a huge business mistake on the part of firms with specialization in online retail or music retail.

Political Dynasties

Via John Sides, Ernesto Dal Bó, Pedro Dal Bó, and Jason Snyder on "Political Dynasties" (PDF):

Political dynasties have long been present in democracies, raising concerns that this inequality in the distribution of political power may reflect imperfections in democratic representation. However, the persistence of political elites may simply reflect differences in ability or political vocation across families and not their entrenchment in power. We show that dynastic prevalence in the Congress of the United States is high compared to other occupations and that political dynasties do not merely reflect permanent differences in family characteristics. On the contrary, using two instrumental variable techniques we find that political power is self-perpetuating: legislators who hold power for longer become more likely to have relatives entering Congress in the future. Thus, in politics, power begets power.

I think we should probably understand political dynasties in democracies as part of the larger story of the importance of elite signaling in democratic politics. Most people have stronger views about individual figures than they do about "the issues." So the question becomes how do you extend the brand? Most voters are most effectively reached via partisan branding—something like 80 percent of people are robotic party-line voters—but "swing voters" by definition don't work this way. Family relationships then become an effective means of extending a positive brand that's doesn't involve parties.

Endgame

We just take a rental:

— This is best read as a Staussian argument for caring less about income inequality.

— Monetary policy doom.

— The smaller-than-expected deficit is part of the problem.

—  to neocons' calls for higher defense spending.

— It's NIMBY vs NIMBY in my local ANC race.

— Tragic story but I enjoy the innovative methods at work in reporting the story, complete with raw video footage of a witness interview.

— Public opinion is not friendly to the war in Afghanistan.

— Ten years of iPod.

New Belle & Sebastian, "I Didn't See It Coming".

The Party of Medicare

George Zornick's post on the "US" Chamber of Commerce's ads bashing Tom Perriello focus on Chamber-centric issues, but there's a broader point to be made:

In Virginia's fifth Congressional district, Democratic incumbent Tom Perriello has faced an onslaught of attack ads funded by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. One such ad implored voters: "Government run health care. Medicare cuts. Have you had enough? Tell Congressman Perriello, stop hurting Virginia families." As ThinkProgress reported, it's possible that the Chamber's attack ads are being funded by foreign money; the Chamber has yet to disclose who, exactly, funds its attack ads.

All's fair in politics, so if the party of small government wants to win a midterm election by bashing Democrats for cutting Medicare they're welcome to do so. But insofar as the issue at hand is ideology rather than partisan politics, one is going to be hard-pressed to see a campaign won in this manner as a thundering endorsement of a libertarian approach to health care or spending. Indeed, it mostly serves as an indication of how difficult it will be to ever repeal the Affordable Care Act once its benefits are locked into place.

Would Bombing Iran Even Delay It's Acquisition of a Nuclear Weapon?

Via Jeffrey Goldberg a very good Barry Gewen article makes the case that "The real policy question, then, should not be whether to bomb in order to forestall a nuclear Iran but whether to bomb to delay a nuclear Iran, and in any cost-benefit analysis, the latter calculation carries a very different weight."

His article is excellent, but I think it's worth underscoring the fact that launching a war with Iran seems just as likely to speed its acquisition of nuclear weapons as to delay it. Iran, like all countries, faces tradeoffs between different national priorities. You could spend more money on the nuclear weapons program, but that would mean less money for Teheran schools or salaries for secret policemen. Alternatively, you could bolster the secret police and cut funding on schools or the nuclear program. And it seems to me that becoming the victim of foreign military strikes is the kind of think likely to persuade Iran's leaders that its existing deterrent capabilities are inadequate to deter aggression and the nuclear program should be advanced relative to other national priorities.

One also has to wonder what the impact of an attack on Iran will be on foreign countries' disposition to sanction Iran. Perhaps it will increase the sympathy of non-weapons states for Iran's situation, and create a more permissive international arena for them. Perhaps the pressure on China and Russia to restrain Iran will evaporate. Perhaps Pakistan will just sell Iran a nuclear weapon.

This whole landscape is, in my view, much murkier than the conventional discussion suggests.

Rand Paul vs The Department of Education

Rand Paul's stated rationale for wanting to abolish the Department of Education is revealing of his ignorance of the relevant issues:

PAUL: I would rather the local schools decide things. I don't like the idea of somebody in Washington deciding that Susie has two mommies is an appropriate family situation and should be taught to my kindergardener at school. That's what happens when we let things get to a federal level. I think I would rather have local school boards, teachers, parents, people in Paduka deciding about your schools and not have it in Washington.

Igor Volsky points out that "[c]urrently, there is a legislative prohibition on the federal government getting involved with local curriculum, even though several states have led a movement to establish common standards and President Obama and Secretary of Education Arnie Duncan have expressed support for the effort." If you abolished all of the Department of Education's programs (as opposed to simply abolishing the department and assigning the programs to a different one) you'd have basically no impact on this sort of issue, but you would make college much less affordable for middle class families and reduce funding for schools for poor kids.

I think Paul's answer is also notable, though, for what it says about coalition politics. What he's offering here is a classic example of the "fusionism" that animated the New Right rebellion against Eisenhower-style Republicanism and lay at the heart of Ronald Reagan's coalition. This is libertarianism as a means to social conservatism, with gays here playing the role that African-Americans played in Barry Goldwater's version of the argument. To libertarians uncomfortable with gay-bashing, Paul can say "I'm not saying there's anything wrong with lesbian parents, I'm just saying it's not the federal government's role." And to social conservatives, Paul can say "this isn't about taking benefits away from normal decent middle class people, it's about keeping the homos in their place."