Dr. Peters

About Dr. Peters

Posts by :

Beyond Afghanistan

Twenty years ago yesterday, the United States was attacked by al-Qaeda terrorists who had received training and refuge in Taliban-controlled Afghanistan. Twenty years ago next month, the U.S. and the U.K. launched Operation Enduring Freedom, and the Afghanistan war was begun. Over 80% of Americans supported the war effort in the beginning.

But, the war went on too long, and we witnessed too many failures, from trying to organize a functional national government to training an effective Afghan military. Public attitudes about the war began to shift, and by the time of our evacuation from Kabul last month, over 50% of Americans thought we should withdraw from Afghanistan.

We were able to topple the Taliban quickly, which was one of our goals. But our primary one, the capture or killing of bin Laden, would not be realized until nearly a decade later. If we could have accomplished both of our goals promptly, and then departed, it’s likely that most Americans would have viewed military action in Afghanistan worthwhile.

Instead, Americans are now nearly equally divided on the question of whether the invasion of Afghanistan was a mistake. (There is, of course, a partisan divide here, with Democrats and Independents more likely to take the skeptical view, but nearly one-third of Republicans also view the war as a mistake.)

Council on Foreign Relations: The U.S. War in Afghanistan

I think there will be political costs to Biden over our chaotic evacuation, even though there is plenty of blame to go around, over each administration involved. Bush, of course, began the war, then declared “Mission Accomplished” in 2003 (for the Iraq War, but the implication for most Americans was that it applied to both conflicts), only to see a resurgence in Taliban-backed attacks. In response, Obama expanded troop deployments three-fold between 2009 and 2011, before drawing forces back down again. Trump, sensing the public mood, campaigned on a promise to withdraw from Afghanistan. He negotiated a peace deal with the Taliban, which they failed to uphold. Biden could have renegotiated, but decided to withdraw as planned.

My interest, looking beyond Afghanistan, is not assigning blame, but in exploring what we might do differently going forward. It’s clear to me that we cannot export democracy to any country that is not ready for it. That’s not to say that many Afghans don’t want it; I think most would. Personal, economic, and political independence are powerful attractors. But, I think freedom-embracing democratic governments must develop endogenously, from the people themselves, and frequently helped along by charismatic and visionary leaders among them.

I’d like to see America turn away from geopolitical alliances with regimes which may offer some short-term strategic value, but which do not share our core values of individual liberty and human rights. America, and many other countries, has a long history making such shortsighted alliances, and I think it’s time for that to change. If we truly believe in our core values, let us try to export those to areas in which they might find fertile ground.

Much of the world has been made much safer due to the spread of democratic government and liberal (small l) values, but large swaths of the world still suffer under autocratic and despotic rule. Yet, even in those areas, we can find some green shoots which we might help nourish. In the Middle East, Israel, of course, but also Lebanon; Kuwait, on the Arabian Peninsula; in North Africa, Tunisia and Morocco; Georgia and Armenia in the Caucasus; and many others.

What that outreach would look like will depend on the needs and openness of such countries. But, broadly it would consist of political, economic, and humanitarian assistance, more so than providing military support. I know many Americans are tired of utilizing our financial resources abroad, but I think such peace-enhancing efforts would yield a larger dividend than the trillions of dollars spent and invaluable lives lost in the last twenty years.

Freedom House: Global Freedom Map

Chris

PS: I’m not disparaging our military in any way with this post. I considered rejoining the Army after 9/11, myself; but, with two toddlers and a third son about to be born, I chose not to. I greatly appreciate those who did make that choice and served honorably. I am worried about the resurgence of the Taliban, and the risk of further acts of terrorism emanating from Afghanistan. It is my fervent hope that our intelligence agencies will maintain an effective vigil, and that if necessary, I know our military members remain willing to serve.

Turn Off, Tune Out, Drop In

It’s been over four months since I posted here? That’s pretty awful, but I have some reasons.

A couple of weeks after my last post, at the end of March, I came down with COVID-19, a couple of weeks after my first dose of the Pfizer vaccine. I didn’t require hospitalization, and actually had very little in terms of respiratory symptoms, but I was quite ill, with high fevers, sweats, and chills, and next to no appetite for the first week. It took another week to recover enough to return to my clinic, and that left a small backload of work to deal with. I got my second Pfizer shot a couple of weeks later than scheduled, due to my intervening illness, and again felt pretty crummy for a couple of days. I still get periodic sweats and chills, which I suspect may be my version of “long COVID”, which others have experienced with much more severity, but I’m otherwise back to normal.

The more important reason, however, has simply been a change in focus. While I was recovering from COVID-19, I listened to the audiobook version of Cal Newport’s excellent book, “Digital Minimalism: Choosing a Focused Life in a Noisy World“, and its message really hit home for me. Especially after two campaigns for Congress, but beginning even before that, I had allowed myself to get too tied down to a digital existence. It wasn’t healthy, and it wasn’t fulfilling. I didn’t adopt all of the recommendations in Newport’s book, but I did follow many of them, and life has become more peaceful and vibrant.

Here’s what I found valuable for me (your milage may vary):

I deleted all social media apps from my phone and tablet, with one exception. I still have Snapchat on my phone, but deleted all contacts other than family members, and use it mostly to see photos and videos of our grandson. Removing social media apps from devices immediately makes checking social media a more deliberate act, even if it only means opening up a browser on a computer. It’s a “nudge” that leads to a less compulsive use of social media. Even on a computer, I resolved to check Facebook at most twice a day, and other social media platforms far less frequently than that. And, I no longer feel a need to respond to every comment, positive or negative, that I receive. Post, interact a bit, if it’s fun, and move on to the real world.

I even deleted the email app from my tablet, and may go on to remove it from my phone. I think that perhaps just checking email twice a day would be sufficient. There isn’t that much that comes across my email that is really that time-sensitive. That Nigerian prince still hasn’t come through with the money he promised, anyway. I also turned off all notifications on my phone and tablet, with the only exception being “badges” (the little numbers overlaying an app) that indicate missed phone calls and text messages. The whole point here is to avoid digital distractions from real life, and to make interaction with the digital one more intentional rather than reactionary. My tablet is now used primary for reading books, occasional graphic design, and the odd game of Sudoku. My phone is for audiobooks, podcasts, occasional text messages, and, of course, phone calls.

As a result of all this digital minimization, I’ve certainly become less distracted, a bit more at peace, and hopefully a tad more productive. Over the past four months, I think I’ve read or listened to around three dozen books, a mix of fiction and non-fiction. The novel featured in the above photo, “A Good Man”, by my friend Larry Baker is excellent, by the way. I promised Larry a photo of me with his book, my long hair, and the bus, so that’s the story there. Incidentally, the long hair, another byproduct of COVID-19, is now gone; but, at the moment, the beard is back.

Anyway, a tad more productive, I think. I’m exploring a lot of new topics, and revisiting some old ones, which will be fodder for future posts. I’ve also increased my volunteering efforts in my spare time, which has been very rewarding. My major push is a joint effort between Rotary and Braver Angels here in Iowa. I’ve also been working with a group, Better Ballot Iowa, which is promoting ranked-choice voting in Iowa. Last month, I participated in a RYLA (Rotary Youth Leadership Awards) conference held for a week at Coe College. The experience was outside my comfort zone, but I had a great time getting to know dozens of really wonderful high school and college students, and fellow Rotarians, from around Iowa. I don’t know if they learned much about leadership from me, but I plan to stay in touch with my RYLA group, pictured below.

I was still in grade school when Timothy Leary, of LSD fame, made the phrase “Turn On, Tune In, Drop Out”, popular; so, that wasn’t really a thing for me when I came of age. I also didn’t realize, until doing a bit of research for this post, that Leary modified his catchphrase in the 1990s for the nascent digital era, coming up with “Turn On, Boot Up, Jack In”, which now sounds really dated.

I think Leary got it wrong both times. He emphasized escapism through psychedelics early on, then through computers later. I believe our society has been harmed by such escapism, and not only from pharmaceuticals (illegal or legal) and computers (especially social media), but also from consumerism and political polarization. I’m a fan of individualism, but also recognize that most of the strength of our society comes from interactions with others, particularly in the physical world, as opposed to the virtual one.

The problem with most things is taking them to an extreme. Particularly with social media, I believe we have gone far overboard. So, I’d like to rework Leary’s original phrase as “Turn Off, Tune Out, Drop In”. Turn off computers and devices whenever not truly needed, and eliminate distracting apps and notifications. Tune out social media and political posturing for large portions of the day. Drop in to see a friend, visit with a neighbor, and consider joining a civic organization such as Rotary or Braver Angels.

Unplug from the virtual, reconnect with the real, and I think that we’ll learn to flourish again, both as individuals and as a society.

Chris

Healthcare as Stimulus and Infrastructure?

Since Biden’s inauguration, the administration has reversed some of the healthcare policy decisions enacted under the Trump administration. This has included attempting to boost enrollment in ACA marketplace plans through advertising and outreach. It also opened a special ACA marketplace enrollment, which began on February 15th and will run until May 15th. And, it has rolled back Trump era regulations which made it more difficult for some low-income Americans to obtain coverage under Medicaid.

All of these changes were expected, and the likelihood that Biden will be able to fulfill his campaign promise for “Bidencare”, to include a public option for Medicare, and reducing the Medicare eligibility age to sixty, remains low. But, Biden and Congress, with a thin Democratic majority, haven’t given up.

The recently passed $1.9 trillion COVID relief bill, the American Rescue Plan Act, probably best known for additional stimulus checks and the expansion of unemployment benefits, also contained a number of healthcare provisions. These include a two-year increase in subsides for those who purchase coverage through the ACA marketplace, increasing the income cap to make more Americans eligible for ACA coverage, and reducing the percentage of income that participants would have to pay toward premiums.

It also completely subsidizes premiums for COBRA coverage for workers who have lost their jobs, increases the federal match for expanded Medicaid coverage, in an attempt to lure the twelve states who have resisted expanding such coverage, and gives states the option to extend Medicaid coverage from three months to one year for low-income women following childbirth. And, there’s additional funding for behavioral health, to include block grant programs for substance abuse and mental health treatment.

Biden’s newest proposal, an infrastructure bill known as the American Jobs Act, is estimated to cost $2 trillion over the next eight years. It would reportedly be paid for by restoring the corporate tax rate to 28%, reversing a reduction to 21% under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017. While much of this proposal is focused on infrastructure projects, a sizable portion, $400 billion, addresses healthcare-related issues. It would seek to increase access to care for the elderly and disabled, expand access to long-term care services under Medicaid, and increase pay for workers who care for the elderly.

The American Rescue Plan Act was passed through Congress through a process known as budget reconciliation, requiring no Republican support, and receiving none. It is not yet known whether the narrowly-controlled Democratic Congress will pursue budget reconciliation to pass Biden’s infrastructure proposal, but given recent public denouncements by Republican leaders in Congress, I suspect that might be their only politically viable option.

Perhaps the only viable option, but not the most desirable. Our healthcare system is in dire need of real reform in a timely fashion. The Medicare Trust Fund, for example, is projected to be exhausted by 2024, just a little over three years from now.

But, healthcare reform is incredibly complex, and requires honest discussion, public deliberation, and political compromise. With the decision-making process confined to an administration and a few members of congressional leadership, discussion and deliberation are circumvented. And, reforming and expanding healthcare through inclusions in stimulus spending and infrastructure bills, especially through the budget reconciliation process, avoids the need for political compromise.

Such maneuvers are not, of course, unique to the Biden administration or the current Democratic Congress. They have happened during the Trump, Obama, and Bush administrations, when they each briefly enjoyed unified government, as well. Political machinations such as these are a symptom of our polarization and our deeply dysfunctional political system.

It seems increasingly likely to me that we will not be able to create a healthy healthcare system until we first heal our broken political system.

Chris

Competition in Politics

We held a Zoom book review last evening of The Politics Industry: How Political Innovation Can Break Partisan Gridlock and Save Our Democracy (2020), by Katherine Gehl and Michael Porter. The book was based on an earlier paper by the same authors, published by the Harvard Business School, titled, Why Competition in the Politics Industry is Failing America: A Strategy for Reinvigorating our Democracy (2017). The gist of both works is that our political industry only really serves itself well, not the American people, and that a healthy dose of political competition is sorely needed. I believe the authors are correct on both points.

On the first point, we can look to research that evaluates the impact of policies relative to particular political actors. For example, a 2014 study from researchers from Princeton and Northwestern, Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens, found that “economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence.”

Even though most Americans have probably not read such research, they intuitively understand this point to be true. Pew Research has been tracking public trust in the federal government since 1958. We reached our highest level of trust in 1964, with 77% of Americans saying they trusted our politicians in Washington to do what is right “almost always” or “most of the time”. Since then, public trust has steadily eroded, with brief bumps during the Reagan administration, and toward the end of the Clinton and beginning of the W. Bush administrations. In 2019, the last year for which results were available, public trust in D.C. was down to a lowly 17%.

Amazon: The Politics Industry: How Political Innovation Can Break Partisan Gridlock and Save Our Democracy
Harvard Business School: Why Competition in the Politics Industry is Failing America: A Strategy for Reinvigorating our Democracy
American Political Science Association: Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens
Pew Research: Public Trust in Government: 1958-2019

Competition-in-Politics-Harvard-Business-Review-1000x563

I think the authors are correct in their second point, also. We need more political competition to force the two major political parties to actually work to the benefit of everyday Americans, rather than economic elites and business-related special interest groups.

In most every other industry, competition works to spur innovation, lower costs, and provide better service to customers. In the politics industry, however, the lack of real competition, due to the dominance of the two party duopoly, results in less political innovation, higher spending by government, and lack of benefit to everyday Americans.

The duopoly does work well in protecting its own turf, keeping out competition in the form of new political parties, helping to ensure that incumbent office-holders are reelected, and enriching the immense political industrial complex that supports our current system. In the words of Katherine Gehl, “our political system isn’t broken, it’s fixed”; in the sense of being rigged.

The authors go on to suggest two main reforms, which can be bundled together, as final five voting. Briefly, these consist of nonpartisan primaries, where the five candidates with the highest vote totals go on to the general election, which is in turn conducted using ranked-choice voting, also known as instant runoff voting. The combined result would both force candidates from both major parties to work more for the general public benefit, rather than merely pandering to their respective partisan bases, and should also allow new parties to be more politically viable.

This kind of competition would be very good, I believe. And, I think most of my fellow Americans agree. In 2019, 42% of Americans identified as independents, while only 30% identified as Democrats and 26% as Republicans. And, just last month, American support for the emergence of a viable third party reached an all-time high of 62%, with only 33% of Americans believing that the two major parties are doing an adequate job representing the public interest.

Positive political reform efforts are gradually advancing across the nation. For example, ranked-choice voting was adopted in Maine in 2016, and in Alaska this past November. But, what about First-in-the-Nation Iowa? Unfortunately, thanks to our Republican-controlled state legislature, we are going in the opposite direction, further widening the moat which protects the duopoly.

In the past two weeks, the Iowa House and Senate passed legislation which would not only reduce access to early voting, which has received most of the attention, but also would increase the hurdles required for third-party candidates to achieve ballot access. This is not a good development for those of us who want our political system to serve everyday Americans, rather than the current political and economic elites.

Governor Reynolds has not yet indicated whether or she will sign this legislation. I hope she declines.

Chris

Katherine Gehl TED Talk: A Powerful, Nonpartisan Solution to Fix U.S. Politics
Gallup: Americans Continue to Embrace Political Independence
Gallup: Support for Third U.S. Political Party at High Point

The Wisdom and Madness of Crowds

One of my favorite books from a few years ago is The Wisdom of Crowds (2004), by James Surowiecki. Subtitled, Why the Many Are Smarter Than the Few and How Collective Wisdom Shapes Business, Economies, Societies and Nations, the book begins with a story from 1906, in which the British scientist Francis Galton was surprised to learn that a crowd could be quite wise. He found that a random group of attendees at a local country fair was, on average, nearly perfect in predicting what the weight of a live ox would be after it had been slaughtered and dressed. The actual weight turned out to be 1,198 pounds, while the mean estimate of the crowd was 1,197 pounds.

The book goes on to detail other examples of wise crowds, from locating a lost U.S. submarine in 1968 (the group estimate was off by a mere 220 yards from the submarines’s final resting place), to something particularly relevant to today’s pandemic world, the largely uncoordinated efforts of investigators and laboratories around the world to identify that a coronavirus (SARS-CoV) was responsible for a severe respiratory disease outbreak (SARS) which originated in China in late 2002. The book also provides examples of the failure of crowd wisdom, such as the organizational dysfunction in the Kennedy administration which led to the Bay of Pigs fiasco in 1961, or that at NASA which led to the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster in 2003.

The title of the book is an allusion to a much earlier book, Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841), by Charles Mackay. This book was published in three volumes, consisting of National Delusions (such as economic bubbles and religious relics), Peculiar Follies (to include the Crusades and witch trials), and Philosophical Delusions (such as alchemy and fortune telling). In full disclosure, I have not read this book.

But, a new favorite of mine is The Madness of Crowds (2019), by Douglas Murray. This book, subtitled, Gender, Race and Identity, focuses on our current social justice issues of sexual orientation, feminism, race, and transsexuality. The author is a conservative journalist, so some of my more progressive friends might find some of his comments irksome, but I think he makes some very valid points. For example, the reverse-outing of gay entrepreneur Peter Thiel as “not gay”, and black entertainer Kayne West as “not black”, for their support of Donald Trump. Or, the unavoidable clash between advocates for women’s rights and those for transsexuality, such as in allowing transgender women to participate in women’s sporting events. Interestingly, and you might not otherwise learn this fact until the end of the book, but the author happens to be gay, which makes his observations regarding the gay rights movement especially valuable.

Murray’s observations can be extrapolated far beyond the social justice sphere, to any situation in which groupthink, the self-reinforcing opinions of a like-minded in-group (often expressed in opposition to an out-group), come to predominate. Examples include those who believe in QAnon, that vaccines cause autism, that GMO foods cause cancer, that marijuana cures cancer, etc. Or, as a friend of mine recently pointed out to me on social media, groupthink also lies at the core of those who both admire and loathe former President Donald Trump.

How might we integrate these two perspectives, the wisdom and madness of crowds, harnessing the benefits of the former while avoiding the pitfalls of the latter?

Helpfully, Surowiecki suggests that there are a few essential elements for a crowd to be wise; that there be diversity, independence, decentralization, and a means of aggregation, of processing individual opinions into a group consensus. I think he’s correct, and will note that his observations are consistent with the findings from complexity science, which I’ve mentioned previously. I want to comment further on the criterion of diversity, for it’s not the same as we commonly use that term now, such as for race or gender, but on diversity of opinion. Those opinions, in turn, hinge of diversities of knowledge, experience, and underlying belief systems.

In contrast, crowds can be unwise, or even mad, when they exhibit the opposite of these traits; specifically, when they exhibit homogeneity of opinion, when they exchange independence of thought for groupthink, and when they are centralized, even if not structurally, but informally, such as the cross-sharing of opinions within like-minded groups on social media. Mad crowds also tend toward imitation, encouraging or discouraging certain behaviors and thoughts within their group, and emotionality, generating feelings of belonging with the group, and feelings of fear or hatred of those without.

Another essential difference between wise and mad crowds is the focus of their interest. If a thing can be knowable, a fact that can be determined, such as the weight of an ox or the location of a sunken submarine, then the right crowd can indeed exhibit wisdom. If, on the other hand, the focus is an opinion, a matter of taste or preference, crowds can tend toward madness. Some matters of taste or preference, such as a favorite flavor of ice cream, or a fondness for a beach vacation over one in the mountains, are not prone to madness. We realize there is no objectively right or wrong answer here, but just differences of opinion. But, add an unhealthy dose of emotion, of fear or outrage, and watch out!

I believe we can be collectively wise, but that our current politico-cultural environment tends toward madness. I hope we can fix that going forward.

Chris

Amazon: The Wisdom of Crowds
Amazon: The Madness of Crowds

The Near-Term Future of Healthcare Reform

With the Biden administration now in place, but faced with razor-thin Democratic majorities in Congress, what might we expect in the realm of healthcare reform in the near future? Probably not much.

Democrats maintained their majority in the House, but their advantage is much diminished, down to 10 seats, with three vacancies yet to be filled, and the results of two races still contested. Control of the Senate flipped into marginal Democratic control, as a result of the two Georgia runoff elections in early January. The Senate is now tied 50:50, leaving Vice President Harris with the tie-breaking vote.

These tight majorities in both houses of Congress make sweeping healthcare reforms unlikely. And, looking forward to 2022, it is historically uncommon for the party which holds the White House to gain seats in the House or the Senate, so the Biden administration could face a divided Congress in just two years.

The last major healthcare reform effort, what became the Affordable Care Act, happened during the first two years of Obama’s first term, when he briefly enjoyed Democratic majorities in the House and Senate. It garnered not a single vote in support by Republicans in the House or Senate. Arguably the most significant legislative action during the Trump administration, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, was likewise passed during his first two years in office, when he also briefly enjoyed Republican majorities in the House and Senate. It also received no support from Democrats in the House or Senate.

Without broad-based legislative support, the future of “Bidencare” is dim. Biden had proposed the provision of a “public option” insurance similar to Medicare, lowering the Medicare eligibility age from 65 to 60, increasing tax credits to lower insurance premiums, among other ideas. But, all of those ideas would require passage of legislation through both houses of Congress, which is unlikely.

The Biden administration has already signaled that it will focus first on the COVID pandemic, as it should. This will include ensuring the swift rollout of approved COVID vaccines, whose unprecedented quick arrival is properly credited to the Trump administration. Beyond that, what will remain available to Biden are administrative regulatory changes, which were also all that were available to Trump recently, after the GOP-controlled Congress failed to offer passable legislation to “repeal and replace” the ACA during his first two years.

Biden will work to boost enrollment in ACA marketplace plans, likely by providing a special enrollment period and increase spending on advertising, after the Trump administration had reduced the marketing budget for the ACA by 90%. He’s also promised to go after market consolidation in the healthcare system, challenging mergers and acquisitions approved by the Trump administration. The Trump administration had continued to tinker with the healthcare regulatory apparatus, and the Biden administration has paused those efforts until they have a chance to review them, and possibly cancel or alter them.

This highlights an important issue when it comes to regulatory changes; what can be done by one administration can usually be undone by the next. It’s tit-for-tat changes, when Americans need real healthcare reform.

Which brings me to my favorite quote from a couple of months ago, from a VP of a healthcare organization in Indiana and Illinois: “Policy and overregulation of the healthcare industry is increasing the cost of care by hundreds of billions of dollars each year… we have added layers upon layers of regulations, attempting to correct the challenges created by the last batch of regulations. (It is) time to step back, be honest, and realize that, yes, the baby is ugly.”

The Biden administration may continue some regulatory efforts instigated by the Trump administration. These include efforts to reduce prescription drug prices, but I am skeptical that the “healthcare industrial complex”, in this case the pharmaceutical companies, are likely to meekly acquiesce. The administration will also likely seek to expand coverage and reimbursement for telemedicine services, which unfortunately are more vulnerable to fraudulent clams than in-person visits, as has been made clear recently by several Department of Justice investigations.

With legislative options unlikely, and administrative ones limited, we should also consider the judiciary. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in California v Texas back in November. That lawsuit seeks to invalidate the ACA based upon the argument that since Congress eliminated the individual mandate in 2017, the entire law should be judged unconstitutional.

Although oral arguments are not a perfect predictor of an eventual decision, it is telling that even conservative members of SCOTUS, to include Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh, seemed to express the opinion that the ACA was “severable”, meaning that the remainder of the ACA could constitutionally stand without the individual mandate. They also questioned whether the GOP-led states and individuals even had “standing” to challenge the ACA in the first place, meaning that they had somehow been “harmed” by the elimination of the individual mandate. We’ll probably have to wait until June to learn how SCOTUS rules, but I’ll be surprised if they invalidate the entirety of the ACA, especially in the midst of a pandemic.

So, there we are. No obvious legislative paths forward, limited administrative ones, and little likelihood of significant judiciary action. As I stated in my last healthcare reform entry, we’ll probably have to wait a couple of election cycles before we might hope to realize a better healthcare system than the one we have now.

Chris

Doc Peters: A Recent History of Healthcare Reform

2e6ef268-9355-4076-88fb-83fff3ef79d6-pence010621

An Electoral College Addendum

Despite disruption at the Capitol last week, and challenges from some Republican members of the House and Senate, Congress managed to certify the electoral college victory of Biden/Harris by a vote of 306 to 232. With that formality completed, I thought I’d briefly revisit one of my previous posts, questioning whether the electoral college is inherently unfair and anticompetitive.

As I expected, I received a fair amount of pushback from right-leaning voters, arguing that the electoral college was essential to maintain. Most of the claims were along the lines of, “it would result in civil war”, or “it would lead to secession and the end of our republic”, but without any substantive argument as to why those outcomes were inevitable.

My personal argument in favor of maintaining the electoral college was not mentioned, to include by me in my original post. Namely, that the electoral college may impart more fairness overall along the politico-economic spectrum, due to the increasing rural-urban divide. Since urban states have more economic power than do rural states, the electoral college helps to balance that economic power by granting more political power to rural ones.

I’ve looked for a defense of that argument, but haven’t found it. I was hoping someone else might provide it. Alas, that did not happen.

Doc Peters: Is The Electoral College Unfair and Anticompetitive?

However, a political science professor, and Braver Angels member, did respond with a couple of compelling arguments in favor of the electoral college that I did not expect, and to which I have no good response other than to admit that he is probably right.

The first I found most compelling, that in a popular vote contest, results would be even more dependent that usual on voter turnout; not only in a handful of swing states, but nationwide. Who can legally vote in a given state is dependent upon the laws of that state, with the only Constitutional limitation being that those 18 years or older must be permitted to vote (unless prohibited due to incarceration or prior felony conviction; again, depending upon the state).

If large, blue states, such as California or New York were to allow those 16 years or older to vote, that could drastically change a popular vote outcome. Or, if they instituted a fine for not voting, a tax credit for voting, or allowed non-citizens to vote, that could have the same effect. Texas, our most populous red state, could follow suit. So could all of the other states, in a desperate bid to maintain their political influence, resulting in either an “arms race” or a “race to the bottom”, depending upon one’s point of view.

His second argument had to do with the fact that some states, such as California and New York, tend to count their votes more slowly. Given the electoral college, the results in these two states don’t really matter, as both will register in the Democratic column for the rest of my life, I expect. But, if we had to wait on a popular vote count from each of these states, we would likely not know the victor in presidential elections for much longer than we saw this year.

The solution to both of these dilemmas could be a nationalized system of voting, which I am personally not excited to embrace. However, given all the claims of “election fraud” this cycle, that might be inevitable.

His third argument, which I found less compelling, was that elimination of the electoral college would lead to the extinction of the two-party system. I don’t think that outcome is self-evident, but he may be right. Still, even if so, I personally would see that as a feature more than a bug.

Roughly one-third of eligible voters didn’t participate this cycle. Over 40 percent of Americans would like to see the emergence of a viable third party. Perhaps many of us are just tired of voting for the lesser-of-two-evils?

Eliminating the electoral college may or may not be desirable, but how about other electoral reforms, such as proportional allocation of electoral college votes, ranked-choice voting in general elections, and open, nonpartisan primaries?

I think we could do better than we are doing, and will continue to advocate for those reforms which would inject more fairness and competitiveness in our political system.

Chris

210107-washington-rally-riot-protest-capitol-ONE-TIME-USE-ac-507p_7188ea4cb5294111e6578dc5b7018b0b.nbcnews-fp-1024-512-e1689993732387

The Peril and Promise of Populism

Like most Americans, I’m heartbroken by what happened at the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday. It was an assault on our democratic institutions, seriously damaged one of our two major political parties, and laid bare the deep divisions in our populace.

I was a “Never Trump” Republican from the beginning, even as a candidate for U.S. House in 2016. I could have supported many of the GOP candidates that year, but not Donald Trump. I came out publicly against Trump after the Access Hollywood tape surfaced, and voted for Gary Johnson in the general election. My decision to denounce Trump probably didn’t cost me my election, but it certainly didn’t help. Still, it was the right thing to do.

I hoped Trump might change, that he might rise to the dignity of the office of President of the United States, but I really didn’t think he would. He did not. He belittled everyone he felt opposed him, even those within his own party. That’s exactly what he thought of the Republican party; that it was “his”. To a large degree, he was right. For the most part, GOP candidates and lawmakers fell in line. Some seemed to be genuine fans of his new brand of “conservatism”, rebranded as “nationalistic populism”, or simply, “Trumpism”. Many were probably just opportunistic sycophants, hoping to catch a ride on the “Trump Train”. And, most others just bided their time; pushing back only when necessary, and keeping silent whenever possible.

His most ardent followers fell in line, too. Conspiracies, such as QAnon, became gnostic scripture for many. Trump thrived on the attention, and fed into his own mystique. Now, to be fair, most people who voted for Trump in 2016 and/or 2020 don’t fit this stereotype. Most are not racist, misogynistic, or xenophobic. They were traditional “country club” Republicans, who voted for Trump in the desire for conventional conservative economic policy. They were socially conservative Republicans, who voted for Trump in the hope for conservative judges and justices. And, in large part, along these dimensions, Trump did deliver.

But, he hollowed out the Republican party in the process. While I’m saddened that my father died two weeks ago, I’m glad that he and my mother (who passed nearly 14 years ago), both lifelong Republicans, were not alive to witness what happened in Washington, D.C.. Trump has broken the GOP, at least at the national level. It will probably recover, but the path forward is difficult to imagine right now.

210107-washington-rally-riot-protest-capitol-ONE-TIME-USE-ac-507p_7188ea4cb5294111e6578dc5b7018b0b.nbcnews-fp-1024-512

The lesson I am taking from the event this week, and from movements over the last dozen years, is the promise and peril of populism. Over a decade ago, we saw the rise of both the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street. There was a fair amount of overlap between both movements, related to government bailouts of corporations while everyday Americans suffered. Populist candidates also surfaced, from Ron Paul in 2008 and 2012, to both Trump and Bernie Sanders in 2016 and 2020. Once again, there has been a considerable overlap between Paul supporters in 2012 and Trump supporters in 2016, and between Trump supporters in 2016 and Sanders supporters in 2020. Not complete concordance, certainly; but the Venn diagram circles definitely overlap. Add in the Antifa protestors, Trump supporters, and the Black Lives Matter movement. My point here is that there is a lot of political and societal unrest, and it doesn’t always fit neatly within a left-right paradigm.

The peril of populism, I think, comes when it is personified in single individual; at this moment, President Trump. At that point, it can become a cult of personality, in which the subject of devotion can do no wrong, and in which all who are perceived to oppose him (or her) are evil or stupid.

The promise of populist movements, if we are wise enough to recognize it, is that they are indications that things are not going well in our country. The lower and middle economic classes are suffering, while economic elites are doing quite well. Blacks and Hispanics feel targeted by law enforcement. Rural communities and formerly industrialized cities are suffering. Life expectancies are falling, while deaths to drug abuse and suicide continue to rise. Millions of Americas feel disenfranchised by our political system and don’t even bother to vote.

As a society, we are indeed not well. I think we need to look beyond the headlines and emotions of the present, and begin to focus our efforts on how we can make our country better, for all our people. Partisan politics-as-usual will not be the solution. We need to seek areas of common ground, develop policy ideas that would benefit all Americans, and work to reform our political system so that those ideas can actually be realized.

We’ve got our work cut out for us, so let’s get busy.

Chris

131659846_2803338033224351_5090274179211497052_o (1)

Is The Electoral College Unfair and Anticompetitive?

I don’t recall ever watching the electoral college voting returns before last week, which I suppose is just another indication of how weird this election, and 2020 generally, has been. Still, the fact that I was watching them bothered me.

Hadn’t America already voted, over a month before? While we didn’t know the projected electoral college results the night of the election, we did roughly ten days later. And, states had certified those results within the next two weeks following that. But, still, we had to go through the additional step of having designated electors cast the final votes for president and vice president, usually in statehouses across the country last week.

Some have argued that the electoral college is an anachronism; a relic of a bygone era, and I tend to agree. Yes, this mechanism of secondary election of the president and vice president is in the Constitution, which means it would be difficult to undo. But, it has been modified twice, by the 12th Amendment in 1804, which stipulated that electors vote separately for president and vice president (rather than the second-place finisher becoming the vice president), and by the 23rd Amendment in 1961, which granted three electors to residents of the District of Columbia (previously limited only to U.S. states). So, it is at least modifiable, and therefore possibly eliminable.

The Republican electors for Iowa in 2020 with our Secretary of State and Governor.

To read more detail about the justifications for what we have come to call the electoral college, a brief history of voting in America, and a summary of our gradual expansion of voting rights, see the box at the bottom. The net result of those changes has been that we now essentially hold a popular vote for president and vice president; but, with intermediate electors involved, voting power is not apportioned equally, and many of our country’s voters are irrelevant in any given presidential election.

So, yes, I think the electoral college is anachronistic, but I will not argue that it should be eliminated or modified from that standpoint. I think a stronger case can be made based upon arguments that the electoral college is unfair and anticompetitive.

Our Declaration of Independence states that we are “created equal”, by which I assume that we also should have an equal stake in who we elect to the executive branch. That ideal of equality was the basis of expansion of voting rights throughout our history, in fact. But, with the existence of the electoral college, all votes are not “created equal”.

Texas, our second most populous state, a Red state, has 38 electoral votes. As a percentage of their population, Texas has the lowest electoral vote power in the nation, which I arbitrarily set at 1.00. California, our most populous state, a Blue state has 55 electoral votes, but is only slightly better in terms of electoral vote power, at 1.06. (The math here is simple; the population per electoral vote in any given state divided by the population per electoral vote in Texas.). At the other end of the spectrum, we have two of our lowest population states, Wyoming and Vermont. Wyoming, a Red state has an electoral vote power of 3.96. The Blue state of Vermont has an electoral vote power of 3.67. The fact that Wyoming and Vermont voters having nearly four times as much influence on the selection of our president and vice president than Texans and Californians seems to me decidedly unfair.

For my fellow Iowans, we enjoy an electoral vote power of 1.45, which is just a tad bit better than middle-of-the pack. We do have an outsized influence based upon the fact that we’re a Swing state and our first-in-the-nation caucus status (for now, at least), but twenty states and the District of Columbia have more electoral vote power than we do.

Beyond these discrepancies in electoral vote poser, I think we need to consider the distribution of voters, particularly in Red and Blue states. I used a generous definition of the in-between Swing states, based upon whether they had ever voted for different parties in any presidential election from 2000 through 2020. However, two of these states, Colorado and Virginia, are likely to be much less competitive in the future; and, some other states, such as Texas, may be more competitive in elections to come.

There are fifteen reliably Blue states, consisting of California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, as well as the District of Columbia. Together, they comprise a population of over 120 million and command 196 electoral votes (remember, 270 electoral votes are needed to win a presidential election). Just under 40% of voters in those areas tend to vote Republican (but only 7% in the District of Columbia). How much vote power do those Republican voters have when it comes to presidential elections? That’s right; exactly zero. How many more might come out and vote Republican if they knew their vote actually mattered? No one knows. but I suspect it would be a significant number.

There are twenty reliably Red states, consisting of Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming. Together, they comprise a population of over 86 million and command 153 electoral votes. Again, just under 40% of voters in those states tend to vote Democratic, yet their votes also mean nothing in a presidential election.

Together, those reliably Red and Blue areas comprise 63% of our country’s population and command 349 electoral votes, nearly two-thirds of the 538 total electoral votes available. But, in each of the six presidential contests over the last twenty years, the results of the election were effectively already decided in these areas before the first ballots were even cast. Biden didn’t need to compete for votes in Hawaii or Massachusetts, and Trump didn’t need to compete for votes in Wyoming or Oklahoma.

Instead, all presidential election outcomes in the last twenty years have been entirely decided in just fifteen Swing states, consisting of Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin. Their combined population is over 120 million and they command 189 electoral votes. So, just over one-third of our population determines the result of a presidential contest every four years. And, it’s actually worse than that, as the outcome is oftentimes determined by results in only a few Swing counties within those Swing states.

I think that we should eliminate the electoral college, or at least modify its implications, as has been done in Maine and Nebraska. Doing so would achieve fairness, ensuring that every American had equal vote power, and, it would also dramatically expand the field competition for presidential elections. Together, I am hopeful those effects would lead to greater voter participation, particularly in our largely ignored Red and Blue states, and drive candidates to hone their message to appeal to a broader swath of the electorate, to not take for granted the outcome in reliable Red states or Blue states, and to reach out to each voter, regardless of where they live, to offer a compelling plan for the future.

Would eliminating the electoral college relegate states like Iowa to “flyover states”, unworthy of attention? No, I don’t think so. Swing states like Iowa will still have a significant influence, with their roughly fifty-fifty split between Republican and Democratic voters, so even a popular vote contest will still partly be determined by how we vote. We won’t be ignored, although our impact will be diminished. Still, our goal should be what is best for the America as a whole, and I think that we will still have much to offer.

Finally, for my Republican readers, a reminder that in the last 28 years, there have been eight presidential elections, and Republican candidates have lost the popular vote in all but one those elections, in 2004. Republican candidates managed to secure an electoral college majority in 2000 and 2016 despite losing the popular vote, but I think Republican voters should be concerned whether their current relative advantage in the electoral college system will continue. I don’t think it will, and believe that should make a compelling argument for Republicans to advocate for the elimination or modification of the electoral college.

Best wishes for the holidays! Let us hope that 2021 will be more peaceful and prosperous.

Chris

There were three primary arguments in favor of an intermediate body of electors, as set out in Federalist No. 68. First, our founding fathers were admittedly rather elitist, and did not trust in the passions of the general populace, so argued that a more esteemed group of electors, would be “most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations”. This argument presumes, however, that electors might choose to vote for candidates other than those preferred by the people. There have been so-called “faithless” electors throughout our history (though none in 2020), but none have swayed the outcome of an election.

Second, the a body of intermediate electors was supposed to lessen the degree of “cabal, intrigue, and corruption”, and particularly from “desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils”. Finally, this system was intended to afford a “moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.” But, honestly has the electoral college system really offered protection from foreign interference, or ensured that the most qualified candidates ascend to the highest office in the land?

Another of the rationales for the electoral college initially was the existence of slavery in the southern states. In order to ensure ratification of the Constitution, northern states had to make concessions to the southern states. If election of the executive was by popular vote, the more populous (in terms of property-owning white men) northern states would have a decided advantage. The three-fifths compromise offered a solution. Only white male freeholders would have a vote, but the southern states would have outsized influence in the election of an executive, since slaves were counted as three-fifths of a person in the allocation of representatives, and therefore intermediate electors.

It’s also important to note that we seem to still accept unequal representation in the Senate, based upon population, with the Red sate of Wyoming, our least populated state, having 68 times more senate seat power than the Blue state of California, our most populous state. We even have less than equitable distribution in the House, which is supposed to be more-or-less proportional, with the Blue state of Rhode Island having two times more house seat power than the Red state of Montana. (Some of these statistics are likely to change as result of the 2020 census.)

Returning to the executive branch, the electoral college offers a seemingly reasonable compromise between the unequal distribution of senate seat power and the somewhat equatable distribution of representative seat power. On the face of it, that seems reasonable, and is one of the arguments often offered in defense of the electoral college. But, the effects of the electoral college are what I’m personally concerned about, not any philosophical underpinnings.

Early in our country’s history, electors were chosen by state legislators, not by the people. A bit later in our history, the public voted for a slate of electors, beholden to a particular candidate, but not always for the candidate, himself. Early voting was a raucous, public affair, usually done by voice vote, with plenty of cajoling and intimidation involved. We then moved to paper ballots, but put out by the separate parties, and violence occasionally ensued if a voter returned with a ballot from a party not in favor in his community. It was not until much later that voters were provided a government-provided private ballot, the “Australian ballot”, the descendent of which we are familiar today.

Further, we have gradually expanded the franchise of who can vote for our executive. Originally, only while male freeholder citizens aged 21 years or older could vote. In 1869, the 14th Amendment extended voting rights to all men born or naturalized in the U.S. (to include former slaves, although discrimination will continue). In 1920, the 20th Amendment extended the voting franchise to women. In 1924, the Indian Citizenship Act granted voting rights to indigenous Americans. The Civil Rights Act of 1954 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 bolstered the rights of black Americans to vote without discrimination. And, in 1971, the 26th Amendment lowered the voting age to 18.

119145549_10219809538642191_722103083107684867_o (1)

Who Did You Vote For?

I have a special guest contributor for this entry, Drew Sherman. I didn’t know Drew previously, but am friends with his brother, Steve. Drew also didn’t know of me, or my interests in reducing political polarization and promoting civil discourse. Drew wrote the following editorial, and shared it with his brother. Steve thought I would be interested in reading it, so Drew sent it to me. I think it’s great, and hope that you will enjoy reading it, too. With that, here’s Drew:

“Dad, Who Did You Vote For?” This question has been asked in my house, has it been asked in yours?

To give a little bit of background, I am married and have four children, ages 12, 10, 8 and 6. We returned to Grinnell, where I grew up, and even purchased my childhood home. I have a liberal arts degree, and am by most accounts simply “average.” I am also white. I have to say all of this because in today’s day and age, everyone is judged by where they come from, their education, their sexual orientation, or simply the color of their skin. Never has this seemed more apparent than during this Presidential election. However, now there are new standards for what is acceptable. Your voice is only as good as the boxes that you check.

When it comes to politics, you are either Red or Blue; there is no such thing as Purple in our society. If you like your guns, you cannot vote Blue. If you are a person of color, you cannot vote Red, and so on. Where did this notion come from, that one party is stomping on a particular group of people, and the only possible savior is the other party?

I had a close college friend recently state, “You cannot be for gay rights and vote for Trump.” This got me thinking; is that true? Do we have to be 100% for or against a party? Are the days of challenging a party from within gone? Are we all to follow a strict party line, and accept everything that our Blue or Red leaders tell us is the truth? Are the extremes taking complete control of both? Or, can we still make meaningful change within our parties, in order to find what makes the most sense for more Americans?

Another close friend asked two days after the election, “Does anyone on this (Zoom) call know anybody that lives in a house divided?” Granted he lives in Chicago, and presumably everyone on our weekly call had voted for Biden. I immediately chimed in, and spoke about a few of my friends in Iowa that did vote differently within their own households. I spoke about how they did not necessarily vote for the person, as they openly spoke about their disdain for both candidates. However, they voted along party lines and what they believe they stand for. His reply was simply, “Well, I don’t think I could live with someone that voted for Trump.”

What the parties actually stand for could be argued at another time, but if you think about it at its core, it makes sense. Presidents come and go, but we still have a basic two-party system in this country. These two parties encompass nearly half of all “active” voters in every election. It is rare that we have all branches of government controlled by one party; typically at least one branch of the legislature is controlled by a different party than the President. This, in my opinion is a good thing, regardless of the party in charge. Checks and balances are exactly what the framers had in mind. Without balance we have problems.

This leads me to where we are now as a country, as a people, as a house divided. When did we become so aligned with Red or with Blue that there is no longer dialogue and compromise? Some would blame social media, some would like to blame Trump or the BLM movement. I would argue that the loudest voices from the fringes are the only ones being heard and that the center is in the middle quietly sobbing. Nobody in the center wants to speak up and ask questions only to be told to shut up by one or both sides. So, we sit quietly and avoid comments on social media due to the backlash that will likely ensue, even though our intent was pure. We are the silent majority.

My wife and I watched The Social Dilemma last night on Netflix. While it was not a surprise to learn about the algorithms that our social networks are utilizing to manipulate us daily, it was very eye opening that there are so many people who created those platforms who are now trying to expose them. One of the eye-opening side comments in the movie was when a father figure asks their family if they saw the extreme center riots going on in their city? Think about the ridiculousness of that concept for a moment; ”The Extreme Center.” When will this come to fruition? Who will lead the party? What will it take for us to get there? Is it the common-sense party? Is it the party that cares about both climate change and the 2nd amendment?

My ten year old daughter was asked to vote for President in a mock election at school, and when she stated that she did not know who she wanted to vote for, the teacher simply asked, “Well, who are your parents voting for?” My daughter responded, “They won’t tell me. They say I’m too young to pick sides.” She apparently picked Kanye. My point is that we are trying to teach our children about social justice, being kind, loving, and accepting, while also respecting the decisions of others. In time, she will form her own opinions about parties and candidates, and upon turning 18 she will be eligible to vote in her first Presidential Election.

My hope is that by not “forcing” her to grow up Blue or Red, she can make the most informed decision for herself at that time. I hope more people can teach their kids to be good humans and not to judge anyone based on where they are from, how much money they make, the color of their skin, or their political affiliation. We need to get back to the center and stop all the hate, from both sides. We need to truly listen to each other again.

Drew Sherman is a 5th generation Grinnellian. He and his wife moved back to Grinnell permanently in 2009, where they are raising their four children. Drew has worked in the building materials industry in various positions since 2000.