I think everyone knows I’m a pretty enthusiastic Twitter user and has also probably noticed that Twitter has been a useful acquisition funnel for Slow Boring.
But Free Speech Champion Elon Musk has been feuding on and off with the proprietors of Substack, occasionally throttling Substack links on Twitter, preventing tweets from being embedded in Substack articles, and otherwise doing things that are, in my view, bad for both platforms. I’m a little concerned that even worse things may come in the future, so we’re trying to diversify a little and now have a Slow Boring Instagram account and a Slow Boring Facebook page. If you’re active on either of those platforms, it would be a big help to us if you’d consider following us and maybe sharing/liking something that you enjoy. I don’t love the idea of asking customers for favors, but it’s a war of all against all in the attention economy, and it really would be a huge help to get some engagement there.
Some good news: If you look at real-time housing prices, the inflation situation looks better than in official data, so that component of CPI will likely improve in the next few reports. We now have 16 states deriving at least half their electricity from zero-carbon sources — Georgia is the newest member of the club thanks to the Vogtle nuclear plant opening earlier this year. The green energy revolution is marching on in Texas. I don’t know that Medicare Advantage overpayments are good news per se, but thinking about them is a reminder that we have some low-hanging fruit in terms of inflation-fighting spending cuts. Last but not least, I never know if the quantum computing hype will ever amount to anything, but this seems like a significant breakthrough.
Michelle Tulo: Do you have any thoughts on community land trusts as one solution to create long-term affordability housing in areas with very hot markets and very limited housing supply?
This is on the long list of housing policy ideas that I think are fine on the merits but that I find frustrating because we live in a country where every single local government (yes, including Houston) dramatically over-regulates the supply of new housing.
There are lots of places where the mayor and a majority of the council say they are concerned about housing affordability. Those places should be opening up the zoning guide and eliminating minimum parking requirements. They should be eliminating minimum lot size rules. They should be eliminating maximum lot occupancy rules. They should be eliminating rules about building height and FAR. If they also want to establish a community land trust, that’s great. But we live in a country where passing a law saying that you should be allowed to subdivide a structure into two units if you want to is considered a radical step (“ending single-family zoning”) while absolutely nobody has implemented the Yglesias Plan where if you want to build some housing on some land you own, you can do that as long as the building is safe.
The result: Housing is scarce.
KN: Why do we allow K-12 schools to basically give up on teaching kids anything in the last month of school? My kids have basically been watching movies the last two weeks. (Note: this is not a new issue, it was the same when I was in school 30 years ago.) We all (or at least most of us) claim to care about learning loss and there's instructional time just sitting right there to be used, but schools seem to give up in the last month.
This is a good question and I don’t know the answer. Curious if readers, especially education professionals, have any thoughts. My observation on this is it was roughly the same in private school when I was growing up so whatever the explanation is, it probably doesn’t have much to do with union or political dynamics.
Ace of Bayes: Matt, the movie Kids came out in 1995, when you were 14. The movie was about people your age who lived in your neighborhood behaving very badly. What was that like? Was it a big deal? I’m the same age (though I did not live in NYC) and remember a lot of parental kvetching. But it’s easy to think “things are different in NYC.” For you, your backyard was being portrayed.
It’s hard to accurately remember your perceptions of things from that long ago.
But it came out right when I was finishing eighth grade at Grace Church School in the neighborhood that the movie portrays and heading to Dalton on the Upper East Side for high school. I think that just as you thought “maybe things are different in NYC,” a lot of people uptown thought “maybe things are different downtown.”
To me, a lot of the more or less incidental stuff in the movie rings very true. Buying a dime bag of marijuana off a random guy in Washington Square Park. The fact that even in the Village you’d see the sort of overt homophobia that would make even Republicans in 2023 blush. But I never knew anyone like Telly, and the behavior depicted in the movie was pretty extreme outlier stuff, even relative to an outlier milieu. This question got me interested in actual statistical information about the demographics of HIV/AIDS transmission in the mid-1990s. According to the CDC, it was 82% men, 71% people over 30, dominated by men having sex with men, and, secondarily, intravenous drug users.
Of course, not every story has to be statistically representative. Just because a male teen spreading HIV through exploitative sex with younger girls was rare doesn’t mean it never happened or isn’t a valid story to tell. But looking back, I think the cultural fascination with that movie says more about our preoccupations and fears at the time than about what those times were actually like. This is maybe also clearer in retrospect now that we have more of Harmony Korine’s career to evaluate — I love “Spring Breakers,” but I think everyone understands that it’s not a documentary about spring break.
Another cultural document from this era that comes to mind (and I believe it directly references “Kids”) is Nancy Jo Sales’ New York Magazine feature story “Prep School Gangsters,” which is about a supposed criminal underworld of New York’s elite children:
On the way to the “base,” the luxury car service in Harlem they rent from by the hour, Pete says: “We only fuck with private school kids, the kids who can afford what we do.” Pete himself is a private school student. His godfather is a billionaire whose name appears regularly in the Wall Street Journal.
“We sell to Dalton, Trinity, Horace Mann, Spence, Chapin, Columbia Prep, mad girls from Brearly,” he goes on. “Basically every school you can name.”
As best as any of us at Dalton could figure at the time, that whole story was basically fake. In “Metropolitan,” Nick Smith tells an elaborate story about a guy he doesn’t like and then gets exposed as having made it up. He explains that the story isn’t a lie, “it’s a composite, like they do in New York Magazine.” So apparently New York in the ‘90s was known for running fake stories, and this just happened to be one example that was salient to us at the time. Still, the specific kind of fake stories people are inclined to believe is an intriguing topic, and at the time, the notion of superpredator behavior loomed large. People were very interested in the idea of it moving upscale.
That being said, one thing I did learn when I got to college in 1999 is that the NYC private schools alums have a lot more experience with recreational drug use than the average Harvard first-year.
LindaMC: I noted with interest in today's post your fleeting description of your thought process: after reflecting on the fire issue, “I decided that my actual opinion about climate change — that it’s bad, that we should do things to reduce CO2 emissions, and that I think the climate left’s focus on blocking fossil fuel infrastructure is bad economics and bad politics — doesn’t really hinge on this question.”
How often do you step back from an issue to do this kind of reflection? Have you cultivated this approach, rather than forming a more instantaneous opinion? Are you basically doing a scan of your worldview to see where this fits in? And do you figure this out by just thinking about it, or by writing?
In this day and age of constant online engagement bait, I think it’s really, really important to be vigilant about checking your own emotions and trying to decide why (or whether) you actually care about the issue.
One example I can think about is consistent internet sparring I see regarding whether or not it makes sense to think of the Trump political movement as, in some sense, a species of fascism. I’ve read a lot of takes on this from both sides, some more persuasive than others. But I’m perpetually a little confused as to what the participants in this argument actually think hangs on it. What are the stakes? More precisely, what do they think the stakes are? I could say “Trump is a fascist.” Or I could say “I disagree with Trump about taxes, abortion, and several other major public policy issues.” What’s the difference? I could imagine a lot of different answers to the “what’s the difference?” question, but unless you’re clear about what you think the stakes are, I think you end up confusing yourself about what kind of evidence you’re looking for in terms of answering the fascism question.
City of Trees: A couple weeks ago, you tweeted that “the worst aspect of libertarianism (shared with certain strands of progressivism) [is] hard-core anti-paternalism.” The “hard-core” part may indeed include some extreme aspects worthy of rejection, but anti-paternalism in general is something that I find to be one of the best aspects of both of those ideologies. What more could you say that could get me to reconsider?
The hardcore part is important; that’s why I said it. But to explain what I mean a little bit more, think about John Rawls’ two principles of justice:
Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive total system of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar system of liberty for all.
Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both:
To the greatest benefit of the least advantaged, consistent with the just savings principle, and
Attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity.
Libertarians just reject principle two outright, and a lot of political philosophy classes are structured around debating the ideas in principle two and criticisms of it from the left and the right.
But principle one — what libertarians generally agree with — is a very extreme formulation. The right to have full-scale commercial production, marketing, distribution, and sales of fentanyl is compatible with a similar system of liberty for all. But it would also be a huge catastrophe for human welfare. I think we’re all familiar with the flaws and shortcomings of the so-called “War on Drugs.” At the same time, we can also see the very significant harm that the sale and distribution of fentanyl are causing in the United States, even as it continues to be illegal. If manufacturing, distribution, and sale were allowed, it would be much cheaper and more widely available — we’d have more addicts, more ruined lives, and more overdose deaths. But even worse, we’d have something like the advertising boom we’re currently seeing for sports gambling with large, sophisticated players investing in creating the largest possible new cohort of addicts.
I think there are a lot of examples like that.
A presumption in favor of letting people mind their own business seems sensible, humane, practical, and wise. And paternalism can feel like a bad idea because, in practice, nobody spends their time advocating for the most obviously wrongheaded anti-paternalist ideas. Nobody is saying they need to be allowed to put the cocaine back in Coca-Cola. But that just goes to underscore that the hardcore anti-paternalist position is, in fact, wrong. It is good to have regulations in place designed to help people avoid serious, well-understood hazards to their health and well-being. We should set the evidentiary bar for that sort of thing reasonably high and have a predisposition toward freedom, but an ironclad principle is a big mistake.
Lost Future: Retro question: Should the federal government give back some of its incredible extensive Western land holdings to the states? The feds own some truly staggering amount of the Western states — about 60% of Idaho and 80% of Nevada (!), for instance. The traditional leftist argument against ceding this land back to the states is that it's much more likely for the states to then sell it off to developers, ranchers, farmers, logging or drilling or mining companies, etc. As a non-leftist who thinks development is good, actually, this would seem to be a good thing to me? Any Western land holdings hot takes?
Easterners are always surprised by what a small share of the western federal land is actual parks, nature preserves, wildlife refuges, etc. My personal equity in this is that I’d like to see more parks at the margin, but beyond that don’t really care. I see good arguments for privatization, but I also see a lot of local opposition to that.
The idea of having federally owned land that’s then leased out to ranchers, drillers, and timber operations seems odd to me, but people also use non-park federal land recreationally and seem to enjoy that. The relevant balance of considerations around economic development vs. recreational amenities does seem to be overwhelmingly local rather than national in nature, so kicking it down to state governments and letting them decide might be a good way of splitting the baby. But most of all, this doesn’t really seem like something worth fighting over. If there’s a strong consensus in the western states that they’d like some change, I’d be inclined to go with whatever their congressional delegations want.
Testing 123: Meant to ask this after the CNN Town Hall, but what thoughts do you have on how the media SHOULD interview and cover Trump? CNN and Kaitlin Collins seemed to fall right back to the old “lets just point out when he's saying falsehoods, and we'll make it clear we think he's horrible” during the broadcast, but that's precisely the tactic that his supporters eat up and that he can use to great effect to portray himself as the champion of “real” America. My thought is that media members should simply accept what he's saying and press him on the consequences of his claims. When he says Pence had the right to overturn the election the media shouldn't say “legal scholars disagree” (cause then Trump just says “that's not true, they all agree that Pence could and CNN is lying to you!”), they should instead say “understood. So if Biden loses the election, does Kamala Harris have the authority to reject the outcome?” and see what he says. I also feel like the media should be chuckling and playing with him rather than fighting with him when they interview him — you don't beat a bully by telling everyone he's a jerk and how angry he's making you, you do it by emasculating him and pointing out how absurd he is. But am I wrong? How should the media be handling him in interviews?
This is a topic where I see people popping off with incredible levels of overconfidence.
It’s a difficult situation. You never want to say, as a journalist, that you don’t want to do a big interview. At the same time, when it comes to interviewing Trump, it seems like you’re faced with a really hard problem that doesn’t have any obvious solutions. Normally in the course of my work, I just wouldn’t interview a shameless liar. The point of doing interviews is to learn things and/or to create content that the audience can learn from. But interviewing someone who has Trump-level disregard for the truth isn’t informative. So on some level, what’s the point? But of course on another level, you can’t treat Trump like some random guy who’s not worth interviewing. He’s one of the most important people in the country and interviewing him would be a huge score.
So suppose I get the unexpected call tomorrow: Trump wants to do a live interview with me. What do I do?
My best idea — which I know would be risky and controversial — would be to just try and do the most banal, policy-oriented interview that can possibly be conducted. Social Security is currently on track for automatic benefit cuts starting in 2034, do you think that’s a good idea? If not, would you raise taxes to avoid the automatic benefit cuts? Just increase government borrowing? It’s not that these questions would “get” Trump or somehow “expose” him, but I do think they would be informative. I’m genuinely uncertain how he would respond, and I know that if someone else asked him those questions, I would likely write about his answers.
In general, I think the idea of a hardball interview with tough questions is one of the most overrated notions in American journalism. People harbor this fantasy that there’s some brilliant line of questioning that will cause the bad politicians to crumble, but it just doesn’t work that way. It’s not Perry Mason. I think CNN’s tendency to get into pro wrestling spectacles with Trump over the years has been good for CNN’s ratings and good for Trump politically but bad for the country. I’d be curious if I could get him to answer straightforward questions about his views like:
Should the Supreme Court revisit the Obergerfell precedent?
Is the federal minimum wage too low?
Does it make sense to have so much western land owned by the federal government?
Is the Jones Act a good idea?
Should the Nuclear Regulatory Commission be doing anything differently?
Way back after he was first elected, I wrote a piece headlined “The Case for Normalizing Trump,” and I basically stand by that. I think the fact that Trump is freakish and bizarre — or at least that many of us feel that way — is well-known and well-understood at this point. I think the concrete public policy impact of the Trump administration got a lot less attention, and that Trump’s thinking on major public policy issues remains remarkably opaque. So if I could change anything about Trump’s media coverage, that’s what it would be. I’d like to see more of an effort to bring the whole phenomenon down to earth and get him and his team to discuss concrete stuff.
Brian T: Should Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae be reformed? If so, how?
The first thing to say about this is that the Fannie/Freddie status quo seems okay — perhaps surprisingly okay relative to discourse in the Obama era, when it was taken for granted that major reform had to happen and the only question was how.
The background here is that these institutions were going to go bust during the financial crisis, so the Bush administration, in its waning days, nationalized them.
Then under Obama, there was a lot of talk on the left (including from me) about using them as a vehicle for fiscal stimulus, but nothing really came of that. There were also a few competing plans for different forms of whole or partial re-privatization, but nothing came of that either. Meanwhile, worthless shares of stock continued to trade, and a group of people scooped a bunch of them up. Under Trump it briefly seemed like the administration might just give the company back to the shareholders, creating a windfall for people who bought it on the secondary market, but that also didn’t happen. This is back in the news recently because Fannie and Freddie have rejiggered their loan price formula, but per this Urban Institute analysis, I think there’s actually much less to this story than the people talking about it think.
And here we see the issue:
Nationalization keeps raising fears of dramatic policy change, which people seem to mostly not want.
Ending nationalization tends to require dramatic policy change, which people also seem to mostly not want.
So we’re sort of stuck. What the American political system wants is to have re-financeable 30-year fixed-rate mortgages widely available at attractive rates, and it also wants it to be the case that this is delivered by the free market rather than by a government program. But a free market just won’t deliver that outcome.
My basic view is that to the extent we want this outcome, the status quo is a pretty good way to deliver it. Certainly better than the Rube Goldberg contraptions that were put forward in Obama-era reform proposals. The main downside risk of the current situation is that another huge, unexpected national decline in home prices might cost the government a ton of money. But if that happens, it will probably be okay because such a price decline would very likely be associated with a big recession that warrants economic stimulus.
All that being said, I don’t actually think that the current consensus policy goals are very good. They’re part of a larger framework that incentivizes middle-class savings and wealth building almost entirely through the vehicle of opaque subsidies for owner-occupied housing. I think we could do a lot better than that as a national savings strategy.
Lorenzo B: Could a city with as much car dependency as Los Angeles truly benefit from a congestion charge to the same extent, say, NYC would?
One of my fondest discourse goals is to try to break the conceptual link between transit advocacy and congestion pricing.
A road is a useful resource that is also quite rivalrous in its consumption — the user experience of driving on an un-congested road is dramatically better than the experience of driving in a traffic jam. When faced with that kind of situation, rationing through prices is very good. For price-rationing to be fully efficient, you would need background conditions of economic equality which unfortunately we don’t have. But as a countervailing consideration, almost every locality (and certainly Los Angeles) is already raising tons of money through regressive retail sales taxes that could simply be offset. Nothing about the logic of this in any way hinges on the city’s level of car dependency. It is true that comprehensive congestion pricing for LA would generate some modal shift to more walking/bus/metro/bike use, but the case for it doesn’t hinge on that.
At various times, for example, the FAA has tried to allow airports to implement congestion pricing for runway access. This has nothing to do with getting people to shift to another mode of transportation. It’s about trying to use airport capacity more efficiently (the airport is there 24/7 but airlines want to crowd their flights into the best windows) and trying to generate revenue streams that could fund expansions of capacity. The airlines themselves keep lobbying against this, because the current system is bad for new entrants to the industry and reduces competition. But it’s a better way to allocate a scarce resource.
By the same token, if you have a really crowded transit system, it makes sense to charge higher fares at peak hours.
JFO: Are there any U.S. cities that would benefit from having downtown rapid transit structured like Chicago's Loop, where a very large number of lines share track and enter/exit in more than two directions? If not, does that imply that Chicago isn't well served by this arrangement, or is it a system that's uniquely suited to that city?
I thought about this a lot when I was doing my fellowship in Chicago, because as a neighborhood, I think The Loop is tremendous — probably the single greatest density of jobs in the world. But does The Loop as transportation infrastructure make sense? Should it be replicated?
As I understand it, the original L lines were built by private companies that constructed radial lines terminating just outside the central business district. The idea was to save money by avoiding the most expensive real estate, and then figure people would just walk a bit. The Loop was constructed as a relatively cheap way to stitch the lines together. Then the Red Line and Blue Line subways were constructed later.
My guess is the basic reason you don’t see this Loop concept repeated anywhere I can think of is that it’s not a very good idea. The lines that merge onto the Loop run significantly fewer trains per hour than the Red Line, because the need to share tracks on the Loop reduces capacity. It’s not unusual to see branching service patterns in mass transit, but what’s unique about Chicago is that they in effect have a really tiny trunk (just the Loop) and then huge branches. That leads to huge amounts of wasted capacity. Given Chicago’s various other struggles, this is maybe not a huge deal in practice. But if you imagine a happy scenario in which public safety on the South Side really improves and the population starts growing, the fact that the Green and Orange Lines are maxing out at eight trains per hour would become a significant pain point.
Eric Wilhelm: What historical or fantasy setting do you want to see on prestige TV/streaming?
I want a Moby Dick limited series!
Sean Kelleher: Regarding your wildfire piece from this morning, I have two questions. Admittedly, they’re critical questions, but I’m genuinely interested in what you think here.
1. Does the fact that parts of Canada are seeing more wildfires, rather than more rain — as predicted by global warming models — make you wonder if those models might be a little off, and that the potential downsides of global warming could be larger than anticipated? In fairness, there could be unexpected upsides too, but those seem rarer, at least in the news.
2. If big wildfires in Quebec spreading smoke to major American cities becomes a regular thing, wouldn’t that dramatically expand the number of people and entities who are concerned about the issue, and are willing to devote substantial resources to solving it?
Just taking point (1), I think it’s just important to keep in mind that things can deviate from the average. Every once in a while there’s an unusually cold year, at which point some jackass draws a line on a chart and says “see, no global warning in 15 years!” which is dumb because global warming is a general trend over time. By the same token, the fact that eastern Canada is having an unusually dry spring doesn’t debunk the forecast of increasing rain over time — stuff just happens. What I was trying to say is that as I understand it, this particular kind of fire is not the kind of thing that we should expect to see become more frequent over time as a result of climate change, it’s just bad luck.
In the western U.S., by contrast, while some years will be better than others, we can expect more frequent and more intense fires over time. Or, rather, we can expect weather conditions that are more conducive to wildfires. How many actual fires we get will also depend on forest management, human behavior, and other factors.
Crobama: If you could select any living, eligible, elected official to be the GOP and the Democratic nominee in 2024, who would it be and why, based on the following criteria: policy/political priorities, ability to navigate divided government, and ability to energize voters (the latter being what may be best defined as “it factor”).
I think it would be nice to live in a Median Voter Theorem universe where we got something like Chris Sununu against Roy Cooper. In other words, a Republican with a demonstrated ability to get support from some Biden voters against a Democrat with a demonstrated ability to get support from some Trump voters.
People forget this, but in the very recent past of 2012, we had a close presidential election in which the losing candidate was viewed favorably by 55% of the population. Back in 2008, John McCain had a 63% favorable rating. During Obama years Republicans convinced themselves that Democrats ran some kind of ultra-effective smear campaign against Mitt Romney and they needed to find a down-and-dirty fighter who could respond in kind. But Romney was well-regarded until the end — people just weren’t convinced they should dump Obama for him. If Republicans managed to find someone this year who’s as well-liked as Romney was in 2012 or McCain was in 2008, they could thrash Biden.
Liam Scott: Americans consistently support increasing spending on virtually every major government expense. Say for example, that Americans mean that we should increase spending on every government category by ~30 percent. In that case, government spending as a % of GDP would be more than half. My question is: Given how popular increasing spending across the board is, why hasn't the country broken down already?
It’s true that if you ask about individual categories, “spend more” is almost always the popular position. But if you ask in general whether the government should spend more and provide more services or spend less and provide fewer services, small government wins easily. And that’s the dance of politics — it just goes to show that most people have not spent a lot of time thinking in detail about their real preferences.
It’s interesting to consider what would happen if you conscripted a random group of people to make fiscal policy decisions and gave them the opportunity to discuss these decisions with each other. Like instead of the Simpson-Bowles Committee, you could have a jury of 12 randomly selected Americans given some time and staff resources to work out a plan. Probably most people on the Fiscal Jury would start out by proposing things that don’t work but that they’ve never really bothered to look into. Over time, they would have to settle on something, and I think it almost certainly wouldn’t be the “spend less overall” option, because once you start trying to allocate out the fiscal pain, there wouldn’t be any good way to make it work. At the same time, a lot of stuff that people say they want to spend more on would end up on the chopping block once people were faced with genuine tradeoffs.
Zachary Smith: To what extent do you believe that increased transparency of academic / intellectual theories to the general public (via twitter or otherwise) contributes to political extremism?
I’m thinking of this from the lens of:
Academia is meant to produce radical ideas that necessarily get moderated through policy. Social media allows the policy filter to be bypassed, and the general public is exposed to “raw academia” and thereby confuses these theories for policy prescriptions.
My simpler model of this is that Twitter is a real force multiplier for academics, and academics as a whole are way to the left of the national median in their political opinions. Professors, as a group, are above-average writers, know interesting things, are interested in the world of ideas, and have fairly flexible schedules that let them spend time on Twitter. So, a large minority of professors do a lot of tweeting and some of them have substantial Twitter followings.
What’s more, while the vast majority of professors seem to be very careful to keep their political opinions out of their undergraduate teaching, they are much less restrained in their social media presence. The upshot of all this is that a lot of left-wing ideas make it out into the world, even though there isn’t necessarily a huge commercial audience for them. “Professors doing their takes” isn’t something that would make for a good magazine. But it’s totally viable Twitter content.
Tobias Schneider: Given your well justified position on enforcing the law even when it comes to smaller “nuisance” etc violations, how do you feel about alternative models to policing? German-speaking countries have something called the “Ordnungsamt” and the Netherlands something similar called “Handhaving” — a kind of secondary force in charge of enforcing local codes and ordinances as well as maintaining basic public order. They generally have administrative authorities (i.e. tickets) but not the power of arrest. This allows the police to focus on fighting real crime. Might be easier to get progressive buy-in for such an institution than for expanding police forces?
We have this to an extent in the United States. In D.C., for example, there are building code enforcement officers and parking enforcement officers who are separate from the MPD.
The limits to this approach in the American context are twofold. One is that guns are very widely owned and widely carried here, so the scope of what can be done by unarmed officers is relatively limited. The other is that many American jurisdictions, certainly including D.C., have made it illegal for people to walk around carrying handguns. Because the guns are illegal, we generally want to have police officers doing traffic stops or fare enforcement so that they can do gun searches and arrest people with illegal weapons.
Red: I'm wondering what SB thinks of the recent mayoral primary in Philadelphia. Would also like to hear a certain regular SB commenter who lives in Philly weigh in.
I am not super-deep on Philly issues; I thought Cherelle Parker’s platform on crime and public safety was good, but there are other issues in the mix and I’m not sure whether I would have voted for her.
My observation across recent mayoral elections in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, and Philadelphia is that in all cases, the Black candidate won with strong support from Black voters, whether the Black candidate was the one occupying the left lane (Chicago, LA) or the moderate lane (New York, Philadelphia). Identity still matters a lot in municipal politics, and factions should pay attention to these details in their candidate recruitment efforts.
17 Likes
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.