Thursday, August 31, 2023

The media's failure on Elon Musk. By Paris Marx


www.disconnect.blog

9 - 11 minutes
A collage of magazine covers featuring Elon Musk.

Almost any time Elon Musk fires off a random thought from his Twitter (sorry, X) account, you can be sure to find a number of media organizations publishing short write ups to get clicks from the swarms of people looking to see what the billionaire is up to next — or what bullshit he’s spouting this time. The publications may as well have ChatGPT set up to spit out a few paragraphs to keep the Musk content mill running.

It doesn’t matter that Musk is known to make false statements, and might not even remember he made the declaration within weeks or even days. Those clickbait articles are the inevitable outcome of a two-decade-long informal partnership between Musk and the media that is under increasing strain, but which neither can truly part with because they’ve become so dependent on one another.

Musk is often positioned as a genius who built a vast empire all on his own. But the reality is that “Elon Musk” is as much as person as he is a character co-created by the man and the media. The lines between the two have blurred as the man began to believe in the myth that was built around him, but that myth also helped him become one of foremost figures in the tech industry as it ascended during the internet era, gave him much easier access to investment, and ultimately ensured it was much harder for him to fail.

Musk knew cultivating celebrity would be essential to his success. In The Founders, Jimmy Soni quotes one of the people who was close to Musk in his early startup days, who describes how his room was filled with “biographies and stories about business luminaries and how they succeeded.” At the top of the pile was a book about billionaire showman Richard Branson.

As soon as he had his first payout after the sale of Zip2, a company where he had his power curtailed by the board, he was already beginning to build the image that was necessary to get the media to pay attention to him. In 1999, CNN covered a young Musk and his first wife Justine taking possession of a McLaren F1 supercar. At the time, Musk himself said it could be seen as “behavior characteristic of an imperialistic brat.” (He crashed it not long after showing off for Peter Thiel.)

Once he had a bigger payout from the sale of PayPal to eBay in 2002, he kept building that profile. He invested in Tesla and founded SpaceX, and was able to turn those investments into endless headlines and magazine covers about how he was personally saving the world from climate change and reviving the moribund space program. As the government retreated, Elon Musk stepped into the void and the media became enamored with him. The more coverage he got, the better it was for his businesses.

Behind the scenes, his companies frequently ran into trouble, occasionally because of his own poor decision-making. In Ludicrous, Edward Niedermeyer describes how Musk was initially focused on electric cars at Tesla, but once the vehicles started taking longer to produce and ended up being more expensive than forecast, Musk needed more cash. It was in that moment that he started making big promises like battery swapping and autonomous driving that fueled the share price regardless of whether he followed through. He was never punished for those false statements, as long as he had a new big idea to throw to rabid investors and a credulous media.

That’s not to mention all the government support that SpaceX and Tesla received that helped them become what they are today. The US government essentially saved Tesla from death in 2009, while its battery-swapping deception ensured it got additional credits from California’s carbon credit scheme without delivering the environmental benefits. For years, Tesla’s profits came from the sale of those credits, not selling electric cars. It was similar for SpaceX, where the government made an explicit policy choice beginning under President George W. Bush to privatize the space program and later gave contracts to SpaceX to get it through its most difficult moments.

Share

Through that whole period, the media wasn’t just along for the ride, but actively working to build up Musk’s profile. The more the public believed the myth that he was the next great innovator, the more they’d buy magazines about him and read articles about his companies. The media and prominent tech journalists were more than happy to ignore his flaws and the problems at his companies for access to the man they were framing as humanity’s savior.

As I described back in February, ever since the days of Zip2 there have been stories about the toxic work environments Musk cultivated. In 2001, he told CNN, “there’s no such thing as the eight-hour day in Silicon Valley,” and as a result he expected his workers to put in grueling hours often for little pay. He’s a known union buster, and has allowed racism and sexism to flourish at companies like Tesla and SpaceX. Tesla’s Fremont factory was dubbed the “plantation” and when Musk was forced to respond to the discrimination faced by Black workers, he told them to be “thick-skinned” and that they wouldn’t “get a free pass on being a jerk yourself.”

To be clear, these issues were reported. The reality was out there, but it rarely affected how the media covered Musk himself. The stories about the problems in Musk’s growing empire were rarely brought to him by the journalists who got the opportunity to interview him, and if they did, he was allowed to get away with a non-answer. Ultimately, journalists just wanted to know about rockets, electric cars, and the “fantastic future” he was building, as biographer Ashlee Vance put it in the title of his fawning 2015 biography of Musk.

In the past few years, the coverage of Musk has slowly started to change. Since calling Vern Unsworth a “pedo guy” in 2018, refusing to leave one of President Donald Trump’s advisory boards after the Muslim ban, and simply becoming more openly right-wing and hostile to anything that isn’t in his personal interest, the tone of reporting on Musk has changed. There has still been plenty of uncritical reporting and even praise, like when he was named TIME’s 2021 Person of the Year despite the growing scandals engulfing him. But that’s been accompanied by more open skepticism, which has only grown since his acquisition of Twitter last year.

Earlier this month, prominent tech journalist and Platformer founder Casey Newton argued it was time for the media to change how it covers Musk. He has been doing important critical work on Musk’s management of Twitter/X, but of all the things to push Newton to finally call for change, it was Musk’s statements over the “cage match” he proposed with Mark Zuckerberg and his post about covering people’s legal bills if they’re unfairly treated for posting on his platform.

While I welcome any time the media wisens up to Musk, it was shocking to me that an essay like this took until mid-2023 to be published and that it was motivated by such inconsequential stories. The cage match and legal bill tweet are nothing compared to Musk’s treatment of his workers, his flagrant disregard for regulations that few other executives could get away with breaching, and his increasing embrace of right-wing conspiracy theories.

The media absolutely needs to change how it covers Musk, but it needs to go far beyond that. They need to reckon with the harm they’ve done by helping build him into the too-big-to-fail corporate titan he’s become and making him believe in the myth of his unique genius. Musk is now a geopolitical force who controls key rocketry, space communications, and vehicle charging infrastructures — and the media’s effusive coverage of him was an important part of what made that possible.

But beyond Musk, it also shows a fundamental flaw in the media’s coverage of the wider tech industry. Even as Newton called for more skepticism of Musk’s statements, he told people to trust the statements of Mark Zuckerberg — of all people — and stated that “it is in the nature of business journalism to assume that CEOs of public companies are not lying all the time.” Credulous journalism allowed the tech industry to get away with immense harm for years, and while they have gotten more skeptical, the boosterism and uncritical reporting continues to this day.

After inflating the myth of Elon Musk, the media has a responsibility to break their dependence on him and tear him down. That doesn’t necessary mean going on the offensive, but simply giving more attention to the many ways Musk feels he’s beyond accountability and above the law. It means digging into his right-wing ideology and the false promises they once praised him for making. But even more, it means never falling for another tech grifter trying to do the same thing and applying that scrutiny to every startup founder and public company CEO in the tech industry. They owe the public nothing less.

Wednesday, August 30, 2023

Ramaswamentum is a product of Bored Journalist Syndrome. By Matthew Yglesias


www.slowboring.com

12 - 15 minutes

The 2016 Republican Party presidential primary was one of the craziest, most thrilling political stories of my career.

Yet zooming out, it actually seems kind of boring. Donald Trump started out with high name recognition and a high level of support, and he maintained that high level of support, gradually gaining from multiple directions until he locked up the primary. Now of course the real story was more complicated than “the frontrunner won,” but that’s still basically what happened. Similarly, even though there was a crazy swing in the 2020 Democratic Party between New Hampshire and South Carolina, that was a very brief period in a very long campaign, the story of which was essentially “Joe Biden has been ahead the whole time.”

By the same token, I think the current surge of interest in Vivek Ramaswamy’s candidacy — like the earlier surge of RFK Jr. coverage — bears all the hallmarks of what I call Bored Journalist Syndrome.

American political journalists write articles about American politics, ideally articles that people will read.

“Trump is still ahead” is not an article that people will read.

In the online attention economy, you don’t really have the luxury of being dull. And while most journalists aren’t generally making stuff up or printing wildly misleading articles just for the sake of attention, they’ve got to come up with something. And right now, Ramaswamy is definitely something. He’s getting up to 10% in national polling averages and occasionally challenging Ron DeSantis for second place. This has positioned him for an upward spiral of attention leading to name recognition leading to higher polls leading to more journalism explaining his growing appeal, before it likely all just ends with the reality that most Republicans like Trump.

Note that just because an article is fundamentally motivated by boredom doesn’t mean that it’s bad.

When Bobby Jr. was having his moment in the sun, I took the opportunity to write a piece about vaccine policy, which is an important issue that doesn’t often feel urgent, and I was glad Kennedy inspired me to take a crack at it. I also uncorked this long, meandering piece about assassination conspiracy theories that’s really about the lost promise of a solidaristic alternative to identity politics. That idea is very important to me — I saw the trailer for the Bayard Rustin biopic this week, which reminded me of his work in that regard, even though (or perhaps because) it’s not a theme that’s featured in the trailer. When the movie actually comes out, you can expect to see me use it as an opportunity to talk about what I think is interesting about Rustin’s thought, even if that turns out not to be what the filmmakers are interested in.

In that vein, what I find most interesting about Ramaswamy is the extent to which he’s copying Pete Buttigieg’s strategy from 2020.

The two have some superficial similarities as Harvard guys of roughly the same age. But like the much older Kennedy, they both campaigned largely by doing national media hits, including plenty of fairly obscure podcasts and YouTube shows, and bootstrapping from those shows onto bigger ones. For example, even before Buttigieg’s star-making CNN town hall, he was a guest on the live episode of The Weeds we recorded at South By Southwest. A whole bunch of candidates were in Austin that weekend and we tried to book all of them. Buttigieg and Castro were the two who said yes, and I think that was a smart strategy.

Amy Klobuchar, like Nikki Haley this year, was pursuing a more traditional strategy focused on retail politics in an early primary state. The hope was that retail and local media could deliver a strong performance there, which would deliver more attention.

I think that strategy doesn’t really make sense anymore. When the news was delivered to your house via radio waves or trucks full of paper, geographically defined niches were very important. But today, whether you’re talking about audio or video or text, you are increasingly likely to get that information over the internet, which means geography is arbitrary. There are still niches, though, in small shows that are happy to book obscure candidates or weird outsiders. Showing up is no guarantee of success — you need to come across as at least somewhat smart, personable, and charismatic — but if you cross that threshold, the odds are good that someone will like what you’re saying. And that’s really the name of the game at this point. Josh Barro has a funny negative take on Ramaswamy’s personality, and Maya wrote her earnest negative take on Ramaswamy’s policy positions, but when it comes to “gaining momentum” in a presidential primary, it’s fine if most people hate you.

A wide-open presidential nomination process is supposed to be more democratic than power brokers in smoke-filled backrooms.

In practice, though, the lack of formal structure gives a lot of de facto power to the whims of the media. Most Democratic Party primary voters back in 2020 probably gave real consideration to the question of Joe Biden vs. Elizabeth Warren vs. Bernie Sanders. Some of those people made the considered choice that they wanted Bernie. A smaller number made the considered choice that they wanted Warren. And the largest number made the considered choice that they preferred Biden.

But I doubt many Biden voters spent much time pondering the choice of Joe Biden vs. Steve Bullock or John Hickenlooper. I think for all the reasons that you’d prefer Biden over Warren and Sanders, you’d also prefer Bullock over Warren and Sanders. Meanwhile, Democrats would be better off today if they had an incumbent running for re-election who was born in 1966 rather than 1942, and I don’t think “Joe Biden will get older with each passing year” was some unforeseeable situation back during that primary. The choice simply didn’t arise in a meaningful way. If you were concerned about electability, comfortable with Biden’s style of politics, a fan of Barack Obama, and generally speaking a mainstream Democrat, you just went for Biden — for most voters, there was never a moment of seriously weighing the choice. The closest we got was Biden vs. Buttigieg. But Buttigieg had a real problem with Black voters, and the mayor of the fourth largest city in Indiana did not strike a lot of people as a safe bet in the same way that a former vice president was. The pairwise comparison with Bullock — a veteran politician who’s a quarter century younger — is less favorable to Biden, but it never happened because Bullock just never got attention.

And that’s the Ramaswamentum that’s happening at the moment.

A political nobody starts outpolling Chris Christie and suddenly that’s “a story,” even if he’s eleventy-million points behind Trump. So people start seeing the story — hey, this is a guy! — and suddenly the mere fact that a candidate is being discussed elevates him above the field, where he gets even more hype and more attention. The problem (for the candidate) is that these cycles tend to be self-limiting.

It’s a cliché to talk about presidential primaries in terms of lanes, but I’d say this GOP field has four of them.

One lane, the biggest and most important, is the “literally be Donald Trump” lane, and that lane is occupied by Donald Trump.

Then there’s the pre-Trump lane represented by Mike Pence, Nikki Haley, and Tim Scott, all of whom basically want the GOP to more closely resemble what it was before the 2016 primary cycle. That’s distinct from the anti-Trump lane where Christie is trying (and succeeding!) to get attention with a “Donald Trump is a seriously bad person” message that, while accurate, just does not resonate with many Republican voters. Then, last but not least, you have Ramaswamy and Ron DeSantis in the post-Trump lane. This is the lane that most current Republican Party politicians exist in. They believe that they have learned some valuable lessons about American politics and public policy from Trump’s success and that they can blend those lessons with their greater intelligence or skills or experience or discipline and be more effective than Trump ever was.

This is, I think, a pretty reasonable idea, and if Biden gets re-elected, we’ll probably see a formidable post-Trump nominee in 2028. The problem in 2024 is that we’re not post-Trump. Trump is standing right there.

If Trump were deeply committed to the America First Agenda, he might decide that he’s got a lot of baggage and he’s pretty old, and so instead of running for president, he might dedicate his time to fundraising for America First think tanks and fleshing out the MAGA policy agenda while letting a younger generation carry forward the torch. But Trump wants to win. So most Republicans ask themselves “how do I feel about Trump?” Most of them feel good about Trump, and most of the people who feel good about Trump just want to vote for actual, literal Donald Trump. The post-Trump play is a decent expected value in the sense that Trump might die suddenly of a heart attack and then it really is a post-Trump party. But absent the heart attack, DeSantis is drawing dead and Ramaswamy is at best running for vice president.

That said, running for VP isn’t a crazy idea. Trump would be a lame duck from the moment of his inauguration, and his vice president would have a clear leg up for the 2028 nomination. So even though there is something stupid about this whole thing, it’s not quite as stupid as it seems.

I was often frustrated by the 2020 Democratic primary because everyone seemed obsessed with disagreements that couldn’t possibly make any difference. Do you remember the argument about whether Buttigieg’s “Medicare for All Who Want It” proposal was left-wing enough or Bernie and Warren arguing about rival visions of a multi-trillion tax increase to pay for single-payer health care? There was a whole news cycle devoted to activists complaining that Beto O’Rourke’s $3.5 trillion climate investment package was too timid because he didn’t pledge to achieve net zero by 2030.

By contrast, the GOP primary field seems to have been completely de-contented.

The closest thing to a real forward-looking policy argument we saw at the debate last week was candidates circling around the idea of federal abortion bans. But all they were really doing was arguing over how pessimistic they should be about the congressional politics of a 12- or 15-week ban. They didn’t get into things the president actually has control over, like judicial nominations or FDA regulation of mifepristone. Nikki Haley criticized the CARES Act, which was interesting, but she didn’t really explain why, and nobody else on stage really criticized it. But that would be a topic to argue about: was Trump wrong to do fiscal stimulus? I get the sense that Republicans think nuclear energy is good. Do they have policy ideas about it? Why did the previous two GOP administrations not accomplish anything on this front despite impeccable pro-nuclear vibes?

Meanwhile, the moderators didn’t really ask anything at all about the present-day fiscal situation. If they’re not cutting Social Security or Medicare, what are they cutting? Medicaid, presumably, but how deeply? Do they still want to repeal the ACA? Extending the Trump tax cuts would add $3.3 trillion to the national debt — do they want more tax cuts over and beyond that? Nobody knows! Nobody cares! However it is that the conservative movement transacts their business, it doesn’t involve public media discussion of policy priorities.

Ramaswamy does a good job of filling that void by tossing out ideas that don’t make sense.

Midway through my first draft of this piece, he tweeted that college admissions should be based on a blend of the SAT and the Presidential Fitness Test and he didn’t really say why. But in saying so, he positioned himself as on the side of both meritocracy and personal fitness, which I guess is good vibes. He says we should lay off 90% of the Fed staff without giving any indication of who he has in mind (security guards? bank regulators? the people who make sure checks clear?) or why he thinks that’s a good idea. But he has anti-Fed vibes, combining longstanding Paul family vibes with current-day discontent with inflation. He says we should stabilize the dollar by pegging it to the value of commodities, which would very clearly make it less stable, not more. But no one in the field says anything about any of this; instead they argue about whether he loves Israel enough.

I find it pretty distressing that this is the level of discourse we’re on. But trying to actually answer these questions would be contrary to the spirit of covering a candidate out of sheer boredom. And GOP primary voters and conservative stakeholders don’t seem to care. So is Ramaswamy dumb? Is he saying things he knows are dumb? We’ll probably never find out.

Tuesday, August 29, 2023

Republicans' plan to bomb Mexico is bad. By Matthew Yglesias


www.slowboring.com

14 - 18 minutes

During the Trump administration, Brett Giroir served as Assistant Secretary for Health, a position that entailed a commission as an admiral in the U.S. Public Health Service and, therefore, required that Giroir sometimes wear a military-style dress uniform.

This is the source of an amusing anecdote reported by Maggie Haberman: Giroir supposedly came to the Oval Office to talk about opioids, and Trump — mistaking him for a military officer — asked about bombing fentanyl labs in Mexico. “The response from White House aides,” Haberman dryly reports, “was not to try to change Trump’s view, but to consider asking Giroir not to wear his uniform to the Oval Office anymore.” Haberman also reports in her book that Trump’s interest in the subject led to him “eventually asking a stunned Defense Secretary Mark Esper whether the United States could indeed bomb the labs,” which suggests the whole thing was not purely a mixup about Giroir’s role.

During the initial news cycle, the contrarian in me was inclined to come to Trump’s defense.

Politicians are very image-conscious, which often leads to management errors. One of the worst things a boss can do is decline to ask questions of subordinates because they’re afraid the question will make them look dumb. The fact is, nobody who runs a company or public sector entity has intimate personal familiarity with every single aspect of the operation. You are mostly trusting that your subordinates know what they are doing, but it is correct and reasonable to sometimes ask them to consider outside-the-box ideas and explain from first principles why they are doing things the way they are doing them. This is a particularly serious issue when it comes to the job of president of the United States, which involves an incredible range of topics — it is good to boldly ask questions, even “dumb” questions like “why don’t we just bomb the labs?” because you really do want to make sure you’re getting a whole range of views.

I didn’t think much more about it. Obviously Trump did not bomb Mexico, and the mere fact that he asked about it didn’t seem damning to me.

But flash forward to April 2023 and I’m reading David Weigel on how Republicans are proposing military action in Mexico as their new solution to the drug problem. Politico’s Alex Ward has reported the same. In keeping with his determination to position himself on the right wing of every policy dispute, Ron DeSantis has gone further and been more explicit than other contenders, but everyone is doing it. And nobody has answered the most basic questions about how this is supposed to work or why they think it’s a good idea.

I worry that some elements of the conservative movement are so busy marinating in trad-inflected propaganda from Russia and China that they’ve totally blinded themselves to how much America’s enemies would love to see us bogged down in a highly ambiguous military mission south of the border.

One of the biggest lessons of the past several generations is that launching a discretionary military offensive is a very risky undertaking. A modern military can’t “live off the land,” and advanced industrial societies can’t actually wage war for conquest. Even when you “win,” as the United States did initially in both Iraq and Afghanistan, you end up saddled with a lot of thorny governance problems that you have limited ability to solve. And those were relatively good outcomes compared to say, Russia expending tremendous amounts of blood and treasure to conquer a relatively small amount of Ukrainian terrain of questionable value that they may or may not be able to hold.

Meanwhile, you run massive risks of strategic distraction.

Former Attorney General Bill Barr, one of the leading proponents of a more militarized approach to Mexico, specifically blames those wars in Iraq and Afghanistan for having distracted us from engaging more fully with Mexico 15 years ago. His argument about that strikes me as somewhat reasonable. But when he turns to the present day, it’s all wishful thinking. In his March op-ed that helped kick this all into high gear, Barr says “We can’t get caught in the trap of ‘nation building’” and also that “optimally, the Mexican government will support and participate in this effort, and it is likely to do so once they understand that the U.S. is committed to do whatever is necessary to cripple the cartels, whether or not the Mexican government participates.”

His vision is basically:

    America announces we’re sending in the troops whether Mexico cooperates or not.

    Mexico decides to cooperate.

    U.S. forces, in cooperation with the Mexican government, make a brief-but-intense “big push” to fight the cartels.

    U.S. forces depart, leaving behind Mexican forces that now have a decisive upper hand against the cartels.

That would be lovely. But what if the Mexican government doesn’t cooperate, state authority collapses in the areas of American military action, cooperation on drugs and migration and all the rest collapses everywhere, and while cartels are largely forced underground, the United States now occupies a broad swathe of Northern Mexico to prevent them from taking total control? Now we’re in an open-ended, low-intensity war against cartel elements that are also patriotic resistance fighters and maybe also enjoy the patronage of the People’s Republic of China, while political systems across Latin America gravitate away from the U.S.

Can I guarantee that will happen? Of course not. These things are unpredictable. But that’s precisely why the onus is on the proponents of this kind of escalation to show they have worked out some kind of realistic plan and aren’t engaged in wishful thinking.

For all that Barr’s take on this is glib, he at least defines the problem in plausible terms as related to governance in Mexico and the lack of state control there.

Trump’s plan to just fire missiles at fentanyl factories and DeSantis’ plan to use “drone strikes” against unspecified cartel targets are both even stupider. These guys clearly don’t want boots on the ground in Mexico, which is smart — they recognize that we are a somewhat war-weary country at this point with concerns even about the Biden administration’s completely offshore engagement with Ukraine. So fling some explosives over the border and forget about it!

But facilities for producing and distributing fentanyl aren’t unique targets like Osama bin Laden, where you can do the strike, take the hit (which in that case included a lot of kids getting polio), and pocket your gains.

As long as there’s a big market for fentanyl in the United States, the relevant infrastructure will be rebuilt. That’s not to say an interdiction strategy is doomed to failure, but it would need to be sustained to significantly increase the price and reduce the availability of the stuff in the United States. You’d need an ongoing flow of intelligence and a strategy for responding to retaliatory murders that happen on American territory. We don’t have to like the outcome, but there’s a reason the Mexican government eventually backed away from fighting the drug cartels — they enjoy making their money and fight back when hurt.

Ken Cuccinelli, in his policy brief “It’s Time to Wage War on Transnational Drug Cartels,” concedes that there is a major risk here, writing that one of the downsides of his proposal is the “potential for criminal illegal alien gangs operating in major US cities to carry out attacks at the behest of cartels designated as cartel networks and affiliated factions.” That’s not, on its own, a decisive objection. But a policymaker who wants to go down this road needs to be ready for the blowback with a realistic plan.

Meanwhile, none of the people involved in this discourse — not Cuccinelli, not Barr, not Trump, not DeSantis — acknowledge that they themselves have elevated migration over drugs in the U.S.-Mexico bilateral relationship and that if we start humiliating the Mexican government, they will reduce cooperation and our problems on that score will get worse.

Barr cites Plan Colombia, inaugurated under Bill Clinton but mostly implemented by George W. Bush, as the positive example here.

My read of the literature is that there’s a lot of disagreement as to how effective this military cooperation deal really was in reducing the flow of cocaine to the United States. It’s a bit overshadowed by the huge number of opioid overdoses, but cocaine overdose deaths have also been on the rise — admittedly mostly due to blending with fentanyl, but people are still getting cocaine.

That said, Plan Colombia clearly did contribute to degrading the military capability of FARC, which set the stage for a peace deal that came together during Obama’s second term. So there’s definitely a success story here, but this is what the Colombian government wanted. The concerns from the U.S. side were about whether we were wasting money on something doomed, or whether we were empowering the most reactionary elements in Colombia who would do lots of bad things with our help. Ultimately it worked out pretty well. But this is exactly what is not happening in Mexico.

Fifteen years ago it was a different story.

Felipe Calderón took office in December 2006 as Mexico’s second-ever president from the center-right PAN party and inaugurated high-intensity military action against the Mexican cartels. The United States stepped up to the plate with the Mérida Initiative, which was supposed to be the Mexican version of Plan Colombia. Barr nods at this history, writing that “Mexican cartels have flourished because Mexican administrations haven’t been willing to take them on. The exception was President Felipe Calderón (2006-12) who wanted to go full bore against the cartels, but American priorities were elsewhere at the time.”

It’s not like we did nothing during Calderón’s time — there was a $1.6 billion military aid package for Mexico spread out across 2007–2010 with other money directed at Central American governments. Congress also cut the Dominican Republic and Haiti in on the action.

But Barr suggests an interesting hypothetical. During this period, the United States was spending upwards of $100 billion per year in Iraq. Maybe Mérida and the Calderón-era drug war could have been a big success if the U.S. had spent $16 billion per year for a decade on it while quietly making U.S. special forces available to help on select missions.

But that’s not what happened. We poured money down the drain in Iraq, and then when Obama took over, he implemented an expensive surge in Afghanistan. And daily life in Mexico got much worse under Calderón’s war footing. The cartels fought back, tons of people died, and the Calderón-era head of Mexico’s federal police was convicted earlier this year in federal court in the United States. One of the main U.S. government witnesses in that case, a former Mexican state attorney general, says Calderón himself was working with the Sinaloa Cartel the whole time. My awareness of how badly this worked out is one reason I’ve been surprised by the apparent success of Bukele’s gang crackdown in El Salvador — “getting tough” in the context of weak state structures is a non-trivial problem, and I still wish I was seeing clearer reporting on how El Salvador avoided the massive corruption that plagues Mexican security services.

Either way, Calderón left office unpopular, and both of his successors from two different political parties have deliberately abandoned this approach. The current president, AMLO, is wildly popular at home. The idea that you can just conjure up Calderón-like policies but with stepped-up American involvement is a fantasy. You’d be moving very much against the grain of contemporary Mexican opinion, which does not want to see its country torn up in order to solve an American drug problem.

Fentanyl is a genuinely grave and objectively hard problem to solve.

And discourse participants keep wanting to make the fentanyl problem about something other than fentanyl itself. People sometimes look at life expectancy falling in the U.S. as it rises in Europe and say “well, this shows we need a European-style health insurance system.” There are some very serious problems with American health care, but it’s not like those problems suddenly arose in 2014 when life expectancy stopped improving. Instead, we are seeing the unpleasant consequences of specific policy errors that were made years earlier with regard to prescription opioids.

There’s also been this incredibly damaging “deaths of despair” narrative that lumped a bunch of problems together under the heading of “despair,” even though the increase was really driven by just one thing — opioids — that happened specifically in the United States because of specific prescription drug policy errors.

The new version of this that’s entered the “bomb Mexico” narrative is to try to make fentanyl about immigration policy. Immigration is one of the GOP’s best issues to use against Biden, and fentanyl overdoses are a genuinely serious problem, so linking the two rhetorically makes sense.

But fentanyl is being smuggled by U.S. citizens who are crossing at legal ports of entry. It’s a separate issue. Honest immigration hawks should admit that America’s drug problem kept getting worse all throughout Trump’s immigration crackdown because the drugs are not an immigration issue.

By far the most straightforward interdiction strategy would be to do more (and more rigorous) searches of cross-border vehicle traffic. That would be annoying to people engaged in legitimate commerce and tourism, and it would cost money because it’s labor-intensive. I think reasonable people can disagree on the cost-benefit. I haven’t seen anyone attempt a rigorous quantitative analysis so I don’t really have an opinion. I’m not someone who personally crosses the U.S.-Mexico land border, so it’s easy for me to say it would be worth the hassle, but people who live in south Texas may disagree. That’s something we should talk about, though. There’s also a lot of fentanyl that comes in the mail directly from China. Australia invests a lot of money in searching mail, which has proven pretty effective.

Of course, Australia doesn’t have a land border. And one reason for the rise of the Mexican fentanyl trade is that we have gotten better at intercepting direct-from-China fentanyl. That in turn is a reminder that all interdiction is a bit of a whack-a-mole: if we squeeze harder in Mexico, other routes will be found. That doesn’t mean it’s pointless — increasing the cost and logistical difficulty has value — just that the cost-benefit of any specific interdiction is a bit smaller than a naive look might suggest. There’s just no getting around the need to get opioid users into treatment. The reason Mexico doesn’t take this problem as seriously as we’d like is that it’s Americans who are using the fentanyl — that’s not a law of nature, it’s something we could fix.

The good news, such as it is, is that drug overdose deaths seem to be leveling off and are even falling in the hardest-hit states. Even without policy interventions, these drug epidemics tend to be self-limiting and burn themselves out. We should try to do things to make the situation better, but invading Mexico has tremendous downside risks and limited upside.

The IRA as inflation reduction. By Matthew Yglesias


www.slowboring.com

11 - 14 minutes

The Inflation Reduction Act was signed just over a year ago, and the rate of inflation has fallen steadily and dramatically since then. I am not a shameless propagandist who will tell you that the inflation drop is primarily because of the IRA.

But monitoring the anniversary discourse, I think a lot of people have overcorrected and are underplaying the importance of inflation-reduction in passing the IRA. Paul Krugman wrote last week that IRA “isn’t actually about reducing inflation; it’s mainly a climate bill, using tax credits and subsidies to encourage the transition to a low-emission economy.”

From the standpoint of most of the members of Congress who voted for it, I’m sure that’s true. They were highly motivated to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, highly distressed by the collapse of Build Back Better talks, and ready to call the bill whatever Joe Manchin wanted if that would get the deal done. But when it comes to understanding why the deal got done, I think it was actually very important that the IRA scores as slightly reducing inflation. A lot of people have conveniently memory-holed this, but pre-IRA there was a tremendous discourse from the left centered around accusing Manchin of acting “in bad faith” on BBB negotiations, positing that his real goal was the protection of his personal financial investments in the coal industry.

What Manchin said he was concerned about, though, was that BBB’s structure was likely to be inflationary at a time when inflation was a big problem.

When BBB was reworked into IRA, it shifted from an inflationary bill to a disinflationary bill, while maintaining strong emissions reduction provisions. On the “bad faith” theory, Manchin should have continued to oppose the bill. But it turns out that addressing his stated concerns changed his mind — the very model of good-faith negotiating. It’s true that progressives didn’t really care about IRA’s disinflationary punch because, by the same token, they didn’t really care about BBB being modestly inflationary. But that was a big sticking point. The pivotal senator wanted a bill that addressed inflation, and by writing a bill that addressed inflation, they got the deal done.

A related point is that even though most of the IRA’s provisions are about climate, it also includes some very important changes related to prescription drugs. The one with the biggest short-term impact was capping the price of insulin at $35, but even though Kyrsten Sinema watered it down, beginning the process of letting Medicare negotiate bulk discounts on prescription drugs is a really big deal for health care policy.

Pharmaceutical companies are currently suing to try to get the Supreme Court to rule this unconstitutional.

In general, I wish that both the Biden administration’s work on this and the right’s efforts to overturn it got more attention, because this is a lot more popular than the clean energy stuff. And while a macroeconomist would tell you that forcing down the price of prescription drugs isn’t really fighting inflation, I think to most people, inflation is bad because it makes stuff more expensive — so making stuff cheaper is, in fact, fighting inflation. If the White House could get progressives to tweet as furiously about this litigation as they do about student loan litigation, they’d be in better shape politically.

But the “cheap stuff is good” philosophy is integral to understanding the climate provisions of IRA, too, because the bill actually represents a conceptual revolution in how to approach climate policy.

The original Obama-era idea was carbon pricing — making dirty energy more expensive — which failed in Congress only to be replaced by regulatory strategies like the Clean Power Plan that also aimed to make dirty energy more expensive. During the Trump years, activists and advocates continued to come up with more ways for the next Democratic administration to drive energy costs up. A big part of the push to declare Manchin a bad-faith actor was a sense that the White House was holding off on dramatic executive action in order to appease the West Virginia senator. If activists could convince Biden to give up on Manchin, then they could push him to do everything in his power to throttle fossil fuel production and drive the cost of dirty energy up.

But that’s not what happened. Instead, IRA achieves emissions reductions almost entirely by trying to lower the cost of clean energy and electric appliances, and while Biden has certainly done executive actions on environmental issues, we’re also on pace to set an all-time record in American oil production this year. That’s the actual energy policy Democrats ended up enacting — an abundance-oriented approach to the energy transition that focuses on driving costs down. That’s different from the policy they initially intended to enact, which was more focused on driving the cost of fossil fuels up. And the tension between those ideas continues to rattle around the progressive movement. The claim that IRA is “really” a climate bill suggests an inclination to treat the pivot toward cost reduction as an unfortunate political compromise reached with Manchin, versus a world where you genuinely embrace an ethos of energy abundance.

When you read accounts of Manchin raging about the way the White House has implemented the IRA, it’s important to keep that distinction in mind.

Now to be clear, it’s not the only thing that’s going on. Part of what’s happening is that Manchin obviously needs to put some distance between himself and Biden for 2024, so he’s going to be looking for fights to pick. And one major point of contention is about making leased Korean electric vehicles eligible for tax credits. The White House and Treasury say they have no discretion here and that Manchin’s beef with their ruling is really a beef with the actual legislative text. But if you believe there is discretion here, then what’s happening is that the administration took the path that makes electric cars more affordable, while Manchin wants them to make costs higher with more protectionism.

But on most fronts of the dispute, it tracks the question of costs.

If you read Jesse Jenkins’ account of how Democrats’ climate ambitions almost collapsed only to be rescued at the last minute, you’ll see that all the efforts to “pressure” Manchin this way or that came to nothing. What worked in the end was Manchin’s sincere conviction that legislation designed to promote new energy technology is a good idea. So he and Democratic leaders in the end wrote legislation that does just that. As Chuck Schumer characterized it last week, they ended up with a bill focused on lowering costs and creating jobs (I might say creating industries rather than jobs per se).

Republicans, of course, characterize this negatively as all just a shell game. But there’s also a progressive view that it’s all a shell game in a good way and that the thing to do is turn around and use regulatory levers to minimize the odds of any nuclear, carbon capture, DAC, geothermal, or whatever else actually coming to fruition. You just pocket the new subsidies for renewables and electrification, and then turn to the regulatory state to strangle the fossil fuel industry.

When you see activists urging Biden to “declare a climate emergency,” that’s what they are talking about in concrete terms. The idea is that by invoking emergency powers Biden could, through executive fiat, block fossil fuel infrastructure or fossil fuel extraction projects without relying on Congress. I think that this is a bit legally fantastical given the realities of the court. But it’s also a misreading of the relevant political constraint, treating the problem as “Joe Manchin won’t vote for it” rather than “Joe Biden can’t run for re-election saying he deliberately made your gasoline and home heat more expensive.”

I think it’s also wrong on the merits. Climate change is a serious problem and you can call it an “emergency” if you like, but that doesn’t change the fact that even very serious problems should be addressed in cost-effective ways. Explicitly pricing the externalities associated with burning fossil fuels is politically challenging because it makes energy more expensive, but it makes a good amount of sense on the merits. Achieving equivalent emissions reductions through supply-side measures has dramatically higher real-world costs, and its greater political feasibility strikes me as entirely illusory. The country could use a serious bipartisan conversation about deficit reduction, and carbon pricing deserves to be part of that conversation. But IRA implementation should take the inflation reduction part seriously.

The administration needs a more coherent approach to dealing with Manchin’s various complaints, and I think re-grounding in the idea of cost reduction offers a good framework for that.

First off, though, to concede the fussy macroeconomic point: right now, probably nothing Democrats do on energy will meaningfully impact inflation in a strict sense. The Fed’s interest rate policies will drive how quickly we converge to 2% and how costly the drive for further convergence is. What energy policy can do is help ensure that the inflation-adjusted rate of economic growth is higher rather than lower and minimize the extent and duration of high interest rates. But that should be the goal — strong real growth and moderate interest rates as the Fed does its thing.

And the president and the chief of staff should call together all the relevant people throughout the executive branch for a “come to Jesus” moment.

They should acknowledge that many of them come from a more left-wing place personally and have social and professional ties to environmental groups and activists who prefer a more left-wing policy. But they should also say that the position of the administration is clear — they are pursuing a technology-neutral effort to drive down the cost of zero-carbon energy and are not trying to destroy the domestic fossil fuel industry. The president cares a lot about foreign policy, and to the extent that the world still uses fossil fuels (which it clearly does), there is a major geopolitical advantage to those fossil fuels being made in the United States rather than Russia or Saudi Arabia or Iran or Venezuela. The president also cares a lot about working people’s real take-home pay, which is heavily influenced by the price of commodities and tradable goods, and he does not want the energy transition to unduly burden them.

When Manchin is, for eccentric reasons, asking for things that cut against this — the way he is on the cars — that offers a coherent basis for telling him no.

But when Manchin’s specific asks are aligned with those high-level principles, he should be treated not as an impediment to work around but as the voice of reason against activist groups who have lost perspective. This would bring the White House’s position closer to Manchin’s and would let him defend the IRA as an example of him defanging the climate left for the benefit of West Virginia. He would, of course, still need to find other topics to own the libs on, but it would make more sense for him to do that explicitly on stuff where there hasn’t been legislative action — shoot the assault weapons ban with an assault weapon! Call for bringing back school prayer! Whatever!

The point is, both sides really need to make this specific legislative collaboration work, and the best way to do that is with a genuine focus on the cost-reduction goal.

Monday, August 28, 2023

A sex educator in Michigan refused to be shamed. Then came the backlash. By Greg Jaffe, Patrick Marley


www.washingtonpost.com

32 - 40 minutes

Deep Reads features The Washington Post’s best immersive reporting and narrative writing.

HOLLAND, Mich. — Heather Alberda watched as her elected representatives on the Ottawa County Board of Commissioners sought to dismantle what remained of her life’s work.

As the sex educator for the county’s health department, Alberda, 46, developed programs to lower teen pregnancy and curb the spread of sexually transmitted infections. She spoke about sex and sexuality with a directness that was rare in her conservative county and sometimes got her into trouble.

A late June meeting of the county board was streaming on Alberda’s living room TV. The board’s vice chair, Sylvia Rhodea, was introducing a resolution that sought to “protect childhood innocence” by blocking the county from spending money on programs that “normalize or encourage the sexualization of children.”

Rhodea, one of eight self-described conservative Christians elected last November to the 11-person board, began by describing what she saw as the threat posed by LGBTQ+ groups and the Pride flag. In much of America, the rainbow banner represented the acceptance of gay, lesbian and transgender people.

To Rhodea, it meant something very different. It was, she announced, “time to define the plus” in the LGBTQ+ movement. “Over 50 different flags are flown under the LGBTQ+ flag,” Rhodea said. Their ranks, she continued, included pedophiles, polygamists and furries, which she described as “those who dress as furry animals and may use litter boxes.”

Alberda stared at her television, where Rhodea had begun talking about the health department’s role in pushing “radical” ideas, rooted in “pedophile-based studies,” on the county’s parents and children.

Press Enter to skip to end of carousel
The fight for the soul of a conservative county

1/3

End of carousel

“It’s pretty much my entire job she’s complaining about,” Alberda said. “It’s so hateful how they do things.”

Alberda had already endured months of scorn from the new commissioners, who had publicly accused her of promoting abortion and sexualizing children. What she’d been doing was her job, which required her to talk about birth control, sexually transmitted infections, abstinence and consent. She met with high school students, migrant farmworkers, teens in juvenile detention and people struggling with addiction.

In her 21 years at the health department, the county’s teen pregnancy rate had decreased by 76 percent and is the fourth-lowest among Michigan’s 83 counties. The abortion rate for Ottawa County during the same period fell by 18 percent, according to state data.

The county’s successes, though, were colliding with the fears of many Christian conservatives that they were losing the culture wars; that their faith and families were under siege. The new board members and their backers saw Pride flags — which had become a common sight in stores along Ottawa’s Lake Michigan shore — as markers of a society that they believed celebrated sex, promiscuity and perversion.

Nationally, this anger and anxiety had become a driving force in GOP politics. It fueled the rise of figures like Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R), who championed laws that constrained what teachers could say in the classroom about sex and sexuality. And it fed QAnon movement conspiracy theories of a burgeoning child trafficking epidemic, secretly supported by the nation’s elite.

In Ottawa County, a fast-growing community of 300,000, the GOP’s focus on religion, sex and morality was increasingly consuming the essential and often unremarkable work of county government.

Few felt the sting of this shift as acutely as Alberda. Her bosses had tried to protect her by scaling back her sex education work, but the change just felt like punishment. Her job, which she had described as her “passion,” was quickly becoming a source of mental anguish.
A photo of Alberda's children, from left, Elliot, Olivia and Tyler, sits on a pair of Tyler's tennis shoes at the family's home in Holland, Mich. (Bonnie Jo Mount/The Washington Post)
Alberda's work has come under fire by conservative members of the Ottawa County Board of Commissioners. (Bonnie Jo Mount/The Washington Post)
Books in Alberda's home. (Bonnie Jo Mount/The Washington Post)

“I have to go into the community, and people think I am a pedophile,” Alberda said. “They don’t think I stole a car or embezzled money. They think I’m a sexual predator.”

In the county board meeting room, Rhodea had finished introducing her “childhood innocence” resolution. Doug Zylstra, the board’s lone Democrat, was pushing her and the measure’s other backers to provide examples of taxpayer-funded activities that sexualized children. County employees, he said, deserved to know specifically what was being prohibited.

Alberda’s husband, Ryan, was watching the proceedings from the kitchen, where a buck’s head was mounted by the cupboard. He’d just returned from coaching the high school’s trap shooting team.

“They aren’t going to answer!” he called out in frustration.

To Alberda, the resolution’s language seemed purposely vague; its goal, she believed, was to stop the health department from providing services to LGBTQ+ residents and give the county an excuse to fire her.

“They are setting people like me up for failure,” she said.

Her thoughts turned to a few of the new commissioners who had run for office vowing to fix a county government that they believed too often acted in ways that were hostile to their Christian faith. Lately, they had begun to express unease with the board’s direction.

“Do you think [they’re] going to vote for this crap?” Alberda asked her husband and a friend from the health department who was watching the proceedings with her.

They shrugged. The county clerk began calling the roll. Soon Alberda would get her answer.

On the table next to the television sat a picture of Alberda’s three children, taken at a park about a mile from their house. She had given birth to Tyler, her eldest son, a few months after finishing high school when she was 17.

“No one knew I was pregnant until after I had graduated,” she said. “My parents didn’t want me to tell anybody.” Because she had sex out of wedlock, the elders at the church where her family worshiped told Alberda that she had to take part in a profession of faith ceremony before her son could be baptized. And so, one Sunday in 1994, about two weeks after Tyler was born, she stood in front of the congregation. The pews were packed. A relative videotaped it.

“I do not want to make light of the fact of sin in your past life …” the pastor began.

At the time, the pastor’s words and the ceremony, which wasn’t required of others seeking to baptize their children, didn’t stand out. But years later, after she’d graduated from college, found a job at the health department, and became certified as a sexuality educator, Alberda re-watched the tape. By this point, she’d met and married her husband; they were raising three children.

The pastor’s words, she said, sent a message that there was a hierarchy of sin, and that sexual sins, like hers, were “the most heinous.” That sense of shame permeated the county, where Alberda and her husband had spent their lives. It led parents and pastors to cede conversations about sex to popular culture and the increasingly ubiquitous porn industry, both of which “sexualized everything,” Alberda said. The unwillingness to talk about sex contributed to teen pregnancy and untreated sexually transmitted disease, she believed.

Alberda understood the unease because she had felt it, too. She had started with the health department after college teaching prenatal classes to teen moms. When that program ended, her bosses asked her to give talks on birth control and bloodborne diseases.

“I never even said the word ‘vagina’ in my house probably, let alone in public in front of a bunch of strangers,” she said. But she found that most of the groups she spoke with were eager to talk and desperate for reassurance that their desires and problems were normal. What started as a job became a calling. Alberda trained through the University of Michigan’s Sexual Health Certificate Program, where she sometimes lectured.
Alberda and her daughter, Olivia, soothe Frederick. (Bonnie Jo Mount/The Washington Post)
With Frederick underfoot, Alberda prepares pizza for her husband's and son’s lunches. (Bonnie Jo Mount/The Washington Post)

Public school teachers invited her to speak with their students. She developed sex-ed programs for women in drug rehabilitation and inmates in the county jail. She spoke to uterine and cervical cancer survivors who were seeking alternatives to vaginal sex.

Often, Alberda had groups write anonymous questions for her on scraps of paper, which she kept in a drawer in her desk. They asked her about pain during intercourse, penis size and consent. “If a guy presses me into sex and I say no five or six times and he starts touching me is that molestation?” read one question from a high school student. Alberda talked with the students about sexual consent and the importance of reporting abuse.

Gradually, she expanded the health department’s reach. She knew that young women in juvenile detention were at high risk for becoming pregnant in their teens. So she arranged for them to visit the health department and, with their parents’ permission, get birth control implants. She brought regular testing for sexually transmitted diseases to migrant farmworker camps, homeless shelters and Grand Valley State University.

In 2014, she started a program to distribute free packages of condoms and lube to liquor stores, bars, bowling alleys and tattoo parlors throughout the county. Sometimes her work provoked resistance. She put a container of condoms in the courthouse office where people who had recently been released from prison met with their probation officers. Alberda reasoned that the former inmates were more likely to engage in risky sexual behavior. The courthouse’s chief judge thought the condoms would encourage people to have more sex and demanded their removal.

Alberda’s condom program, which she called Wear One, became a model, expanding to more than 50 Michigan counties. Even as teen pregnancy and abortion rates have fallen, the county hasn’t been able to reduce infection rates from sexually transmitted disease, which have risen statewide. Alberda often reminded her bosses that changing sexual behavior took time, persistence and a willingness to set aside the shame that inhibited frank conversations about sex.

She didn’t realize that other forces were reshaping the way people in the county talked about sexual health and sin. The biggest driver was Ottawa Impact, a political group that formed in 2021 and pledged to field county board candidates who would govern according to conservative Christian principles. The group’s leaders drew inspiration from Matthew Trewhella, a Wisconsin-based pastor who preaches a version of Christianity that focuses on using politics and the law to purify the community of evildoers and sin. Trewhella and the leaders of Ottawa Impact didn’t respond to requests for comment.

In 2013, Trewhella self-published a book called “The Doctrine of the Lesser Magistrates,” which argues that low-level elected officials — “lesser magistrates” — have a sacred duty to oppose higher authorities who attempt to enforce immoral or anti-Christian laws.

Trewhella drew inspiration for the book, which he said has sold more than 80,000 copies, from 1500s-era treatises written by Protestant leaders resisting the tyranny of the Catholic Church. His roots, though, were in the 1990s antiabortion movement. In 1993, he signed a letter describing the murder of doctors who provided abortions as “justifiable,” and he often boasted of the 15 months he spent in jail for blocking the doors to abortion clinics.

More recently, some anti-maskers and election deniers have embraced Trewhella’s views. Retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, former president Donald Trump’s national security adviser and an influential proponent of disproven election fraud theories, has praised Trewhella’s book as a “masterful blueprint showing Americans how to successfully resist tyranny.” State and local officials in Florida, Tennessee, South Dakota, Montana, Illinois and Michigan have touted his ideas, said Anna Rosensweig, a University of Rochester professor who has tracked Trewhella’s influence.
In November, eight self-described conservative Christians joined Ottawa County's Board of Commissioners. (Bonnie Jo Mount/The Washington Post)
The Holland Farmers Market in Ottawa County. (Bonnie Jo Mount/The Washington Post)
St. John’s Episcopal Church in Grand Haven helped organize the city's first Pride festival. (Bonnie Jo Mount/The Washington Post)

Most of the voters who supported Ottawa Impact’s candidates were not familiar with Trewhella. They were angry at their old commissioners for complying with federal and state pandemic masking and vaccine policies, which they viewed as an unconstitutional and tyrannical overreach. Some feared that new anti-discrimination laws would force the county to support policies that promote homosexuality or abortion.

Many of the group’s most ardent supporters were convinced that the nation was in the midst of a moral crisis so deep that it had precipitated a massive surge in child sex trafficking that had reached west Michigan. At county board meetings, they insisted that the media was conspiring with the state and federal government to hide the heinous problem. One of the area’s biggest churches was building a shelter for trafficking victims. (The county’s prosecuting attorney, Lee Fisher, said in an interview that he hasn’t seen an increase in sex trafficking cases in the area.)

Trewhella’s theories provided Ottawa Impact’s leaders with a template for resisting the forces that they believed were corrupting their community.

The group’s leaders and local Republicans invited the Wisconsin pastor to Ottawa in 2022 and again earlier this year. In his appearances, Trewhella told them that good legislation, grounded in the word of God, could lead men to Jesus. And he preached that resistance to “wicked tyrants” and “anti-Christian” laws, such as those protecting abortion or “homo sex,” could “abate the just judgment of God” on their community.

Alberda had never heard of Ottawa Impact when the group released a report in May 2022 accusing her and the health department of using county resources to promote abortion and sexualize children.

She was accustomed to the occasional angry parent stopping her in a parking lot and haranguing her for promoting sin. But this was different. The report ran 59 pages and included photos of Alberda and emails she had sent to local school officials offering to help them develop their sex education curriculums.

Her supervisors’ initial reaction was to take down a link she had posted on the health department’s sexual health page to a Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit group that offered birth control advice. The site had recently added an “abortion finder” tool to help women navigate rapidly changing state laws. Alberda said she hadn’t noticed the addition. Everyone assumed the controversy would quickly pass.

Two weeks later, Libs of TikTok, a social media account that has attracted more than 2.3 million followers and become an agenda setter in right-wing politics, shared screenshots of a pamphlet Alberda had created for parents seeking to better understand their children’s sexual development.

The 30-page guide advised parents on how to talk with children about sexuality, menstruation and body image. It noted that 47 percent of Ottawa County 12th-graders said in a survey they had been involved in “sexting.” And it urged parents to talk with their teens about the ways sexually explicit photos could be misused online.

Libs of TikTok zeroed in on one page of the guide, which advised parents that it was normal for children under age 5 to play with themselves and experience “genital pleasure.” The right-wing account twisted Alberda’s words and warned that she was advising parents to teach toddlers “about masturbation.”

The information in the guide came from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Planned Parenthood and the American Academy of Pediatrics. None of that mattered. Soon, dozens of people on social media were calling for her to be fired and accusing her of being a pedophile and a groomer.

In the run-up to the 2022 Republican primary, the Right to Life of Michigan PAC pulled its endorsements of the GOP incumbents on the county commission — some of whom had donated to the organization for decades — and backed Ottawa Impact’s slate of more hard-line challengers.

In the November general election, Ottawa Impact-endorsed candidates won eight of the board’s 11 seats. Shortly after they took office in January, the head of the county health department appeared before them. Alberda, who had never been actively engaged in county or national politics, took off work so that she could attend the meeting in person.

On the dais, Jacob Bonnema, one of the new Ottawa Impact commissioners, was asking the county’s public health officer if she knew the name of the employee who had posted the links to “vulgar,” “activist,” “pro-abortion” sites on the department’s webpage. The health department officer dodged the question.

“The person who did that needs to be found out,” a second commissioner insisted.

Alberda glared at Bonnema. He wasn’t the person who sent her parent guide to Libs of TikTok. But he had circulated the account’s tweet, and he had identified her on social media as one of the people responsible for the department’s “vile approach to over sexualizing our children.”

Bonnema knew her name and what she did for the county. His questions, Alberda believed, were designed to single her out for more public scorn.

“What are you going to do?” she recalled thinking. “Hang me in the public square?”

Alberda wasn’t the only one feeling pressure from the county board. In April, Bonnema and the new board members toured the Children’s Advocacy Center, a nonprofit group that works with law enforcement to prosecute sex offenders and counsel their victims.

They listened as Darcy Fluharty, the center’s executive director, explained its mission. Each year, law enforcement officials referred about 250 to 300 children who said they had been sexually abused to the center so that they could be questioned by specially trained professionals in a less intimidating setting.

Fluharty talked about the therapists who worked with the victims and their families. She showed the commissioners interview rooms, which included comfy chairs, toys and two-way mirrors that allowed detectives and prosecutors to follow along and suggest questions. And she explained how the center worked with the schools on prevention programs that aimed to help students and teachers recognize grooming and report abuse.

Then she offered to answer the commissioners’ questions.

Bonnema recalled suggesting that they discuss “the elephant in the room.” At first, Fluharty wasn’t sure what he meant. Then Bonnema began talking about the 3-by-5-inch LGBTQ+ Pride sticker on the center’s front door. Several of the commissioners had spotted it along with other Pride flags in staff members’ offices. The commissioners saw the Pride sticker as an “activist symbol,” something that had no place in a facility that aimed to serve the entire community. “Their agenda was very clear,” Fluharty recalled. “Take that Pride sticker off the front door.”
The director of the Children's Advocacy Center, which works with law enforcement to prosecute sex offenders and counsel victims, is worried that the nonprofit's funding is at risk after some county commissioners took issue with the Pride sticker on the entrance. (Bonnie Jo Mount/The Washington Post)

Fluharty told the commissioners that parents and their children turned to the center at one of the darkest moments in their lives. “If in some small way we can make it a little less horrible, it’s worth it,” she believed. The sticker sent a message to marginalized, sexually abused children that they were safe and would be accepted, Fluharty explained.

The discussion continued for 45 minutes, according to Fluharty and several of the commissioners at the meeting. One of the commissioners said that she knew someone who had turned to the center for help but decided not to return after seeing the Pride sticker. The person was worried that the center’s counselors might encourage children to identify as gay or transgender. Another commissioner, Fluharty said, asked her if she would put a swastika on the door to let neo-Nazis know that they should also feel welcome. To Fluharty, the notion that a Pride sticker and a swastika were in any way similar was ridiculous and offensive.

The county provided about $120,000 a year to the center and had promised it an additional $274,000 in federal covid relief funds to bolster its $1.7 million annual budget. After the commissioners left, Fluharty warned her board of directors that the Pride symbol could put their county funding at risk. The board hasn’t decided whether to keep or remove the sticker.

Bonnema was concerned about what would happen if the center’s relationship with the county unraveled. Both the Ottawa County sheriff and prosecutor told him that it would cost the county more than $800,000 a year to replace the center with something that might not serve abused children as well.

Bonnema, an insurance agent who was new to politics, didn’t approve of the Pride symbol. But he was growing increasingly uncomfortable with the way some Ottawa Impact commissioners viewed any compromise as betrayal — a view he had shared in interviews and at public board meetings. He exchanged text messages with Fluharty in an unsuccessful effort to find common ground. One alternative sticker he suggested featured the words “YOU ARE LOVED” in rainbow colors.

In the spring Bonnema, 45, broke with Ottawa Impact. “I am not extreme,” he said in an interview. “I just want government to work better for people.”
Ottawa County Commissioner Jacob Bonnema spends time with his wife, daughter and dog in their garden in Zeeland. Bonnema has distanced himself from a majority on the Board of Commissioners that he considers too extreme. (Bonnie Jo Mount/The Washington Post)
Bonnema, seen with his wife, Kelly, has been censured by the Ottawa Republican Party and fellow county commissioners. (Bonnie Jo Mount/The Washington Post)

The board’s criticism of Fluharty and the Children’s Advocacy Center didn’t stop. In June, the center sponsored one of the county’s Pride festivals, which included a drag queen reading books to children. Fluharty and other attendees insisted there was nothing perverse about the festival or the performance. But several commissioners expressed outrage at pictures of children handing the drag queens tips.

Some donors pulled their financial support for the center, Fluharty said. Her board of directors instructed her that any future sponsorships needed their approval. “When we have people in positions as high as our county commissioners that are making allegations that we are in some way associated with the grooming and oversexualizing of children, it is devastating,” Fluharty said.

On June 27, two weeks after the Pride festival, Rhodea introduced her resolution to “protect childhood innocence” by prohibiting the county from supporting any groups that “encourage the sexualization of children.”

The leaders of several nonprofit groups spoke in opposition. Among them was Barbara Lee VanHorssen, the executive director of the Momentum Center, which runs programs for people with developmental disabilities and mental illness. Some commissioners had condemned her group’s work on behalf of LGBTQ+ residents, and VanHorssen worried that her group’s county funding — about $290,000 a year — could be in jeopardy.

“I implore you to stop the moral grandstanding and start engaging with the leaders in this community who can help you understand the real-life struggles of people in this county,” she told the board.

Kate Leighton-Colburn, the director of Out on the Lakeshore, a community center for LGBTQ+ residents, also pleaded with her elected leaders: “If there’s even one of you tonight planning to vote yes who even a little bit questions the righteousness of that decision, please reach out to me.”

Ottawa Impact’s supporters blasted the county’s Pride festivals and the recent drag queen story event. “Don’t get mad when we refer to you and everyone else who doesn’t denounce this garbage as groomers,” said George Maierhauser, a 63-year-old accountant and an officer in the county Republican Party.

They demanded that the commissioners do something to protect Ottawa’s children from shadowy actors and sex traffickers. “If you’re saying this is not happening in our community, you’re wrong,” Christi Meppelink, a member of the county GOP’s executive committee, told the commissioners. “Our children are at risk.”

Bonnema listened and, before the commissioners voted, voiced some concerns about the resolution: Who would decide which content was sexualizing children? What standards would they use? “Good policy is not vague,” he said. “It’s specific, so that you know what you’re addressing.”

Two holdovers from the previous board — a Democrat and a Republican — complained that the resolution’s broad language could be used to “trap” or retaliate against county workers such as Alberda.

The Ottawa Impact board members defended the resolution as a necessary first step toward protecting the county from a culture that was increasingly corrupting children. “We’re seeing a slow normalization of adult-child sexual relationships,” warned Roger Belknap, one of the commissioners.

The resolution passed 9-2. All of the new commissioners, including Bonnema, supported it. He believed that the measure addressed a real and growing problem — one he saw referenced regularly on sites such as Libs of TikTok. He also knew that voting against a resolution to preserve childhood innocence was a political death sentence. “Try to explain that to your neighbor,” he said.

By early July, Alberda’s supervisors at the health department had largely shut down her work as a sexuality educator and assigned her new, bureaucratic tasks that mostly kept her confined to her office cubicle.

Public school health teachers were still teaching sex-ed classes, but Alberda was no longer allowed to talk to their students about birth control or sexually transmitted disease. Alberda’s Wear One condom program was still running, but she was told not to add any new locations. Her parent guide, which had drawn the scorn of Libs of TikTok, had been taken down months earlier. Initially, her supervisors said they would review it and put it back online. It still hasn’t returned.

“It feels like I don’t even exist anymore,” she said. “Twenty years of what I worked so hard to build literally was in one instant destroyed.”

Her supervisors told her that they were trying to protect her from being fired. “Heather is talented, passionate, smart, bilingual,” said Marcia Mansaray, the deputy health officer for the county. “She’s important to the health of this community.”

Alberda’s bosses were also fighting in the courts to keep their jobs and protect the department. In January, the new commissioners had voted to remove the head of the health department and install a safety manager from a local HVAC company who hadn’t worked in public health but had been an outspoken critic of mask requirements and other covid policies.

A state judge had so far blocked their efforts, ruling that the commissioners had to prove that the current county health officer, Adeline Hambley, was “incompetent” or had neglected her duties before they could dismiss her. On Tuesday, the county administrator gave Hambley three days to cut the department’s 2024 budget in half, to $9 million from $18.1 million. In a statement, Hambley called the request “ridiculous” and an “act of unlawful retaliation.”

The commission’s chairman, Joe Moss, countered in a blog post that it was time to “rein in” the health department’s “out-of-control expenditures” and excessive “influence.”

Amid all the lawsuits and turmoil, Alberda has been allowed to keep one sex education-related assignment: a class she teaches at Harbor House, a facility for women recovering from addiction. She said she knew why it was still okay: The organization served a population that the vast majority of the county’s residents didn’t think about.

The women at the facility reminded Alberda of the son she’d had at 17. Tyler had struggled with addiction and depression for most of his adult life. On June 13, 2020, he died in a motorcycle crash. He was 25.
Tyler, Alberda's eldest son, died in a motorcycle accident in 2020 at age 25. (Bonnie Jo Mount/The Washington Post)
Alberda prays before a meal with her family. (Bonnie Jo Mount/The Washington Post)
Flowers from colleagues. (Bonnie Jo Mount/The Washington Post)

Today, Alberda keeps his ashes on a bookshelf at home along with his sneakers, his baseball cap and the last family photo that he took with his siblings. She had planned to bury his ashes in a cemetery that borders a soybean field and a new subdivision a few miles from their home but couldn’t bear to part with them. “Eight to 10 years of his life was taken from me by his addiction,” she said. “So I am going to hold onto him a little longer.”

Alberda pulled into the driveway at Harbor House, a large Victorian-era home with a neatly trimmed lawn and flowers wilting in the afternoon heat. Three women who were standing outside eating ice cream cones and smoking cigarettes waved at her. At Alberda’s first meeting with the group a week earlier, they had talked about birth control. Several women mentioned that their period had stopped while they were using drugs, and Alberda reminded them that they could still get pregnant even when they weren’t menstruating.

The second session focused on preventing the spread of sexually transmitted infections. The women sat on couches as Alberda unpacked her props, a plastic vagina, a speculum and packages of condoms. She showed them photographs of untreated infections from gonorrhea, chlamydia and herpes, which she described as a “forever gift.”

“Dang,” one person said.

“So, leave the lights on,” another added.

Alberda encouraged the women to ask future partners about their sexual history and reminded them that the health department offered free testing for sexually transmitted infections and cervical cancer. After about an hour of discussion, she began packing up her teaching tools.

“We think we know everything,” one woman told her. “But even when I was out on the streets using drugs and involved in prostitution, I didn’t always use a condom.”

Another woman confided that the last time she had sex she hadn’t thought about her risk of contracting a disease: “I was high on cocaine and decided to mess around with somebody and I didn’t check for any of this. I’m sitting here guilt-ridden and feeling so disgusted with myself.”

Alberda paused and met the woman’s eyes. “I don’t want you to feel any guilt or shame,” she told her. “We’re here to be better than we were yesterday. We’ve all been in similar situations. I had my first son — who was actually killed three years ago — when I was 17. What’s important is now you know and now you can share that information with others.”

And with that, she walked out to her car and drove back to her cubicle at the health department.
Alberda walks her puppy, Walter. (Bonnie Jo Mount/The Washington Post)

On a Sunday morning in early July, Alberda and her husband headed to church. Several years ago, the large, slightly rundown sanctuary was regularly packed with hundreds of worshipers. “Now you have a choice of any seat you want,” Alberda said, eyeing the three dozen people who remained.

The church’s losses were driven, in part, by the rise of bigger, newer evangelical churches that featured pop-style praise bands, colored lights and an array of fellowship and support groups. The divisive 2020 presidential election and arguments over whether to ask members to mask during the pandemic also contributed to the attrition. Amid all the rancor, the church’s pastor asked to take a short sabbatical and never returned.

Alberda had considered leaving both the church and Ottawa County. The attacks from the Ottawa Impact commissioners weren’t going away. Late last year, she applied for a job with the state of Wyoming doing suicide prevention work. “I am done with all this,” she thought. Then she was offered the position, and she and her husband decided they weren’t ready to leave behind their grown children and their home. So they stayed.

At the front of the church, the lay leader was telling the story of the scathing criticism that Jesus received when he invited prostitutes and tax collectors to share a meal with him. “His was a superabundant grace, a scandalizing grace,” the lay leader preached.

This was the spirit that had drawn Alberda to Christianity and sustained her faith. She had long believed that Tyler’s birth had been God’s way of calling her to work as a sexuality educator. Many years later, when Tyler was struggling with addiction, Alberda and her husband prayed that the Lord would give him strength to overcome his addictions and return home.

“God does answer prayers,” she said. “But his answer to our prayer was no.”

She wanted to believe that her son’s death and the public scorn she had endured were still part of God’s plan — his way of making her stronger, “pruning” her back and giving her a “different lens to see … a different worldview.”

“I don’t know what that looks like,” she said. “I don’t know if I’m supposed to be at the county or if I’m even supposed to be a sexuality educator anymore.”

The service had ended and people were drifting toward the doors. Alberda couldn’t stop thinking about the people in the county who had never met her but still seemed to hate her. The intrusive thoughts would lead her a few days later to take a leave from work and check herself into a faith-based, outpatient psychiatric facility. She had never felt more anxious and lost. She didn’t know what she was supposed to do.

Press Enter to skip to end of carousel
More Deep Reads

Carousel - $More Deep Reads: use tab or arrows to navigate

End of carousel

Friday, August 25, 2023

Maine mailbag. By Matthew Yglesias


www.slowboring.com

24 - 30 minutes

We’ve been enjoying the Blue Hill peninsula — it’s been fantastic to have the extended family together, we’ve eaten plenty of lobster rolls, and through a coincidence of vacation timing I even met Nate Silver for the first time. Maine! It’s great! But I’ll also be glad to have the school year back in session next week and life returning to normal.

In other news, this writeup emphasizes the negative, but you can see in the data that perceptions of the economy are improving. You can also see that inflation in tradable goods has really fallen dramatically. Decoupling from China seems to be actually happening. Phonics legislation is taking the country by storm. A great look at housing reform in Maine generally and the specific city of Auburn in particular. The construction of more and cheaper batteries is proving its worth this summer in Texas in terms of improved reliability of the electric grid — the more affordable batteries become, the more room we have to run with adding renewables. I always love a good ancient DNA breakthrough.

There’s a huge surge in employment opportunities for young people without a college degree, if they’re willing to sign up for training in the trades. Fresh evidence that it’s good when low-income people have more money.

Now let’s do some questions.

Zach Reuss: In a world of declining fertility rates and potentially falling global populations. Should we really expect the stock market to continue to return 6-7% a year?

If I'm not planning to retire until 2060 should I be making different financial decisions?

I don’t know what decisions you’re making now so I can’t really give you advice, but I agree that aggregate stock market returns are likely to be lower in a world of slower population growth. On the other hand, maybe by 2060 the world will be populated by trillions of digital people and our AI overlords will allow a dwindling number of humans to live out a lovely retirement?

Matt: Do you think the growth of the private equity industry is a net positive or net negative for the US?

Are there any reforms you would propose for regulation of the private equity industry?

Private equity is a mixed bag.

On one level, in a big rich country like ours, the private equity industry is playing an important role. There’s a lot of existing capital and existing companies around and while they have their virtues (or they’d have gone out of business already), they aren’t necessarily all being run very well. It’s good to have pools of eagle-eyed investors out there looking for opportunities to optimize these things. A different model that sounds better but is actually worse is what you have in Italy, where small- to medium-sized businesses tend to remain as family firms across multiple generations. These companies tend to be poorly run because instead of professional management, you get something like “the business is run by the nephew of the grandson of the founder.” This has made Italian companies slower to incorporate new technology, slower to update their business processes, lower in productivity, and ultimately, they pay lower wages.

The problem is that sometimes “optimizing an old business” doesn’t mean “let’s build a website,” it means “let’s default on the ethical commitments of the founders.”

For example, private equity firms have figured out that there are lots of opportunities to buy nursing homes and cut costs by reducing staffing levels. Any time you cut costs, you run the risk of degrading the quality of the product. And, indeed, in this case, the death rate among patients goes up a lot. But it turns out that killing your patients early with understaffing doesn’t hurt revenue very much. That’s bad. Another example that we’ve seen a lot of recently is private equity companies buying local newspapers that are profitable but in decline and then sharply cutting costs without meaningfully increasing the pace of decline. That generates returns for the private equity company and also capital to be redeployed more efficiently to growing economic sectors like gambling.

In both of those cases, one might reasonably think there are problems here. Local news may be shrinking while legal slot machines are growing, but there is a social value to local journalism that slot machines don’t have. By the same token, while making nursing home operations more efficient sounds like a pretty good idea, doing so in a way that kills the patients is bad.

One thing to say about this is that, as I mentioned last week, I do think there’s a role for the social concept of greed. Imagine this scenario playing out at a party:

    “So what do you do?”

    “I’m in private equity.”

    “I’ve never really understood what that means.”

    “Well, my firm invests in small- to medium-sized companies — usually ones whose founders have moved on or want to retire — and then we try to bring in the best professional management techniques.”

    “I think the nursing home where my sister-in-law works got bought out like that.”

    “Great example, yeah, we find that the typical nursing home is overstaffed from a profit maximization standpoint so we cut back on the number of actual nurses. More patients die, but we don’t have trouble filling the beds — that’s business!”

I think probably the private equity guy would not actually say that, because if he put it that clearly, the other guy would think he’s an asshole. Which I would say is an appropriate reaction. The profit motive and all that is fine, but at the margin it’s good for people to have incentives to try to find ways to make money that are actually beneficial and don’t just evolve exploiting other people’s short-sightedness.

But I think the important thing about all of this is that it doesn’t so much call for regulation of private equity as for regulation of nursing homes. Or in the case of local news, maybe it calls for subsidies. Or for stricter rules about gambling. On balance, I think it’s good to have a private equity industry. And in particular, I think it’s bad when people demonize a very normal activity like “buying houses and renting them to people” just because it’s being done by private equity companies. But you do need to regulate actual business sectors in appropriate ways, or else greedy investors will sweep in and do bad things.

Seneca Plutarchus: Chicago budgets $6,080 per resident ($16 billion budget, 2.6 million residents), New York City's figure is $12,635 ($107 billion / 8.4 million) and San Francisco's is $29,792 ($14.6 billion / 851,000). How do you figure metrics for spending effectiveness — and are there any international comparisons possible?

Common sense says that some local governments are spending money more wisely than others, but unfortunately it’s extremely difficult to do comparisons, not just internationally but domestically.

Just looking at those three entities, my guess is that the reason San Francisco’s spending is so incredibly high is that it’s a consolidated city/county entity whereas Chicago is subordinate to Cook County. New York City is really unusual in that it encompasses five counties (“boroughs”), but county government in New York has very few functions. But even beyond the city/county divide, there are tons of complications here. I saw someone tweeting once about how Baltimore spends much more money on cops than on schools, but this widespread misimpression came about because Baltimore Public Schools is a separate fiscal entity from the City of Baltimore (which, like San Francisco but unlike Chicago, is also a county).

Over and above those complications, you need to watch out for double-counting.

In Los Angeles County, the LA County Fire Department performs certain functions county-wide. There are also lots of cities in LA County that have their own fire departments. But there are also incorporated cities that contract with the county to provide fire services. So if you naively try to count up each locality’s fire expenditure and then add it to the county-level fire spending, you’ll end up counting twice. Now clearly a person who is aware of these nuances can try to find a way to work through them. But the upshot is that it’s time-consuming to generate true apples-to-apples comparisons that would let us really understand who is spending their money effectively.

I think the difficulty of clearly demonstrating who is doing better and who is doing worse weakens the incentives to do a good job. So my best guess is that if we really looked under the hood of local government, we would find incredible amounts of waste and graft.

John B: I was recently listening to Jane Coaston's interview of Ben Domenech, and the concept of Barstool Conservatives came up. I was wondering what you thought of this phenomenon. Is it anything more than just slightly more obnoxious bro-y libertarianism? Is this a group that progressives could potentially persuade post-Dobbs and post-book banning, etc.?

The specific reference here, I believe, is to Dave Portnoy’s negative reaction to the Dobbs decision. But the concept is similar to what Andrew Sullivan used to call “South Park conservatives,” and I do think it’s distinct from libertarianism.

The key thing about libertarianism is that it’s actually a very rigorous ideology that asks you to bite a lot of bullets, while I think the core value of Barstool Conservatism is a pretty literal desire to just be left alone and enjoy the status quo. Which is to say that if you lived in a libertarian society, a Barstool Conservative might well be a libertarian — he certainly wouldn’t jump on the bandwagon of any big new crusade. But in our actually existing society, I don’t think the Barstool Conservative particularly wants to take financial responsibility for mom and dad in a world without Social Security and Medicare any more than he wants to be coerced into a shotgun marriage if his girlfriend gets knocked up. He wants to have a beer with the guys, laugh at jokes that he thinks are funny, and not be told he needs to worry a lot about Jesus or social justice or the impact of climate change on Nigeria.

In general, I would say this kind of guy plays as a member of the conservative coalition mostly because for the past 15 years or so, the left has been on the march.

In recent years, if someone has been telling you that you need to change how you’re living your life — use different words, use a different kind of stove — that person has probably been a progressive, so if you don’t like change, you’re a conservative. If conservatives gained more social and political power and started trying to implement their sweeping vision of social change in which everyone is supposed to revert to 1950s ideas about sex, gender roles, and religion, I think you’d see a big switch. By the same token, I think a sincere effort to get Americans to stop buying cheap manufactured goods from Asia and accept much higher consumer prices for the sake of autarky would generate a lot of Barstool Backlash. But as long as conservatives seem like they’re mostly talk, the difference between a small-c conservative outlook and conservative movement politics is muted.

Evan Bear: What I really want to know is what's the deal with that woman who accused Matt of making her wash his dirty dishes in the office sink (or whatever the story was)? Was it made up? Some sort of misunderstanding? I don't seriously expect him to address this, of course.

Okay, here goes the story.

Vox Media had this office in D.C. that had a whole bunch of people working in it scattered from across the company. We also had a shared kitchen that had snacks and coffee and mugs and plates and bowls and a dishwasher. There were basic commonsense rules like “put your plates in the dishwasher,” “run the dishwasher when it’s full,” “make more coffee if the coffee runs out,” and so forth. But lots of edge cases would arise, like “what if you have a dirty bowl and the dishwasher is also running?” I think you were supposed to keep your bowl at your desk, and then put it in the dishwasher when the space became available. But some people broke that rule and left dirty dishes in the sink. Other people let bowls pile up at their desks.

There would be spills of various kinds in the kitchen and sometimes the microwave would get dirty and you’d have all the other problems that arise with a facility that’s shared by dozens of people. Anyone who’s ever lived with roommates or shared a big bunk at sleepaway camp can broadly picture it. The whole thing tended to generate a lot of intra-office emails and Slack messages, with various people exhorting each other to do a better job of following the rules.

At one point during one of these dust-ups, I observed to someone else that we could avoid all this fighting if the company hired someone to clean the kitchen as their job, paired with the further observation that the hourly wage of such a person would likely be lower than the hourly wage of the average Vox Media employee.

So not only would we get a cleaner kitchen, but we’d have a better allocation of resources relative to a scenario in which everyone got way more diligent at cleaning the office. This had nothing to do with me personally not wanting to wash my dishes (I almost always went out to lunch and really just used a coffee mug) and everything to do with my overall passion in life for finding win-win, positive-sum solutions to social problems. The company did, in fact, hire someone to clean the kitchen, the kitchen got much cleaner, and she became a beloved member of the team for the rest of my duration with the company — I left during Covid and don’t know what’s happened with return to the office or anything since then. Then sometime after I left, I said something a little sharp on Twitter about how digital media union organizing has not been the boon for free speech that a labor idealist might hope for.

Various Vox Media people got mad at me over that, and one of them who’d apparently overheard my conversation about the kitchen either misunderstood what she’d heard or chose to lie about its contents for whatever reason. You’d have to ask her.

But on the larger point, I was obviously correct. It is difficult to keep shared spaces clean! If you have a small group, there is probably no better alternative than to just ride everyone to be conscientious. But as your group gets larger and larger, the coordination issues get harder and the cost of just hiring someone to handle the job gets lower. That’s why in offices all across America there are custodial staffers who clean the floors and the bathrooms, and the same logic applies to kitchens.

City of Trees: What's your general take on cars? You obviously believe that any cars on public streets should abide by all applicable laws (such as proper license plate display), but do you think it's good or bad or somewhere in between for the automobile to be the dominant mode of transportation? Furthermore, you also support congestion pricing as a way to more efficiently allocate traffic flow, but how would you determine how much transportation corridor space should be allocated to motorist vs. non-motorist use?

My personal opinion is that the automobile is a very useful technology, which is why they are widely owned all across the world once people are rich enough to afford them, and I think internet discourse around this tends to reflect brain poisoning.

That being said, the United States of America has a large amount of public policy that is dedicated to the idea that there should never be parking jams or parking scarcity and also that driving and parking should both be free and also that the pollution externalities (both from tailpipes and from tire particulates) associated with driving should be unpriced.

That, to me, is bad.

If I got to be the dictator of Washington, D.C., there would be much more housing. And while there wouldn’t necessarily be fewer parking spaces or roads, there would be less parking and road space per person than there is now. We would address that with market allocation of road space and parking, with the result that while a person in a hurry could always hop in a car (whether personally owned or an Uber) and go where he wants, it might be expensive depending on the time of day and the destination. Under those circumstances, a larger share of trips would be done through active modes or on transit — and the higher ridership would support higher transit frequency.

Given the greater expense of using and storing a car and the improved frequency of transit, a larger share of the population would choose to be carless (you’d also save on insurance this way), which would further bolster transit ridership. My best guess is that in many cases a technical analysis would show that under these circumstances creating more dedicated bus lanes would improve aggregate mobility, but you’d have to look at it.

So that would definitely be a world of “less cars.” But I do think American urbanists are sometimes excessively influenced by visits to pre-automobile European cities. These cities can be really nice places, and the trad accounts who post pictures of them aren’t wrong to point out that they are nice. But you can’t un-invent cars. You have to build modern cities that use modern technology without being enslaved to cars. It’s probably more informative to look at Asian cities — Hong Kong, Seoul, Singapore, Tokyo — for guidance on what that can look like.

Jasper_in_Beijing: There was a loud kerfuffle this week about NIMBY opposition to a homeless shelter in a Bay Area suburb called Millbrae. I bet you heard about it. Like a lot of your readers, I strongly favor a robust right to build system with respect to housing and property rights (“If you own land and the housing is safe, you get to build it”), but I must confess I do have some sympathy for the folks who showed up to protest the homeless facility in their town. No doubt a lot of them are hardened NIMBYs who oppose any and all efforts to bring in housing abundance. But maybe not all of them. Because the thing is, people ascertain a difference between housing in general and housing specifically targeting unhoused persons, because the latter are associated with crime, drug use, mental illness, unsanitary conditions, and so forth. I believe if we could ever adopt a truly Yglesian vision of housing abundance, the need for bespoke homeless facilities would fade, and we'd see far fewer such controversies. Does A) this calculus seem correct, and B) is it wrong in your view to support housing abundance but simultaneously have strong reservations about the building of new homeless shelters next door? (I'd personally prefer to get as much housing abundance as possible, and just give people money for rent).

The homeless shelter is a weird case, because I do think we want to say there would be dramatically less need for homeless shelters if we had more housing abundance. I’d also say that while I find the concern about living near a homeless shelter understandable, I think it’s probably also mostly wrong — I used to live right by a shelter and it was fine.

The tougher case is something like a halfway house for ex-cons. At a different time in my life, I lived near a place like that and it was honestly not all that fine. A guy with an old beef with one of the guys in the halfway house came around and tried to kill him, killed an innocent bystander instead, and then later came back and the intended victim of the first shooting killed the would-be killer. At the same time, this is a true “not in MY backyard” situation — I don’t think every single felon should be locked in prison forever, and it’s clearly better for people who get out of prison to have a place to live than to be sleeping on the streets. And of course if the ex-cons were sleeping on the streets, you wouldn’t want that happening in your backyard either. I would just all things considered prefer the halfway house to be somewhere else and I am glad to no longer live there.

But we should ask ourselves what is the public policy question here.

The term of art that’s relevant here is locally undesirable land use (LULU). A lot of NIMBY vs. YIMBY Twitter consists of debating whether or not it’s true that apartments are LULUs. But clearly some things are LULUs. It’s annoyingly noisy to be literally adjacent to a fire station. A parking lot for garbage trucks or buses is unsightly and may have bad emissions. A dwelling for criminals is going to attract more crime than the average dwelling. So should these things not exist at all? That wouldn’t work. Should they all just be dumped in poor people’s neighborhoods? That doesn’t sound great. So that means sometimes the higher power — city or state government — has to tell the rich people “sorry, you’re getting the LULU.” People getting told that absolutely deserve our sympathy — it’s right in the name that it’s undesirable! — but unless the proposal is that we’re not going to have fire stations, the fire stations have to be somewhere.

Back to the homeless shelter, I really do think that in the long run we should be trying to move toward a world where we don’t really need many homeless shelters. But there are all kinds of specific questions around that, like what do you do with an indigent fentanyl addict? I’m not 100% sure I know what the answer is. But whatever it is, that person probably has to be located somewhere physically while treatment or whatever else it is you’re hoping to see work happens. I used to live down the block from a hardcore drug addict who happened to have a market-rate dwelling courtesy of some complicated arrangement involving his sister, and he was not the best neighbor. He died, which was sad, and I wish I knew a better way to help people in that situation.

James: I think it is well understood that comprehensive immigration reform is politically impossible right now, but is there a novel legislative architecture that could result in some change? E.g what if you combined a very conservative immigration bill (say, greatly restricting the asylum system by codifying Biden’s executive order into law) with a very liberal bill (say the Dream Act) and passing it as a single bill. Would such an approach, or other novel approach, be doomed to fail for the same reasons as comprehensive reform?

The issue with all these things is that legislative deals are possible if and only if members of Congress want to make legislative deals.

If House Republicans really want to see the Secure the Border Act enacted this Congress, the best way by far to achieve that would be to phone up some Democrats with credibility, shop the idea of attaching some liberal idea to it, and pass it as a package. But I think House Republicans think this is a good issue for them, that they have a good message bill on it, and that they’re going to win in 2024 and then legislate from a position of strength. So they’re not really interested in a deal. And because they’re not really interested in a deal, Democrats can be lazy and not really think that hard about what they sincerely believe about this whole thing. Maybe if Biden gets re-elected in 2024, the Republican calculus shifts.

Democrats, meanwhile, feel that anything that raises the salience of immigration is bad for them (and I think they are right), so they don’t want to do anything that would generate lots of talk about a possible immigration deal.

I don’t think I mentioned immigration explicitly in my “Two Kinds of Progressives” post, but I should say I’m a little surprised that you don’t see more vulnerable Dems taking an outright dive on this topic. Jon Tester voted against the DREAM Act in 2007 and 2010, which strikes me as a less defensible position both on the merits and politically than just endorsing the GOP border bill or even endorsing it while saying it doesn’t go far enough in its employer sanctions or whatever.

FrigidWind: A huge part of your work focuses on how to cater to swing voters. Why are you averse to pointing out that these tend to be socially conservative and economically liberal, and posting the data to back this up? Most of your popularism posts would be much better if they led with these graphs / tables to make the point quite explicit.

I actually did use that framework a lot in the first couple of years of the Trump administration, but I largely moved away from it because I think it’s a misleading framing that talked a bunch of people into the idea that there was a quiet electoral majority for socialism.

What I think is true is that if you analyze the political debate we were having in 2012, the majority of swing voters were — relative to that debate — closer to Obama on economics and closer to Romney on culture, and Obama won because he got most of those people to vote for him. Trump then won in 2016 by embracing trade protectionism and moving to the center on Social Security and Medicare. But in terms of the political debates of 2023, “we’re going to restore Roe-like protections for abortion rights” is almost certainly more popular than any new progressive economic ideas from Joe Biden. And if Leonard Leo were to give a speech next week saying “Dobbs was a big win, but we need to overturn Bostock and Obergerfell and Lawrence too!” I think that would be a defund-scale fiasco for the Republican Party.

All of which is to say that quadrant analysis is going to be highly sensitive to what questions you choose to ask. The main thing I want to get people to see is that no matter what stance you take on the issues, you are not going to get 50% of the population to agree with you about all of them. You improve your odds through a mix of taking popular stands on specific issues, breaking with your base sometimes, being vague/non-committal when you can get away with it, and generally projecting a chill vibe that suggests you like and respect people who disagree with you on some specifics.