Viewing entries in
Politics and Economics
Large American cities are usually run by Democrats, but a few have Republican mayors. I’m assuming a Republican presence within a city’s political leadership will have some effect on local policies and policy-related outcomes. Someday I’ll tackle the causal pathways from city politics to policies to outcomes. In this post, I’ll focus on one particular outcome: the violent crime rates of cities with Republican and Democratic mayors.
Republicans often assert that cities run by Democrats are more crime-ridden than those run by Republicans. Democrats often counter there’s no evidence of that. Neither side presents evidence one way or another, other than the anecdotal sort. So I decided to look into the matter, using cities with Republican mayors as a proxy for cities that are not completely dominated by Democrats or progressives. My sample included all the cities with Republican mayors on Wikipedia’s list of mayors of the 50 largest cities in the US, of which there were ten with Republican mayors. I also chose ten cities with Democratic mayors from Wikipedia’s list and then looked up the Major Cities Chiefs Association (MCCA) 2019-2020 figures for homicide and aggravated assault crime rates, et voila!. Here is what I found….
My take on why the 26 phrases are considered dog whistles (main objection only):
Racist or Xenophobic: Community Violence, Urban Violence, Urban Crime, Black-on-White Crime, Tough on Crime, Law & Order, Food Stamps, Anti-China, Islamic Terrorism, Illegal Immigrants Promotes interests of corporations and the rich: Job Creators, Tax Cuts, Big Government (as a criticism), Increase Military Spending….
1. A coded message communicated through words or phrases commonly understood by a particular group of people, but not by others. Merriam-Webster.com … 10. An ”intriguing tool of hermeneutics in which you can accuse anyone of saying anything even if they didn't say it because you can always hear the dogwhistle if you yourself are a canine with hypersonic hearing.” Steven Pinker, quoted in “Steven Pinker Beats Cancel Culture Attack”
I got to musing about the OECD out of frustration, after spending hours looking for a comprehensive analysis comparing environmental policies across the US states. I was especially curious whether the rather cold-hearted Republican rhetoric about non-human species was matched by cold-hearted state policies. That turned out to be too big a project, so I settled for info on state environmental budgets (available on Balletopedia).
Which got me thinking…How do we know what someone means when they say something? How do we know what they’re thinking of when they say things? Or, even harder, what unconscious cognitions are behind their words?… Can words be true, valid, useful, insightful, demeaning and hurtful all at the same time? If so, how do we deal with it? What counts as evidence that certain expressions are dog whistles? What counts as definitive evidence?
High perceived control tends to soften the blows of outrageous fortune by activating action plans to make things better. Low perceived control sharpens the sting of adversity because it makes us feel helpless and hopeless. Individuals who chronically lack a sense of control tend to become angry and disengaged: there's nothing I can do to make a difference, so why bother?
In prepping for a previous post on social justice, I came across a great meta-analysis on the research and theory of "relative deprivation", which the authors define as "the judgment that one is worse off compared to some standard accompanied by feelings of anger and resentment" (Smith, Pettigrew et al, 2011, p 203). According to this meta-analysis, the experience of relative deprivation can be applied to the self or ingroup and requires…
Commitment to an ideology imbues it with a “sacred value”, or “roughly, a value that is held particularly fervidly and that one is incredibly reluctant to relinquish” (Clark and Winegard, 2020). The ideologically committed are therefore akin to True Believers; they’re all in.
Note the governments of Britain, Finland, France, Norway and Sweden had previously supported gender-affirming care for children. But they reconsidered in light of new evidence that such care could sometimes be harmful. American activists know about this evidence as well but many have chosen to dig in, not yielding an inch. However, this post is not about the merits of gender-affirming care for children. It’s about why people and policymakers persist in old ways of thinking and doing despite evidence that the old ways are suboptimal or worse.
What seems crazy about these numbers is that violent crime in America skyrocketed between 1960 and 1990, but incarceration rates barely budged until the 1980s. Of course, there’s always a time lag between committing a crime and starting a prison sentence, so any relationship between crime rates and incarceration rates would also be subject to a time lag. But why would it take 20 years for the incarceration rate to take off?
Last week there was a lot of brouhaha about a Wall Street Journal (WSJ) poll showing that Americans were less enthused about some pretty core principles and values, such as patriotism and hard work. Problem is, America’s apparent moral decline was based on only two polls, one in 1998 and one in 2023. That’s not enough data to declare a trend.
So I did some digging. Sure enough, there was a 1976-77 poll that asked the same questions - its results were actually provided on a WSJ document that summarized responses to the 1998 poll. Considering the 1976-77 poll results along with those for 1998 and 2023, can you spot the trend in, say, patriotism? …
Those alarmed at these poll results had three main concerns. First, endorsement of key values was less whole-hearted than they had been in the 1998 poll. Specifically, there were fewer “Very Important” responses to values such as hard work and community involvement, even though most respondents still considered these values at least somewhat important (94% and 80% in the case of hard work and community involvement). Second was the overall decline in valuing religion, having children, and patriotism, with 40%, 33%, and 27% of respondents considering these values as “not that important” or “not important at all” in the 2023 poll. And third, a whopping 90% of the 2023 respondents considered money an important value. What’s up with that?
“If we want to rebuild a shared public trust in expertise, we will need a more realistic and humane language to talk about scientific expertise and its place in our political life—an account of expertise that is worthy of the public’s trust. Such an account would affirm scientific expertise as a praiseworthy human achievement, indispensable to understanding the world around us and valuable for making political decisions. But it would also recognize the role of uncertainty and judgment in science, and thus the possibility of error and disagreement, including value disagreements, when using science for public policy. Reestablishing an appropriate role for science in our politics, in other words, requires restoring the central role of politics itself in making policy decisions.” - Unmasking Scientific Expertise, by M. Anthony Mills/Issues in Science and Technology
This from a Tennessee State University document titled Defining Citizenship and Civic Engagement:
“Attempting to define civic responsibility can be a daunting task because of frequently overlapping constructs, values, and interpretations. Indeed, the very mention of the term civic responsibility evokes notions of what it means to live in a democracy, in addition to the complementary ideas of citizenship, social responsibility, civic engagement, and community involvement. [But here goes…] Civic responsibility means active participation in the public life of a community in an informed, committed, and constructive manner, with a focus on the common good.”
Many states, including North Carolina, require offenders to undergo a Risk and Need Assessment (RNA), which helps criminal justice officials target interventions to reduce recidivism. For example, prisons use RNAs to identify programs inmates should attend while incarcerated. Probation and parole agencies use them to develop an offender’s supervision plan and inform responses to violations. RNAs, supplemented by criminal records, are also used to classify an offender’s level of risk and need, from Minimal to Extreme. These classifications turn out to be rather good predictors of recidivism…
Mmmm…82% of the probationers in 2019 had prior arrests and 59% had been placed on probation before. Around a third were previously incarcerated felons. Of probationers with prior arrests, over half had been arrested three or more times. In other words, a lot of repeat offenders are being put on probation in North Carolina - somewhat ironic given the 1994 sentencing reform was supposed to divert more repeat offenders to prison. Don’t get me wrong, though. I’m not against probation for all repeat offenders…
Throughout this series of posts, I’ll be using North Carolina as a case study, partly because the state implemented major sentencing reforms in 1994 and 2011, so enough time has passed to detect possible effects. Just a important, North Carolina has great data.
Mmmm. Why do Iowa and Kansas have such low poverty levels?
Intuitions about right and wrong clash in moral dilemmas. These dilemmas activate a moral trade-off system designed for resolving conflicts among moral values. Examples of moral values include fairness, reciprocity, responsibility, care, entitlement, merit, loyalty, and honesty. When asked to resolve moral dilemmas, many people made compromise judgments, which strike a balance between conflicting moral values by partially satisfying at least some of them. The moral tradeoff system delivers that solution as an intuitive moral judgment. (paraphrasing Guzman et al, 2022)