President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Kamala Harris
(R) Donald Trump
80%↑
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) V. Archuleta
98%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Marshall Dawson
95%
5%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd
(D) Adam Frisch
52%↑
48%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(D) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank
(D) River Gassen
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) John Fabbricatore
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen
(R) Sergei Matveyuk
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
60%
40%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
March 07, 2009 06:11 PM UTC
37 Comments
and I think ColoradoPols is overreaching here. Conservative/swing voters don’t like the idea that those who played by the rules and bought houses they could afford are subsidizing those who didn’t, and if Markey feels this bill was too vague to do what it was supposed to in a fair way, she should have voted against it.
Markey needs to break with leadership when she can given the nature of the district, and if the bill was going to pass anyway, this was a good way to do it.
This bill was revenue-positive and isn’t a good showboat against fiscal responsibility. And her vote was incongruous with the needs of her district.
They’re also right that Republicans can’t really use it against her, so criticizing her vote doesn’t give ammo to the right.
If anything, they were a little too deferential in their criticism. Watch for a GOP troll to point this out in 5, 4, 3…
.signed,
Constitution Party troll
.
she voted against a tax increase?
Wait until Republicans hear about that!
oh, wait…
😉
The problem, other than simple nastiness, with bobster’s notion of the “unfairness” of subsidizing those who haven’t kept up with their mortgage payments is that it is another levels-of-analysis error counseling that we collectively do injury to our enitre body politic in order to punish some within it.
This is such a recurring theme that it merits some elaboration: On the one hand, there are those who, in the Myers-Briggs typology, fall into the “judgmental” category, who have some emotionally-informed sense of “right” and “wrong,” and consider recourse to that judgment to answer all policy questions; on the other hand, there are those who fall into the Myers-Briggs “analytical” category, who rely on a combination of data and logic applied to purpose in order to determine policy. These two approaches differentiate themselves in many ways, one of which is that the former tends to engage in a constant levels of analysis error, in which individual-level reactions are applied to societal-level challenges.
This is not to imply that the analytical approach does not seek remedies which feed through individual-level decision-making: In fact, all or nearly all remedies to social problems do and must affect individual-level decision-making. But, as the late sociologist James Coleman argued in his landmark book on social theory, the beginning and end of the analysis should be at the societal level, and the dynamic of how it works must flow through individuals.
Sometimes the difference is very subtle. In a sustainable energy law class a couple of days ago, the professor asked whether individual responsibility was a part of the solution to our energy sustainability and environmental problems. I said, to the extent that we take centralized actions to affect personal responsibility, then certainly, but to the extent that we simply refer to personal responsibility in the abstract, then no, it is a levels of analysis error to posit a completely decentralized solution to a social problem. Any concept that identifies personal responsibility as a part of the solution is really looking at some phenomenon underneath personal responsibilty, either through norms, laws, markets, or ideologies, which affect personal responsibility (to be sure, mutual normative influence on one another is a decentralized dynamic that has profound systemic effects, but the professor made clear that he was referring to spontaneous, non-externally-influenced personal responsibility). Otherwise, reference to personal responsibility is an empty wish, positing that it would be nice if millions of decentralized atomized dispositions spontaneously evolved in a certain direction. One student, already furious with me for suggesting that we internalize externalities through taxes and subsidies, said, somewhat red-faced with rage, “my answer to you is “Ayn Rand.'” Well, he gets points for brevity.
Back to the topic at hand, Barney Frank aptly termed this form of levels-of-analysis error, which objects to any policy which incidentally rewards those who don’t deserve to be rewarded, even if it is the policy which best serves the public interest, as a “collateral benefit” fallacy. The benefit isn’t the purpose of the policy, and shouldn’t be the only criterion (or even a central criterion) on which the value of the policy is judged. The overall value to the public of the policy is really what should be squarely in our cross-hairs when examining it.
Does that mean that collateral benefit is completely irrelevant? No. To the extent that people are responsive to the incentive structures that our policies create, and to the extent that a policy which bails out people in danger of defaulting on their mortgage awards bad behavior, and to the extent that the adverse incentive structures created by a policy which rewards bad behavior is detrimental to the public interest, consideration of collateral benefit as a cost in a thorough and comprehensive cost-benefit analysis is warranted. But it is one marginal consideration among many salient considerations and, for the less ill-willed among us, is at least as much a plus as a minus, in that collateral benefit is, after all, a benefit to someone.
The bottom line is: Apply logic to data to come up with what best serves the public interest in the long run. Don’t latch onto one marginal consideration and turn it into the litmus test for all social policy.
it doesn’t matter whether I support the legislation or not or even think it’s fair. I’m not your typical voter, period, and I’m definitely not the typical voter in her district.
Which is the point: Betsey needs to break with her party and air on the side of (even perceived) fiscal conservatism whenever she can. There will be a boatload of bills where the party may need her vote. This wasn’t one of them.
I was aiming at this statement:
“Conservative/swing voters don’t like the idea that those who played by the rules and bought houses they could afford are subsidizing those who didn’t.”
And my “blizzard of words” converged on that statement with analytical precision.
regardless of whether it’s your position, or simply your restatement of a position held by others. By referring to it as “boster’s notion,” I am not assuming that it is your “belief,” only a notion that you put into words and posted. What some anonymous poster with the screen name “bobster” believes or doesn’t believe isn’t something I think much about, or consider an important subject to address. I didn’t mean to offend you personally.
being a practical politics adherent, I’m generally all on board with Harvey’s point:
but there are thresholds where that breaks down and I can respect that Markey found one here. Over the next 12-24 months we are going to witness a very challenging tug-of-war between “fixing the problem” and taking us down anti-market and socialistic paths we may not want to travel down. We’re going to hear equally shrill cries of “socialism!!” just as strongly as “it doesn’t matter, we need to fix the problem or we’re all going to die!!!” Sometimes the fix is worse than the disease, and I have no doubt we’re going to pass 3 or 4 of those kinds of bills in the coming months. We need to be very careful about claiming that the benefits of a policy justify the means.
and not a very precise word at that. In reality, any social policy or set of social policies falls somewhere in a space defined by various axes, including one axis which ranges from “anarchy” (no centralized government) to “autocracy” (completely centralized government). The United States has flirted with both extremes at times, though it’s flirtations with autocracy have not been due to the generous provision of social services (and other extravagant public spending) so much as the ultra-nationalist tendency toward thought-policing (McCarthyism, anyone?). Certainly, our flirtations with dissolution (immediately prior to the Constitutional Convention, and in the Civil War) have been far more life-threatening to the Republic than our flirtations with autocracy.
Sound social policy formation does not rely on reduction to a single word, whose emotion-laden connotations then indicate to us whether the policy is good or not. Sound social policy formation relies on a complete analysis that leaves such oversimplistic words behind.
If you want to argue that the long-term costs of current policies outweigh the long-term benefits, then by all means do so. But, please, don’t play the absurd rhetorical game of claiming that “SOCIALISM!!!” is such an argument. All it is is a capitalized word with three exclamation points, kinda like “TODDLER!!!” or “BEAN!!!” The latter two aren’t very good arguments either.
indipol says, “we need to be very careful about claiming that the benefits of a policy justify the means.” Well, no, not at all, if our cost-benefit analysis is comprehensive, because any cost to the choice of means is incorporated into it. Pretending that there are some means that are odious for purely ideological reasons, without the judgment of their value be ultimately rooted in the costs they impose on human welfare, is a part of the problem rather than a part of the solution.
Amazing how Dems in contested districts find ways to vote smart while those in uncontested districts continue to vote dumb.
say exactly the same thing:
“Dems are dumb, I’m smart, the evidence for this is that I say it is so, and the fact that I have never, ever offered any analysis of any kind to back up anything I ever claim to be true isn’t due to the fact that I’m a blind ideologue completely devoid of analytical ability, but rather to the fact that I am too brilliant to waste my time actually sharing my (invisible) analytical depth and subtlety with you lesser beings who would not be able to understand it anyway.”
Yeah, right.
Was to legislatively set all mortgages at the same rate (I think it was 4%) and set all to be fixed – no ARM, no balloon, etc.
The plus to that is it rewards those who have played by the rules with the same advantages. And to make it “fair” to the banks, it is only done to those that have accepted money from us – and will not pay it back in the next 30 days.
.
If you don’t like the radically new policy,
you can just pay back all the funds you got from the federal government
(does that even include the Federal Reserve Bank, which is a government unto itself ?)
within 30 days.
.
Now that there are only two Republicans in Colorado’s Congressional delegation, wouldn’t “neither Republican representative” be more correct than “no Republican representatives” 😉
Anyway, I can’t speak to Markey’s principles on this, whether she would have voted for it if it needed her vote. But that is the nice thing about having a sizable majority in the House, Democrats in right-leaning districts can vote against the party with no consequences for purely political reasons (endorsed by the leadership).
Let’s be honest, this vote (nor any roll call votes really) won’t matter in 2010. What will matter is whether the economy is rebounding.
On the Stimulus, and most likely on Employee Free Choice, Leadership will count the votes, ensure they have passage, and let some Dems take cover in their districts.
For some in R+6 through R+12 Districts, these votes are brandishment of their “bipartisan” credentials.
It’s smart, treating bipartisanship as a tactic rather than an end in and of itself.
You said in around 100 words what other posters couldn’t get to in a thousand.
Brevity is the soul of wit and wisdom.
Bobster, you remind me of the old woman in a corner grocery store in London, chatting away with the cashier about friends and acquaintances long after she had paid for her groceries, while I waited with gathering impatience to pay for mine, until I noticed at some point that she had begun to talk about me in the abstract, making oblique references to impatient foreigners….
Above, in this thread, you wrote a post in which your point was about political strategy, and I responded at length to something within it which referred to popular political analysis. I chose to respond to the embedded comment referring to a political analysis, and, for some reason, you’re convinced that that means I didn’t “get” your point about political strategy. Remarkably enough (and you might want to jot this down), multiple topics can coexist simultaneously.
Naturally, one person writing about one topic (say, molecular chemistry) will “get to” in a few words what someone else writing about a completely different topic (say, economic history) “couldn’t” get to in a thousand. That tends to happen when two discourses address two different topics!
As for your remarkable insight concerning the universal superiority of brevity, two responses:
1) If you are truly convinced that greater brevity is always correlated with superior thought and expression, then why not achieve perfection by remaining silent? and
2) If brevity is always preferable to thoroughness, then we should just ban books and rely exclusively on platitudes. I get the impression that that would better accomodate your depth.
One word: prolix
in response to a perceived injury to a fragile ego. Now that’s something to be proud of.
http://coloradopols.com/showCo…
I think you miss the way in which brevity is superior. It isn’t that shorter is absolutely better than longer, it is that if you can say the same thing in fewer words, you will be more effective. There are a lot of books out there that could be half as long and still be entirely as informative.
http://coloradopols.com/showCo…
http://coloradopols.com/showCo…
is that length implies that too many words have been used, rather than that a great deal has been said.
All I’m saying, if a movie is over 150 minutes, it is probably poorly edited. The same theory goes for writing.
and over 90% of the rest of the most marvelous products of world literature. Bye bye Thoreau’s gloriously written page and a half long sentence. Bye bye Ben Hur and The Ten Commandmants, and many other brilliant (and brilliantly editted) movies. Hello Bondo’s great contribution to literary criticism. Thanks for sharing.
Surely one would need to look at each case individually, as length does not “necessarily imply” (a predictive argument), but it sure as hell seems correlated with a lack of parsimony or an abundance of detail (seriously, who uses the word surfeit).
The Deer Hunter and Gone With The Wind are two off the top of my head that could lose an hour off the front and become more effective movies.
I would greatly dispute the 90% of the marvelous world literature is long claim. There are plenty of delightful short stories, plays (which rarely are particularly long reads), and novels that are quite thin (under 250 pages) for every War and Peace.
Your mention of the word “surfeit,” which is a single word with a single meaning and thus does not speak to the issue of parsimony but rather, perhaps, “pretentiousness,” raises the issue of the use of jargon.
Jargon can serve one of two purposes: 1) it can obfuscate the lack of precise and clear knowledge on the part of the speaker (ie, blow smoke), or 2) it can reduce large bodies of information to a single compact package (ie, distill and compress). I don’t think many people would argue that I obfuscate my lack of knowledge, rather than try to articulate my grasp of social institutional phenomena, so my use of jargon falls into the second rather than first category.
In fact, your example is an example of my parsimony, not of my verbosity. You might have noticed that for a day or so I had a different signature self-quote in place, which I reduced in length in part by recourse to the word “surfeit.”
What you seem to be criticizing with reference to that word, rather than length, is “pretentiousness.” Look over my posts: Some take a highly academic tone, in which I speak a highly academic language; some are passionate statements of hopes, in which I speak the language of aspiration; some are down-and-dirty exchanges; and some are light-hearted and humorous. Only those posts that are academic in character are academic in vocabulary. Is that pretentious? I don’t think so, but, of course, it’s a judgment call.
Oh, I was totally taking on your pretentiousness and not your verbosity with that one. 🙂 I, on the other hand, prefer to use words that other people know, feeling that I will annoy them if I make them read my blog comments with a dictionary handy, especially when an entirely suitable, widely understood word could be used in its place. (As it happens I have a dictionary widget so it takes very little time but it is the principle of it all).
While we are sort of on the subject of textural expression, I don’t believe in grammar in the sense that there is a right way and a wrong way. Language seeks to communicate understanding clearly and effectively, firstly, and to do so aesthetically, secondly. If I say good when I mean well, less when I really ought to use fewer or I split an infinitive, no one is actually misunderstanding me. Thus my usage is correct, even if the grammar fascists would tell me I’m doing it wrong.
and arguing the same position. See? Not such a snob after all. (I’m not sure I’d go as far as saying that using an adjective where an adverb is called for is irrelevant, but, in general, language is organic, and the rules are eminently breakable).
But how many Pols readers don’t know the meaning of the word “surfeit,” especially in a context which contrasts it with “parsimony”? Why would “abundance” be a better word choice? Is “abundance” really more plebian? The language is too beautiful, with too much power when wielded well, to insist on reducing it to a muddy concoction of limited vocabulary and blunted composition.
In sum, as I asked once before (but forgot the answer to), what’s the emoticon for blowing raspberries? 🙂
I’ve written 3 books and a boatload of magazine articles. And in each case I have put in a lot of effort to making what I write as short as possible.
I think this comes from my programming background – good software is as simple as possible and the code behind is as simplistic as possible. No simplier than necessary – but absolutely as simple as possible.
nor that I am adverse to receiving constructive criticism, but rather that I sincerely believe that there are few, if any, posters on this site who write more densely than I do: In other words, though many of my posts are long, their quantity of content per space is also high. I bring in sociological theory, economic modeling, legal doctrine, and fresh analyses built from these materials, particularly in my longer posts, rather than merely provide links, repeat facts, and state opinions. That is my voice here, my contribution to the discourse, and one which has not been universally reviled. To accomplish it effectively, some explanation and illustration is required.
I disagree that “short” is a valuable goal in and of itself; rather “high density” or “parsimomy” is the actual goal for which “shorter” is the oversimplified proxy (reducing to one variable an analysis which requires consideration of several). The fact that a tome is a thousand pages long tells us nothing about how parsimonious it is, for it may be densely packed with complex and subtle ideas that could not possibly have been expressed in fewer words. (And, in fact, mere communication of information is neither the only purpose of literary composition, nor the only value to be considered when it is the primary purpose).
Granted, a political blog is no place for a thousand page tome. But it can and should be a forum that tolerates, perhaps even welcomes, the occasional 500 word essay. Those who do not wish to read such essays can scroll right past them, at virtually no cost to themselves in time and effort.
We can go ’round and ’round on this forever, though clearly there is no point to doing so. It is an article of dogma for some that lengthy posts violate some immutable rule of style, and it will remain an article of dogma for them regardless of what logic or evidence is mobilized in contradiction.
The bottom line is: I’m going to keep right on posting as I have been, adjusting neither form nor content to accomodate the aesthetic judgments and ideological convictions of others. I receive at least as much feedback praising how informative my posts are as I receive feedback telling me, in essence, that they are not informative enough. If some people want to keep yammering about how awful it is of me to violate this inexorable rule of which they are so utterly certain, then it is they, rather than I, who are violating the dictates of parsimonious communication, as well as simple courtesy, for they are repeating what has been already repeated ad nauseum, and doing so despite having been well-informed that it no longer bears repitition.
.
some of your stuff is pretty interesting.
Not so much your highfalutin insults,
but some of the other stuff.
.
And I’ll try to either cut down on the highfalutin insults, or improve their quality. 🙂
without highfalutin’ insults?
mounted on a two-humped hunch-backed camel!