Amy Coney Barrett is unqualified: she doesn't respect the Constitution

Amy Coney Barrett is unqualified for her Appeals Court position. If she joins the Supreme Court, it must be radically reformed.

When asked whether the Constitution allows the President to delay the election, she replied that she'd have to consider matters “with an open mind." At greater length: "I would need to hear arguments from the litigants and read briefs and consult with my law clerks and talk to my colleagues and go through the opinion-writing process." 

This is like being open-minded about whether murder is legal. The Constitution allows only Congress to change election dates, which are set by Title 3, Section 1, Chapter 1 of the U.S. Code. 

When asked, "Under federal law, is it illegal to intimidate voters at the poll?" she replied, "I can’t apply the law to a hypothetical set of facts." But hypotheticals are irrelevant. Federal law bans even attempted intimidation, requiring some combination of fines or prison for "whoever intimidates, threatens, coerces, or attempts to intimidate, threaten, or coerce, any other person for the purpose of interfering with the right of such other person to vote."

If these are sincere statements of her beliefs, she doesn't know vital parts of American law. This renders her incompetent to be any sort of federal judge.

But I expect she knows election law perfectly well. She just doesn't care. Her policy preferences would be promoted by undermining elections so her allies could hold power. She will happily support voter intimidation to achieve that end.

Barrett describes herself as an originalist about Constitutional interpretation. Yet her answers violate the Constitution. This reveals the point of originalism -- to defend gruesome prejudices that society mostly surpassed by summoning them back from the 1700s in their full monstrous form.

Moral Twin Earth to Donald Trump

I've written only one paper that really bears the marks of the Trump Administration -- "One-person Moral Twin Earth Cases", which came out in Thought two years ago. It has two thought experiments. In one, you're a crash-landed astronaut hearing trolley problems from an alien nurse. The other one is heavier.

To explain what the paper is about, I'm criticizing theories of moral language popular among people who think that objective moral facts can be empirically discovered. This is in fact my team, as I think we can empirically discover that pleasure is moral value (long story there). But I think we're getting the linguistic stuff wrong by anchoring moral facts too tightly to things in our social environment, as the causal theory of reference does. The example tries to show that:

"You are an educated person on a planet like ours. While studying philosophy, you learned about consequentialist and deontological theories, each of which seemed to get at part of the moral truth. While studying history, you learned that properties at the level of gender, class, and race had significantly influenced moral judgment over millennia. Other societies within the broad linguistic community of your planet had accepted hierarchical class and gender norms, and valorized conquest, enslavement, and genocide of other races. Remnants of these anti-egalitarian norms still lingered in your society’s folk moral beliefs. You were optimistic that they would eventually be revised away. Future folk morality would then coincide with the philosophers’ values: happiness for all creatures and respect for rational agents. 

Your optimism was shaken by disturbing events. Politicians gained approval in your society and won election to its highest offices by proudly expressing sexist, classist, and racist values. Many of their influential supporters wanted to revise folk morality in favor of these values. They worked to entrench the old anti-egalitarian influences, even against values of happiness for all creatures and respect for rational agents. If their favored revisions succeeded, folk morality would favor the subjection of women, deference to the wealthy, and the glory of a master race.

You were forced to consider a grim future possibility. What if the long-run causal-regulatory influences on moral concepts were as your enemies hoped? What if the popularity of moral theories concerned with happiness for all creatures and respect for rational agency in recent centuries was merely a contingent historical aberration? What if gender, class, and racial properties were the strongest causal regulators of moral concepts across all of time? Would sexism, classism, and racism then be right?

I hope you’ll agree that the answer is no. The causal theory says yes. It entails that “water is XYZ*” is true if XYZ causally regulates the concept of water, and that “sexism, classism, and racism are right” is true if sexism, classism, and racism causally regulate the concept of rightness in our linguistic community. I do not believe that either concept is causally regulated in such a way. If proven wrong on both counts, I will start believing that water is XYZ. I will not start believing that sexism, classism, and racism are right...

[*XYZ is some non-H2O chemical structure.]

...Early causal theorists were optimistic about the causal influence of moral properties and the arc of the moral universe. They wrote in times of progress, when the fall of apartheid and communism made grim possibilities for the long-run causal regulation of moral concepts less salient. The time has come to consider these grim possibilities. Doing so reveals that the causal theory, the stabilizing function account, and the connectedness model allow a dystopian future to shape the moral truth in its own image. Moral concepts must let us convey the horror of such a future, rather than falling under its control."

Japan and England are weirdly similar

Both are island nations at ends of the Eurasian landmass. Both have vestigial monarchies from a feudal past (there are noble armored warrior stories). Freak storms saved both from invaders from the mainland. Both ran brutal empires from their industrial revolutions to the mid-20th century. Both have as standard condiments a light-colored sharp-tasting paste and a dark salty liquid, perhaps with vinegar.

Window mask

 I bought one of these window masks. The transparent plastic window blocks air. So it's safer to people in front, though I can't be sure about other angles. Also it fogs glasses more.

The first time I went out wearing it, a guy in the elevator asked me how breathable it was. I told him that it was about as good as fabric, and the air mostly flows from the back and sides.

Just after leaving the elevator, I noticed that my pants zipper was down. Fortunately, I don't think the guy noticed. I'd be embarrassed if he thought I was really into windows.

Elizabeth Warren for Vice President

The Vice President selection will come soon, and I hope Elizabeth Warren is chosen.

We need someone who builds good large-scale domestic policy to get out of this pandemic and recession, and nobody does it like her. She was calling to organize federal resources against the virus as early as January 29. On March 26 as the crisis hit, she was laying out which agencies to fund for more medical workers and which policies would create more RNA extraction tests.

Her wealth tax was my favorite big idea of the primary campaign. It's 2% on wealth over $50M, 3% on wealth over $1B, with big IRS funding to hunt the wealth of the super-rich. Concentrated wealth undermines democracy and the market, as it's happy to increase itself through undemocratic and non-market means. Warren's wealth tax, and the enforcement structure she wanted to build for it, is a good battle plan for the war against billionaire feudalism.

She's good in the Senate. But her policy superpowers make the optimal position for her Executive Branch super-technocrat. (Senate leadership positions are better for a bloc-builder like Jeff Merkley, and committees should be chaired by specialists rather than generalists.) She built the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in the Executive Branch coming out of an academic job, before running for Senate. It returned $12 billion to people ripped off by Wall Street.

We don't know what America's economic and medical situation will be in January 2021. But we need well-thought-out policy dealing with it, and that's what she offers. Base voters we need to turn out and swing voters we need to attract are both genuinely interested in well-thought-out policy on issues that weigh heavily on their lives. Warren earned a reputation for that kind of policy.Biden can cement his lead by offering it.

There are 9 polls on Wikipedia asking about VP preference, sampling various populations -- Democrats, battleground state independents, all voters. Warren leads outside the margin of error in 6, within the margin in 2, and is second in the final one (which was a panel of early primary state voters). What data we have says she's as solid a pick as anyone for getting people to vote for Biden.

Biden already consults her regularly. He's a party man, not a policy wonk. He knows this about himself. His abortion, Iraq, LGBT, and health care views have followed the party leftward over time. He already changed his position towards hers on the big conflict between them -- bankruptcy. I suspect she can change him further.

Biden's special ability is schmoozing DC old boys. That won't beat a pandemic and a recession. But having him schmooze the DC old boys to enact Warren's plans is the way we want it. It looks like they might eliminate the filibuster -- they'll do it for good old Joe!

We need to run Medicare for All and the Green New Deal through that opening. VPs have decided policy before, and Warren can be for the Jedi what Cheney was for the Sith. Biden currently opposes M4A, a party man taking the party line. It's fun when a party man gets asked "what would your view be if the party changed its view?" Philosophers of language will recognize questions about how to rigidify. Those who understand the Executive Branch will recognize the value of having someone who's good on the inside, with four years of locked-in job security, at the second-highest inside position.

Progressives can do a lot to change the party line with Warren on the inside. Biden's plan of public option 2021 is just the first step of her plan to M4A 2023. Biden's positions on this and other issues have changed with the party before, and of course they'll change some more.

Elizabeth Warren can change them, and so many other things, for the better.

Keynesian stimulus as a good investment

When a financial crisis or pandemic causes massive unemployment, the government should borrow lots of money and give people the money. (Or buy them things they need, or build infrastructure if it's safe.) This is just good public finance.

It's an automatic win on interest rates. As a crisis hits, lenders worry that whoever they lend to might fail. So who will they lend to? Well, they don't think the government will fail (and if it does, who knows what anything is worth anymore?) so they want to focus their loans on the government. The government gets easy money -- low interest rates -- when the people can't. The people need money. Solution: the government borrows the money and gives it to the people.

Alongside the value of preventing immediate human suffering, there's a long-term value in making sure people's lives don't get disrupted. If people are becoming homeless or courting disease in desperate attempts for money, it's bad for the long-term productivity of everything around them. IQ studies detect negative effects from maternal stress, which money problems will create. In general, poverty degrades human capital.

So: the government borrows cheap when nobody else can, helps people, and defends human capital. Bet on your well-defended and flourishing humans to pay back the low-interest loan. They can do it.

High-impact Elizabeth Warren meme

I made this a little while ago. Feel free to use!

Beyond Jim Crow foreign policy

If there's something big I like in American foreign policy over the last century, it's the basic approach to Europe. I want it extended to the whole world.

Being the big overseas defensive ally to European democracy was a hugely important project. America made enemies correctly, intervened effectively, and made the world a better place. When everything went totally bonkers, we beat the Nazis (with the villainous help of Communists and dying Empires). We Marshall Planned the remnant democracies into a defensive alliance that held off the Communists until their internal contradictions make them Aufhebung into... Putin? We did kind of mess that up, but until a recent counterstrike, we were back on our game. Anyway, the general idea of holding together a defensive alliance of democracies was right and should be continued.

Asia, Africa, Latin America -- that's where the terrible stuff is. We did nonsense we'd never do in Europe. Helping dictators fight democracy, covering countries in land mines, getting a million people killed through harebrained military strategies... wait that's all just Cambodia. There's so many dead across the border, and then the sun never sets on our proxy wars and regime change wars.

And now is the point where your narrator pauses to note that things seem to be color-coded. America (don't know if I can say 'we' here for reasons having to do the intentions of the policy's architects, indexicals are weird) defended the white democracies. I mean, maybe America is on the right side sometimes, but I think it's worse than chance. And really, what can we expect? Half the country was running apartheid. Those allies from the Empires were used to treating people of color as inferior races and getting millions of them killed for no reason.

A good first step in ending gruesome racial injustice is: treat everyone how you treat the white people. It's institutionally easy to enact, as these things go, because you just have to generalize an existing policy. So the foreign policy framework I like for a possible Biden era is: let's be the big overseas allies to democracies everywhere.

We don't invade anybody, there's lots of humanitarian aid when someone needs it, and the economic and military might of the whole alliance is there to stop anyone from invading another democracy. We do treaties with each other too! Maybe an immigration treaty. Want in on this deal? Become a democracy. (Terms and conditions apply, offer void if you violate basic human rights / freedoms. All rational beings welcome, concern for your utility is guaranteed.)

Raeesah, Jamus, and free speech win in Singapore

It's a historic win tonight for Singapore's opposition.

The Workers' Party rises from 6 to 10 seats in Parliament, its highest total ever. The ruling PAP has 83 seats and its overall victory was never in doubt. But the way this victory came means a lot.

Workers' Party candidate Raeesah Khan, who could be the Squad's adopted exchange student, was the story of the election. She criticized racial inequities in Singapore's criminal justice system, with police going after poor minorities for small-time crimes while wealthy Chinese church leaders embezzled $50 million. That got her investigated by police for "promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion or race."

Massive online support for her emerged, with #IStandWithRaeesah going around on Twitter. Poet Jee Leong Koh led Chinese Singaporeans posting #wewerenothurt to counter the dubious charge that Raeesah had in any sense been spreading racial enmity against them. I've seen some complicated free speech debates in recent days. Raeesah's case is not complicated.

Raeesah ran as one of 4 candidates on the Workers' Party slate in the newly formed Senkang district. Alongside her was Harvard economics postdoc and general heartthrob Jamus Lim. Tonight, Raeesah, Jamus, and their friends won 52-48.

The general message voters keep sending the PAP is: run things well, provide good services, and we'll vote for you. But don't do this heavy-handed stuff like what happened in the bad old days of Singaporean politics. Don't threaten the voters or they'll vote against you (that was a 2011 story). Don't send the police after opposition candidates for ordinary campaign speech.

It's a healthy message for the system.

Jeff Merkley's Leadership PAC

My top recommendation for political donations is Oregon Senator Jeff Merkley's Leadership PAC. Since 2010, I've given $5000 each year. I'll tell you the big story about what Leadership PACs are and why this one is so great.

Leadership PAC money is to pass on to other people's campaigns. Jeff can't be use it for his own re-election. He puts most of it into Senate races ($180,000 in the 2018 cycle), though he donates to House candidates ($45,796 in the 2018 cycle) and state-level races sometimes. The great thing about Leadership PACs is that I'm basically buying influence for Jeff. Senators have taken his money and owe him favors. 

If you have broadly progressive political views, you'll want to build Jeff's favor bank. He's great on every big issue from health care to climate change to immigration. (Medicare for All, Green New Deal, he broke the refugee kids in cages story by personally showing up at a detention center and demanding as a Senator to be let in). With my money, he basically becomes my lobbyist on a broad portfolio of issues. I can't get that if I donate directly to Jon Ossoff or whoever. By donating through Jeff, I give my causes influence with him. As an out-of-state donor, I can't really ask her to vote the right way on a key issue, and I might not know which procedural vote is the important one for making a big difference. Jeff has his eyes on the process and can easily talk to her face-to-face.

Focusing on the Senate is good. A competitive Senate race costs about 3x as much as a House race and has well over 13x the impact. Senate terms are 3x longer and the Senate is 4.35x as concentrated, which multiplies to ~13. The Senate also considers all those nominations to Cabinets and Courts and the Fed. Also treaties, which are important for global coordination and preventing war. Historically it's the tightest bottleneck in part because of the filibuster, so it's the place where we need help. Senate power is definitely the thing to buy. With this I can help Democratic Senators win and build Jeff's power within the Senate all at once.

Jeff is my dream Senate Majority Leader. He manages legislative blocs with a gentle soft-spoken style that gets people to see reason and avoids making enemies. The things he did on a 31-29 majority as Speaker in Oregon back in 07-08 are legend -- they passed the whole Democratic agenda they'd campaigned on (better educational funding, civil unions for gay people) plus cool things like a new form of collective landownership that made life easier for people in trailer parks. He got the 31 Democrats to vote as a bloc, voting even for a few things they didn't want, because otherwise a few defections would sink almost everything. So they passed everything.

Usually I'd also be able to tell you about the day-and-a-half long fundraisers in Portland and the Oregon wine country, but that's all canceled due to the pandemic this year. The picture above is me and Jeff some years ago in the vault of a winery. (He is quite tall.) I hope we can do it again soon -- it's a great place to learn what goes on inside politics. The picture below is Jeff's Chief of Staff, Mike Zamore, earlier in the Trump era. He's one of my favorite people to talk to at these things.

Here's a donation link. It's called the Blue Wave Project. The only thing I'm seeing of comparable value this year is in state legislative races and I have to do more work to figure that out. But if you think you might be giving money to Senate campaigns this year, this is my best idea about how to do it.