Author Archives: Matt

Five Points About Impeachment

In this episode, I discuss the politics of impeachment. Here are the relevant links from each point.

Point #1- The Constitution is clear about impeachment, but not specific.

My review of Josh Chafetz’s book, Congress’s Constitution.

James Wallner discussing conflict on Ezra Klein’s podcast.

CRS report on impeachment and removal.

Bob Bauer on whether there need be a Senate trial.

Henry Olson on McConnell controlling a trial.

Point #2 – Impeachment is thoroughly political, and takes place in the public sphere of opinion, which is both an input and output.

Ariel Edwards-Levy is the person to follow for polling info on impeachment.

Dubious polls about hypothetical scenarios?

Me on why Congress doesn’t always “do the right thing.”

Dave Hopkins on the impact of impeachments on public opinion.

Point #3 – The groups to watch are the moderate House Dems, moderate House Republicans, and Senate Republicans.

Sarah Binder’s great charts of House Dems.

Some GOP Senators are very quiet.

Jonathan Bernstein sees a slight shift in GOP Senate opinion.

Point #4 – Elite political opinion, especially among elected officials moves in cascades.

Lee Drutman’s Vox article on cascades.

The Washington Post Op-ed from seven freshmen Democrats.

Point #5 – We don’t know where any of this is going.

Too much certainty, like this David Brooks column.

Share

Mother 93

There have been many surreal moments in popular music during my (and your) lifetime, moments in which you could consciously feel that something bigger than usual was happening. The most obvious (for me) was the release of the Smells Like Teen Spirit video, and then the ascendency of Pearl Jam, Stone Temple Piolots, and Smashing Pumpkins, and then the floodgates opening after that. But there were other moments. Two that stand out in my mind are the MC Hammer release of “2 Legit 2 quit,” which basically buried party rap and it’s excesses of ridiculousness (bragging about how much a video cost to make is probably not a sustainable model), and the related moment of first seeing the “Nothin’ but a G Thang” video, and the onset of gangsta rap. Another one was the summer of ’94 and the meteoric rise of Green Day, culminating with them overshadowing everything at Woodstock ’94.

But perhaps my favorite single musical “event” of my lifetime is the incredible moment that was Danzig’s Mother 93 in late winter and early spring 1994… Continue reading

Share

Fahrenheit 451

I give up. I thought for sure American politics had hits its local maxima for ridiculousness at several points this past year, but now we’re having a national debate over book burning. I know. The President has dispatched some shuttle diplomacy down to the Confederacy in order to negotiate a pre-emptive cease-burning with an itinerant preacher and his congregation of 50. Read that last sentence again.

Honestly, my feelings on book burning are similar to Carl Shurz’s thinking about slavery: this is a practice so obviously and utterly beneath a liberal democracy that trying to oppose it through logic or reason serves only to legitimate the ridiculous and make you a fool. Anyone participating in the practice is, almost by definition, not going to listen. So either gather the votes, or get the guns. If you don’t have the former and you can’t stomach the latter, then leave them to their pathetic selves until you do. But whatever the case, don’t engage these idiots.

Still — and not to go all Who IS IOZ? on you, but — there’s something surreal about President Obama lecturing everyone on how burning a Koran in Florida is going to ignite hostility in the Muslim world towards American and American troops while he himself is presiding over the dropping of explosives onto the heads of Muslims every day. If you don’t want Muslims to think America is at war with Islam, stop bombing, invading, and occupying their countries. I’m talking to you, Mr. President.

And yet, I have a few practical thoughts about book burning: Continue reading

Share

On The Idea of Repealing the 17th Amendment

It sure looks like the summer of 2010 is destined to be remembered as the time when everyone seemed to want to get themselves some Constitutional amending. And I’m not talking about your garden-variety balanced-budget amendment or flag-burning amendment or school prayer amendment or line-item veto amendment or any of the other 75 or so amendments that have been proposed in the 111th Congress. I’m talking about stuff like repealing the 14th amendment. Can’t say I saw that coming!

Still, repealing the 14th amendment makes for a boring discussion, because it quickly devolves either into an immigration debate — in which the probability of someone saying something new or interesting (minimal) is only slightly greater than the probability of anyone revising their opinion (infinitesimal) — or, even worse, a debate about race, in which both probabilities are highly likely to be exactly zero.

The same cannot be said for the idea of repealing the 17th amendment, which provides for the direct election of United States Senators. Unlike the 14th amendment, it makes for a rather interesting topic of conversation: it’s not exactly well-worn territory, so there are a lot of fresh thoughts. It doesn’t inherently evoke any partisan or ideological emotions, so people are often willing to think about it at face value.  And since the 17th amendment is a purely structural amendment —  a decision about how the basic framework of the national government should be constructed —  it’s right in the wheelhouse of anyone who spends their free time thinking about the institutional design of the United States Senate (ahem).

Without further ado… Continue reading

Share

Wait, America has always been in color?

The ubiquitous black and white photos from the depression have a tendency to make one perceive that everyone wore clothing in drab shades of gray, and that life was a bleak visage of darkness. The accompanying downtrodden motif of the time usually reinforces that idea as a contemporary psychological construct — why wouldn’t people dress in ugly, depressing colors when the world was collapsing?— and further skews our received interpretation of the era.

Of course, in reality that’s nothing but pure nonsense, as shown in these glorious color photos from the 30’s. People dressed in vivid color, street signs exploded with pastels, and buckets of peaches were, in fact, not gray. But then again, the depression-as-uncolorful-time construct is perhaps squarely wrong as a theoretical matter: ex ante, we might presume that people would dress more colorfully in hard times, as a psychological weapon against the hardship.

In any case, it’s almost shocking to look at the photo collection. Dont’ be surprised if your initial reaction is why are those people from the 70’s wearing clothes from the 30’s and driving around in old-fashioned cars?

Share

Deliberations

A lot of people are talking about George Packer’s article on the Senate in the current issue of the New Yorker. I think it’s an ok article; George seems to have a better handle on Senate procedure than most of the DC press corp, although he still doesn’t seem to understand how the filibuster, holds, and unanimous consent are structurally all the same issue, and therefore his reformist position seems a little shaky to anyone who does fundamentally understand the issues. (Case and point: an obsession with “secret holds,” which also plagues the DC press corp, is a pretty good sign that you’re not quite wearing the right glasses yet). On a couple of occasions, he also mistakes the changing shape of partisanship for an increase in partisanship, for instance when he talks about how in the 60’s, the minority leader and majority leader often worked together to break filibusters. Well, that’s because the minority obstructionists were southern democrats hostile to civil rights, members of the majority party. The majority coalition in most filibuster situations was the northern democrats and the GOP. Amazingly, he writes several paragraphs later about how most of the civil rights act of 1964 was written in minority leader Dirksen’s office, but fails to see how the notion of party didn’t really apply in the case of 60’s civil rights battles. It wasn’t a partisan issue.

But leaving all that aside, the thing that irked me most about the article was Packer’s understanding of deliberation. Continue reading

Share

Five Points Podcast: Episode #1

It’s August recess!

In this episode, I discuss the congressional agenda for the 116th Congress, and what has been accomplished so far, and what we should expect between now and the 2020 elections.

Some relevant links to things I discuss in the episode:

CRS primer on the BCA caps.

House and Senate roll call votes on the budget deal passed this week.

Tim Alberta’s profile of Congressman Will Hurd.

Lee Drutman on why it sucks to be a member of congress these days.

My recent tweetstorm on the implications of it sucking to a member.

Share

Five Points Podcast: Episode Zero

So I’m starting a podcast, as a companion to my newsletter. I’m not really sure how this is going to go, but here’s what I’m envisioning: something that is between 10 and 20 minutes long, and gives you a bunch of short, informed takes at the intersection of political science and current politics. You know, like my newsletter.

The RSS feed is available now, and the podcast will be on Itunes, Spotify, and all the all rest shortly.

Please take a listen, and I’d love to get your feedback on everything: content, structure, sound quality, and all the rest.

Share

On Record Sequencing

Driving to the grocery store yesterday, I heard Smokin’ by Boston on the radio. Which got me thinking — how many rock albums can you name in which every single song on the album gets regular radio airplay?

I can only come up with two, and they are both arguably not legitimate. The first, of course, is Boston’s first album, Boston.  It is unquestionable that, of the eights songs on the record, six of them (More than a Feeling, Piece of Mind, Foreplay/Longtime, Rock n’ Roll Band, Hitch a Ride, and Let Me Take You Home Tonight) get regular radio airplay. The other two songs  (Something About You and Smokin’) might not qualify for “regular” airplay, but you definitely hear them once in a while.

The other record I came up with is Continue reading

Share

Gentlemen, do I have five numbers correct?

I love The Price is Right (henceforth, TPIR). Always have.  I love contestant’s row. I love(d) Barker. I love his skinny little mic. I love his scandals with Barker’s beauties.  I love the pricing games (Plinko is best, I will not entertain arguments to the contrary, especially not arguments involving Hole-in-one-or-two). I love how the crowd can help you. I love how you don’t know you’ll be on the show until they call your name from the live studio audience. I love(d) Roddy.  I love how people wear ridiculous t-shirts and get way too excited about his and hers exercise bicycles.  I love it all.

I can remember racing into my house each day at 11:30 after I got home from kindergarten so that I could see the second half of the show. I can remember being home sick from school, feeling awful, and thinking, “well, at least I get to watch TPIR today.” I can remember scheduling my summer days as a kid around it.  When Barker left, I was sad. The show has lost something without him, but it’s not unwatchable with Carey.

So maybe you haven’t seen the video below before. Continue reading

Share

On federalism, pot, and this November

There are very few things in politics that can be said with certainty or even near-certainty, but here’s one that I’m close to 100% sure about: there’s a whole host of staffers in the White House praying that California doesn’t legalize pot this Fall.

If you haven’t been following, the odds of legal pot next year on the west coast are about even money. There’s both a bill in the Assembly and, more importantly,  a referendum on the November ballot that is polling above 50% right now. And we’re not talking Massachusetts-style decriminalization, or even Amsterdam-style psuedo-legalization. We’re talking totally legal, commercial production, distribution, sale, and consumption. Five points: Continue reading

Share

Coupon Maven Update: Watch me ransack CVS

So since I last reported on saving 80% at Safeway, I’ve done some coupon maven-ing here and there. I bought five tubes of high-end toothpaste (Colgate with baking soda peroxide) for zero cents; I paid 72 cents for two bottles of shampoo, two Old Spice deodorants, a fancy new Schick Quattro razor and a refill pack of titanium blades, bringing to mind my favorite Onion article that actually came true; I learned that my Safeway has an unadvertised policy of doubling any manufacturer’s coupon under $1, making  every 75 cent coupon quite vaulable; and I got a teenage girl working the register at Safeway to blurt out “Jesus fucking Christ” in awe after I paid less than $20 for a mostly-full cart of groceries.

But I’ve also learned that Safeway is not the best place to execute these tricks. It’s CVS. Hands down. For three reasons: Continue reading

Share

Research Note: Defining “the South”

Several times in the last few weeks, I’ve seen claims made about “the south.” Things like polling data that reported regional cross-tabs, political analysts claiming something distinctive about the region and the 2010 election, or just a friend conjecturing about some regional cultural phenomenon. And, as usual, none of the sources defined what they meant by “the south.” Which makes it pretty hard to assess the claim. Of course, part of the problem is that’s there’s not really any utterly stable definition; it depends what you are talking about it.

This is more extreme than it first appears. Continue reading

Share

Executive Power: A quick note from the Kagan hearing

In response to a question about executive war power and the detention of enemy combatants, Kagan said that the Obama administration (through the Office of the Solicitor General and the DOJ) has grounded its opinion of its power not under inherent Article II powers, but instead under the statutory powers granted by Congress under the Authorization for the Use of Military Force in Iraq and Afghanistan (AUMF). Fair enough.

She then went on to talk about the famous “Youngstown” test as articulated by Justice Jackson: a question of Presidential authoriy can fall into one of three situation. First, when Congress has specifically authorized the President to act; second, when Congress has been silent; and third, when Congress has specifically barred the activity in question. The first should be given the widest lattitude, the second somewhat less, and the last should be given the least latitude.

Conveniently, the argument is that the AUMF puts Continue reading

Share

RIP: Robert Byrd

Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia passed away early this morning. He will be remembered for many things, some good and some bad. He was the longest-serving Senator in American history, having served over 51 years. He was a staunch institutional defender of Congress in an age of Presidential supremancy, perhaps the last true Whig. And he is the last of the old-line southern Democrats, a once-upon-a-time member of the Klan and active participant in the filibuster against the civil rights act in 1964 (Byrd has long since renounced — and apologized for — both things). Continue reading

Share