Randy Barnett explaining why faith in government is a dangerous thing:

[G]overnment at all levels has obviously not lived up to its promise of being able to anticipate and react to disasters and other social calamities better than nongovernmental institutions. This should not be surprising. Governments are comprised of ordinary human beings with the same limitations of vision and self-interests as those in the private sector (and often, but not always, with far worse incentives)—that is, these human beings confront pervasive problems of knowledge, interest, and power. I have the same reaction every time there are calls for increased government oversight in the aftermath of some failure in the private sector. What gives anyone confidence that government institutions will act with any more prescience? Moreover, it seems often the case that the core functions that are most often used to justify the existence of governments—such as public safety, national defense, and public infrastructure—are often the very tasks that are given short shrift by real world politicians in search of more “elevated,” seemingly less pedestrian goals than these. This seems especially the case when the failure to provide these “essential social services” can so often be obscured from public view or, when revealed, responsibility for failure can be shifted to others.

Incidentally, anyone who can’t acknowledge that the fuck-ups that led to tens of thousands of New Orleans residents are the combined fault of a Republican-controlled federal government and Democrat-controlled state and local governments is responding in a fundamentally unserious manner. See, for example, Eric Muller and Glenn Reynolds, two smart men who (a) I didn’t previously believe were fundamentally unserious (hence why I am not calling out nitwits like Kos and Atrios—their behavior is par for the course) and (b) should know better.

Oh, and brava to Sela Ward for laying the smackdown on Kanye West’s idiotic "FEMA hates blacks" meme (speaking of the fundamentally unserious) on Larry King Live tonight.

Since Mungowitz End is, well, ended, I suppose I’ll have to do a Will Baude-style “MungowitzWatch.” To that end, read Mike Munger’s column on ballot access in North Carolina from today’s Raleigh-Durham News-Observer.

Hot on the heels of recent discussions of academic bias, Jeff Goldstein lays the smackdown on a guy who teaches English at Northwestern who should know better. You’d almost think he wants Horowitz’s merry band of nitwits poking around campus.

Matt Stinson has a lengthy post on how conservatives and libertarians should attack bias in the academy. He starts out, however, with a point lost on many outside academe:

The notion that conservatives are inherently opposed to the scientific method seems targeted at ID proponents, but in my discipline, political science, the loudest “anti-scientific” voices come from the left. The “perestroika” movement, a group that rejects the behavioralist turn in the social sciences, is primarily the vehicle of postmodern leftists who deny the existence of objective truth and a scientifically verifiable reality. They have some conservatives on their side, mostly classicists who prefer historical analysis to number-crunching, but it is more generally an outgrowth of the rebellion against “reality” that has been a preoccupation of far left academics since the end of World War II. While the postmodernists are a grumpy minority at research schools, they utterly dominate and thus render “un-scientific” the entire discipline of liberal arts at the top colleges and universities in the United States. Would the Pitt professors similarly scorn left-wing academics for un-scientific views?

For further evidence of Matt’s point, see Jeff Goldstein. Or that Edward Said disciple Rashid Khalidi has a plenary speaking spot on the APSA program—the only plenary awarded to an organized section of the association (the Not New Political Science section).

That’s just a small snippet of Matt’s post; go forth and RTWT. And, while you’re at it, see Jim Lindgren and Stephen Bainbridge; note that a similar sort of the “file-flagging” Bainbridge refers to goes on in other academic fields as well, not just law.

Paul Brewer presents the results of a content analysis of The Daily Show conducted by some of his students and himself; the statistics lend credence to suggestions that TDS presents a lot of political information to its viewers.

Mind you, whether this is an appropriate substitute for making citizens sit through The NewsHour is an open question, one best left to people with a far more normative bent than my own.

W comes out in favor of teaching Intelligent Design (a.k.a. Creationism with the serial numbers filed off) in public schools. Someone really needs to tell the president he can’t run for reelection, and thus no longer needs to behave like an idiot to gain votes. I take it all back—although, in my defense, I was discussing Congress and not the executive branch.

Unfortunately, the Democrats will fail to extract the correct lesson from this: teachers*, not politicians, should decide what should be taught, and the only way to stop politicians from deciding what gets taught is to get the government completely out of the education business. Instead, they will attempt to back evolutionary theory ad nauseum and further alienate the crowd in Kansas (and the rest of rural and suburban America) which they can’t figure out what’s the matter with.

þ: TigerHawk.

Update: Alex Knapp is sharing my wavelength today.

Virginia Postrel, on recent “achievements” of the GOP in Congress:

By jetisoning any pretense to free-market principles, the GOP is defining itself entirely as the party of the religious right.

I’ll grant that the energy and transportation bills were pork-fests (a cornerstone of Hill bipartisanship for the past, well, 200-odd years), but the third example cited by the WaPo—the passage of CAFTA—seems pretty “free-market” to me. And, to my recollection, none of these bills are platform planks of the Religious Right—indeed, CAFTA may antagonize social conservatives against the GOP in many states hit hard by declining trade protectionism.

Mind you, Howard Dean’s Party of National Lameness Liberalism doesn’t seem very well positioned to capitalize on the GOP‘s weaknesses.

Timothy Sandefur tentatively says no. I tend to agree; however, Roslin’s decision to send Lt. Thrace (Starbuck) back to Caprica on a secret mission at the very least violated the military chain of command.

The proper response, however, is not a coup. In the grand scheme of things, Roslin’s action did not lead to the sort of imminent danger that would justify bypassing civilian procedures; presumably, the Quorum of Twelve can impeach and/or remove the president, or there is a civil judiciary that can exercise that authority.

The larger political mess is that Adama’s incapacitation has left Colonel Tigh holding the bag for this decision, and he neither has the wherewithal or the gravitas to resolve things the way Adama might have been able to do.

Former Mississippi governor Bill Waller is playing at being a reformer, but he’s only got the solution half-right:

Former Gov. Bill Waller Sr. says Mississippi should reduce the number of state legislators and limit lawmakers to two terms.

Waller spoke today at the Neshoba County Fair. He was one four former governors to speak in Founder’s Square along with incumbent Gov. Haley Barbour.

Waller, a Democrat who was governor from 1972–76, urged lawmakers to streamline state government.

“It has been obvious for years that we have too many members of the Mississippi Legislature and the numbers should be reduced in both the House and the Senate,” he said in prepared remarks. “Only 11 states have larger legislatures and most of those are much more heavily populated.”

Waller also said Mississippi would benefit by limiting terms for lawmakers.

“A two term limit on a smaller number of legislators would give the best and most modern state government of all 50,” he said.

I’m all in favor of halving the size of the legislature, but pretty much everyone who’s studied the issue of term limits seriously finds that the effects of term limits are pretty much the opposite of those promised by proponents: instead of producing “citizen legislators” who aren’t beholden to parties or organized interests, it produces a legislature full of political novices who have to rely on unelected party leaders and lobbyists, since they lack the political expertise and experience necessary to exercise good independent judgment.

A far better method for producing an accountable legislature is to ensure vigorous competition for seats, which suggests that Mississippi would be better served by overhauling the gerrymandered monstrosities we call legislative districts than selecting a fresh batch of mediocre politicians every eight years from constituencies that are the result of racial and partisan redistricting.

Jon Rowe on the right to privacy:

I’m more concerned with the Griswold line of privacy/liberty cases in general than Roe in particular. Abortion deals with the moral question of whether and when a fetus is a human being with civil rights, and obviously government has a legitimate interest in protecting the life of innocent
human beings.

Lawrence and Griswold, on the other hand, deal with what consenting adults do behind closed doors. And that certainly is none of government’s business and proscribing such is not a legitimate function of government.

I give an exercise to my Business Law students every semester on Roeand Casey and I can attest that many ordinary, average folks don’t understand these cases; they think that if Roe were overruled, automatically all abortions would be illegal. No, it just means that states would decide the issue and certainly many states would indeed illegalize abortion (Alabama, and a few other southern and Midwestern states). But many states, particularly in the Northeast, would retain the legality of abortion. If someone from one of the illegal states were really desperate for an abortion, all they’d have to do is travel to one of the many states, like NJ, Mass, Conn., where abortion would remain legal.

Finally, I’m not saying that I’m in favor of overturning Roe or Casey; I’m just noting that if Roe were overturned, it wouldn’t mean the end of all abortions in the US and that in many states, probably most, abortion would remain legal.

Except for the “all they’d have to do is travel” argument (I could see some particularly conservative states attempting to criminalize interstate travel to obtain an abortion, particularly without spousal consent), and the open question of how many states currently have abortion statutes on the books that would presumably go into effect again if Roe were overturned, I’m pretty much in agreement.

Mind you, it’s possible that if I did have a uterus I might feel differently about this. And, as a matter of public policy (rather than a matter of constitutionality), I think that further restrictions on abortion would be a bad idea.

Incidentally, Jon has moved to Jason Kuznicki’s Positive Liberty along with Timothy Sandefur and Ed Brayton; I look forward to seeing good things from these folks.

Hei Lun Chan, on the brouhaha surrounding the videogame Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas:

I know those against government regulation will rightfully say that it should be up to parents, not the government, to determine what kids play. But if you want parents to be involved, you have to give them an accurate ratings system, since you can’t expect them to research every game’s content. And if the industry isn’t even competent enough to do that, then they really don’t have much to complain about.

The larger sociological questions—why we would rate a game that rewards extreme anti-social behavior as merely “Mature” and worthy of being sold at Wal-Mart, while adding a bit of simulated sex to it makes it “Adults Only”—are a bit beside the point; the ratings system exists, Rockstar Games was supposed to comply with the system, and the company didn’t.

Update: More common sense from Michele at ASV.

According to today’s Clarion-Ledger, the local chapter of Bethany Christian Services has reversed its policy barring Catholics from adoptions.

Rather than anti-Catholic animus, the agency rather bizarrely pins the blame on its misunderstanding of Catholic Charities’ adoption policy:

McKey said the agency’s past policy of excluding Catholic parents was “unintentional on our part” as Bethany had assumed Catholic Charities gave preference to Catholic couples seeking to adopt.

I must have missed the passage in the Bible where it says it’s OK to discriminate, but only as long as you think other people are doing it too…

Tom Traina notes some old-style anti-Catholic bigotry going on in my backyard: a “Christian” adoption agency is denying prospective Catholic adoptive parents carte blanche on the basis of a policy that is, on its face, not inconsistent with Catholic beliefs.

To their credit, Choose Life Mississippi is investigating the allegations, which may encourage Bethany to rectify its policy. On the downside, the national Bethany organization is apparently A-OK with local chapters deciding which denominations are “Christian enough.”

Just in: the nominee to replace Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court is John G. Roberts, a member of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Orin Kerr, at least, is very impressed with the selection; I don’t know that much about Roberts myself, but he seems to have quite an impressive resume. Despite Kerr’s assessment that Roberts is respected by both Republicans and Democrats, Steven Taylor predicts a fight nonetheless.

Meanwhile, SayUncle is quite disappointed that Roberts doesn’t have a vagina—at least, none that we know of.

The Supreme Court nominee is going to be announced tonight by President Bush, according to various news outlets. I won’t bother repeating the speculation seen elsewhere, although I might have something substantive to say once the nominee is announced.

þ: OTB and many others.

Steven Taylor on Plamegate and politics as a spectator sport:

We too often treat politics like a spectator sport–everything is seen in terms of whether it helps our side move the ball forward or not. If our side says it, it is good; if the other side says it, it’s bad. Such thinking diverts us from genuine, efficacious public dialogue. We altogether seem too interested in making sure our side scores (or, at least, that the other side doesn’t) than we are in actually having a worthwhile discussion about what our national priorities should be, and what solutions are needed to address them.

Because the current story involves Karl Rove–a man greatly disliked by many in the press and in the Democratic Party and a man loved by many Republicans because he works for a Republican President–the story becomes a way to score points.

Think Dick Morris: he was hated by Republicans when he was helping Clinton formulate triangulation strategies, but beloved by many of the same folks once he started criticizing Clinton in newspaper columns and writing anti-Hillary books.

Meanwhile, Nick Troester thinks Democrats may have hitched onto a losing cause:

I think it’s a very, very good thing for the Republican party if Democrats and Democratic activists continue to harp on this issue: no one will really care unless the end result uncovers something massively criminal (and they may not care even then, e.g. Iran-Contra), but mostly it makes Democrats look like crazy loons who will tilt at whatever windmills they can find to out Bush’s (or Bush’s associates’) ‘criminal’ behavior. Did these people learn nothing from Monicagate?

I believe this is the first corrollary to Jane’s Law, simply stated as follows: “The devotees of the party in power are smug and arrogant. The devotees of the party out of power are insane.”

Good news for consumers: the ban on beef imports from Canada will be lifted this week, which should lead to lower prices for beef products on both sides of the border. As I discussed before and Pieter Dorsman mentioned Friday, the import ban had little to do with the risk of BSE (or “mad cow disease”):

More than anything it was a deliberate move influenced by US meatpackers to manipulate prices. Even in Canada prices somehow remained higher than where they should have been despite the glut of beef.

Reducing this sort of rent-seeking behavior is a very compelling argument for continued progress in dismantling trade barriers in food products.

Orin Kerr of the Volokh Conspiracy takes note of an AP article (gasp) leaking grand jury testimony from Karl Rove (also leaked to the ”New York Times, apparently) that indicates that Rove found out the name of covert agent/DC housewife/socialite Valerie Plame from syphilocon columnist Robert Novak—more or less the same way that Lewis “Scooter” Libby found out her identity.

Meanwhile, Steven Taylor works up just enough effort to care about the case, which I have to say is probably more effort than I could work up. But, you know, as the token Americanist blogger in the blogosphere, I guess I should at least pretend to care…

Update: This would tend to reinforce Jon Podhoretz’s theory of events (☣), although I don’t necessarily believe Judith Miller is the target of the investigation.

Puerto Rico had an “Anne Heche moment” today when voters approved a referendum that may eventually lead to another referendum that would amend the commonwealth’s constitution to get rid of one house of the legislature and create a unicameral Legislative Assembly starting in 2009.

While in the post-Wesberry v. Sanders era (the real “one man, one vote” case, rather than its predecessor Baker v. Carr) the existence of upper houses can be viewed as a vestige of an earlier era, nonetheless 49 states have retained an upper house, partly for reasons of inertia, but also (perhaps) taking heed of counsel from James Madison in Federalist 51:

In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates. The remedy for this inconveniency is to divide the legislature into different branches; and to render them, by different modes of election and different principles of action, as little connected with each other as the nature of their common functions and their common dependence on the society will admit. It may even be necessary to guard against dangerous encroachments by still further precautions.

State governments in general tend to be more legislature-dominant than the federal government—members of the judiciary in most states have to run for reelection, circumscribing their freedom of action, while the executive branch in many states is comprised of various (often competing) elected officials rather than a single governor heading an appointed cabinet—so the argument for Madison’s position in the case of states is rather sound.

þ: Steven Taylor, who notes a “pernicious Nebraska influence” going on here.

The latest revelations in the interminable Valerie Plame saga don’t seem to be making things any clearer, although Joe Gandelman tries to read the tea leaves and forsees political problems for the White House, even though the odds of Rove having committed a crime (at least by revealing Plame’s name) seem to be getting slim.

Meanwhile, it’s still All Plame, all the time over at JustOneMinute, if you can’t get enough of this excitement.

Robert Tagorda is deeply concerned about events surrounding embattled Philippine leader Gloria Macapagal Arroyo:

I find Arroyo’s actions utterly problematic, and they likely warrant removal. But, on a more fundamental level, I’m once again disturbed with the way that the entire country is handling the scandal. Mass demonstrations, military pronouncements, church declarations—every major step is being taken outside the realm of the constitution.

The Philippines have had a relatively turbulent history of extraconstitutional turnovers in power, as the Washington Post account makes clear:

So far, street demonstrations called by opposition parties have failed to draw crowds of the size that have toppled two Philippine presidents. Peaceful protests brought Aquino to power in 1986. A similar “People Power” movement hoisted Arroyo, then vice president, into the top spot four years ago to replace President Joseph Estrada, who was facing impeachment on graft charges.

While most unbiased observers would agree that the first “EDSA Revolution” that brought down the Marcos regime in 1986 was a legitimate response in the face of an authoritarian regime, two successive transfers of power outside the ordinary democratic process would not be good for building Philippine democracy—even if, as seems to be the case, the presidents being toppled are corrupt.

Today’s Washington Post carries a front-page article that (inadvertently) explains why empirically-oriented political scientists* like myself for the most part avoid doing anything that has anything close to real-world implications. And, it’s a no-win situation unless you’re a raging lefty “new politics” type (i.e., the sort who wouldn’t be hired by Democrats or Republicans to do this sort of work in the first place): somehow I doubt those in our discipline who want our discipline to be more “relevant” will be cheering the efforts of my future colleagues Peter Feaver and Christopher Gelpi to reinforce public support for the Iraq war and the War on Terror.

James Joyner’s comments further underscore the reasons for this reluctance:

Peter Baker and Dan Balz have a front page editorial, er “analysis,” at the Washington Post pointing out that President Bush is a politician who crafts his public speeches with his audience in mind. Even more damning is the suggestion that he hires experts to advise him.

Another data point: a few weeks ago, I made the mistake of trying to explain 50 years of empirical public opinion research to a reporter for the Jackson Free Press (for this article) who was asking why nobody voted in Jackson’s mayoral race, and all I got for it was being accused of being a “cynic.” Talk about shooting the messenger.

Here’s a new one: a parliamentary leader who wants to lose a vote of no confidence:

Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder will call a vote of confidence in the German parliament on Friday as part of his plan to hold early elections.

Schroeder is hoping he will lose the vote of deputies in the Bundestag, a move that would allow him to resign as chancellor and call fresh elections in the autumn—probably in mid-September.

He would then begin campaigning for a fresh mandate to push through tough economic reforms.

There’s some background on Germany’s rather unusual confidence procedures here at Wikipedia (the standard Wikipedia caveat applies)—there are actually two different types of confidence vote, one of which replaces the chancellor (the “constructive” vote that most comparative politics textbooks talk about) and the other of which requests (but does not require) that the president call new elections.

Yet another proposal to eliminate the telephone excise tax that dates back to the Spanish-American War has apparently been introduced in the Senate, although given the ballooning deficit and the typical political wrangling, I wouldn’t hold my breath on seeing the repeal happen anytime soon.

þ: Ars Technica.

More presidential election speculation from Hei Lun of Begging to Differ, who makes the early case for Hillary Clinton in 2008 after surveying the field and finding it, to put it mildly, wanting. Don’t forget, there’s only 1,223 shopping days left until Decision 2008!