Wow! What a mash-up of elegant analysis, faux mind-reading, and logic chopping.

Others have commented on the elegant analysis, so I'll skip over that for now.

Loury says "These things are a reflection of social, cultural, economic and political forces deeply enmeshed in the structure of American society. They are not merely the consequence of attitudes embraced by some more or less well-meaning but benighted black and white persons"

Umm, did Obama proclaim somewhere that we are supposed to ignore these "social, cultural, economic and political forces"? How does Loury know that's his intent? Doesn't Loury think Obama knows this?

Loury also says "In effect, he wants to put an end to (transcend, move beyond, overcome...) the anger, the disappointment and the subversive critique of America that arises from the painful experience of black people in this country."

Well, one out of three isn't bad. Obama does want to move past the anger, IMHO. And that's a really good thing, because 99% of the time, anger is dysfunctional--angry people fsck things up. I don't see where Obama wants to sweep aside disappointment or the subversive critique--rather, he wants to _extend_ them to the white community, as well.

Bottom line: Loury's fear is overwhelming his good judgment in large chunks of this piece.

Posted at March 31, 2008 1:48 PM in response to Losing the Narrative

1. Big differences between HRC and Edwards on NAFTA and other trade issues.

2. My concern isn't that she's money-driven; my concern is that she is a corporatist sell-out. Look at Mark Penn's work, and remember that he's one of her chief advisors. Look at the lack of accomplishments during Bill Clinton's presidency. Look at who her major donors are. A HRC presidency will be, at very best, incrementalist, with large pay-outs to large business interests.

In short, when she's at the tipping point, she's for the big guy/gal, rather than the little guy/gal--and that's why she isn't worthy of the Democratic nomination

Posted at November 2, 2007 8:34 AM in response to Hillary Clinton: A Different Kind of Democrat?

Based on my own experiences over the past 20 years, it's less the nature of the work you do than the fact that you spend 8+ hours per day working with people who generally are not particularly liberal. So it's important to keep those influences separate.

And you do see the other side, so you can end up more open-minded. The problem is not ending up so "open-minded" that your brains fall out!

Posted at October 16, 2007 9:59 AM in response to Thinking Like a Corporate Lawyer

But Joe, I do know the history; I've been involved with these issues since before you got your Ph.D. from MIT.

And I know that S&N are not anti-regulation; they have always called for a vision bigger than regulation, that includes regulation.

By the way, Joe, what were your three top accomplishments at DOE? For that matter, what are your top three career achievements? I ask only because it looks to me like you are acting out of jealousy.

Posted at October 12, 2007 1:48 PM in response to Time to end the phony, and historically inaccurate, debate

A person with the demonstrated virtue of Al Gore doesn't need me to defend him. But just in case some uninformed person might be mislead by mcs's posts:

1. Apple's environmental record is as good as or better than any other major US electronic manufacturer's. Some environmentalist groups have produced biased studies purporting to show that Dell or HP is better, but those studies amount to unsupported claims that "We think pollutant X is worse than pollutant Y."

2. The right-wing smears about Gore's house have been abundantly refuted.

The "average" home electricity use quoted by TCPR is a national average that includes apartments and mobile homes. In Gore's climatic zone, the East South Central (Dept. of Energy PDF), the average is much higher, thanks to hot, humid summers and cold winters. Within that zone, Gore's usage is three (not 20) times average, and his per-square-foot usage is squarely average.

The Gores are not an average family. He's an ex-VP with special security arrangements, and has live-in security staff. He and his wife both work on their many business and charitable undertakings out of their house, so they have space for offices and office staff. All that would be tough to cram in an average size house.

Gore buys the maximum allowable green electricity from the program offered by his utility.
Most of the electricity in TN comes from hydro and nuclear, and so doesn't generate all that much CO2 anyway,

Moreover, Gore buys carbon credits to offset his carbon use. Can you show any evidence of Bush doing the same thing?

Posted at October 12, 2007 1:38 PM in response to Who Will Own the Climate Change Franchise? The Clintons or Al Gore?

As far as S&N go, why don't you let them just speak for themselves.

I'm happy to do that; how about if you let them speak for themselves, instead of attributing positions to them that aren't theirs?

Posted at October 11, 2007 8:52 AM in response to Technology, Public Investment, and Global Economic Development

Dan-

Thanks for keeping the conversation going--I think we're getting somewhere--sorry if that doesn't sound ornery and peeved enough (grin).

Thank you for your praise of my wicked cool message. That's what I get from S&N. But I've actually read what they say, both in their posts here, and their book, and their white papers. It's easier to read some of the criticisms here, but that's not what S&N are saying.

You say:
The message I got from them is that we need to bury the "it's important to stop climate change" and "saving the planet" ledes, and focus on the opportunities instead. The problem, apparently, is that if you say you are out to save the planet, then that logically implies that there is something the planet needs to be saved from. But of course to admit that is to suggest that there are things worth fearing in the world.

But in their post today, S&N note:

"In our book, we compare global warming to nuclear war (page 7) and describe it as an "existential" threat (page 8) to human civilization. On page 13, in the introduction, we write, "global warming will likely trigger droughts, water scarcities, and famines." And on page 252 we write the following: "Over the next fifty years, if we continue to burn as much coal and oil as we've been burning, the heating of the earth will cause the sea levels to rise and the Amazon to collapse and, according to scenarios commissioned by the Pentagon, will trigger a series of wars over basic resources like food and water.""

That doesn't sound to me like burying the lede.

Let me cut to the real point. It's not about "positive thinking." It's about using the well-established fact that fear grabs people's attention, but really sucks as a long-term motivator.

What works is using fear to get attention, and then immediately providing a positive solution.

Of course people were scared of the Axis winning the war. But what kept people going wasn't fear, but hope for a better future.

You say "Not me. But millions of people work their asses off, and sock money away for their retirements, because they are scared of losing their jobs; losing their healthcare and facing catastrophic illness; and of being old, poor and destitute. So it's just wrong that fear can not motivate people to work for a very long time on very important projects."

So you really thing you're all that different from those millions of people? That by itself should be a warning flag. And I'd love to have some data on that. Here's some data for you:

Long-term fear is physiologically bad for people.
http://www.nais.org/publications/ismagazinearticle.cfm?Itemnumber=144286&sn.ItemNumber=145956&tn.ItemNumber=145958
http://psych.fullerton.edu/mwhite/306PDF/306%20Anxiety%20Disorders.pdf

Let me be absolutely clear--you're saying that being chronically anxious is a survival trait? Oh, but only for other people, not you. Hmmm, something wrong with this picture.

In my world, the reason the overwhelming majority of people persevere under hardship is less about fear, and more about the good things they can get by "socking money away" and having "their healthcare" and having a good retirement.

Sure, it's possible to go overboard, so that one ends up ignoring real threats--but S&N, and I, are far, far from that.

One last point. You say: "In the end, the most important reason to halt global warming is that global warming is bad- it's very, very bad. People should be afraid of it; their fear is healthy."

I sort of agree--an initial fear can be healthy--and N&S agree, as my quotes above undeniably show. But to stay scared is self-defeating. The fear should orient a person to what the problem is; then they should move past the fear, and take productive (hopefully inspired) action.

Again, I appreciate the conversation--much more meaty than most of the stuff I see on TPMCafe!

Posted at October 11, 2007 8:20 AM in response to Shadowboxing

1. You are attributing a lot of things to S&N that just ain't so. They aren't embarrassed by their own substantive views, they aren't picking unnecessary fights, and they don't have only themselves to blame.

2. S&N do not call for us to "should pretend the whole debate is about opportunity and national greatness and what-not." What they are calling for is to put global warming into a context of hope and greatness, so that we can inspire people to do something about it, instead of scaring them into inaction. There's a big difference between saying "There's a threat, and here's how we can fix that threat, and have good jobs, and restore American leadershiop" and saying, "Global warming is coming! Omigod, we've got to do stuff, and it's going to be hard and bad!"

If you don't think that most of the current Kyoto-style proposals sound like "hard and bad" to most Americans, then we really disagree.

Posted at October 11, 2007 7:51 AM in response to Technology, Public Investment, and Global Economic Development

Linda-

Are you sure you're not an economist? You certainly have an economist's disregard for facts--or maybe just accuracy. It's vorkosigan, not vokrosigan--you know, "so long as they spell my name right." And only one of S&N has a Berkeley degree.

And my reading of S&N is that they're calling for a return to balance, rather than calling for strength, pride, etc. to the exclusion of other virtues.

Your words remind me of that old saw about about giving a dog a bad name, and then kicking it because you don't like its name. Careful with that hammer, Linda, you might break a few things that you think are nails.

Posted at October 11, 2007 7:27 AM in response to Chardonnay and Neetch-O's: The Political Philosophy of Nordhaus and Shellenberger

1. You're yanking S&N out of context. They obvious respect values in addition to srength, pride, etc.

2. What's with the name-calling? Is that how feminist philosophers at Brandeis do it? "Chardonnay-besotted"? Good grief, isn't that methodologically challenged? Did you study under Maslow?'

3. I'm shocked, shocked, I tell you, to find out that people can use good values to bad ends! You mean that individualism can be taken too far? That price can be taken too far? Thank God that can't happen with any of the values you cherish, Linda.

4.Only ignorance or a misreading can allow for your statement that "S&N’s attack on the do-gooder environmentalists rests completely, as it must, on two pillars: their polling and their philosophy." Their attack rests on their real-world experience. As someone who has consulted on environmental and energy issues to NGOs, governments, and businesess for over 20 years, their experience fits with mine.

S&N explicitly said:

"the two of us had spent all of our professional careers, about thirty years between us, working for the country's largest environmental organizations and foundations, as well as many smaller grassroots ones. Like most of our colleagues, we tended to see global warming as a problem of pollution, whose solution would be found in pollution limits."

***

"After we created the Apollo proposal, we did what new political coalitions on the left tend to do: round up endorsements from other groups. And while we succeeded in getting endorsements and letters of support for Apollo's principles from businesses, unions, and most of the large national environmental groups, we were baffled, and then angered, by what happened next.

Environmental lobbyists told us that while they supported Apollo's vision, they would do nothing to support it in concrete ways, either in Congress or during the 2004 elections. Those of us who had created Apollo had made the decision to focus on jobs and energy independence, because they were far higher priorities among voters than stopping global warming. In particular, we discovered that investment in clean-energy jobs, to get free of oil, was more popular with voters than talk of global warming, clean air, and regulation. But environmental leaders thought our nonenvironmental and nonregulatory focus was a vice, not a virtue.

Fearing that it would distract Democrats' attention away from stopping the George W. Bush administration's energy bill, which included billions in new subsidies for coal and oil, environmental leaders eventually asked us to keep Apollo legislation from being considered by Congress. Still the good soldiers, we did as we were asked, and Apollo was, briefly, withdrawn. But it hardly mattered: the Bush energy bill passed anyway."

5. Based on your earlier posts, I was very interested in what you had to say. This posting, for me, is bizarre. Selective quotation, falsely attributing positions to S&N that they do not take, and assuming your conclusions (in the face of contrary facts!) strike me as the signs of a second-rate argument. I know you don't have a second-rate mind, so I'm at a loss, here.

Posted at October 11, 2007 5:24 AM in response to Chardonnay and Neetch-O's: The Political Philosophy of Nordhaus and Shellenberger