How to Win an Election.  Phillip Freeman's new translation of a letter by Quintus Tullius Cicero is on the promotional circuit, including an excerpt in Foreign Affairs.  The FA excerpt comes with a piece of intellectual lint by James Carville attached to it.  Carville has an unsurprising "plus ca change" take on Cicero in his essay titled--Plus Ca Change.

Now, probably no one has taken more PCC interpretations of history than El Gringo, but, despite a suspiciously anachronistic translation ("business community") it's hard to see Cicero as a mirror of Carville or any modern, high level campaign.

Missing from Cicero, or at least the excerpt in FA, is any mention of the "issues."  From what I know of Roman history these would likely be agrarian reform (the 99%!) and various foreign wars--plus ca change indeed!

Instead, Cicero, like the boss of a 19th century political machine, a feudal grandee, or a mafia don, talks solely about doing favors for friends, pretend friends, and potential friends; and the favors the friends do in return.  ("Friends" is probably another term that suffers from being translated into the modern vernacular.)  

P.S. Located somewhere in the Gringo archives is a book with the same title by Stephen Shadegg.

Nestor Makhno

An interesting crowd is protesting the shooting of John Loxas by Scottsdale PD officer James Peters:  Scottsdale resident "Mike" Bakunin, Tempe resident Nestor Makhno,  and web-resident Tyburn Gallows.

Now this might indicate one of three things:

1. The reporter from the Republic is a credulous dope and thus can't be relied upon for any information.

2. The reporter for the Republic is in on the joke,  collaborating with her sources to put one over on her readers; and thus can't be relied upon for impartial information.

3. The reporter for the Republic is aware that these probably aren't her sources' real names but through laziness or lack of curiosity is does not ask why they are using aliases.  Are they ordinary citizens afraid of police retribution, or are they agitators by avocation and so unrepresentative of Scottsdale residents or Mr. Loxas' neighbors, friends, or family?  Readers should know.

Reporters questioning sources using aliases should treat them just like those who wish to be quoted anonymously: do not quote them at all, unless there is a compelling reason.  

Peggy Noonan's column for today is hidden behind a paywall.  If you pay, or get a copy of the paper edition, you will read her quoting a member of the Republican establishment saying that they [the loose confederation of right-wing organizations, old and new pols, current and ex staffers, think tankers, and shouting heads] are "Waiting for Jeb."

Great.

Just what the movement and the nation need, an ex-governor of a southern state named Bush, whose signature reform is a set of crappy education policies.  When W ran in 2000, I heard someone say that the wrong Bush son was running.  He may have been the right one then, but he's the wrong one now.

The rest of her column is devoted the new regulation requiring Catholic organizations to provide health insurance covering services they hold to be immoral.  Noonan believes that this was a mistake so big, that it cost him the election--let's hope she's right.

This action combine with the Komen Kontroversy have shown that there is very little about the left that is still liberal. "Liberal" connotes tolerance and an open mind.  Progressive is a much more apt description.  Progressive connotes pushing, impulsion--like some steam engine buried deep in Metropolis, or one of those other old B&W films about the modern, inhuman factory.

Around the middle of the 90s, one of the Republicans with a Muppet name--Newt or Grover--said that the social conservative/libertarian alliance that put Republicans in power was the "Leave Us Alone Party".  Soon after they got a taste of power, the social conservatives peeled away to form the "Save Terry Schiavo and Prevent Genetic Researchers from Creating Goat Men Party."  

Maybe the realization that freedom of conscience, the primary political goal of any religious group, is in danger will cement the two halves of "Leave Us Alone" back together again.

One More Random Prediction about the election:  Good economic news, like Friday's job report, will not save Obama.   When the One won, I predicted, probably to myself driving to work, that if he just stood out of the way; let the natural strength American economy take over; then turn on the charisma; take credit for any good news; and cruise to re-election--just like Clinton in 1996.  Even the Republicans did their part and elected an obstreperous mob to the House that he could use as a foil, just like in 1994.

Little did I know, but I did suspect a little, that 1) We were in a deeper economic hole than usual; and 2) Obama has no charisma, or charm, or wit for that matter.

Voters will not give him and the spasms of policy he is responsible for over the past four years credit for any economic good news.  Plus they are tired of the whining, the arrogance, and the non-stop attempts to shift blame and find scapegoats.

Again Clinton is the model.  The nation was peaceful and prosperous in 1999, and Clinton should have easily won a third term via his surrogate Gore--but voters tired of the Clinton drama and wary of Gore weirdness made it close enough for W to nick the election. 

Juan Williams was right in his exchange with Newt during the MLK debate.  Newt was insulting.  When a lot of people stop short search their conscience about race. 

They ask themselves, "Do I hate or fear minority X; believe that they are biolically inferior; or think it is OK to deny them human decency and civil rights?  No.  Therefore I am not a racist!"

They then feel free to make sweeping generalizations about groups of people and be a patronizing buttheads--just like Newt.  I know I would bristle (and do!) when I hear generalizations about my people: Americans, whites, Arizonans, Italians, males, etc.

Which makes me ask: What is the evidence supporting the "Culture of Poverty?"  After immersing myself in education research over the past several years I have learned that after accounting for race, poverty, teachers, peers, and a host of other observable factors, there is still a lot that is unexplained about why one kid learns more than another.  What objective, observable factors do the Cult o'Pov's have that backs their explanation of why minorities learn or earn less? 

"Does anybody else see this tragedy as a metaphor for the fate of the global economy in 2012?"  Only you and nearly every other person who commented on the NY Times article about the Costa Concordia fiasco.  It is an odd mindset that takes an apparent incident of literal irresponsible showboating by one person and holds it up as proof of:

• The inevitable corruption and recklessness of private, for-profit organizations; and
• The necessity and superiority of government oversight.

You don't have to read Hayek or Friedman, or even add their books to that unread pile next to your TV to see the absurdity of this line of thought given the evidence so far. 

Let us take a quick poll...

1. Please raise your hand if you are a Carnival shareholder and are glad to know that your ships' captains might occasionally veer off course to give a thrill to shorebound locals.

2. If you are not a Carnival shareholder, but rather some prole in a for-profit company, please raise your hand if is the policy of your company to encourage acts of risky exhibitionism because it will increase profits.

Out of curiosity, I wanted to see what Times readers made of the riots in Nigeria.  On one hand, the government was letting market forces to work (bad) by allowing gas prices to rise from $1.70/gallon to $3.50/gallon; on the other hand raising prices would decrease consumption of fossil fuels (good).  

But it looks like they silent on the issue.  

Happy Birthday NCLB!  We are approaching, or passed--I don't know which--the 10th anniversary of the passage of NCLB.  Many edu-sites (I know you read them all!) have offered retrospectives on the good and the bad of the law formerly known as NCLB. 

Since I spent most of that time on the cutting edge, or more accurately, as one of the knobs on the wide end of the cudgel, of NCLB implementation, I thought I would offer two impacts of the law.

1. NCLB cemented together a centrist coalition behind top-down, administrative accountability, leaving the choicers on the right and the lefty-levelers out on the cold edges of education reform.  

Republican policymakers have also pretty much thrown in the towel on keeping the federal government out of education.  Fifteen years ago, someone could run for Congress against Goals 2000.  Now local R's are willing to implement national standards and many other policies in return for a carrot from DC.

2. NCLB put integrity into school performance numbers.  When I started dabbling in test score data 10 years ago English langauge learners, special ed kids, and kids who "just weren't ready" were regularly exempted from testing, causing a misleading picture of what kids knew.  NCLB changed all this by requiring that 95% of kids test.  Graduation rates have started to become more accurate--although they are still largely fables.  If the 95% requirement goes in re-authorization, and US ED eases up on state grad rate reporting, watch these numbers start to "improve."        

Before you read Blink, or Nudge, or Twitch, or Blurt, or any other popularization of the latest research into human behavior glance through the articles in the Fall 2011 Journal of Economic Perspectives.  You will find that the science trying to find the physiological source of human behavior is still very new, and plagued with results that can't be reproduced.

If that's too heavy, you can read this article in the Journal of Serendipitous and Unexpected Results that finds positive reactions to scenes of human social interaction in the brain of a dead salmon.  (Or at least check out the brain scans of the dead fish.)

I confess that I am prejudiced against the line of research claiming to find that this gene or that section of the brain is responsible for altruism or risk-taking.  In college I took intro to psych from two old-school psychoanalysts.  We read R. D. Laing; we read Alice Miller.  One time, one of them remarked that every year or so he read about some area in the brain being linked to schizophrenia or some other disease,  yet nothing ever seemed to come of it.  On the list things I heard in college that have influenced (or haunted) me ever since, that has to rank in the top 10, maybe the top 5. 

One time, in a previous job, I met with mental health advocates convinced, convinced, that the science was all figured out; that the biological basis of mental disease was settled; that if the government just made the insurance companies help pay for the meds, things would be better.  Not the confrontational type,  and several years out of school, I only expressed the very slightest skepticism. 

But my old psych teacher still looks to be right.  

The typically moderate Bob Robb lays into a pair of public figures in a way that I can't recall reading from him before...

Brewer and Republican lawmakers apparently believe that the state's future depends on the economic clairvoyance of Arizona Commerce Authority President Don Cardon, to whom you wouldn't entrust your personal investment portfolio, and his sidekick Greater Phoenix Economic Council President Barry Broome, to whom you wouldn't entrust your kid's allowance.

And the next day we read this:

Cardon gone? Well that was fast

Is there some history here?  Have some rumors been circulating up and down the Jefferson street axis from the Capitol to the Republic newsroom?