Air mattresses in the mercenary Congress

Echoing my recent post on the current obsession among congressmen over avoiding all appearances of attachment to DC, the Washington Post today published an article about members of Congress sleeping on the floors of their offices.    Many of these are Tea Partiers who apparently have not realized that using their office as a home involves freeloading on the federal government for plumbing and electricity, possibly in violation of the tax code.  I don't care about this, but I would like my representatives to act like professionals with responsibilities of national importance. 

I agree with the Wayne Gilchrest quote:  "It's lonely. You're isolated. And it's in some ways, it's sort of pathetic." 

Congress is not summer camp.

Chris Lee in the mercenary Congress

As some of my research in the past has dealt with voter reaction to scandal accusations against members of Congress, I found the rapid resignation Congressman Chris Lee (R-NY) intriguing.  The story got a lot a fast headlines yesterday, but really very little in-depth or editorial coverage from what I can tell.   It is likely that Rep. Lee’s immediate and conclusive response saved him from the scrutiny that was applied to Senators John Ensign and David Vitter, who have (thus far successfully) endured in the face of what must be described as more serious scandals, albeit at the cost of his political career.

Conceivably, Lee believed the scandal would play as particularly tawdry with older voters because it involved anonymous communication over the internet.   But the basic gist of the story is really nothing more than “Lee intended to cheat on his wife, and was mildly dishonest in the way he went about it.”  This obviously reflects a serious personal moral failing, but it is nothing particularly unusual or surprising, nor does it call into question Lee’s ability to do his job.  It is pretty clear that Bill Clinton was guilty of much worse. 

Nevertheless, the main purpose of this post is not to posit an opinion on whether Lee should resign over these particular actions.  Rather, I want to argue that recent trends in how the role of members of Congress as leaders and politicians is viewed, and how members see their own roles, have made an increase in this sort of activity inevitable.  In particular, congressmen no longer “live” in Washington.  The see themselves as mercenaries for their district or their cause, marching to war during the week, leaving their families in their home districts, to hopefully reunite with on weekends amid a heavy schedule of constituent service and fundraisers.

This recent article by Lisa Miller in Newsweek shows how starkly things have changed from the recent past, where it was routine for congressional families to socialize with each other regardless of party lines. Miller notes that among 46 freshman members of Congress interviewed, “only one said he or she was planning to move to Washington with spouse and children in tow”.    Perhaps most tellingly, “Chris Gibson” (like Lee, from upstate New York) “plans to sleep on a blow-up mattress in his Washington office—and then hightail it back on weekends to Kinderhook, New York, where his young family resides.” 

Miller regrets that the lack of Congressional spouses in Washington has reduced bipartisan collegiality in the body.  But how can it also not increase the sense of loneliness that members feel on the job?  Moreover, the simple fact that many members have only temporary housing in Washington must encourage the sense that they are always on the road, always in campaign mode, always needing to be ready to change their lives, their routines, and perhaps their political actions, at slightest sign of crisis or controversy.  Can we really expect our elected officials to view themselves as serious thinkers and statesmen when they are essentially living the home lives of college frat boys?  These are the leaders who are tasked to determine the direction that our national policies will take us, and voters seems to begrudge them the basic wish to live normal family lives in the city where they work.

Perhaps if Lee has moved his family to DC with him, he would have never experienced whatever sense of loneliness or descent into immaturity that drove him to solicit anonymous sex over the internet.  And even if still committed these actions, morally repugnant but professionally inconsequential, maybe he would have has the stability and resolve to tough out the scandal if he and his family ever really saw Washington as their home.  In the recent political climate, no legislator wants to be tagged as a “career politician” or “Washington insider”.  But I believe the constant pressure to style oneself an “outsider” within Congress has had severe costs on both the professional and personal lives of members.

Tucson and Gun Rights

As I am sure any reader can tell from the infrequent rate of my postings so far, I do not intend for this blog to consist of my personal reactions to current political events.  For the most part, I don’t think they would be that interesting.  But the tragic incident in Tucson this past weekend is difficult to leave without comment.  Rather than spout platitudes about the state of American political discourse that so many others have, instead I will leverage this opportunity to state my general position on the issue of gun violence.  It is of course possible that Jared Loughner was in some way inspired to commit these acts by some of the hateful rhetoric that has been thrown out there, but it is completely obvious to me that he was enabled by the laws permitted him to wield a weapon that no private individual (regardless of mental instability) should be able to own.

Simply put, I think private handgun ownership should be illegal (I don’t really care one way or the other about rifles and such.)  I believe this position is clearly at odds with the 2^nd amendment, and I would like to see the 2^nd amendment repealed.  It is infuriating to me that we constantly infringe on freedoms in countless ways to fight a terrorist “threat" that has killed over the course of my lifetime barely more Americans than gun violence kills every month.   On this issue, I would actually be in favor of the most strict construction of the 2^nd amendment: that it bars all attempts by the government to impose restrictions on weapons ownership.  I think under this interpretation, the amendment would certainly be quickly repealed, or at least modified to allow much wider regulation than is allowed under current jurisprudence.

It seems like the supporters of gun rights advance two general classes of utilitarian arguments: first, than gun ownership directly prevents more crimes than it causes (e.g. if guns were illegal, only criminals would have guns); and second, that private gun ownership is a shield against government tyranny at some point in the future.  

I think the first class of arguments are laughable and rather short-sighted.  It may be true that a lot of criminals would still be able to obtain guns in the short term, but at least these would eventually be taken off the street, even if it takes fifty years.  After all, how many crimes are committed with a fifty-year old weapon?  (Well, obviously more would be if no more recent weapons were available, but still…) Moreover, the fact that only people with criminal intent would have guns may allow us to thwart more crimes before they happen merely by discovering the weapon that the criminal intended to use.  I’m not really going to address these arguments in any detail, because they are completely silly to me. 

As for the second class, it doesn’t seem to me that gun advocates are looking at what the likely forms of tyranny would actually look like.   Once this is considered, private handgun ownership almost certainly exacerbates rather than alleviates the threat of such tyranny.  First, I should note that the tyranny feared would likely involve the suspension of many facets of the constitution; I doubt the second amendment would be much of a shield under this scenario.  But most importantly, the sort of “tyranny” we tend to see in nations that are ostensible democracies usually results in the subjugation of minorities that are disliked by the majority, not subjugation of majority populations by powerful minorities.    Violence tends to favor those with numerical strength, while politics at least gives equal weight to discrete discourses at a certain point in the process.  That is, while minorities may be voted down by majorities, they still have a chance to make their case.  And in many instances, this principled case is victorious over the course of time.  But if the game is just “our guns” versus “your guns”, the more morally powerful case really has no chance.   Just look at the Jim Crow South: an armed majority did nothing to resist that tyranny; rather it actively aided in its persistence.  And the civil rights movement was ultimately won not by exercise of the 2^nd amendment, but exercise of the 1^st.

In the case of creeping tyranny in the US, the tyrant will come to power with the support of the majority.    The more that majority is armed, the less the principled case for a return to democracy and a restoration of civil and human rights will be heard.

Honestly, I can’t think of a single reform that would be of more immediately benefit to our country than repeal of the 2^nd amendments.

I know a lot of gun rights advocates claim that gun owners simply don’t “like” guns (i.e. they don’t understand the enjoyment that people get out of them).  At least for me, this is true…I have no desire to ever shoot a gun, and I don’t really like violent movies or TV shows (or at least, those that I like I like despite their violence, or because of the way they handle the consequences of violence).  But I will say this: I love poker, and it plays a large role in my life, and I understand that many people also believe poker is a considerable social ill.  If there was a referendum that simultaneously outlawed both gun ownership and poker, I would vote for it in a heartbeat.

 

Top 6 Songs of 2010

Several years ago, I used to send out a list of my Top 6 albums of the year every New Year's Eve.  I don't really buy enough albums anymore to make a credible list of the bests albums of the year, so I am just going to limit this my favorite songs.  It is remarkable to me how dominated this list is by female singers, considering how averse I used to be bands fronted by women.  This is even true of the songs that just missed the list (Sprawl II by Arcade Fire would probably have been #7, while I only excluded Crown on the Ground by Sleigh Bells and Bad Romance by Lady Gaga because they were actually released in 2009).

6.) Beach House - "Zebra"
I actually think the band is a bit overrated given what indie critical darlings they were....many of their songs put me to sleep.  But the chromatic ascension to start the chorus on this one really hooked me in.

 5.) Vampire Weekend - "Giving Up the Gun"
"Contra" would have definitely been my album of the year if it weren't so damn consistent.

4.) Sleigh Bells - "Rill Rill"
"Treats" would have definitely been my album of the year if it weren't so damn inconsistent.

 
3.) Klaxons - "Echoes"
This song was all the rage in England when I was there in August....and you know I had to have some Britpop represented!

My top two picks are both from relatively new bands still obscure enough not to have wikipedia entries, one a single-woman project and the other a husband and wife duo.  But they were my two musical obsessions this year...one the perfect winter song with Bjork-inspired vocals and beats, icy electronics, and cathedral harmonies that evoke finally waking up from a long hibernation; the other, the perfect summer song with lo-fi guitar and keyboard backed by retro girl-group vocals singing of sailing at night off the coast of Florida.   I've probably spoiled the suspense now, but here they are...

2.) Glasser - "Apply"

(It seems like many of the videos for this song online are from an earlier version that I don't like nearly as much.  This is the (IMO superior) album version.)

1.) Tennis - "Marathon"

(I don't think the song has a music video, and all the live performances I can find are terrible quality.)

The Sing Off Update

I got caught up on The Sing Off tonight between Atlantic City trips.  There are five groups left as of when I am writing this; the fourth (and penultimate) episode airs tomorrow, but I probably won't be able to watch it until Sunday.   I think overall, the judges have generally made good decisions....the eliminations of Men of Note on the first episode and Eleventh Hour the second were easy choices; the other groups knocked off in the first two episodes (Pitch Slapped and the Whiffenpoofs), could have defensibly made it through, but I don't miss them.  Groove for Thought, eliminated last night, was a talented group, but they didn't really have the range to be a serious contender to win.

At this point, one group has clearly emerged as the clear favorite in my mind: Street Corner Symphony.  They have been by far the most consistent performers, and they have shown a wide range without pandering to the judges.   I haven't heard a lot of Radiohead acapella, and I thought their rendition was the highlight of last night's episode.  If this year parallels last year's vote, SCS's superior blend and arrangements will pull off the victory over pure showmanship of On the Rocks, with The Backbeats finishing third.....but I am inclined to believe this year will go a little differently and Committed will make the finals over OTR.   I almost think The Backbeats are the most likely of all to make the finals, simply because they are the last group remaining the any female members (the competition started with 6 male groups and 4 coed).

Circuit Ring!

I'll write a more about this tournament a little later on when I have more time, but I won a WSOP Circuit title yesterday in the Omaha Hi-Lo event, certainly my biggest poker accomplishment thus far (although not quite my biggest cash).  Here's the article from the WSOP website:

Nicholas Goedert Score High Marks at Harrah's Resort

Partisanship & Ideology in Southern CDs

I thought I would post a small tidbit from the data I have been looking at recently for my dissertation on congressional redistricting. My data set here consists of all congressional races from 1972 through 2008, a bit more than 8000 races.

Although somewhat tangential to my research, one of the major controversies in redistricting is whether 1982 amendments to the Voting Rights Act, thought to mandate the creation of “majority-minority” districts in states with significant racial minority populations (e.g. a districts where the majority of the population was African American), actually hurt the substantive political interests of those (presumable liberal) minorities by increasing the likelihood of electing Republicans in other districts.  This was particularly relevant in the South, where since 1992, many white moderate Democrats in Congress have been replaced by either African-American liberals or very conservative Republicans.  So do these additional Republicans more than offset the gains made by the African-American delegation in the South through majority-minority districting?  The chart below, while very crude in its measurements, offers some insight.

Effect of Southern region on partisanship and ideology of congressional delegation, pre- and post- majority-minority districting constraints

		1972-1990			1992-2008
Probability of Republican Seat (Probit)
State GOP Pres. Vote		2.573	**		2.560	**
		(0.266)			(0.203)
Nat'l GOP Cong. Vote		2.200	**		2.006	**
		(0.486)			(0.372)
South Indicator		-0.432	**		-0.154	**
		(0.047)			(0.055)
Constant		-0.003			0.036
		(0.044)			(0.027)
Estimated Ideology of Representative (Linear Regr.)
State GOP Pres. Vote		0.976	**		1.225	**
		(0.064)			(0.067)
Nat'l GOP Cong. Vote		0.568	**		0.343	**
		(0.119)			(0.128)
South Indicator		0.041	**		-0.023
		(0.011)			(0.019)
Constant		-0.046			0.076
		(0.011)			(0.009)
n		4342			3914
**p<.01

This chart measures the likelihood that a congressional district will elect a Republican, and how conservative that member of congress will be (measured by Poole & Rosenthal DW-NOMINATE scores), controlling for two electoral trends.  The first is the average Republican vote in presidential elections over the course of a decade at the statewide level (so that this value does not depend on the actual gerrymander).   The second is the Republican vote at the national level in a given congressional election year. 

All these variables are scaled such that positive values indicate a Republican/conservative leaning and negative values indicate a Democratic/liberal leaning.  In all cases, the coefficients on the two electoral trend controls are large, positive, and highly statistically significant, but this doesn’t really tell us anything that isn’t already obvious.  It simply indicates that (a) states that vote Republican in presidential elections are also more likely to elect Republicans and conservatives to Congress, and (b) more Republicans and conservatives are elected to Congress in years when Republicans win a greater share of the national congressional vote.

What we are interested in here is the “South indicator”, which takes the value 1 for all congressional district elections in twelve Southern states, and a 0 otherwise.  What we are essentially asking with this variable is “Do Southern states elect a more conservative congressional delegation than we would expect given their presidential voting trends?”  And as we see from the different coefficient values in the two columns, the answer heavily depends on what time period you are talking about.

In districts drawn prior to the enactment of the VRA amendments creating majority-minority districts (the 1970s and 1980s), we see a significant negative value on the probability of a Republican win, and a significant and large positive value for ideology.  This indicates that while the South was much more likely to elect Democrats than the rest of the country, these delegation were nevertheless substantially more conservative than we would expect even from presidential voting patterns. 

Yet in the 1990s and 2000s, when many more districts were drawn to assure African-American representation in the South, both of these coefficient values are slightly negative.  This indicates that while the Republican party achieved more success in the South during this period in terms of number of electoral victories, the overall delegations in these states were actually slightly more liberal than we would expect from the presidential voting data (albeit by a statistically insignificant margin).   This doesn’t mean more liberal overall, since the South was also becoming dramatically more Republican at the presidential level during this period.  But it would appear that to the extent that these delegations became more conservative, it is because voters in the region began voting more Republican at all levels, and if anything, the new redistricting regimes in the South impeded these trends in Congress rather than exacerbating them.

As racial gerrymandering is not the focus of my dissertation, I discovered this through informal exploration of my data and am aware of the many methodological criticisms that could be brought against it conclusion.  But I thought it was an interesting little finger on the scale in the debate over substantive and descriptive representation.