US Politics: “How did we come to this...”

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

The CDC developed it's own test because the CDC always develops its own tests. Other countries develop their own tests as well. And I saw interviews with WHO senior personnel about the story that was going around, about the CDC being offered the WHO test and rejecting it. The WHO never offered their test to the CDC because...the CDC develops it's own tests. And those tests are usually among the best in the world and are offered to other nations, particularly third-world nations.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/18/health/who-coronavirus-tests-cdc/index.html

I should clarify my statement; develop its own test that ignored the protocols suggested by the WHO.

Even the article doesn't give a clear answer, other than that the CDC always develops its own tests.

[Fragile Bird]

Just now, The Great Unwashed said:

I should clarify my statement; develop it's own test that ignored the protocols suggested by the WHO.

Even the article doesn't give a clear answer, other than that the CDC always develops its own tests.

The issue with the US test was contamination at the CDC labs. That’s a huge stain on their reputation.

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

The issue with the US test was contamination at the CDC labs. That’s a huge stain on their reputation.

Yep. It makes Democratic arguments for good governance that much harder.

[DMC]

16 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

I know it's a moonshot, but it might be time to start looking into how to blunt the effect of political appointees on agencies that we rely upon to be neutral and working in the best interests of everyone in the U.S. 

Independent or insulated agencies tend to be neglected in funding.  This isn't a Trump or even GOP problem, it's a structural problem.  The other two options to this are politicization or centralization - where the policy decisions of agencies are more closely overseen by the executive.  There's this totally awesome paper Andy Rudalevige wrote about 15 years ago demonstrating the tradeoff between politicization and centralization, and how administrations have to choose one or the other if they want to influence and/or improve an agency.  For some dumbfounding reason the paper never got published and I can't even find it online anymore, but it informed my dissertation maybe more than any other work.  Anyway, within that tradeoff, politicization is preferable to centralization. 

It may seem counterintuitive, but with centralization, there is a stronger tendency for bureaucratic expertise to be overridden by political asshats in the West Wing.  With politicization - or staffing the upper levels of an agency with political appointees - there's a much greater chance of quality coordination from the careerist bureaucrats to the White House.  The appointees act as a fulcrum, to steal a term.  I don't have any idea about the CDC specifically, but these are generally the options with agencies:

1. Insulate them and hope they can maintain competency on a shoestring budget.
2. Centralize them and increase the costs of coordination while decreasing its clarity.
3. Politicize them and set up a clear command structure and SOPs.

Politicization wins in my book. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 hour ago, The Great Unwashed said:

Seconded @Ser Scot A Ellison

Thank you

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, DMC said:

Independent or insulated agencies tend to be neglected in funding.  This isn't a Trump or even GOP problem, it's a structural problem.  The other two options to this are politicization or centralization - where the policy decisions of agencies are more closely overseen by the executive.  There's this totally awesome paper Andy Rudalevige wrote about 15 years ago demonstrating the tradeoff between politicization and centralization, and how administrations have to choose one or the other if they want to influence and/or improve an agency.  For some dumbfounding reason the paper never got published and I can't even find it online anymore, but it informed my dissertation maybe more than any other work.  Anyway, within that tradeoff, politicization is preferable to centralization. 

It may seem counterintuitive, but with centralization, there is a stronger tendency for bureaucratic expertise to be overridden by political asshats in the West Wing.  With politicization - or staffing the upper levels of an agency with political appointees - there's a much greater chance of quality coordination from the careerist bureaucrats to the White House.  The appointees act as a fulcrum, to steal a term.  I don't have any idea about the CDC specifically, but these are generally the options with agencies:

1. Insulate them and hope they can maintain competency on a shoestring budget.
2. Centralize them and increase the costs of coordination while decreasing its clarity.
3. Politicize them and set up a clear command structure and SOPs.

Politicization wins in my book. 

I'm assuming that presidential appointment and confirmation by the Senate gives the appointee an imprimatur for more negotiating power when it comes to appropriations, etc.?

I understand the argument for that, and don't particularly have a useful alternative solution, but I'm wondering about the utility of such a method in times of such extreme polarization, when policy directives are often indistinguishable from political ones, and how the ensuing loss of public confidence impacts the mission of these agencies.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

36 minutes ago, Fez said:

Nah. The serious attempt to get rid of AOC will be next year, during redistricting. New York is losing at least one congressional seat, maybe two seats. There will probably be a strong push on the state legislature to carve up her seat. There's even a reasonable good government excuse they could give. It's on both sides of the East River! They could give some of the district to Carolyn Maloney (so her district is no longer both sides either), a bit to Jose Serrano, some to Grace Meng, and the rest to Eliot Engel/Jaamal Bowman. And all of them would give up a bit to the districts on their other borders to keep all the population sizes in line.

Her only option would be a race against an incumbent, but all of them are very secure in their seats (except Engel, but I suspect he loses today, and I don't think AOC would beat Bowman in that district). Otherwise, I think she'd need to try primarying Schumer, who is up 2022, if she wants to stay in Congress. But Schumer is far more popular and organized in New York than people give him credit for, and I really don't think that's a fight AOC would win. Or she could run against Cuomo for governor in 2022; but he's looking pretty untouchable right now (and also, I do think AOC would run better than Cynthia Nixon, but Cuomo crushed Nixon in the 2018 primary).

Do you seriously think any congressional Democrat in NYC could raise a higher profile than AOC? 

Seriously, find me a brighter young political star in the country. I had one, but life isn't fair sometimes. 

[DMC]

12 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

I'm assuming that presidential appointment and confirmation by the Senate gives the appointee an imprimatur for more negotiating power when it comes to appropriations, etc.?

Yes, but most political appointees to agencies do not have confirmable positions.  The advantages of politicization have to do with ensuring the careerists are provided with the resources needed to secure "positive" policy outcomes.  (Admittedly, "positive" means what the president and his party wants, so that's not always the greatest.  But in the case of the CDC, I think even the Trump administration would want to make sure, ya know, they're doing their best to avoid a global pandemic.)

The effect of polarization is definitely very concerning for certain agencies - like, say, the DOJ - but again I don't think politicizing the CDC would have a similar adverse effect.  It's hard to think of a political motive the president could abuse based on better coordination/information from disease control experts.  Though, of course, if one president was gonna find such a motive...

42 minutes ago, Fez said:

There will probably be a strong push on the state legislature to carve up her seat.

I don't understand why you're under the impression the Democratic state legislature would ever target AOC like that.  One would think the seat(s) they will target for elimination will be held by a Republican.

[Centrist Simon Steele]

I do expect her to show growth, yes. This idea that you get "dragged by both sides" because you're reflective and show you want to grow and be better is utter nonsense, and that so many support it is precisely why we have Trump. Expect more from elected leaders than lying and "spinning." 

[Centrist Simon Steele]

2 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I'll own that.  I was wrong.

I've always respected you, Scot, but I think you're a great example for what we should demand from people. o7

[Centrist Simon Steele]

2 hours ago, Rippounet said:

Just saw an article about Wall Street billionaires (Stephen Schwartzman of Blackstone and David Solomon of Goldman Sachs.) funding the campaign of one Michelle Caruso-Cabrera in order to defeat AOC in New York's 14th district's primary.

Because of course having one democratically elected radical in Congress is utterly unacceptable.

And she's not even that radical. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

3 minutes ago, DMC said:

I don't understand why you're under the impression the Democratic state legislature would ever target AOC like that.  One would think the seat(s) they will target for elimination will be held by a Republican.

Just to be a contrarian, because I agree, are politicians all that different from middle management? I've worked for three major corporations since leaving politics, and the last two I quit told me the same thing: smart people are not who we promote. And shocking, both companies experienced serious scandals, and the one I work for now will probably too, because again, they actively want to promote idiots. At all three companies, having no college experience was seen has better than having some graduate level experience. People want, need, crave stupidity. It makes them feel safe. 

But all my bosses swore our hospital would reopen on April 12th. Haven't been to work in over two months, with one random week to close all my open projects (hint, I did nothing, all the projects are still completely fucked, but the last time I tried to show my bosses this they looked at me cluelessly, because shocking, not a single one of them ever even took intro to accounting. 

But hey, when your boss that's 20 years older than you calls a five or six sentence paragraph an essay, well shit.......

And again,  a HOSPITAL, the biggest in your locale. Man we're fucked. 

I would really just like to understand how doctors don't know that they need to sign......documents. It's stunning. 

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, DMC said:

Yes, but most political appointees to agencies do not have confirmable positions.

I forget that there are literally thousands of presidential appointees.

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Just to be a contrarian, because I agree, are politicians all that different from middle management?

Well, they have to deal with the press.  Otherwise I'm not sure I understand why you're asking me about this in relation to AOC potentially being ousted by the New York state legislature.  She definitely has enemies within the Democratic party and the New York Democratic party, but she also already has tons of clout.  Her position is secure.

4 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

I forget that there are literally thousands of presidential appointees.

Indeed.  If you're interested, I'd strongly recommend the work of David Lewis.  He's..my advisor's advisor.  So I guess like my grandpa.

[Ormond]

18 minutes ago, DMC said:

I don't understand why you're under the impression the Democratic state legislature would ever target AOC like that.  One would think the seat(s) they will target for elimination will be held by a Republican.

There may be some geographical constraints on that. There are only six congressional districts in New York state held by Republicans -- two of them are in far western Long Island and the other four way upstate. If the census results show that it is New York City itself that has grown the least in population, then even with super-gerrymandering it may be difficult for them not to have to eliminate one of the Democratic-held districts in NYC and its close suburbs. 

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Ormond said:

If the census results show that it is New York City itself that has grown the least in population,

I mean, I haven't been up there in quite a bit, but I'm still assuming the population loss is coming from upstate, not NYC.  Wikipedia says its grown 2% since 2010.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

6 minutes ago, DMC said:

Well, they have to deal with the press.  Otherwise I'm not sure I understand why you're asking me about this in relation to AOC potentially being ousted by the New York state legislature.  She definitely has enemies within the Democratic party and the New York Democratic party, but she also already has tons of clout.  Her position is secure.

Do they really though? Only those in leadership or ones trying to make a name for themselves really do. I'd guess an overwhelming majority would avoid the press if they could (and my only negative experience in politics has been with the press, so fuck that asshole). 

AOC can cut both ways. She does indeed have a lot of clout with the base, but she also crossed and cut down someone of high value. Much higher value than she could dream to have for decades. I think she's fine, but she'd be a fool to not understand that the knives are out all around her. She did fuck with a lot of peoples' money, after all. 

[Ormond]

6 minutes ago, DMC said:

I mean, I haven't been up there in quite a bit, but I'm still assuming the population loss is coming from upstate, not NYC.  Wikipedia says its grown 2% since 2010.

In which case they probably could solve it by eliminating a Republican district, especially if they lose just one instead of two seats. 

However, one thing that hasn't been discussed much on this board is to what extent Covid-19 has disrupted the census, and if any such disruption has been worse in Democratic-leaning areas. Certainly at this point poorer areas would almost surely have a lower response rate to the census just because of having less Internet access.

[DMC]

4 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Do they really though? Only those in leadership or ones trying to make a name for themselves really do.

They're all trying to make a name for themselves.  That's why they were stupid and vain enough to run for public office. 

On AOC, let's not overestimate the need for "revenge" on behalf of Joe Crowley among entrenched Dems.  They may not like AOC, but they know which way the wind is blowing and aren't gonna invest their own capital in going after her simply for seeking retribution.

3 minutes ago, Ormond said:

Certainly at this point poorer areas would almost surely have a lower response rate to the census just because of having less Internet access.

Yeah covid is almost certainly going to lead to undercounting the poor even more so than regular times.  It's a good point, and a sad one.

[Fez]

51 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Do you seriously think any congressional Democrat in NYC could raise a higher profile than AOC? 

In their own districts? Yes, absolutely. The names I mentioned have had their seats for ages, and, unlikely Crowley, are demographic/cultural fits for their districts.

45 minutes ago, DMC said:

I don't understand why you're under the impression the Democratic state legislature would ever target AOC like that.  One would think the seat(s) they will target for elimination will be held by a Republican.

Because they're still angry about what happened with the Amazon HQ2? Also, they can carve up AOC's seat and remove a GOP seat. Hell, they could always do the baconmender and eliminate every GOP seat in the state; though I doubt they will.