moody Americans

Last week, after I posted a graph suggesting that when unemployment rates go up presidential approval goes down, my understandably despondent friend Chris wondered if that meant Americans only like presidents who help them make more money to buy more stuff.

I don't think that's the case. People don't mind when their fortunes don't rise. They do get, however, get pissy when they see their fortunes fall.

At least, I recently ran across that argument in Jared Diamond's Collapse; historically neighboring nations don't go to war when times are bad, but they do take up arms when a period of economic growth is followed by economic decline. It's a theory, as another friend - Frauke - pointed out, that was made popular by James Davies in the 50's:

"Revolutions are most likely to occur when a prolonged period of objective economic and social development is followed by a short period of sharp reversal. People then subjectively fear that ground gained with great effort will be quite lost; their mood becomes revolutionary."

No one's revolting or going to war in the US, but the mood of Americans - as expressed by presidential approval - probably follows similar ups and downs. Much has been made recently of increasing income inequality in the US and of the social tensions that may result. But I don't think growing gaps between the rich and not-rich is enough to get Americans glowering at each other - it's only when combined with seeing jobs and paychecks decline that we get ticked off.

Two places you can look for evidence are Brazil and India. Brazil had one of the world's worst records on income disparity over the past decade, as measured by Gini, and yet its president (and now his new successor) was wildly popular. India's Gini is more moderate, but as this $1 Billion home in the middle of Mumbai's slums show, the gap between rich and poor is starkly visible. Like their Brazilian cousins, the mood in India is high. Why? Because like Brazil, they know their collective wealth and prestige is on the upswing.

Americans are seeing a different picture; while longterm forecasts of US decline are probably premature, when short spells of spiking unemployment occur - while Wall Street paychecks appear continue to bloom - it's enough to make the working classes think the fall is imminent. If Davies is to be believed, that should make us disgruntled indeed.

kool-aid denial

Andrew Ferguson over at Commentary is the latest victim of the Bugjuice-calling-the-kettle-KoolAid syndrome.

Critiquing journalists' tendency to only debunk research studies when their conclusions disagree with the journalist's world view, he - well - debunks a research study that disagrees with his world view.

FBI makes another terrorist

It's the second time this year the FBI has taken a young aspiring terrorist - and turned him into one.

Mohamed Osman Mohamud clearly had dreams of being a jihadist and bringing devastation onto Americans, but his attempts to sign into a terrorist training camp got nowhere. No problem; the FBI stepped in and helped him make his fantasies a reality - even assisting him in building a (fake) bomb.

I'm not a legal scholar, but it seems there should be a difference between dreaming about a crime and actually perpetrating one. Many disaffected youth imagine pulling off criminal acts but don't go through with it - whether because they lack the means, the cojones or the will to ultimately do so. If the NYPD was in the business of making every juvenile's criminal fantasies come true we'd double the occupancy of Rikers. But the NYPD - I hope - is interested in making fewer criminals, not more.

Why is the FBI different? Clearly, the stakes are higher. Wanting to pull off a drug deal or store heist is not the same as aiming to murder hundreds of innocents at a shot. But I'm not sure that - considerable - distinction really makes a difference.

The media all report that Mohamed was dead set on his intentions to bomb a gathering of Portland Christmas revelers and that not even the FBI agent's concern that he might kill children would deter him. What the media doesn't point out is that Mohamed was expressing his determination to someone he believed was a fellow terrorist, and perhaps even someone he looked to as a mentor. That person, of course, was an FBI agent acting the part. We don't know exactly what the FBI agent said to Mohamed, but as they say, actions speak stronger than words and this agent was helping Mohamed to plan a terrorist attack.

Up until the moment the FBI called Mohamed to help him orchestrate an act of terror, Mohamed was on his own. But when the FBI moved in to act as Mohamed's accomplice he stopped acting alone. Sure, as a human being, he always had free will to continue or stop his plans - but would he have gone through with them without the support of the FBI? If I stopped to think about how many ideas and plans I've had - and even eagerly wanted to accomplish - but have done nothing with, I'd be writing a list all day. We can never be certain how likely Mohamed would have bombed a public square in Portland if it had not been for the FBI, but we can surely say the likelihood was less than 100%.

Again, without being a legal scholar, this surely must be the reasoning behind why entrapment is a no-no. It recognizes that we rarely act as lone wolves - but that our actions are almost always subject to encouragement and discouragement.

So why are we encouraging terrorism?

Update: Glenn Greenwald at Salon and Ted Conover at Slate also question the FBI's terrorist baiting practices.

social research fun

Kevin Lewis at Boston.com sums up conclusions from five social research studies, including:

• If you want to win in the NBA, you've got to reach out and touch your teammates.
• One thing that'll make you argue your beliefs more adamantly: doubt.
• To make it easier for your students to learn you may have to make it harder for them to learn.
• Promoting safety can promote civility (at least on oil rigs).
• Nietzsche was almost right: what doesn't kill you could make you happier.

partisanship for bipartisanship

Michael Barone shakes up conventional wisdom in the American Interest, arguing that it is not partisanship - but rather voter volatility - that makes compromise and cross-party coalitions impossible.

"As already suggested, the essence of most bipartisan compromises is that they contain provisions unpopular with constituencies of both parties and often provisions that are unpopular with a majority of voters. That’s why such measures tend to be passed by bipartisan coalitions of members with safe seats.

"In such an unsettled political environment [as the one we have today], it may be difficult—maybe impossible—to round up the votes needed for bipartisan legislation. Politicians will not be inclined to take on additional and avoidable risks. And that difficulty means that legislators in a position, whether because of expertise or committee membership, to cobble together such legislation may just conclude that it’s not worth the trouble.

"Absent large congressional majorities, therefore, it looks like we are stuck for a while—not only, or mainly, because of ideological polarization and party sorting, but because of electoral volatility. When you think about it, this suits the definition of irony. Why are voters so willing to “throw out the bums”? Because they think they can’t get much of anything done. Why can’t they get much of anything done? Because they’re afraid that bipartisan compromise will get them thrown out of office."

Two other possible ironies not mentioned by Barone: Since nothing creates stability like firmly partisan districts, perhaps more gerrymandering is needed for bipartisan legislation to happen? Even more counter-intuitive and depressing: if engaged, independent and open-minded voters are more likely to be volatile (than dyed-in-the-wool Republicans and Democrats), then maybe we should be advocating for greater voter apathy and blind-partisanship? Now, them's some grim thoughts.

our stories ourselves

John Bickle and Sean Keating have a nifty little article in the New Scientist packaging together the many wonders of the left brain. I'm a right-brainer, so it's hard to admit that the left-brain is at the core of our humanness; it makes the stories that make us.

You may be familiar with that inner voice in your head. According to Bickle and Keating, it's helping to place your daily encounters into the grand epic of your life. (Bickle captured our brains on MRI not only talking to ourselves - but also "listening".) Those narratives add up to our "identity" - the notion that you are a unique, unified, intentional being, rather than a sac of cells pinballing through life.

The authors also conjecture what might happen to our inner stories as digital media breaks up traditional narrative. Their answer: not much. Not even haiku texting can keep us from our sagas.

But the left brain is not all self-involved soap opera. A big piece of making up stories is making up causal relations ("I didn't get the promotion because I bungled the project" or "He left me because I'm a bad cook"). That instinct to look for cause and effect is also what makes us handy at spinning out theories to explain the world around us. Luckily, our left brain has the right brain to help it figure out which of those cockamamie theories are true.

still the economy...

In a Zogby poll this week, Obama's approval rating dipped below the 40% marker for the first time since taking office. With a new statistical bone in sight, the politerati pounced - and we got a new wave of predictions for Obama 2012 and advice on what policy stands and leadership initiatives he can take to win America back.

But wiser heads suggest that Barack's current disapproval ratings and 2012 prospects have, as always, more to do with the economy than health care, Afghanistan and Sarah Palin combined.

We've all heard "it's the economy, stupid" a zillion times, but I was curious to see just how much the economy ruled our collective opinions about our Leader in Chief. So I decided to spend my Thanksgiving charting it out, pulling down unemployment stats (thought to be the clearest economic indicator on Main Street) from the BLS and historical approval ratings from UCSB.

Here is the harvest of my labor.

At first glance there doesn't seem to be an air-tight case for "good economy=presidential approval", but if you take a close look, the evidence is suggestive if not convincing.

First thing to notice is that when presidents enter office, they usually do so on a well-spring of positive reviews (only Reagan and Clinton entered with less than 60% love). I also pointed out on the chart three non-economic events that caused extreme swings in approval. Two positive - the Gulf War and 9/11. One negative - Watergate. (Other blips - including Reagan's assassination attempt, Iran Contra, the 2nd Gulf war - couldn't be squeezed in.)

But incoming presidential ardor and the rare non-economic factor aside, it does look like one of the worst things for a president's ratings are rising unemployment rates.

The gray areas highlight times of soaring unemployment. In most cases, while the red of unemployment goes up, the blue of approval goes down. Eisenhower's ratings dipped during both times of rising unemployment. Nixon's first spate of unemployment also spelled disfavor; by the second surge in joblessness his ratings were so battered by Watergate they couldn't get much worse. Ford and Reagan entered office with unemployment spiking and so saw their approval plummet (Reagan got a temporary popularity reprieve after being shot by Hinckley). As for Bush I & II, not even the hugely popular Gulf War and the patriotic fervor following 9/11 could stave off the dive in popularity they'd soon suffer from joblessness.

The non-gray areas, conversely, show how good economic times can boost ratings, the biggest beneficiaries being Reagan and Clinton. The only presidents who buck the trend are LBJ, Carter and Bush II. LBJ and Bush II both had the albatross of dragged out wars dragging them down, which may have outweighed rosy job markets. As for Carter, he had another economic problem - inflation - causing him loss of love. (The one benefit of inflation, not coincidentally, is lower unemployment.)

So where does that leave Obama? Like Reagan, Barack came into office with unemployment on a steep incline. That combined with the normal inflation of popularity of incoming presidents meant that it was only to be expected Obama's popularity would take a beating once in office. A few have taken the Reagan comparison further, pointing out that once people start getting jobs again Obama will likely follow in Reagan's footsteps picking up popularity points as well. Given the record of our Oval Office leaders since the days of Ike, barring a Watergate or military quagmire, Obama should indeed be putting all his bets on more jobs. It could, indeed, still be the economy, stupid.