Chris Christie: The Longshot

I revisit the theme of Christie as longshot over at Ordinary Times this morning.

http://ordinary-gentlemen.com/blog/2015/04/18/chris-christie-the-longshot

Attaching Strings to Anti-Poverty Legislation

I wrote a piece attempting to justify "strings attached" in anti-poverty programs over at Ordinary Times. It doubles as a bit of a critique of academia, or at least on analytical overconfidence. Link below:

http://ordinary-gentlemen.com/blog/2015/04/13/a-partial-defense-of-strings-attached

Moving!

I'll actually be posting most of my stuff over at Ordinary Times, a pretty cool site with a vibrant commenting community. The site leans Left, but it's a thoughtful sort of liberalism, in my estimation, and they seemed to want a somewhat-conservative perspective over there as well. I posted a brief introduction where I tried to lay out where I come from and what I try to do when I blog. At least to start things out, I'll be cross-posting here as well.

Six Really Good Books on the History of Disease

I'm almost finished with a very long reading list (40+ books) on the history of disease, and I am starting to look back on them for an upcoming exam. I wanted to highlight, briefly, the six books I've read on disease that were most illuminating.

1. William McNeill - Plagues and Peoples

William McNeill's book is foundational. Not all of the conclusions hold up 40 years later, but the nature of the analysis, to me at least, is what we should be striving for in the area: how do microorganisms affect the flow of history? So it's probably the best point of departure for the field itself.

2. J.R. McNeill - Mosquito Empires: Ecology and War in the Greater Caribbean, 1620-1914

William McNeill's son, JR McNeill, is a stellar historian in his own right. McNeill zooms in on mosquito-borne disease and poses a very compelling argument about its significance in the colonization process. His observation about the American campaign in the Mexican War is absolutely eye-opening; things could have gone very differently there.

3. David Arnold - Colonizing the Body: State Medicine and Epidemic Disease in Nineteenth-Century India

David Arnold's book is the best example of what I'd deem "post-Foucault" analysis. It's very much informed by Foucault's arguments about language and power, but it grapples with the biology and reality of disease much more so than its intellectual cousins. If you're read Arnold, you can predict what a lot of related books will say about different geographical subjects.

4. Peter Baldwin - Contagion and the State in Europe, 1830-1930
5. Paul Weindling - Epidemics and Genocide in Eastern Europe, 1890-1945

Peter Baldwin's book is an absolute tour de force in terms of exploring increases in state power in Europe. I think it pairs nicely with Paul Weindling's book that focuses more explicitly on the use of state power after it developed. Baldwin's book is more about change throughout the 19th century, and Weindling's is more about continuity from the 1890s forward, so they really do pair quite well. These books are long, depressing, and expensive, but both absolutely illuminating.

6. Carlo Cipolla - Faith, Reason, and the Plague in 17th C. Tuscany

Microhistory in the vein of Natalie Zemon Davis's excellent Return of Martin Guerre. It focuses on a very small, very poor town in Tuscany and its experience with an outbreak of plague in the 1630s. I think it would make a great movie, at the very least, but it is a valuable perspective on the lived reality of disease in the time period. Carlo Cipolla was the master; you really can't go wrong with his books.

Response to a Comment on the Jeb Bush Piece

I'm having a bit of a productive moment right now, so I'm trying to strike while the iron is hot. I tried to push some of my Jeb Bush thoughts a bit further in a response to a particularly thoughtful comment on the first piece over at Ordinary Times.

http://ordinary-gentlemen.com/blog/2015/03/28/more-on-the-jeb-bush-barack-obama-comparison

Four Questions for Jeb Bush

I have a piece up over at a cool site called Ordinary Times, with some initial questions that I think Jeb Bush will need to answer in his 2016 campaign. Summary: Jeb is sort of getting a raw deal thus far on the merits of his record, but I suspect that the millions of dollars he's raising will fix all of that. Regardless, there are some important questions that he will need to answer to the Right's satisfaction.

http://ordinary-gentlemen.com/blog/2015/03/23/four-questions-for-jeb-bush

Opposing Hillary Clinton and "Permission Structures"

Regardless of her motives, Hillary Clinton's use of a "homebrew" email system is deeply troublesome for a couple of reasons. For one, any home-operated server would presumably not be up to the exacting security standards of the US government, leaving her vulnerable to the whims of hackers of varying levels of capability. Equally troubling is the "transparency" issue: a homebrew system would give the public figure total control over disclosures, which is a complete violation of records retention laws and regulations. Even if Clinton discloses everything, we can never be sure that it was really everything.

And yet Clinton still has her defenders:

This is the most amazing thing I’ve ever seen: pic.twitter.com/p2z9cDXUwn
— Andrew Kaczynski (@BuzzFeedAndrew) March 11, 2015

Obviously, an "Ed Show" text poll is not "scientific," but it is fair to say that Clinton hasn't lost her base, yet. It is almost as if the base needs "permission" to rebuke Clinton. President Obama discussed this idea back in 2013, talking about Republicans trying to reach a deal:

... there are common-sense solutions to our problems right now. I cannot force Republicans to embrace those common-sense solutions. I can urge them to. I can put pressure on them, I can, you know, rally the American people around those -- you know, those common-sense solutions, but ultimately they themselves are going to have to say, we want to do the right thing. 

And I think there are members certainly in the Senate right now and, I suspect, members in the House as well who understand that deep down, but they're worried about their politics. It's tough. Their base thinks that compromise with me is somehow a betrayal. They're worried about primaries. And I understand all that. And we're going to try to do everything we can to create a permission structure [emphasis added] for them to be able to do what's going to be best for the country. But it's going to take some time.

Obama's theory is that Republican voters hate him so much that they need special "permission" to support a policy that Obama supports, even if the policy is in their interests. I reject that explanation of why Republicans have been so intransigent under Obama--I think it comes down to genuine disagreements and the president's inability to propose policies that Republicans can actually defend to their voters. But the idea that people sometimes need "permission" to support something that their ideological opponents support strikes me as valid.

Using the logic of Obama, then, most liberal voters need a "permission structure" to rebuke Hillary Clinton. They're not going to get it from the scattered critics from the mainstream media or interest groups that are expressing displeasure. They're certainly not going to get it from Republicans.

They could get it, though, from Elizabeth Warren.

Warren is currently the only Democrat with the juice and clout on the party's Left to challenge Clinton. Even if we accept the fact that Warren really does not want to be president, she should be troubled by the Clinton coronation, considering the Clintons' deep ties to major corporations and financial institutions. The e-mail scandal is a great opening for Warren. She could release a statement, something like:

I was deeply troubled by recent revelations of former Secretary of State Clinton's use of a private e-mail server while serving as Secretary. Ms. Clinton--who is a trailblazer and hero to women everywhere--should immediately turn the e-mail server over to a special bipartisan Congressional committee, so that malicious intent can be disproved. Democrats, Republicans, and Independents alike should demand impeccable ethical conduct from our public representatives; only public-spirited people can fight the corporations that have poisoned our politics.

My language is clunky, obviously. But coming out against the Clintons--even just in part--would establish a "permission structure" that would allow liberals to express displeasure at this conduct. (Which, frankly, they should; liberals would be justifiably apoplectic if President Marco Rubio set up rubiomail.com to conduct official business.) That could spiral into other expressions of discontent, which might lead enough liberals to demand another candidate who is actually more in line with their preferences. That could be Warren herself. It could also be Amy Klobuchar or Deval Patrick, two candidates who would (presumably) be closer to Warren's ideological preferences than Clinton.

If Warren were to endorse another candidate early on, it would give that candidate a genuine shot at breaking into Hillary's liberal support.

This is not to say that Warren--or a Warren-backed liberal alternative to Clinton--would defeat Clinton in a nomination contest; Clinton would still be the heavy favorite. But Warren can actually challenge Clinton rhetorically and get some traction, based on her popularity on the party's Left. Bernie Sanders and Martin O'Malley may be running already to Clinton's Left, but they do not have the attention of the base like Warren does.

If Elizabeth Warren has a problem with Clinton waltzing to the nomination uncontested, it is time to act. If Warren speaks out, at the very least a future "Ed Show" poll about trusting Clinton would see support at lower than 90 percent.