;)
The Commentariat -- October 22, 2015
Internal links removed.
Afternoon Update:
Michael Shear & Michael Schmidt of the New York Times: "Hillary Rodham Clinton confronted Republican critics on the House Benghazi committee on Thursday with a challenge to 'reach for statesmanship' in their long-running inquiry into the 2012 attacks that killed four Americans." ...
... The Washington Post is liveblogging the hearing. They include video clips.
*****
David Herszenhorn & Emmarie Huetteman of the New York Times: "A strong majority of anti-establishment lawmakers in the House Freedom Caucus voted on Wednesday night to support [linked fixed] Representative Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin for House speaker, effectively delivering the Republican Party unity that he had sought as a condition for accepting the post. While the vote fell short of the four-fifths majority required for the group's official endorsement, lawmakers said it nonetheless cleared the way for Mr. Ryan, 45, to be selected as the Republican nominee next Wednesday and affirmed as speaker in a floor vote the next day." ...
... Jake Sherman & Lauren French of Politico: "Rep. Paul Ryan will proceed with plans to run for House speaker despite not securing the formal endorsement of the House Freedom Caucus. Ryan's decision, which came after a high-stakes meeting with the group of hard-line conservatives earlier in the day, all but ensures that the Ways and Means Committee chairman will succeed John Boehner as Republican leader at the end of the month." ...
... Anna North of the New York Times: "The most time-consuming requirement of the speaker's job isn't running the House, it's fundraising. "... it's not running the government that would keep [Paul] Ryan from his kids -- it's raising the money to keep Republicans in office, many of whom actually oppose running the government.... 'Speaker John Boehner raised $50 million,' said Representative Tim Huelskamp, Republican of Kansas. 'The speaker has to work more than 40 hours a week.'" ...
... Scott Wong of the Hill: "Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) pushed back Wednesday on criticism from some conservative House colleagues who say he shouldn't take the Speaker's job if he isn't willing to work weekends and sacrifice time with his young family. 'Hey look, I'm here four days a week as it is,' Ryan said Wednesday when asked by The Hill whether he was surprised by the blowback. 'I'm not going to spend the other three days a week running around America.'... 'You've got to work on weekends,' Huelskamp added. 'John Boehner worked very hard ... and I'm very concerned if you're not going to work weekends in this job, which is primarily fundraising, then that could hurt the Republican majority.'" ...
... CW: Wow! Anna North of the Times noted in her post linked above that "Mr. Ryan has opposed policies that would help working parents." But, hey, now it turns out Ryan is passionate about the four-day work-week. Oh. Maybe that's only for himself. I suppose we common folk are expected to follow Jeb!'s plan & "work longer hours." Meanwhile, imagine my surprise to learn that the speaker's job "is primarily fundraising." Where exactly is that in the Constitution? ...
... Family Leave for Me But Not for Thee. Marianne Levine of Politico outlines Ryan's longstanding opposition to federally-mandated family leave laws that would allow workers flexibility in tending to sick family members. "Paul Ryan is talking about family time for fun, which we all want," [Ellen] Bravo[, executive director of Family Values @ Work,] said, "but the bare minimum is to have family time when a family member is in need." ...
... Eliza Collins & Nick Gass of Politico: "Conservative media pundits chafed at Paul Ryan's list of conditions upon which he would agree to the speakership, mocking him as 'Emperor Ryan' and 'King Paul.' Ryan, the reluctant draftee to one of the most powerful offices in the United States, on Tuesday night said fine, he'll do it, but only on his own terms. Among them: endorsements from all the major caucuses in the GOP conference, time with his family and tweaking a rule to make it harder to toss the speaker out of office." ...
... Adele Stan of the American Prospect: "... Paul Ryan ... is no moderate.... In 2005, at a meeting of an Ayn Rand fan club..., Ryan voiced his contempt for Social Security, decrying it as a 'collectivist system.' His idea for reforming Medicare is to voucherize it, leaving seniors with a fixed amount to apply to their medical bills, regardless of individual circumstances. Ryan is a no-exceptions anti-choicer, and an opponent of programs that help the poor, such as food stamps, whose funding he proposed cutting by $150 billion over the course of 10 years.... Most of all, Paul Ryan, for all his Catholic schoolboy (I once watched him mansplain Catholic doctrine to Sister Simone Campbell of Nuns on the Bus Fame), goody-two-shoes demeanor, is a liar of the pants-on-fire variety."
Alexander Bolton of the Hill: "House Republican leaders are whipping a bill to raise the debt limit and impose a slew of conservative reforms, but Senate Democrats say it will die in the upper chamber." CW: So nothing has changed in the "unity party." I sure hope there's a rider to repeal ObamaCare in there somewhere.
Mary Walsh, et al., of the New York Times: "The Obama administration has decided to take a political gamble on Puerto Rico, stopping short of a direct bailout of the debt-ridden island but proposing measures that backers say would keep the commonwealth from becoming America's Greece. Senior administration officials said the island had already run out of cash and was spending around 40 percent of its tax revenue meeting its bond payments.... The plan, much of which would have to be approved by Congress, would provide a form of bankruptcy protection not now available to American territories. It would give Puerto Rico a way to restructure all of its $72 billion in debt, which it says it cannot hope to repay." ...
... Martin Crutsinger of the AP: "The Obama administration on Thursday will take a blueprint for the economic rescue of Puerto Rico before a Republican controlled Congress.... The administration said that it needs the cooperation of Congress to prevent an economic disaster in the U.S. territory, which is mired in a years-long recession."
Sabrina Siddiqui of the Guardian: "Barack Obama has unveiled a new federal initiative to combat the opioid crisis that has ravaged communities across the United States, causing more annual deaths in some states than car accidents. The president traveled on Wednesday to West Virginia, an epicenter of the nation's opioid and heroin epidemic, to detail his plan to try and reverse some of the harrowing statistics that have recently created a sense of urgency around substance abuse. In 2013 alone, more than 37,000 Americans died of a drug overdose, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Protection, and prescription painkillers accounted for 16,000 of those deaths." ...
... Video of the President outlining his initiative is here.
"Carl Icahn Pledges $150 Million to Help Build Ginormous Megaphone for Carl Icahn." Jaime Fuller of New York: "Billionaire investor Carl Icahn announced this morning that he had a new plan to 'end the crippling dysfunction in Congress.' Like many people before him who have tried to vanquish dysfunction -- or just Washington writ large -- he had the novel idea of starting a super-pac. And he's flooding it with $150 million, far more than any of the presidential candidates' super-pacs have been able to raise so far. Icahn's first goal is fighting for one specific legislative change '' blocking 'corporate tax inversions' -- that would probably help at least one company he happens to invest in: Apple." ...
... CW: Sorry, Carl, I don't see where advocating for certain legislation -- that happens to accrue to your benefit -- has anything whatever to do with "ending the crippling dysfunction in Congress." As for your claim that you're getting into politics because you have more money than you can spend, why exactly is it that you're getting into politics so you can make more money? Why not propose, say, increasing taxes on the rich?
Julian Hattem of the Hill: "WikiLeaks began posting what it claims are the contents of CIA Director John Brennan's private email account on Wednesday, days after a teenager claimed to have hacked into his account. The six initial emails posted by the anti-secrecy organization date from 2007 and 2008, and include personal information as well as draft versions of advice and policy positions. Additional documents will be posted 'over the coming days,' WikiLeaks said, while claiming that Brennan used the account 'occasionally for several intelligence related projects.' In a statement, CIA spokesman Dean Boyd did not dispute the authenticity of the leaked emails. 'The hacking of the Brennan family account is a crime and the Brennan family is the victim,' Boyd said." ...
... If you care to read Brennan's e-mails, you can access them via this WikiLeaks page.
Carol Morello of the Washington Post: "Secretary of State John F. Kerry met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Thursday to urge him to tone down his rhetoric as violence flared anew in Israel when a Palestinian stabbed a man at a bus stop near Jerusalem. Their meeting, which started shortly after Kerry arrived in the German capital, commenced with Netanyahu condemning Palestinian leaders, who he blamed for inciting an unrelenting series of stabbings and other attacks on Israelis over the past month."
Zeina Karam of the AP: "Russia's military intervention in Syria has deepened the sense that President Bashar Assad may survive the country's disastrous civil war, and his surprise visit to Moscow -- a first foray out in nearly five years -- underscores how emboldened the Syrian leader has become. The show of force by the two allies is a challenge to a U.S. administration whose response on Syria is widely seen in the region as inconsistent and chaotic."
Chris Mooney of the Washington Post: "In a sweeping new study published Wednesday in Nature, a team of researchers say there is a strong relationship between a region's average temperature and its economic productivity -- adding another potential cost to a warming climate." CW: Somebody should tell Marco Rubio (or really, any Republican politician) about this.
Anthony Faiola of the Washington Post: "At one point during a major summit of the Roman Catholic hierarchy that ends this weekend, a senior conservative bishop took the floor inside the Vatican's assembly hall and promptly charged his liberal peers with doing the devil's work. The three-week gathering, known as a synod, has erupted into a theological slugfest over Pope Francis's vision for a more inclusive church, displaying the most bitter and public infighting since the heady days of Catholic reform in the 1960s."
Presidential Race
** Peter Baker & Maggie Haberman of the New York Times: "Vice President said Wednesday that he will not be a candidate in the 2016 presidential campaign, bringing to a close a three-month exploration that began shortly after the death of his eldest child and threatened to fracture the Democratic Party. Mr. Biden's decision, announced in the White House Rose Garden with President Obama looking on, ends one of the most public episodes of indecision about a political path since Gov. Mario Cuomo of New York left a plane bound for New Hampshire idling on a tarmac in 1991 as he fretted over whether to run for president." (Also linked yesterday afternoon.):
... E.J. Dionne of the Washington Post: "It was a withdrawal speech that sounded like an announcement speech, and it perfectly captured the aching ambivalence of Joe Biden. He wanted to run for president. He had his favored issues. He had President Obama's record and was proud to defend it. And the man who noted he's often called 'Middle-Class Joe' felt he had never been a better match for the historical moment. ...
... "Long Live Joe Biden." Greg Sargent: "Biden enjoys, and will continue to enjoy, a tremendous amount of good will among Democratic voters. And rightfully so. As I've written before, Biden's 'goofy ol' fun-loving Uncle Joe' persona is mostly a product of the camera, which is unfair to him -- it never did justice to how serious a public servant and policy thinker he has been over the decades.... Liberals have had major differences with Biden over the years, but this is a man who has devoted a good deal of his life to the idea that government can be a force of good in improving people's lives." ...
... Margaret Hartmann: "With Biden officially out of the running, sources close to him are revealing what's been going on behind the scenes. Here's what we've learned from the various post-mortems on the VP's shadow campaign." ...
... Paul Kane & Karen Tumulty of the Washington Post: "Vice President Biden's announcement Wednesday that he will not seek the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination has given a further boost to resurgent frontrunner Hillary Rodham Clinton and clarified her terms of engagement with Bernie Sanders, who is waging a challenge from her left." ...
... Nate Cohn of the New York Times: "For all her struggles with poll numbers and the email investigation this year, Hillary Rodham Clinton has done one thing really well: dissuade mainstream opponents by dominating the invisible primary, the behind-the-scenes competition for elite support that often decides the nomination. Today, her dominance in the invisible primary yielded another victory. Vice President Joe Biden's decision to stay out of the presidential race leaves Mrs. Clinton as the only viable mainstream candidate in the race. It gives her an opportunity to unite the coalition of moderate, nonwhite and older voters who traditionally have an edge over the white progressives who now support Bernie Sanders." ...
Josh Voorhees of Slate provides a refresher course on the facts surrounding the Benghaazi matter. ...
... Julian Hattem: "Going against the wishes of Republicans, Democrats on Wednesday released the full transcript of nine hours of closed-door testimony from a former top aide to Hillary Clinton, a day before Clinton's appearance in an open hearing on Capitol Hill. The 307-page transcript from Cheryl Mills's September testimony contains no evidence that Clinton mishandled the U.S.&'s response to the 2012 terror attack on a U.S. facility in Benghazi, Libya, according to Democrats on the select committee investigating the incident. Instead, Clinton was 'very engaged' in responding to the crisis, Mills said, according to the new transcript. In fact, her decision to go to a 'staff-level' meeting about the incident -- which would normally be below Clinton's level as secretary of State -- 'took some people aback,' she added." ...
... Gail Collins' column is titled "Hillary & Benghazi," but it's really about Trey Gowdy & Jeb Bush (& committee member Mike Pompeo). ...
... CW: By now we should have learned as a truism that any investigative committee run by confederates is a witch hunt, from the House Unamerican Activities Committeee to the Army McCarthy hearings to Whitewatergate to Fast & Furious to Planned Parenthood to Benghaazi! (and every committee in between). The media & the public should ignore these people & their fake investigations, except insofar as they wish to cite them as examples of fraud & abuse. ...
... So what's wrong with this sentence in Amy Chozick's NYT front-page piece on today's Benghaazi! grilling?
To succeed politically, [Clinton] must remain calm, take every question seriously and avoid outbursts during what is expected to be a daylong appearance, even amid her private frustration over what she sees as a Republican-led effort to hurt her presidential prospects.
... The words "what she sees as." It is what it is.
... Amanda Marcotte in Salon: "The spectacle is likely to be a repeat of last month's bizarre pseudo-hearing-cum-witch-hunt of Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards: A bunch of Republicans, making baseless accusations and insinuating conspiracy theories, for the purpose of riling up the conservative base while simultaneously impressing the rest of the country with how loony the GOP has become. And, like the Planned Parenthood hearings, the grilling of Clinton will be an opportunity for Republicans to engage is crass sexism while pretending that they're somehow being high and mighty." ...
... BUT. Brian Beutler: "... unlike the investigative committee that grilled Richards, the Benghazi Committee is in the midst of an existential crisis.... Under the circumstances, it stands to reason that Republicans won't bark and holler at Clinton but will instead be excessively genteel and restrained, while honing in on details designed to paint her in an unflattering light. If that's the tack they take it'll demonstrate uncharacteristic restraint. What it won't demonstrate is that long-debunked Benghazi conspiracy theories have genuine merit." ...
... Jordain Carney of the Hill: "Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) took shots at the House Select Committee on Benghazi on Wednesday, a day before former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's appearance before the panel. In recent weeks, it's become absolutely clear that this committee is nothing more than a political hit job on Hillary Clinton,' the Democratic leader said. 'They're going to bring her in tomorrow. They said be ready for eight hours, eight hours of interrogation, and that's what this is, interrogation.' Reid added that Senate Democrats have sent a letter to the Republican National Committee (RNC) asking that it reimburse the American taxpayers for any money spent on the Benghazi committee. Reid said the request is 'only fair since the so-called committee is clearly a Republican political organization.'" ...
... Emily Atkin of Think Progress: "An analysis of Congressional attention to previous high-profile terror incidents suggests that significantly more emphasis has been placed on Benghazi than other terrorism acts. The 2013 Boston Marathon bombing, the 2000 attack on the USS Cole, the 1998 embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, the 1996 Khobar Tower bombing, the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, and even the attacks of September 11, 2001 -- all received less Congressional attention than Benghazi in the form of formal hearings and investigations into their respective causes."
Bernie Sanders, in a Washington Post op-ed, makes a compelling case for free public college tuition.
Alan Rappeport of the New York Times: "CNBC has set the stages for the Republican presidential debate next Wednesday. The 6 p.m. undercard will feature Rick Santorum, Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, George Pataki and Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. They will be relegated to the early slot because their average national poll numbers in the last five weeks are below 2.5 percent. The main event, to begin shortly after 8 p.m., will have 10 candidates: Donald J. Trump, Ben Carson, Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, Jeb Bush, Carly Fiorina, Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, Mike Huckabee, Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey, Gov. John Kasich of Ohio and Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky. The lineups preserve the status quo of the previous two Republican debates in that none of the candidates were demoted from the prime-time event or banished from debating at all." ...
... Margaret Hartmann: "The network's cutoff for the main debate was an average of at least 3 percent in several recent polls, and there was concern that Mike Huckabee, Chris Christie, John Kasich, and Rand Paul wouldn't make it. On Wednesday CNBC revealed the debate lineup, and they all qualified -- though it looks Christie, Kasich, and Paul had to take advantage of the network's promise to round up averages above 2.5 percent. (Huckabee had a whopping 3.56 percent.)"
Philip Bump of the Washington Post: "One of the more unusual aspects of Donald Trump's three-plus months at the top of the Republican presidential field is that to so many, myself included, it still seems like it's only temporary.... But the real numbers, including those in a new Washington Post-ABC News poll, support the idea that Trump will continue to lead and that he could win the nomination.... His lead has actually been much more stable this year than Mitt Romney's was in the latter half of 2011.... But we'll see." ...
... MEANWHILE, presidential historian Mark Updegrove, in a Politico Magazine essay, is still betting Jeb! will be the GOP nominee. "... will GOP voters ... make Trump their candidate? No. In their heads, they'll know he's wrong." ...
... Ron Brownstein of the National Journal: "The blue-collar wing of the Republian primary electorate has consolidated around one candidate. The party's white-collar wing remains fragmented. That may be the most concise explanation of the dynamic that has propelled Donald Trump to a consistent and sometimes commanding lead in the early stages of the GOP presidential nomination contest."
Sabrina Siddiqui: "... Marco Rubio slammed the mainstream media on Tuesday for devoting more coverage to the killing of Cecil the lion than to so-called 'sanctuary cities' that shield individuals from federal immigration laws. In an interview with the conservative Newsmax TV, Rubio sharply criticized both the media and Democrats after a bill he co-sponsored that would crack down on sanctuary cities failed to advance in the US Senate."
Beyond the Beltway
Adam Nagourny of the New York Times: Kevin Johnson, the mayor of Sacramento, will not seek a third term after Deadspin released a video of a police interview of a then-16-year-old girl who describes sexual abuse by Johnson 20 years ago when he was a Phoenix Suns player. Police did not charge Johnson. He paid the girl, Mandi Koba, $230,000. Johnson is a Democrat. Married to Michelle Rhee, the controversial educator, Johnson too has battled the local teachers' union & blames union members for raising the issue. The videos are here. ...
... Johnson seems to be a professional groper. Via Charles Pierce.
Ellen Brait of the Guardian: "Police have arrested a man suspected in the killing a New York City police officer on Tuesday night in East Harlem. Tyrone Howard, who has had a warrant on a separate issue out for his arrest since 17 September, is expected to be charged with fatally shooting officer Randolph Holder during a gunfight Tuesday night on a pedestrian bridge after he allegedly stole a bike." The New York Times story, by Al Baker & David Goodman, is here.
News Ledes
New York Times: "An American soldier was fatally wounded on Thursday as American and Kurdish commandos raided an Islamic State prison in northern Iraq after learning that the prisoners faced imminent mass execution, the Pentagon said. The commando became the first American soldier killed in action in Iraq since the withdrawal in 2011."
AP: "A masked man attacked a school in southern Sweden on Thursday before being shot by police. Health authorities said one teacher was killed and two students seriously wounded in the attack.... Police spokesman Thomas Fuxborg told The Associated Press the attacker was in his 20s and carried more than one weapon, including 'at least one knife-like object.' Fuxborg said police fired two shots, one of which hit the attacker. Health authorities in Trollhattan
Share Article
Reader Comments (22)
That Google News scroll is annoying.
Gail Collins writes the best statement ever about: Jeb!
"Toasttoasttoasttoasttoast."
pathmann,
You can stop the scrolling by clicking on the scroll bar on the right side of the panel. Then scroll the panel with your mouse wheel.
Einstein: "God does not play dice..."
Niels Bohr: "Albert, stop telling God what to do."
I've always thought that was excellent advice, especially for politicians and members of the clergy.
@pathman: Yeah, I kinda thought so, too, but a few commenters wrote to say it was okay. I'll let it stand for now, but maybe I'll change it in the future.
Marie
The Washington Post links are all subscriber only. Is there a way around this, i.e. your NYT links?
I am able to click on WaPo links even though I don't subscribe. Funny how these things work - or don't.
@Nancy: Since you're having trouble with the WashPo, open Reality Chex in a private browsing window. (Chrome calls it an "incognito window.") That will allow you to open all the WashPo links & to access the WashPo directly. The Post is down to allowing only ten free articles a month, so after you have opened ten Post stories, you'll have to close the private window, then open a new one. That gives you another ten hits on the WashPo site. And repeat.
The private/incognito windows in Firefox & Chrome appear in the menu. For convenience, it's easy to move the Firefox private window symbol to a taskbar; I expect it can be done fairly easily in Chrome, too, tho I don't use Chrome much so I haven't bothered to try.
Explorer has an "InPrivate" window accessed via "More Actions" on the menu bar. I don't know how Safari & other browsers work, but I should think by now they all have a private browser facility.
Marie
Safari on Mac OS has a private browsing feature as well. Another tip: there is a nifty browser extension -ABP- that blocks ads. I read NYTimes and other web sites now without all the clutter. RC is one of the few on which the blockometer does not register. It may be available for other platforms as well.
As long as the GOP can sustain headlines and TV coverage celebrating the evil actions of Democrats, they have the backing of their constituents. Truth has never been a deciding factor. The demonstration of facts from others, like Cummings, isn't a blip on the radar. Statements from inside their ranks, like McCarthy's, just cast suspicion on him as a traitor to the cause. Lord have mercy, Ben Carson is frightening in his ignorance and apparent mental illness and Trump is a provocator for money. The #1 and #2 for the GOP candidacy left rational in the wind long ago.
Pierce on Mayor Kevin Johnson. There has been a focused effort to stop Johnson from running for a 3rd term for the last few months. As much as I admire Pierce, I think his very vitriolic piece is heavily colored by his extreme dislike of Michelle Rhee.
Confederates vs Everyone Else: the Prisoner's Dilemma of Present Day Politics
(Sorry, it's another long one.)
Marie makes an excellent point in describing Confederate run "investigations" as predominantly witch hunts. This got me to thinking of a thought experiment called the Prisoner's Dilemma which, I think, has been operational in Republican behavior for quite some time. Here's the set up:
A and B have both been arrested for a crime they actually did commit. They're both interrogated in separate rooms and both are given the same deal by the DA. There are three possible outcomes depending on what they choose to do. If A rats out B and B remains silent, A walks and B gets 10 years hard labor. If A and B rat each other out, they both get 5 years breaking rocks in the hot sun. But if A and B both remain silent (in other words, cooperate) they each get a minimum sentence of 2 years in a country club lock-up. In game theory, the one who remains silent is the cooperator. The one who confesses (in other words, rats out the other guy), is the defector.
The goal of the game is to get the lightest possible sentence. The best outcome, of course, is to be able to walk. But that means ratting out the other guy and trusting that he/she will remain silent. In other words, taking advantage of their cooperative nature. But there's a chance that the other guy will try to rat you out (if you remain silent) making you take what game theorists call "the sucker's payoff". In which case it might be better to rat them out as well. You'll both get 5 years, but it's better than 10. The second best outcome is for both to remain silent and take the minimum 2 years (in political terms, neither gets exactly what they want, but neither gets completely screwed either).
Okay, so up til now, it's a mildly interesting bit of moral chess. It gets much more interesting when you play the game over and over, and there has been a mountain of research done on how the outcomes spool out and how strategies change over time. If you want to dig deeper, check it out.
For our purposes, we'll jump right to the political implications of playing the Prisoner's Dilemma over and over, especially in groups (rather than as a head to head contest of moral fortitude). In a group version of the PD, you find that word gets around as to who you can count on, who can be trusted, and who in the group tends to be the most selfish (in other words, the rat bastard defectors who will always choose for themselves rather than cooperate for the greater good).
Which brings us, naturally, to the Confederates.
Confederates, as a matter of course, tend to choose the selfish route, that is, rather than cooperate, they'll choose for themselves and try to fuck everyone else. If the other guy fights back, that is, defects as well, they both experience a bad outcome, but this never seems to deter Confederates who would prefer death before compromise so they'll happily take the 5 years in the slammer. What they're counting on is that the other side will, more often than not, want to cooperate. When they do, Confederates lower the boom on them. Ergo, Army-McCarthy, Whitewater, Starr Commission, Benghazi, etc.
Now here's where there should be some kind of evolutionary payoff/punishment. Typically, in such groups, those deemed least trustworthy will eventually be forced to resign themselves to two outcomes, neither one overly desirable. First, because they're known as selfish pricks, the other side will move to counter their defection with a defection of their own, in which case neither side wins. But worst of all is that at some point, no one will play with them because of their bad reputation. This means ostracization from the group. In evolutionary terms, it can mean extinction and it is a well known outcome in many biological groups.
Ahh.. you say. Serves them right, doesn't it? But here's where classic Prisoner's Dilemma theory breaks down.
The social arbiters in our group, those who are supposed to report on the untrustworthy behavior of serial non-cooperators, is the media. Were the media doing its job, in other words, reporting on the chronic bad behavior of Party B, there would be a lot of social pressure to ostracize them, or for the B's to reform from the inside to avoid extinction (at the ballot box). This hasn't happened. Instead, what happens is that the press allows Party B to pretend that they are serious and trustworthy which then allows that party to stay in the game and continue to take advantage of everyone else, ensuring continued undesirable results.
Of course what has been happening is a situation known in other games as the Rotten Kid Theorem (I've been waiting to use this thing for a long time but didn't have the proper entrée). The short version of this is that an altruistic parent provides all her children with money and goods to make them happy. One of the siblings is an asshole who tries to screw the other kids at every turn and take it all for himself. In this case, the parent punishes the Rotten Kid by taking away their share and giving it to the other kids. This isn't exactly what's been happening because the Rotten Kids (Confederates) still get plenty. But as with the ACA causatum even though they wished to take healthcare away from millions just to spite them and be, well, rotten kids, that nice parent (the government, or in this case, Barack Obama and his allies) has smacked them on the wrist and taken care of the other (good) kids.
Okay, it's not perfect, but whaddaya want? It's game theory.
In any event, the Prisoner's Dilemma continues for all of us. It even happens within groups which is why the Benghazi embarrassment goes on and on and on. Few Republicans wish to be seen as cooperators who will come out and say "bullshit" to the BENGHAAAAZIites knowing the others will rat them out at every turn possibly causing them to lose campaign contributions, votes, and status within the party (see Diane's comment, above).
The larger problem, as we too often find, comes down to deficiencies of the media in telling the true story about what's been going on for years now and in a way that makes it clear why we end up with such lousy outcomes so much of the time and why we're still breaking rocks rather than getting on with things and moving forward.
Thanks Akhilleus, nice summary.
For CWs interested in deeper analysis of the Prisoner's Dilemma and other social game studies, I highly recommend "Metamagical Themas: Questing for the Essence of Mind and Pattern" by Douglas Hofstadter, available from Amazon.
In a memorable anecdote, Hofstadter relates describing a similar dilemma to a friend. Unsure of the best strategy, the friend choses cooperation saying "I'd rather buy the Brooklyn Bridge than sell it."
I've always thought that a pretty good motto for a Liberal. What are we willing to risk, or even sacrifice, for being able to think ourselves decent and honorable human beings?
D.C.,
I've never read that Hofstadter book but I was wowed when I first read "Gödel, Escher, Bach".
There was a nice study of how game theory can illuminate aspects of social interaction written by researcher Robert Axelrod back in the 80's called "The Evolution of Cooperation". Axelrod used to hold Prisoner's Dilemma Tournaments (must have been a gas), the results of which he used in some of his research. A lot of what he developed from this research, the PD Tit for Tat and the Win Stay, Lose Switch options have been used in analyzing things like international arms treaties. Pretty cool stuff.
Another book I was thinking of when thinking of the PD was "Nonzero", Robert Wright's exploration of cooperation and its presence as being beneficial to complex systems. There have been some serious disagreements with some of his findings, but I think the idea of cooperation as a biological imperative, especially in complex societies is a fascinating field of study. The opposite of course, is the Confederate Theorem of "Fuck you, Charlie, I got mine." Cooperation is not a hallmark of their thinking.
Interestingly (and I don't want to get too far down this rabbit hole) one of the most absolute of social impulses, the exact opposite of selfish self-preservation, is altruism, which is cooperation to the next order of magnitude. And often the most extreme form of altruism is found in war. Someone who throws themselves on a grenade to save others demonstrates the furthest outcome of the cooperation impulse. Funny that such a selfless act which offers nothing in terms of reproductive success (in fact guarantees its impossibility) and assures the actor of never being able to recoup his/her loss, can be found in such a pure form in war zones.
Self sacrifice does lead to reproductive success, when an individual sacrifices himself for the survival of his family, clan, or tribe. The survival of the gene pool is what matters to evolution. Any individual is irrelevant.
Ayn Rand, and others who made a religion out of selfishness, misunderstood "survival of the fittest" to mean the fittest individual. It's the fittest species that survives. No individual does.
Marie,
Wherever did you find that picture of Lyin' Ryan doing the Napoleon Pose? Hand in jacket? Of course, he could be reaching for a concealed weapon. Might have sighted a "taker" on the horizon, or a mom asking for a few days off after her child is born. Can't have that kinda stuff, now can we? Jeb! says she better get back to work and work even harder. After all, he and Ryan need someone to make sure their hammocks are properly secured.
Just wondering if, now that it seems like Ryan might become the Supreme Leader of the House, there might be an Elba in his future. Or maybe a Saint Helena?
D.C.,
Quite true, but true altruism in its purest form, at least as I understand it, means sacrificing yourself for someone with whom you share no genes.
But I suppose, if you stretch it out to include the species, then it is certainly true that such an act could have the outcome of helping to ensure the survival of the gene pool itself.
From what I've read, humans have been on the brink of extinction several times, the most serious, likely due to climate change, bringing the population down to a couple thousand humans, a few hundred in each population group. it's very likely that altruistic responses to such drastic situations could have saved the race from extinction.
So here's to altruism.
Hornets Attack Hillary Clinton
Or maybe that should be piranha. I dunno. At any rate, while you're awaiting the decision in this latest Confederate Scam, try this little geography game:
The "Can You Find Benghazi on a Map" test.
I was 60 miles off. Sheesh.
Akhilleus: Up above you wrote how much you liked "Godel, Escher, Bach." I am halfway to thinking(Zeno-like) that that is where you got your RC moniker. But, you must be a pretty modest guy, since I always thought of the Tortoise as the wiser of the dialogue partners.
Patrick,
Ha! I thought the same about that old tortoise. He seemed to win most of the dialogues, or at least to express himself in a more elegant manner.
No, my nom de net is more a reference to Homer's combination of ἄχος (akhos) "grief" and λαός (laos) "a people, tribe, nation", in other words, someone who exhibits the anguish of the polis confounded by traducers.
Although I think I may be slightly covetous of his armor, a pretty natty asseveration of martial Attic haberdashery, not to mention that very hip shield fabricated by Hephaestus, smithy to the gods. I mean, why go with Nike when you can go with stuff made by the son of Zeus?
I suspect it will be a long while before we have an understanding of Ambassador Steven's role in foreseeing the attacks in Benghazi. Its not a line of questioning that serves the instant purpose (damaging Clinton and therefore Obama) or passes a test of political correctness (too soon as they say). However, it seems like he had a wishful, perhaps naive, view of both his ability to manage Libyian "hearts and minds" and their capacity for change.
Re. altruism, sacrifice and evolution: There is a provocative, counterintuitive and, IMO convincing, paper by geneticist Steve Sommer that proposes that cancer is altruistic. His hypothesis proposes that cancer serves as the governor for the germ line mutation rate (mutations we're born with) without which we could not adapt to environmental change but if too high would wipe us out, and is based on the observation that most vertebrate species succumb to cancer along the same timeline normalized to lifespan. The full paper is paywalled, but the take-home: intuition about evolutionary benefit can be naive.
Just now reading your reply to my comment, Marie.
Thanks, I'll try it!