Kevin Drum

The Virtue of Self-Control

| Tue Jan. 25, 2011 2:18 AM EST

This isn't too surprising, but a new study that tracked over a thousand children from the age of 3 to the age of 32 has found that the long-term effects of poor self-control are at least as important as intelligence and social class origin:

Childhood self-control predicted adult health problems....elevated risk for substance dependence....less financially planful....less likely to save and had acquired fewer financial building blocks for the future....struggling financially in adulthood....more money-management difficulties....more credit problems....more likely to be convicted of a criminal offense.

The authors suggest two different paths by which poor self-control creates problems later in life:

Adolescents with low self-control made mistakes, such as starting smoking, leaving high school, and having an unplanned baby, that could ensnare them in lifestyles with lasting ill effects....Thus, interventions in adolescence that prevent or ameliorate the consequences of teenagers’ mistakes might go far to improve the health, wealth, and public safety of the population. On the other hand, that childhood self-control predicts adolescents’ mistakes implies that early childhood intervention could prevent them....Early childhood intervention that enhances self-control is likely to bring a greater return on investment than harm reduction programs targeting adolescents alone.

The policy implications here remain to be worked out, but it's yet another indication that the benefits of intensive early childhood interventions go far beyond academic achievement. Even if early childhood programs have no lasting effect on school test scores at all, they might still be immensely valuable if they improve levels of self-control. The question is, what's the best way to do that?

Advertise on MotherJones.com

The Mystery of Fact Checking

| Mon Jan. 24, 2011 7:39 PM EST

Megan McArdle comments on a book review that bemoans its target's many basic factual errors:

This is what fact checkers are for, and I don't understand why book publishers don't have them. They cost money, to be sure--but not that much money....A quarter of a million dollars a year would get you the world's finest staff of crack fact checkers.

....Presumably the answer is that it isn't economic: readers don't care, and indeed rarely learn; there's no money in preventing the occasional catastrophe []. But then one must turn the question around: why do magazines like The Economist, the New Yorker, and yes, The Atlantic, employ fact checkers? Our readers are the potential consumers of books like the one that the Economist is reviewing; do they care less about accuracy in their books than in their magazine articles?

Not that anyone at The Atlantic thinks about it that way; we employ fact checkers because it seems like the right thing to do. But why does this ethic prevail at so many magazines, and at no publishing house?

I have my doubts about this. When I think about the amount of work that MoJo's fact checkers put into the 4,000-word articles I write, and then multiply that by 20 for the entire magazine, that's a lot of fact checking. And it's probably less than you'd need for the average 300-page nonfiction book. At a guess (since no fact checkers are checking this blog), I'd say that fact checking a book would cost upwards of $5-10,000, and considering that most nonfiction books don't even make back their advances, that's a lot of money.

But there's another thing going on here as well: if a book has errors, people blame the author. They don't generally blame Random House or Simon & Schuster. But if there are errors in a magazine, people blame the magazine. So magazines simply have a stronger incentive to protect their brand than book publishers do.

Beyond that, I suppose it's just inertia: magazines have had fact checkers for a long time and book publishers haven't. Any other ideas?

The Myth of Slow Growth

| Mon Jan. 24, 2011 7:00 PM EST

Earlier this morning I suggested that policies aimed at economic growth, though obviously a good thing, aren't enough to raise middle class fortunes. You also need economic policies that focus on the middle class. Matt Yglesias counters:

I’m not really sure how separate they are. I think the specific fate of the very poor can become pretty unmoored from overall economic conditions, but certainly as a historical matter middle class incomes have risen the most at the same times America’s has had the most rapid economic growth—the 30 years after World War II and the late 1990s. You can construct some models in which this isn’t the case, but in practice the basic mechanisms for faster economic growth lead to rising middle class incomes, though not necessarily rising incomes for each individual middle class household.

This is a surprisingly hardy myth, and I'd like to help it die the grisly death it deserves. Here's a chart showing real per capita GDP growth in the United States over the past century. I've helpfully added a straight red line for the period from 1950 to the present day:

The past 30 years simply haven't been a low-growth period. In fact, economic growth has been about the same as it was in the 30 years before that. Our problem isn't growth, our problem is that the returns to growth have increasingly been skewed in favor of the very rich.

It's certainly true that middle class wages tend to rise in extremely tight labor markets, like the one we had in the late 90s. Mickey Kaus is fond of making that point. But this is pretty meaningless unless you have a plan to keep labor markets perpetually tight. If you do, then believe me, I'll be the first to sign up. But no one has such a plan. In the real world, we have to deal with the fact that real per capita growth is likely to be a pretty steady 2% per year over the long term and labor markets are going to fluctuate around a level that's (hopefully) snug but not perpetually at 90s-era tightness.

The prosperity of the middle class obviously depends on a growing economy. But just as obviously, it depends on more than that. For liberalism to mean anything at all, we need to support policies that are aimed both at overall economic growth and at ensuring that prosperity is widely shared. We haven't done a very good job of that over the past 30 years.

The GOP's Healthcare Non-Plan

| Mon Jan. 24, 2011 2:34 PM EST

The Republican mantra on healthcare reform is "Repeal and Replace." But replace it with what? Ross Douthat has some ideas, one of which is this:

Republicans should work to deregulate the new health care exchanges, so that high-deductible, catastrophic coverage can be purchased as easily as comprehensive plans.

But as Jon Cohn points out, PPACA already supports high-deductible plans:

Look closely at the standards for coverage in the insurance exchanges: The minimal, or bronze, insurance option allows out-of-pocket spending of up to $12,500 for a family of four. The actuarial value is 60 percent, which means, very roughly, that the plan only covers about 60 percent of the average person's medical bills. Those are some pretty high deductibles!

Ross's second idea is to limit subsidies for low-income workers, which, needless to say, guts the entire point of the bill. His third is to tweak the individual mandate in ways that, as Jon Chait says, are probably sensible. Unfortunately:

There's little reason to believe either that these objections represent the right's real problem with the Affordable Care Act or that they're willing to consider any tweak to improve the law.

The conservative base has simply been whipped into such a frenzy on this issue that it's impossible to imagine Republicans making any change that isn't designed to lead to full repeal. There's a reason why conservative magazines and writers keep repeating the slogan "Repeal" endlessly. It's more a point of honor than policy. The Affordable Care Act has become, in the right wing mind, a monstrosity, a completely illegitimate assault on American freedom, and an emotional wound that conservative elites work very hard to ensure never heals.

Of course, it's very helpful for conservative elites like Matthews and Douthat treat the right's objections to the individual mandate (a policy tool Republicans either supported or had little objection to up until 2009) at face value. Eventually conservatives will make their peace with health scare reform, and either put their policy imprint on it or not. But in the meantime the overwhelming conservative impetus is to sabotage the law by any available means. A reform to the law that satisfies objections to the individual mandate, but that does not satisfy the urge to repeal the bill, will be seen by most Republicans as untouchable.

Is there any serious argument that Jon is wrong about this? Republicans have never taken universal healthcare seriously, after all. In fact, as near as I can tell, they're philosophically opposed to the whole idea, regardless of how it's implemented. Wonky healthcare proposals from various corners of conservativedom should mostly be thought of not as serious plans, but as useful window dressing that allows conservatives to claim on Sunday chat shows that they do too have constructive ideas about healthcare. But the plain fact is that none of these comprehensive proposals could get the support of even a quarter of the Republican congressional caucus. Maybe not even that much. Republicans have had plenty of time to think about this, and if they seriously thought that a Douthat-esque plan was a good idea they would have proposed it long ago. They didn't, and they're not going to this time around either.

Filibuster Reform is Dead

| Mon Jan. 24, 2011 1:45 PM EST

Over the weekend a reader asked me whatever happened to Democratic plans to reform the filibuster at the beginning of this year's Senate session. It's still in progress, I said, but I hadn't heard anything specific. However, that was because I didn't read the paper on Saturday. Paul Kane reports:

To the dismay of a younger crop of Democrats and some outside liberal activists, there is no chance that rules surrounding the filibuster will be challenged, senior aides on both sides of the aisle say, because party leaders want to protect the right of the Senate's minority party to sometimes force a supermajority of 60 votes to approve legislation.

Instead, rank-and-file lawmakers will receive pitches from Sens. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), who have been negotiating more limited changes, such as with "secret holds" that allow an anonymous senator to slow legislation. In addition, some modifications could be made to the way confirmations are handled for agency nominees who do not have direct roles in policymaking.

Unsurprisingly, no one wants to seriously muck around with the filibuster. Republicans are opposed because they're the minority party and Democrats are unenthusiastic because someday they might be the minority party:

While liberal groups such as MoveOn.org and some unions such as the Communications Workers of America are supporting the Udall effort, the liberal coalition is far from united on the issue. Some large members of the AFL-CIO have been noticeably silent, while some abortion rights groups have publicly declared their opposition to changing filibuster rules. That, some Democratic aides said, is because in the 1990s and in the early days of the George W. Bush White House - when Republicans controlled both ends of the Capitol - these groups relied on their Senate Democratic allies and the 60-vote threshold to protect key rights such as Davis-Bacon wages for federal works projects and the Roe v. Wade abortion decision.

So there you have it. We'll get some minor changes at best, but nothing serious.

Please Don't Be Offended

| Mon Jan. 24, 2011 1:15 PM EST

I might be the last person to notice this, but I still sort of wonder what it says about us. I was over at Dave Weigel's place a few minutes ago, and he linked to a Twitter post by Jim Geraghty, who I don't happen to follow. When I clicked the link, it included the following message:

This Tweet is from someone you're not following. The media they're mentioning could be anything, even something you might find offensive.

It could be anything! We can't have that, can we? Best to hide it from sensitive eyes.

This is, obviously, no big deal, and you can change your default setting pretty easily to see everything automatically. Still, it seems a little dismaying that we're so delicate these days that even when we actively click on a link, we apparently need to be protected from the mere possibility of getting a fleeting glimpse of something we might find offensive. Buck up, America!

And while we're on the subject of why not a single Republican has announced a presidential candidacy yet — yep, that's the subject — isn't the answer obvious? It's because they all know Barack Obama is as good as a shoo-in in 2012. Unless something cataclysmic happens, the only reason for any Republican to run is either as a vanity candidate or to get practice for 2016.

Advertise on MotherJones.com

Liberals and Economic Growth

| Mon Jan. 24, 2011 12:19 PM EST

Mike Konczal and Matt Yglesias scoff at the notion that the economy will suffer unless the president constantly massages the egos of sensitive businessmen, a sentiment I share profoundly. Matt goes on to note that, in any case, regardless of what the business class thinks, economic growth is usually better under Democrats than Republicans:

The fact of the matter is that businessmen like conservative politicians....Economic growth was better in the 1990s than in the 2000s, but businessmen liked George W Bush better than Bill Clinton. Growth was better under FDR than under Eisenhower, but businessmen liked Ike. And that’s fine, businessmen are free to like or dislike whomever they want. But their subjective view of politicians doesn’t cause or hamper economic growth.

....I really do think progressives need to try harder to claim the mantle of growth for ourselves. Conservatives like to talk about the importance of economic growth, but they’re not only bad at delivering it in practice, they’re remarkably hostile to the idea of boosting growth....

I agree that liberals ought to do a better job of persuading the electorate that liberal policies are friendly toward economic growth, but it's worth a pause to say that even if we do this successfully it won't affect the business community's view of us at all. Despite what they say, business executives don't care much about economic growth. They should, but they don't. What they care about is low taxes, light regulations, firm anti-union policies, robust corporate profits, and a sense that the bureaucracy of the government is sympathetic to their needs. Liberals are just never going to give them that other than narrowly and briefly (as with financial deregulation, for example, which was great for the Democratic Party but turned out to be not so great for the economy).

As for the broader electorate, they don't care much about generic economic growth either. They care about their own paychecks. This means that if Democrats want to win them over, they need to support policies that support economic growth and channel that growth largely toward the working and middle classes. Those are separate challenges, but without them both an agenda dedicated to economic growth won't really do us much good.

A Visit To Quantico

| Sun Jan. 23, 2011 6:06 PM EST

Earlier today Jane Hamsher and David House visited the Quantico Marine Corps Base to visit accused WikiLeaks leaker Bradley Manning and deliver a petition protesting the conditions of his confinement. David House is on Quantico's visitation list, and both he and Jane have been there before. Before today's visit, Jane called the base to let them know she was coming. Apparently that was a mistake. Here are excerpts from her live Twitter feed of the visit:

At Quantico w @DavidMHouse to deliver 42,000 sigs 4 Bradley Maning to brig. Holding us at gate, never happened before

Demanding my social security number before they'll let me on Quantico base, but won't say why. Never happened before.

Quantico guards say I'll be arrested if I go to McDonalds while @davidmhouse visits Manning. "That privilege has been withdrawn."

Now been here at Quantico gate for 30 min. Will not let us leave base, holding us.

Gunny Foster Military Police #1715 writing me ticket for not hving latest insurance card. Sorry to 42,000 people who signed Manning petition

Can't leave base, can't go 2 brig, can't get my driver's license, Gunt Foster threatening 2 arrest us. Haven't done a thing.

The guards absolutely knew we were coming @auerfeld & told to harass us. "This was what I was told to do" said Gunny Foster.

We've been coming 2 Quantico 4 months @chrisvcb, @DavidMHouse has official permission 2 visit Bradley Manning,

Gunny Foster towing my car bc they won't accept my electronic proof of insurance, demanding paper.

Forcing @DavidMHouse 2 go 2 court. Wouldn't give ticket, gave him a summons 2 appear in court.

Military police searching & impounding my car. Won't let @DavidMHouse on 2 see Bradley Manning, won't say why.

It's 28 degrees, forcing us 2 stand outside.

Still holding us, my car on tow truck but Quantico guards still won't let us leave.

For whatever reason, Quantico Marine brass don't want Manning 2 have visitor now. Isolation & enforcement of solitary confinement complete.

Marines now say House can't walk to see [Manning] but can go off base, get a cab & come back on. But visitation over at 3pm.

Tow truck driver says we also have to pay 4 time he had 2 wait for Quantico marines 2 release us: $300.

Quantico Marine brass showed up PERSONALLY 2 make sure @DavidMHouse never got 2 see Manning. Next visiting period: next week.

Quantico top brass made sure we were held until visiting hours were over & impossible 4 @DavidMHouse 2 see Manning. Message clear.

They have let me on Quantico base every time @dtfrannyb, & I went where they told me to & complied w all requests. Never been a problem

A "statement of events" written afterward is here. This doesn't appear to be a shining moment for either our government or our military forces.

Organizing the Middle Class

| Sun Jan. 23, 2011 4:04 PM EST

Matt Yglesias has a complaint:

I think labor-friendly writers sometimes don’t do the best possible job of distinguishing between unions qua social and political institutions and collective bargaining as a labor market institution. Something like EFCA is the only way to revive collective bargaining as a major force in private sector labor markets. But I don’t think it’s correct to see EFCA → union density as the only conceivable form of politically influential mass membership organization. 

Actually, I'm pretty sure that most labor-friendly writers are keenly aware of this distinction. But put that aside. It's obviously true that organized labor isn't the only conceivable form of politically influential mass membership organization. The question is whether it's the only conceivable form of politically influential mass membership organization dedicated to the economic concerns of the middle class. Right now I'd say it is for the simple reason that no one seems able to conceive of an alternative. But I sure wish someone would.

The View From My Picture Frame

| Sun Jan. 23, 2011 2:52 PM EST

Andrew Sullivan has great success getting people to figure out the location of random photos taken around the world, so I'm going to try it too. Except this is a photo of a painting. It's signed by someone named J. Gaston, and pretty obviously seems to be a Paris street scene. But is it? And which street? We're giving this to my sister-in-law in a couple of weeks, and I thought it would be nice if I could tell her what it's a painting of. Anyone know?

UPDATE: It's the Porte Saint Martin on St. Martin Boulevard in Paris. Thanks to Rjerrard and Skeptc for the ID. Pictures here and here.