Just observing US policing, you should absolutely not believe a word of what they, their unions, or their allies in state and local government say about their murders of civilians. #AdamToledo
They routinely lie, including under oath, with impunity. Prosecutors assist them in their lying. Their lies are routinely exposed, and they face no repercussions (they're often rewarded). Until you receive overwhelming evidence to the contrary, you should assume they're lying.
It's caught on tape in Serial season 3, it's routinely exposed in police brutality cases, and I saw it up close in police statements about the murder of Sean Monterrosa and their subsequent destruction of evidence. All established facts, none held accountable.
I've been interested in racial justice and skeptical of policing my entire life, but nothing really prepares you to hear them just lie to your face, get exposed, and nothing ever happens because they're a cartel whose power is impenetrable by any civilian authority.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Whether police brutality is the result of incompetence, the ridiculous "feared for my life" justification, racially authoritarian psychology, or a mix of all three, it's truly amazing how destructive US policing is. Police involvement is strictly harmful.
A big indictment of poli sci, econ, and political economy is the 1970s-1990s studies of the "runaway bureaucracy", which was more concerned about excessive use of state authority by, like, OSHA, and not police. It's pretty embarrassing. Glad the disciplines are changing.
For many, the only face of the state they will ever interact with is local cartel gang that occupies their community and can just murder you with impunity if you don't immediately kiss their boots (or even if you do!).
A generous reading of @conor64 et al on "viewpoint diversity on campus" implies 3 considerations:
1) viewpoint diversity for its own sake
2) ideological representation of US (or some) public
3) "coping" & engaging with disagreement
Each important, each bad in extremes
Problem with 1: If diversity in itself is important, then why not hire on absurd and rare belief systems? That would maximize diversity.
Problem with 2: Better representation of US public's ideology in academia would almost certainly reduce the number of NeverTrump conservatives (rare the public), but massively increase Trumpism on campus. That's fine, but I'm not sure that's what this coalition wants.
In light of Georgia voting rights news, here's my new working paper.
tl;dr I create & validate a measure of democracy in the states 2000-2018 and test theories of democratic backsliding. It's all about the national Republican Party.
In the ongoing crisis of US democracy, a lot of focus is on Washington. There's renewed interest in V-Dem, Polity, etc measures of democracy at the national level.
2/n
But the US has an especially decentralized form of federalism that puts election administration, districting, policing, and other democratic institutions at the state level. And that's where the crisis is.
3/n
This is a difficult discussion, and I want to be graceful about all mourning.
But the American liberal proverb "powerful political individual X doesn't owe you anything" must be destroyed. They're means to ends on behalf of millions of ordinary people, and nothing more.
For example: is descriptive representation a means or an end? The answer should be clear. It is, again, merely a means to an end via empowerment and increased participation of people with shared identities. It's not an end in an of itself.
Is the kid touching Obama's hair photo an end? Maybe to some extent. But more important is that it represents the inspiration and empowerment of young Black people, who will then participate and run for office and...ya know...implement policies that help regular Black people!
Why do 'moderates' do better in general elections? The most plausible theory consistent with the empirical research is that elites in business and media are very effective at tanking non-moderates (and yes, they use money to do it)
The Hall (2015) paper comes up a lot in these debates. What never comes up is the part of the paper on mechanisms. The most plausible mechanism is that moderates get more PAC (corporate, trade assn) money.
This theory is consistent with what we know about voter attitudes, too. On their own, few people vote based on, say, Medicare-for-All vs a public option. But elites (on all sides) use resources to frame policies, including in ways that interact with strongly held identities.