Environmentalism Could Use Some Ideological Diversity

Before we get into it: If you’re here by virtue of a Facebook ad and you like what you read, consider following this blog directly. Go ahead. Hit that little red box over there and stick it to Zuckerberg. ⇒

*

Environmentalism, once a point of mutual agreement between liberals and conservatives, is flagging under the demand to meet the highest standards of left-wing activism. For an example, look no further than the latest craze in pop environmentalism: local straw bans.

Unless you’ve been living under a rock, you know that straw bans—local laws prohibiting restaurants from giving straws and other single-use plastics to customers—are springing up across America. All told, 28 US cities, joined by a growing list of businesses that includes Starbucks, have so far banned or limited the use of plastic straws or are considering doing so.

While these bans are moving at a steady clip in progressive enclaves, they haven’t been without detractors. As one might expect, the plastics and restaurant industries aren’t thrilled, and the bans have exasperated others who point out that plastic straws make up about .03% of the plastic that enters our oceans each year.

Those objections were never destined to blunt the enthusiasm of the celebrity-fueled campaign to #stopsucking. But another argument, made from within the ranks, has proven far more effective: Several disability advocates have pointed out that plastic straws, considered by most an item of convenience, are in fact essential to the dining experience for people with mobility issues. By outright banning them, they argue, these cities and businesses are forgetting about and harming disabled people.

The traction of this counter—the same argument has appeared in the Washington Post, Vox, Time, the Guardian, NPR, Teen Vogue and many more outlets—says a lot about how far left environmentalism has moved. The appeal of behalf of the disabled is effective because it, like other forms of progressive activism, appeals to the moral touchstones of protecting victims and promoting equality. Environmentalism, though practically a poster child for non-partisanship, is often pitched the same way: save the rain forest, protect the environment, the victims of climate change. This has no doubt added to its polarization, as this messaging is less effective with moderates and conservatives.

The progressive desires to protect victims and strive for equality have unquestionably been the impetus for much positive change in American society. But they can also be a weakness: left unchecked, progressive movements can auto-cannibalize as these motivations are pursued at the expense of all else—including their original goals.

A few notorious examples: The now-defunct Cape Wind project, which could have farmed enough wind energy to power 200,000 homes, met with tremendous resistance from Massachusetts residents who cited concerns about the effects on local fish and bird populations (as well as some less noble complaints about the view). The Ivanpah solar tower faced constant legal and political resistance from California environmentalists, despite estimates that it would prevent the emission of 500,000 metric tons of carbon per year. Dams and other forms of hydroelectric power, responsible for close to half of all the renewable energy generation in the United States, are also known to provoke the ire of green activists.

In each case, progressives who otherwise champion the worthwhile goal of cleaner energy are letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. The desire to avoid harming anyone vulnerable at any cost can lead to paralysis. In environmentalism, where big changes are difficult and marginal actions more tempting, the costs are more likely to be borne by those for whom a seeming inconvenience can be a prohibitive obstacle. That can be uncomfortable under normal circumstances, but when advocates are overwhelmingly hyper-sensitive to the “losers” side of the equation, as progressives often are, it can be downright intolerable.

Yet if we mean to make an omelette, eggs must be broken. While I personally think the straw ban craze is more performative than functional, there will no doubt be times when our society will have to make trade-offs to protect our natural world. If you think “the rich” alone will bear these costs, you’re kidding yourself. I’m not saying that environmentalists should be okay with making the lives of disabled people harder (and in this case, the workaround suggested by disability advocates—that restaurants simply stop offering them to everyone and keep some on hand for requests—is entirely reasonable). What I am saying is there will be tough choices on the road ahead, and environmentalism must decide if it will pursue left-wing purity or practicality.

Should it choose the latter, it will need to diversify its support. There won’t always be a happy marriage between impactful environmentalism and progressive values. For environmental groups to weather the political storm, they’ll have to be able to tap sources of support from outside the left.

Of course, this isn’t a one-way street; people outside the political left will have to start caring about these issues in much more visible ways and be willing to push their representatives. As it is, they’re giving up their chance to shape a movement and be part of the conversation. Unfortunately, for the moment, conservative political environmentalism remains somewhat niche. That’s a shame because the long-term viability of life on Earth is perhaps the greatest and most complicated matter concerning humanity. It would be foolish to think any political faction could tackle it alone.

This post originally appeared on Merion West

Business Is Getting Political—and Personal

As anyone reading this blog is undoubtedly aware, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the current White House Press Secretary, was asked last month by the owner of a restaurant to leave the establishment on the basis that she and her staff felt a moral imperative to refuse service to a member of the Trump administration. The incident, and the ensuing turmoil, highlights the extent to which business has become another political battleground—a concept that makes many anxious.

Whether or not businesses should take on political and social responsibilities is a fraught question—but not a new one. Writing for the New York Times in 1970, Milton Friedman famously argued that businesses should avoid the temptation go out of their way to be socially responsible and instead focus on maximizing profits within the legal and ethical framework erected by government and society. To act otherwise at the expense profitability, he reasoned, is to spend other people’s money—that of shareholders, employees, or customers—robbing them of their agency.

Though nearing fifty years of age, much of Milton Friedman’s windily and aptly titled essay, The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Profits, feels like it could have been written today. Many of the hypotheticals he cites of corporate social responsibility—“providing employment, eliminating discrimination, avoiding pollution”—are charmingly relevant in the era of automation anxiety, BDS, and one-star campaigns. His solution, that businesses sidestep the whole mess, focus on what they do best, and play by the rules set forth by the public, is elegant and simple—and increasingly untenable.

One reason for this is that businesses and the governments Friedman imagined would reign them in have grown much closer, even as the latter have grown comparatively weaker. In sharp contrast to the get-government-out-of-business attitude that prevailed in the boardrooms of the 1970s, modern industry groups collectively spend hundreds of millions to get the ears of lawmakers, hoping to obtain favorable legislation or stave off laws that would hurt them. Corporate (and other) lobbyists are known to write and edit bills, sometimes word for word.

You could convincingly argue that this is done in pursuit of profit: Boeing, for example, spent $17 million lobbying federal politicians in 2016 and received $20 million in federal subsidies the same year. As of a 2014 report by Good Jobs First, an organization that tracks corporate subsidies, Boeing had received over $13 billion of subsidies and loans from various levels of government. Nevertheless, this is wildly divergent from Friedman’s idea of business as an adherent to, not architect of, policy.

As business has influenced policy, so too have politics made their mark on business. Far more so than in the past, today’s customers expect brands to take stands on social and political issues. A report by Edelman, a global communications firm, finds a whopping 60% of American Millennials (and 30% of consumers worldwide) are “belief-driven” buyers.

This, the report states, is the new normal for businesses—like it or not. Brands that refrain from speaking out on social and political issues now increasingly risk consumer indifference, which, I am assured by the finest minds in marketing, is not good. In an age of growing polarization, every purchase is becoming a political act. Of course, when you take a stand on a controversial issue, you also risk alienating people who think you’re wrong: 57% of consumers now say they will buy or boycott a brand based on its position on an issue.

This isn’t limited to merely how corporations talk. Firms are under increasing social pressure to hire diversity officers, change where they do business, and reduce their environmental impact, among other things. According to a 2017 KPMG survey on corporate social responsibility, 90% of the world’s largest companies now publish reports on their non-business responsibilities. This reporting rate, the survey says, is being driven by pressure from investors and government regulators alike.

It turns out that a well marketed stance on social responsibility can be a powerful recruiting tool. A 2003 study by the Stanford Graduate School of Business found 90% of graduating MBAs in the United States and Europe prioritize working for organizations committed to social responsibility. Often, these social objectives can be met in ways that employees enjoy: for example, cutting a company’s carbon footprint by letting employees work from home.

In light of all this, the choice between social and political responsibility and profitability seems something of a false dichotomy. The stakes are too high now for corporations to sit on the sidelines of policy, politics, and society, and businesses increasingly find themselves taking on such responsibilities in pursuit of profitability. Whether that’s good or bad is up for debate. But as businesses have grown more powerful and felt the need to transcend their formerly transactional relationships with consumers, it seems to be the new way of things.

Ben Carson’s Tragically Mundane Scandal

Whatever else it might accomplish, President Donald Trump’s administration has surely earned its place in history for laying to rest the myth of Republican fiscal prudence. Be they the tax dollars of today’s citizens or tomorrow’s, high ranking officials within Mr. Trump’s White House seem to have no qualms about spending them.

The latest in a long series of questionable expenses is, of course, none other than Department of Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson’s now infamous $31,000 dining set, first reported on by the New York Times.¹ Since the Times broke the story, Mr. Carson has attempted to cancel the order, having come under public scrutiny for what many understandably deem to be an overly lavish expenditure on the public dime.

At first blush, Secretary Mr. Carson’s act is egregious. As the head of HUD, he has a proposed $41 billion of taxpayer money at his disposal. Such frivolous and seemingly self-aggrandizing spending undermines public trust in his ability to use taxpayer funds wisely and invites accusations of corruption. It certainly doesn’t help the narrative that, as some liberals have noted with derision, this scandal coincides with the proposal of significant cuts to the department’s budget.

But the more I think about it, the more I’m puzzled as to why people are so worked up about this.

Let me be clear: this certainly isn’t a good look for the Secretary of an anti-poverty department with a shrinking budget, and it’s justifiable that people are irritated. At a little more than half the median annual wage, most of us would consider $31,000 an absurd sum to spend on dining room furniture. The money that pays for it does indeed come from private citizens who would probably have chosen not to buy Mr. Carson a new dining room with it.

And yet, in the realm of government waste, that amount is practically nothing.
Government has a long, and occasionally humorous, history of odd and inefficient spending.

Sometimes, it can fly under the radar simply by virtue of being bizarre. Last year, for example, the federal government spent $30,000 in the form of a National Endowment for the Arts grant to recreate William Shakespeare’s play “Hamlet” – with a cast of dogs. Other times, the purchase at hand is too unfamiliar to the public to spark outrage. In 2016, the federal government spent $1.04 billion expanding trolley service a grand total of 10.92 miles in San Diego: an average cost of $100 million per mile.

Both of those put Mr. Carson’s $31,000 dining set in a bit of perspective. It is neither as ridiculous as the play nor as great in magnitude as the trolley. So why didn’t either of those incidents receive the kind of public ire he is contending with now?

The mundanity of Mr. Carson’s purchase probably hurts him in this regard. Not many of us feel informed enough to opine on the kind of money one should spend building ten miles of trolley track, but most of us have bought a chair or table. That reference point puts things in perspective and allows room for an emotional response. It’s also likely this outrage is more than a little tied to the President’s unpopularity.

Ironically, the relatively small amount of money spent might also contribute to this effect. When amounts get large enough, like a billion dollars, we tend to lose perspective – what’s a couple million here or there? But $31,000 is an amount we can conceptualize.

So it’s possible that we’re blowing this a little out of proportion for forces that are more emotional than logical. But I still think the issue is a legitimate one that deserves more public attention than it usually gets, and it would be interesting if the public were able to apply this kind of pressure to other instances of goofy spending. Here’s hoping, anyway.

A version of this article originally appeared on Merion West

1. I wrote this article the day before word broke that Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke had spent $139,000 upgrading the department’s doors.

A Political Future for Libertarians? Not Likely.

When it was suggested I do a piece about the future of the Libertarian Party, I had to laugh. Though I’ve been voting Libertarian since before Gary Johnson could find Aleppo on a map, I’ve never really had an interest in Libertarian Party politics.

Sure, the idea is appealing on a lot of levels. Being of the libertarian persuasion often leaves you feeling frustrated with politics, especially politicians. It’s tempting to watch the approval ratings of Democrats and Republicans trend downward and convince yourself the revolution is nigh.

But if I had to guess, the party will remain on the periphery of American political life, despite a relatively strong showing in the 2016 Presidential election. A large part of this – no fault of the Libertarian party – is due to anti-competitive behavior and regulation in the industry of politics. But a substantial amount of blame can be attributed to the simple and sobering fact that the type of government and society envisioned by hardcore Libertarians – the type that join the party – is truly unappealing to most of America.

Unless public opinion radically shifts, it feels like the Libertarian Party will mainly continue to offer voters a symbolic choice. Don’t get me wrong: I’m happy to have that choice, and it really would be nice to see people who genuinely value individual freedom elected to public office. But political realities being what they are, I’m going to hold off on exchanging my dollars for gold and continue paying my income taxes.

So that’s the bad news for libertarians. Here’s the good news: the cause of advancing human liberty isn’t dependent on a niche political party. The goal of libertarianism as a philosophy – the preservation and expansion of individual liberties – has no partisan allegiance. Victory for the Libertarian Party is (thankfully) not requisite for libertarians to get more of what they want.

Advancing their agenda has, for libertarians, proved to be more a question of winning minds than elections. While “capital-L” Libertarians remain on the political margins, aspects of libertarian thought are appreciated by people of all political persuasions and often receive appeal for support. Although no Libertarian Party member has ever held a seat in Congress, moved into a governor’s mansion, or garnered more than four percent of the national vote, many long-held libertarian ideas have enjoyed incredible success, and others are still gaining momentum.

Same-sex marriage is now the law of the land, as has been interracial marriage. Support for legalizing marijuana is at an all-time high (pun intended), and ending the larger ‘war on drugs’ is an idea gaining currency, not only in the US but worldwide. The draft is a thing of the past; the public is growing wary and weary of interventionist foreign policy. A plan to liberalize our immigration system, though stuck in legislative limbo, remains a priority for most Americans, and the United States remains a low-tax nation among countries in the developed world, especially when it comes to individual tax rates.

And not all the good news comes from the realm of politics. Americans have maintained and expanded on a culture of philanthropy, per-capita giving having tripled since the mid-1950s. The rise of social media and the internet has made it easier than ever for people to exchange ideas. Technology of all sorts has lowered prices for consumers and helped people live more productive lives. Even space exploration – until recently exclusively the purview of governments – is now within private reach.

None of this was or will be passed with legislation written or signed into law by a Libertarian politician. But that’s not what really matters. What really matters is that people are freer today to live the kinds of lives they want, peacefully, and without fear of persecution. Yes, there is still much that might be improved, at home and certainly abroad. But in a lot of ways, libertarians can rest happily knowing that their ideas are winning, even if their candidates are not.

This article originally appeared on Merion West.

Political Polarization Isn’t All Terrible

Political polarization, it is said, is tearing this country apart. As politics creeps into everything, it can seem like America is increasingly becoming a battleground for liberals and conservatives, while a shrinking moderate majority suffers the collateral damage.

Witness the left-wing condemnation of Taylor Swift’s insufficiently anti-Trump stance or the right-wing’s sudden loathing for the NFL and it will seem childish. Consider that 45% of Republicans and 41% of Democrats now believe the other party is a danger to the country and it appears nothing short of malignant. Recall the recent politically motivated shooting of Republican legislators in June, and you will conclude it is downright terminal.

But in many ways, polarization is the unhappy consequence of the increased choice enjoyed by media consumers and voters — things that most would probably consider to be not only good, but essential to a healthy democracy. Like many unpopular-but-ubiquitous phenomena, polarization serves many important functions. First, and probably most importantly, polarization helps simplify an otherwise complicated question: for whom should we vote?

Often, votes are cast from a position economists refer to as rational ignorance – a situation in which the costs of educating oneself (in this case about the various candidates and issues) outweigh the benefits. In other words, since a single vote has next to no impact in a high-turnout election, most voters will rationally avoid spending too much energy diving into the nuts and bolts of candidates’ proposals. With distinct parties, one can vote for the candidate of one party or the other and, even without familiarizing himself with every position held by that candidate, have a reasonably good idea of what the person he’s voting for believes.

Voters, thus, know more or less what they’re getting themselves into when they head to the polls. Want a bigger government? Vote Democrat. Lower taxes? Vote Republican. In a completely unpolarized political landscape, the barriers to informed voting would be even larger than they are now. Voters might get discouraged and abstain or vote based on something other than policy.

Speaking of voter engagement, political polarization is theorized to help with that, too. Recent research has shown that high levels of polarization, coupled with the presence of few political parties, encourage more people to vote. Findings from the Pew Center’s 2014  study of polarization in the American public further support this conclusion: individuals at the edges of the political spectrum are shown to be most likely to say they always vote. Animus toward the opposite party appears to be a major motivating factor for such voters.

This increased passion seems to extend beyond voting as well. Voters with consistent liberal or conservative views are about twice as likely as those with mixed views to engage in  various forms of political activism. As polarization has increased, so too has the percentage of voters saying they’ve spoken to others trying to persuade them to vote for one candidate or another, according to data collected by the  American National Election Studies. However strong one’s distaste for the current tone of civil discourse, its presence is better than the alternative.

A final positive consequence of polarization is that it slows down the government. If you are a partisan with an agenda and opportunity, you probably don’t think that’s such a great thing: a year ago, liberals were heaping opprobrium upon a Republican Congress for obstructionism; now the president is leveling the  same accusation against Democrats. But once your party’s out of power, you might be a little more sympathetic to the idea that governments should move with deliberation and humility rather than speed and zeal.

Of course there really are things that require governments to move quickly and with decisiveness, and when polarization impedes that process, that can be bad. But through opposition and gridlock, minority party members perform the valuable public service of making sure the governing party does not do too much too fast. The public only has so many meaningful opportunities for input, and having trillion-dollar commitments met with some resistance until voters get to weigh in again isn’t the worst thing in the world.

All this isn’t to say that political polarization is a fundamentally good thing. It is very often tiring, unproductive, and petulant. As a self-styled moderate and small-L libertarian, I can attest to my personal dissatisfaction with the candidates, policies, and discourse produced by our two-party system. There are things we can, and in my opinion maybe should, do to foster a political system less inclined to bipolarity. But in the short-term, we have the politics we have, and it’s worth realizing that polarization is not only a consequence of but also a conduit for many of the things that are good about our system of government.

This article originally appeared on Merion West

In Defense of the Center

The mushy center never inspires passion like ideological purity. The spectacle of radicalism puts asses in the seats. It’s hard, on the other hand, to imagine rebellious, mask-clad youths taking to the street in the name of fine-tuning marginal tax rates.

Oh sure, you may see a protest here and there, and practically everyone grumbles about this or that issue in which they have an interest. But as the great philosopher Calvin once said: a good compromise leaves everybody mad.

calvin

Some more so than others. Opining in the New York Times, Senator Bernie Sanders suggests Democrats can reverse their political fortunes by abandoning their “overly cautious, centrist ideology,” and more closely approximating the policy positions of a Vermont socialist.

I suppose this could be sound political advice. Everyone has an idea of the way they’d like the world to work, and Sanders’ ideas are appealing to a great many people. You could argue–as Sanders does–that Republicans have had some success with a similar strategy following the Obama years. But, as they’re finding out, ideological purity makes for better campaign slogans than successful governing strategy.

Here’s the thing: We live in a big, diverse country. People have very different wants and needs, yet we all live under the same (federal) laws. Our priorities must sometimes compete against each other, which is why we often end up with some of what we want, but not everything. Striking that balance is tough, and by necessity leaves many people unhappy. We don’t always get it right. But when you’re talking about laws that affect 320 million people, some modesty, or if you prefer, “caution,” is in order.

Alas, Bernie is not of a similar mind. In fewer than 1,000 words, he offers no shortage of progressive bromides without mention of the accompanying price tag. It’s one thing to form a platform around medicare-for-all, higher taxes on the wealthy (their “fair share”), aggressive clean energy commitments, a trillion-dollar infrastructure plan, or free tuition at state universities and lower interest rates on student loans. But all of them? At once?!

Sanders should remember the political and economic lessons of Vermont Governor Peter Shumlin’s foray into single-payer healthcare: Government spending–and thus government activity–is constrained by the population’s tolerance for taxation (And on the other side of things, their tolerance for a deficit of public services. Looking at you, Kansas). Go too far and you risk losing support. And unless you’re willing to rule by force, as extremists often must, that will cost you your ability to shape public policy.

For what it’s worth, I don’t think the Senator’s advice would do the Democrats any favors. The Democrats didn’t move to the center-left because there was widespread and untapped support for endless government programs in America. They did it because they collided with the political and economic reality of governance in our country. Americans are willing to pay for some government programs, but not at the rate Europeans pay to have much more expansive governments. The left, therefore, shouldn’t play an all-or-nothing game, but instead think about what it does well and how it can appeal to, rather than alienate, the rest of the country. That’s going to involve compromise.

Update: Following Jon Ossoff’s narrow defeat in a Georgia special election, there’s been a lot of discussion about whether a more progressive candidate would have fared better. Personally, I find it hard to believe centrism and fiscal conservatism worked against Ossoff in a historically Republican district. Much more believable is Matt Yglesias’ related-but-different take that Ossoff’s reluctance to talk policy left a void for the opposition to exploit, allowing them to cast him as an outsider.

One thing seems certain: the rift within the Democratic party isn’t going away anytime soon.

The CBO Feels the Love

The Congressional Budget Office isn’t known for its awesome marketing or pithy statements. It’s never been recognized by Buzz Feed for its social media use. Nevertheless, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) is enjoying an unusual amount of love on Twitter.

Here’s how you really know they’ve made it: The title of yesterday’s National Review Morning Jolt was, “The Congressional Box Office is Very ‘In’ Right Now.”

Two nights ago, it tweeted a four-word message with a link to its analysis of the American Health Care Act (AHCA) that has received far more attention than is normal for the CBO twitter account. As of writing this post, the tweet in question has racked up 62 responses, 846 retweets, and 542 likes.

That might not sound like a lot; the truth is, it isn’t. Donal Trump’s tweets, for example, often receive tens of thousands of ‘likes.’ But relative to the usual engagement on the CBO’s tweets, it’s absolutely ridiculous.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Since January first of 2016, the CBO has tweeted 120 times. The median numbers of responses, retweets, and ‘likes’ to those tweets were respectively 0, 3, and 2. In fact, this latest tweet is responsible for nearly half of all the reactions garnered by the CBO’s account over that time period.

So what does this tell us?

The most obvious insight is that people are paying more attention to the CBO since the administration change. That’s not surprising; the CBO evaluates economic and budget proposals, and there are quite a few shakeups going on in that department right about now. The agency has been firing on all cylinders to keep up with demands from Congress, doubling the frequency of its tweets since Trump took office (.48 tweets/day compared with .24 tweets/day during the previous year).

In the final year of Barack Obama’s presidency, the CBO only averaged 9.5 ‘retweets’ per tweet–and that’s including a January 17th tweet that was responsible for 405 retweets alone (if you exclude that post, the account averaged 5 retweets per post). Since the beginning of the Trump administration, that average has jumped to 39.6 (7.6 if you don’t include the latest viral tweet).

Another insight: Negative feelings about the AHCA are driving the CBO’s recent popularity surge. The only two tweets with significant activity in the past year (look at the spikes in the graphs above) were about the AHCA and the effects of repealing the Affordable Care Act (ACA). A cursory glance through the responses to both tweets reveals that most of the commenters are detractors of the current administration who oppose changes to the ACA.

It would be a mistake to use this as a proxy for national consensus on the AHCA, however. Twitter often skews liberal.

*

For the record, the CBO writes a killer blog (I use the term loosely, for obvious reasons). It’s a great source of unfiltered information about economic ideas from Washington. You can sign up to receive email updates from it here. And, if the CBO is reading this, don’t forget about us when you get famous.

Science Has a Reproducibility Crisis

If your Facebook feed is anything like mine, you may have recently heard about how Bill Nye–the Science Guy himself–“slammed” Tucker Carlson on the latter’s evening show on Fox. THIS. (If you live somewhere else you may have been treated to an equally smug reaction from people claiming that Carlson “won.”)

However you feel about it, the timing, coupled with Nye’s reliance on scientific consensus as a proxy for objective correctness, is somewhat serendipitous. Mounting evidence that the results of scientific studies are often not replicable has caused Nature, a prolific scientific journal, to very publicly tighten its standards for submissions as of its latest issue.

In May of 2016, a survey by Nature revealed that over two thirds of researchers surveyed had tried and failed to reproduce the results of another scientist’s study. Over half of them had been unable to reproduce their own results. Fifty two percent of researchers polled said there was a “significant crisis” of reproducibility.

This is a big deal. The ability to replicate the results of studies is crucial to both scientific integrity and progress. Clinical researchers, for example, depend on reliable results from prior trials to form the building blocks of new drug advancements. In the field of cancer biology, merely 10% of results from published literature were found to be reproducible. Meanwhile, the credibility of scientific literature is understandably compromised by dubious, often sensational findings.

The root of the problem, according to Dame Ottoline Leyser, director of the Sainsbury Laboratory at the University of Cambridge, stems from today’s scientific culture. As quoted in BBC, she cites “a culture that promotes impact over substance, flashy findings over the dull, confirmatory work that most of science is about.”

Others blame a pressure to publish. There has also been, in recent years, doubt cast on the integrity of the peer review process, especially with regard to climate science.

Whatever the culprit, plans to combat issues of reproducibility are emerging. Nature has developed a checklist to serve as guidelines for authors submitting writing to the publication. Efforts shouldn’t end there, the journal argues. Reform at all levels of the scientific process could go a long way:

Renewed attention to reporting and transparency is a small step. Much bigger underlying issues contribute to the problem, and are beyond the reach of journals alone. Too few biologists receive adequate training in statistics and other quantitative aspects of their subject. Mentoring of young scientists on matters of rigour and transparency is inconsistent at best. In academia, the ever increasing pressures to publish and chase funds provide little incentive to pursue studies and publish results that contradict or confirm previous papers. Those who document the validity or irreproducibility of a published piece of work seldom get a welcome from journals and funders, even as money and effort are wasted on false assumptions.

Tackling these issues is a long-term endeavour that will require the commitment of funders, institutions, researchers and publishers. It is encouraging that NIH institutes have led community discussions on this topic and are considering their own recommendations. We urge others to take note of these and of our initiatives, and do whatever they can to improve research reproducibility.

The Lost Art of Debate

This recent election cycle has been nothing if not revelatory. Who would have guessed that Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump were the harbingers of a populist revolt that would leave both major parties in the throes of identity crisis?

But enough punditry; those are considerations for the political class. While they meet behind closed doors in Washington, We the People should revisit the ancient and sacred art of civil debate and contemplate why so many of us abandoned it.

This isn’t to say that people haven’t fought for what they believe in. Indeed, part of the problem is that many of us confuse fighting with debate. Debate requires patience, empathy, clarity, and above all, an open mind. Fighting requires very little beyond the hubris to mistake conviction for virtue (for examples, visit Facebook, YouTube, or twitter).

To debate someone you have to respect them enough to let them finish a sentence. You have to be willing to let them construct an argument against you under the assumption that you will later be able to successfully challenge its premise. You must also open yourself to the idea that there are realistic limits to your own knowledge and perception.

The bravest thing you can do is give someone time to speak against you. Conversely, resorting to ad hominem, laying waste to innumerable straw men, and shutting out dissent are the strategies of cowards: the easy way out.

Too often these days we lack the bravery to face our ideological opponents. We go online and read news sources that confirm our opinions; we shame our detractors into silence; we withdraw to be with our own kind. Consider that this year over 1,700 counties voted with margins 20 points different than the national vote while only around 250 voted within 5 points of the national vote. At the Washington Post, Phillip Bump writes that two thirds of Clinton and Trump supporters had few to no friends supporting the other candidate. The lukewarm comfort of our echo chambers keeps us content to ignore that ours is a big world.

Nowhere has this tendency become as evident as on college campuses, which have sadly become ideologically homogeneous to the point of enfeeblement. Recently, colleges have developed a disturbing trend of turning away controversial speakers at the request of students. Between 2015 and 2016, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education counts 52 attempts to disinvite speakers based on student opposition, of which 24 were successful.

Following the election of Donald Trump, there was a widespread and embarrassing exhibition of incredulity. The dangers and consequences of the echo chamber were made apparent.

Rather than take this as an opportunity for introspection, some have chosen to double down. More than a few colleges granted accommodations to their students, ranging from postponing exams to providing “breathing spaces”—rooms containing pets and coloring books—to students who felt stressed by the results. Many smart people took to social media to excoriate others they’d never met, or tried to understand. Is it any wonder that those who have shied from ideological opposition wither in its face?

A closed mind cannot aspire to persuasion. A theory is not made stronger without facing resistance. If you want people to listen to you, as presumably we all do, you should be willing to hear them out. That means reading news from sources that make you uncomfortable and trying to engage people who aren’t like you without writing them off as bigots. It means reaffirming the value of unpopular speech, denouncing censorship, and moving past identity politics. It won’t be easy, but it will be worth it.

For the good of our society, it’s time to revive the art of debate and put aside the intellectual lethargy that precludes it.

Stakes is High

In 1996 De La Soul released Stakes is High. The album contains a running theme of concern for the state of hip-hop. In various skits throughout the album, members of the group fret over the decline of industry integrity, as the genre intensified its flirtation with gangster culture. The album feels like a fitting soundtrack to this election.

In 2016 America played its own high-stakes game, electing a president who, throughout the course of his campaign, displayed an alarming illiteracy of or indifference to the United States’ Constitution. Perhaps more unsettling than his ignorance, he often demonstrated a predilection for authoritarian governance, at various times idolizing Saddam Hussein and Vladimir Putin.

How did we get here? It didn’t happen over night. During times of war American presidents have sought—and often obtained—powers that far exceed the intended scope of the office. Foreign (and at times domestic) threats have been used to justify a litany of unilateral actions and circumvent civil liberties since the First World War. The creeping expanse of Executive power is a feature of a nation inured to a perpetual state of war.

The last two presidents were no exception to this pattern. President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to spy on Americans and issued hundreds of signing statements and executive orders, further compromising the balance of checks and balances between the branches of government.

President Obama continued this trend of erosion, sidestepping Congress on immigration, bombing in Libya, funding the Affordable Care Act, and more.

Partisanship contributed to this phenomenon. Instead of taking principled stands against overreach at all times, members of Congress and the American people have preferred to do so only when it meant thwarting the other team. That cheapens what should be a shared concern of imbalanced government.

In a few months we will have to contend with a President Trump who, as of yet, seems unable to demonstrate a hint of restraint. It’s hard to image that he will adhere to a parochial interpretation of the presidency, especially armed with decades of precedent that suggests there’s really no need to do so.

Democrats and Republicans in office should take every step to right the wrongs of the past and contain the power of the president. Citizens, for their part, must come to regard presidential overreach as the danger it really is or risk a further slide toward tyranny. We must all remember that while authoritarianism may be sweet when your side is winning, it can quickly turn bitter. The stakes, as they say, are high.