Why you should read my newsletter
I’ve never written a piece based on a single tweet, but this one from Nate Silver managed to do it. Like they say, there’s a first time for everything. For those who don’t use X, here it is in full. “People are just so, so bad about mistaking the opinion of their peer group for broader public opinion. Including a lot of journalists and academics who cover this stuff for a living and ought to know better. It’s kind of the Original Political Sin.” It got me thinking about what makes this blog different from most others who write and talk about national politics.
What Silver talks about is something I see all the time. Most of those who get paid to write and talk about national politics live in DC. Most of the rest live in New York. Of the remaining ones, most of them live in either LA or the Bay Area. When I say those who get paid to write and talk about politics, I’m referring not just to columnists and other opinion writers. I am also referring to political reporters, cable news talking heads, TV show hosts, podcasters, social media pundits/influencers, etc. For brevity’s sake, I will refer to them collectively as “political writers” even though not all of them write things.
I have nothing against DC, New York, LA or the Bay Area (the four areas), but they are just four places in a huge country. They are also very left-wing places. In the circles many political writers hang out in, it’s probably even starker. Political writers are almost always well-educated, higher income people and spend their time around others like that. It’s in those kinds of circles where certain things are likely to be highly salient, but aren’t most anywhere else.
For example, the campus protests are a big deal in those kinds of circles. Political writers are often graduates of elite universities and care a lot about what happens there. Many of the protests that have gotten the most attention have happened in places like New York and DC. The same is true for wokeness. It has been a big deal in many left-wing advocacy groups as well as in news organizations and universities in places where political writers tend to live.
It’s only natural that things happening where political writers live will get lots of national attention, hence the weekslong coverage of campus protests. In general, when things happen in New York and DC, they tend to get lots of national attention. To a lesser extent that’s true in LA and the Bay Area, particularly where it concerns Silicon Valley.
Like Silver says, a mistake political writers frequently make is believing that what is important to them personally or a big deal in places they live is important everywhere else. That is true not just for those who are on the left, but also for those who dislike the left. I have lost count of the number of times I’ve read/heard someone who lives in the four areas and hates wokeness writing/talking about it like it’s the worst problem on earth and is the reason why people vote Republican.1
One advantage I have over most political writers is that I don’t live in the four areas. I live in Houston. Houston’s a big place with lots of people and plenty of things going on. What Houston lacks is a large national media presence. The last time we got any sustained national coverage was in 2017 when Harvey hit.
Political writers who live in the four areas, especially DC and New York, often know each other well and hang out together. There’s nothing wrong with that, but it’s a small bubble. I don’t have that problem because basically no political writers live in Houston.
What this newsletter is not and what I don’t do
This is not a newspaper or news website, just in case anyone was unsure. I’m not a journalist and would never claim to be. Anyone looking for regular news updates will need to look elsewhere.
This is not a policy newsletter. There is not a single policy matter I would call myself an authority on. There are many policy areas I write and care about, but I’m an amateur. For example, I like writing about the economy, particularly macroeconomic issues, but I’m no economist.
Foreign policy is something I like writing about but I’m even less knowledgeable about it than I am about economics. I strongly support aiding Ukraine, but don’t ask me about how the war will end because your guess is as good as mine. The same is true with China. I think the US should work to counter China on many different fronts, but I’m writing about it from 30,000 feet and couldn’t tell you the first thing about the nitty gritty details.
Many political writers are highly confident in their prognostication skills, but I’m not one of them. If you’re looking for someone who will confidently make predictions about who will win elections this year or beyond, you’ve come to the wrong place. The same is true for any large scale macro events. Don’t ask me what the dominant demographic trends and political and economic fault lines will be in the 2030s because I have no idea.
I like writing about the need to cut back on red tape and the importance of expanding the supply side of the economy. While I have strong feelings about it, don’t ask me how to implement changes to zoning and permitting laws or FDA rules. Broadly speaking, I favor erring heavily on the side of making it easier to build and produce things, but, that, too, is from 30,000 feet.
Occasionally, I will write about the Supreme Court, but usually not on constitutional issues. I’m not a constitutional scholar and know very little about almost all of the constitution’s provisions. Constitutional law is an area I try hard to not write about in part because my knowledge of relevant court cases is minimal, but also because I’m cynical about the entire concept.2 One exception to that is free speech, which is something I care about because of the First Amendment although I think there are plenty of other reasons to support it.
I try hard to avoid echo chambers and groupthink. That’s not always easy to do, but I think it’s easier to do when you’re not living in the four areas. One thing you won’t find here is partisan shilling. I am a committed Democrat, but I’m not going to let them off the hook just because of that.
Often times, when I criticize Democratic politicians, candidates and other officials, I am criticizing them from a centrist angle. I don’t think all forms of centrism are created equal, though3, and there are some issues where I think the party’s left-wing is right, i.e., legalizing marijuana. While I identify with the center/center-left wing of the party, I am not going to argue that every problem Democrats have is because of the left. If you’re looking to blame a group or individual you don’t like for every problem on earth, this blog isn’t for you. Anyone whose analysis of everything wrong in the world begins and ends with any one thing is doing it very wrong.
What this newsletter has to offer
There is one area where I consider myself an authority. That concerns US electoral politics and how political parties work and don’t work. If you want to know, for example, what will affect the election in November and what won’t, you’ve come to right place.
A problem political writers often run into is falling for “the current thing.” Whatever is currently a big news story is seen as having a big impact on who will win the next election. The campus protests have been a big news story for more than two weeks and so political writers are obsessed with it and are out with their hot takes on how it will impact the way people vote in November. Occasionally, “the current thing” really is a big deal and I’ll write about it and will explain why it matters.
You’re not going to see me writing about how the latest flashy news story will shape the election. Odds are I won’t write about it at all. My preference is to write about things that will be electorally significant.4 That’s why I have written about the economy, abortion and immigration. Those are things that will matter in November.
Many political writers love to write about culture war fights, but I don’t. I can understand someone who lives in the four areas believing, for example, that gender affirming care is a huge deal because it is in parts of those places. In the circles they hang out in it’s probably talked about non-stop along with other culture war battles.
As emotional as they are for a few people, culture war fights won’t matter one bit in November. The only social issue that will matter and will continue to matter afterwards is abortion. That’s something I write about a lot because I care about it and, more importantly, it will affect who wins in November and beyond. It had a big effect on who won in 2022 and 2023 despite the insistence of many, if not most, political writers that it wouldn’t matter much.
Beyond this year’s elections, I’m a believer in the durability of the two parties. Many political writers believe there is some way the back-and-forth changing of power between the two parties that we’ve had since 1968 can end. In their telling, we can go back to previous times where one party was dominant. Usually, it involves doing whatever a political writer wants a party to do anyway.
I don’t believe that at all. I think durable national majorities like what lasted from The New Deal through The Great Society are a thing of the past. I don’t completely rule out it happening again, but I view any claim that someone knows how to bring it back with deep skepticism.
Very few political writers explicitly claim to have all the answers, but many believe they do, consciously or not. Many believe or imply that if only Democrats/Republicans would listen to them, then they would win every election there is. You won’t get that junk here. I have plenty of policy preferences, but I would never claim to have the solution to everyone’s problems. I wish all Democrats had to do to win forever was to listen to me on everything, but I’m not delusional, at least not yet.
Beyond electoral politics, I think I’m good at explaining why the parties operate the way they do. Why are Republicans in Congress so dysfunctional and Democrats aren’t? Why do Democrats care about governing and Republicans largely don’t? Why do Republicans keep nominating terrible candidates in key races and Democrats don’t? Why do entertainers and grifters have so much more sway with Republicans than Democrats? As crazy as Republicans are, why aren’t Democrats wiping them out? Those are all questions I think I can give some answers to.
One thing I think I do well is be consistent. When I write about how I believe in broader ideals beyond a specific matter, I hold true to it. For example, I am a consistent defender of free speech regardless of content. Whether those whose rights are being infringed on are left-wing or right-wing, I will defend them.
When someone claims to be in favor of broader ideals, but isn’t consistent, I will call them out on it and have done that many times. For example, I have many criticisms of campus protesters and many critics of Israel here and abroad. My biggest criticism, though, has nothing to do with the merits of what is happening over there.
The problem I have with many critics of Israel is their inconsistency. Many of them claim to be advocating for human rights. On college campuses and elsewhere in the US, many have claimed to be standing up for groups who are oppressed.
That’s great, but you can’t claim to favor those things when you justify or excuse Hamas’ atrocities and have nothing to say about other governments with atrocious human rights records. Nor can you claim to care about Palestinian lives while saying nothing about Hamas placing their fighters and operations among civilians so they will go down with them. You certainly can’t claim to be against oppression when you have nothing to say about the dictatorial regime Hamas has imposed in Gaza.
I have called out those on left and right5 for inconsistencies, but the former irks me more because it’s part of my side of the aisle. When Democratic politicians from states like California talk about how tolerant and inclusive they are while their states make it illegal to build housing, I have a big problem with it. California is a great place and many people want to live there.
Few things irritate me more than blue state failings on housing. Blue states have a chance to show how their model is effective and is something people should want to live under. By making it illegal to build housing, they’re doing the opposite. You can’t claim to be tolerant and inclusive and make building housing illegal.
What you will get from reading this blog is an emphasis on realistic, substantive things that can be done. That applies to every issue I write about. My interest is in promoting things that will actually make a difference and be effective at their aim. I don’t care for performative measures at all.
There are some pathologies many political writers have become afflicted with that I have so far avoided, knock on wood. One is believing, “The enemy of my enemy is my friend.” There are some political writers who I used to read, but no longer do because of that. No matter how much someone dislikes Trump, the left or anything/anyone else, just because someone doesn’t like them doesn’t automatically mean they’re good. Believing the enemy of your enemy is your friend is a great way to wind up in bed with fleas.
Another pathology is being defined by what you’re against. Being against things is inevitable, but making that your main thing is bad. You have to have a positive vision. Without something to be in favor of and to push for, all you have is opposition and odds are it will eat your brain and lead you somewhere bad.
A third pathology is the siren song of contrarianism. There are some political writers who make their entire thing being against whatever “experts” or “the establishment” think. It’s a terrible approach that is guaranteed to end poorly. I have written before about the limits of expertise and nobody should ever think that just because someone has expertise on something they can never be wrong about it. We’re all human and we all make mistakes and have biases. There is a major difference, though, between not being dogmatically trusting and contrarianism.
Being against anything any expert or “establishment” figure/group says is a great way to become a crank. If experts think vaccines are good, then they must be bad. If “the establishment” thinks Putin is bad, then he must be good. This piece is a long read, but it gives some great examples of the problem of making contrarianism your ethos. It discusses several political writers who started off as rightfully being against wokeness, but have since devolved into anti-vaxxers, Putin defenders and general conspiracy theorists.
You don’t have to worry about conspiracy theories here. I try to be open to persuasion and to new or different ideas, but they have to be backed up by something real. You won’t ever find me, “Just asking questions.”
One person I follow on X summed up the problem with contrarianism so well that it’s worth repeating here in its entirety. “…contrarianism is a brain rotting drug. You can watch someone’s effective IQ drop as they lean into contrarianism. They lose the ability to judge others they consider contrarian, become unable to tell good evidence from bad, a total unanchoring of belief that leads them to cling to low quality contrarian fads. As soon as ‘experts are wrong’ becomes their guidestar, instead of the more reasonable placing of uncertainty bands around experts opinions and specifically identifying cases of expert bias, their ability to gauge reality becomes extremely restricted. It’s like mental glaucoma.” If I ever go down that path, anyone reading this should slap me silly.
A final pathology I have avoided is audience capture. That refers to when someone gains a large audience and becomes like them to keep their attention. Over the last few years, I have seen political writers I used to like gain a big audience and go off the deep end because of it. I have seen several quickly go from being normal and sane to crank conspiracy theorists once they realized that is who their audience consisted of. Granted, my audience is very small and I don’t get paid to do this so I can’t say for sure that I will avoid it if that changes, but that’s something I’d love to have to worry about some day.
If you want to get an idea of why people vote Republican, try visiting a place that is full of Republicans. You’re much more likely to get a representative sample in a red state like Arkansas or Kentucky than by talking to the very few Republicans living on the Upper West Side or in DC.
Almost everyone’s constitutional views line up perfectly with their political views. People develop constitutional views based on their political views, not the other way around. I think constitutional law is, by and large, people taking their own political views and trying to make them sacrosanct by coming up with made up constitutional theories to enshrine them and to keep away things they don’t like. I would rather not do that so I try not to write about the subject.
John Fetterman is an example of a good way to move towards the center. Kyrsten Sinema is an example of a bad way to do it.
A major exception is foreign policy. I write about it a decent amount and it’s very important, but it rarely has any significant electoral impact.