Thursday, December 9, 2021

Chaos Theory

There is an article  from TheWeek news site entitled, "If you want Americans to act like liberals, govern like a conservative". 

What prompted the discussion is that despite efforts by the Biden administration to end the policy known as Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), "Remain in Mexico" is back.

"Pro-immigration and humanitarian activists denounced MPP when it was imposed under former President Donald Trump, and some aid groups have refused to participate in the modified program under President Biden. But if it's successful in lowering record border crossings and preventing spectacles like the Del Rio encampment, the policy could have counterintuitive effects. In a new paper circulated on Twitter by Slate writer Will Saletan, social scientists Ryan C. Briggs and Omer Solodoch argue that "allocating more government resources to border control increases desired levels of immigration."  That is: Americans become more open to immigration when border security is already strong, which in turn may mean loosening immigration restrictions becomes politically viable only when it doesn't feel like a step toward disorder."

"...The relationship between crackdown and openness may seem surprising, but it makes sense when you consider how most people respond to disorder....A sense of stability and control assuages fears and encourages people to relax."

"It's risky to draw big conclusions from a single working paper, but Briggs and Solodoch's finding is consistent with other scholarship in social psychology. In a comparative study of the U.S., U.K., and Canada, researchers found people who believed that they were in charge of their own lives and that their government had a handle on immigration were less hostile toward immigrants. Importantly, the study found these attitudes were not explained by partisanship. The effect held for both Republicans and Democrats in the U.S. and Conservative and Labour voters in the U.K. (the data for Canada did not include party affiliation)."

"And this effect isn't limited to immigration. The politics of criminal justice follow a similar pattern....On that point, if security is a necessary condition of reform, criminal justice reformers should be very worried. Even if the present epidemic of murders and shootings were not real (and it isdismissing fears of crime as unfounded or racist simply won't work. Politicians and parties who convince voters they're taking problems seriously may be able to sell less punitive policies. Those who ignore and minimize the issues can't."

"You can tell a similar story about economic matters, too...Scholars continue to debate the aggregate benefits of globalization, as well as the role of trade compared with technological change and other factors, in reducing industrial employment. For many of the affected workers, though, it didn't matter. Rapid and unfavorable changes in the economy produced not only material deprivations but also (and perhaps more importantly) a sense that the situation was out of control. Under the circumstances, it's not surprising that blue-collar workers and regions turned to populists who promised to restore order to a chaotic world. Insecurity leads to illiberalism."

"Granted, this is a simplified story, and some of these developments can be attributed to the basic "thermostatic" tendency that characterizes American politics. When policy swings too far in one direction, voters tend to pull it back closer to the center of public opinion. But there's a specific paradox here that moderate Democrats like Biden, who sponsored the 1994 crime bill, used to understand: If you want Americans to act like liberals, you need to govern more like conservatives." 

4 comments:

  1. Yeah, that's an interesting thesis. Whether it's right, I don't know.

    I'm a little pessimistic that, in today's political configuration, we could put it to the test, at least when it comes to immigration. In order to pull off what Saletan and his authors are recommending, you need two parts:

    1. You need to commit to controlling the border
    2. You need to be willing to relax immigration restrictions

    I can tell you right now, today's Trumpified GOP is all for #1, but would never agree to #2. I think it's true that Trump's immigration rhetoric exploits people's sense of insecurity and chaos (going on about MS-13 and crime committed by illegal immigrants). I also think he's activated his base's xenophobia and racism.

    So if the thesis of this article is going to be pursued, it would have to be Democrats who would pursue it. Democrats can get behind #2 (relaxing immigration restrictions). Can they get behind #1 (committing to controlling the border)? Seems we'll find out now, with the resurrection of Remain in Mexico. The president has a coalition to manage, and I would guess that his coalition is not united when it comes to controlling the border.

    One political consideration is that three of the four states which border Mexico have been red states most of my adult life, but more recently have been trending more purple. But if residents of those states perceive that the Mexican border is not being adequately controlled, I think those three states are less likely to lean Democratic. That may be part of what the president is thinking in reimposing the "Remain in Mexico" policy. Those three states could tip the House, the Senate or the presidency in either direction.

    ReplyDelete
  2. It would be nice if border control worked the other way and controlled the exodus of jobs and capital out of our country. That scares me a lot more than the influx of Latin peoples who, admittedly, I find a lot more likeable than many Americans. We better figure something out before climate change sets perhaps a billion people in motion toward the northern more habitable temperate zone.
    I think we should be preparing for this migration as seriously as we do for climate extremes. We need to avoid a giant expanding underclass and get a bunch of educated, integrated fellow citizens.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Americans probably trusted Nixon to go to China and Reagan to negotiate with the Soviet Union. However, that was when media consisted of the evening news on three networks which competed for the political center of the country in terms of ratings. They were very motivated to keep their reporting unbiased.

    No matter what the Democrats do they are not going to be seen as conservative, and no matter what the Republican do they are going to be seen as liberal. All because there is no longer a neutral media to assure Republicans that Democrats are actually governing as conservatives.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Correction: and no matter what the Republican do they are NOT going to be seen as liberal.

      Delete