Articles by David Roberts

Legislative proposals must be judged not only as policy, but also as politics

Consider the following two undertakings:

1. Policy analysis, of the sort think tankers, bloggers, and occasionally journalists do.
2. Passing legislation through Congress, the kind of thing lawmakers, Congressional staffers, lobby groups, and occasionally the public do.

The first is about policy abstracted from politics. The second is about policy immersed in politics. The first makes use of scientific findings, economic models, and conceptual analysis. The second, by and large, does not. Congresscritters are rarely persuaded to vote for (or against) particular bills on the basis of white papers. They are persuaded by retail politics -- arguments about how constituents/contributors in their states/districts will benefit/not from legislation. That's how they keep their skins. So it ever has been; so it ever shall be. Democracy is the worst system of government except the alternatives, etc.

This is not to say that No. 1 is useless, or irrelevant to No. 2. (God forbid, it's what I do with half my waking hours!) Good analysis can serve as a kind of guidepost or compass to show how close lawmakers are coming to the ideals of efficacy, fairness, etc. It can clarify choices.

Nonetheless, the two are often confused. Policy submits to policy analysis; people -- people developing, endorsing, lobbying for, and passing legislation -- submit to political analysis. Criticism of legislative proposals must perforce have two parts: how they fall short as policy, and how they fall short as politics, i.e., how stronger legislation is politically possible.

Making the latter case requires a decent sense of the political players involved. It has to show how lawmakers could be persuaded that their constituents' interests, and/or their own political careers, are at stake. It requires a decent sense of the political dynamic: competing priorities, competing lobbies, and the tools available to those pushing to strengthen bills.

On 'mitigating' coal damage

This NYT editorial on the mythiness of "clean coal" is most welcome, but the conclusion rubs me the wrong way:

But coal remains an inherently dirty fuel, and a huge contributor to not only ground-level pollution -- including acid rain and smog -- but also global warming. The sooner the country understands that, the closer it will be to mitigating the damage.

If coal is inherently dirty, why should we confine our ambitions to "mitigating the damage"? Why not try to stop using it?

You never see this when people talk about oil. When people rehearse the damage oil is doing to our atmosphere, our land, and our geopolitical posture, they do not finish by meekly calling on Americans to clean up the messes. They say we should reduce and eventually eliminate our use of oil.

Why is coal different?

I know, I know, it's domestic, but domestic poison still kills. It's got to be more than that, no?

On Maddow show, Oberstar DeFazio fingers Larry Summers as destroyer of transit spending

You want to know why it's important to have a genuine, intelligent progressive on cable news? Here's why:

Deep thought

Reliance on oil brings a stream of calls to "break our addiction" and find "alternative sources." Reliance on coal brings a stream of paeans to the importance of coal.