Where is "ceteris paribus" NOW that we need it?
Every discipline has a couple of key phrases, those secret passwords that practitioners invoke.. In economics there is "ceteris paribus". It is a way to analyze a situation by looking at one variable and holding all other variables constant. It is a great way to simplify a complex question. But increasingly, those kinds of common courtesies are ignored. Two (related) cases in point come to mind.
The Attorney General approved a search warrant to obtain classified documents from the estate of our former president. Whether or not that was an efficacious strategy to reduce the chance that Trump would protect classified documents appropriately, or even whether the former president should have such documents, is not at issue. I personally thought the raid was a bit overly dramatic. There is a law which stipulates the treatment of presidential records (although interestingly it does not seem to have any sanctions for bad behavior) but after the raid Trump released personal information about the agents who executed the warrant. I think that was bad behavior but there does not seem to be a specific federal statute which prevents someone from publicizing the names. In my mind that really does not matter. As my dad used to say "just because you can, doesn't mean you should."
The parallel story comes from a group called Ruth Sent Me, who thought it was their duty,when they did not agree with the recent decision on abortion (Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health) it was their duty to publicize the home addresses of several Supreme Court justices. In this case, there is a federal statute that prohibits disclosure of the Justice's address and also in picketing in front of their residences. But the Ruth Sent Me people thought it was ok because they really disagreed with the decision.
In both cases, Trump's and Ruth Sent Me's, the actions were inappropriate, whether or not there is a specific law against such behavior. But neither cared about holding other variables constant. In both cases because they held strong beliefs about the search warrant and the draft decision, they could move everything all in. Basic standards of decency in society will not work very well with that kind of idiocy.
We clearly live in times when reasonable social restraints are ignored by a significant fraction of society. Andrew Mir, writing in the Summer Issue of City Journal, argues that as newspapers moved from an advertising model (where adds supported Journalism) to a subscriber model - the propensity to pander to the subscriber's whims increased significantly. That may be part of the problem we face in the quest to have reasoned discussions - we have created echo chambers.
I had so many conversations over the last couple of weeks with friends who are genuinely grumpy about how strident their friends on the left or right are. I have the great good fortune to have friends who believe Trump is the devil incarnate and others who believe that Trump had the election stolen from him. I don't believe either meme; but those polarizations diminish our ability to try to figure out what is happening in a particular area. And ultimately what is the right thing to do for the largest fraction of our fellow citizens.
UPDATE ON OCITEFACL This week confirmed two new things. First, my design editor has come up with a dandy cover for the book. Victoria Vinton (www.coyotepressgraphics.com) sent me what I think is called a pre-print of the book. That means all the text has been converted into a file which can be sent to my publisher. My job this week was to go through the manuscript for the 1100th time and look for things which did not look right. Yesterday I sent her back the PDF so she could make the edits. At the same time she sent me proposals for the "wrap" the front cover and the side backing. Victoria proposed using a brown highlight for the author's name. Our daughter suggested that when people are asking for the book in a bookstore they could simply ask for the brown one.
Many good ideas about why we’re so contentious these days. My theory: We have no patience to educate or. persuade the opposition. We want compliance. Now.
ReplyDeleteBrilliant point!
ReplyDeleteThat's very good news about your soon-to-be-published book, Jonathan, and it does sound as though much is required to get this in print.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed, (and agreed) with your elaboration on "ceteris paribus". Though I'd never heard the term before, you put it to good use in describing the loss of basic standards of once-common decency.
Thanks for the recent language link. Studies in Oaxaca continue well, and my tutor has zeroed in on my great weakness...the shorthand management of indirect and direct objects. May progress be made!
I agree with you that Americans are tired of the edges of both parties. However, we would make headway at common ground if there were a more consistent effort at fairly addressing current events. Blurring the details of a President removing and destroying classified documents that belong to the office and the country and not the person who was in the office, certainly seem biased. This is a basic HR rule at most corporations that would be punishable if violated. I'm surprised at how blithely you've assessed that situation when I remember the ire you felt around Hillary and her mysterious emails.
ReplyDeleteHappy for you about your book and thrilled you're in the home stretch!
Clarity is important here. There is a statute (The Presidential Records Act) which sets up the rules for the maintenance of presidential records and it is different than for any other person who serves. The President has a lot more discretion about the handling of top secret records. HRC violated several federal laws when she maintained and then destroyed the server in her home which held confidential and top secret files. One of the differences for a former president is also his ability to get top secret briefings for the rest of his life - that is not true for other former federal officials. Finally, at least at this point I cannot find a federal law which expressly forbids the release of agent names on a search warrant. That in no way is a statement about whether I believe Trump acted appropriately in the way he handled sensitive federal documents or in his choice to release the names of the agents executing the search warrant. I believe he acted inappropriately in both cases.
DeleteSo here are a couple of comments. First, HRC did break several laws by keeping a private server with confidential government documents on it. She also seems to have broken laws by wiping the server. Trump's actions are controlled by the Presidential Records Act - which proscribes how former presidents can continue to control confidential documents after they leave office. The two situations are different. I do not in any way condone Trump's seemingly sloppy treatment of sensitive materials or in releasing the names of the agents on the search warrant. A former president has the ability to request classified briefings on national security for the rest of his life - other former officials cannot do that.
DeleteI love having projects that excite interest and curiosity. This book has certainly been that for you. A study of human nature and the way our passions focus and guide our lives.
ReplyDeleteThe other day we were on the zay from somewhere to somewhere else when I wondered outloud about the origin of our surname. Living in the age we do, my companion took out a device and looked it up. ´turns out it my guess, English, was incorrect. It was Norman. That took me back to the WWII years when a French pen pal was secured for me. The girl, Martine, sent me a book that I have kept close since then. Later I had close friend who became Claude's godfather. His family house was in a little town in Normandy, a place where I always felt happy. hmmmm.
All I want is a signed copy. Price is no object. What q great reason to drive down the hill to Sacramento.
ReplyDelete