I didn't get any serious answers, which is somewhat telling. Instead, I got these answers:
[I used pics of the tweets rather than embedding all of them because I have limited time--one of the reasons I post less often these days]
The contest is still open: let me know of a time where Trump uses a number accurately. Or give me more unserious answers, because we can use all of the amusement we can in these dark times.
Last night, I had a dream which, well, inspired this blog post. I met up with two friends from grad school in this dream, wished them a happy anniversary (yes, in real life, they got married during APSA season long ago), and then we talked about institutions. Yes, a very UCSD dream and reality.
The basic point is this: terrorism and insurgency are attacks upon institutions. That democracies and civil societies work via a variety of institutions that provide a sense of security, some sense of access to political power (via voting, organizing, protesting, lobbying, donating, etc), some degree of certainty.
Institutions can help contain evil-doers by not just creating rules but also enforcing them and legitimating them. So, when white supremacists increased the threat they posed in the 1990s--not just Oklahoma City bombing--a variety of institutions played a role in helping to marginalize this insurgency so much that we didn't even think it was an insurgency.
A variety of institutions necessary for the functioning of American democracy have been under attack for more than two decades--the media, the courts, Congress itself, and, lately, law enforcement. These attacks are not necessarily coordinated, but they have a cumulative impact. This all was going on before Trump, but now we have those who want to burn down these institutions in positions to do so. Many of these arsonists may not be white supremacists--they just want to engage in their kleptocracy without interference. But some are--Trumps (Don and Don Jr., Ivanka), Miller, Sessions when he was AG, Barr?, John Kelly, and so on.
Institutions are not easy to build, they take some time to become legitimate. Eroding them? Might take far less time. So, I worry about this, and I wonder what the next administration will do. Will they have ideas (plans?) about how to restore institutions? How much will the Trumped courts get in the way of such efforts? Can the next admin purge (yes, purge) the white supremacists and other awful people from wherever they have found perches, including the State Department?
As Obama noted during the 2016 campaign, Democracy was on the ballot. I am not sure he anticipated how much so, but damn, there it is. The institutions upholding American democracy are at grave risk. They are being deliberately targeted by a variety of forces. Not sure how we can protect them, but the first step is to call it out when you see it.
I love this tweet as it puts the usual dynamics on their head:
Tip for students going off to college: study 80s/90s pop culture. Particularly Ferris Beuller, Princess Bride, Simpsons seasons 2-5. Your gen x/early millennial profs will try to connect with you through these, and will be confused/sad when you stare blankly at them. Not joking.
Each summer, profs are reminded how much younger the students are and then the onus is on them to update their references. This tweet nicely makes fun of profs by suggesting the reverse.
As always, I have two reactions to this:
a) I use Harry Potter, which is timeless. Or at least, not yet obsolete. I long ago gave up references to Monty Python.
b) When a pop culture reference is super-handy, I show it. I have used Star Trek and Babylon 5 to show the different notions of ethnic identity--ancient hatreds vs. infinitely elastic, for example. But the go-to reference for me is Footloose. It shows the power of a fully armed and operational cultural reference. And, yes, I have discussed this before, but not everybody is going to dig through my old posts where I explain how to make a good pop culture reference for IR.
Let me explain, show, and then explain some more:
One of the key concepts for the discussion of international security is the use of threats. Thomas Schelling did great work to explain the complexities of using threats in competitive situations. The game of Chicken where two players have the choice of heading directly at each other or swering to avoid disaster. This can be expressed in a 2x2 of payoffs that help to illustrate the use of threats and their limitss. Boomer profs might refer to James Dean, but this one scene from Footloose shows lots of the dynamics that Schelling sought to explain and which do play out in many situations in International Relations. Indeed, Schelling and Kevin Bacon go together like the music in this video with the action:
So, Ren (Kevin Bacon) is driving one tractor, and Rusty is driving another. The stakes essentially are the girl (Lori Singer), and I will let those using a feminist lens problematize that. When I show this to the students, they notice the most obvious and important thing: Kevin Bacon is tied to the tractor so he can't swerve. That one of the ways to win Chicken to surrender one's ability to swerve. This puts the onus on avoiding disaster on the other player. Schelling talks about burning bridges beyond oneself, for example. In IR, tripwires serve the same kind of purpose--that the deaths of many of one's soldiers ties one's hands and create the sense of automaticity. The idea of a dead man's switch fits in here.
Ah, but this example allows me to point out to the students that Ren did not communicate being tied to the tractor to Rusty, so things get closer than they should have. That communicating threats and how firmly one is locked in is key. To be fair to Ren, his mishandling of the tractor itself is useful signalling--that he can't control it as well as Rusty can control his tractor, so, again, the onus for avoiding disaster is on Rusty.
But that is not all. I point out that both teens (who both look like they are in their mid 20's) have their friends with them. This is not at night, they are not alone. In the IR literature, the parallel is audience costs. That threats are more credibly if there are domestic audiences who might punish a leader for not following through on their threats. One could even suggest that Ren has more audience costs than Rusty since Ren is more of a consensus seeking (democratic) kind of guy, and Rusty is a bit of a dick (an autocrat) who cares less about his friends' admiration, etc. I never did play this regime type stuff up before, but that is the joy of this short video--each time I watch it, I see another IR dynamic playing out (not sure how making fun of a young Sara Jessica Parker fits, but whatever).
I always ask what did Rusty do wrong, and the students say that he smoked pot (yes, these Canadian kids!) My response is that the mistake was not smoking pot, but not telling Ren that he is high. Pot slows reaction times, reduces (perhaps) sensitivity to costs, and makes it more likely he will not swerve (or at least swerve at the last minute). My point is that Rusty needs to inform Ren so that the latter is more nervous and swerves. This is the equivalent of Schelling's "toss the steering wheel out the window" to signal a loss of control.
Finally, Ren is new to town, his reputation is not clear. Which makes it harder for Rusty to figure out what Ren would do.
I just realized something I need to ask the next batch of students (yes, I am teaching undergrads IR theory again--woot!): what happens if they play this game a second time. A third? Hmmmm.
Nice to be excited about teaching again with, gulp, just one month left before the students come back.
As I have noted before, I get emails from random betting ventures about the odds of various things. The latest one is from Bodog with a strange starting point: When will the next election be held? The expected date is October 21st. Canada passed legislation a while back that would make the elections more predictable--every four years--rather than being called when the Prime Minister feels like it--on the third Monday of October. However, the PM can still call an election early anyway.But there is no reason to call it now. If they had to do it all over again, they would have called one last summer, pre SNC-Lavalin scandal.
More recently, this date has become somewhat controversial because it is the same date as a Jewish holiday. Rosh Hashanah? Nope. Yom Kippur? Nope. Shavout? Nope.Shemini Atzeret. Huh?? Sure, I am a lousy Jew (my education stopped at 13, and I don't believe), but I never heard of this holiday (its related holiday, Simchat Torah, I have heard of, but never considered to be a very important day). Ok, so it is respected by Orthodox Jews, who, well, have a whole lot of dates they care about. I tend not to care what they think because I think fundamentalists fundamentally suck, but putting that aside, it is not clear how large a sect has to be to upset the apple cart or be reasonably accommodated. For Elections Canada, other dates are problematic for other reasons, and they figure these folks can vote in other ways ahead of time. And I am fine with that very reasonable accommodation (some might say that I am ok with the ultra-religious being disenfranchised, and, well, um, maybe so).
Back to the wagering, Bodog has the odds as:
Yes, the election takes place on October 21st, 2019: -1200 (you have to bet 1200 to win 100), which makes this a big favorite.
No, it does not: +650. Which means you bet $100 and win $650.
The status quo is a big, big favorite.
How about the election itself? This is the fun wager and what people really care about. Note, people vote for individual candidates in their ridings (districts), not for a particular PM, but the results produce a PM nonetheless.
Justin Trudeau -120 Andrew Scheer -110 Jagmeet Singh +1200 Elizabeth May +10,000 Maxime Bernier +50,000 Yves-Francois Blanchet +90,000
I find this to be a weenie stance by Bodog: two co-favorites--the Liberal Trudeau and the Conservative Scheer. Duh! Of course, one of the two will win. While the third place party surprised last time (that would be Justin Trudeau and the Liberals), given the variety of obstacles Singh and the NDP face (he is, um, a crappy candidate; the NDP's base is in xenophobic Quebec which just passed laws against visible religious symbols and Singh is a Sikh; etc), it really is a two party race with the polls having the Conservatives ahead (thanks to bone-headed Liberal handling of a corrupt company).
How would I bet? I would bet on Trudeau and the Liberals. Is this wishful thinking? I don't think so. Is it the same bad judgement that I had in November 2016 that has my sister telling me to stop making predictions? Of course. But why would I bet on the Liberals?
Trudeau, for all of his faults, has charisma that Scheer simply does not have.
Scheer has not yet demonstrated that he has decent political instincts.
Scheer faces the temptation to pander to the right as Bernier's xenophobic, racist, Islamophobic party might attract some Trump fans among the Conservative Party.
Trudeau has been most generous with spending money across Canada, and budget deficits are not going to scare people into voting for the Conservatives.
Doug Ford may cause some folks to wonder about the Conservative brand--cutting programs for Francophones in Ontario, generally being a bully, etc. While Canada has a deeper disconnect between provincial and national parties, Doug Ford has a larger presence than most Premiers (governors).
The big questions:
Will those NDP voters who voted for Trudeau last time remain alienated due to the broken electoral reform promise?
How will pipeline politics affect the Liberals?
Will Trump do or say something that will make the Conservatives to appear to be likely allies/toadies of the US?
The only certainties:
all parties will pander to the shipbuilding industries on either coast, with the Liberals also making a play for Quebec shipbuilding.
the ads will mostly suck
I will be wrong. This is not just my sister thinking that--I am not a student of Canadian politics. Other folks are far more expert. But this is my blog, and I can cry if I want to.
Folks will raise and dismiss the possibility of coalitions even though they are perfectly legal, and they happen in the Commonwealth countries on a regular basis (UK more common now, NZ always, Aussies often enough).
A key part of the tenure process is for outside experts to evaluate the candidate's research (hard to evaluate their teaching and service from outside). These letters can be quite handy for getting a less biased perspective that a department might have (in either direction). It is especially useful for providing insights in cases where the candidate's subfield is under or unrepresented among the senior faculty evaluating tenure (a real life example: no tenured political theorists and the candidate is a theorist).
The basic idea makes sense. That in order to evaluate whether someone has made a contribution to knowledge and is likely to continue to do so (evaluating the likely trajectory is a key part of the process), it makes sense to rely on experts who know the body of research the candidate is addressing.
After that, things go awry pretty quickly.
Here's the starting problem: that many
people who write these letters do not want to be the person responsible
for denying someone tenure and/or promotion. They are reluctant to
write negative letters, which does mean that they may decline to write a
letter to avoid doing so. Those that are willing to write negative
letters or ones that are mostly positive but with critical aspects are
likely to get a reputation for doing so, which then means that if they
are asked to do so, it may be used by individuals and departments that are
seeking to sink a candidate. Because, of course, tenure and promotion
can be quite political and personal.
A second pathology is the on-going letters arms race. How many letters are necessary? In the olden days of yore, a handful seemed sufficient, like five or six. Recently, a competitive dynamic has developed whereby schools with status have, for some reason, decided that they need more letters. Like 15 or 20. Why? Do the additional letters provide more illumination or just duplication? Mostly they provide Deans and Provosts with the sense that they are running important schools that require greater efforts made by the community of scholars.
This spiral is quite problematic for several reasons:
There may not be that many people who are experts in the specific area of the candidate
The experts may be asked by other places to write letters so that they have to spend their summers writing heaps of letters.
They may end up asking people who are not experts in that area, which means either weaker, less helpful letters or rejections from those who were asked.
Because of a desire for representation (a good idea), it often leads to the few women or people of color who have tenure to get hit with lots of requests (I have a friend who regularly gets seven or more requests per year). This then presents a very unfair burden for those people.
Addressing the last issue, which is really a primary issue: if a potential letter-writer says no, the university may interpret that as a negative vote on the tenure case. As mentioned above, there is a sense that if someone declines to write a letter, it is because they would otherwise write a negative one. Again, with some people getting lots of requests, there ends up being either very overburdened people or universities misinterpreting rejects or both--I am guessing both.
Another status-oriented dynamic is that despite decades of bad job markets producing greater distribution of smart, sharp folks, provosts and deans insist on getting letters from peer institutions, and everybody thinks that their institution has relatively few peers, so again more requests made of fewer people. One positive consequence from moving from a more prestigious institution to a less prestigious one is that I get fewer requests than I did before. I am spewing about this mostly because my friends are hit hard by this, as I usually get between one and three requests a year.
One more status competition dynamic: that letters will often ask a letter-writer to evaluate a candidate compared to their cohort. The more prestigious places tend to provide a specific list of people to whom the candidate should be compared. This moves us pretty quickly away from evaluating whether a person is making a contribution to knowledge, but whether the person is the very best person in their field. I understand that the most prestigious places may want to only promote and tenure those who are making an outstanding contribution to knowledge, but, again, that should be about the ideas, the impact they are making on the field, and not on whether person x is better than Ken Waltz.
Oh, did I mention that except for one story I have heard, there is no
compensation for this. It is part of our service to our profession.
It is obvious that we have a collective action problem as most professors do not enjoy writing heaps of letters, which get in the way of doing research, writing grants, preparing classes, and taking a swim. Wouldn't it be wonderful if the organization that seeks to represent us (that would be APSA in the US, CPSA in Canada and so on) come up with standards to ameliorate at least part of this? Like, if all poli sci departments agreed to ask for only five or six letters (yes, including Harvard), then Deans and Provosts would have to suck it up or push departments to violate the discipline's standards. This would not get rid of the other pathologies, but it would at least limit the arms race for folks trying to keep up with Harvard and Berkeley and their ilk. This would not only reduce the workload for the Sara Mitchell's of the world, but it would also make it less likely that there are overburdened people saying no, which would then make the signals less noisy, right?
I am definitely not advocating for getting rid of letters in this process. I have seen what happens in processes where there are no outside letters (my old employer used to have the letters enter the process at the level of the deans' committees), and it ain't good to not have outside expertise included in the process. But we could and should make the process less painful for all involved.
One fundamental Saideman rule is this: why do more work than is necessary?
