A nice article in the Journal of Politics by John Gerring, Strom Thacker and Rodrigo Alfaro reminds us of the value of looking at phenomena over time to gauge their effects. In the article “Democracy and Human Development” they test the controversial proposition that democratic states produce beneficial social outcomes for its citizens. Using infant mortality as a key measure and a 21 point scale that looks at features like checks and balances, the selection of an executive, etc., they find that year to year democratization matters little, but over time democratization is significantly associated with low infant mortality. Here’s a key passage:

Contrary to much recent work, this article argues that there is no strong or robust relationship between a country’s current regime type and its subsequent human development, as measured by infant mortality rates. In this respect, we agree with recent critiques of the received view (Gauri and Khaleghian 2002; McGuire 2004; Ross 2006; Shandra et al. 2004). However, we argue that a robust causal relationship does appear if democracy is considered as a long-run, historical phenomenon.

I like this research because it points to the limits of “snapshot” cross sectional data analysis. If we look at democratization at a point in time, its effects are bound to be constrained by what preceded it. However, if looked at more completely across time, it’s cumulative effect on a society is more likely to come into focus.

CITATION:

A new Pew study on teens and social media highlights a social media “civility gap” between teens and adults online. While 85% of adults find that people are “mostly nice” on social networking site, only 69% of teens say the same.

What’s interesting is that the social media phenomenon has been so explosive that there hasn’t been a generation that has moved from “teen social media” to “adult social media.” Facebook’s rise to prominence has happened in three years. It would be interesting to know whether social networking sites contribute to “nice” or “mean” interactions through their architecture (for instance, Facebook’s insistence on not having a “hate” button, only a “like” button). Or is it simply the fact that teen life is in many ways inherently overtly “meaner” than adult life whose “meanness” is more subtle?

James Fallows has an insightful article in the Atlantic how President Obama’s personality traits contributed to some of the challenges he has confronted in his first (and perhaps only term). Among these personality traits, Fallows reports on an aloofness that inhibits the president’s ability to form a wide network of friends (ala Bill Clinton’s famous FOB’s — Friends of Bill). Hence this president has a small network of friends from which to draw advice. As Fallows notes:

Like Clinton and unlike George W. Bush, Barack Obama is said to be a night owl. But in the wee hours, Clinton would be on the phone, playing cards with friends, gabbing about history and politics, or doing anything else that involved live human company. Obama is more likely to be spending time with papers or a book, or even to be online—prowling through the same blogs and news sites as the rest of us, which is somehow unnerving given a president’s otherwise total cocooning from the daily details of shopping, driving, waiting, in ordinary Americans’ lives.

Hence, Bill Clinton was/is a hub of his social network. A connector that builds a broad base of relationships he can then draw upon.

This makes me wonder how Bill Clinton would fare if he had social media at his disposal. Instead of a rolodex, he might have had thousands of Facebook friends (Dunbar number be dammed)!  This raises an interesting question about whether high intensity social network politicians might actually be better at governing.  One way Fallows claims Obama’s aloofness or inability to form broad based networks harms him is in staff selection.  Fallows finds a number of Democratic insiders complaining about the quality of the “talent” surrounding the president:

 Shortly after William Daley, himself the son and brother of Chicago mayors, succeeded Emanuel in the White House, he came to Obama with his initial report. You are reeling, he said—stating the obvious after the Republican surge. Part of the problem is that the team around you is not good enough. To raise your game, you have to surround yourself with the best people available. There have to be changes.

Obama thought about it, and reportedly called Daley back in a few days later. “I like my team,” he said. “I am comfortable with who I have around me. Just so there’s no miscommunication, I’m saying that I like this team.” (The White House declined to comment on the episode.)

“The people he is most ‘comfortable’ with have the same limits of experience he does,” a veteran political figure told me. “An emotional reliance on people who are good people, and smart, but simply not A-plus players—it’s a limit.” These discussions often revolve around the central role of Valerie Jarrett in the Obamas’ professional and social lives. Her supporters say that she is the one friend they can truly trust; her detractors say that her omnipresence illustrates the narrowness of the president’s contacts.

I’m not sure I buy this since it’s hard to determine who has “a level” talent, but this is an area of inquiry I haven’t yet seen. Is it possible that social media makes you better at governing by enabling you to build a broad based network? I’m still partial to the idea of a president reading briefing books until late into the night rather than playing poker with buddies, but that might be my own tempermental and professional biases peeking through.

I’m late to the party on this, but Pico Iyer’s essay in the New York Times on Quiet is fantastic. Here’s a particularly thought provoking quote:

Nothing makes me feel better — calmer, clearer and happier — than being in one place, absorbed in a book, a conversation, a piece of music. It’s actually something deeper than mere happiness: it’s joy, which the monk David Steindl-Rast describes as “that kind of happiness that doesn’t depend on what happens.”

The Web is a Class VI river rapid that is so much fun and engaging of the senses that we can’t help but want to go for a ride. At times, I worry sometimes that I get so caught up in the current that the world around me seems ordinary by comparison. I have to work hard at intentionally quieting myself. But the pull of a portable “everything device” that can give me any corner of the world at anytime makes that task increasingly difficult.

So the ninth circuit did what it does…. Supreme Court, meet Prop 8. Prop 8, meet Supreme Court (but probably not). But regardless of what the court does, which will probably be a disappointment to gay rights advocates, the gay marriage train is leaving the station… You’ll be hard pressed to find many people under 30 opposed to gay marriage. If you don’t like it, blame Will and Grace!

Daliah Lithwick thinks it could have been a more liberal because it was narrowly based on California’s same sex rights protections rather than a broad rationale ala Lawrence v. Texas. No doubt the court wanted to insluate itself from having its decision overturned by a court skittish to expand equal protection rights nationally.

I’m not sure what offends me more about this ad for Pete Hoekstra’s Michigan Senate campaign… the ham-handedness of it (Debbie “Spend it Now”… really?) or the fact that the stereotype for Chinese people used in this spot looks like something out of the 1950’s.

James Fallows has an excellent dressing down of this ad. Pointing out that most of China doesn’t look like what’s depicted in the ad.

I’m not even sure what the main point of this ad is supposed to be? That Democrats in general and Debbie “Spend it Now” are funneling money to a country full of Chinese women in rice paddies? I can get too scared about some 1950’s depiction of China? Shouldn’t you be showing Chinese engineers in factories or Chinese mega-cities?

But of course if you did that, it would undercut the idea of American exceptionalism. Central to the idea of a “yellow peril” is that Asians use guile and deceit to achieve their ends. And that Asian women secretly want to be taken by virile American men. So it’s no accident that there’s a “come hither” aspect to this ad. I mean, what’s with the accent? Who thinks this is the way Chinese people speak English? It’s as if they are trying to conjure up the hooker in Full Metal Jacket.

I’m not sure that ham-handed appeals like this work in our political climate. Ads like this are typically run by losing campaigns. If you look at the Real Clear Politics run down of the polls for this race, Stabenow has a decent lead. I don’t see it shrinking based on this ad.

HT: Mike Frieda

Happy Super Bowl Sunday! I don’t have the intensity for America’s game I once had, but I am taking part in the national ritual of having a party, eating bad food and fcousing more on the commercials than the game.

Just to keep it academic, here’s a 1977 New Republic article via longform.org on the moral equivalency of football…. I particularly like this quote:

Just as football has evolved in accordance with the evolving business ethic of American society, so has it evolved in accordance with the changing strategic assumptions about war. The development (or rebirth) of the T-formation in football coincided almost exactly with the development of a new era of mobility and speed in warfare best exemplified in the Blitzkrieg tactics of the German armies in Europe in 1939-40. The T-formation soon overwhelmed the “Maginot Line” mentality of traditional football, based as it was on rigid lines and massive concentrations of defensive and offensive power.

To draw this analogy out today, the NFL is bigger, more sophisticated and less dependent on “grind it out” offenses and more dependent on strong air attacks than when I grew up (drones anyone)???

Go Giants… as a Dolphins fan, I have sworn an oath to hate all AFC East rivals.

With Facebook’s new IPO that that features Mark Zuckerberg retaining operational control of the company, attention has refocused on how Facebook plans to grow its business moving forward. I’m of the opinion that Facebook isn’t going anywhere anytime soon. I’m my class today, we talked about the virtues of Google + as an alternative, but with nobody on this new social networking alternative, there is a strong aversion to join up. How google resolves this problem will determine how much it can compete with Facebook.

But for now, the “sharing train” is leaving the station and of critical concern for everyone is whether to “get on board” (e.g. thrust oneself headlong into sharing) or to resist. A defining battle going forward re: social networking is how you can resist. It’s not as easy as it sounds. If you’re friends and family are on Facebook, does option out make you an anachronism within your networks? You can become the crumudgeon poster who sounds warning bells on your status updates, but that will make you a “buzz kill” pretty quick. Facebook is betting that you won’t resist….that you can’t resist. This is both brilliant and insidious…. they’ve created a good that is as addictive as a drug.. social connection. Stay tuned 🙂

So Facebook is going public. The circle is complete. Now Facebook users can invest in the company that turns them into the product being sold. The forthcoming IPO will no doubt lead to shareholder demands to become even more profitable by finding more ways to extract value out of it’s product… (e.g. you and me).

This is not an impossible task. There is so much more of ourselves that we could be sharing. Gary Wolf’s fantastic NYT article about the Quantified Self movement illustrates the ease with which we can collect data on ourselves. From miles run to pulse rate to mood, the ways in which we can “operationalize” ourselves are limitless. Social media has made this a norm. As one app designer put it:

“People got used to sharing,” says David Lammers-Meis, who leads the design work on the fitness-tracking products at Garmin. “The more they want to share, the more they want to have something to share.” Personal data are ideally suited to a social life of sharing. You might not always have something to say, but you always have a number to report.

This culture of sharing is personally rewarding in so many ways. But we just at the start of thinking about the negative consequences of accelerated sharing. What happens to those of use who want to be more judicious in what we share? The “to share or not to share” question” may be the most significant social question of the 21st century. Do we rush headlong into a sharing culture or do we resist it? As Gary Wolf’s article points out there is this great superficial collective itch that revealing satisfies:

When we quantify ourselves, there isn’t the imperative to see through our daily existence into a truth buried at a deeper level. Instead, the self of our most trivial thoughts and actions, the self that, without technical help, we might barely notice or recall, is understood as the self we ought to get to know.

This operationalization of the self provides as many challenges as it does benefits. In a book I’ve written about Facebook that will come out in July I argue that Facebook puts an undue stress on our desire to “know ourselves” through our symbolic interaction with those we “friend.” I want to offer a deeper concern — what happens to the “self we do not know” or even know we want to know? Anytime we make the self a subject, we’re drawn inward. We see the world “out there” through the lens of the interior, or the personal. But not everything is personal. Of course, we always see the world through our own eyes, but what I think accelerated sharing does is “wear grooves” into our being so that we have more difficulty standing outside of ourselves to see the objective world as it is. This undermines the possibility of seeing or imagining alternative notions of the self.

In my last post I argued that we might be in a place in presidential politics where novelty, or the ability to create “high valence” moments carried more weight in presidential politics than in the past where organization and money was of utmost importance.

I argued that is was difficult for Mitt Romney to create positive valence moments and as such might struggle down the line. Today after his big win in Florida, he makes the unfortunate comment that he isn’t concerned with the very poor in America. I’ve already seen this circulate on Facebook and Twitter a few times. His propensity to only create negative “viral moments” hasn’t hurt him yet. Gallup has him leading his rivals in the national polls for the first time since New Hampshire but Gallup also has an intersting “intensity index” that finds Romney scores low in intensity of support for him as a candidate when compared to Gingrich.

If this were all about organization and money, we’d be done talking. So I’m putting out a “high positive valence” theory that posits that Gingrich will be the nominee…. but I’m not putting any money on it 🙂