Harrison County Democrats

And you can read it for free.  The Authoritarians by Bob Altemeyer is not about leaders, it is about followers:  the kind of people who are ready to follow the next dictator who comes along.

This short excerpt is from the introduction to the book.

Authoritarianism is something authoritarian followers and authoritarian leaders cook up between themselves. It happens when the followers submit too much to the leaders, trust them too much, and give them too much leeway to do whatever they want–which often is something undemocratic, tyrannical and brutal. In my day, authoritarian fascist and authoritarian communist dictatorships posed the biggest threats to democracies, and eventually lost to them in wars both hot and cold. But authoritarianism itself has not disappeared, and I’m going to present the case in this book that the greatest threat to American democracy today arises from a militant authoritarianism that has become a cancer upon the nation.

We know an awful lot about authoritarian followers. In one way or another, hundreds of social scientists have studied them since World War II. We have a pretty good idea of who they are, where they come from, and what makes them tick. By comparison, we know little about authoritarian leaders because we only recently started studying them. That may seem strange, but how hard is it to figure out why someone would like to have massive amounts of power? The psychological mystery has always been, why would someone prefer a dictatorship to freedom? So social scientists have focused on the followers, who are seen as the main, underlying problem.

Read this book.  Buy a paperback copy and give it to someone.

All 46 U.S. attorneys have been purged by the President. They were abrubtly asked to resign in a move that can only consolidate Donald Trump’s power. Preet Bharara, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, who has been asked personally by Donald Trump to stay on, was asked to resign with all the rest. When he refused he was fired.

Bharara would have been responsible for investigating Donald Trump’s operations in New York.

From Boing Boing:

In a new paper published in the peer-reviewed Journal of Ethnicity in Criminal Justice, sociologists and criminologists from University at Buffalo (SUNY), the University of Alabama, Kennesaw State University, the State of Georgia, and Georgia State University review 40 years’ worth of FBI data on violent crimes and property crimes, correlating this data series with Census data on the influx of immigrants to US cities.

The authors conclude that US cities undergoing net increases in migrants also experienced stable or declining crime rates for murder, non-negligent manslaughter, aggravated assault, robbery, burglary, and larceny.

Further, they found that there was “significant association” between the presence of foreign-born people in a city and a decline in crime — the more foreigners, the safer the cities became.

From Paul Krugman, who knows a bit about economics:

The structure of the Affordable Care Act comes out of a straightforward analysis of the logic of coverage. If you want to make health insurance available and affordable for almost everyone, regardless of income or health status, and you want to do this through private insurers rather than simply have single-payer, you have to do three things.

1.Regulate insurers so they can’t refuse or charge high premiums to people with preexisting conditions
2.Impose some penalty on people who don’t buy insurance, to induce healthy people to sign up and provide a workable risk pool
3.Subsidize premiums so that lower-income households can afford insurance

So that’s Obamacare (and Romneycare before that): regulation, mandates, and subsidies. And the result has been a sharp decline in the number of uninsured, with costs coming in well below expectations. Roughly speaking, 20 million Americans gained coverage at a cost of around 0.6 percent of GDP.

Republicans have nonetheless denounced the law as a monstrosity, and promised to replace it with something totally different and far better. Which makes what they’ve actually come up … interesting.

For the GOP proposal basically accepts the logic of Obamacare. It retains insurer regulation to prevent exclusion of people with preexisting conditions. It imposes a penalty on those who don’t buy insurance while healthy. And it offers tax credits to help people buy insurance. Conservatives calling the plan Obamacare 2.0 definitely have a point.

But a better designation would be Obamacare 0.5, because it’s really about replacing relatively solid pillars with half-measures, severely and probably fatally weakening the whole structure.