≡ Menu

Some Links

Here’s the abstract of a recent paper by Ann Krispenz and Alex Bertrams (emphasis added): (HT Phil Magness)

In two pre-registered studies, we investigated the relationship of left-wing authoritarianism with the ego-focused trait of narcissism. Based on existing research, we expected individuals with higher levels of left-wing authoritarianism to also report higher levels of narcissism. Further, as individuals with leftist political attitudes can be assumed to be striving for social equality, we expected left-wing authoritarianism to also be positively related to prosocial traits, but narcissism to remain a significant predictor of left-wing authoritarianism above and beyond those prosocial dispositions. We investigated our hypotheses in two studies using cross-sectional correlational designs. Two nearly representative US samples (Study 1: N = 391; Study 2: N = 377) completed online measures of left-wing authoritarianism, the Dark Triad personality traits, and two variables with a prosocial focus (i.e., altruism and social justice commitment). In addition, we assessed relevant covariates (i.e., age, gender, socially desirable responding, and virtue signaling). The results of multiple regression analyses showed that a strong ideological view, according to which a violent revolution against existing societal structures is legitimate (i.e., anti-hierarchical aggression), was associated with antagonistic narcissism (Study 1) and psychopathy (Study 2). However, neither dispositional altruism nor social justice commitment was related to left-wing anti-hierarchical aggression. Considering these results, we assume that some leftist political activists do not actually strive for social justice and equality but rather use political activism to endorse or exercise violence against others to satisfy their own ego-focused needs. We discuss these results in relation to the dark-ego-vehicle principle.

Here’s Arnold Kling on Kevin Corcoran on Randy Holcombe’s new book, Following Their Leaders. A slice from Kling:

Perhaps the idea that democratic governments are accountable to the people is a Noble Lie. If people did not believe it, they would be inclined to be rebellious and disobedient, and this could get out of hand, meaning anarchy and violence. On the other hand, the Noble Lie seems to have gotten out of hand, in that government seems to me to be too powerful.

For me, the virtue of democracy is that it allows for peaceful transfers of power. In an ideal country, the stakes in elections would be low, because of constitutional limits on government. Elites would be able to negotiate and settle differences, unperturbed by engaged, polarized masses who use primaries to punish compromisers. The public will have modest demands and expectations for government, but they will vote out of power a party that governs poorly. Their voting will be fluid, based on satisfaction or dissatisfaction with those in power; not fixed, based on strong party allegiance.

Walter Olson applauds the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Glacier Northwest, Inc., v. Teamsters. A slice:

In Glacier Northwest, Inc., v. Teamsters, decided today, the Supreme Court showed a good measure of consensus and civility in settling a potentially contentious issue in labor law: whether a company is entitled to sue a union that has so arranged its strike so as to put the company’s equipment, as well as its perishable inventory, at risk of destruction. Eight Justices led by Justice Amy Coney Barrett said the company was entitled to sue, while Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the only dissenter, said the dispute should properly be heard by the National Labor Relations Board. Along the way, the Justices brushed up against two kinds of issues seen in many higher‐​profile cases: when federal law should pre‐​empt that of the states, and the degree to which courts should show deference to the expertise of federal agencies.

Christian Britschgi reports on yet another reason to ignore the World Health Organization.

Max Gulker reviews Matthew Desmond’s Poverty, by America.

John O. McGinnis explains that “a federal agency for licensing AI firms would make Americans more vulnerable to the problems the technology can help us address.”

George Will is not a fan of Biden’s schemes to increase Americans’ purchases of electric vehicles. A slice:

Because multiple subsidies seem insufficient to lure multitudes into buying electric vehicles, President Biden is resorting to a labyrinthine industrial policy to supply what people are not demanding. A purchaser of an EV is eligible for tax credits of up to $7,500, if:

If final assembly of the vehicle occurred in North America. And if a minimum of 40 percent (80 percent by 2027) of the minerals in the battery, and 50 percent (100 percent by 2029) percent of the vehicle’s components come from the United States or a country with which it has a “free trade agreement.”

There are no such agreements with some nations that are important sources of EV materials, so the Biden administration has issued a semantic fiat: In the context of the pertinent legislation, the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), the phrase “free trade agreement” shall mean any deal that encourages environmentally and labor-friendly trade — and such agreements do not need congressional approval. The Constitution says: “Congress shall have power … to regulate commerce with foreign nations.” But desperate times require desperate measures, and nowadays times are always too desperate to treat the Constitution as other than a tissue of suggestions.

Alex Gutentag is no longer a supporter of ‘teachers’ unions. (HT Jay Bhattacharya)