The German Workers’ Party

On this day 1919, the German Workers’ Party, the forerunner to the Nazi Party, was founded in Munich by Anton Drexler.

Contrary to its name, the DAP (to use its German acronym) was far from leftist: It was officially anti-communist—many members were drawn from the paramilitary “Freikorps” that fought communist uprisings in the east—but also anti-capitalist, reflecting fascism’s pretensions as a political “third way. However, German nationalism and Antisemitism were the cornerstone of the party, just as they would be for its successor.

While an otherwise obscure figure at the time, let alone today, Drexler played a pivotal role in Hitler’s rise: It was he who approached Hitler and encouraged him to join the DAP, supposedly seeing potential in the man’s oratory. (Hitler claimed the party’s platform reflected his existing ideas.) Hitler was only the 55th member to join, yet his ability to draw a crowd with his speeches quickly grew the party’s numbers—and his reputation and influence.

As his stature grew, so too did the DAP, which managed to organize its biggest meeting yet in 1920 in a Munich brewery. It was here, before a crowd of 2,000 people, that Hitler articulated the party’s 25-point manifesto, which he had authored with Drexler and Gottfried Feder, another key founder whose speech is what first drew Hitler into Drexler’s orbit. The platform gave the DAP a bolder vision: abandon the Treaty of Versailles, recapture and reunite former German territories, expand into Eastern Europe, and exclude Jews from German citizenship. It also included otherwise unobjectionable ideas, such as expanding social security, establishing universal education, banning child labor, enshrining equal rights for all citizens, and defending freedom of religion.

It goes to show that fascism, then and now, always had ideas that, in isolation, were good or nonpartisan, but in practice was intended to win over desperate recruits and limit the benefits only to the “right” ethnicity, race, religion, tribe, or other identity group.

Indeed, on the very same day, the German Worker’s Party was renamed the “National Socialist German Workers’ Party (NSDAP), better known as the Nazi Party”. Along with the 25-point manifesto, this was done with the explicit purpose of broadening the party’s appeal: It opposed socialism and communism—which were officially internationalist—so instead proposed a nationalist version. At the same time, the term socialism denoted a dislike of capitalism, except of course the big businesses that could serve Nazi interests.

Drexler was eventually pushed out of the newly minted party as Hitler’s falling into obscurity before his death in 1942–living just long enough to see the monster he helped create.

Swearing an Oath

In light of the fact that some incoming Muslim congresswomen may be sworn in on a Quran (by Mike Pence no less), it is worth remembering that the U.S. Constitution does not require an oath of office to be sworn on a Bible, or on any religious text for that matter.

Article VI, Clause 3, which covers oaths of office, states that while elected officials in both state and federal governments, as well executive and judicial officers throughout the country, are bound “by oath or affirmation” to support the Constitution, “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

Of course, we have already had Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, and Muslim representatives and officials, both in Congress and throughout various other state and federal offices, swear on their respective religious texts (Fun fact: In 2007, Keith Ellison of Minnesota, the first Muslim congressperson, was sworn in on a Quran formerly owned and cherished by Thomas Jefferson.)

But many other officials, both religious and secular, have sworn on nonreligious texts, or nothing at all. John Quincy Adams and Franklin Pierce swore on a book of law; Lyndon B. Johnson was sworn in on a Roman Catholic missal; and Teddy Roosevelt, who had to take the oath in a hurry after William McKinley’s assassination, did without anything, since there was no Bible on hand.

Moreover, many Christians are forbidden by their teachings to swear on anything; both Herbert Hoover and Richard Nixon, who as Quakers could technically not swear on anything, could have “affirmed” rather than “sworn” during their oaths, though it appears they did not do so.

Poorer Countries Continue to Improve

With all that is going wrong in the world, it is crucial to keep in mind the bigger picture: although there is far too much needless misery and suffering, glimmers of progress and hope persistent nonetheless — even in the most beleaguered regions in the world.

As the above date from the the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) shows, literally every part of the world has seen a marked improvement in their “Human Development Index” (HDI), a metric devised in the 1990s in attempt to better capture a country’s standard of living (in a way that GDP cannot). 

The Economist provides a great breakdown of how it works:

The index combines four simple measures: life-expectancy at birth; gross national income per person; average years of education; and expected years of school. First, each variable is normalised on a scale of zero to one; next, the two education variables are averaged; and finally, the index is calculated as the geometric mean of its three components. This ensures that a 1% decline in the index for life-expectancy has the same impact as a decline of the same magnitude in education. By incorporating health and schooling, the HDI seeks to provide a more comprehensive measure of quality of life than the simply material prosperity measured by GDP.

Though far from perfect, HDI is a pretty good barometer for how well a society is doing. And from the looks of it, a lot more places are doing a lot better despite ongoing issues of inequality, climate change, corruption, and other barriers to optimal growth.

In 1990 a child born in sub-Saharan Africa could expect to live just 50 years. Today, assuming current mortality trends persist, newborns can expect to live for 61 years. As a result, the gap in life-expectancy between the world’s poorest region and the global average has narrowed by four years. Similar gains have been registered in educational outcomes and income, meaning that all 189 countries with HDI scores have improved their marks since 1990, by an average of 0.5% a year. Just seven countries have seen a reduction in their HDI score since 2010, often as a result of war or famine.

Encouragingly, the HDI data demonstrate that inequality of life outcomes is declining both across and within countries. As developing countries have closed the gap with their developed-country peers, the coefficient of variation—a measure of the spread of the data across countries—of the HDI has fallen by six percentage points since 1990. Because the “raw” HDI is based on nationwide averages, it can provide a misleading picture of overall living standards in highly unequal countries, where a handful of people enjoy long, wealthy lives and advanced schooling, but the masses do not. \

However, the UNDP also publishes an “inequality-adjusted” version of the HDI, which attempts to account for the distribution of health, education and prosperity. The gap between this metric and the unadjusted HDI was slightly smaller in 2017 than it was the year before, suggesting that well-being is being shared more broadly inside countries as well as between them.

While there is still a tremendous amount of work to be done, and these gains remain tenuous in the face of a future global recession, the march of progress across the world is a hopeful sign that more political will and resources can take us further along the moral arc of prosperity and well being for more humans.

For the full ranking of countries by HDI, click here.

U.S. Healthcare Stands Out

American exceptionalism certainly has its merits: when it comes to healthcare, the U.S. is most definitely exceptional, albeit not in a good way.

Virtually no country comes close to spending so much on healthcare with so little payoff: a little over twenty years ago, the U.S. spent about 13 percent of GDP on healthcare compared to a developed-world average of about 9.5 percent; by 2016, our spending hit 17.5 percent of GDP–or $3 trillion

As Foreign Policy explained:

As you can see, Americans are spending more money – but they are not receiving results using the most basic metric of life expectancy. The divergence starts just before 1980, and it widens all the way to 2014.

It’s worth noting that the 2015 statistics are not plotted on this chart. However, given that healthcare spend was 17.5% of GDP in 2015, the divergence is likely to continue to widen. U.S. spending is now closing in on $10,000 per person.

Perhaps the most concerning revelation from this data?

Not only is U.S. healthcare spending wildly inefficient, but it’s also relatively ineffective. It would be one thing to spend more money and get the same results, but according to the above data that is not true. In fact, Americans on average will have shorter lives people in other high income countries.

Life expectancy in the U.S. has nearly flatlined, and it hasn’t yet crossed the 80 year threshold. Meanwhile, Chileans, Greeks, and Israelis are all outliving their American counterparts for a fraction of the associated costs.

I am not sure how much more data we need to prove that our healthcare system is broken. So many other countries with fewer resources have managed to extend average life expectancy without breaking the bank. Yet for all our innovation and wealth, we are breaking the bank by a wide a margin and still having little to show for it.

Globalism and American Interests

With respect to Jim Mattis’ resignation letter (transcribed here): It is noteworthy that he devotes his longest paragraph, and the first one of substance, to a “globalist” vision of America’s relationship with the world:

One core belief I have always held is that our strength as a nation is inextricably linked to the strength of our unique and comprehensive system of alliances and partnerships. While the US remains the indispensable nation in the free world, we cannot protect our interests or serve that role effectively without maintaining strong alliances and showing respect to those allies. Like you, I have said from the beginning that the armed forces of the United States should not be the policeman of the world. Instead, we must use all tools of American power to provide for the common defense, including providing effective leadership to our alliances. NATO’s 29 democracies demonstrated that strength in their commitment to fighting alongside us following the 9/11 attack on America. The Defeat-ISIS coalition of 74 nations is further proof.

Setting aside the usual idealism about America’s role as a guarantor of freedom, the pragmatism underpinning this argument is unsurprising to anyone that knows U.S. history.

Even before this country was born, its foreign policy proved pivotal to its success and survival. It was the alliance with France—the first country to recognize our independence, and the only one that could challenge Great Britain—that was most decisive in securing victory in the Revolutionary War. Nearly all the Founders recognized the importance of international trade, commerce, and recognition, which provided economic growth as well as legitimacy. Hence the Constitution places great importance on international agreements (the Treaty Clause), elevates ratified treaties to the same binding force as domestic law (the Supremacy Clause), and has language apparently obligating America to enforce the “law of nations” (the Offenses Clause).

Contrary to popular belief, the top brass has always recognized this: Far from being jingoistic, many of them are well versed in international relations and world history. Some of the most noteworthy military leaders today—Mattis himself, David Petraeus, James Stavridis—studied international affairs, foreign policy, and other internationalist “soft” sciences.

Like it or not, our highly globalized world does not permit us to disregard alliances and cooperation. The people most involved in our national security recognize that.

America and its International Commitments

One of the biggest objections to the Iran Nuclear Deal is that it violated U.S. law because it was never approved by two-thirds of the Senate, as required by the “Treaty Clause” (Art. II, Sec. 2) of the U.S. Constitution. (Contrary to the beliefs of many red-blooded Americans, the Constitution gives ratified treaties the same force as domestic law, per the Supremacy Clause.) However, this reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the deal, the Constitution, and international law.

First, the deal was never binding: It is classified as a “nonbinding political commitment”, which, by definition, and in contrast to a treaty, requires no congressional approval nor is legally binding. Throughout U.S. history, presidents of all parties have made international agreements without the approval of a supermajority of Senators, either through “congressional-executive agreements”—which are ratified by only a simple majority of Congress—or through “executive agreements”, which are made solely by the president without any congressional involvement.

Between 1946 and 1999 alone, the U.S. completed nearly 16,000 international agreements—of which only 912 (5.7 percent) were treaties ratified by the Senate. (Most were congressional-executive agreements.)

While the Constitution does not explicitly provide for these alternatives, these alternatives have long been considered legitimate. Thomas Jefferson, a globalist sellout if we ever saw one, argued that the Treaty Clause procedure is not always necessary; short-term agreements without Senate approval may be better since “when they become too inconvenient, [they] can be dropped at the will of either party”. Most of the Founders did not objective this, because they recognized pragmatic and expedient reasons to allow the president to make international agreements without going through the long and politicized channels of the legislature.

In fact, when Jefferson sought to purchase the massive Louisiana Territory from France, there was some debate as to whether expanding U.S. territory was legal, since the Constitution was silent on the matter. He ultimately prevailed on the argument—backed by the “Father of the Constitution” James Madison—that the executive’s broad foreign policy powers allowed him to acquire the territory through treaty; he subsequently signed an agreement with France in April, announced it publicly in July, and finally got it ratified by the Senate in October.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed these powers. In Missouri v. Holland, it held that the federal government can use treaties to legislate in areas that would otherwise fall within the exclusive authority of the states. That is because the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution gives treaties the same force as federal law, which is binding on the states. In American Insurance Association v. Garamendi, the Court reaffirmed that “the President has authority to make ‘executive agreements’ with other countries, requiring no ratification by the Senate or approval by Congress, this power having been exercised since the early years of the Republic.”

America Less Respected Worldwide

According to polls of international relations (IR) experts and the American public, the U.S. is believed to have far less global respect than in the past.

A breakdown of the results and methodology by Pew:

Among the foreign affairs experts, 93% say the U.S. is less respected by other countries today compared with the past, according to a survey of international relations (IR) scholars conducted in October 2018 by the Teaching, Research and International Policy (TRIP) Project at the College of William and Mary. The poll included 1,157 respondents who are employed at a U.S. college or university in a political science department or professional school and who teach or conduct research on international issues. Only 4% of these experts believe the U.S. is as respected as in the past, with a mere 2% saying the U.S. gets more respect from abroad than it has previously received.

The American public also has seen a decline in other countries’ respect for the U.S., though it is less unified than IR experts in its assessment, according to a separate survey of 1,504 adults conducted in October 2017 by Pew Research Center. Roughly seven-in-ten Americans (68%) said the U.S. is less respected by other countries today compared with the past. About two-in-ten (17%) thought America had maintained its global level of respect, while 13% said the U.S. is more respected. It should be noted, however, that a majority of the American public has expressed belief that the U.S. is less respected every time the question has been asked since 2004, ranging from a low of 56% to a high of 71% holding this opinion.


Moreover, the majority of those who said the U.S. is less respected (around three quarters) believe this is a major problem.

Among IR scholars, there are two prevailing schools of thought: realism, which emphases the constant competition between countries pursuing their own ends; and constructivism (also called liberalism), which stresses shared ideas and/or mutual cooperation among states. A majority of both schools — around 82% of realists and 95% of liberals — thought respect in America was declining. (Most of those who do not adhere to either school also agreed that the U.S. is less respected.)

By contrast, the American public saw far sharper divides depending on party affiliation:

Among the public overall, there are sharp partisan differences over whether the U.S. is less respected today than in the past and whether it’s a major problem. Around four-in-ten Republicans and Republican-leaning independents (42%) asserted in the 2017 survey that the U.S. is less respected than in the past, and about a quarter (28%) deemed this a major problem. Yet more than twice as many Democrats and Democratic leaners (87%) thought global respect for the U.S. had diminished, and seven-in-ten said this is a major problem.

While majorities of Democrats viewed the U.S. as less respected internationally at various points during the Obama administration, there was a 29-percentage-point increase in the share saying this between 2016 and 2017 following Donald Trump’s election. Similarly, the share of Republicans saying that the U.S. is less respected abroad dropped by 28 percentage points from the end of the Obama administration to when Trump took office.

Unfortunately, other polling data by Pew back up this perception: as of 2017, America had indeed suffered from a declining image among over two dozen countries polled across the world:

Many Americans may not think this matters, given that the U.S. remains a powerful country militarily, economically, and even culturally. But with the balance of power shifting across several different countries and regions, and global problems like terrorism and climate change warranting more international cooperation, having the rest of the world on your side is more crucial than ever. We need allies and partners, whether for trade, scientific research, economic development, or military defense. That will be a lot harder to achieve if we keep alienating ourselves from the rest of the world, while rivals and emerging powers fill in the gaps.

What are your thoughts?

Source: Pew Research Center

Most Americans Know Next to Nothing About the Constitution

For a document that is practically deified as the greatest legal instrument in the world, the U.S. Constitution is woefully misunderstood, or not understood at all. Those are the depressing results of a 2017 poll from the University of Pennsylvania’s Annenberg Public Policy Center. (Though the data are one year old, I doubt the results have changed, except maybe for the worse.)

More than one in three people (37%) could not name a single right protected by the First Amendment. Only one in four (26%) can name all three branches of the government (down from 38% in 2011), and one in three (33%) cannot name any branch of government. A majority (53%) believe that undocumented immigrants have no rights under the Constitution, despite the Supreme Court ruling repeatedly that everyone in the U.S. is entitled to due process and the right to make their case before the courts.

As Chris Cillizza over at CNN points out, these dismal results aren’t limited to just one poll:

Take this Pew Research Center poll from 2010 When asked to name the chief justice of the Supreme Court, less than three in 10 (28%) correctly answered John Roberts. That compares unfavorably to the 43% who rightly named William Rehnquist as the chief justice in a Pew poll back in 1986.

What did the 72% of people who didn’t name Roberts as the chief justice in 2010 say instead, you ask? A majority (53%) said they didn’t know. Eight percent guessed Thurgood Marshall, who was never a chief justice of the Court and, perhaps more importantly, had been dead for 17 years when the poll was taken. Another 4% named Harry Reid, who is not now nor ever was a Supreme Court Justice.What we don’t know about the government — executive, legislative and judicial branches — is appalling.

It’s funny — until you realize that lots and lots of people whose lives are directly affected by what the federal government does and doesn’t do have absolutely no idea about even the most basic principles of how this all works. The level of civil ignorance in the country allows our politicians — and Donald Trump is the shining example of this — to make lowest common denominator appeals about what they will do (or won’t do) in office. It also leads to huge amounts of discontent from the public when they realize that no politician can make good on the various and sundry promises they make on the campaign trail.

While I think more and better civics curricula is a solution, I also suspect that the visceral hatred of all things government dissuades people from caring about these things in the first place. At the same time, I can also see how (often understandable) cynicism towards our political system might breed apathy, too. Why bother to know about a system that you are convinced does nothing good for you or society?

The Most Dangerous Profession in the World?

The only thing authoritarians hate more than a free public is a free press, given that the latter can help arm the former with knowledge and impetus to push back. But as “fake news” goes from being an American meme to a global phenomenon, despots worldwide are taking note, invoking it in their familiar but growing crackdown on reporters and journalists.

As Vice News reported:

The annual prison census, carried out by the nonprofit Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), found at least 251 journalists languishing in prison on Dec. 1, 2018, the third consecutive year at roughly that level. But of those 251, a record 28 were behind bars on charges of “false news,” a big spike from just two years ago, when there were nine such cases.

Egypt accounted for the most cases of journalists jailed for so-called false news, with 19 behind bars. There were four in Cameroon, three in Rwanda, and one each in China and Morocco.

The report pointed the finger at Trump as “the leading voice” fueling global rhetoric about fake news. “You think #FakeNews rhetoric doesn’t have consequences?” tweeted the report’s author, CPJ’s editorial director Elana Beiser.

It also noted that while no journalists are imprisoned in the U.S., reporters there faced fatal violence and hostile rhetoric. In June, five people were killed in a mass shooting at the offices of The Capital Gazette in Annapolis, Maryland, and a mail bomber who embraced Trump’s media attacks sent threatening packages to CNN headquarters, among other places, in October.

To make matters worse, the uptick in state-sanctioned violence and repression of journalists is looking like a long-term trend:

It’s the third year running that the number of reporters behind bars has topped 250 — a stat that suggested that “the authoritarian approach to critical news coverage is more than a temporary spike,” and had become “the new normal,” according to Beiser.

The report found the high numbers had been sustained by renewed crackdowns in China, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia, which, along with Turkey and Eritrea, were the five leading jailers of journalists. Turkey, China, and Egypt alone accounted for more than half the world’s jailed journalists for the third year in a row.

The report found that nearly three-quarters of jailed journalists were facing anti-state charges, such as supporting groups deemed to be terrorist organizations, and the vast majority — 98 percent — were jailed by their own governments.

Considering that the balance of power is shifting to the developing world, most of all China, the normalization of constraining a free press sets a very concerning precedent. But when even the ostensible leader of the free world has embraced hostile rhetoric towards media, it is unlikely that this problem is going away any time soon — even though the need for a free press is more important than ever.

Lessons from Estonia on E-Voting

Count on the country that helped invent Skype to lead the way when it comes to digital government. The nation of just 1.5 million, also known for having been the first to break away from the Soviet Union, has made a name for itself as a pioneer in utilizing technology to improve civic engagement. As Forbes reports:

Modern-day Estonia has become synonymous with the notion of reimagining how citizens interact with their government, making nearly every governmental service available from home or on the go via a mouse click. Since 2005 the country has allowed its citizens to cast their votes in pan-national elections via a secure online portal system, growing to over 30% of votes cast in the last several elections, according to Tarvi Martens, Chairman of the Estonian Electronic Voting Committee.

Citizens can vote as many times as they like up to election day, with only the final vote counting. Those who do not have access to a computer or who prefer old fashioned paper ballots can still vote by paper – evoting is an option rather than a mandate.

Interestingly, nearly a quarter of evotes in recent elections have been cast by people over the age of 55, with another 20% of evotes from the 45-54 age range. This suggests evoting enjoys broad support not just among young digital native millennials, but across the societal spectrum, especially among those who, at least in the US, are not typically viewed as early adopters of digital services.

To vote in Estonia, one simply visits the national election website and downloads and installs the voting application. Then you insert your national identity card into your computer’s card reader, fill out your digital ballot, confirm your choices and digitally sign and submit your eballot. You can do all of this from the comfort of your own home in the seven days leading up to election day.

Pretty amazing stuff, especially for a country that still largely relies on woefully outdated tech to cast its votes. 

Granted, with cybersecurity being one of the penultimate concerns of 21st century technology, lots of skeptics would be right to question whether something like voting is yet another activity that should be put in the realm of potential hackers. But Estonia seems to have addressed this issue, too.

Of course, one of the most common concerns regarding internet voting is the potential that one’s vote could be changed either by a virus on your computer or as your ballot transits the internet on its way to the central government servers. To address this, Estonia’s evoting system adds a novel twist: the ability to use your mobile phone to separately connect to the electoral servers via a different set of tools and services to see how your vote was recorded and verify that it is correct.

After casting your vote using your desktop computer you can thus pull out your smartphone and verify the results that were actually received by the central electoral servers. The results are encrypted so that no government official can see how you individually voted, only you can see your individual voting choices, even as they are aggregated into the national totals.

By physically separating vote casting and vote checking to two different devices (votes are cast via a desktop computer, while checking your vote must be performed on your phone), it makes it highly unlikely that even the most motivated attacker could compromise both devices in such a way that your vote could be changed without your knowledge. And of course, even after voting online, you can always show up at a polling station on election day and vote via paper ballot if you want.

The ability to verify through a physically separate channel that the data received by the government is what you sent goes a long way towards addressing many of the most common concerns about electronic voting

I think this is perfectly doable in the U.S., at least on a technical level; constitutionally, every state handles voting its own way, so whether we can implement a nationwide standard of e-voting remains to be seen. But if even a handful of states give it a try, it might set a good example and get the ball rolling.

What are your thoughts?