Chris Christie and the Case Against Term Limits

Social science has proven that Congress is even less popular than Nickelback, so it’s easy to see why term limits for senators and representatives consistently poll well among Americans of all backgrounds and ideological persuasions. Would-be reformers of various stripes have touted term limits as an important good government initiative, and even many who have not championed the cause of formally enshrining them in law have offered up pledges to voluntarily leave office themselves after a fixed number of years.

Notwithstanding the legal setbacks that have been dealt past attempts to enact term limits at the federal level, the idea has always struck me as an overrated and potentially counterproductive “solution” to the problems it purports to solve, like legislative gridlock, political careerism, or corruption. To see why, one need look no further than RM’s very own Garden State, whose chief executive looks to me like a poster boy for the case against term limits.

In 2010, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie unilaterally canceled a joint federal-state public works project known as “Access to the Region’s Core” (ARC) that would have involved construction of the first new rail tunnel under the Hudson River in over 100 years, citing the possibility of unforeseen cost overruns. As Rachel M. Cohen explains in an essay for the Winter 2015 issue of The American Prospect,

Many had expected New Jersey to raise its gas tax to meet its obligations for the ARC tunnel and other transportation investments. But Christie was emphatically opposed… [K]illing the ARC project had an additional advantage besides avoiding a gas tax increase. It also enabled him to redirect more than $3 billion that had already been put aside for the tunnel.

Christie’s Democratic predecessor, Jon Corzine, had set off a political firestorm in 2008 when he tried to pass a plan that would have used dramatic increases in highway tolls over a 12-year period to cut the state’s $32 billion debt in half and pay for transportation improvements. Although the plan was defeated, Corzine did succeed in doubling tolls on the New Jersey Turnpike. While the revenue wasn’t enough to resolve the state’s long-term fiscal problems, it included $1.25 billion earmarked for the future ARC tunnel… Christie took that money as well as $1.8 billion from the Port Authority’s ARC capital fund and used the more than $3 billion in total to pay for road and bridge projects in the state.

The existing Hudson rail tunnels suffered significant damage during Hurricane Sandy in the fall of 2012. According to Amtrak CEO Joseph Boardman, each tunnel will need to be closed for repairs for at least a year sometime within the next two decades. He has stressed that twenty years is an upper bound on the tunnels’ remaining life, and that they might need to be shuttered in as little as seven.

The closure of even one of the tunnels would be devastating, with New Jersey Transit estimating that the number of commuter trains able to traverse the Hudson every hour would be cut by up to 75%. The result would be utter chaos. Now-unthinkable measures like banning automobiles from using the Lincoln Tunnel would have to be implemented to deal with the loss of capacity. Put simply, the probability that New York and New Jersey could suffer Transitpocalypse within the next ten years is meaningfully greater than zero.

Chris Christie is constitutionally limited to two consecutive terms as governor and will leave office in January 2018. But if he were able to run for and win a third term, he could conceivably serve until 2022. Boardman’s statement was issued last year. Assuming, arguendo, that his most pessimistic prediction were to be the correct one, then the tunnels could be wheeled into surgery as early as 2021 – during the second half of a hypothetical third Christie term.

Of course, Hurricane Sandy had not yet taken place when Christie pulled the plug on ARC, and an accurate assessment of how much damage it had inflicted was not available until some time afterward. But a third-term-eligible Christie might have been galvanized by Boardman’s prognosis to prioritize the development of a funding mechanism for an alternative project like Amtrak’s Gateway proposal that would increase trans-Hudson capacity, knowing that the worst could very well happen on his watch. As it is, Christie was probably correct to gamble that the tunnels will manage to avoid flatlining for the remainder of his time in office.

This is one reason why I see him as an ideal poster boy for the case against term limits: Christie’s decision to raid the funds that had been appropriated for ARC in order to forestall a gas tax increase and have the state still be able to pay for an urgently-needed renovation of the Pulaski Skyway bridge between Newark and Jersey City is emblematic of an important way in which term limits affect political incentives. By guaranteeing that a politician who inaugurates an ultra-long-term public works project will no longer be in office when his constituents begin to reap its benefits, these limits nudge elected officials in the direction of advancing initiatives with more immediate payoffs or those whose costs can be postponed indefinitely.

As Benjamin Kabak of the transit blog Second Avenue Sagas put it in a post on New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio’s proposal for a new subway line down Utica Avenue in Brooklyn, “[o]ne of the reasons why politicians are so hesitant to embrace these ambitious plans concerns timing. If it’s going to take a decade or more from start to finish, those who appear at the ribbon cutting won’t be those who did the heavy lifting and secured the dollars.”

And if you know that you won’t be around for the ribbon cutting, it might start to seem like a better use of your time to focus on something else – like how to position yourself for your next job. Even politicians find unemployment stressful, so it’s only rational than term-limited officials would take steps to plan for the future when they know they’ll be sent home after four or eight years.

Which brings us to the second way in which Christie illustrates the unintended consequences of term limits: knowing that he will not have to face the voters again in his own state, he has devoted more and more energy to burnishing his national image in advance of a run for the White House. In his role as chairman of the Republican Governors’ Association for 2014, Christie frequently traveled out-of-state – and sometimes out-of-country – to campaign for GOP candidates and to promote key planks in the party’s platform. According to, the peripatetic governor spent all or part of 137 days last year outside of the state.

The voting public seems to be growing irritated with these absences: a Monmouth University poll released in February found that about two-thirds of voters in the Garden State believed that a trip Christie took to the United Kingdom that was advertised as a “trade mission” was “mainly designed to boost his presidential prospects” (17 percent believed that the primary intent was in fact to strengthen economic ties). Of course, it’s not necessarily the case that someone who believes Christie’s globetrotting is designed to lay the groundwork for a presidential campaign is unhappy about that fact, but the same poll also found that a nearly identical percentage of voters “say he is more concerned about his own political future than he is about the state,” which suggests that his motives are viewed with a certain amount of cynicism.

In their 2012 book It’s Even Worse Than It Looks: How the American Constitutional System Collided With the New Politics of Extremism, political scientists Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein express skepticism about the transformative potential of term limits for precisely this reason. They cite other scholars who argue that, in the twenty-one states that instituted term limits for state representatives between 1990 and 2000,

[i]f anything, the limits amplified the corrosive effects of ambition on the legislators, who focused from day one on how best to use their limited time as a springboard to their next post. That produced incentives to go for a big, short-term splash and leave the long-term mess to the next wave of their successors.

One possible counterargument could be that term limits might not actually “bind.” That is to say, ambitious politicians like Christie who believe they can be elected to higher office in the middle of their second term might still believe they could be elected to higher office at the same point in their service even if they were offered the possibility of a third or a fourth term. Perhaps they might feel they had already accomplished whatever they set out to accomplish, or at the very least that whatever accomplishments they had already racked up would make their resumé sufficiently attractive to the voters that they would be better off quitting while ahead (or quitting before their lackeys went rogue and closed down a bridge out of puerile spite, the time for which has, alas, already passed for Christie).

That’s certainly possible, but running for reelection as an incumbent is almost always easier than putting together a winning campaign for a completely new position. I would be surprised if term limits didn’t incentivize at least some politicians to take a leap they otherwise would not have or that they otherwise might have postponed, and in fact there is some research, in addition to the work referenced by Mann and Ornstein, suggesting this could be the case.

If the polling is to be trusted, a large chunk of the New Jersey electorate finds Chris Christie’s pre-campaign antics distasteful, and many of his detractors take pleasure in the fact that he’s guaranteed to leave office less than three years from today. But what those detractors may be neglecting is the possibility that his antics are in part the result of that very guarantee, and that, paradoxically, allowing him to hang around New Jersey a while longer would make him more dedicated to the people of the state and more attentive to their needs.

The Moderation Conversation: The Monstah and the Moderate

Welcome to another installment of the Moderation Conversation, a feature in which Matt and Chris get together for a live chat and completely rewrite the subsequent transcript to make themselves seem more eloquent than they actually are.

Tired of reading about the curious case of Hillary Clinton’s disappearing emails? Weary of pundits debating whether Jeb Bush is really his own man? Sick of seeing the artist formerly known as Donald Trump tease yet another godforsaken non-campaign for the highest office in the nation? RM is, too. As the country homes in on potential candidates for the 2016 election, Matt and Chris discuss two little-mentioned longshots who they would like to see become serious contenders for their parties’ respective nominations. 

(As an aside, this happens to be RM’s one hundredth post since its kickoff in mid-2013. The editors would love to invite all of you over for cake and merrymaking, but they recently squandered their annual budget on some unfortunate online purchases.)

The 2016 Election

Matt: Okay, so now that it’s 2015, we feel somewhat less guilty about talking about 2016.

Chris: Only somewhat.

M: Only somewhat. Because the presidential election is still about twenty months away. But, you know, the race is heating up!

We wanted to discuss the candidates that we would be interested in seeing run and the potential campaigns that we’re most excited about. Not necessarily because we would be backing those candidates, but because we think they might have something interesting to contribute to the conversation.

So Chris, why don’t you kick it off?


Bernie Sanders – The Monstah

C: Well, one of the candidates we’ve both been very excited about has been Senator Bernie Sanders from Vermont. You were the one who originally got me interested in Bernie’s would-be campaign. You mentioned that one of your friends from Haverford has been a very enthusiastic supporter of Bernie since he started hinting that he might be running. And you showed me a Bloomberg interview that he did in which he lovingly talked about how he plays “monstah” with his grandchildren.

M: For anyone who isn’t familiar with his background, Bernie Sanders is a senator from Vermont but he’s originally from Brooklyn and has an extremely thick Brooklyn accent. So he basically never pronounces the letter ‘R’.

A lot of articles that I read about Bernie say that he always comes off as extremely serious and somewhat pedantic and that he’s constantly painting a very dark picture of things. But I think that if you listen to some of his speeches you’ll find out that he’s actually got a pretty dry sense of humor that I imagine could play well on the campaign trail.

C: I think that’s actually a very big strength, that his rhetoric can be both dry and serious. That could help him quite a bit in 2016.

M: A big potential liability, though, is that Bernie Sanders is the only member of the United States Senate who identifies himself as a socialist. People generally run away from the word “socialist” in American politics. It’s used as a pejorative and politicians usually are not rushing to embrace it.

Do you think that will be a problem for him? That he’ll have to work extra hard to explain that label to an American public that recoils from the word “socialism”?

C: Yes. I think especially if he were to make it out of the Democratic primaries, that would be a huge, huge hindrance. It could even be a problem within the Democratic primary as well, just because his opponents would be able to argue that he is far too extreme for the party.

M: Now, Sanders is not actually a Democrat. He is an independent who caucuses with the Democrats. He’s talked a lot about how he’s thinking about running for president, but he’s kept alive the idea that he might run as an independent in order to capitalize on the anger that exists toward the two-party system.

At the same time, he has acknowledged that he doesn’t want to be a Ralph Nader-type spoiler. Even though he doesn’t like the two-party system he believes that the Democrats are a much lesser evil than the Republicans and he wouldn’t want to throw an election to their candidate. So if he runs he’ll probably run as a Democrat, but it’s not 100%.

C: In press conferences and debates he’s been quite critical of the Democrats, including Hillary Clinton and her relationships with big business.

M: Yeah, that’s true. There are also two more reasons why I think Bernie Sanders’ candidacy would be worthwhile even if he doesn’t win. One relates to what you said about socialism. I think it would be valuable to have a somewhat wider range of perspectives represented in American politics. I mean, we tend to believe that there’s a very large ideological gap between Democrats and Republicans, and there is. But when you look at something like the recent election in Greece, where between 10 and 15% of the vote combined went to literal communists or literal Nazis –

C: That’s horrifying.

M: Like, that’s horrifying, and I’m not saying that I’m looking forward to something like that happening here, but in a lot of other advanced countries the political spectrum is much wider than it is in the U.S. Some of that has to do with the fact that we don’t have a system of proportional representation, so it’s much more difficult for smaller parties to really gain influence. But I think in general it would be good for our discourse if we had more marginal voices able to get their thoughts out there, especially on the left. If there weren’t such a stigma against “socialism” as a political philosophy we might be able to hear from socialists in the mainstream media more often and have them actually defend their views rather than just be the butt of some joke.

So that’s one point. The other is that, based on the things that I’ve heard Bernie Sanders say in the videos that I’ve watched of him speaking, it sounds like he is really interested in trying to broaden the Democratic coalition. And for a party that has seemed over the past few months to be trying to do some soul-searching about why it lost so badly in November, someone like Sanders could be able to provide a roadmap for how to expand the Democrats’ appeal.

He really seems to downplay the so-called “social issues”. He’s mentioned in his speeches the events in Ferguson, Missouri and talked about how there’s obviously been a very acrimonious debate about race in America. But he goes on to point out that we don’t really hear a lot about how African-American youth unemployment in Ferguson and in other minority communities nationwide is something like 30 or 40%.

He always seems to try to refocus these debates onto economics and away from tribalist culture war arguments. And I think it would be good to see the Democratic Party pivot away from the culture war and try to reach out to some people who might not accept the entirety of the Democratic platform but who might be on board with some of the more bread-and-butter issues.

C: Great points. To your second argument, in considering his candidacy, I think it’s worth looking at the issues that he’s been discussing to see what he could bring to bear on the Democratic platform in 2016.

Regulation of big banks would be a huge part of his campaign. That’s been probably the number one issue he’s discussed in interviews and speeches in the last few months. That’s certainly important. There is bipartisan support for measures to rein in the big banks, and it seems like he’d be a very good person to channel that anger and that resentment.

M: Why do you say that? Why would he be uniquely well-situated?

C: Perhaps aside from Elizabeth Warren, who still has not indicated that she’s going to run, he seems like the most likely candidate to actually take action against the big banks. According to The Week, some major Wall Street investors have been very positive about a potential Hillary Clinton candidacy, which suggests they don’t perceive her as much of a threat. So if this is a debate that we want to see going forward, if we really would like to crack down on corporatism, it seems like Bernie Sanders would be a good person to do so.

That said, I don’t think that more taxes on large corporations and the wealthiest one percent are enough to solve the structural inequality that he continually highlights. This is something the Democratic Party needs to consider in the run-up to the election, but they probably won’t. Raising taxes on the wealthiest and big businesses is simply not enough to solve every single problem they’re calling attention to.

I’d love to see Bernie gain traction in the primary so he can start a debate on policy planks like infrastructure investment. Things that might not otherwise be talked about. That in and of itself would be a success.

M: Yeah! Just say the word “infrastructure” and I will probably vote for you.

C: He’d also like to expand healthcare further, which is going to die a slow and painful – actually, a quick and painful death, because it’s never going to happen.

M: [Laughs]

Maybe that’s enough about Bernie Sanders. Suffice it to say, he’s a monstah.


John Kasich – The Moderate

M: A candidate that we’re both interested in seeing run on the Republican side is someone who has said a little bit less about his intentions for 2016, but who does seem like he might be seriously considering a run. And that would be Ohio Governor John Kasich.

One thing I think we’re both really impressed by, given our general interest in seeing more cooperation among elected officials from different parties, is the fact that he was willing to accept the Medicaid expansion of the Affordable Care Act in Ohio. He opted not to engage in a lot of the confrontational tactics that other Republican governors had chosen to pursue.

C: I think that in looking at Kasich’s appeal, it’s important to consider him relative to the other potential candidates on the Republican side. He may not, in and of himself, be a particularly strong candidate. He’s not someone who’s really well known outside of Ohio. But he just won reelection in the 2014 midterms by double digits, so that’s why he’s been getting some press.

Betsy Woodruff and Daniel Strauss discussed this a little bit in their Bloggingheads podcast, and Betsy argued that Kasich has no chance because we’re so far along in the run-up to 2016 that he simply does not have enough name recognition to gain traction. Which is a shame. As you said, Kasich has shown himself to be open to certain aspects of healthcare reform, saying that expanding access was “doing God’s work.” This indicates that he’s willing to work with Democrats and other members outside his party to accomplish his goals. The fact that he’s able to appeal to voters in the state across party lines will be very important, especially because the other potential candidates include a lot of confrontational figures like Ted Cruz.

M: So, Betsy Woodruff – who we interviewed, by the way! – seemed to think Kasich’s comments about accepting the Medicaid expansion being motivated by his Christian duty to take care of the poor would be a negative, because the Republican base presumably wouldn’t be too pleased with someone who defends Obamacare by invoking Jesus.

At the same time, Mitt Romney got the nomination after having implemented what was essentially Obamacare in Massachusetts. And I think a broad segment of the electorate outside of the Republican base will appreciate that he’s somebody who takes his faith seriously and is motivated by that to want to work towards social justice.

One interesting thing about John Kasich that I didn’t know was that he actually ran for president in the year 2000. He was a Congressman from Ohio and he ran in the Republican primary against George Bush, who obviously ended up getting the nomination and becoming president. Apparently at the time he was a somewhat brash figure, but he has significantly mellowed out since then and is now seen as a more low-key, deal-making sort of politician instead of a firebrand. But again, maybe that’ll be a drawback if it means that he can’t generate a lot of excitement.

C: You had mentioned to me that he supports a budget policy that’s a little questionable…

M: Oh yeah. He’s working for this organization called Balanced Budget Forever. Sounds like a really bad band name.

C: That obviously will be fine in the primaries. But in a general election, those type of fiscal policies could come back to haunt him.

M: Why do you say that? I mean, it seems like a balanced budget amendment might be pretty popular.

C: You think so?

M: I don’t think it’s a good idea from an economic standpoint, but I think it could be popular. It’s something that has a lot of intuitive appeal.

C: I don’t know. Democrats could make convincing arguments for why, especially now, as the United States has been doing quite well economically compared to other European countries, it’s not critical that we balance the budget at this juncture and in fact it could be quite harmful. I think there’s plenty of ammunition on the Democratic side to puncture holes in that.

M: Another Kasich policy worth mentioning: he was partly responsible for implementing an earned income tax credit in Ohio, which the state had not had up until last year. The earned income tax credit is something that, in theory, both Democrats and Republicans like: it was expanded under Bill Clinton but a lot of Republicans also tout it as an alternative to raising the minimum wage. So it’s another indication that he seems to be serious about policies to help lower-income Americans, and if that’s a quality that he would bring to the White House then that makes him very attractive.

C: To that point: I don’t know the exact numbers, but job growth in Ohio has been very strong since he became governor. He’s going to be able to use that as a talking point if he does choose to run. And it’s especially impressive when compared with the record of other moderates like Chris Christie, whose time as governor has actually seen anemic growth in New Jersey. Our state unemployment rate has not really improved since he took office, so it seems like in terms of being a more moderate candidate on the Republican side, Kasich has solid credentials, at least for the primaries.


Monstah vs. Moderate

M: There seems to be some asymmetry here. Whereas on the Democratic side we like the candidate who appears to many to be more extreme, we’re gravitating towards the Republican candidate who seems the most moderate. Do you think there’s some disconnect there?

C: Yeah, I’d agree that there’s some disconnect. I think part of it is our appreciation for Bernie Sanders as a political character, almost. Because he is such a unique personality, he’s very interesting to watch. He has passion about what he’s talking about. It’s unlikely he has much of a chance of winning, but we’re rooting for him to run because of his charisma and because policies like infrastructure improvement could be very positive.

Whereas Bernie is one of the lone “fringe” candidates in his party, it seems like on the Republican side most of the candidates and party leaders have been more towards the fringes as of late. So there we’d like to see someone more temperate who can get the party back towards the middle.

M: To me, it seems like Bernie and Kasich might have something uniquely in common: both of them are interested in prioritizing economic issues. I already discussed this in the case of Bernie, but even for Kasich, who is fairly socially conservative, it seems like the issues he’s most eager to address are economic: finding ways to boost wages for low-income workers, finding ways to provide healthcare, and pursuing more traditional fiscal conservative goals like a balanced budget amendment.

C: So do you think this election is going to be focused on economic issues for the most part? It feels like the early stages of Hillary Clinton’s pre-campaign have mostly been based on other things outside of economic policy.

M: I mean, I hope the election is mostly focused on economic issues. I assume defense will also be a pretty big component in light of the upheaval in the Middle East. But I would certainly rather Hillary Clinton’s candidacy not become something like Mark Udall’s single-issue campaign in Colorado, which dealt with the abortion issue and almost nothing else. That’s not to say that abortion is not something we should debate, but it is far from the only issue and I would hope that both parties find a way to talk about other things people care about.

C: It’ll be interesting to see who ends up running. Most of the early coverage has focused on the Republican Party, and we’ve seen names of upwards of a dozen potential candidates who may or may not be interested.

M: Ben Carson.

C: Ben Carson, yes. Correct me if I’m wrong, but on the Democratic side, we’ve only heard from Hillary Clinton, Jim Webb, possibly Bernie Sanders, and probably not Elizabeth Warren.

M: And possibly Martin O’Malley from Maryland.

C: The narrative thus far is that Hillary has already been elected. And again, that’s one of the reasons I’d love to see Bernie Sanders run, just because it’d be good to see someone bring an additional perspective to that debate.

M: Amen.

13 Thoughts on Apple for 2015

Much like the mechanical watches with which its newest product will compete, Apple is an organization in perpetual motion.  The Apple Watch launches in April 2015 as the company’s first foray into the wearables market.  The just-announced new MacBook, with a retina display and only two ports, joins it as a spring release.  An enterprise iPad Pro is expected to debut in the fall, and a rebranded Beats music streaming service and updated Apple TV are also forecasted to drop this year.  And let’s not even get into the Apple Car that’s purportedly in the works.

Here are thirteen thoughts, broken into four broad topics, about Apple’s product pipeline after its “Spring Forward” event last Monday.

1) The Apple Watch is already a success.
2) The Apple Watch Edition may have a minor Glasshole problem.
3) New Beats headphones will be important, and Jony Ive shouldn’t design them.

4) The Macbook is stunningly gorgeous and two years ahead of schedule.
5) Boost Mac sales by emphasizing Continuity with mobile platforms.
6) The entire iPad line should be consolidated and renamed.
7) What’s the future of the iPod?
8) HomeKit is the next big frontier, and Apple TV is the conduit.

Speculation and Hypotheticals
9) An Apple-Nintendo partnership won’t happen, but they would be a natural fit.
10) Could iTunes or Apple TV become a carte blanche media streaming service?
11) Tesla would be a synergistic feverdream, but CarPlay makes more sense.

The Big Picture
12) Diversity beyond the iPhone is critical.
13) Tim Cook is a better CEO than Steve Jobs.



1) The Apple Watch is already a success.

Full stop.  Without sales data, professional reviews, or market feedback, the Apple Watch is already a success.

Its criticisms are real and important to take into consideration: a slightly bulky frame, comparatively poor battery life, and high starting price relative to other Apple devices.  But these criticisms don’t matter in the context of this product launch.

The goal of the first generation Apple Watch is innovation informed by heritage.  Whereas other smartwatches are focused on technology, the Apple Watch is as much about fashion as it is computing – perhaps even more so.  It’s an exercise in expanding the concept of what should be expected from a digital watch.

This essay by Ben Clymer is my favorite evaluation of what Apple got right and wrong with the Watch.  It is remarkably balanced in its evaluation, and Clymer pinpoints why the Watch is so important:

Apple products have a way of making someone not want to live without them, and while I wasn’t able to fully immerse myself in the OS yesterday, what I saw was impressive. So while certainly not direct competition for haute horology watchmaking right now, the Apple Watch is absolutely competition for the real estate of the wrist, and years down the road, it could spell trouble for traditional watches even at a high level.

The Apple Watch is about setting the stage.  It’s about building that connection with customers and improving upon the current offerings in the smartwatch and entry-level luxury watch market.  “The overall level of design in the Apple Watch simply blows away anything – digital or analog – in the watch space at $350,” Clymer says.  He’s right, thanks to the relationship between form and function that Apple’s competitors have yet to attain.

Analysts are predicting that Apple will sell 12-15 million units in 2015 and nab half of the smartwatch market share.  That might be a high forecast, but Apple’s profits from the device, especially the Edition, should be significant even if fewer than 10 million units are sold.  And it will sell.  Customers will look past things like battery life because of the novelty factor.  Come for the hype, stay for the quality of apps and services that the platform affords – a far more robust infrastructure than any other smartwatch company by far.

The Watch will be a flop only if Apple fails to convince customers outside of Apple aficionados and the smartwatch market that the Watch is a valuable device by its next iteration.   This first generation Watch, flaws and all, just needs to generate enough electricity to get that conversation off the ground.  And by that metric, it’s already succeeded.

2) The Apple Watch Edition may have a minor Glasshole problem.

“Glasshole Syndrome” might be defined as when a product’s design language becomes synonymous with people who want a visible token of their superiority.  “Glasshole,” of course, refers to the early adopters of Google Glass, which became infamous for its stealth video recording capabilities, $1000+ price point, and embarrassing design.

The Apple Watch will not suffer criticisms for privacy invasion or poor design.  It is a beautiful machine whose utility and app ecosystem makes it a more worthwhile product right out of the gate.  But the Watch Edition, which starts at $10,000 and reaches $17,000 in its most expensive iteration, is ripe to become an iconic emblem of conspicuous consumption.  I fear this may unfairly tarnish the rest of the Apple Watch line.

In September 2014, John Gruber wrote about the Watch Edition’s price and its likely reception among the tech community:

Apple Watch is not a product from a tech company, and it will not be understood, at all, by the tech world. Apple creates and uses technology in incredible ways. The Apple Watch may prove to be the most technologically advanced product they’ve ever built. But again: Apple is not a tech company, and Apple Watch is not a tech product.

When the prices of the steel and (especially) gold Apple Watches are announced, I expect the tech press to have the biggest collective shit-fit in the history of Apple-versus-the-standard-tech-industry shit-fits. The utilitarian mindset that asks “Why would anyone waste money on a gold watch?” isn’t going to be able to come to grips with what Apple is doing here. They’re going to say that Jony Ive and Tim Cook have lost their minds. They’re going to wear out their keyboards typing “This never would have happened if Steve Jobs were alive.” They’re going to predict utter and humiliating failure. In short, they’re going to mistake Apple for Vertu.

Utter and humiliating failure are simply not in the cards.  Sales of the Watch Edition are going to match maximum production capacity.  The profit margin on each device is likely astronomical, and Apple is going to make a significant profit while establishing itself as a serious player in the luxury fashion market.

The Watch Edition will sell.  The question is: who will buy one?

prording to Ben Clymer, no one should buy one.  Clymer argues that for $10,000, the Watch Edition is simply a poor choice given the field of alternative options:

In addition to perceived value, mechanical watches are also priced by human value: how much of the work is done by hand (in many cases using 200-year-old methods). For example, a watchmaker named Philippe Dufour makes just 12 watches per year, alone in his one-room atelier in the mountains of Switzerland. A simple, time-only piece can cost $100,000. Whether the case is gold or platinum, the price of a Philippe Dufour watch remains (roughly) static — you are not paying for materials, you are paying for Mr. Dufour’s time and touch. The Apple Watch has minimal human value, and that is the biggest difference between it and its mechanical counterparts.

From $10,000 to $20,000, you are into the realm of watchmaking where everything you see is original and interesting — or at least should be. Consider fully ceramic chronographs,stunning hand-wound dress watches, or modern legends all fall within this range — all featuring truly in-house movements with a moderate amount of hand-finishing to internal components. These watches will be assembled by hand, completely in Switzerland and offer the incredibly low tolerances and extreme quality for which this industry is known.

Leave aside the (very good) utilitarian question of how someone could ever justify spending $10,000 for a watch when there are people dying of hunger around the world.  Assuming you have $10K to blow on a timepiece, why would you ever choose the Apple Watch Edition?  You’re not purchasing a stunningly unique style that will last your entire lifetime.  You’re not funding a the exquisite craftsmanship of a master engineer to produce a mechanical wonder.  You’re buying a product with the exact same functionality and design as its $349 sibling.

And that’s the point.  The people who buy the Watch Edition are buying it because it’s $10,000 worth of gold.  They want their wealth to be evident.   It’s tough for a non-watch expert to identify a Rolex from afar, let alone guess its exact cost.  The Apple Watch is designed to be iconic, and the Watch Edition’s price is its crown achievement.  You buy the Watch Edition so everyone knows that you spent exactly $10,000 on a watch.

Tim Lee believes that Apple is following Tesla’s lead in this regard.  He argues the Watch Edition’s high price is a means of generating a halo product for the smartwatch market, making it an enviable good:

It’s hard to remember today, but a decade ago electric cars didn’t have a great reputation. Carmakers had experimented with a few electric vehicles, but these had not been a commercial success… Tesla’s solution to this problem was to focus on the very high end of the market. The first Tesla car, the Roadster, cost $109,000.

This strategy of defying stereotypes about electric cars helped Tesla become one of the most prestigious brands in the auto industry. And as it has moved downmarket (the company introduced a $57,400 Model S in 2012 and is working on a vehicle that will cost $30,000), it has been buoyed by the luxury reputation the Roadster helped to establish.

Apple faces a similar challenge with its Watch. Smartwatches have a reputation as impractical devices for nerds. Apple’s strategy is to defy this stereotype by creating luxury smartwatches that (Apple hopes) people will pay $10,000 for.

I actually fear that the opposite of this scenario will emerge.  Instead of boosting the reputation of smartwatches, it’s easy to imagine how the clientele of the Apple Watch Edition might come to be the entire line’s defining characteristic: a product for rich Silicon Valley bros who want to flaunt their wealth in the easiest way possible.  As Racked and The Verge noted, “it was Apple fanboys who lined up to view the watch at Colette (a recent fashion show), not the fashion cognoscenti.”  That is a deathly blow for a device with aspirations of the highest fashion circles.

The Edition is, by definition, for the 1%, but it matters which people in the 1% it attracts.  It would be a shame to see this “halo” infect the rest of the Apple Watch line and make it an object of derision.  Though its capabilities are still comparatively limited, I trust Apple more than any other technology company to fully leverage the Watch’s potential as a useful, integral part of our daily lives.  Apple has largely sidestepped criticisms of conspicuous consumption by selling products at higher prices whose design and utility largely, if not wholly, justify the extra cost.  Owning an iPad or an iPhone 6 is a status symbol of relative material comfort, but that ownership extends beyond demonstration of financial wealth because of the function afforded by the device.  The burgeoning app store and the truly beautiful design of the Watch and Watch Sport suggest a promising value proposition in the same vein.   The same cannot be said of the Watch Edition, and it’s queasily easy to see it as a sort of Google Glass in vogue.

I hope I’m wrong about the arguments listed above.  In a certain sense, I’m glad Apple is going so aggressively after a slice of the luxury timepiece market, because it can put the profits earned from the Watch Edition to use in service of other world-changing technology.  And, realistically, the Watch Sport is going to be the most popular model that Apple sells; it will earn the lion’s share of market attention, making it unlikely the Edition’s aura will extend beyond the diamond wrists of the elite.

I just hope the Edition price point, and its clientele, don’t come to define the full product line and overshadow the legitimately groundbreaking work that was accomplished in creating this device.

3) New Beats headphones will be important, and Jony Ive shouldn’t design them.

If you haven’t already done so, go read the New Yorker’s profile of Jony Ive.  It’s an incredible, exhaustive look at the man behind Apple’s iconic products and the work his team does to make them a reality.

The emphasis here is on “exhaustive” in more ways than one.  From the opening paragraphs, it’s clear that Jony Ive is dead tired.  He owned the entire Apple Watch product build and he’s also responsible for design across the iPhone, iPad, and iOS.  That is a massive amount of oversight and work.

Jony Ive is synonymous with Apple.  If he retires in the near future, there might be even greater panic and uncertainty surrounding the company than in the wake of Steve Jobs’ death.

It’s a little surprising, then, that Apple hasn’t elected to give other members of his design team more high-profile platforms to discuss their work and create their own personal mythologies.  Deference to Ive is obviously warranted and justified, especially since he has given no indication of retiring anytime soon, but contingency plans are wise.

I’d like to see a couple of key figures from Ive’s team take charge of the Beats hardware division and update the product line in accord with Apple’s design philosophy.  In that New Yorker profile, Tim Cook makes it clear that Beats are currently an outlier amongst Apple’s computers and phones:

Would Jony have designed some of the products?” he said. “Obviously, you can look at them and say no… I want Beats to be true to who they are. I don’t want to wave the wand over them in a day and say, ‘You are now Apple.’ Down the road, we’ll see what happens.

Modifying a well-established brand is risky, and given Beats’ 60+% share of the premium headphone market, immediate changes run the potential of alienating Beats customers.  Much of Beats’ market penetration has been thanks to overwhelming advertising and genius marketing deals with famous athletes and stars.  Apple’s cash hoard guarantees Beats will never lose the ability to make those cultural cache deals, suggesting future changes to the product line could be conducted with minimum risk.

Why not let some of Ive’s team members take the lead on rethinking what Beats can be?  Perhaps retain current model stalwarts like Beats Studio and PowerBeats, but completely redesign Beats Pro and Mixr in accord with Apple’s design philosophy.  Introduce a new line that doesn’t fall victim to the classic Beats criticisms of ear-bloodying bass and muddy, subpar audio quality.  On the hardware development side, hire engineers from companies like Sennheiser and Audeze.  Oppo just introduced a $400 pair of planar magnetic headphones; Apple could easily introduce this kind of highest-end quality to the Beats line, and its marketing leverage (prime placement in Apple stores!) is a guarantee of huge volume and high margins.

Apple reportedly purchased Beats primarily for the streaming infrastructure and contracts of its music service.  If Apple is serious about expanding into wearables, it should look to leverage Beats hardware as another fashion item with untapped market potential.


4) The new Macbook is stunningly gorgeous and two years ahead of schedule.

Forget the Apple Watch pricing.  The most incredible parts of the March 9 keynote were ResearchKit and the new Macbook, and the latter is breathtakingly beautiful.  I thought the Dell XPS 13 gave Apple a run for its money a couple of months ago, but Apple once again blew its PC competitors out of the water with this new machine.

In terms of style, that is.  Functionality- and price-wise, the Macbook is a solid entry into the laptop market, but it’s not transcendent.  Though the retina display and weigh of the machine are attractive, the $1300 base price and the single port (!) mean that it’s primarily a device for early adopters at this point instead of the broad laptop market.

Which is as it should be.  The original Macbook Air was similarly criticized for shearing off too much too soon, but it looks prophetic in hindsight, having eliminated the CD drive before most other PCs made the leap.  The same is true for this Macbook.  With cloud storage becoming the go-to means of sharing files and Wifi available in more places than ever, Apple is ahead of the game once again.  Cutting out those extraneous ports is going to look like a smart move two years from now.  (Though an additional USB 3.0 port might be welcome.)

I can’t wait for the second-gen Macbook to lower the price on this first model.  In the meantime, I’d love to see some limited-edition color variations to the three currently offered – anodized white, rose gold, sandstone, or evening sky blue, perhaps?

5) Boost Mac sales by emphasizing Continuity with mobile platforms.

Apple sold 160 million iPhones and around 55 million iPads in Q4 2014.  In contrast, its Mac division generated around 20 million unit sales.

In 2014, Apple introduced Continuity for Mac, which allows users to swipe and send documents and files from an iPhone or iPad to a Mac in real time.  Similar capabilities also exist for Windows computers, but Apple has the benefit of a unified software ecosystem to make these transfers completely hassle-free.

Microsoft’s unpopular Windows 8 and forthcoming launch of Windows 10 gives Apple an enormous window to converting former Microsoft customers into new users.  The close integration of iOS with OS X is no doubt going to be a lynchpin of that pitch.

6) Consolidate and rename the entire iPad line.

Apple’s current iPad offerings include five different base models, each with multiple colors, storage options, connection capabilities, and price points.  At a glance, it’s difficult to tell how exactly they differ from each other, or whether they’re actually different at all.

The rumored 12.9” iPad Pro offers Apple the opportunity to slim down their iPad line and refresh the distinctions between each device.  If the Pro is launched alongside the 2015 refreshes for the line, it would be great to see a new nomenclature adopted for each category.

7) What’s the future of the iPod?

Apple’s iPod revenues have plummeted due to the popularity of the iPhone and iPad.  The company expected this self-cannibalization and appears inclined to let the iPod slowly fade away.

That’s probably the wisest course of action since it doesn’t make sense to invest in a product line that has seen its profits fall off a cliff in the last five years.  But the iPod does still have a dedicated customer base that could be well served with some incremental updates, especially since its current iPod offerings are overdue for a refresh.

Among the potential iPod revamps the company could pursue:

  • A bigger iPod Touch that aligns with the iPhone 6’s internal specs and size.
  • An iPod Pro with significant storage (possibly a hard drive?), sold at a premium to customers with enormous music collections. Essentially a replacement for the workhorse iPod Classic which was retired a while back.
  • A revamped iPod Nano that emphasizes fitness and exercise capabilities. The Apple Watch will likely fulfill this niche in a future iteration, but the Nano could be a lower-cost option that essentially replaces the iPod Shuffle as the entry Apple device.  (Either way, the Nano desperately needs to be redesigned; it’s easily the most visually unappealing product in Apple’s repertoire, an ugly mash of metal, glass, and an inferior iOS clone that looks like it’s from 2008.)

8) HomeKit is the next big frontier, and Apple TV is the conduit.

Smart household devices will become ubiquitous in the next few years – connected refrigerators, lighting systems, garage doors, etc.  Current iterations of those products usually include device-specific standalone apps for remote user access and control.

Standalone apps will increasingly become unviable as the volume of connected household items increases, and Apple’s HomeKit is positioned to become the conduit for collecting device controls.  It’s easy to imagine a scenario where an Apple HomeKit app aggregates each smarthome input and allows the user to manipulate each device from a central dashboard.

One sticking point is ensuring all devices are regulated by the same network to ensure they’re all properly synced for local and remote control via Apple devices.   Christopher Breen notes the importance of having a dedicated, centralized network for this purpose:

Wouldn’t it be better if each home had a small, power-efficient, always-on, platform-agnostic, Wi-Fi-enabled computer that could talk to your devices both remotely and over a local network?

If you haven’t yet glanced over at your Apple TV, now’s the time.

Apple TV is rumored to be receiving a substantial update later this year, which may include a hardware redesign and new content such as HBO’s streaming service.  The product has only received incremental updates since its launch eight years ago and has been largely eclipsed by Chromecast, Roku, and other streaming devices.

An Apple TV relaunch featuring full HomeKit integration would easily make Apple’s TV offering the most logical option on the market.   Robust streaming options plus full iTunes integration are an attractive proposition for Apple’s 100 million+ iTunes users, and having a centralized home base for device control and additional security only sweetens the deal.

Speculation and Hypotheticals

9) An Apple-Nintendo partnership won’t happen, but they would be a natural fit.

If Apple really wanted to own the living room beyond a relaunched Apple TV + HomeKit, it might also consider trying to acquire Nintendo.  This theory has been floated before and a deal is not going to happen, even though Apple easily has the cash to cover Nintendo’s $18 billion market cap and a purchase premium.

But what a win it would be for both parties!  Apple acquires Nintendo’s treasure trove of licensed characters and games.  On the mobile front, it essentially starts printing money by offering Nintendo classics on the App Store and perhaps reinventing the iPod as a game console a la the 3DS.  On the console front, it could offer a more powerful Apple TV Pro that competes with Sony and Microsoft as a complete living room entertainment hub.

Nintendo wins by earning a fat return for its investors and by attaining greater creative freedom than it has now.  Though its first-party games are constantly lauded for their quality, Nintendo has fallen victim to a conservative and confusing development cycle, where sequels and character appropriation replace new franchises and experiences.  The shortfall of cash generated by App Store sales and the reduced hardware development costs associated with an Apple purchase would ensure Nintendo has the financial footing to redouble its efforts to make world-class games.

10) Could iTunes or Apple TV become a carte blanche media streaming service?

Apple will reportedly price the revamped Beats streaming service at $7.99 per month and apparently has the enthusiastic support of major music labels.  The service is said to be outside the purview of iTunes, which will continue to sell music on a track-by-track basis.

Given Apple’s massive customer base and the fact that it succeeded in getting music executives on board with this price point, is it possible Apple might try to introduce the first cross-media streaming service under the iTunes brand?  Would you pay $40 a month for unlimited music streaming, unlimited television streaming, two free movie rentals of your choice, and a limited library of free eBooks?  I would in a heartbeat.

Apple has long talked about rethinking how television works as part of an Apple TV upgrade, and this would certainly qualify, especially if this “base” subscription package could also include additional bundles like HBO streaming or extra movie rentals for an additional fee.  Being able to consolidate media subscription services into one payment (combining Netflix, Oyster, Spotify, and HBO, for example) would be worth it for the convenience alone.

Again, this is not on the horizon, but it would be an absolute coup for Apple if it comes to pass.

11) Tesla would be a synergistic feverdream, but CarPlay makes more sense.

If Apple gets into the automobile manufacturing game, as recent rumors have suggested, all the more power to them.  It would be thrilling to see how Apple’s designers and engineers could rethink how we travel and engage with our vehicles.

Tesla has been cited as a potential acquisition for a couple of years now as part of that entry into the car market.  Of late, that talk has been supplanted by suggestions that the two companies are competitors, poaching each other’s employees with fat bonuses.

It’s tempting to envision a scenario where the two companies come together: Elon Musk on Apple’s board, an iPad replacing Tesla’s center console, Jony Ive designing the Model 3, Apple leveraging Tesla’s battery production process for its other devices.  But all signs point to Tesla’s continued independence.  Apple probably won’t acquire Tesla given this status quo.

That’s fine.  In the short to medium term, Apple’s CarPlay dashboard technology is a more promising avenue for immediate profits and widespread adoption.  If Apple acquired Tesla in the next year or two it would almost certainly not license CarPlay to other car manufacturers.  That would be forsaking a gold mine, given the 16.5 million cars sold in fiscal year 2014.

Apple is smart to seed CarPlay now.  If Tesla continues to expand in market share, Apple will no doubt have the cash to purchase it in the future.  And if Tesla stumbles along the way, Apple can swoop in and acquire it at a discount.

The Big Picture

12) All of this is to say that diversity beyond the iPhone is critical.

Apple’s sales figures suggest it will live and die by the iPhone.  The enormous success of the iPhone 6 has guaranteed the company stability for the next few quarters, and the likely improvements to the iPhone 6S (Force Touch, better battery, etc.) suggest the iPhone line will be a rock-solid profit generator at least through 2016.

That said, the pressure to continually produce an expectations-exceeding iPhone is immense.  I don’t doubt Apple’s ability in the slightest to amaze customers with whatever it introduces in the iPhone 7.  But if even one new iPhone model is a flop, Apple would lose a significant revenue source that would probably wreak havoc with its stock price.  (Not that stock fluctuations should matter too much, since it has hundreds of billions of dollars in cash on hand.)

2015 will be remembered as the year when Apple consolidated its mobile phone dominance with the iPhone 6 and also took the first steps to significantly expand beyond the iPhone.  It wouldn’t surprise me in the slightest if the Apple Watch is only the tip of the iceberg for new products released under Tim Cook’s leadership.

13) Tim Cook is a better CEO than Steve Jobs.

This is an admittedly tough claim to defend; Steve Jobs’ legacy speaks for itself.  But Tim Cook has already presided over some of the most important moments in Apple history, including its most profitable quarter ever and the launch of an entirely new product category.  And he has done so with poise, remarkable foresight, and efficiency.

Profiles of Jobs all lead to the same conclusion: he was a genius, a leader with unparalleled foresight, and, quite often, a horrible person to work for and with.  Cook retains Jobs’ passion without the tempermentality.  He is an exceptionally hard worker with one of the best leadership teams in the industry.  He is a man who deserves respect.

The good news is that Cook’s tenure has not shown any signs of heightened internal discord leading to a stagnant product pipeline.  On the contrary; if anything, there has never been a more exciting time to wonder what Apple has in store as its purview expands to home automation, automobiles, fashion, and untold product areas.

More than hardware and software development, however, has been the moral facet of Cook’s guidance.  Environmental responsibility has been a hallmark of his tenure; “If you want me to do things only for ROI reasons, you should get out of this stock,” he famously told a group of shareholders last year.  Product (RED) offerings have continued uninterrupted.  And, most significantly, Cook has emphasized the importance of overseeing an ethical supply chain through the publication of Apple’s progress report earlier this year.

At best, Apple is an amoral amalgamation of inputs and outputs.  It creates exceptional products while undoubtedly engaging in questionable business practices that affect workers and the environment, primarily in developing countries.  Cook will probably not change this by mandating, for example, that all Apple suppliers offer their employees a living wage.  But he seems more cognizant than both Jobs and most other tech CEOs of Apple’s ability to shape just labor policies and supply chains.  That his tenure has already seen pledges for improvement in these areas suggests he is serious about Apple’s commitment to ethical production and product creation.

I’d love to see Apple make a push at developing markets with a low-cost iPhone, essentially selling it at cost to seed those customer bases for future iDevices.  Much of Apple’s revenue comes from selling expensive products to comparatively wealthy clientele, with the Apple Watch Edition representing the peak of Apple’s pursuit of the luxury market.  It would be good for Tim Cook’s Apple to counterbalance this trend by advocating for productivity and growth in markets that can’t afford a $700 unlocked phone.

Apple’s market share and singular vision suggests it can have the most substantial impact for the good in most of the areas it chooses to enter.  Let’s hope this will be put to good use going forward.  The future certainly looks bright.


Pope Francis’ Cardinal Objective

Round Two

When Pope Francis announced his first slate of appointments to the College of Cardinals early last year, much of the commentary in both the Catholic press and mainstream media focused on his apparent intent to “de-Italianize” or “de-Europeanize” the upper echelons of the Church’s hierarchy. Bishops from prestigious Italian dioceses and traditional “cardinal sees” were passed over in favor of prelates from countries like Haiti that had never before had a cardinal of their own.

The recipients of Francis’ second round of red hats, which were officially handed out last Saturday in a ceremony at the Vatican known as a consistory, seem to offer further confirmation of the pope’s desire to boost the number of cardinals hailing from “the peripheries,” places like Africa, Asia, and South America where Catholicism is growing but which are still dramatically underrepresented in the highest ranks of Church government. Archbishop Soane Patita Paini Mafi, the first cardinal to hail from the tiny Pacific island nation of Tonga, claimed in an interview that his only previous conversation with the pope consisted of him explaining where Tonga is located.

It is undeniable that the College of Cardinals is becoming more geographically diverse. But is it necessarily the case that the so-called peripheries are becoming less underrepresented? After the consistory last February, I raised the possibility that the Catholic population of the “global South” was growing more quickly than the number of cardinals from these regions, meaning that the disproportionate influence of European prelates within the Vatican bureaucracy – and over the process of electing the next pope – was in fact growing stronger.

Around the time of the 2013 conclave, the Pew Research Center produced a helpful graphic that showed the share of cardinal electors coming from each continent, as well as each continent’s share of the worldwide Catholic population. Though Europe accounted for less than a quarter of the world’s Catholics in 2013, over half of the cardinals eligible to vote in the conclave that elected Francis were European; only 17% of the electors came from Latin America, which is home to nearly 40% of Catholics.

The Church is not a democracy, so saying that certain areas are “underrepresented” should not be interpreted in a narrow political sense or taken to mean that the current arrangement is necessarily unjust. But there are nevertheless good reasons why a geographic imbalance in the College of Cardinals ought to be corrected. The Church is a global institution whose leadership should not allow itself to become consumed with provincial concerns. To his credit, Pope Francis seems well aware of the need to steer clear of such pitfalls, and his pronouncements on issues like climate change reflect a global perspective that stands in clear contrast to that of his many Western critics.

Anyway, I was interested to see whether this latest move will have an appreciable impact on the representativeness of the cardinalate, so I fired up my copy of Stata 12 (alas, I can’t afford Stata 13) and got to work.

Data and Methodology 

For those of you who weren’t yet loyal RM readers a year ago, here’s a quick recap of the approach I laid out last February (much of this description is lifted verbatim from that earlier post).

For data on the nationalities of cardinals and the dates of their births, deaths, and appointments, I turned to “The Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church,” a wonderfully comprehensive website curated by Florida International University’s Salvador Miranda. Since the majority of Catholics lived in Europe for most of the Church’s history, and since the cardinals were almost all of Italian descent until relatively recently, I decided it would be sufficient to begin my analysis around 1900 (this was also the earliest date for which I could find estimates of the global Catholic population, as I explain below). I pulled information from Miranda’s website going far enough back in time to be sure that I had included all men who were cardinals at the start of the twentieth century.

Counting cardinals at any given point in time is in fact a bit trickier than it might seem. Cardinals can exit the College either by dying, by being elected pope, or (in a couple rare instances) by resigning their position. The pope can also create “secret cardinals” or cardinals in pectore, whose names are kept “in his breast” until such time as he decides to announce them. Although the date of promotion of such cardinals is technically the date the pope promoted other cardinals he chose at the same time, I figured it would make more sense to count only cardinals whose names were known publicly on the date in question.

Moreover, assigning cardinals to a particular continent can also get complicated. Many have held positions in the Vatican at the time of their elevation despite having been born and raised elsewhere. I decided to assign cardinals to regions based on where they worked when they were promoted, not on their nationality at birth. For example, Prefect of the Apostolic Signatura Dominique Mamberti (the “Chief Justice” of the Vatican’s Supreme Court) is counted as an Italian/European because he works in the Roman Curia, despite his having been born in Morocco. (That said, I also redid my analysis with nationality at birth, and the results are very similar. These, along with all of my computations, are available on request.)

For population data, I turned to the World Christian Database (WCD), sponsored by the Center for the Study of Global Christianity at the Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary in South Hamilton, Massachusetts. From the website of the WCD I was able to obtain estimates of the global Catholic population by continent in 1900, 1950, 1970, 2000, and 2010, as well as projections for 2020.

Following some work in the political science literature, I employ the Gini coefficient – most commonly used in economics as a measure of income or wealth disparities – to get a sense of inequality in the geographic distribution of cardinals. Gini readings close to zero represent more equal distributions (e.g. every region of the world having a number of cardinals proportional to its share of the global Catholic population) and readings close to one represent unequal distributions (e.g. one region having all the cardinals while the others have none). In other words, the lower the Gini coefficient, the better.*

Although the Gini coefficient is constantly in flux as older cardinals pass away and/or as the world population of Catholics changes, I obviously had to limit myself to calculating it at a finite number of points in time. I chose to do so at the times of the consistories when new cardinals are inducted, and at the times of the conclaves when new popes are elected. Because I only have population data at select dates, I used simple linear interpolations to estimate population at the times of the consistories and conclaves (i.e. if population data were available at time and time t+1, I assumed that population growth between t and t+1 could be modeled with a straight line).

Following the promulgation of Pope Paul VI’s apostolic constitution Romano Pontifici Eligendo in 1975, only cardinals under the age of 80 are permitted to cast votes for pope. Since their right to vote is the primary (but by no means only) reason we are interested in their nationalities, I do my analysis in the post-1975 period on both the entire set of cardinals and on a restricted sample of the sub-octogenarians.


Fig. 1: Size of the College of Cardinals, 1900 – 2015


Fig. 1 illustrates how the size of the College has increased dramatically since 1900, even as the number of eligible electors has remained relatively constant in recent years (owing to a decree of Pope John Paul II that no more than 120 cardinals may cast ballots in conclave). In fact, the rate of growth of the number of cardinals seems to have accelerated since the early 2000’s, perhaps reflecting increased life expectancies.

Fig. 2: Percentage Share of Cardinals by Continent, 1900 – 2015


Fig. 2 shows how the percentage of cardinals hailing from each continent has evolved over time. While Europeans have lost a lot of ground compared to the early twentieth century, the absolute share of European cardinals has remained roughly constant for the last thirty years or so (though it appears to be ticking downward once again).

Fig. 3: Estimated Percentage of Global Catholic Population by Continent, 1900 – 2015


Fig. 3 plots the population series I constructed from the WCD data, and gives a rough idea of how the Catholic populations of different parts of the world have changed in the last hundred-odd years. A comparison of Figs. 2 and 3 makes it abundantly clear that representation of the non-European continents in the College has not tracked their shares of the worldwide population of Catholics.

Fig. 4: Estimated Gini Coefficients for all Cardinals and Cardinal Electors, 1900 – 2020


Finally, Fig. 4 presents the estimated Gini coefficients for the College of Cardinals from 1900 to the present. The solid lines denote computations using historical data, while the dashed lines indicate projections for 2020 based on the estimated future Catholic populations of each continent in the WCD data and the assumption that shares of cardinals from each continent will remain at their current levels going forward.

The pattern remains quite similar to what I found last February, and runs somewhat counter to the conventional wisdom. The lines drop off sharply at the very end of the series, indicating that Francis’ recent set of picks is indeed moving the College toward geographic equity (the coefficient for all cardinals decreased from 0.278 on Feb. 22nd, 2014 to 0.262 today, and the coefficient for all electors decreased from 0.216 to 0.157).

But the projections for 2020 should give pause to anyone claiming that European overrepresentation is coming to an end. If each continent’s current share of the College is maintained, the Gini coefficient will actually rise modestly over the next few years – to 0.281 for all cardinals and 0.174 for the electors. Yet this is an improvement from last year’s projections for 2020, when I forecast that the Gini coefficient would rise to 0.300 for all cardinals and 0.237 for the electors. Looked at another way, the predicted 2020 Gini for the electors is 25% lower than it was a year ago. Good work, Francis!

Some reports have claimed that Francis is considering lifting the cap on the number of eligible electors from 120 to 140, presumably out of a recognition that meaningful improvements in the geographic representativeness of the College will not be brought about through attrition alone. In fact, there are already more than 120 cardinals who would be eligible to vote for pope were a conclave to be held today, so perhaps Francis can just continue to flout the official rule without explicitly changing it (he is the pope after all!). The above analysis suggests that such aggressive measures will likely be needed if the College is to become more representative in the face of continued growth in the Catholic population of the global South.


*Especially geeky readers interested in the technical details of how the Gini coefficient is computed can check out page 9 of a working paper entitled “How Has the Literature on Gini’s Index Evolved in the Past 80 Years?” by Kuan Xu of the Dalhousie University Department of Economics in Nova Scotia for a lucid, step-by-step derivation.

A Reply to Opus Publicum’s Gabriel Sanchez

Reasonably Moderate is notoriously poor at responding quickly to feedback from readers (and its two halves are even poorer at responding to each other), so I was both surprised and a little bit awed when Opus Publicum’s Gabriel Sanchez published a reply to my recent Ethika Politika article only about twelve hours after it first appeared. I very much appreciate his taking the time to read through it and offer his thoughts on my contention that a “Catholic Party” would be bad for the Church, but I’m afraid that he has misinterpreted several key pieces of my argument.

Sanchez levels two main criticisms at the piece. The first is that my concerns about “the politicization of religion” are at best vague and at worst grounded in a vision of the relationship between (the Catholic) Church and State that is out of sync with Catholic teaching:

Does Mazewski deny that the Church’s hierarchy has the right – indeed the duty – to direct the faithful in socio-political affairs?… If there is anything which is today ‘bad for the Church’ with respect to political and social movements it is its unwillingness to clearly define which matters lay Catholics can support and those they cannot. Today, neither of America’s two major political parties represent the full balance of Catholic principles; both, lamentably, stand in direct opposition to many of them.

In fact, I do not at all deny that the Church has such a right/duty. When I refer to the “politicization of religion,” I don’t mean “the involvement of religious people or institutions in the political process,” or even “political argument that draws on religious values or employs religious rhetoric.” In my original piece, in the paragraph following the one from which Sanchez quotes, I explain what I do mean:

[T]he silver lining of the status quo is that it allows the Church to more easily keep its distance from partisan politics. It would become much more difficult for it to do so were there to be a viable Catholic Party. Worse, the temptation for the Church to overlook corruption and abuse within such a party would be strong, and its public image could be tarnished if it were to be seen as turning a blind eye to wrongdoing by its favored politicians.

I welcome the fact that members of the hierarchy offer commentary on political questions, but I find it troubling when they do so in a way that implies institutional support for a particular party or its candidates (and not just because they could be imperiling the Church’s tax-exempt status). Catholicism should not be apolitical, but it is and ought to remain nonpartisan.

That’s why I’m disturbed whenever someone like Providence Bishop Thomas Tobin brandishes a letter in public confirming that he’s a registered Republican, as Tobin did during a speech to a group of young Republicans in 2013, even if he also insists that his partisan affiliation “doesn’t mean a whole lot”: not because a bishop is talking about politics, but because these kind of actions seem to insinuate that the Catholic Church finds fault with the Democratic Party’s platform but considers the Republican platform to be perfectly kosher (er, so to speak).

Sanchez writes that “the vision [Mazewski] operates with is a liberal one.” One could interpret this statement in a variety of ways, but if he means to say that I believe in cordoning off religion from the public square or in attempting to enforce a “neutral” secular political discourse that itself relies on certain contestable assumptions, then the characterization is inapt. (If he means to say that I believe in the value of pluralistic democracy, well, then guilty as charged.)

His second criticism is that the hypothetical political realignment that I describe in my piece, through which the parties of Left and Right come to be replaced by parties of “Subsidiarity” and “Solidarity,” would not really represent a meaningful development at all from the perspective of Catholic social thought:

According to Mazewski’s other main thesis, namely that we are witnessing ideological realignment within the Democratic and Republican parties, it is not clear what, if anything, this could mean for American Catholics. Any party which, inter alia, supports so-called abortion rights, the redefinition of marriage, and legal protection for immoral, incendiary, and blasphemous forms of speech is beyond the pale. Similarly, any [party] which upholds the tenets of economic liberalism… places itself out of the reach of Catholic support. Even if Democrats and Republicans begin to embrace full-throated solidarity and subsidiarity, that hardly means either will abandon their dubious policy positions. Error can always be repackaged.

I don’t believe that we’re on the threshold of an era when all politicians will “abandon their dubious policy positions,” but as I argue in the original piece,

[a] party that brought together liberals like [Zephyr] Teachout and conservatives like [Rand] Paul under the banner of subsidiarity would have to tolerate a range of views on the most divisive questions. Winters might still have a hard time pulling the lever for particular candidates, but he might also find it easier to make a home for himself in one of the parties without worrying about failing a litmus test.

My thesis is that the issues that would divide a Solidarity Party and a Subsidiarity Party would necessarily be different from those that divide conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats today (“liberal” in the colloquial sense, not in the sense in which Sanchez uses the term here). Certain viewpoints that are now sidelined within one party or the other could come to be tolerated or even embraced in a way that they currently are not. Under the existing two-party system, for example, opinions on the legal status of abortion tend to correlate almost perfectly with party affiliation, whereas thoughts on whether the government should break up large financial institutions do not.

Yet if being pro- or anti-breaking-up-large-financial-institutions were to become the key determinant of which party you ought to belong to, then the association between the abortion question and partisan identity would be greatly weakened. The issue itself would not necessarily lose its valence, just as the cause of breaking up the banks is very much alive despite lacking the institutional backing of one party or the other. But the chances of being marginalized within either party because of one’s beliefs on the matter would be dramatically reduced. (Of course, this would in many ways be a reversion to the status quo ante rather than a novel development.)

I don’t agree with Sanchez when he says that a party’s support for positions at odds with those of the Magisterium necessarily “places itself out of the reach of Catholic support” – a topic for another post perhaps! – but I do think it’s accurate to say, as Michael Sean Winters puts it, that “a person who is 100 percent consistent with the Church’s teachings is likely to find himself politically homeless.” My point is not that political ideas the Church disagrees with would disappear from the scene following the hypothetical realignment I outline, but rather that the resulting political environment would be one in which the “consistent Catholics” of the world would be less likely to be looked at askance by both parties.

Would a “Catholic Party” Be Bad for the Church?

This article first appeared at Ethika Politika.

Last September, Fordham University law professor Zephyr Teachout dealt Gov. Andrew Cuomo a major embarrassment in New York state’s Democratic gubernatorial primary when she finished with just over a third of the vote and carried 30 of the state’s 62 counties. That may not seem like much of a victory, but few believed that a race between an incumbent governor and someone who had never sought elected office would be at all competitive. The conventional wisdom in the run-up to Primary Day held that Teachout, who ran no TV ads and spent only about $300,000 on her campaign to Cuomo’s $20 million, would be lucky to crack 15 or 20 percent of the vote.

Teachout’s candidacy was portrayed by the media as a challenge to Cuomo “from the left,” but her views are not so easily shoehorned into the usual political categories. In fact, her appeal may be a sign that those categories are breaking down and that a realignment of the coalitions of American politics is in the offing. Such a shift is not likely to produce a party with a platform that lines up perfectly with the social doctrine of the Church, but it could potentially bring about a political milieu in which Catholics who are committed to seeing that social doctrine put into practice as consistently as possible find it more straightforward to reconcile their religious commitments with their partisan loyalties. And as an added bonus, it could even make it easier for the institutional Church to avoid unseemly political entanglements.

Central to Teachout’s message was her claim that concentrated power, whether economic or political, is antithetical to a democratic society. Styling herself an “old-fashioned trustbuster,” she and running mate Tim Wu, a law professor at Columbia who coined the term “net neutrality,” called for blocking a controversial cable merger between Time Warner and Comcast and even joined with conservatives like Republican gubernatorial nominee Rob Astorino in opposing “Common Core” educational standards and in pressing Albany to devolve more power to local governments.

Teachout frequently invoked Thomas Jefferson while on the stump. At a campaign stop in Oneonta, she described how he had wanted an explicit anti-monopoly clause to be included in the U.S. Constitution. Yet Jefferson, who believed that the powers of the federal government should be sharply limited and that the American economy should be powered by a strong agricultural sector, clung to a vision of society that would seem to be at odds with that of many contemporary progressives.

Indeed, Jefferson’s vision is at odds with that of many progressives, which is precisely why the Teachout phenomenon may portend a struggle on the Left akin to that between the Tea Party and “establishment” Republicans on the Right. In a recent essay for the socialist magazine Jacobin, New York University’s Christian Parenti argues that the thinking of Jefferson’s foe Alexander Hamilton, the first Secretary of the Treasury, provides the better template for contemporary liberals. Parenti writes that “Jefferson represented the most backward and fundamentally reactionary sector of the economy: large, patrimonial, slave-owning, agrarian elites,” whereas “[Hamilton’s] mission was to create a state that could facilitate, encourage, and guide the process of economic change.” If progressives like Parenti have any say, Teachout-style insurgents will not be able to take over the Democratic Party without a fight.

The Left generally worries about concentrated economic power but is less concerned about concentrated political power; the opposite is true of the Right. But what if this pattern is changing? We seem to be witnessing the recapitulation of a debate from the earliest days of the Republic: Jeffersonian advocates of the diffusion of power versus Hamiltonian enthusiasts of centralized power put to work for the public good.

It is not inconceivable that the combatants in these intra-party struggles could decide that it is easier to win elections by forming wholly new coalitions than by engaging in an endless war of attrition against their own co-partisans. One reason to think such a development likely can be seen in the early reactions to the possibility of a Hillary Clinton-Jeb Bush matchup in the 2016 presidential election. Both Republicans like the New York Times’ Ross Douthat and Democrats like former Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer have bemoaned the idea of a race between two candidates who both have close ties to the existing power structures in Washington and on Wall Street.

On the other hand, there are some who are eagerly looking forward to just such a contest. Politico reporters Ben White and Maggie Haberman last year quoted an unnamed lawyer from the financial services industry as saying that

If it turns out to be Jeb versus Hillary we would love that and either outcome would be fine … we could live with either one. Jeb versus Joe Biden would also be fine. It’s Rand Paul or Ted Cruz versus someone like Elizabeth Warren that would be everybody’s worst nightmare.

Given the almost insurmountable obstacles to building a successful third party, anti-establishmentarians like Douthat and Schweitzer will only be able to challenge the status quo in a fundamental way to the extent that they can transform one of the two major parties into an effective vehicle for their ideas. And should such a transformation be successful, there would be strong incentives for those on both the Right and Left who oppose Rand Paul or Elizabeth Warren-style populism to join forces in the other party.

To borrow from the vocabulary of Catholic social thought, voters could one day find themselves choosing not between a party of the Left and a party of the Right, but between a party of solidarity and a party of subsidiarity.  The Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church defines subsidiarity as the principle that “all societies of a superior order [e.g. national governments] must adopt attitudes of help … with respect to lower-order societies [e.g. local governments, families, etc.]” (186), and solidarity (quoting Pope John Paul II’s encyclical Sollicitudo rei socialis) as “a firm and persevering determination to commit oneself to the common good” (193). In other words, we are obliged to work toward eliminating social ills even if they do not affect us directly, but our solutions to those ills ought not to be imposed from on high and should be formulated and implemented by the lowest-level governmental or civic institutions possible.

This would not be quite the realignment for which some Catholics have been hoping. In the wake of Pope Francis’s election in March 2013, the National Catholic Reporter’s Michael Sean Winters penned a piece for the Daily Beast in which he laments the fact that “a person who is 100 percent consistent with the Church’s teachings is likely to find himself politically homeless.” He concludes with a cautious prediction about the future of the two-party system:

The estuary where religion and politics intersect is constantly changing. It may be that in a generation, the two parties will sort out their ideologies, with one party standing for libertarian impulses across the board and the other adopting a more communitarian approach. If that happens, the communitarian party might be the Democrats or it might be the Republicans, but either way, it would be a decidedly Catholic Party.

Winters’s forecast may turn out to be correct, but the Church should prefer the realignment that I’ve outlined to the one for which he yearns. From the standpoint of the American hierarchy, the existence of a “Catholic Party” would be bad news for the same reason it would be good news: The bishops would be free to support a single party and its candidates without reservation. For anyone concerned about the politicization of religion, this would be a worrisome state of affairs.

Catholics like Winters may complain about never being able to vote for a politician who has not taken morally objectionable stances on at least some issues, but the silver lining of the status quo is that it allows the Church to more easily keep its distance from partisan politics. It would become much more difficult for it to do so were there to be a viable Catholic Party. Worse, the temptation for the Church to overlook corruption and abuse within such a party would be strong, and its public image could be tarnished if it were to be seen as turning a blind eye to wrongdoing by its favored politicians.

In a world inhabited by a Solidarity Party and a Subsidiarity Party, though, the hierarchy could still maintain this distance by emphasizing not only the ways in which Catholic social thought is compatible with each party’s outlook, but also how its principles can be served by healthy competition between the two. The Church has already made clear that solidarity and subsidiarity are complementary and mutually reinforcing. It even holds that pursuing one at the expense of the other can lead to social dysfunction:

The action of the State and of other public authorities must be consistent with the principle of subsidiarity and create situations favorable to the free exercise of economic activity. It must also be inspired by the principle of solidarity and establish limits for the autonomy of the parties in order to defend those who are weaker. Solidarity without subsidiarity, in fact, can easily degenerate into a “Welfare State,” while subsidiarity without solidarity runs the risk of encouraging forms of self-centered localism. In order to respect both of these fundamental principles, the State’s intervention in the economic environment must be neither invasive nor absent, but commensurate with society’s real needs (Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, 351).

Another upside for communitarians like Winters is that the alliances that would hold these two parties together would militate against their taking uncompromising stances on hot-button culture war issues in their official platforms. A party that brought together liberals like Teachout and conservatives like Paul under the banner of subsidiarity would have to tolerate a range of views on the most divisive questions. Winters might still have a hard time pulling the lever for particular candidates, but he might also find it easier to make a home for himself in one of the parties without worrying about failing a litmus test.

A “Catholic Party” may seem like an appealing idea to Catholics frustrated by some of the more difficult trade-offs associated with electoral politics, but the cure could easily be worse than the disease. Better, it seems, to hope for a political culture in which both parties eagerly welcome the contributions of those working to advance a Catholic vision of the common good.

Abolish the Senate, but Amend the Amendment Process First

“Abolish the Senate,” declares author Daniel Lazare in the title of his latest essay for the socialist magazine Jacobin, in which he lays out a case for why the upper chamber of the U.S. Congress “needs to go.” Lazare vividly illustrates the ways in which the Senate is “by now the most unrepresentative major legislature in the ‘democratic world’” and draws attention to the fact that the same trends exacerbating that unrepresentativeness are simultaneously pushing reform farther out of reach. Yet his apparent belief that the Senate is the main obstacle to a new era of progressive dominance in Washington is misguided, since the features of the modern-day political scene that he lays at its feet would almost certainly persist in a post-Senate world.

Most of us are aware that the income distribution in the United States skews heavily toward the wealthy, and yet surveys have shown that we tend to grossly underestimate the extent of that skew. Likewise, it’s intuitively clear that sparsely populated states benefit from the fact that every state is constitutionally guaranteed the same number of U.S. senators, but it can be hard to appreciate just how much they benefit without taking a good look at the numbers. Lazare’s piece opens with a list of arresting statistics that make plain the magnitude of the disparity:

  • Although California has the same number of votes as Wyoming, its population, currently at 38.3 million, is now some 65 times larger. One Californian thus has 1.5 percent of the voting clout in Senate elections as someone living just a few hundred miles to the east.
  • Since a majority of Americans now live in just nine states, they wind up with just eighteen votes while the minority holds eighty-two, a ratio of better than four to one.
  • Thanks to the Senate’s bizarre filibuster rules, forty-one senators representing less than 11 percent of the population can prevent any bill from even coming to a vote.
  • Thanks to the requirement that proposed constitutional amendments be approved by at least two-thirds of each house, thirty-four senators from states representing just 5 percent of the population can veto any constitutional change, no matter how minor.
  • The same goes for treaties, which also require two-thirds approval.
  • The Senate “hold” system is even more unjust since it allows a single senator representing as little as one citizen in a thousand to stall a bill or executive appointment almost indefinitely.

At the time the Constitution was ratified, the imbalance was much less stark: Lazare himself notes that the largest state in 1790 (Virginia) had “only” twelve times the population of the smallest (Delaware).

Constitutional safeguards of minority rights are important, but representatives of five percent of the population ought not to be able to block a constitutional amendment. There is a broad consensus on this point, as there should be. Even Antonin Scalia, who I assume agrees with Daniel Lazare about approximately nothing else, is on the record as saying that the Constitution is too hard to change.

Lazare’s framing focuses on the advantages afforded to certain geographic groups by the structure of the Senate, but geography ultimately concerns him only insofar as it is a proxy for political beliefs:

Not unexpectedly, equal state representation also turns out to be racially unrepresentative. While Hispanics and racial minorities make up 44 percent of the population in the ten largest states, all of which are heavily urbanized, they account for just 18 percent of the ten smallest states (in which individual voting power happens to be some eighteen times greater)…

Other groups are also penalized…. [T]he LGBT community, whose most vocal activist base is typically in urban areas, does suffer from the Senate’s reign… The same goes for socialists, labor unions, health-care activists, conservationists, and others. All suffer under an exclusionary system that deprives progressive city dwellers of their rightful representation. Yet all are strangely acquiescent.

It is only because geography and political ideology are today so strongly correlated that Lazare is exasperated by this arrangement; he would presumably be perfectly content to live under a system in which socialists had 65 times the voting clout of everyone else! But if the tight link between geography and ideology is what makes the Senate such a problematic institution, then it is also the reason why excising it from the constitutional order will not be enough to bring about the progressive dominance Lazare seeks. Absent any other changes, abolition of the Senate will leave the Congress consisting solely of the House of Representatives, which at the moment is not exactly a bastion of leftism.

In the 2012 elections, Democratic House candidates won a combined 59,214,910 votes, or 48.4% of the total cast. Republican House candidates won 57,622,827 votes, or 47.1%, yet ended up with a 234-201 majority. The conventional wisdom holds that this GOP edge is primarily the result of partisan gerrymandering in the wake of the 2010 census. According to this line of argument, by packing Democratic voters into as few districts as possible and allowing them to win congressional races there by huge margins, GOP-dominated legislatures had essentially caused their opponents to “waste” votes that could have made contests elsewhere more competitive.

But Democratic voters, who Lazare correctly identifies as more likely to be “city dwellers,” also pack themselves into districts in a way that would tend to diminish their influence no matter how the boundaries were drawn. Washington University postdoc Nicholas Goedert wrote in a post at The Monkey Cage after the 2012 elections that “the Democrats’ loss in the House was caused largely not by gerrymandering, but [by] districting itself [emphasis added],” and that

there appears to be evidence at a state-by-state level that the disparity between the popular vote in the House and the distribution of seats is not just due to Republican gerrymanders, but due to a skewed geographic distribution of population putting the Democrats at an inherent disadvantage…

Other research points to the same conclusion: while partisan redistricting has certainly helped Republicans to cement an advantage in the House, the aggregation of Democratic-leaning voters in densely populated urban areas has simultaneously resulted in a kind of natural gerrymander.

It sounds like what Lazare would really prefer is a system of proportional representation, where seats are handed out to each party in direct proportion to their share of the popular vote. I wrote last year after the statewide elections in New Jersey that the Republicans were justified in their grousing about not having taken over either chamber of the legislature despite having garnered more votes, so I’m sympathetic to electoral reforms along these lines. (Proportional representation has some problems of its own, but there are alternative setups like the mixed-member system that can work to mitigate these.)

As I mentioned at the outset, one of the most insightful pieces of Lazare’s analysis is his observation that the ever more pronounced concentration of the population in large metropolitan areas will tend to make the Senate more unequal even as it makes it harder to reform, because of the requirement that two-thirds of the Senate itself approve any prospective constitutional change (unless a constitutional convention is called by two-thirds of the states, something that has never been pulled off in U.S. history). Amending the Constitution requires a degree of consensus and political will that is almost impossible to imagine us achieving in this day and age. Why pour such unbelievable amounts of energy into a campaign to enact a change that will not even solve the problem it was formulated to address?

In my opinion, the only constitutional amendment worth pursuing at this point is one that makes it easier to amend the Constitution. Altering the structure of our government, even in apparently minor ways, is not something to be taken lightly and should be very difficult. But it should not be impossible. Many states make use of amendment mechanisms that are demanding without being unusable. Common features of these mechanisms include requirements that the legislature sign off on an amendment multiple times in different sessions or that it be approved in a popular referendum, sometimes even by a supermajority of voters.

Once we’ve amended the amendment process and adopted a more streamlined procedure, we can then debate further changes with a reasonable amount of confidence that those debates will have some chance of producing actual results. This approach could even improve the odds of making Lazare’s vision of a Senate-free world a reality. Reformers are much more likely to win an argument about whether to make it easier to tweak the Constitution, something from which any constituency could conceivably benefit somewhere down the road, than they are to prevail when explicitly demanding that small states voluntarily relinquish their perks under the current arrangement.

I share Daniel Lazare’s aim of making the American political system more responsive to the needs and preferences of the voters, though I happen to see that objective as an end in itself and not just as a strategically useful tactic for facilitating a socialist victory at the polls. But even granting that this is a worthwhile goal, his plan for achieving it is inadequate to the task.

Were the effort to bulldoze the Senate somehow to succeed, the subsequent realization that the problems highlighted by the abolitionists still remained would only engender even more cynicism about the ability of any popular movement to ever deliver meaningful constitutional reform. And if Lazare is puzzled by how “strangely acquiescent” people are to the status quo now, then I can only imagine how bewildered he would be then.