In “Christianity and the Constitution,” the book she worked on with Eidsmoe, her law-school mentor, he argues that John Jay, Alexander Hamilton, and John Adams “expressed their abhorrence for the institution” and explains that “many Christians opposed slavery even though they owned slaves.” They didn’t free their slaves, he writes, because of their benevolence. “It might be very difficult for a freed slave to make a living in that economy; under such circumstances setting slaves free was both inhumane and irresponsible.
—
Ryan Lizza on Michele Bachmann in the New Yorker. I’d also like to contrast this piece with a glance at the latest Gallup poll because they include name recognition data.
To wit:
One out of four responders don’t recognize the name Michele Bachmann. Before we go further, I’d like to point out that its abundantly clear during these interviews that the respondents are being asked about possible Republican nominees for president.
Everyone hates Newt Gingrich.
Now that that’s out of the way … I’ve been doing research for a project on the spread of spread of liberalism throughout the developing world. A lot of stuff about breaking down trade barriers, central bank independence and democratization. The main flaw in pretty much every piece of scholarship I’ve come across is the assumption on the part of the author that more than a handful of human beings in any given electorate would vote based upon a thoughtful appraisal of the efficacy of (for example) central bank independence.
In short, if your theory relies on Zambians going to the polls worrying about the degree of de jure governmental control over monetary policy, and this country called Zambia exists in the same universe as a much wealthier and better-educated nation called America, in which about one quarter of people don’t recognize the names of the leaders of the party that they vote for, I think you might need to rethink your theory.
My point is this, academics still using rational-actor theory in the 21st century: why do we assume that everyone can clearly figure out and effectively pursue their own interests when all signs point to not being able to remember what they ate for breakfast this morning?
Or, in other words, why would anyone enter into a contract with Donald Trump?
