2021年2月6日 星期六

What is “political capital” anyway?

Reframing a bad metaphor.
Author Headshot

By Jamelle Bouie

Opinion Columnist

Listen to professional political observers and politicians long enough and you'll eventually hear someone use the term "political capital." It's a metaphor for the resources a party or politician has to pursue an agenda. For example, here's Politico in January 2009, a week before Barack Obama took office:

President George W. Bush often speaks about his style of political leadership, especially the theory of political capital. How he acquired and spent political capital to his advantage — but then lost it irretrievably — defines his legacy. Bush understood that the formal powers of the Oval Office alone do not make an effective president. Presidents acquire a sheen, a popularity that gives them clout in office. And a president who has clout can get things done. For Bush, this informal power, or political capital, had a "use it or lose it" quality. What good was popularity if you were not going to do anything with it? Political capital not put to use would waste away.

In this telling, "political capital" is finite. When you spend it, you lose it, and if you spend it on the wrong things, you can't get it back. But that doesn't make any sense.

Actual "capital" isn't spent; it is invested. The point is to get a return on that investment by directing capital to some productive use. The point of capital, in other words, is to produce more capital.

If we're going to use the metaphor of "capital" in politics, then we should move away from thinking of it as a finite resource to spend as carefully as possible. Instead, we should think of political capital as all of the resources you have to make productive investments for your political party.

If those resources are slight, then you'll want to invest carefully. But if you're entering office with the wind at your back, with a popular mandate and a legislative majority, then you should invest as much as possible, in everything that might be promising. And if those investments pay off — if your policies work and are popular — then you'll move forward with even more capital than you had.

ADVERTISEMENT

What I Wrote

For my Tuesday column, I put on my Washington political pundit hat and argued that the reason there isn't any bipartisanship in Congress is Republicans don't want it.

If Republicans were serious about compromise, they would look for ways to either honor that request or to compensate for its exclusion with a concession: larger checks, more unemployment insurance or money for the expanded child tax credit. Instead, Republicans have taken state aid off the table in addition to slashing or eliminating all other assistance. This is a bipartisan proposal only in the sense that if it passed, Democrats would have voted for it.

And for my Friday column, I looked at Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene and the forgiving relationship between the extreme right and the mainstream of the Republican Party.

What's distinctive right now isn't the fact that someone like Greene exists but that no one has emerged to play the role of [William] Buckley. A longtime Republican leader like Mitch McConnell can try — he denounced Greene's "loony lies and conspiracy theories" as a "cancer" on the party — but after he served four years as an ally to Donald Trump, his words aren't worth much.

Now Reading

Molly Ball on the shadow campaign that saved the 2020 election in Time magazine.

Minkah Makalani on Cedric Robinson and his theorizing on the origins of race in the Boston Review.

Not a piece to read but a podcast to listen to: Matthew Sitman and Sam Adler-Bell of the podcast "Know Your Enemy" speak to Sarah Marshall and Michael Hobbes of the "You're Wrong About" podcast to discuss the history of moral panics in America.

Manisha Sinha makes the case for a Third Reconstruction in the New York Review of Books.

Peter Beinart on the right to self-determination in Jewish Currents.

ADVERTISEMENT

Feedback
If you're enjoying what you're reading, please consider recommending it to your friends. They can sign up here. If you want to share your thoughts on an item in this week's newsletter or on the newsletter in general, please email me at jamelle-newsletter@nytimes.com.

Photo of the Week

I recently developed and scanned some sheet film from last summer, when I went around Charlottesville, Va., with my Crown Graphic taking photos of protests like I was some press photographer in a 1940s studio film. Here is one of the bunch. It's not my favorite, but it is probably the most representative (and is well composed, for what it's worth).

ADVERTISEMENT

Now Eating: Collard Greens With Smoked Turkey and Jalapeños

Like any good Southerner, I love collard greens and look for any opportunity to eat them. If I'm making them as a side dish, I'll do something simple — a sauté and braise with onions, garlic and chili flakes. But if I'm making them as a meal — to serve with cornbread or grits and maybe a poached egg — then I turn to this recipe from Asha Gomez's "My Two Souths." Other than the jalapeños — which are seeded so that they add flavor but not too much heat — this is a pretty traditional recipe. My modifications are to swap the ham hocks for smoked turkey wings, use all collard greens instead of a mix of varieties and use stock instead of water. One other thing: Don't skimp on the vinegar; it is an essential part of the flavor profile.

You can make this vegetarian by swapping out chicken stock for vegetable stock or water, omitting the ham hocks and adding smoked paprika if you need that hint of smokiness. You can make it vegan by doing all of the above and not using butter.

You can do this in a Dutch oven on the stove or in an Instant Pot. If the latter, reduce the stock to just 1 cup, and pressure cook for 30 minutes, allowing the pressure to release naturally.

Ingredients

  • 2 tablespoons unsalted butter
  • 2 tablespoons olive oil
  • 1 large onion, diced
  • 4 garlic cloves, finely chopped
  • 2 large jalapeños, seeded and finely chopped
  • 1 pound smoked turkey wings
  • 2 pounds collard greens, stemmed, washed and sliced in a ¼-inch chiffonade
  • 1 teaspoon kosher salt
  • 1 teaspoon freshly grated nutmeg
  • 3 tablespoons molasses
  • ½ cup rice wine vinegar
  • 3 cups chicken or vegetable stock (or 1 cup if you're doing this in a pressure cooker)

Directions

Heat a large Dutch oven over medium heat and melt the butter with the olive oil.

Add the onion, garlic and jalapeño. Cook, stirring occasionally, until the onions are translucent, about 5 minutes. Add the smoked turkey wings, greens, salt, nutmeg, cane syrup and vinegar; stir well.

Add 3 cups of water and bring to a boil. Reduce heat and cover. Simmer for about 2 hours until tender. After the greens have finished cooking, whether on the stove or in the Instant Pot, remove the turkey wings. Let cool for a few minutes, remove the meat from the bones, dice, and add back in. Serve however you like, although my favorite preparation is over creamy grits with a poached egg on top.

Need help? Review our newsletter help page or contact us for assistance.

You received this email because you signed up for Jamelle Bouie from The New York Times.

To stop receiving these emails, unsubscribe or manage your email preferences.

Subscribe to The Times

Connect with us on:

facebooktwitterinstagram

Change Your EmailPrivacy PolicyContact UsCalifornia Notices

The New York Times Company. 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018

2021年2月5日 星期五

On Tech: Winning with Uncle Sam’s help

Other countries are plowing cash into homegrown technologies. Should the United States follow?

Winning with Uncle Sam's help

Robert Beatty

To stay competitive against China, should the United States become a little more like it?

I'm being provocative, but that's essentially the question behind the U.S. government's plans to provide financial help to American-made computer chips, and maybe to other homegrown technologies, too.

In practice, the U.S. government subsidizes or props up industries all the time. But the idea of a government helping its favorite industries is something that the United States typically mocks as a perversion of the free markets. It's what China does, or what European governments do with their leading airplane maker.

That makes what's happening with computer chips just the beginning of a thorny policy debate: Should the government intervene more to create American winners, particularly in technology and other key areas? And if so, how?

What's happening: Computer chips are like the tiny brains or memory in everything from jet fighters and satellites to refrigerators and cars, as my colleagues Ana Swanson and Don Clark have written. Silicon Valley was named for a material in computer chips — and Intel was an industry pioneer and star. Not anymore.

Taiwanese firms including Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company and South Korea's Samsung have leapt ahead in advanced designs, and they're kings of manufacturing now. The vast majority of the world's chips are made outside the United States, in part because of government subsidies abroad.

ADVERTISEMENT

The pandemic caused chip shortages that slowed U.S. car factories, leading to more urgency among the U.S. military and American corporations to have a safe and uninterrupted supply of chips closer at hand.

So last year, Intel and federal government agencies proposed financial help for American chip manufacturing. The result was an authorization of taxpayer money to subsidize U.S. chip factories and chip research in the military policy bill finalized a month ago.

Congress hasn't funded the program yet so the dollar amount and specifics are in limbo, Don told me. He also said that government money may take years to translate into more U.S.-made chips. But you get the goal: Ensure that more chips are churning inside America's borders, whether made by Intel or foreign chip makers on U.S. soil.

The bigger picture: The backdrop of all this is China. One fear is that perennial tensions between China and Taiwan could at some point disrupt the chip industry on the island and affect the rest of the world.

ADVERTISEMENT

The Chinese government also has been spending gobs of money to develop its own chip industry and rely less on imported chips and equipment.

In the political, military and economic competition between the United States and China, chips are one of the leading fronts.

What's next: It's an odd sight in Washington: Republican politicians who tend to prefer less government intervention are siding with politicians on the left to support more government backing of private companies. That's true for computer chips and in some other areas, including artificial intelligence, robotics and advanced manufacturing.

One question is how to support industries without wasting taxpayer money. Advocates for government help have backed more generous tax credits for companies' spending on research and development, government backing for basic scientific research, and taxpayer-funded investment funds in strategic industries like chips, batteries and cars. America has done this before, particularly in the 1980s and '90s when Japan was a rising economic power.

ADVERTISEMENT

This debate is about much more than one policy. It's about figuring out the appropriate role of government in the economy, and what America should do when other countries plow endless cash into their national champion companies.

And ultimately this is a window on a big question that I'm constantly pondering: What should the United States do about a future in which technology is becoming less American?

If you don't already get this newsletter in your inbox, please sign up here.

A history lesson that might be relevant for chips

When I first heard about the proposals for government funding of the chip industry, I thought about the 1990s and equipment for telephone networks. (Yes, I am very cool.) Come with me on a trip through history.

North American companies were once the kings of another essential industry: the gear that telephone companies need to route the world's communications. But for complicated reasons, American titans including Lucent — a successor to the old Bell Labs — were sold to foreign companies or died.

Today, the world's leading telecom equipment company is China's Huawei, and the United States is freaking out about it.

So I wondered whether Huawei was a cautionary tale of America's missed opportunity. If the U.S. government had thrown taxpayer money behind the country's telecom sector in the 1990s, as it's doing now with chips, would Lucent have thrived and not Huawei?

I put that question to Rob Atkinson, who wrote a history last year of the decline of American telecom equipment companies. "If you really had wanted to save Lucent, yes, I think they could have survived" with U.S. government funding or loans, he said.

Dr. Atkinson is president of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, a research group that gets funding from telecom and tech companies including Intel.

Of course, there are complex reasons for the death of America's telecom companies and the rise of Huawei. I encourage you to read Dr. Atkinson's article for more. It's also impossible to know for sure whether U.S. government backing in prior decades would have really changed anything for Lucent and its peers.

Dr. Atkinson's organization supports more U.S. government investment in essential industries including chips. And like others who back those policies, Dr. Atkinson said America also needed to condition its trade and diplomacy with China on that country's slowing its heavy backing of homegrown industries.

Before we go …

Hugs to this

Teaching a cat to flip a coin. The best part is the man's delighted reaction.

We want to hear from you. Tell us what you think of this newsletter and what else you'd like us to explore. You can reach us at ontech@nytimes.com.

If you don't already get this newsletter in your inbox, please sign up here.

Need help? Review our newsletter help page or contact us for assistance.

You received this email because you signed up for On Tech with Shira Ovide from The New York Times.

To stop receiving these emails, unsubscribe or manage your email preferences.

Subscribe to The Times

Connect with us on:

facebooktwitterinstagram

Change Your EmailPrivacy PolicyContact UsCalifornia Notices

The New York Times Company. 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018