Friday, December 08, 2023

Private timberland from Washington to California lost billions in value due to wildfires


Fire fighters attack the Thomas Fire’s north flank with backfires
 as they continue to fight a massive wildfire north of Los Angeles, 
near Ojai, California. 
REUTERS/Gene Blevins

REUTERS
2023/12/08

A new study from Oregon State University estimates that wildfire and drought caused $11.2 billion in economic losses to privately owned timberland in California, Oregon and Washington over the past two decades.

The study, which analyzed sales of private timberland over 17 years along with wildfire and drought data, found that most of the losses were not due to forests burning directly but the perception that forests could burn due to neighboring fires.


"This study shows that climate change is already reducing the value of western forests," said Oregon State economist and study co-author David Lewis. "This isn't a hypothetical future effect. These are damages that have already happened because it is riskier to hold assets like timberland."


Large catastrophic wildfires have become more frequent across the West Coast and in Washington in the last two decades. The study shows that forestlands have lost economic value because of the direct effects of drought and wildfire and the shift in landowner perceptions amid climate change.


That's especially relevant for Western Washington and Oregon, among the nation's major producers of Douglas fir due to the area's mild and wet climate, said Yuhan Wang, Oregon State postdoctoral scholar and study co-author.

"Our results basically show that those large wildfires and drought stresses have a negative impact on the private timberland prices in this region," Wang said.

The study, published last month in the Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, analyzed a dataset of 9,000 sales of privately owned timberland between 2004 and 2020 in the three states and then linked the transactions with data on wildfires and drought stress.

On the West Coast, about one-third of all forests are privately owned while the rest is owned by federal, state and local governments. However, since the 1990s when public forest management moved away from harvesting trees, most of the timber harvested and nearly all of the timberland that is bought and sold is privately owned.

The study found that drought stresses have reduced the economic value of timberland by 1% on average while large wildfires have reduced values by an additional 8.7% over the past two decades.

While most of the acreage burned by large wildfires occurs on nonforested land like shrub land and public forestland, private forestland is often "intermixed" with public forestland, meaning wildfires are still concerning to timber companies, Wang said.

To analyze wildfire risk, the researchers looked at whether wildfires within 15 kilometers of a property affected sales prices and found that large wildfires impacted the price even if the land itself was not damaged in the fire. Researchers found that wildfires more than 15 kilometers away from private forestland did not have an impact on sales prices, statistically.

Notably, a bulk of the losses associated with wildfire — 7.4% of the 8.7% — were not due to direct damage of private timberland but due to an increased sense of risk of investing in timberland and landowner's changed expectations due to more frequent neighboring fires.

The study also divided Washington's economic losses by whether the land was west or east of the Cascades. In Western Washington, drought stress led to a $50 million loss in timberland value and large wildfires caused a $1.22 billion loss in value, totaling about $1.3 billion. East of the Cascades, large wildfire and drought stress made up $600 million and $1.38 billion of the losses, respectively, totaling about $2 billion.

The $11.2 billion loss across the three states represents about a 10% reduction in the overall value of private timberland. The researchers estimate about half of that reduction is due to climate change, based on other studies that measure the impact of human-caused climate change on wildfires in the western U.S.

Northern Arizona University economics professor Julie Mueller said the study is an "excellent contribution" in a "highly reputable" journal and shows that wildfires have indirect economic impacts outside of the costs of fire suppression.

Some of Mueller's studies on the impact of wildfires and floods, due to burned forests, on home prices were cited in the Oregon State study.

"What they did here that's really different is that they are adding a cost to the change of human perception of value," she said. " ... It's an additional cost of climate change that it is changing how we view the value of our forests."

© The Seattle Times


First-of-its-kind study sheds light on the psychological impact of antisemitic conspiracy theories on Jewish people

2023/12/08


New research published in the British Journal of Psychology shows that Jewish individuals who believe antisemitic conspiracy theories are prevalent in society experience increased feelings of threat and a tendency to avoid those outside their group. This study, one of the first of its kind, sheds light on the often-overlooked consequences of conspiracy theories on the groups they target.

While a significant amount of research has been done on why people believe in conspiracy theories, there has been little focus on how these theories affect the groups they target. Conspiracy theories can be harmful, often targeting specific groups with accusations of secret, malevolent actions. This new study aimed to understand the impact of such beliefs on Jewish individuals, a group frequently subjected to conspiracy theories.

“We can’t fully appreciate how conspiracy theories divide society unless we consider how the targets of these beliefs are affected,” explained study author Daniel Jolley (@DrDanielJolley), an assistant professor in social psychology at the University of Nottingham. “Whilst research exploring the consequences of those who subscribe to conspiracy theories is undoubtedly important, a notable oversight is the research examining the perspective of the targets of conspiracy theories. Our work therefore sought to explore how conspiracy theories about social groups can have significant negative effects on their members.”

The first part of the study involved 250 Jewish participants, mostly from the United States, Israel, and the United Kingdom. They were asked to estimate how popular they thought various Jewish conspiracy theories were among non-Jewish people. Following this, the participants rated their feelings of threat from these conspiracies and their level of anxiety about interacting with non-Jewish people. The study also measured their preference for avoiding contact with non-Jewish individuals.

The researchers found that participants who believed that conspiracy theories about Jewish people were more popular felt more threatened and showed a stronger preference for avoiding contact with non-Jewish people. However, there was no direct link between the perceived popularity of these conspiracy theories and personal anxiety when meeting non-Jewish people.

The second study took a different approach, using an experimental method with 210 Jewish participants from the United States. The participants were randomly exposed to manipulated information suggesting that either many or few non-Jewish people believed in Jewish conspiracy theories. The participants then rated their levels of intergroup threat, personal anxiety, and avoidance preferences similar to the first study.

Participants exposed to the scenario where many non-Jews believed in conspiracy theories reported higher levels of threat and perceived anger within their group. However, their personal anxiety and avoidance preferences didn’t show significant differences from those exposed to the scenario where few non-Jews believed in these theories. This reinforced the notion that the perceived prevalence of these theories among outsiders could influence internal group emotions, particularly a sense of threat and collective anger.

“Our work focused on the impact of conspiracy theories about Jewish people on the emotions and behaviors of the Jewish community,” Jolley told PsyPost. “Our studies revealed that perceiving Jewish conspiracy theories as popular is linked with Jewish feeling threatened, angry and anxious. These conspiracy beliefs are also linked to Jewish people being more avoidant of non-Jewish people.”

The third study, involving 209 American Jewish participants, built further on these findings. Participants were again exposed to manipulated scenarios indicating varying levels of belief in conspiracy theories among non-Jewish people. This time, the researchers also measured the participants’ willingness to take collective action in support of Jewish people and introduced an opportunity for participants to engage in a simulated online interaction with a non-Jewish person.

The participants who were led to believe that conspiracy theories were widely held showed greater willingness for collective action and were more likely to avoid interacting with a non-Jewish person in the behavioral task. This study provided a crucial link between perceptions, emotions, and actual behavior, demonstrating that the perceived popularity of conspiracy theories can lead to real-world avoidance of intergroup contact.

“One surprising aspect of our findings was the dual effect of perceived conspiracy popularity,” Jolley said. “On one hand, it increased group solidarity within the targeted community, fostering intentions to support fellow members. However, it also fueled a desire to avoid interactions with individuals outside the community. This nuanced perspective adds complexity to the understanding of the consequences of intergroup conspiracy theories, highlighting both positive and negative outcomes.”

These studies collectively highlight a critical aspect of conspiracy theories – their impact on the targeted groups. The findings underscore that conspiracy theories are more than just a societal curiosity; they have tangible, adverse effects on those they target. They contribute to a sense of threat, emotional distress, and social avoidance within these groups, which can exacerbate social divides and perpetuate misunderstanding and prejudice.

“Our work focused on the Jewish community,” Jolley said. “However, we believe that our findings are very unlikely to be isolated to Jewish people. Conspiracy theories target many different groups – from healthcare workers and scientists to entire social groups. The same impacts such as feeling threatened, angry, and anxious, and a desire to avoid others, are likely observed in a wide range of target groups.”

“We hope that our work acts as a catalyst for exploring the impact of perceived conspiracy popularity in other groups, and that such work can provide important insights that can used to support those who are targeted.”

The study, “The impact of conspiracy beliefs on a targeted group: Perceived popularity of Jewish-targeted conspiracy beliefs elicits outgroup avoidant behaviours“, was authored by Daniel Jolley, Jenny L. Paterson, and Andrew McNeill.

© PsyPost

Think twice before saying ‘cult’



Survey shows intense support for ex-president despite indictments, but common claim against MAGA movement falls short of scientific rigor


BY Christina Pazzanese
Harvard Gazette Staff Writer
DATE September 8, 2023


Some critics of Donald Trump liken the dynamic between the former president and his followers to a political cult, a claim rekindled by polling released last month. When asked in a CBS News/YouGov survey who tells them the truth, 71 percent of likely Republican primary voters named Trump over their family and friends (63 percent), conservative media (56 percent), and even religious leaders (42 percent).

While politics does share some core DNA with cults, and Trump maintains an unusually powerful hold over his MAGA supporters, the reality of the situation is more complicated than a survey, or a pundit, can capture, says Bethany Burum, a research scientist in psychology who teaches a Harvard course on cult behavior. The interview has been edited for clarity and length.

Q&A
Bethany Burum

GAZETTE: The new polling suggests a cult around the former president, according to his detractors. What do you think?

BURUM: I tend to think of cultiness on a spectrum and there are elements of that in a lot of politics. Donald Trump is one of the more extreme examples, where he does have all this loyalty. But if you think about my definition, it’s on the border. Are people moving their beliefs away from the general society? A large portion of the country thinks Trump is great. Now that he’s risen to prominence — you can ask how he got here — it is a pretty normal belief to have in certain sections of the country.

I don’t know what percentage of people follow bad advice that Trump gives, but that would be an example similar to what we see in a cult — where you’re doing something against your interest. He made claims during COVID about certain medical treatments that didn’t work and might be harmful. People trying those treatments were doing something against their interest; people who give him more money than they really should are acting against their interest. And there are some people who do that. There are probably a lot of people, though, who don’t do any of that stuff. For them, it’s a little trickier to determine whether they are acting against their interest because of the diffuse influence of a vote.

If I vote for Donald Trump, that almost has no impact on anything because my vote is so small in proportion to all the votes cast. Collectively, we have a big impact, but me personally — what incentive do I really have to get that vote right? What sometimes happens in politics is that the social incentives are bigger than the incentives to get it right. I think this explains a lot of problems in politics. Because the social incentives can be quite strong to, say, demonstrate loyalty to your party, demonstrate loyalty to the person that everyone around you likes. And this is not limited to Republicans. Everybody has this social pressure to have certain kinds of beliefs that their friends and family and neighbors have.

My guess is that when they’re evaluating how much they trust Trump, many Republicans are really signaling loyalty to their group based on that incentive to be loyal to the Republican Party or loyal to their local community of Trump voters. When they start to think about their family and friends — people they really know — it becomes more of a real question of trust: How accurate is my mom about stuff?

GAZETTE: What makes a cult a cult?

BURUM: Everybody, even in the intellectual field, has a slightly different definition. How I define it in my class is by two benchmarks. The first is: Cults manage to shift people’s beliefs rapidly away from the broader society and away from the beliefs they had before they joined. The second thing I emphasize is that cult members act against their own interests and their families’ interests quite strikingly. The reason I highlight those two things is that when I’m talking about the psychology of cults, I’m interested in how the cult, and usually the cult leader, is able to have this kind of influence. Typically, the cult leader is benefiting in an exploitative way off of these two things, so many of those strange beliefs are about the leader being very important, often divine, the key to salvation against the apocalypse, etc. And then, more importantly, often the cult members’ labor is making the leader rich, or female cult members are expected to have sex with the leader and all men, besides the leader, have to be celibate. Cult members make extreme sacrifices that benefit the leader.

GAZETTE: Are there certain types of people or certain life circumstances that make people more vulnerable to cult thinking?

BURUM: It’s common to feel like the people who join cults must really be vulnerable in some way — and sometimes that’s true. But different cults target different kinds of people. There’s not just one demographic that is susceptible to cults. Many very successful, pretty empowered people have joined cults over the years. Some cults target young people because young people can be somewhat vulnerable. Who joins seems to be determined by who the cult leader targets and how the message is framed for a given group, as opposed to there being certain people who are susceptible to cults in general. Most anybody could potentially be drawn in.

GAZETTE: Is higher education any bulwark against falling prey to cults?

BURUM: Definitely not. I’ve seen no evidence that helps at all. Many target college students or target people with advanced education. In fact, sometimes cults want more economically prosperous or successful people. There are some cults that target the down and out, people who are the most vulnerable, but it’s the exception. Because the cult leader often wants to extract money and other talents and benefits from the members, they often go after educated people.

GAZETTE: What are some common red flags to watch for?

BURUM: Almost all cults are pretty ambiguous at the beginning and some even outright lie. Some say they’re a different organization than they are. So, that can happen. Anything that gives someone tremendous control over you, like moving to an isolated location, giving up your resources, or cutting off ties with friends and family. Even if they have the most noble justification, be very careful. That is extremely common in the worst cults. Encouraging you to be less connected to friends and family or an outside job or other demands or pressures that make you more dependent on the group are usually a bad sign. Anything that makes you more dependent on the cult leader, be wary of that.

Another one is how dissent is handled. Cults often prevent people from coordinating against the leader by making it really hard for anyone to dissent or to find other people who disagree. It’s not acceptable to say anything against the group or criticize the group in any way. That’s another big red flag. A really important one I talk about quite a lot is, where are the resources and power flowing? Are they all flowing to the leader? Is that person getting really rich off the organization? Is there sexual stuff going on where that leader has more sexual power and is sleeping with members of the group? All of those things are definitely red flags, as well.

The trick is that if you’re interested in joining this group, it’s probably because you’re really excited about it and really inspired by it, so it takes a little work to be skeptical and look past the noble justifications to the dangerous concentration of power.
'God complex': Psych experts warn Trump's 'narcissistic injury' has made him even worse

Travis Gettys
December 8, 2023 9:56AM ET

Evangelical pastors pray over Donald Trump.
 (Official White House Photos by Joyce Boghosian)

Donald Trump's "narcissistic injury" from losing the 2020 election to President Joe Biden has grown into something much worse that threatens American democracy, according to psychology experts.

The former president has been presenting himself as a godly figure as he explicitly threatens to behave like a dictator if re-elected to another term, and several experts from various fields told Salon that was an alarming – if somewhat predictable – escalation of his authoritarian ambitions.

"It’s much too late for Republican voters and Trump supporters," said Joe Walsh, a former Tea Party Republican congressman. "Trump has moved from their champion to their cult leader, to a martyr, and now to some sort of deity. You combine the need for an authoritarian with the evangelical/fervent belief in God’s ordained plan, presto – you have Donald Trump."

"My engagement every day with these good folks has made crystal clear to me that this 'God complex' contagion had spread, its spread beyond the GOP base and it’s spread to lower information voters who really dislike either party and believe our political system is aloof and broken," Walsh added. "For them, Trump does not come from the normal political system, he comes from the world they come from, he’s been hugely successful, he’s enormously flawed, but who gives a damn, he’s chosen to turn the political system upside down and make it work for them."

Dr. Lance Dodes, a former clinical professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, told Salon that Trump's psychological pathologies have been plainly apparent all along, and he said the ex-president's mental illness made him dangerous, especially as his legal problems grow worse.

"Mr. Trump is an obvious and severe sociopath, an antisocial person lacking the capacity for honesty, empathy or respect for the rule of law," Dodes said. "His endless self-centered drive for power at any cost makes him an extreme risk of discarding democracy in favor of his personal rule. His recent comments about attacking judges, pardoning the traitorous attackers from Jan. 6, and eliminating his 'enemies' are not new ideas, but rather a sign that his façade of decency and normality is falling away under the stress of having to be accountable for his actions, for the first time in his life."

Dr. Justin Frank, a a former clinical professor of psychiatry at the George Washington University Medical Center who has written about Trump's mental problems, said the former president appears to suffer from narcissistic grandiosity, which created a need forhim to retreat into his own mind to withdraw into "total self-love."

" Trump has retreated into Mar-a-Lago now," Frank said. "He is also using Truth Social and his rallies as his psychic retreats. The people at Trump's rallies are also a type of psychic retreat. They surround him and keep him safe. They tell him what's happening, they make sure everything's gonna be okay. They reassure him that he's safe and good and right. Trump is now saying God is protecting him. This too is a form of psychic retreat for Trump."

"People like Trump who have narcissistic grandiosity try to predict the future, and part of that is making statements about how they will be safe from any kind of attack and harm," Frank added. "The problem for Trump is that because he is driven by narcissistic omnipotence, he has experienced one of the worst and biggest types of narcissistic injury anybody could ever have. Trump knew he was going to defeat Biden in 2020 — and he didn't. Trump predicted the future and he lost. That is an attack on Trump's fantasy of infallibility, which may be unconscious. Trump's loss to Biden was devastating to him."


Veteran of MLM pyramid scheme leading movement to 'put America under bondage of the kingdom of God'


Her Voice Movement founder Jenny Donnelly. (Image: Screengrab via YouTube)

December 07, 2023

Far-right Portland, Oregon-based activist Jenny Donnelly is quietly using her experience as a multilevel marketer to recruit Evangelical women to the cause of Christian nationalism.

A recent Rolling Stone expose delved into how Donnelly —founder of the Her Voice Movement — has been working with pro-Trump pastors to organize a million-woman march in Washington, DC in October of 2024, close to Election Day. Donnelly's group is stridently against LGBTQ+ rights and seeks to outlaw abortion throughout the United States, and has ties to the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR) tradition. Followers of NAR churches believe that Christians have the responsibility to "subdue" the nations of the world to force Christian "dominion" as a way of bringing about the "end times" prophecy of Christ returning to earth. She warned in a recent speech that if Christians don't seize political power, it creates "a big vacuum for unrighteousness to take over."

"I looked [subdue] up in Hebrew; that word actually means ‘to take it under bondage,'" Donnelly said, quoting scripture that read "I commanded you to look at the Earth, and when it acts up, bring it under the bondage of the kingdom of God."

Donnelly is a seasoned marketing veteran, and was once touted as a "hall of fame" earner for Texas-based multilevel marketing company AdvoCare. While Donnelly herself claimed to have made more than seven figures from AdvoCare, other sellers weren't as fortunate: Last year, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced that it had returned nearly $150 million to more than 220,000 people harmed by the company, claiming they were victims of a "pyramid scheme."

"To recruit people, the FTC alleged, AdvoCare and the other defendants told distributors to make exaggerated claims about how much money average people could make—as much as hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars a year," an FTC press release read. "The FTC alleged that distributors were told to create emotional narratives about how they gained financial success through AdvoCare and to instill fear in potential recruits that they would suffer from regrets later if they declined to invest in AdvoCare."

Donnelly went from selling AdvoCare to selling Christian nationalism with her company Teletestai Ministries. Rolling Stone reported that the company went from grossing $121,000 in 2018 to more than $1.5 million in 2021 as she became a leading figure opposing Covid-19n related restrictions. She's now recruiting women for her proposed DC march through a website dubbed the "Esther Network," which is named after a Biblical character who fought back against repression of Jewish people to the point where her chief enemy was impaled on a spike. The Esther Network solicits subscriptions for $40/month.

During a speech at the Portland convention center, Lou Engle — an NAR pastor allied with Donnelly and her group — railed against the "transgender demonic spirit," saying "tonight, I call forth Esther. For a time such as this."

READ MORE: 'We're getting close': Ex-Trump official calls on fundamentalist Christians to 'heed the call to arms'



U.S. evangelicals flooded with 'information aimed at making them fearful, hostile': author
RAW STORY
December 8, 2023 

Evangelical worshippers (Photo by Larry Marano for Shutterstock)

Evangelical support for former President Donald Trump, despite his own lack of devout faith, is no accident, author Tim Alberta told former CNN anchor Brian Stelter in an interview for Vanity Fair.

Rather, he argued, it is part of a deliberate campaign to radicalize and terrify them into loyalty — and part of what's driving that is a "disproportionality crisis" of the information they are receiving.

"“If you go to church on Sunday morning, you are going to be in the word with your pastor for, you know, 30 minutes, maybe 40, 45 minutes, and you sing some songs, and you say the prayers, and then you are out in the world for the rest of the week,” said Alberta. “And for most of these folks, as they’re out in the world, they are marinating in talk radio, in cable news, in social media—all of this information that is aimed at making them angry, fearful, hostile.”

Whereas they may hear Jesus' message of tolerance, love, and forgiveness “on Sunday morning for 45 minutes, but then for 4, 5, 6, 10 hours during the week, you’re hearing the exact opposite. And it’s that ratio being so far out of whack that I think is really at the heart of the crisis here.”

And that's assuming they're at a church that will even give them messages of love and forgiveness in the first place — many pro-Trump pastors, like Greg Locke of Tennessee, have messages that are far angrier.

“[Trump] may not share their views, he may not sit in the pews with them, he may not read the good book like they do, but in some way, that’s his superpower,” Alberta explained. “He is free to fight in ways that are, you know, unrestrained, unmoored from biblical virtue. And that relationship with Trump has obviously evolved over the last eight years. What started as this very uneasy alliance for a lot of evangelicals with Trump has now morphed into this situation where, look, desperate times call for desperate measures. The barbarians are at the gates and we need a barbarian to keep them at bay." This means that Trump's increasingly dictatorial rhetoric is a natural outlet for the rage and frustration these evangelical voters are being fed.

None of this is to say that Trump has completely unified the evangelical world. Cracks have appeared in recent months, with prominent evangelical leaders like Bob Vander Plaats of Iowa endorsing Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis out of concern about Trump's electoral viability.



Groundbreaking study pinpoints Trump’s role in surge of negativity in U.S. political discourse

2023/12/05


In a significant shift from previous trends, recent research has uncovered a sharp rise in negative language use by politicians in the United States, particularly aligning with Donald Trump’s entry into the political scene in 2015. The new study is unprecedented in its comprehensive analysis of millions of quotes from politicians over 12 years, using advanced linguistic tools to assess the escalation of negative language.

The findings, published in Scientific Reports, provide evidence that this shift towards negativity has persisted beyond election campaigns, indicating a lasting change in the tone of political conversation in the United States.

In recent years, many Americans have felt that the language of politics has grown increasingly negative. This perception has been especially prominent since Trump’s foray into the political arena. Previous studies have suggested growing political polarization and negativity, but until now, concrete evidence showing the evolution of political language over time was lacking. This gap in knowledge spurred researchers to investigate whether the perceived negativity aligns with actual changes in political discourse.

“In 2016, when Trump was elected president, everyone had the impression that the tone of politics had become rougher, uglier, and more negative,” said study author Robert West, an assistant professor and head of the Data Science Lab at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Lausanne.

“As data scientists, we were curious to see whether people’s hunch was right. But we didn’t have data for it yet, since there was no public corpus of news quotations linked to the people who had uttered them. So we went on a four-year journey to compile such a corpus, Quotebank, and by the time we were done collecting the data, Trump’s term was done, too. So by the time we could analyze the tone of politics, we had Obama’s as well as Trump’s presidencies to study.”

Quotebank comprises nearly a quarter-billion quotes extracted from over 127 million online news articles spanning 12 years, from September 2008 to April 2020. To focus specifically on U.S. politics, the researchers extracted 24 million quotes from 18,627 politicians, ensuring a comprehensive and representative sample for the current study.

To objectively measure the tone of political language over time, the research team employed a tool called the Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC), which analyzes text for various psychological and emotional content. Each quote was scored based on the percentage of words reflecting negative emotions, such as anger, anxiety, and sadness, as well as the use of swear words. The researchers then averaged these scores monthly, creating a timeline of political language tone over 12 years.

The researchers found a substantial spike in the use of negative language starting in June 2015, aligning with the beginning of Donald Trump’s primary campaign. This wasn’t just a small uptick; the frequency of negative emotion words surged by 1.6 standard deviations, an 8% increase from the pre-campaign average. The increase wasn’t limited to general negativity but spanned across specific categories like anger, anxiety, sadness, and swear words.

Interestingly, while there was a significant jump in negative language in 2015, the study also found that the overall tone of political language had actually been decreasing in negativity during Barack Obama’s presidency before this point. This suggests a notable shift in the political climate with Trump’s entry into politics.

One of the most revealing aspects of the study was the influence of prominent speakers, particularly Donald Trump, on this trend. When Trump’s quotes were removed from the analysis, the jump in negative language in June 2015 dropped by 40%, indicating his significant impact. However, the increase in negativity was not solely due to Trump. The trend persisted even when his quotes were excluded, indicating a broader shift in the political landscape. The negative tone persisted throughout Trump’s term, indicating a lasting change in the political discourse.

“People’s hunch is true: during Trump’s presidency, the tone of U.S. politics became significantly more negative, and it happened as a sudden jump at the time when Trump’s primary campaign started,” West told PsyPost.

Additionally, the researchers found systematic differences in the use of negative language based on party affiliation and the party’s role at the federal level. Notably, the increase in negative language from June 2015 onwards was more pronounced among Republican politicians compared to their Democrat counterparts.

While the findings are robust, the study is not without its limitations. One key consideration is the role of media in shaping the dataset. Since the quotes were sourced from online news articles, it’s possible that the observed increase in negativity could be influenced by the media’s reporting preferences or biases. Additionally, the study focused on digital news sources, which might not fully represent the wider media landscape, including traditional news outlets and television.

The study, “United States politicians’ tone became more negative with 2016 primary campaigns“, was authored by Jonathan Külz, Andreas Spitz, Ahmad Abu-Akel, Stephan Günnemann, and Robert West.

© PsyPost

Rob Reiner: Trump embodies the 'fascism' Norman Lear devoted his life to defeating

Rob Reiner in 2016 (Creative Commons)

Alex Henderson
December 07, 2023

When Christian nationalists and far-right white evangelicals achieved prominence in the GOP in the early 1980s, two of their most aggressive and outspoken opponents were a liberal and a conservative.

The conservative was Sen. Barry Goldwater (R-Arizona), a scathing critic of Pat Robertson and the Major Majority's Jerry Falwell Sr. The liberal was television producer, World War 2 veteran and People for the American Way founder Norman Lear, who was 101 when he passed away on Tuesday, December 5.

Lear changed the face of American sitcoms during the 1970s, producing the groundbreaking "All in the Family" and spinoffs that included "Maude," "Good Times" and "The Jeffersons." While 1960s sitcoms were known for being cute and innocuous, Lear's shows were edgy and overtly political.

On "All in the Family," the late Carroll O'Connor portrayed racist Archie Bunker — who often had heated debates with his liberal son-in-law Mike Stivic, played by actor, director and political activist Rob Reiner. In real life, O'Connor was nothing like Bunker; he was a big supporter of liberal causes, not unlike Lear and Reiner

After Lear's death, MSNBC's Joe Scarborough (a Never Trump conservative) praised "All in the Family" as "50 years ahead of its time" and argued that the "shockingly politically incorrect" show is as "relevant as it's ever been" in 2023's tense political climate.

In an interview with Rolling Stone's Marlow Stern published on December 6, Reiner, now 76, discussed Lear's accomplishments and warned that 2024 GOP presidential frontrunner Donald Trump embodies the type of "fascism" that Lear fought against.

"The guy was a fighter, and he was tough," Reiner said of Lear during the interview. "I mean, really tough. The guy flew 57 bombing missions over Nazi Germany during the Second World War. He fought for this country and didn't take crap from anybody. The idea that less than 80 years after we defeat fascism, that it's staring us in the face again — he couldn't believe it. Where did the country that he loved so much go?"

READ MORE: Rob Reiner: 2024 is all about stopping 'fascist' Trump from becoming a full-fledged dictator

Reiner continued, "I just hope that we get rid of Trump so that we preserve our democracy. All those people in the Second World War worked hard to defeat fascism, so the idea that we would slip into fascism less than 80 years later is unfathomable. He fought this his entire life. Everything he did was to fight for a more perfect union. And Norman and I had these discussions hundreds of times, and he couldn't recognize the country he fought for."

Reiner noted that Lear, with People for the American Way, was a blistering opponent of the Religious Right and Christian nationalism — which, Reiner warned, is a prominent part of Trump's authoritarian playbook in the 2024 election.

"Were seeing the Christian Right being the foundation for everything that happened on January 6, and we're seeing them embrace Donald Trump," Reiner told Stern. "It's that same fascistic sensibility: it's their way, and nobody else is allowed to have their thoughts. He's been fighting that for decades."

Reiner added, "We just finished this documentary 'God & Country' about the rise of Christian nationalism, and everything he's fought against still exists — and it not only exists, but is taking over. It has a major foothold on the American psyche. We have to do everything we can in this upcoming election to make sure it doesn't win. It's not an exaggeration to say you're either voting for democracy or fascism."

READ MORE: Christian nationalism is 'a political identity more than a religious one': expert

Read Rolling Stone's full interview with Rob Reiner at this link (subscription required).
We can stop out of control CEO pay — here's how


Robert Reich
December 04, 2023

The pay disparity between CEOs and typical workers has become obscene. But there’s something we can do about this. (I’ll get to it in a moment.)

First, some history and numbers:

In 1965, CEOs typically earned 20 times the typical worker's pay.

By 1979, the ratio between a CEO’s pay and that of the median worker was 33 to 1.

As of 2021, the CEO-to-median-worker pay ratio had grown to 399 to 1.


Since the late 1970s, CEO pay increased more than 1,200 percent.

At the same time, the pay of the typical American workers rose 18 percent.






Inevitably, some of that obscene amount of CEO pay goes into PACs and campaign contributions.

As a result, wealthy CEOs in effect write many laws. (And when billionaires bestow gifts on Supreme Court justices, they also determine how the laws are enforced and interpreted.)

This is part of the story of how American capitalism has become rigged in favor of those at the top. It leads us directly to oligarchy — rule by the richest few, putting democracy at risk.

It’s also partly why so many Americans have become angry and cynical — some even succumbing to the false allure of Trump and neofascism.

What to do?


I’m pleased to report that Senator Sheldon Whitehouse and Reps. Barbara Lee and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez have introduced the Curtailing Executive Overcompensation (CEO) Act. It’s designed to address the problem of out-of-control CEO pay by levying an excise tax on corporations whose CEO-to-median-worker pay disparities are 50 to 1 or greater.

The corporate tax rate would be a sliding scale — pegged to the degree to which the ratio of CEO pay (including salary, bonuses, and stock options) to worker pay is greater than 50 to 1.

The tax would apply to big companies with gross income of $100 million per year or more and payrolls totaling $10 million or more.

This legislation deserves wide support. Lawmakers need to know how popular it is. Joe Biden should get behind it.

How can you help? Alert your representatives that you want them to support this.

Click here to sign and send your message to your members of Congress.


Robert Reich is a professor at Berkeley and was secretary of labor under Bill Clinton. You can find his writing at https://robertreich.substack.com/.
The GOP’s death cycle — and how the party turns fascist

Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) listens in the House Chamber during the second day of elections for Speaker of the House at the U.S. Capitol Building on January 04, 2023 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images).

December 07, 2023

Rep. Patrick McHenry of North Carolina announced Tuesday that he won’t be seeking reelection.

McHenry steered the House as acting speaker during the chaos following Kevin McCarthy’s ouster. McHenry helped negotiate this year’s debt limit deal. He’s also one of the House’s most prominent policy wonks.

Retirements across both parties are already outpacing those of the past three election cycles.

The retirements are unlikely to alter the balance of political power in the House or Senate, since most come from “safe” districts that will almost certainly elect someone else from the same party.

But the retirements may alter the balance of integrity, making the Republican Party even less principled than it is now.

Some pending Republican retirees, like McHenry, are institutionalists who care more about policy than ideology. They respect the Constitution and want Congress to run well. A few actively opposed Trump.

McHenry was one of the handful of House Republicans who voted to certify Joe Biden’s victory in 2020.

Another House Republican who announced he won’t seek reelection is Colorado Representative Ken Buck.

Buck has denounced his party’s election denialism and the refusal of many Republican lawmakers to condemn the January 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol. “We lost our way,” Buck told The New York Times. “We have an identity crisis in the Republican Party. If we can’t address the election denier issue and we continue down that path, we won’t have credibility with the American people that we are going to solve problems.”

Several other Republican institutionalists exited before the 2022 midterms. Former Republican Representative Anthony Gonzalez, who was one of only 10 House Republicans to vote in favor of Trump’s second impeachment, left because of threats received by him and his family.

Former Republican congressman Peter Meijer, another of the 10, also exited before the 2022 midterms. He stated that the day after the vote, he purchased body armor and made changes to his daily schedule due to threats against his life.

Meijer also noted that his colleagues who voted not to certify the 2020 election “knew in their heart of hearts that they should’ve voted to certify, but some had legitimate concerns about the safety of their families. They felt that that vote would put their families in danger.”

In the Senate, Utah’s Mitt Romney, a Republican institutionalist, will not be seeking reelection.

The degeneration of the GOP has occurred over many years. I witnessed the first major purge of so-called moderate Republicans in 1994, when Newt Gingrich took over the House. The Senate still contained a few moderate Republicans: I worked with Senators Mark Hatfield, Arlen Specter, John Chafee, Jim Jeffords, William Cohen, and Susan Collins on several pieces of legislation. I found them all to be thoughtful and reasonable.

But moderate Republicans are gone from Congress. Soon, any Republican lawmaker still possessing some integrity will also be gone.

The Republican Party is in an integrity death cycle. As the GOP is taken over by Trump’s enablers and sycophants, the few remaining principled Republican lawmakers want out. As they depart, the Trump rot spreads.

Republican lawmakers who remain are the most self-aggrandizing and least principled. Which in turn causes the GOP to degenerate further.

Tragically and frighteningly, this means that if Trump regains the presidency, Republican lawmakers in Congress and the states will be even readier to do his bidding.

Robert Reich is a professor at Berkeley and was secretary of labor under Bill Clinton. You can find his writing at https://robertreich.substack.com/.
Are rents rising in your neighborhood? Don’t blame the baristas


The Conversation
November 26, 2023

Baristas who work in specialty coffee shops, along with hipsters more generally, have been referred to as the “shock troops” of urban gentrification – and it’s no different in Philadelphia. These servers of artisanal coffee contribute to economic and demographic changes in neighborhoods in two ways.

First, they work in coffee shops that appeal to a new wave of middle-class residents who can afford higher rents – while at the same time alienating longtime and less economically advantaged residents.

Second, these baristas almost invariably live in gentrifying neighborhoods. They don’t have much money, but they tend to exude a cool, white middle-class presence. The appearance of specialty coffee shops and baristas signifies that a neighborhood is becoming trendy and more expensive.

As a professor of sociology at Temple University who is fascinated with urban artistic subcultures, I recently published a book called “Barista in the City” with co-authors Keith McIntosh and Ewa Protasiuk. In 2019, we interviewed 61 baristas in a variety of gentrifying neighborhoods in Philadelphia, including Fishtown, Kensington, Point Breeze and West Philadelphia.

We wanted to understand why baristas become gentrifiers and how they view their role as agents of change.

Privileged but low-wage workers


A few baristas whom we interviewed were managers or assistant managers. Some were employed by Starbucks, but the vast majority worked in specialty coffee shops that strive to outdo Starbucks by offering coffee that is slightly more expensive and relatively high in quality, sustainability and fairness to coffee farmers.

We classified most of the baristas we interviewed as either artistic baristas or coffee careerists.


Artistic baristas work in coffee shops primarily because they offer flexible employment that allows time for low-paid artistic activities, or enables them to finance their undergraduate education at art schools or other academic institutions.

Coffee careerists, on the other hand, have a strong interest in artisanal coffee. They aspire to become coffee shop managers, coffee roasters or coffee buyers who travel to other countries in search of the best beans.


Both types of baristas were attracted to the relatively relaxed coffee shop environment. They enjoy chatting with their co-workers and favorite customers. Many stated that they have nothing against those who do corporate work but wouldn’t feel comfortable in that environment. “I would probably like lose my mind in a 9-to-5 kind of thing,” an artistic barista explained. “I just am not that type of person. I don’t like paperwork. I also don’t like the feeling of not being able to be myself. … I just know I would end up hating it.”

Most come from middle-class families and have attended, if not graduated, from college. As such, they have rejected relatively well-paid, middle-class positions in favor of an occupation suited to the lifestyle they wish to lead.

Living in a gentrifying neighborhood not only enables them to be near their job, but also to be near emerging art and music scenes, thrift shops or vegan eateries. It also provides relatively low-cost housing that is compatible with their budgets. The average barista in our sample earned $23,000 per year in 2019 and typically worked 32 hours per week.


A view from Fishtown, a former working-class Philadelphia neighborhood that’s been heavily gentrified.

On being a gentrifier

The baristas we interviewed tended to view gentrification as a process that is harmful to lower socioeconomic class and mostly minority populations. A barista who observed affluent university students move into a low-income West Philadelphia neighborhood and displace working-class Black residents stated: “Obviously, it’s terrible.”

They felt a degree of guilt about being part of this process. But their low-wage employment and need for affordable urban space that is compatible with their lifestyle caused them to feel they have little recourse to make other residential decisions.

“I understand that I’m also part of the problem when it comes to gentrifying an area,” one of the baristas said. “My boyfriend tends to disagree with me on that. He’s like, ‘Well, where are we going to move, then?’ And it’s true. Like, I don’t know, we can’t afford to live in Rittenhouse Square. I can just barely afford to live in Fishtown at this point. I thought this would be a good area for meeting other creatives. And I don’t want to live in the suburbs.”

Many baristas, however, were ignorant of the role that their coffee shop plays in commercial gentrification. They tend to believe that such shops open only after a neighborhood has already gentrified. As one barista put it: “I think coffee shops are a symptom rather than a cause of gentrification. They spring up in neighborhoods that have already been taken over by gentrifiers.”

Urban scholarship suggests that the relationship is more complicated, with coffee shops being both a cause and effect of neighborhood gentrification.

While specialty coffee shops generally present themselves as progressive and inclusive, longtime residents often view them as expensive, culturally alienating and what American sociologist Elijah Anderson referred to as “white spaces.” Furthermore, these cafes often displace other retail businesses that long-term residents relied on.


There are, of course, some specialty coffee shops in Philadelphia that have designed their prices, programming and decor to attract customers and residents that often feel excluded from such shops. These include Uncle Bobbie’s Coffee & Books in Germantown and Kayuh Bicycles & Cafe in Francisville. Some, like Quaker City Coffee and The Monkey & the Elephant in Brewerytown, employ vulnerable populations such as formerly incarcerated people and former foster youth. But specialty coffee shops designed to appeal to those that often feel excluded are rare, and they employ only a handful of baristas.

Blame the barista?


The coffee shops that the baristas we interviewed work for are not the main drivers of urban gentrification. Such gentrification is pushed mainly by real estate developers and by local governments seeking to enhance their tax base.

Gentrification, furthermore, is fundamentally a result of larger structural forces such as zoning rules that prohibit multi-unit and mixed-use construction, and government acquiescence to NIMBY resistance to high-rise buildings. These forces limit the supply of housing in walkable urban neighborhoods. In Philadelphia, such neighborhoods include, but are not limited to, Chestnut Hill, Germantown, Society Hill, Mount Airy, Strawberry Mansion and Point Breeze.

To ease residential gentrification, baristas could relocate. But they are low-wage service workers, and their housing options are limited by affordability issues and the shortage of urban neighborhoods – issues that zoning boards, community groups and political leaders have failed to address.

Geoff Moss, Professor of Sociology, Temple University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

How the so-called 'free market' is a dangerous illusion


Robert Reich
December 08, 2023

Welcome to the third week of our 10-week inquiry into American capitalism and the common good. Today I want to talk about a central myth of capitalism — one that has prevented a realistic conversation about it: the myth of the “free market.”

FEW IDEAS have more profoundly poisoned the minds of more people than the notion of a “free market” existing somewhere in the universe, into which government “intrudes.”

In this view, your pay simply reflects what you’re worth in the market. If you aren’t paid enough to live on, the market has decided you’re not worth enough. If others rake in billions, the market has decided they must be worth it.

If millions of people are unemployed or have no idea what they’ll earn next week, that’s also the outcome of market forces.

If corporations decide to lay off their workers and shift jobs overseas, or use computers and software to do what their workers did, that’s also just the market doing its thing.

According to this view, whatever we might do to reduce inequality or economic insecurity runs the risk of distorting the market and causing it to be less efficient.

Although the government may need to intervene in the market on occasion — to prevent, say, pollution or unsafe workplaces, or provide public goods such as highways or basic research — these are thought to be exceptions to the general rule that the market knows best.

The prevailing view is so dominant that it is now almost taken for granted. It is taught in almost every course on introductory economics. It has found its way into everyday public discourse. One hears it expressed by politicians on both sides of the aisle.

The only question left to debate is how much the government should intervene. Conservatives want a smaller government and less intervention in the free market. Liberals want a more activist government that intervenes more in the free market.

BUT THE PREVAILING VIEW, as well as the debate it has spawned, is utterly false.

There can be no “free market” without government. The “free market” does not exist in the wilds beyond the reach of civilization.

Competition in the real wild is a contest for survival in which the largest and strongest typically win. As the 17th-century political philosopher Thomas Hobbes put it in his book Leviathan (chapter 13),

“[in nature] there is continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.”

Civilization, by contrast, is defined by rules.

Rules create markets, and governments generate the rules.

A market — any market — requires that government make and enforce the rules of the game. In most modern democracies, such rules emanate from legislatures, administrative agencies, and courts.

Government doesn’t “intrude” on the “free market.” It creates the market.

The rules are neither neutral nor universal, and they are not permanent. Different societies at different times have adopted different rules.

The rules partly mirror a society’s evolving norms and values, but also reflect who in society has the most power to make or influence them.

Yet the interminable debate over whether the “free market” is better than “government” makes it impossible for us to examine who exercises this power, how they benefit from doing so, and whether such rules need to be altered so that more people benefit from them.

THE SIZE OF GOVERNMENT is not unimportant, but the rules for how the market functions have far greater impact on an economy and a society. While it’s useful to debate how much the government should tax and spend, regulate and subsidize, these issues are at the margin of the economy. The rules are the economy.

It is impossible to have a market system without such rules and without the choices that lie behind them.

Those who argue for “less government” are really arguing for a different government — often one that favors them or their patrons.


So-called “deregulation” of the financial sector in the United States in the 1980s and 1990s, for example, could more appropriately be described as “re-regulation.” It did not mean less government. It meant a different set of rules.

Those new rules initially allowed Wall Street to speculate on a wide assortment of risky but lucrative bets and permitted big banks to push mortgages onto people who couldn’t afford them.

When the bubble burst in 2008, the government issued rules to protect the assets of the largest banks, subsidize them so they would not go under, and induce them to acquire weaker banks. At the same time, the government enforced other rules that caused millions of people to lose their homes. These were followed by additional rules intended to prevent the banks from engaging in new rounds of risky behavior (although in the view of many experts, these new rules are inadequate).

The critical things to watch out for aren’t the rare big events, such as the 2008 bailout of the Street itself, but the ongoing multitude of small rule changes that continuously alter the economic game.

The bailout of Wall Street created an implicit guarantee that the government would subsidize the biggest banks if they ever got into trouble again. This gave the biggest banks a financial advantage over smaller banks and fueled their subsequent growth and dominance over the entire financial sector — which enhanced their subsequent political power to get rules they wanted and avoid those they did not.

The so-called “free market” is a myth that prevents us from examining these rule changes and asking whom they serve. The myth is therefore highly useful to those who do not want such an examination and who don’t want the public to understand how power is exercised and by whom.

THESE UNDERLYING REALITIES are particularly well hidden in an economy where so much of what is owned and traded is becoming intangible and complex.

Rules governing intellectual property, for example, are harder to see than the rules of an older economy in which property took the tangible forms of land, factories, and machinery.

Likewise, monopolies and market power were clearer in the days of giant railroads and oil trusts than they are now, when a Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon, or Microsoft can gain dominance over an entire network, platform, or communications system.

At the same time, contracts were simpler to parse when buyers and sellers were on more or less equal footing, and could easily discover what the other party was promising. That was before the advent of complex mortgages, consumer agreements, franchise systems, and employment contracts, all of whose terms are now largely dictated by one party.

Financial obligations were clearer when banking was simpler, and the savings of some were loaned to others who wanted to buy homes or start businesses. In today’s world of elaborate financial instruments, it is sometimes difficult to tell who owes what to whom, or when, or why.

***

Before we can understand the consequences of all of this for why American capitalism has become so rotten, it’s necessary to understand how the market has been reorganized in recent years — what interests have had the most influence on this process and who has gained and who has lost as a result.

In other words, we need to understand how the exercise of power has altered the exercise of economic freedom.

Next Friday, we’ll look at freedom and power.

Robert Reich is a professor at Berkeley and was secretary of labor under Bill Clinton. You can find his writing at https://robertreich.substack.com/.