The hooliganization of American politics

Welcome to the Left-Right derby (cross-town rivalry in American)

The harrowing murders in Tucson have raised two difficult questions. These questions have no easy answers and will, hopefully, spur cool and collected political debate.

The first regards the 2^nd Amendment and gun control laws. These are issues I’m not going to address in this post and are affairs that I long for Congress to take definitive action on in interpreting and imposing, respectively. 

The second: Did violent political rhetoric motivate this mentally unbalanced individual?

Sarah Palin or Glenn Beck didn’t cause Jared Loughner’s heinous assault on innocent people and rhetoric alone is incapable of squeezing triggers. But, this isn’t to say that we shouldn’t reconsider the calls to violence that cascade radio airwaves, television stations and the blogosphere. And ask, does violent rhetoric stoke the flames of the already enflamed?

Sarah Palin attempted to defend her violent metaphors last March by stating that they are commonly used in sports.

"To the teams that desire making it this far next year: Gear up! In the battle, set your sights on next season's targets! From the shot across the bow -- the first second's tip-off -- your leaders will be in the enemy's crosshairs, so you must execute strong defensive tactics."Get in their faces and argue with them. (Sound familiar?!) Every possession is a battle; you'll only win the war if you've picked your battles wisely. No matter how tough it gets, never retreat, instead RELOAD!"

The full story is available here.

She has also stated that by “a call to arms” she only meant to encourage people to vote. Don’t use innuendoes. They’ll get you in trouble at the office and in politics. These recent events raise, again, the question asked by Michael Calderone and Kenneth Vogel in Politico, is Sarah Palin a pundit or a politician?

After reading her sport invoking defense, I immediately recalled a fascinating book by Franklin Foer, How Soccer Explains the World. 

A quick skim of the first two chapters vividly illustrates the violence that consumed European (the UK received the most media exposure) soccer until the 90s. The racist cheers and calls to violence in European soccer stadiums actually led to violence, violence that has stained the history of the sport. People were beaten within inches of their lives, stabbed outside pubs, and sometimes killed.

War in Europe moved onto the pitch of the soccer field. Protestants revived their primordial hatred of Catholics and tribal lines were drawn as gangs ruthlessly waged war inside and outside stadiums.

This was labeled hooliganism.

What is a hooligan? Someone who engages in bullying, rowdiness and violent behavior.

What do Glenn Beck and others, Left, Right or Center, who call for armed resistance and intimidation, have in common with the Chelsea Headhunters or Red Star Belgrade’s Ultra Bad Boys? They are all hooligans.

I cannot think of a more appropriate label for radio, TV and blogosphere pundits (Sarah Palin?) who pollute the media with messages calling for violence. Their rabble rousing is fueled by what seems like an infinite reserve of anger directed at anyone who expresses an opposing view. This sounds more to me like the irrational fervor of a Ranger fan at a match with Celtic than political commentary.  

Palin is hardly the biggest offender and a Google search will yield an unending amount of articles written on this topic since the shooting. Andrew Sullivan points out Erick Erickson stating that he will use a shotgun if someone comes to his door with a census form and Roger Ailes has called NPR executives the “left wing of Nazism.” Erickson is a conservative blogger and Ailes is the president of Fox News Channel.

Why do all these hooligans seem to be on the right? This is an interesting question. It could be because of the war waged against radical leftist ideologies after WWII. We treat Marxist radicals with contempt, who I’m sure if given their own radio shows (now they have blogs) would call for nothing short of armed revolution. Let’s not forget we waged the same ideological war against the far-right in the 30s and 40s. The Economist blog "Democracy in America" brings up good examples of the violent rhetoric far-left groups like the Black Panthers advocated in the 60s and 70s.

It may seem like I am personally attacking Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin, but that is not the intention of this post. With comparative politics being my discipline of choice, I do not have the time to analyze, in depth, the American punditsphere and only read the opinion pages of a few of my favorite periodicals. I would love to attack the Left, but besides Keith Olbermann they simply don’t have the mainstream champions that the Right does.

Ross Douthat brings up an interesting point in The New York Times that Americans are polarized along cultural and religious lines rather than economic policy. He points out the great example of his pet peeve that dental hygienists should be allowed to perform cleanings without the dentist and questions why Republicans haven’t fought for this a similar free market policies. My pet peeve would be the existence of the university accreditation system (and lawyers, addressed in Freakonomics).

I agree with Douthat that this could be the reason why we see such incredible ire on display in punditsphere; the same type of barbarism that was present in the UK over two decades ago. People have demonstrated time and again that they will savagely defend their religious and cultural beliefs.  This begs the frequently raised question, is primordialism the source of all conflict?

Where do we go from here?

Fear, intimidation, bullying and violence are the strategies of hooligans across the political spectrum. We should take people that employ these tactics as seriously as we do the Westboro Baptist Church.

Glance at the image that this post begins with. Many people empathized with soccer hooligans, but that doesn’t mean they joined them in smashing a beer bottle over the head of an Arsenal fan.  There are a few principles that Glenn Beck preaches that I would agree with, but because of his overall message and behavior, I cannot take him seriously.  When I turn on Glenn Beck’s show I am in the mood to be entertained. A craving for entertainment that also causes me to watch Green Street Hooligans (an Elijah Wood movie about one of West Ham’s hooligan gangs). It is concerning that political hooligans can have an impact on public policy that genuinely affects our lives; a soccer match has a trivial outcome on the grand scheme of things.

So act rationally, put the beer bottle down and switch the radio off.

There always will be hooligans in soccer and American politics. Hooligans should be allowed to express their views, as should everyone, no matter their beliefs. Limitations on free speech can only be implemented if a “clear and present danger” is demonstrated in the U.S. It is impossible to tease out what speech, especially with modern technology, incites violence. Shouting fire in a crowded building when there isn’t one obviously produces a clear and present danger. Commercials for Call of Duty: Black Ops? Violent Tweets or YouTube videos? Unclear.

Again, we need to use common sense and ignore violent rhetoric. By committing our attention to hooligans, who happen to be savvy businessmen, we allow their messages to become wide spread. If views of Glenn Beck’s show began to plummet because of a general disdain for violent rhetoric, I guarantee he would either tone it down or lose his show. Remember, cash is usually the most persuasive incentive. 

The UK has, for the most part, pacified its soccer hooligans through gentrifying the sport. While we can’t gentrify politics (assuming this would entail exclusion of the poor) we can hamstring hooligans’ outrageous rhetoric by refusing to read it, watch it and tune in to it. 

Taxing the junk in your trunk

It’s 2011 and it’s time for every American to begin a now time honored tradition: the diet. There is no doubt that many, if not most Americans—myself included—have listed a diet under their resolutions. People will be more irksome this month as they begin one of the hundreds of gimmick diets and deprive themselves of their daily fix of carbs, fats, or whatever radical change the regimen requires.

Why, year after year, do we perpetually engage in what is often times a foolhardy tribulation? Because we’re fat. We are bombarded with statistics that show how fat the U.S. is becoming in the media.  A report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (available here) shows that over 25 percent of Americans are obese. The World Health Organization (WHO) classifies obesity as a disease. Most susceptible to this disease are non-Hispanic blacks, the poorly educated, and those who live in the South or Midwest, or America’s poor.  Obesity is defined as having a Body Mass Index (BMI) of over 30kg.

We rarely hear about fat Europeans. Is this because there are none or a lack of awareness? 

The data shows that Europe, like America is getting fat. While obesity rates are lower, and vary significantly across the continent, obesity has been deemed a serious issue and the EU has begun to commit resources to combat the problem (here). Central, Eastern, and Southern Europe are suffering the most from this disease, where it has reached epidemic proportions (Berghöfer et al, 2007).

State	Obesity prevalence/% men	Obesity prevalence/% women
United States	33.2	35.5
Italy	18	NA
Poland	20.8	23.8
UK—England	22.1	23.9
Germany	20.5	21.1
France	16.1	17.6

Source: International Association for the Study of Obesity

So what is causing both America and Europe to fatten up? This is debatable and here I’m only going to speculate.

First off, while there are some genetic causes they do occur at a rate high enough to have caused the mammoth increase in obesity prevalence (Wilding, 2001).

Speculation 1: Cheap and abundant food

For a quick example think about the rise of membership wholesale clubs like BJ’s or Sam’s Club and the quantity of food you can buy at these establishments. What do bulk retail stores mean for consumers? When you can buy a twenty five pack of hamburgers or a five pound jar of peanut butter you are going to eat more. You have already paid the upfront cost, so the marginal cost of having one more hamburger or peanut butter sandwich is zero (the costs for eating the 24^th and 25^th hamburger are higher than eating the 2^nd and 3^rd). When you buy a smaller package the marginal cost of each burger is higher because you run out quicker. 

You could buy five, five packs of burgers but this brings me to my next point…

Speculation 2: Marginal costs are higher for Europeans and city dwellers.

When I lived in Florence I didn’t have a Tesco nearby or anything equivalent to a Wal-Mart or Sam’s Club. I had to walk a mile to the grocery store and carry my groceries the mile back to where I lived. The cost of me eating me one more burger was a major pain in the ass, so I ate less. More Europeans live in urban areas than in the U.S. and fuel prices are also higher. Marginal costs are higher for city dwellers who have to walk and carry their food and for a European who has to pay more in gas if they decide to drive, than for an American, who pays less in fuel prices. Extremely rural areas would be an obvious caveat to this example.

Speculation 3: Cultural differences

In her blog for the New York Times (here), Catherine Rampell plots the obesity rate with the average time spent eating per day for several countries. She admits that the correlation of high obesity in the U.S. with quick eating times does not necessarily mean causation, but let’s consider the impact of cultural norms. The French spend a lot of time dining. Logically, one would think that this means they eat more, but it has more to do with diet norms than time spent eating.

Japan and Korea spend more time eating than the U.S., but less time than the French and have obesity rates lower than both the states. Japanese and Korean diets rely heavily on fish and this is often cited as the reason behind their longevity.  The French spend a lot of time on their meals, but have fiercely resisted American style food that is calorie dense.

But the world is changing and the best example of this is Oceania. Samoa, Tonga, the Cook Islands are all among the world’s most obese states. This has occurred because their diet has changed radically due to globalization. Deborah Gewertz and Frederick Errington shed light on this issue in their book Cheap Meat: Flap Food Nations in the Pacific Islands. Islanders’ diets have shifted since WWII from fish and locally grown crops to meat cuts imported from the developed world, which are high in fat, cheap, and easily obtained because they are no longer isolated. Why fish for eight hours a day when you can buy cheap mutton?

Because high caloric food has become so cheap it is shifting cultural norms that once appeared impervious to globalization e.g. McDonald’s is being built in the Louvre!

These are, again, just my speculations based on a very brief review of a limited amount of literature.

While I can only speculate on what causes obesity, I do have a solution, but you’re not going to like it…

States have two options to give people an incentive to stay in shape. 

The first is to tax the unhealthy food that causes a negative externality. Obesity produces a negative externality because of all the associated health problems such as, diabetes, hypertension, high cholesterol, etc. which lead to increased healthcare costs, loss of productivity and so on. This tax would look similar to the recent one imposed on tanning. Someone who chooses to spend three days a week in a tanning bed, drastically raising his/her chances of skin cancer, should be given a monetary incentive not to engage in a behavior that is going to lead to costly melanoma treatments for him/herself and also impose a cost on society. 

These are the so called “fat taxes” that have little public support. These policies would tax sugary, salty and other unhealthy foods.

My second solution is even more unpalatable: tax people based on their BMI. BMI is the way that obesity is currently measured and is a simple measure of your weight and height. A BMI of over 25kg and less than 30kg puts you in the category of overweight. As mentioned before,a BMI of 30kg or over means you’re obese.  

If we were going to tax people with high BMIs we would also have to tax people who are unhealthily underweight because of the associated health risks. A skinny tax would come compliments of a BMI tax. 

How would this tax work? When filing your taxes in April, you simply list your BMI; declared BMI could be checked against your real BMI through a quick peek at your medical records by the IRS. This would also let the IRS know who is tax exempt because of a medical disability such as thyroid problems.

The IRS rifling through your medical records!? This may sound like something out 1984 rather than a sensible solution to obesity, but it is a simple, effective way to fight the disease that doesn’t limit your liberty.

How does a BMI tax not limit your freedom? Fat taxes will make sugary foods, which you might love, more expensive and push some out of your price range. A BMI tax won’t. If you are one of those lucky people—like my brother—who can live off Oreo cookies and Dr. Pepper and stay thin, go right ahead (granted, he would have to pay an underweight tax). Junk food prices may change because of shifts in demand (hopefully, a decrease) but they won’t change overnight as they would with fat taxes. Twinkies won't become the price of a fillet mignon.

Ultimately, you’re free to choose how you wish to pursue a diet or if you want to pursue one at all. The truth is that many people will value the unhealthy foods they eat more than the price of the tax. 

This tax wouldn’t drive people into poverty. The CDC estimates that an obese person incurs an additional $1,428 in medical costs. The tax would alleviate these costs and take into account other factors such as loss of productivity, and could be spread out over the person's expected lifetime.

Many people complain about the demise of U.S. manufacturing. How are we supposed to reinvigorate U.S. exports when our labor force is overweight, not to mention who were competing with (China’s obesity prevalence for men and women is less than 4 percent).

There are two major problems with this ever becoming a reality.

The first is that BMI is pretty controversial and we could use a more accurate tool to measure the impact obesity will have on your health. BMI’s brilliance is in its simplicity, but this simple solution isn’t accurate 100 percent of the time. BMI does not take into account a number of variables that will affect the measure such as muscle to fat ratio; muscle weighs more than fat.

There are more advanced techniques, such as X-rays and skin fold measurements, which can be used to determine fat levels in a person’s body. It would be in a body builder’s interest to pay a doctor to perform one of these tests, which would allow him to be exempt from the tax.

The second critique of fat taxes is that they are regressive, meaning they will disproportionately affect the poor. This is absolutely true. A quick glance at the CDC report listed earlier will reinforce this.

But there are very few taxes that aren’t regressive. Because of their lower incomes, all taxes disproportionately affect the poor. Again, as I mentioned in my last post, this is a problem that must be addressed through policies that alleviate poverty, not ones that fight obesity.

The poor have been remarkably resilient at maintaining self-detrimental behaviors. Look at cigarette smoking. This vice is heavily taxed. In New York City a pack of cigarettes will run you over $10. What strata of society smokes the most? The poor. The poor have continued to smoke even given the monetary incentive to not. Without the poor, it probably wouldn’t even be worth it to levy the tax on cigarettes. Even if the poor continue to eat poorly, and remain the most obese group, this doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t tax the negative externality that the disease produces.

You should always be free to choose how you live your life, even if you engage in self-detrimental behavior. However, you are not free when your behavior produces an externality that negatively impacts others. This is the case with obesity; you are not just hurting yourself, but causing a welfare loss for all of society.

Europe and the U.S. need to address this epidemic, and it is nothing short of that. Will a BMI tax ever happen? Probably not. Will taxes on unhealthy foods be implemented? This is much more likely. But the problem needs to be addressed somehow and peoples’ behavior won’t change without the right incentives. The right incentive, most of the time, is money.  

References

Berghöfer, Anne, Tobias Pischon, Thomas Reinhold, Caroline Apovian, and Arya Sharma. 2008. “Obesity prevalence from a European perspective: a systematic review.” BMC Public Health 8: 200

Gewertz, Deborah and Frederick Errington. 2010. Cheap Meat: Flap Food Nations in the Pacific Islands. Berkeley:  University of California Press.

Wilding, John. 2001. “Causes of obesity.” Practical Diabetes International 18 (8): 288-292.