Two New Essays for Isonomia

I have two new essay out for Isonomia. The first, “On Whether Various Economic Schemes Can Improve Citizens’ Political Capabilities,” reflects on the different strategies liberal theorists employ to ensure democratic citizens have the capabilities necessary to participate effectively. I argue that all these strategies fall short, because there is a reluctance on the part of liberal theorists to grapple with the cost of creating citizens who really can perform the necessary political work. It was a ton of fun to write, and you can read it here:

The second, “Federations and Foreign Policy: The Quest for Koinon,” explores why political federations like the United States stop expanding. Instead of continuing to incorporate more states as co-members, these federations begin building military bases in foreign states and compelling those states to become clients. I argue that federations have historically been based rather heavily around security and this has made it difficult to use them to reform the global economic system. While elites are willing to pay the cost of integrating territory when this is necessary for their own survival, they become more resistant when this integration is no longer strictly necessary. You can read it here:

Andrew Yang is Playing Hide and Seek With the Left Press

When a politician is caught out for taking the wrong position or constructing their proposals poorly, they often try to cover their tracks. If they change what’s on their website or in their policy white paper and remove all traces of the previous language, most voters will never know they’ve flip-flopped. Andrew Yang does this in an especially flagrant way. It’s a game of hide and seek. Let me give you two examples. Continue reading “Andrew Yang is Playing Hide and Seek With the Left Press”

Have the UBI People Turned to the Dark Side?

Yesterday, I wrote a post highlighting the regressive effects of Andrew Yang’s UBI proposal, especially its impact on our poorest and most vulnerable. Yang promises to pay for his UBI (of just $1,000 per month–far lower than the living wage) with a combination of spending cuts and a regressive VAT, or national sales tax. Yang writes openly of fooling poor people into exchanging lucrative benefits with spending-restrictions for smaller lump sums:

Andrew proposes funding UBI by consolidating some welfare programs and implementing a Value-Added Tax (VAT) of 10%. Current welfare and social program beneficiaries would be given a choice between their current benefits or $1,000 cash unconditionally – most would prefer cash with no restriction.

The post has been picked up by parts of the basic income community and has been circulated in Yang subreddits. But to my horror, many people in these circles seem to be untroubled by these features. This leaves me deeply concerned about whether rank and file Yang supporters care about poor people on any level.

Continue reading “Have the UBI People Turned to the Dark Side?”

Andrew Yang’s Basic Income is Stealth Welfare Reform

When I first heard Andrew Yang was running on a UBI platform, I thought he was running to popularise universal basic income as a policy option for the future. It has become increasingly clear, however, that Yang thinks he is a real presidential candidate and that his UBI is for now, not later. The thing is, UBI is traditionally marketed as a post-work policy. The point of UBI has always been to give every citizen a large enough basic income to give them a real choice about whether or not they take a job. This levels the playing field between employers and employees, forcing employers to offer people more substantial inducements to get them to work. But it’s increasingly clear that this is not what his UBI is for. Its purpose is more sinister–it is a vehicle for legitimating benefits cuts for the poorest and most vulnerable people in our society.

Continue reading “Andrew Yang’s Basic Income is Stealth Welfare Reform”