DOCSLIB.ORG

Silicon Valley Will Pay Price for Lefty Leanings: Megan Mcardle

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Silicon Valley Will Pay Price for Lefty Leanings: Megan Mcardle The Washington Post On Small Business Silicon Valley Will Pay Price for Lefty Leanings: Megan McArdle By Megan McArdle | Bloomberg January 12 James Damore is gone from Google. But he will not soon be forgotten. He’s joined with a conservative lawyer to bring a class action against the company, accusing it of discriminating against conservatives, Caucasians and men. The lawsuit, just filed in a California court, certainly offers evidence that things were uncomfortable for conservatives at Google. And especially, that they were uncomfortable for James Damore after he wrote a memo suggesting that before Google went all- out trying to achieve gender parity in its teams, it needed to be open to the possibility that the reason there were fewer women at the firm is that fewer women were interested in coding. (Or at least, in coding with the single-minded, nay, obsessive, fervor necessary to become an engineer at one of the top tech companies in the world.) That much seems quite clear. But it’s less clear that Damore has a strong legal claim. I understand why conservative employees were aggrieved. Internal communications cited in the lawsuit paint a picture of an unhealthy political monoculture in which many employees seem unable to handle any challenge to their political views. I personally would find it extremely unsettling to work in such a place, and I am a right-leaning libertarian who has spent most of my working life in an industry that skews left by about 90 percent. But these internal communications have been stripped of context. Were they part of a larger conversation in which these comments seem more reasonable? What percentage did these constitute of internal communications about politics? At a huge company, there will be, at any given moment, some number of idiots suggesting things that are illegal, immoral or merely egregiously dumb. That doesn’t mean that those things were corporate policy, or even that they were particularly problematic for conservatives. When Google presents its side of the case, the abuses suggested by the lawsuit may turn out to be considerably less exciting -- or a court may find that however unhappy conservatives were made by them, they do not rise to a legally actionable level. Google, for its part, says that it is eager to defend the lawsuit. But lawyers always announce that they have a sterling case that is certain to prevail, even if they know they are doomed. And unless they can present strong evidence that there were legions of conservatives happily frolicking away on their internal message boards while enjoying the esteem of their colleagues and the adulation of their managers, there is no way that this suit ends well for Google. If the company and its lawyers think otherwise, they are guilty of a sin known to the media as “reading your own press releases,” and to drug policy experts as being “high on your own supply.” There are expensive, time-consuming, exasperating lawsuits, and then there are radioactive lawsuits that poison everyone who comes within a mile of them. And this lawsuit almost certainly falls into the latter category. Damore and his co-plaintiffs, for example, can count on future prospective employers looking at this suit and deciding that they’d rather hire, well, almost anyone else. It doesn’t matter how righteous your claim; for obvious reasons, employers do not like litigious employees, and they will go out of their way to avoid hiring those people. But ironically, Damore probably has the least to lose from this case. If he had been fired quietly, even in a case of clear political discrimination, then he would have very good reason to keep his head down, find another job, and gripe to his friends over the occasional beer. But Googlers leaked his memo to the media, and then management fired him in a very public and humiliating way that was bound to make it very hard for him to get another job. By doing so, they ensured that he would have little reason not to sue the firm, if he could find a lawyer to take the case -- and also ensured that there would probably be a number of angry conservative lawyers interested in taking the case. That was stupid, because Google has an immense amount to lose, even if a court ultimately vindicates its corporate culture. The company’s internal systems, featuring an immense array of internal employee communications, will be ripped open to scrutiny. If I were a Google executive, I wouldn’t want to bet that employees haven’t said much worse things in emails and on message boards than those featured in the lawsuit. Things that are plainly, inarguably, expensively illegal. But I also wouldn’t want even milder utterances to turn up as testimony in a lawsuit. Because every nasty comment and intemperate remark about Republicans or white males or conservative Christians is going to get broadcast to the public when this case goes to trial. And as you may have noticed, those folks are half the country. Perhaps Google thinks its market position is so strong that it doesn’t have to worry about piddly things like whether its employees spend a great deal of time using internal systems to slander half the company’s American customer base. What are you going to do, use another search engine? But this is too narrow an analysis. For one thing, there are quite a lot of conservative small-business owners, and small business is the lifeblood of the kinds of ads that Google sells. The company will be hurt if those business owners get serious about taking their advertising elsewhere, especially if conservatives pursue a secondary boycott, targeting companies that advertise with Google. To be sure, boycotts are rarely all that effective. But most boycotts involve minor matters of policy. This is about tribal identity. Google fired a conservative for writing a rather anodyne memo. If it turns out that the company was at the same time tolerating truly vicious conservative bashing in its internal systems—well, no one wants to give their hard-earned money to people or companies that are violently bigoted against them. Perhaps even more importantly, conservatives vote. They elect legislators and public officials whose actions can deeply affect Google’s business. In general, Google has gotten much friendlier treatment from American regulators than from the EU or China. But American government is currently heavily dominated by Republicans who are unlikely to want to be nice to a powerful corporation whose internal communications suggest that it views advancing a progressive agenda, and bashing conservatives, as part of its corporate mission. Google is not very vulnerable to the normal risks of a lawsuit: expense and internal disruption. The company is so rich that it can bear endless discovery and lawyer’s fees without really noticing. This may be giving executives a false sense of security as they contemplate defending this suit. But Google’s very wealth and power mean it is even more vulnerable than usual to the political and economic pressure that such a lawsuit will bring. To a first approximation, every single conservative in America will learn about every single bigoted thing that a Googler has said about conservatives. If I were a Google executive, I would be willing to devote a considerable portion of the company’s riches to paying off Damore before this thing ever gets within shouting distance of a courtroom. The question is whether Google even has that option. This lawsuit is obviously at least as much about making a point as it is about making money. The plaintiffs may well be happier humiliating Google than accepting a big settlement, or going to trial and winning a big judgment. And if necessary, they will have no shortage of donors eager to help finance the cost of making that point. This is one reason public corporations have historically tried to keep politics out of their business. It is internally divisive, and it paints a giant target on your back for your political enemies. Whatever small gains you may get, from internal bonding among like-minded employees, or external rewards from like-minded politicians, are almost never worth the blowback. This is a lesson that Silicon Valley hasn’t had to learn yet, because it is so rich, and so new, that these sorts of concerns haven’t really registered. Presumably that’s why Google managers complacently allowed a corporate culture to grow up that at the very least tolerates some degree of progressive militancy at work, and quite possibly encourages more than a little of it. That was incredibly short-sighted. And if Silicon Valley doesn’t realize this, it is about to get belatedly hit by that realization, good and hard. This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners. Megan McArdle is a Bloomberg View columnist. She wrote for the Daily Beast, Newsweek, the Atlantic and the Economist and founded the blog Asymmetrical Information. She is the author of “The Up Side of Down: Why Failing Well Is the Key to Success.” To contact the author of this story: Megan McArdle at [email protected]. To contact the editor responsible for this story: Philip Gray at [email protected]. For more columns from Bloomberg View, visit http://www.bloomberg.com/view..
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Ten Commandments 2.0 ADAM J
    Luther Seminary Digital Commons @ Luther Seminary Faculty Publications Faculty & Staff choS larship Summer 2012 The eT n Commandments 2.0 Adam J. Copeland Luther Seminary, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.luthersem.edu/faculty_articles Part of the Ethics in Religion Commons, and the Practical Theology Commons Recommended Citation Copeland, Adam J., "The eT n Commandments 2.0" (2012). Faculty Publications. 61. http://digitalcommons.luthersem.edu/faculty_articles/61 Published Citation Copeland, Adam J. “The eT n Commandments 2.0.” Word & World 32, no. 3 (2012): 217–226. https://luthersem.idm.oclc.org/ login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=rfh&AN=ATLA0001904931&site=ehost-live&scope=site. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty & Staff choS larship at Digital Commons @ Luther Seminary. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ Luther Seminary. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Word & World Volume 32, Number 3 Summer 2012 The Ten Commandments 2.0 ADAM J. COPELAND he questions have changed. A few years ago, tech-savvy pastors advocating for Tthe use of new media in ministry were asked questions from other church leaders like, “How does Twitter work?” “Is Facebook just for college students?” “What is a blog?” Answers to these practical questions came relatively easily through how-to lessons and straightforward seminars. More recently, inquiries about technology and ministry have shifted from these basic how-to questions to more complex ones having to do with theology, ethics, and the shadow side of technology.
    [Show full text]
  • A Postmortem on the Midterm Elections CLE Materials Packet
    Democratic Distortions: A Postmortem on the Midterm Elections CLE Materials Packet Wednesday, November 14 9:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Democracy’s Deficits Samuel Issacharoff† Barely a quarter century after the collapse of the Soviet empire, democracy has entered an intense period of public scrutiny. The election of President Donald Trump and the Brexit vote are dramatic moments in a populist uprising against the post- war political consensus of liberal rule. But they are also signposts in a process long in the making, yet perhaps not fully appreciated until the intense electoral upheavals of recent years. The current moment is defined by distrust of the institutional order of democracy and, more fundamentally, of the idea that there is a tomorrow and that the losers of today may unseat the victors in a new round of electoral challenge. At issue across the nuances of the national settings is a deep challenge to the core claim of democracy to be the superior form of political organization of civilized peoples. The current democratic malaise is rooted not so much in the outcome of any particular election but in four central institutional challenges, each one a compro- mise of how democracy was consolidated over the past few centuries. The four are: first, the accelerated decline of political parties and other institutional forms of pop- ular engagement; second, the paralysis of the legislative branches; third, the loss of a sense of social cohesion; and fourth, the decline in state competence. While there are no doubt other candidates for inducing anxiety over the state of democracy, these four have a particular salience in theories of democratic superiority that make their decline or loss a matter of grave concern.
    [Show full text]
  • Aspen Ideas Festival Confirmed Speakers
    Aspen Ideas Festival Confirmed Speakers Carol Adelman , President, Movers and Shakespeares; Senior Fellow and Director, Center for Global Prosperity, The Hudson Institute Kenneth Adelman , Vice President, Movers and Shakespeares; Executive Director, Arts & Ideas Series, The Aspen Institute Stephen J. Adler , Editor-in-Chief, BusinessWeek Pamela A. Aguilar , Producer, Documentary Filmmaker; After Brown , Shut Up and Sing Madeleine K. Albright , founder, The Albright Group, LLC; former US Secretary of State; Trustee, The Aspen Institute T. Alexander Aleinikoff , Professor of Law and Dean, Georgetown University Law Center Elizabeth Alexander , Poet; Professor and Chair, African American Studies Department, Yale University Yousef Al Otaiba , United Arab Emirates Ambassador to the United States Kurt Andersen , Writer, Broadcaster, Editor; Host and Co-Creator, Public Radio International’s “Studio 360” Paula S. Apsell , Senior Executive Producer, PBS’s “NOVA” Anders Åslund , Senior Fellow, Peter G. Peterson Institute for International Economics Byron Auguste , Senior Partner, Worldwide Managing Director, Social Sector Office, McKinsey & Company Dean Baker , Co-Director, Center for Economic and Policy Research; Columnist, The Guardian ; Blogger, “Beat the Press,” The American Prospect James A. Baker III , Senior Partner, Baker Botts, LLP; former US Secretary of State Bharat Balasubramanian , Vice President, Group Research and Advanced Engineering; Product Innovations & Process Technologies, Daimler AG Jack M. Balkin , Knight Professor of Constitutional
    [Show full text]
  • Virginia Law Review Online
    COPYRIGHT © 2019 VIRGINIA LAW REVIEW ASSOCIATION VIRGINIA LAW REVIEW ONLINE VOLUME 105 DECEMBER 2019 218–242 ESSAY THE MISEDUCATION OF FREE SPEECH Mary Anne Franks* INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................... 218 I. THE MANUFACTURED CAMPUS FREE SPEECH CRISIS ......................... 221 II. THE GOLDWATER BILL, OR THE BETRAYAL OF TINKER ..................... 232 III. COMPETING FREE SPEECH CULTURES: THE INTERNET VERSUS THE UNIVERSITY .................................................................................... 236 CONCLUSION ......................................................................................... 240 INTRODUCTION The claim that America’s campuses are in the midst of a free speech crisis has been made so often and so emphatically that it has widely become accepted as fact.1 According to the prevailing narrative, liberal * Professor of Law and Dean’s Distinguished Scholar, University of Miami School of Law; President and Legislative & Tech Policy Director, Cyber Civil Rights Initiative. Portions of this piece are excerpted from The Cult of the Constitution by Mary Anne Franks. © 2019 by Mary Anne Franks. All Rights Reserved. 1 See, e.g., Jonathan Chait, Not a Very P.C. Thing to Say: How the Language Police are Perverting Liberalism, N.Y. Mag. (Jan. 27, 2015), https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2015/- 01/not-a-very-pc-thing-to-say.html [https://perma.cc/5H7J-FVUP]; Jeannie Suk Gersen, The Trouble with Teaching Rape Law, New Yorker (Dec. 15, 2014), https://www.newyork- er.com/news/news-desk/trouble-teaching-rape-law [https://perma.cc/8KV9-T8CQ]; Greg Lu- kianoff & Jonathan Haidt, The Coddling of the American Mind, Atlantic (Sept. 2015), https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/the-coddling-of-the-american-mind/- 399356/ [https://perma.cc/8PEM-LE7L]; Megan McArdle, Sheltered Students Go to College, Avoid Education, Bloomberg (Aug.
    [Show full text]
  • Controversy 11
    Controversy 11 AGING BOOMERS Boom or Bust? WHO ARE THE BOOMERS? When you hear the word “Boomer,” what do you think of? Who are the Boomers, actually? It’s important to give an answer to both questions. On the one hand, we need to consider the subjective associations we have with the word “Boomer.” On the other hand, we need to consider verifiable facts. The term “Boomer” easily evokes stereotypes. Stereotypes are con- veyed by many of the names given to Boomers over the years, labels such as “The Pepsi Generation,” “The Me Generation,” or “The Sixties Generation.” These phrases convey con- sumerism, narcissism, rebellion, and openness to change. Even the original term “Baby Boomer” doesn’t seem quite right because people in this generation aren’t babies anymore. The oldest of the Boomers are already receiving Social Security benefits, and many others are thinking seriously about retirement. Some facts are clear. There were 77 million people born in the United States between the years 1946 and 1964, and this group of people is generally referred to as the generation of the Boomers. We can see this group graphically displayed as a bulge in the population pyramid featured here. As the Boomer generation moves through the life course, as they grow older, this demographic fact will have big implications over the coming decades. But here we should pause to consider several interrelated questions. What does the term “generation” really mean? Do all individuals who fit into this demographic group form a single “generation”? Are there traits they share in common? Conversely, are there differences among members of the Boomer generation? This is but one set of questions we need to consider.
    [Show full text]
  • LEARNING from LINCOLN Principle and Pragmatism Getting the Balance Right a Symposium
    LEARNING FROM LINCOLN Principle and Pragmatism Getting the Balance Right A Symposium David Allen, Paul D. Allick, Greg Blankenship, Fran Bradley, Barry Casselman, Larry Colson, Kevin Donnelly, Jim Dueholm, Amitai Etzioni, Joseph R. Fornieri, Paul Gessing, John Gibbs, Jay P. Greene, John Gunyou, Jake Haulk, Matthew Heffron, Eric Lipman, Randolph J. May, James H. Miller, Grover Norquist, Tom Prichard, Donald P. Racheter, Lawrence W. Reed, Dane Smith, David Tuerck, Lou Wangberg, Craig Westover, Cheri Pierson Yecke, Stephen B. Young Introduction by Mitch Pearlstein Center of the American Experiment is a nonpartisan, tax-exempt, public policy and educational institution that brings conservative and free market ideas to bear on the hardest problems facing Minnesota and the nation. LEARNING FROM LINCOLN Principle and Pragmatism Getting the Balance Right A Symposium David Allen, Paul D. Allick, Greg Blankenship, Fran Bradley, Barry Casselman, Larry Colson, Kevin Donnelly, Jim Dueholm, Amitai Etzioni, Joseph R. Fornieri, Paul Gessing, John Gibbs, Jay P. Greene, John Gunyou, Jake Haulk, Matthew Heffron, Eric Lipman, Randolph J. May, James H. Miller, Grover Norquist, Tom Prichard, Donald P. Racheter, Lawrence W. Reed, Dane Smith, David Tuerck, Lou Wangberg, Craig Westover, Cheri Pierson Yecke, Stephen B. Young Introduction by Mitch Pearlstein AUGUST 2008 August 2008 LEARNING FROM LINCOLN Principle and Pragmatism Getting the Balance Right A Symposium Introduction writers, talk show hosts, and others hold fast to what they view as clear-cut principle. Mitch Pearlstein Founder & President Or, on the other hand, the extent to which such players are open to accommodation, perhaps even Principle and Pragmatism: Getting the Balance eager to reach compromise with their opponents, Right is part of year-long series of Center regardless of whether such foes are outsiders or activities aimed at re-energizing conservatism in insiders of their own party.
    [Show full text]
  • White Male Aristocracy
    Boston College Law School Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School Boston College Law School Faculty Papers 4-30-2020 White Male Aristocracy Mary Sarah Bilder Boston College Law School, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/lsfp Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, and the Legal History Commons Recommended Citation "White Male Aristocracy," Symposium on Gerald Leonard and Saul Cornell, The Partisan Republic: Democracy, Exclusion, and the Fall of the Founders' Constitution, 1780s-1830s (Cambridge University Press, 2019), Balkinization, April 30, 2020. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Boston College Law School Faculty Papers by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Balkinization: White Male Aristocracy More Create Blog Sign In Balkinization Front page Thursday, April 30, 2020 Balkin.com Books by Balkinization White Male Aristocracy Bloggers Balkinization an unanticipated Guest Blogger consequence of Jack M. Balkin For the Symposium on Gerald Leonard and Saul Cornell, The Partisan Republic: Democracy, Exclusion, and the Fall of the Founders' Constitution, 1780s- -- Archives - - 1830s (Cambridge University Press, 2019). Mary Sarah Bilder Gerry Leonard and Saul Cornell’s fascinating book, The Partisan Republic: E-mail: Democracy, Exclusion, and the Fall of the Founders’ Constitution, 1780-1830s Jack Balkin: jackbalkin at tells the story, as I put in in a blurb, “of the unsettling transformation of yahoo.com aristocratic-tinged constitutional republic into a partisan white male democracy.” Bruce Ackerman bruce.ackerman at In this year where we recall the Nineteenth Amendment’s re-enfranchisement of yale.edu women, the Leonard/Cornell book demands that we reevaluate the way we Ian Ayres describe the early nineteenth-century constitutional state.
    [Show full text]
  • Regulatory Leveraging: Problem Or Solution?
    GW Law Faculty Publications & Other Works Faculty Scholarship 2016 Regulatory Leveraging: Problem or Solution? William E. Kovacic George Washington University Law School, [email protected] David A. Hyman Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.gwu.edu/faculty_publications Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Kovacic, William E. and Hyman, David A., Regulatory Leveraging: Problem or Solution? (August 22, 2016). GWU Law School Public Law Research Paper No. 2016-41; GWU Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2016-41. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2817339 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in GW Law Faculty Publications & Other Works by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. REGULATORY LEVERAGING: PROBLEM OR SOLUTION? William E. Kovacic* and David A. Hyman** “Nice merger you’ve got here. It would be a shame if anything was to happen to it.”1 INTRODUCTION Worldwide, there are approximately 130 jurisdictions with competition laws.2 The governmental entities charged with enforcing these laws are typically called “competition agencies,”3 but many of these entities do things other than competition law. Of the thirty-six agencies listed in the Global Competition Review’s 2015 annual review, half have responsibilities beyond their competition portfolio.4 The particulars vary from country to country, but a list of the usual suspects would include consumer protection; public procurement; and public utility access, pricing, * Visiting Professor, King’s College London, Global Competition Professor of Law and Policy, George Washington University Law School, and Non-Executive Director, United Kingdom Competition and Markets Authority.
    [Show full text]
  • WCSO Recovers $200K in Equipment, Suspect in Custody
    Washington County News VENI, VIDI, VICHYSSOISE | A7 Saturday, July 13, 2019 chipleypaper.com @WCN_HCT facebook.com/WashingtonCountyNews.HolmesCountyTimes 50¢ Chipley WCSO recovers $200k in awards contract on equipment, suspect in custody 5th Street drainage By Jacqueline Bostick The News project 850-630-6167 | @_JBostick [email protected] construction CHIPLEY - Washing- ton County Sheriff's Office By Jacqueline Bostick recovered an estimated The News $200,000 850-630-6167 | @_JBostick worth of [email protected] stolen telecom- CHIPLEY - At Tues- munications day night's regular equipment meeting, Chipley City after an inves- Council approved a motion Edmondson tigation that to award the lowest bidder led to the for a the construction of a identification and arrest of a drainage improvements. 32-year-old man from Head- North Florida Construc- land, Alabama. tion Inc. was awarded In a press conference $422,450.20 for the Florida Thursday morning, WCSO Department of Transpor- Sheriff Kevin Crews detailed tation LAP Fifth Street the complex investigation, Drainage Improvement which spanned about 10 Project. counties in Florida, Georgia, The council also approved and Alabama AND led to the Resolution 19-31, which arrest of the suspect, Carl will authorize the filing Thomas Edmondson III. Washington County Sheriff’s Offi ce Sheriff Kevin Crews details a case that involved law of the application for the On July 2, Crews received enforcement across three states and the arrest of a suspect accused of stealing about $200,000 in Edward Byrne Memorial a call from a representative telecommunications equipment. Left to Right: Ray Walker (ATT), Christie Mason (CenturyLink), Sgt.
    [Show full text]
  • Consumed by Capitalism"
    THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION A BROOKINGS GOVERNANCE STUDIES PROGRAM EVENT "CONSUMED BY CAPITALISM" Washington, D.C. Thursday, May 17, 2007 Introduction and Moderator: WILLIAM A. GALSTON Senior Fellow, Brookings Institution Featured Speaker: BENJAMIN R. BARBER Gershon and Carol Kekst Professor of Civil Society University of Maryland Commentary: WILL WILKINSON Cato Institute Panelist: E.J. DIONNE JR. Senior Fellow, Brookings Institution * * * * * 2 P R O C E E D I N G S MR. GALSTON: It's my pleasure to welcome you all to this event which is the fifth in the "Governing Ideas" series which is sponsored by the Governance Studies Program here at Brookings. We are gathered as you know to discuss Professor Benjamin Barber's latest book, the seventeenth by my count, entitled "Consumed: How Markets Corrupt Children, Infantilize Adults, and Swallow Citizens Whole." Professor Barber is far too well known to require much of an introduction, but in keeping with the civility and good manners we try to cultivate here at Brookings, I will give him a brief one anyway. The bare bones are pretty straightforward. The last time I checked, he is the Gershon and Carol Kekst Professor of Civil Society and Distinguished University Professor at the University of Maryland, a Distinguished Senior Fellow at Demos, a New York City based research center, as well as President and Director of the International NGO, CivWorld. These bare facts hardly tell the whole story. Barber is to begin a distinguished political theorist whose book "Strong Democracy" did much to revitalize democratic theory and to rekindle the idea of direct civic participation on public affairs.
    [Show full text]
  • 2014 Hoover Journalist Program
    MEMBERS OF THE MEDIA WHO PARTICIPATED IN HOOVER’S JOURNALIST PROGRAMS – 2014 NAME AFFILIATION Spencer Ackerman The Guardian Binyamin Appelbaum New York Times Ryan Avent The Economist Kate Bachelder Wall Street Journal Fred Barnes Weekly Standard John Batchelor John Batchelor Show Steve Beckner Market News International John Berry The International Economy Magazine Tom Bevan Real Clear Politics Patrick Brennan National Review Carl Cannon Real Clear Politics Lou Cannon Real Clear Politics Steve Chapman Chicago Tribune Rob Cox Reuters Michael Crowley Time Magazine Pedro da Costa Wall Street Journal Howard Dickman Wall Street Journal Ken Dilanian Los Angeles Times Geoff Dyer Financial Times Michelle Fields PJ Media Allysia Finley Wall Street Journal Bill Gertz Washington Free Beacon/ Washington Times Bobby Ghosh Time Magazine Robin Harding Financial Times Kathleen Hays Bloomberg Radio Fred Hiatt Washington Post Jon Hilsenrath Wall Street Journal Mark Hosenball Reuters Blake Hounshell Politico Charles Hurt Drudge Report Greg Ip The Economist Neil Irwin New York Times Hoover Institution Stanford University 434 Galvez Mall Stanford, CA 94305-6010 T 650-723-1754 The Johnson Center 1399 New York Avenue NW, Suite 500 Washington, DC 20005 T 202-760-3200 Hoover.org Michael Isikoff NBC News Aki Ito Bloomberg Carrie Johnson National Public Radio Terry Jones Investor’s Business Daily Brianna Keilar CNN Mary Kissel Wall Street Journal Live Larry Kudlow Larry Kudlow Show Elise Labott CNN Lars Larson Lars Larson Show Mark Laswell Wall Street Journal
    [Show full text]
  • Isaac D. Buck the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010
    THE PRICE OF UNIVERSALITY SUSTAINABLE ACCESS AND THE TWILIGHT OF THE ACA Isaac D. Buck The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (ACA) was intended to solve problems that had dogged American health care for generations. It built a comprehensive structure—by providing more Americans with accessible health insurance, revamping and reordering the private insurance market, expanding and reconfiguring Medicaid, and installing rational incentives into America’s health care enterprise. Without question, it was the most important piece of health care legislation since the mid-1960s, and it brought about positive change in millions of Americans’ lives. However, over the last eight years, the ACA has faced persistent political, popular, and policy-based challenges. It remains tenuous as its prominent insurance marketplaces precariously teeter. The law’s imperfections continue to fuel an uninterrupted barrage of legal, administrative, and regulatory attacks, which, piece by piece, weaken its overall effectiveness. Its failure to impact the cost of health care has continued to haunt it, making it unclear whether it will fully collapse or whether a mutated version of itself will lumber into the future. Either may be devastating to the future of American health care. In sum, the ACA did not change the dominant paradigm of America’s health care system because it failed to bring about meaningful cost control. While it may have relieved some of America’s worst tendencies, it further cemented a health care non-system, one whose technocratic tinkering could not tape over cracking foundation. Instead of installing a comprehensive system, the ACA opted to try to protect American patients and beneficiaries from the market’s worst effects without any effective means for cost control.
    [Show full text]