I’m at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, which is hosting a summit for National Youth Leadership Organizations. Last night, we were given guided tours of the Museum’s main exhibition in order to promote serious thinking about moral leadership. Two ideas occur to me.

1. It’s very tempting to identify ourselves with the victims. We see German officers brutally beating a Jewish prisoner in a death camp (the purpose of which is to kill him), and we identify with the man on the ground. We imagine the “counterfactual” that we were born Jewish in Europe in 1900 or 1910. Perhaps that’s especially easy for me, since I’m a person of Jewish orgin; but I suspect that almost all visitors place themselves in the same role. To imagine being victimized is upsetting, but it’s also a bit consoling, because one takes the moral high ground. However, I am not a Jew born in Poland or Ukraine in 1900. It would be just as realistic to imagine myself as a gentile German of the same age. If that had been me, statistics suggest that I would have participated in the Holocaust or done nothing to stop it. It’s an indulgence to imagine that I would have been one of the very few to oppose the Nazi regime.

2. The building is a basically modernist structure by James Ingo Freed. Modernists eschew decoration, which is thought to be inauthentic, arbitrary, and frivolous. Form is supposed to follow function. As a result, modernist buildings aren’t pretty, although they may be sublime. However, to make the Holocaust Museum a kind of representation of the Shoah, Freed included elements that allude to gas vents, train tracks, and prison bars. These elements are a bit disturbing, but also quite attractive. The result is a modernist building that is more decorated, and perhaps prettier, than most. For example, I find the Holocaust Memorial Museum more attractive–and more comfortable–than two nearby buildings by I.M Pei that are settings for commerce and art: L’Enfant Plaza and the East Wing of the National Gallery.

I’m chair of a search committee for as many as three positions in the Institute for Philosophy and Public Policy at the University of Maryland. That has been my home for a dozen years, and I have enjoyed it very much. An applicant needs a professional-level interest in philosophical issues, but a doctorate in philosophy is not necessary; law, theology, or any social science would be fine, as long as the candidate conducts research on normative or conceptual issues in public policy. Up to two of the positions can involve regular teaching in the School of Public Policy.

Job description here.

Yesterday, I was interviewed (briefly) on an Oklahoma radio station about youth voting. While I waited for the interview to begin, I listened to Rush Limbaugh–not my usual entertainment. Limbaugh facetiously argued that we should “celebrate” 9/11 the same way we recognize other national holidays, with fire sales, days at the beach, and shopping trips. It was actually kind of funny as a satire of materialism. Limbaugh ended by saying (in a rough paraphrase): If you don’t like that idea, you should be even more angry that the left in this country always forgets about 9/11, except for once a year.

Continue reading →

I just voted in the District of Columbia primary election, having been personally approached by at least five candidates (mostly at my Metro stop), called at home by three live volunteers, sent countless letters, and barraged with a dozen or more “robocalls” (automated phone messages). Which form of outreach works best?

With help from CIRCLE, Young Voter Strategies has released a publication called Young Voter Mobilization Tactics (pdf). The heart of the report is a list of findings about the cost-effectiveness of various forms of campaigning, when directed at people under 30. We are able to present estimates of the extra votes cast per dollar spent in various ways. These estimates are based on genuine field experiments, in which organizations contact a random group of potential voters and leave the rest carefully untouched. They then compare actual voter records to see the difference in turnout rates. They also keep track of expenses. By dividing the expenses by the difference in turnout rates, we can estimate the efficiency of each method.

Top findings:

1. Youth can be efficiently mobilized. Costs can be as low as $8/additional vote, which is very attractive: campaigns generally expect a much lower yield from broadcast advertisements.

2. The more personalized and interactive the contact, the more cost-effective it will be. Door-to-door campaigning is highly efficient. Robocalls are a complete waste of money. They certainly make me mad. I would almost vote against the candidates who purchased them, except that I fear dirty tricks. (Pretending to send a robocall on behalf of your opponent might work quite well.)

3. Despite repeated efforts to find more effective messages, it appears that the medium matters, not the message. For example, if you organize a phone bank, it doesn’t matter whether your callers use positive or negative scripts, simply provide information, or invoke civic duty. I find this a strange result, because calling someone is a communicative act, and I would think that what is communicated would matter. But perhaps the very fact that people are contacted makes them feel valued and encourages them to vote.

We do this kind of research, by the way, as part of a larger strategy. We hope to convince parties and candidates that it pays to mobilize young people. When young people are contacted about elections, they are more likely to discuss issues, understand the system, and feel efficacious. Therefore, giving them more attention in elections should make them more active participants.

A few years ago, I wrote a lightweight thriller called Tongues of Fire. I wrote it for fun and my wife’s entertainment, and after an unsuccessful attempt to publish it, I put it on this website for free downloading. In August, the main page of the novel received 917 visits. In July, there were 804. I know those are not huge numbers, and I realize that they include repeat visits, hits from “bots,” mistaken referrals from Google, etc. Still, as the nerds say, I’m getting a “nontrivial” number of visitors. As far as Google knows, there’s only one external link to the novel–and that’s just an item on a long list of free books. No one ever emails me about it or leaves a comment on the webpage. I’m trying to guess: Who visits? Why? What do they think?