Tech nerds are smart. But they cant seem to get their headsaround politics.

We live in an age of nerds.

Sometimes I try to explain to my kids that I grew up in a time a dark age known as The Eighties when

reading comic books, playing fantasy-based card games, watching Doctor Who , or being really into

computers could get you publicly pantsed. There was a clear social hierarchy, and the way it worked, for

boys at least, was that the nerds the kids who had weird, obscure obsessions, who knew everything about

something nobody else knew anything about were at the bottom. At the top were "jocks," the meatheads

who were good at sports and knew where to get beer and had pretty girlfriends.

My kids have no idea what the hell Im talking about. The coolest kids they know are nerds. Their heroes

are nerds. Their favorite billionaires are nerds. Nerds are the ones making the best movies and apps and

Vine channels (thats a thing, right?), the ones inventing stuff that changes the world. The archetypes in all

those 80s teen movies mean nothing to my children. These days, nerds run the world.

But while nerds have taken over pop culture and technology, theres one area they havent mastered:

politics. To see what I mean, lets start with an unsolicited phone call from Elon Musk , the king of nerds,

to one of his subjects.

(Flickr: JD Lasica )

Laughing at the doubters.

Wait But Why exemplifies the nerd spirit

One of the purest expressions of the nerd spirit is the site Wait But Why , started in 2013 by Tim Urban,

a Harvard graduate and co-owner of a tutoring company but really, by his own testimony, just some dude.

Urban is a nerd. He gets interested in some complicated subject, digs into it until he feels like he really

understands it, and he explains it. (To get a flavor, start with the one about procrastination and the

epic series on artificial intelligence .) Its a bit like the explanatory journalism thats so popular these

days, but in the case of WBW, it is completely untethered from the web-media demands for speed, volume,

and topicality.

Urban originally promised to post twice a week. Then it was "every Tuesday." Now its "every sometimes."

He takes his time. But the posts, when they come, are a delight 3,000, 8,000, even 26,000 (seriously)

words, complete with crude but hilarious illustrations, diagrams, and infographics, written in friendly,

nontechnical language that still manages to honor the complexities of the subjects.

(Wait But Why )

A WBW post is like a feast. At the end, you feel sated, like you just learned the shit out of something, like

you get something in a way you didnt before.

Heres a description of Urbans process, from a recent post:

One type of WBW post is the "lets just take this whole topic and really actually get to the bottom

of it so we can all completely get it from here forward." The ideal topic for that kind of post is one

thats really important to our lives, and that tends to come up a lot, but thats also hugely complex

and confusing, often controversial with differing information coming out of different mouths,

and that ends up leaving a lot of people feeling like they dont totally get it as well as they

"should."

The way I approach a post like that is Ill start with the surface of the topic and ask myself what I

dont fully getI look for those foggy spots in the story where when someone mentions it or it

comes up in an article Im reading, my mind kind of glazes over with a combination of "ugh its

that icky term again nah go away" and "ew the adults are saying that adult thing again and Im

seven so I dont actually understand what theyre talking about." Then Ill get reading about those

foggy spotsbut as I clear away fog from the surface, I often find more fog underneath. So then I

research that new fog, and again, often come across other fog even further down. My

perfectionism kicks in and I end up refusing to stop going down the rabbit hole until I hit the

floor.

...

Hitting the floor is a great feeling and makes me realize that the adults werent actually saying

anything that complicated or icky after all. And when I come across that topic again, its fun now,

because I get it and I can nod with a serious face on and be like, "Yes, interest rates are

problematic" like a real person.

I love that. (And its not that far from how I approach posts, though I dont have quite the luxury of time

Urban does.) One of the best things about it is that by coming to a topic as an outsider, Urban can be

mostly free of preconceptions and write without jargon. He learns it with you.

Getting to the bottom of something, Urban says, allows you to have a kind of base, a tree trunk of

knowledge on which to hang new facts and information.

WBW takes on energy and climate change and gets it almost all right

I bring all this up because WBW recently tackled some issues close to my heart. The impetus was a

telephone call from Elon Musk. (Hows that for a nerd seal of approval?) Musk wanted Urban to come

have a chat, to see if Urban would take on a few topics Musk thinks are poorly understood by the broader

public.

The result was a long interview with Musk and three of the meatiest, most fascinating, most satisfying

posts Ive read in ages. The first is about Musk himself his history, his companies, and why he has

chosen clean energy and space travel as his primary areas of focus. The second, a 26,000-word

monster , contains the story of energy, the story of cars, and the story of Tesla, from the basics right up

through the present. And the third, another monster , is about humans and space, Musks space

program SpaceX, and how to colonize Mars.

I really cannot recommend them highly enough. You will understand the world better for reading them.

Naturally, I want to focus on the second, which covers energy and climate change. While acknowledging

that its one of those icky, fuzzy, politicized, and mostly unpleasant topics, Urban does a fantastic job of

concisely covering the basics of climate change and the need for clean energy. (He focuses, appropriately,

on risk rather than whats known for certain.)

He mostly gets the science and energy parts right.

(Wait But Why)

A pithy summary.

The one problem I had with the post is in its treatment of politics , which to me illustrates some fairly

common nerd shortcomings on that subject.

Indeed, politics is one area where the general science/tech nerd ethos has not exactly covered itself in

glory (Im looking at you, Larry Lessig ). And its a shame, because if tech nerds want to change the world

as they say with numbing frequency that they do they need to figure out politics, the same way

theyre figuring out solar power or artificial intelligence, in a ground-up, no-preconceptions kind of way.

They need to develop that tree trunk knowledge that enables them to contextualize new political

information. Currently, they lack a good tree trunk, as Urbans post demonstrates.

(Note: There are policy and political nerds, of course. I am one, and work with lots of others. But the

overlap between that demo and the larger tech nerd demo is pretty slim.)

The quasi-libertarian anti-politics of the tech nerd

Urban writes, in his post on energy:

This is a highly politicized issue, but this post has no political agenda. Im not political because

nothing could ever possibly be more annoying than American politics. I think both parties have

good points, both also have a bunch of dumb people saying dumb things, and I want nothing to

do with it. So I approached this postlike I try to with every postfrom a standpoint of

rationality and what I think makes sense.

There are two broad narratives about politics that can be glimpsed between the lines here. Both are, in the

argot of the day, problematic.

The first, which is extremely common in the nerd community, is a distaste for government and politics.

Sometimes this shades over into ideological libertarianism (see: Peter Thiel , who wants to build a

floating libertarian city ), but often its just a sense that government is big, bloated, slow-moving, and

inefficient, that politicians are dimwits and panderers, and that real progress comes from private

innovation, not government mandates. None of which is facially unreasonable.

The second is the conception of politics as a contest of two mirror-image political philosophies, with

mirror-image extremes and a common center, which is where sensible, independent-minded people

congregate ("both parties have good points; both also have a bunch of dumb people saying dumb things").

Urban actually has a visual on it in another post on politics :

https://youtu.be/J-GVd_HLlpshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Thiel#/Political_activitieshttp://valleywag.gawker.com/peter-thiel-s-dream-of-a-lawless-utopia-floats-on-1368141049/1371215728http://waitbutwhy.com/2013/10/the-battle-to-lose-independent-vote.html

(Wait But Why )

In the next panel, a door labeled "Registered Independents" sits square in the middle of the spectrum. The

story in the comic is that independents became Democrats in 2008 because of Obamas promises.

Frustration with the Democrats would have led them into the arms of moderate Republicans, except the

moderate Republicans let extremists talk over them, so independents are staying with Democrats for now.

I think that these two narratives disdain toward politics, and the parties as mirror images with rational

thinking in the center are connected. That vision of the political spectrum implies that one is partisan

precisely in proportion to ones distance from rational thinking. It defines partisanship as irrationality , as

blind, lemming-like behavior, the opposite of approaching things "from a standpoint of rationality and

what I think makes sense." The independent thinker takes a bit from this party, a bit from that one, as

rational thinking dictates.

Since the loudest voices in politics are partisans, people who have chosen a side, seeing the political

spectrum this way is inevitably going to lead to an irritation and disdain toward politics, a desire to wash

ones hands of it and proclaim, as Urban does, that "I am not political." But that just wont do.

On other issues, Urban has said that when he really digs in, "what I usually find is that so many of the

topics Ive pegged as boring in my head are actually just foggy to melike watching episode 17 of a great

show, which would be boring if you didnt have the tree trunk of the back story and characters in place."

http://waitbutwhy.com/2013/10/the-battle-to-lose-independent-vote.html

I would suggest that American politics is just one of those icky subjects Urban hasnt rolled up his sleeves

and dug into yet. He can be forgiven many political pundits are working with the same moldy frames, to

this day. And he wont get much help from his fellow nerds. But its important.

There are no independents, moderates arent moderate, and the center is corporate

Lets start with a few findings in political science that have not yet sunk into common knowledge.

First, independents are not independent. In fact, "independent" may be the second most myth-

encrusted , poorly understood phenomenon in US politics (the first is coming up). The key thing to

understand about independents is that they generally vote like partisans . As political scientist John

Sides says:

They tend to be loyal to their partys candidate in elections. They tend to have favorable views of

many political figures in their party. They are not much more likely to identify as ideologically

moderate. To be sure, independent leaners are not as partisan as the strongest partisans. But

they resemble weaker partisans much more than they do real independents. In actuality, real

independents make up just over 10 percent of Americans, and a small fraction of Americans who

actually vote.

If the ne plus ultra of rational thinking is switching between parties, splitting votes from election to

election, then there are very few rational voters in America. (You can decide for yourself how plausible

that seems.)

http://themonkeycage.org/2009/12/three_myths_about_political_in/http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2014/01/08/most-political-independents-actually-arent/

(The Monkey Cage )

Second, the most myth-encrusted phenomenon in US politics is the "moderate." The popular conception

of moderates is that they gravitate toward the political center, splitting the difference between the

mainstream positions of the two parties.

If thats a moderate, then America doesnt have many of those either. In fact, the relative prevalence of

moderates in popular polling is almost certainly a statistical artifact . A voter with one extreme

conservative opinion (round up and expel all illegal immigrants immediately) and one extreme liberal

opinion (institute a 100 percent tax on wealth over a million dollars) will be marked, for the purposes of

polling, as a moderate. Whats really being measured is heterogeneity of opinion , not centrism. In fact,

most moderates have at least one opinion that is well outside the mainstream of either party.

Moderates also tend to be more disengaged from politics. More engaged voters will tend to follow the lead

and adopt the positions of party leaders. People who know little about the landscape of politics or the

mechanisms of policy will tend to support positions outside the mainstream, often positions that more

experienced political observers will find ludicrous (for good or ill). A voter with deeply informed, mildly

center-left positions will code as "more partisan" than a moderate who has ill-informed positions that are

all over the map, but that doesnt mean the moderate is more centrist or more rational.

http://themonkeycage.org/2009/12/three_myths_about_political_in/http://www.vox.com/2014/7/8/5878293/lets-stop-using-the-word-moderate

(No Labels )

This is the kind of thing you do when youre confused about moderates.

Third, in practical coalitional politics, the "center" will tend to be shaped not by rational thinking but by

money and power. If there is any space left for bipartisanship in US politics, it is around measures that

benefit corporate elites.

The right-wing base has a coherent position on climate change: Its a hoax, so we shouldnt do anything

about it. The left-wing base has a coherent position: Its happening, so we should do something about it.

The "centrist" position, shared by conservative Democrats and the few remaining moderate Republicans,

is that its happening but we shouldnt do anything about it. Thats not centrist in any meaningful

ideological sense; instead, like most areas of overlap between the parties, it is corporatist .

The ones talking about ambitious policy to address climate change are mostly out in what Urban has

labeled crazy zones. Doesnt seem that crazy to me.

The previous three points show that the American political spectrum is not composed of two irrational

extremes with calm, independent-thinking moderates in the center. But theres a deeper problem, which is

that the spectrum isnt composed of two mirror-image sides at all. It turns out the sides are quite different.

Republicans and Democrats are different, and the former are more extreme

Last year, Ezra Klein wrote up some interesting new research on enduring differences between the

http://www.nolabels.org/show-your-support/http://www.vox.com/2014/9/15/6131919/democrats-and-republicans-really-are-different

Democratic and Republican parties in the US. Heres how the researchers summarize their findings: "The

Republican Party is dominated by ideologues who are committed to small-government principles, while

Democrats represent a coalition of social groups seeking public policies that favor their particular

interests."

As Klein writes, "The word ideologue is a technical term within political science but an insult within

American politics. There is nothing wrong with approaching politics ideologically and thats particularly

true when you compare it to the major alternatives, which are approaching it transactionally or as a pure

partisan." So perhaps a simpler way of putting the conclusion is that the Republican Party is motivated by

a general philosophy while Democrats are motivated by specific policies they want to achieve.

These motivations, the researchers argue, are entirely rational given demographic realities (more on that

in a second), and help explain quite a bit about the workings of modern politics. New policy, even when its

passed by Republican presidents, tends to "expand the scope of government responsibility, funding, or

regulation." So its no wonder that Republicans are more content with gridlock and more likely to punish

compromise.

But the differing natures of the two parties often lead to confusion based upon projection: Republicans

often assume Democrats are being more ideological than they are; Democrats are often baffled by

Republicans refusal to accept half a loaf in policy negotiations.

The parties are not mirror images at all. They are different beasts entirely. And its important to

understand how they got that way.

(Shutterstock )

This stock art is an inaccurate depiction of political reality.

In the postwar period in mid-20th-century America, there was a period of substantial bipartisanship, and

it powerfully shaped the way political and economic elites think about US politics. The popular picture of

how politics works reaching across the aisle, twisting arms, building coalitions behind common-sense

policy has clung to Americas self-conception long after the underlying structural features that enabled

bipartisanship fundamentally shifted.

What enabled bipartisanship was, to simplify matters, the existence of socially liberal Republicans in the

Northeast and Democrats in the South who were fiscally conservative and virulently racist. Ideologically

heterogeneous parties meant that transactional, cross-party coalitions were relatively easy to come by.

Over the past several decades, the parties have polarized, i.e., sorted themselves ideologically (thats what

the GOPs "Southern strategy" was about). Racist conservative Democrats became Republicans and

social liberals became Democrats. The process has now all but completed: The rightmost national

Democrat is now to the left of the leftmost national Republican.

Crucially, however, the process of polarization has been asymmetrical . While almost all liberals have

become Democrats and almost all conservatives have become Republicans, far more Republicans self-

identify as conservative than Democrats do as liberal, and consequently the GOP has moved much

further right than the Democratic Party has left.

Part of the explanation is that there has been a demographic sorting as well. The demographics that

tend Democrat minorities, single women, young people, LGBTQ folks, academics, and artists cluster

in the "urban archipelago" of Americas cities. Meanwhile, the Republican Party has increasingly

become the voice of white people who live around other white people in rural and suburban areas, where

they have been radicalized by burgeoning right-wing media and a network of ideologically

conservative think tanks and lobbying groups.

It is not surprising that small-government ideology appeals to people who view government as a

mechanism whereby special interest groups make claims on their resources, values, and privileges.

Conservative whites, freaked out by hippies in the 60s, blacks in the 70s, communists in the 80s,

Clintons in the 90s, Muslims in the 00s, and Obama more recently, are now more or less permanently

freaked out, gripped by a sense of "aggrieved entitlement," convinced that they are "losing their

country." (If only someone would come along and promise to make it great again!)

http://shutterstock.com/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategyhttp://grist.org/politics/asymmetrical-polarization-the-lefts-gone-left-but-the-rights-gone-nuts/http://www.gallup.com/poll/180452/liberals-record-trail-conservatives.aspxhttp://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/06/yes-polarization-is-asymmetric-and-conservatives-are-worse/373044/http://www.thebigsort.com/home.phphttp://www.thestranger.com/seattle/the-urban-archipelago/Content?oid=19813http://www.vox.com/2015/7/30/9074761/conservative-media-republican-partyhttp://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/24/books/review/angry-white-men-by-michael-kimmel.html

(Michael Tercha/Chicago Tribune/TNS via Getty Images)

As the GOP has grown more demographically and ideologically homogeneous, it has become, in the

memorable words of congressional scholars Thomas Mann and Norm Ornstein , "a resurgent outlier:

ideologically extreme; contemptuous of the inherited social and economic policy regime; scornful of

compromise; un-persuaded by conventional understanding of facts, evidence, and science; and dismissive

of the legitimacy of its political opposition."

As the ongoing Republican primary is revealing in gruesome detail, asymmetrical polarization seems a

long way from burning itself out.

(A nice capsule version of this story can be found in "Philanthropy in a Time of Polarization," by

Steven Teles , Heather Hurlburt , and Mark Schmitt . For a great explanation of why the lurch right

has not (yet) caused any widespread backlash, as conventional "median voter theorem" might predict,

see this piece by political scientists Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson.)

And thats where were stuck

The sense among some Republicans that their country is changing isnt irrational. America is fast

becoming a majority-minority nation according to the Census Bureau, a majority of children under 5

are now from racial and ethnic minorities and that has stark implications for the balance of political

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/lets-just-say-it-the-republicans-are-the-problem/2012/04/27/gIQAxCVUlT_story.htmlhttp://www.ssireview.org/articles/entry/philanthropy_in_a_time_of_polarizationhttp://politicalscience.jhu.edu/bios/steven-teles/https://twitter.com/natsecHeatherhttp://www.wikiwand.com/en/Mark_Schmitthttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_voter_theoremhttp://prospect.org/article/no-cost-extremismhttp://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-06-25/american-babies-are-no-longer-mostly-non-hispanic-white

power.

Demographic trends are working against the GOP. If they continue, and the GOP continues to alienate

growing demographics like minorities and single women, it will become increasingly difficult for the

party to assemble a national majority and win the presidency.

However, for various reasons, aggrieved older white men still punch above their weight, politically

speaking. Democratic constituencies cluster in urban areas, where many of their votes end up wasted.

GOP demographics are more spread out, covering a larger geographical area, thus giving them a reliably

large bloc of low-population states in the Senate and a built-in advantage in the House of Representatives.

(That advantage was magnified by the gerrymandering of 2010 , giving Republicans what is likely an

unshakable lock on the House through 2022.)

On top of that, Democratic constituencies dont reliably vote in midterm elections , which gives the

GOP a huge advantage in those congressional elections.

So thats where American politics stands today : on one side, a radicalized, highly ideological

demographic threatened with losing its place of privilege in society, politically activated, and locked into

the House; on the other side, a demographically and ideologically heterogeneous coalition of interest

groups big enough to reliably win the presidency and occasionally the Senate. For now, its gridlock.

You may not be interested in politics, but politics is interested in you

What does all this matter? For one thing, it can clear up a mystery that plagues Urban:

A lot of people have written about the hidden cost of carbon emissions, and many of them, on

both sides of the political spectrum, have proposed a logical solution: a revenue-neutral

carbon tax .

A revenue-neutral carbon tax is revenue-neutral because any increase in government revenue as

a result of the tax would be offset by an equal decrease in something else like income taxes. This

makes it a politically moot proposal.

... This wouldnt be the government meddling in the marketit would be the government fixing a

glitch in the market.

...

When it comes to a carbon tax, the only explanation for not having one seems to be the power big

oil has over the US governmentbecause to me, it seems like every politician in either party

should be in favor of a revenue-neutral carbon tax. Right?

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/04/why-hillary-clinton-is-probably-going-to-win.htmlhttp://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/gop-gerrymandering-creates-uphill-fight-dems-house/http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/11/upshot/the-enduring-republican-grip-on-the-house.htmlhttp://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/11/the-great-midterm-divide/380784/http://grist.org/politics/polarization-in-america-is-here-to-stay-what-now/http://niskanencenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/The-Conservative-Case-for-a-Carbon-Tax1.pdfhttp://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/23/opinion/paul-krugman-conservatives-and-climate-change.html

Uh, wrong.

(Shutterstock )

I see this kind of political naivet among carbon tax supporters quite a bit. A revenue-neutral tax is

"politically moot" only if you envision politics as a kind of ideological grid, with certain sweet spots where

all of both sides criteria are met. It makes sense that every politician "should" support any policy in those

sweet spots.

It ignores the fact that the GOP is not a policy checklist but a highly activated, ideological demographic

that views Democrats as engaged in a project to fundamentally reshape America along European socialist

lines. A coalition that will trust Democratic promises of revenue neutrality about as far as it can throw

them. A coalition of which virtually every member has signed a pledge never to support any new tax, ever.

(Ezra Klein once asked Grover Norquist about a revenue-neutral carbon tax, actually. Norquist warned

that "a Republican Party which creates a new tax would not be long for the world.")

http://shutterstock.com/http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/09/15/my-fiscal-cliff-fantasy/

Oh yeah, and its a coalition that draws substantial support from companies involved in fossil fuels and

suburban sprawl, though, side note: Big oil is less likely to oppose a carbon tax than big coal.

It also ignores the fact that the Democratic Party is a fractious coalition of interest groups, many of which,

especially in key electoral states, are highly invested in fossil fuels.

In fact, the failure of a revenue-neutral carbon tax to gain support beyond wonk circles (and, uh, British

Columbia ) is the most predictable thing in the world if you have a tree trunk of knowledge about US

politics.

Urban is certainly correct that American politics is annoying. As someone who follows it closely, I can

testify that it is almost unbearably so, the more so the closer you look. But despite Urbans dismissive

attitude, it remains quite important to the goals and aspirations he articulates so well.

While it may be true that government cannot force major innovations, as Musk and Urban agree, it is still

very much the case that government can help or hinder innovation . Tesla got off the ground in

part because of US policy , including an early Department of Energy loan and an ongoing electric

vehicle tax credit. SolarCity got off the ground because of policies like state renewable energy standards

and net metering, and has gotten some of its biggest contracts with the US military. The incredible surge

of innovation in clean energy in recent years has largely been driven by rising deployment, which in turn

has been driven by (inconsistently) supportive policy.

Urban supports what Musk is trying to do, which is accelerate a transition away from fossil fuels. As it

happens, out of Americas two major political parties, about a half of one of them supports that

undertaking. That half a party is concentrated on the Democratic Partys left flank, over in Urbans crazy

zone. Turns out hes in that crazy zone too, but he doesnt realize it, because he doesnt have a tree trunk of

political knowledge.

The US government could certainly do a better job of driving and managing a transition to clean energy.

And if Urban is concerned with cleantech innovation, he should look with horror on the paltry

resources the federal government devotes to it.

http://www.vox.com/2015/6/5/8733601/big-oil-carbon-pricehttp://grist.org/climate-energy/what-we-can-learn-from-british-columbias-carbon-tax/http://www.pwc.com/gx/en/technology/pdf/How-governments-foster-innovation.pdfhttp://www.forbes.com/sites/joeharpaz/2013/10/18/tesla-success-fueled-by-u-s-innovation-policy/http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2013/04/09/three-charts-that-show-the-u-s-spends-too-little-on-energy-research/

(AAAS)

But politics is about who shows up. The fossil fuel interests that are threatened show up. Nerds like Urban,

vaguely repulsed by politics, do not.

(Actually, thats too sweeping. Bill Gates is showing up . Google is showing up . The tech industry is

waking up . But tech nerd engagement with politics remains sporadic and inconsistent at best.)

Showing up means dealing with annoying people, many of which are on your side. It means unpleasant

compromises and second- or third-best policies. But theres no way a new world can be born out of the old

one without the midwifery of public policy. Musk may be several orders of magnitude smarter than most

politicians, but politics is nonetheless the eye of the needle through which his enterprises must pass on

their way to the promised land.

Time for nerds to learn (and hack) politics

There is no subject more ripe for the dissection of an obsessive nerd than American politics. It is ridden

with myths and outdated conventional wisdom. And the kind of people who read Wait But Why are among

those most in need of tree trunk knowledge of politics.

http://www.aaas.org/page/historical-trends-federal-rdhttp://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/24/us/top-us-business-leaders-urge-increased-energy-research.htmlhttp://blog.ucsusa.org/google-and-epa-clean-power-plan-leaders-and-fortune-500-companies-unite-in-support-of-renewable-energy-769http://www.techrepublic.com/article/how-tech-companies-are-propelling-the-environmental-movement/

Nerds want to make the world better, but they cannot do so without allies in the public sector. They should

roll up their sleeves, hold their noses, and try to get a better sense of the complicated web of historical,

economic, and demographic trends that have shaped American public life. Only when they understand

politics, and figure out how to hack it to make it work better, will all their dreams find their way into the

real world.