The Dish

Dan Ariely sums up a study that tells us what we already know:

[Researchers] simulated a bureaucratic organization and randomly assigned participants to be in a high-power role (prime-minister) or low-power role (civil servant). … Next, the researchers presented all participants with a seemingly unrelated moral dilemma from among the following: failure to declare all wages on a tax form, violation of traffic rules, and possession of a stolen bike. In each case, participants used a 9-point scale (1: completely unacceptable, 9: fully acceptable) to rate the acceptability of the act. However, half of the participants rated how acceptable it would be if they themselves engaged in the act, while the other half rated how acceptable it would be others engaged in it.

The researchers found that compared to participants without power, powerful participants were stricter in judging others’ moral transgressions but more lenient in judging their own: “power increases hypocrisy, meaning that the powerful show a greater discrepancy between what they practice and what they preach.”

Think Cheney's response to committing war crimes; or Wall Street's response to their gaming the system for absurd amounts of money; or the Pope's long indifference to the rape of children; or the British members of parliament abusing their expense accounts. Power corrupts. Always has. Which is why we need more assholes in the press and fewer people, like Mike Allen, annotating and revering every word that drops from the platters of the connected and the powerful.

Chait asked the question last week. Drum takes a closer look.

R.L.G. at Democracy In America is thinking of kicking his addiction to polls:

I still wish we could see more nuance in talking about this, rather than asking stupid questions like "Does Barack Obama support Israel?" I'm one of those who thinks supporting Israel means weaning it off its addiction to settlements. But I'm not optimistic that we'll get past this anytime soon. September 11th seems to have given us a chronic inability to see past "either you're with us or you're with the terrorists."

Yes, I found that Quinnipiac poll almost absurdly skewed. I regard myself as fervently pro-Israel as does, I believe, the president. But I believe that real pressure has to be placed to get a settlement for Israel's and primarily America's interests. Does that make me anti-Israel? (Please, God, let's not have that debate again.) The poll we need is determining whether Israel should permanently occupy the West Bank and all of Jerusalem. And we have that poll, from Rasmussen no less, an outfit whose sample would be likely to provide a pro-Netanyahu result:

49 percent of Americans believe that “Israel (should) be required to stop building new settlements in occupied Palestinian territory,” while only 22 percent believe it should not. That represents a strong endorsement of the position taken by the Obama administration. An even-more overwhelming percentage of Americans — 75 percent — believe that “Palestinian leaders (should) be required to acknowledge Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state” as part of a peace agreement.

So the American public supports Obama's position by more than 2:1. Funny how that doesn't get reported quite as much.

Ray Fisman examines the results of a study that tried to gently persuade homeowners to use less energy:

UCLA economists Dora Costa and Matthew Kahn analyzed the impact of an energy-conservation program in California that informed households about how their energy use compared with that of their neighbors. While the program succeeded in encouraging Democrats and environmentalists to lower their consumption, Republicans had the opposite reaction. When told of their relative thrift, they started cranking up the thermostat and leaving the lights on more often.

Fallows compares Arizona's new immigration law to China's handling of foreigners:

Here's the point of comparison between the impending Arizona situation and China: it's no fun knowing — as citizen and foreigner alike know in China, and as Hispanic-looking people in Arizona soon will — that you can be asked to show proof of your legality at an official's whim. But if it's sobering to think that the closest analogy to a new U.S. legal situation is daily life in Communist China, we should also look on the bright side. With some notable and serious exceptions, I typically did not see Chinese police asking for papers on a whim. Usually something had to happen first. Maybe soon the Chinese State Security apparatus can travel to Arizona and give lectures to local police and sheriffs. They can explain how to avoid going crazy with a new power that so invites abuse. "Civil Liberties: Learning from China" can be the name of the course.

I think what we're seeing in Arizona is a glimpse of a possible Republican future: a police state directed against dark-skinned immigrants, legal and illegal. It's the creation of a sub-class of suspects who are guilty until proven innocent. It was the same attitude toward terror suspects. I do not believe that torture would have occurred in this country if the victims had been white.

Not that they want to take any credit now. But thanks, Stuart et al.

More Brits are wondering. A new poll today shows Tory support pretty solid, but enormous volatility among the two other parties:

Today's poll shows Conservative support is holding firm, with 83% of supporters saying they do not expect to change their mind before polling day. By contrast, only 69% of Lib Dems and 68% of Labour voters say they will stick with their current choice. Almost a third of people supporting Labour say they might end up backing another party instead.

If the Lib-Dem surge continues to hold – and it shows no sign of wilting – there may come a moment in which Labour voters shift to the Lib-Dems to stop the Tories. I can't see a similar surge from the Lib-Dems to Gordon Brown, especially since Clegg has ruled out a coalition with the current Labour leader (but perhaps not if Labour dumps Brown and elects David Miliband immediately after the election).

Still: the bottom line is enormous flux. But the Tories may be settling down:

35% say Cameron is the most competent potential prime minister (up three), against 29% who say Brown and 22% Clegg.

My old friend and editor, Martin Ivens, has one of the shrewdest takes on the British political chess game.

Rick Hertzberg tackles Brooks's Friday column:

Maybe I’m reading this too carefully, but does Brooks really mean to say that, taken together, Obama’s projects are indefensible? Does he really mean to say that it was the Administration, and not the Fox News-talk radio right, that “created the impression” of a “federal onslaught”? Does Brooks think that the Administration’s moderate attempts to reform health insurance, the financial industry, and climate policy in fact constitute an “onslaught”? If he does, shouldn’t he say so? If (as I suspect) he doesn’t, doesn’t he have an even more pressing responsibility to say he doesn’t?

My thoughts here. A reader's follow up here.