A remarkable photo gallery from Der Spiegel and photographer Stefan Koppelkamm of crumbling urban scenes in the former East Germany and their revival after the fall of communism.

Ross Douthat wonders whether Rick Santorum’s presidential campaign might be not “the last glimpse of the Republican past, but as a plausible sketch of the Republican future.” Douthat sees Santorum as what I would call a “Big Government conservative,” that is, a person who identifies as a conservative and supports a larger role for government in both the economy and culture.

Let’s try to put some numbers on Douthat’s speculation. A recent essay by James Stimson and Christopher Ellis provides useful data and analysis for this task. To use the Stimson-Ellis summary, we need to make the reasonable assumption that 20 percent of the nation identifies as “liberal” and 35 percent as “conservative.”

Stimson and Ellis find that about 10 percent of the nation identifies as conservative, affirms cultural conservatism, and rejects free market policies. Another 4 percent identify as “liberal”, support cultural conservatism, and reject free market policies. So the Santorum base, as it were, is about 14 percent of the population. However, this estimate assumes that people who identify as a liberal would vote for Rick Santorum. The actual Santorum base, in other words, is much closer to 10 percent than to 14 percent of the population.

Compare this range to other numbers indicated by Stimson and Ellis. About 13 percent of the nation identify as conservative and support free market policies. A little over 1 percent also identify as liberals and support less government control of the economy. Another 13 percent are consistent liberals in supporting both economic interventions and cultural liberty.

The Santorum base is certainly not a majority among conservatives; it is also not the largest group among those identifiers. Stimson and Ellis find that 29 percent of conservative identifiers support Big Government in the economy and the culture. That means 71 percent of conservatives do not support Santorum’s outlook. That hardly seems to be a foundation for a future GOP.

Perhaps Douthat believes that Santorum’s anti-free market policies will attract enough people in the nation as a whole to convince GOP voters that he (or someone like him) can win a general election. But about 50 percent of those who say they are conservative do not support cultural conservatism. Is it likely that the 45 percent of the nation that does not identify as liberal or conservative will be drawn to a party and candidates espousing cultural conservatism?

No doubt you have read about the lawsuit that Charles and David Koch have filed to give themselves majority control of Cato’s long-dormant shareholder arrangement and therefore control over the Board of Directors, which has heretofore run the Institute for 35 years with no input from the shareholders. Already the Koch forces have managed to put 7 people on the Board.

For now, our friends should know this: We believe this effort is a direct threat to the independence, nonpartisanship, and libertarianism of the Cato Institute. Koch control would destroy 35 years of hard work by our Board, officers, staff, and donors to build the Cato Institute’s brand and reputation. We intend to fight it. And we intend to win and to preserve our independence.

To read more go to SaveCato. And “like” the Facebook page Save the Cato Institute.

There are many links at those sites. But you might be especially interested in Tuesday’s New York Times story. And Steve Chapman’s short item at the Chicago Tribune.

This misguided attempt at corporate control of an independent, nonpartisan think tank is bad for the Cato Institute and bad for the libertarian movement. We hope that everyone will come to see that, soon, before any more damage is done.

Urging Congress to spend more money on infrastucture, Rep. John Sarbanes (Big Government-Maryland) says, “You’ve got to kind of get past this mentality that you can’t spend any money at all.”

Right. Because it’s that kind of attitude that has given us a federal budget of $3.8 trillion, up more than 100 percent in a decade, and spending at permanently higher levels of GDP:

James Q. Wilson, the prominent scholar on political science and crime, has died. His most well-known work was an essay that he co-published with George Kelling in the Atlantic, “Broken Windows” (which is not to be confused with the broken windows fallacy that is so well known in libertarian circles). The gist of that article was that our social order can be pretty fragile. If a broken window is not promptly repaired/​replaced, the other windows of that building will soon be intentionally broken–and if nothing is done about that, the neighborhood might well spiral downward and will soon be regarded as a lousy area. The article is now a classic. In my opinion, it was his best work.

Dr. Wilson wrote on a wide range of subjects, but I am most familiar with his writings in the criminal law field. He was a neoconservative — so it will not surprise anyone that I found his record to be mixed. He skewered the liberal ideas that (1) poverty “causes” crime and (2) that prisons are passé. And he cautioned policymakers bent on more gun control laws, pointing to the growing body of evidence that armed citizens thwart a lot of criminal mayhem.

But then there was his approach to drug policy. When Bill Bennett needed academic support or intellectual guidance, he seemed to turn to James Q. Wilson, who, before the creation of the drug czar’s office, called for the creation of the Drug Enforcement Agency in the Nixon period. Like many of the zealots who pushed for alcohol prohibition, he saw the police effort against drug use as a moral crusade: “[D]rug use is wrong because it is immoral and it is immoral because it enslaves the mind and destroys the soul.” For years and years, he championed the conservative program of more police, more prosecutors, more prisons, stiffer penalties. Despite the escalation, drugs remain readily available. And the gang violence–especially in Mexico–is getting worse. 

Dr. Wilson was also a big proponent of police “stop and frisk” tactics–the idea that cops should stop pedestrians in the city and frisk them for weapons. For white, middle-class Americans, think about having to endure a TSA airport search on your trips to the grocery store or on your commute to work! (For background, go here and here.)

I never met Dr. Wilson in person, but we spoke several times on the phone after he accepted my invitation to prepare an essay for my book, In the Name of Justice (2009). He was a gentleman-scholar who influenced many.

Several bloggers have been kicking around the question of why people so often dislike serving on juries even though it’s educational, a potentially valuable civic contribution, a break from routine, a chance to get reading done, and so forth. Matt Yglesias got the ball rolling at Slate by wondering why others don’t share his happiness at being called and Josh Barro, Stephen Bainbridge, Glenn Reynolds, and many Andrew Sullivan readers have been glad to enlighten him. (Hint: the process is compulsory.)

I wrote about the question some time back at Reason:

When they move from room to room, they go as a group, escorted by men in uniform,” writes Stephen Adler of his subjects. “They are supposed to follow directions, ask no questions, make no demands.” In cases where their captivity is prolonged, some suffer serious financial losses, while others are unable to nurse an ailing spouse or fly to a loved one’s deathbed. “It was the closest I’ve ever been to being in jail,” one woman said.

Such can be the experience of those called to serve on that reputedly all-powerful body, the jury. For many of us, no doubt, the potential excitement of acting a part in a real courtroom drama outweighs any indignation at the compulsory aspect of the adventure. Still, jury duty helps point up one of our legal system’s less endearing features: its penchant for casually inflicting the kind of harms for which it would demand the most stringent punishment were they to be inflicted by anyone else.

Whole thing here.

Two years ago Fordham Institute President Chester Finn called people like me, who saw the move toward national curriculum standards as a huge lurch toward federal control, “paranoid.” Well it looks like he might be catching a little of the paranoia, too. Or, at least, while still calling Common Core adoption “voluntary,” he recognizes that the Obama Administration keeps on proving that the paranoiacs aren’t really all that crazy:

Sixth, and closely related to the blurring of national with federal is the expectation that Uncle Sam won’t be able to keep his hands off the Common Core—which means the whole enterprise will be politicized, corrupted and turned from national/​voluntary into federal/​coercive. This is probably the strongest objection to the Common Core and, alas, it’s probably the most valid, thanks in large measure to our over-zealous Education Secretary and the President he serves.

Let’s face it. Three major actions by the Obama administration have tended to envelop the Common Core in a cozy federal embrace, as have some ill-advised (but probably intentional) remarks by Messrs. Duncan and Obama that imply greater coziness to follow.

There was the fiscal “incentive” in Race to the Top for states to adopt the Common Core as evidence of their seriousness about raising academic standards.

Then there’s today’s “incentive,” built into the NCLB waiver process, for states to adopt the Common Core as exactly the same sort of evidence.

(In both cases, strictly speaking, states could supply other evidence. But there’s a lot of winking going on.)

The third federal entanglement was the Education Department’s grants to two consortia of states to develop new Common Core-aligned assessments, which came with various requirements and strings set by Secretary Duncan’s team.

This trifecta of actual events is problematic in its own right, not because the federal government is evil but because Washington has become so partisan and politicized and because of angst and suspicion that linger from failed efforts during the 1990’s to generate national standards and tests via federal action.

What’s truly energized the Common Core’s enemies, however, has been a series of ex cathedra comments by President Obama and Secretary Duncan. Most recently, the Education Secretary excoriated South Carolina for even contemplating a withdrawal from the Common Core. Previously, the President indicated that state eligibility for Title I dollars, post-ESEA reauthorization, would hinge on adoption of the Common Core. Talking with the governors about NCLB waivers earlier this week, he stated that “if you’re willing to set, higher, more honest standards then we will give you more flexibility to meet those standards.” I don’t know whether he winked. But everybody knew what standards he was talking about.

It will, of course, be ironic as well as unfortunate if the Common Core ends up in the dustbin of history as a result of actions and comments by its supporters. But in March 2012 there can be little doubt that the strongest weapons in the arsenal of its enemies are those that they have supplied.

When what someone predicted actually occurs, it’s a lot harder to assume him delusional. It’s more accurate to call him “right.” And on national standards, even supporters are starting realize that Common Core opponents have been right all along.