Adam Bonica

when you're to the right of jim rogan

Why Underachievers Dominate Secret Police Organizations: Evidence from Autocratic Argentina Adam Scharpf Christian Gläßel Abstract: Autocrats depend on a capable secret police. Anecdotal evidence, however, often characterizes agents as surprisingly mediocre in skill and intellect. To explain this puzzle, this article focuses on the career incentives underachieving individuals face in the regular security apparatus. Low-performing officials in hierarchical organizations have little chance of being promoted or filling lucrative positions. To salvage their careers, these officials are willing to undertake burdensome secret police work. Using data on all 4,287 officers who served in autocratic Argentina (1975-83), we study biographic differences between secret police agents and the entire recruitment pool. We find that low-achieving officers were stuck within the regime hierarchy, threatened with discharge, and thus more likely to join the secret police for future benefits. The study demonstrates how state bureaucracies breed mundane career concerns that produce willing enforcers and cement violent regimes. This has implications for the understanding of autocratic consolidation and democratic breakdown.

Perennial reminder of this excellent paper about how secret police forces are swamped with underachievers

“We don’t want clever people. We want mediocrities.”

(Ungated summary here ajps.org/2019/10/08/w...)

In our current turbulent situation, Perkins is a brilliant lighthouse to lead us away from the rocks and sandbars.

She is one of very few historic persons for who my respect grows with everything new I learn about her.

The thought of her helps keep my hope for the future alive.

I can’t believe that memo. Searchlight Institute is way behind the times. Abolish ICE is the most popular position now. Their attempt to compare it to defund the police, which never even reached 30% support, is misleading and insane

I'm currently reading Kristin Downey's excellent The Woman Behind the New Deal. At the head of the Labor Dept (where immigration was housed) Perkins was a strong voice for Jewish refugees, creatively navigating and subverting the limits imposed by a strongly anti-refugee Congress and State Dept ...

frances perkins

frances perkins

In 1939, when Sec. of Labor Frances Perkins pushed back on pressure to ideologically deport Australian-born labor leader Harry Bridges, she faced impeachment by Congress.

Perkins insisted on upholding the rule of law & ensuring it was appropriately applied to Bridges.🗃️

Ch. 4 in "Threat of Dissent"

11/ For an excellent history of Perkins immigration reforms, see "Labor Secretary Frances Perkins Reorganizes Her Department's Immigration Enforcement Functions, 1933–1940: 'Going against the Grain'" by Neil Hernandez:

muse.jhu.edu/article/8759...

10/ Abolishing ICE is much harder today than Section 24 was then. ICE is statutory and an entrenched agency. But Perkins reminds us they are policy choices. They’ve been built, dismantled, and rebuilt before. Immigration enforcement is policy. And policy can be changed.

9/ The police model eventually returned. In 1940, FDR moved the INS to the DOJ citing national security reasons as WW2 raged. In 2002, the INS was dissolved entirely to create CBP and ICE, placing immigration enforcement under DHS.

8/ Unsurprising Perkins faced political backlash. In 1939, anti-immigrant conservatives unsuccessfully tried to impeach Perkins, accusing her of failing to enforce deportation laws.

7/ While the State Department erected “paper walls” to block Jewish refugees, Perkins used her authority to issue Rule 25(A) permits which helped thousands of German Jews escape Nazi Germany.

6/ Crucially, she didn’t act in a vacuum. Perkins was empowered by a surging labor movement. That labor power gave her the political capital to humanize the immigration process.

A good example of a truism I tell my students: Heroes don’t create movements. Movements create heroes.

5/ She refused to treat immigrants as economic scapegoats. She rejected the idea that deportation was a valid tool for unemployment relief, insisting on due process over police terror.

4/ She then merged immigration bureaus into the INS, an agency focused on processing adjudication, not raids. Her goal, she said, was to proceed “with scrupulous fairness.” Warrantless arrests ended and for a time immigration was treated as a social/administrative issue rather than law enforcement.

3/ Perkins couldn’t simply fire the Section 24 officers due to civil service protections. So she found a bureaucratic loophole: She let their funding appropriation lapse. Once the money was gone, she terminated the squad due to insufficient funds.

2/ In 1933, Perkins found a rogue unit in her Dept known as the “Section 24” squad. The squad was known for aggressive, extra-legal tactics, including illegal detainment and intimidation. Perkins was horrified, calling the squad “disorderly; uncontrollable; unlawful.”

President Roosevelt signing the Social Security Act into law on August 14, 1935, with Perkins among those witnessing the signing (third from right) https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/28/Signing_Of_The_Social_Security_Act.jpg

1/ I recently wrote about Frances Perkins—FDR’s Labor Secretary and first woman cabinet member. She is best known as the architect of the New Deal but she had a lesser-known achievement:

She dismantled her era’s version of ICE.🧵

The Wall Looks Permanent Until It Falls On the optimism of preparation in a time of democratic decay.

this is superb data4democracy.substack.com/p/the-wall-l...

This is something acutely aware of as a think tank guy. We aren't generally cooking up new stuff in the lab (except rube-goldberg devices to get around our 1000 veto points). We already know what we need to do and have the resources to do. These really aren't policy problems

The Wall Looks Permanent Until It Falls On the optimism of preparation in a time of democratic decay.

"The wall looks permanent until the day it comes down."

data4democracy.substack.com/p/the-wall-l...

Several people I know have used the word "beautiful" for this piece, and that's exactly right. A beautifully phrased essay on the bind we're in— until we aren't.

Recommended, in an extreme way.

"Hats off"

The Wall Looks Permanent Until It Falls On the optimism of preparation in a time of democratic decay.

Here’s the full piece on why I’m optimistic, even in dark times:

open.substack.com/pub/data4dem...

This looks like an indictment. It is. But I see it as a reason for optimism.

We don’t need to be exceptional to transform Americans' lives. We need to become average. The solutions exist. We see them working. We have to choose them. And that means fixing our democracy so that it delivers.

Screenshot of a data visualization section titled “Institutions & Justice,” showing how outcomes would change if the United States matched the OECD average. Eight cards compare U.S. figures to peer democracies. They show: 51 million more Americans participating in elections (U.S. voting-age participation about 51% vs OECD 70%); $14.9 billion less spent per election cycle, with U.S. elections costing far more per vote than peers; public trust in government increasing by 15 percentage points; 60 more women serving in Congress, making it more representative of the population; the average age of elected leaders falling by 12 years (U.S. average about 59 vs OECD 47); 1.4 million fewer Americans behind bars; $300 billion less in annual litigation costs; and per capita carbon emissions reduced by 47%, nearly cut in half. Each card lists the U.S. value alongside the OECD average.

Institutions and justice: 51 million more Americans voting. Elections would cost $14.9 billion less per cycle. Our elected leaders would be 12 years younger. 60 more women in Congress. 1.4 million fewer Americans would be behind bars. Per capita carbon emissions would be cut nearly in half.

Violence: 35,000 fewer gun deaths per year. School shootings virtually eliminated. 25,000 fewer traffic fatalities. 1,000 fewer deaths from police violence.

Screenshot of a data visualization section titled “Survival & Safety,” showing how outcomes would change if the United States matched the OECD average. Eight cards compare U.S. figures to peer democracies. They indicate: life expectancy at birth would increase by 4.1 years (U.S. 78.4 vs OECD 82.5); about 10,000 fewer infant deaths per year (roughly a 45% reduction); maternal deaths in childbirth would fall by 76%; opioid overdose deaths would drop by about 85,000 per year; gun deaths would fall by roughly 35,000 annually (an 81% reduction); school shooting incidents would decline by 99%, effectively disappearing compared to peers; traffic fatalities would decrease by about 25,000 per year; and deaths from police use of force would drop by about 1,000 annually. Each card shows the U.S. rate alongside the OECD average.

Survival and safety: Americans would live 4 years longer. 10,000 fewer babies would die each year from reduced infant mortality rates. Maternal deaths would drop by three-quarters. 85,000 fewer people would die from opioid overdoses.

Poverty: 5 million fewer children would live in poverty. 15 million fewer workers would be trapped in poverty-wage jobs. 180,000 fewer people would be sleeping on the streets.

Screenshot of a data visualization section titled “Family & Livelihood,” showing what would change if the United States matched the OECD average. Eight cards compare U.S. outcomes to OECD norms. They show: +25 weeks of guaranteed paid parental leave (U.S. 0 vs OECD ~25); +27 days of guaranteed paid time off (U.S. 0 vs OECD 27); 231 fewer annual hours worked per worker (U.S. 1811 vs OECD 1580); childcare costs 60% lower as a share of wages (U.S. 32% vs OECD 13%); 5 million fewer children living in poverty; 15 million fewer workers in poverty-wage jobs; 180,000 fewer unsheltered homeless people; and 500,000 fewer medical bankruptcies per year (common in the U.S., effectively zero in peer countries). Each card lists the U.S. figure alongside the OECD average.

Family and work: Parents would get 25 weeks of paid parental leave. Workers would get 27 days of guaranteed paid time off per year. We'd work 231 fewer hours per year—nearly six fewer weeks. Net childcare costs would fall by 60%.

Healthcare: 26 million more Americans would have health coverage. We'd save $2.1 trillion annually on healthcare ($16K per household). Prescription drugs would cost $691 less per person. Medical bankruptcy—a term that puzzles citizens of other wealthy nations—would essentially disappear.

Economy and inequality: Each household would gain $19,000 per year from a fairer income distribution and $96,000 overall from a fairer wealth distribution. 50 million more workers would have union coverage. Intergenerational economic mobility--the core of the American Dream--would be doubled.