Mia Costa and Miguel M. Pereira argue in a new pre-print that research suggests that politicians with professional experience are seen as more credible in their relevant areas of expertise, and thus better positioned to persuade voters. They explore this argument in three Western democracies: Germany, the United States, and Sweden. “Parties that foster occupational diversity,” they write, are therefore “better equipped to build support for their policy agendas.”

Why? “Parties and legislators often pursue unpopular policies,” they write. And doing so comes with electoral risks. But voters can be persuaded if parties add actual occupational experts to their rank and file.

This is also true across areas. Costa and Pereira considered the case of education in Germany, but that of healthcare in the United States, where “7.5% of US respondents
supported a proposal to restrict telehealth services put forward by an average legislator (without reference to their professional background), 33.8% did so when told the proposal came from a legislator who also works as a general physician.”

The authors stress that their research builds on other studies suggesting that “diversity within legislatures influence policy outcomes. For instance, women legislators prioritize different issues than their male counterparts, and redistribute resources according to these priorities.”

This is true with social background, too. But “the same effects can be observed even absent differences in legislators’ preferences or priorities. For example, there is evidence that legislators’ social and individual backgrounds shape their perceptions of the electorate, which can lead them to prioritize different policies even if they are not intentionally trying to represent a particular subconstituency.” And so the authors proposed their “alternative mechanism,” which is their theory of occupational diversity and efficiency.

The authors also had to consider the strength of argument: if too much detail in an argument could turn voters off, or if argument built up through, for example, committee experience could substitute for occupational expertise.

The authors designed a study in which subjects were presented with a vignette and then “responded to three outcome questions designed to measure their perceptions of the legislator’s knowledge, their support for the policy proposal, and their opinion of the legislator’s approach to political compromise.” They did this considering the cases of  grade retention in Germany and telehealth in both the United States and Sweden.

They found that their respondents “perceived legislators who have a background in education or healthcare as better informed about the issues of grade retention in Germany and telemedicine in the United States. Voters were also more likely to support broadly unpopular policies if a legislator with relevant professional experience proposed them compared to one without such experience.  Hence, occupational cues persuaded voters to support a policy that they would otherwise be more likely to oppose.”

The authors concede three unanswered questions: whether this extends beyond education and healthcare; the extent to which partisanship moderates occupational cues; and the extent to which this is driven by “aversion to career politicians” — as opposed to respect for occupational expertise.rds outlining the positions of all three institutions during the RRF negotiations” as well as “the EP press releases and the plenary debates that focused specifically on the RRF. This approach allowed me to consider essential issues, potential concessions and gains that were identified in the preliminary stage.”

Maha Hilal wrote about Israel, the United States, and the war on terror, putting this moment into historical context. Hilal looked specifically at Israeli invocations of 9/11, writing, “The ability to reproduce that narrative endlessly, while transforming 9/11 into a date that transcended time itself, served as a powerful lesson to Israel in how to communicate suffering and an omnipresent existential threat that could be weaponized to legitimize future violent interventions.” Hilal argued that, by using the memory of 9/11 as understood by most Americans, Israel could frame “the Hamas attacks on Oct. 7 similarly as a symbol of ultimate suffering and existential threat.”

Heather Ashby argued that “the current and potential uses of AI require an approach that considers both existential and near-term risks from the technology.” To act as though we only can or should address one or the other is, per Ashby, a “false dichotomy.” Both the existential and near term risks, after all, have “profound global implications. The world, Ashby believes, needs to develop approaches for dealing with both in tandem, and not try to split limited resources. “How the debate about AI existential and near-risks evolves,” Ashby warned, “will significantly contribute to whether AI furthers global inequality and technological access or helps reduce that divide.”

Daniel Ofman offered a dispatch on NATO launching military exercises, the largest since the Cold War. “This exercise is about simulating war. It’s meant as preparation in case Russia attacks a NATO ally — something that's being discussed across Europe,” Ofman explained. Ofman also said that Russia has given NATO reason to worry, and that Jānis Sārts, the director of the NATO Strategic Communications Centre of Excellence in Riga, Latvia, said to look at Russian actions, not words, as their words often present Russia as a victim of western aggression. Per Sārts, “If you look at the real actions of Russia, they basically emptied their forces next to the NATO borders, and if they empty their borders in a time when they’re really fighting a very hard war with Ukraine, that means they know NATO is not going to attack Russia, they are feeling safe about it.”

It’s a small world after all.

It’s not easy being seen.

The more things change.

Achtung, baby.

For that special someone.

We’ve been better, Elmo.