[commanda]

"Power-law solutions have little appeal to the right, because they involve special treatment for people who do not deserve special treatment; and they have little appeal to the left, because their emphasis on efficiency over fairness suggests the cold number-crunching of Chicago-school cost-benefit analysis."

This is exactly why programs like these won't take off. It's hard to present this kind of complex analysis of the behavior of a system to the tax payers for exactly this reason. The average person probably votes their conscience, not what makes the most sense from scientific studies, which are generally not widely published anyway. There's no simple moral argument to be made for giving homeless people free apartments that they don't deserve, and most voters won't think through a proof that has more than like two steps.

[hga]

"the right, because they involve special treatment for people who do not deserve special treatment"

What amazing garbage. Well over half the homeless are such because they belong in a mental institution, the closing of which was a major successful crusade of the left through the '70s or so (many libertarians and some members of the right like Jerry Pournelle joined them in this and the more honest of them like Jerry admit the mistake). "The right" was entirely happy with "special treatment" for these people since that is the only humane way to accommodate them. (You have, I assume, spent a little time around a schizophrenic person? Their ability to think is PROFOUNDLY broken.)

Antipsychotics were and are amazing wonder drugs: my Mom did her nursing residency in the '50s and part of that was working in a psych ward. Later she took a job at that same hospital and was amazed to see one of the previously hopeless cases productively working there as a janitor or the like.

The problem is that antipsychotics are also seriously nasty drugs (even more so when the above crusade happened, before safe atypical antipsychotics were on the market (the first was so dangerous that you couldn't get the next month's prescription filled for your patient without sending in a blood sample)) and "compliance", getting people to take their meds, is for all too many an impossible challenge outside of an institutional setting. Note also that the "drugs and alcoholism" problems are all too often attempts to self-medicate.

Anyway, we ("the right") believe these people deserve "special treatment" (the causes are mostly genetic after all) but the left has outlawed the only one that works. Not much we can do now but to pick up their bodies off the street when it's all over as harscoat relates.

[drenei]

You gloss over the treatment of patients at the "mental institutions". It was truly horrendous and deinstitutionalization arose out of that. I don't think anyone would argue that we've arrived at a solution.

Also, "the right" today is much changed from the 70s.

[gyardley]

I'd argue that institutionalization was simply reintroduced in many cities through 'quality of life' policing. For example, there's a reason why Manhattan in 2010 is pleasant and safe - it's because Giuliani's policies turned Rikers Island into the de facto mental institution for New York City.

Heather McDonald's 'The Jail Inferno' has some information on this, although it's not the primary focus of the article:

http://www.city-journal.org/2009/19_3_jails.html

I suspect that Rikers Island is not much better for the mentally-ill than the mental institutions of the 70s, although I haven't researched it and may be wrong. I strongly suspect that one way or another, the mentally ill will remain institutionalized in New York. The improvement in quality of life is so stark, not even the most liberal New Yorker will support relaxation of law enforcement.

[hga]

"truly horrendous" was worse than dumping them out on the streets?

I'd say we've "arrived at a solution" since any attempt to limit the "personal autonomy" of the severely mentally ill gets absolutely nowhere, unless of course they end up in jail as they all to often do.

"much changed from the 70s"???

Could you be more specific? Note that I came of age in the '70s so I lived through that and subsequent periods in the evolution of "the right".

Here's one good essay to look at WRT to a thesis it touches upon WRT to three generations of activists on the right (e.g. Buckley/Rush/Drudge): http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/07/nobody_can_fire_andre...

[barrkel]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosenhan_experiment for one.

[hga]

I repeat with emphasis: was the proper solution to dump all the patients in institutions out on the street?

That "solution" does not automatically follow from the study you cited.

[gyardley]

Power-law solutions have little appeal to the right, because they involve special treatment for people who do not deserve special treatment; and they have little appeal to the left, because their emphasis on efficiency over fairness suggests the cold number-crunching of Chicago-school cost-benefit analysis.

What a bizarre thing for Gladwell to write. He's inexplicably generalized from one particular power-law solution, giving free apartments to the chronically homeless, to state that all power-law solutions are politically unpalatable.

In the case of the tiny minority of excessively violent LAPD officers - a simple power-law solution would just be to assign them to useful administrative jobs. I can't really see how that particular power-law solution would aggravate the right or the left.

[yummyfajitas]

That solution would aggravate people who view the police as being part of their "tribe". Assigning some police officers to admin work lowers their status, and in effect the status of your entire tribe. This would aggravate authoritarians on both the right (e.g. Gonzales) and left (e.g. Biden).

This is also the objection to giving free stuff to the homeless - it elevates the status of another tribe (do-gooders/bleeding hearts, the people handing out the free stuff) at the expense of your tribe (hard working/god fearing).

You could almost certainly get conservatives behind such a plan and get liberals to oppose it, if you did it in a way that elevated the status of a right-leaning tribe (e.g., boot camp/military living for the homeless).

[DaniFong]

Malcolm Gladwell isn't alone in suggesting that the solutions to power-law type problems, which usually require focussing on small parts of the problem rather than making sweeping changes, are unpalatable to government. Jane Jacobs, in the Economy of Cities, suggests the same thing. However, she suggests it's due to the desire of government people to want to cause change rapidly: sweeping changes provide this promise in a way that spot changes might not.