This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Of the major Democratic candidates waiting in the wings, it seems clear that Newsom is the only viable candidate. And if you’re Newsom, why would you possibly replace Biden now?
This is likely the only shot at President the candidate that (theoretically) replaces Biden has. If Trump wins, the loss against such a villain will serve as the ultimate embarrassment and humiliation for the Dem nominee. Even if they argue that it was Biden’s fault, the base is unlikely to buy it and the attack that the candidate “let Trump win” will be difficult to shake off. This is particularly relevant as the white man quotient in the Dem party continues to decline, raising ever more questions about why the party for which only a (shrinking) minority of white men vote and which is predominantly PoC and female should again elect a white male candidate, especially a loser, over a woman and/or minority who doesn’t have the black mark of “letting trump win” on her resume.
The polls are not favorable to the Democratic Party for now. Even though the economy is arguably fine, people don’t believe it’s fine, housing costs are increasingly unaffordable for many people etc. Newsom would find himself running a campaign built around defending the unpopular record of a mediocre president, including possibly an ongoing war between Israel and Hezbollah depending on how that pans out by November. If Newsom runs against a Republican President or a Republican candidate after a GOP presidency, he can sell a purely optimistic vision without having to defend Biden’s record (he might have to defend his record in California, but most voters won’t care).
Trump still hasn’t built Trumpism into an actual movement that extends far beyond the personality cult when it comes to generating political figures who can take over his legacy. There are people who believe strongly in MAGA, certainly, but there are no incredible GOP candidates waiting for 2028. The non-Trump primary candidates this year were poor. Carlson probably won’t want to run and in any case still has a certain East Coast boarding school effete intellectual vibe to him, even with the log cabin studio. DeSantis is uncharismatic and greasy. There are options, but none of them seem likely to be close to as popular as Trump - certainly they are unlikely to have his pre-existing celebrity, wealth and talent for self-promotion. It wouldn’t even surprise me to see a Rubio return wrapped in a MAGA package, and that would be pretty dire. Gavin is stupid, but with enough training he would be fine against most likely GOP options in 2028.
The public’s desire for continuity often expires at the 8 year mark (if it does not do so earlier). A Democratic nominee who pulls off an upset and wins this year is going to be campaigning on 12 years of blue government in 2028, a proposal that hasn’t won in 70 years. The glory of a two-term presidency is much more easily attainable after the opposition is in power.
Amusingly, the only scenario in which Newsom would be smart to take over Biden’s candidacy would be if he genuinely believed that Biden was going to win. In that case, the 2028 race would be much harder for a Democratic candidate; Kamala would likely be the default pick for it’s her turn reasons and because Trump would have been safely defeated and probably too old and beleaguered to run again (allowing ideology to take precedence over raw candidate strength) and 16 straight years of Democratic control of the presidency seems very unlikely. If Biden wins, Newsom’s next good opportunity might be 2032 or even 2036, in which case he’d be 77 upon leaving office after 2 terms, and that seems like a slog.
And imprisoned. I think, if Trump loses, there's a very high chance he's found guilty in the Smith case and he goes to prison. That hanging over his head is probably a big reason he's so willing to listen to campaign advisors on so many things.
Worth noting that personally, I think he should be imprisoned, and for about one year, because he literally did do exactly what they are saying he did, with full knowledge that it was bad. Would be, I think, a great inspiration for holding people in power accountable for their actions.
As a practical matter, I probably would have preferred letting sleeping dogs lie, but once you start a case like that you might as well finish it? Does raise the possibility that it might have been smarter for Biden to pardon Trump for that case specifically. Actually, now that I think about it, that would have been a genius political move. And probably healthy for the country.
As someone who is on the record as being relatively pro Trump, I could get behind this as long as it was the cherry on top of a series of good-faith prosecutions of political officials who mishandled classified documents in order of severity... which means that Trump would be coming well after HRC, Biden and a few other people. You'd also have to get the FBI agents who fucked around with the classified documents in question to boot. But absent that actual prosecution of people who did far worse than Trump (there was SAP material on the Clinton email server!), you're not going to get the red tribe to agree to this.
That's a totally fair comment. We'd definitely need to have a conversation about being more consistent about sentencing, too -- I just noticed that Patraeus did something sort of similar to Trump and ended up in a guilty plea deal with 2 years probation and a fine, though it seems people were upset it wasn't more harsh, and it definitely seems like it should have been. Of course I dunno if Trump would accept a plea deal like that.
I don't think Biden's mishandling rises to Trump's level because though there certainly was some lack of care, it didn't seem to be super deliberate and there didn't seem to be the same kind of lying going on. Clinton on the other hand... man, I really think she should have had some major consequences. There were some lies, though I can't recall if any of them were to the feds or just the public, but certainly there was a lack of care strong enough to reach the kind of "criminal negligence" type of standard. Like, in practical terms, we have to be honest that a lot of high level people are positively swimming in classified documents, and documents in general, and things unfortunately do get lost from time to time. But there's certainly some line where people are deliberately and knowing sharing stuff, which is the worst (and even more if they lie about it to the feds), and some lower level where it's just egotistical but also dangerous retention, and then accidents below that. That first category I think there really needs to be some sort of mandatory action standard. Also, it would be very entertaining to play the "mandatory minimums" game that's put so many poor people in jail, and apply that to the powerful. Could be popular as well as fair!
It's good to see someone more or less on the other side willing to admit it. The problem remains that there were not, in fact, major consequences, that the way she escaped those consequences drastically reduced trust in the system as a whole, and that similar failures have multiplied over the last few decades. At this point, it's hard to see why we shouldn't simply continue to heighten the contradictions.
One of the major reasons I've supported Trump, from the start, is that I hate how establishment politicians are above the law. I am entirely willing to see Trump mulched by the justice system, but I see no reason why I or any other Red Triber should support this process in any way. Let the Establishment fight uphill for the rule of law they have consistently undermined and evaded. If they fail, then at least my champions will enjoy the benefits they have heretofore kept for themselves. If they succeed, then we should ensure they do so at the cost of significant investment, making it that much harder for them to evade these new precedents in the future.
I am willing to accept Trump going free. I am happy to accept Trump and most of the rest of Washington going to jail. I see no reason to accept Trump going to jail alone.
That's for sure some helpful perspective!
I really can't bring myself to join either party still. On the Democratic side, it really feels like they don't actually want my vote. As a small example, they've effectively purged all pro-life people from the party, and seem to have lost the tolerance for middle-grounders. Even though in my personal morals, I'm pro-life with only rape/murder/incest exceptions, as a matter of policy I like the three-trimester approach just fine due to the difficulty of finding universal moral agreement and practical considerations. But man, the way I've been treated like scum for saying such... or the condescension of some presumably well-meaning 'wokists', or the disdain for religion, or the holier-than-thou preaching, it's a lot.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link