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 -
Some of the latest Biden-camp excuses coming up seem plainly and on their face delusional. I'm paying close attention to who is saying what, using what words, to see their degree of participation in this farce. The obvious logical implications of these claims are, well, obvious.
Exhibit 0: Biden himself talked about his debate the next day. He said:
Are we supposed to be impressed about telling right from wrong? That he knows how to do the job he's been in for four years? These are not reasons to be elected President again, they are basic pre-requisites. For that matter, "speaking smoothly" and "walking" might actually be core requirements as well.
Exhibit 1: He traveled too much before the debate. He did go on some global travel, but then spent 11 days at Camp David afterward preparing and recovering. But who on earth takes a whole week and a half to recover and is still at the point where he, as he himself said at a recent fundraiser, almost fell asleep on stage? Even on its face, that's worrying. This is not an excuse, it is a condemnation.
Exhibit 2: Biden struggles after 4 p.m.. Staffers say that he really does everything between 10 and 4. Six useful hours is, on its very face, a very worryingly short amount of time to not "make verbal mistakes and become tired". The debate was at 9pm local time. But the job of President isn't really seen as a part-time gig! If I said to you, "yeah my grandpa has six good hours, but after that he gets tired and makes a lot of mistakes" I wouldn't go "great, let's put him in charge of the country for four years and hope that that window of time doesn't shrink too much". This is not an excuse, it is a condemnation.
Exhibit 3: It was "preparation overload". Okay, fine, some candidates self-destruct for no reason on the debate stage, or lean too hard on canned phrases (Marco Rubio I'm looking at you). But usually this is limited to a few occurrences. Biden was consistently off all night and responded to comments Trump was expected to make, but did not yet make, on at least four separate occasions. If a candidate takes 11 days to prepare for one 90 minute stretch and still blows it, surely that says something about the candidate? That's like saying "I did poorly on the test because I studied too much". Like, it happens, but not to this extent. This is not an excuse, it is a condemnation.
Exhibit 4: It's hard to debate when the other person lies a lot, says Nancy Pelosi and others (though, credit due, just today she said whether it was a condition or episode is a fair and legitimate question). But a candidate lying in the debate should make your job easier, not harder, because even if the moderators don't fact-check, what's to stop you from doing so? Biden did at least once or twice, or tried to, so clearly it can work. Sure, you don't have notes per the rules, but surely if there are 20 false statements (per NYT's count) you can pick out at least a few with your week+ of prep. On its face, this is not a good excuse.
Exhibit 5: A columnist claiming replacing him would be undemocratic. Yes, he got votes in the primaries. However everyone knows that the party endorsed and supported him before other challengers even got going, which makes this argument eerily similar to the obvious horseradish of saying Iran is democratic because people vote (ignoring how candidates are selected). Furthermore, there's evidence the Biden team has withheld information and exposure to Biden on purpose, and as at least one media outlet likes to remind us, "democracy dies in darkness".
Sidenote, related: Here for example, you get stories about the insularity of his team recently. Corporate wants you to find the different between this picture:
...and this picture:
Pam: They're the same picture.
Okay, well to be fair, one is an intelligence briefing (Trump) about core national security issues and the other (Biden) seems to be more domestic political briefings (I think, from context), so the level of severity is actually quite different but... I'm still struck by the similarity.
tl;dr: We all know a debate is not the same thing as actual governing. But just like how excuses tell you hints about the character of the individual, I think the excuses given by the people around Biden give you hints about Biden, too. Good on the press for calling them like they are: excuses.
It would be undemocratic to replace Biden with another candidate. I think it's fine to admit that, I think almost everybody would prefer the "undemocratic" candidate to the "democratic" candidate in middle-stage senility. And, probably, if you were to run the primary today all over again, the voters would pick someone else. The problem is that the apparatchiks might not pick that same someone else.
If anything, this would look like a return to the older way of selecting candidates for the major parties. The primary process used to rely much heavier on backroom deals gated by rounds of voting to select a candidate, with the regular voting public mostly shut out. After the perceived meddling in the 2016 Dem primary (Sanders and Clinton), I wonder how this would play out among the democratic party electorate.
More options
Context Copy link
Weren’t Biden’s competitors in the primary literally RFK and Oprah’s spiritual advisor? I continue to maintain that the chances of Biden being replaced going even worse for democrats are higher than it salvaging the election.
It wasn't really a real primary since Biden was the incumbent. After Carter was primaried in 1980 (and Ford primaried in 1976) the lesson strategists internalized was that primarying the incumbent leads to a loss in the general. Since then Democrats have shut out primary challengers (more successfully than Republicans have). RFK and Marianne Williamsone were the only two outsiders of any note willing to break this consensus.
However, I think Democratic voters also bear some blame here. 15 million of them turned out for Biden in the primary. They were excited to vote for him! I don't know if they felt like they were closing ranks around Biden, endorsing his performance, or trying to mobilize suplort against Trump. But they endorsed this! Look at Obama's re-nomination versus Biden's: in 2012, Obama got about half as many votes as he did in the contested 2008 primary. Whereas Biden's 2024 primary numbers are very close to his 2020 results. It's not just the party machinery that closed ranks around Biden: voters did too.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I think to some extent it mostly makes sense to confine talk about how "democratic" things are to the actual election and related mechanics. I think the actual word we should be talking about is "fair". Because that's what we're really talking about, right? As long as states are democratically setting candidate criteria, and ballots get printed, the results get tallied, judges step in when appropriate, the whole nine yards, the actual lower-D democratic process is still okay and can continue functioning in its way, which is built on a foundation of long-term checks and balances. It can remain perpetually democratic if the machine gets enough oil. I realize this mechanics approach is a narrower definition than many people use it, but I think it is more precise and accurate.
The idea behind whether to replace Biden or not is one of fairness, not democracy writ large. The system and norms upholding actual democracy in the US are not at stake, in the sense that the rules nationally and by state are consistent and created by representatives, even if not perfectly fair. What we're really getting at is it feels bad to have someone "the people" don't want. We're tempted to say that the people's will is the same thing as democracy, but it really isn't. Democracy is the core idea that people determine the shape of their own government and have some sort of regular input on how it's going, and that the system resists hostile takeover strong enough to change those core facts.
Maybe I'm being too pedantic and even I am not able to keep this standard straight, but it still feels more correct. At least in terms of an attempt to set a reasonable standard as opposed to simply calling out hypocrisy. The one weakness of this argument is some might say that political parties have become a de facto part of the system itself now, and thus should be included in worries about democracy, but I don't know if I'm willing to go that far.
So I think it's fine to say that replacing Biden might feel unfair, but maybe it's best to say that the most fair thing moving forward is to make the best of a bad situation.
How we select candidates in America is through a democratic process. Lying about the state of the presidents heath only to switch him out when it is obvious he will lose is a subversion of democracy.
Re-reading my comment I think it came across as if I'm trying to split hairs a little too much. If Biden were to get swapped out I think people would have a right to be mad, but if the actual winner of the whole election got switched out, people would have a right to be maximum furious. The latter case is the sort of existential democratic crisis that is worth getting existential mad about. The current what to do about Biden crisis is not existential and thus the anger should be some degree lower than maximum.
Perhaps the better question would be, let me set up this scenario, which would be "more fair" or "more democratic"?
Biden dropping out at some point during his presidency, and Kamala taking over. No one voted for Kamala in the primaries, well, to be more specific many voted against her. Biden chose her as an individual with zero direct democratic input after winning the primary. Biden is the source of democratic legitimacy here.
Biden dropping out now, and a new candidate taking over at the convention. No one would be voting directly for the candidate like a primary, which is a weaker link of democratic authority, but on the other hand the delegates were chosen more or less democratically from the party constituents and are the source of democratic legitimacy here.
Both scenarios clearly have a break in the direct line of "democracy", defined more lazily here as just "people should have voted for the person who ends up in charge", which is why I say the word is unclear and "fair" is better -- and that it's hard to directly compare which is better without using more accurate words. It's also why a some political scientist types get exacerbated when we call our system of government a democracy, because it isn't. The whole "representative" idea comes into play at some point, and we just need to reasonable decide where to make the tradeoff of general direct democracy vs. vesting that authority indirectly in another.
Put another way, who has the better claim to representing Democrats? Biden as an individual, or the delegates in aggregate? So it might seem like I'm splitting hairs, but actually it's a pretty significant question. Honestly, I think given the circumstances, the delegates actually have a stronger case. The first bullet point is undermined by the self-evident behind the scenes work of the party apparatus itself to stifle other would-be competitors, several states decided they wouldn't even bother with primaries before any serious challenge even emerged. In other words, we can't escape the shadow the DNC and related party machinery casts over the whole thing. I think the second bullet point is "more fair".
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