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 -
(Hoo boy, here I go!)
Biden's debate and technocrats' Mandate of Heaven
The Democratic Party is in a pickle after last Thursday's debate: their presumptive nominee's performance appeared to confirm his opponents' claims that his age was harming his ability to carry out his duties - but it is almost too late to replace him on the ticket.
Doing so after primary season and so close to the election would be tumultuous. His Vice President is - so the conventional wisdom has gone - considered unpopular enough that switching over to her would be just to jump to another losing proposition. Anybody else would have a very short window to establish their legitimacy as successor - it would probably be pretty chaotic.
Some think that wouldn't be that bad, such as Eric Levitz in this Vox article:
https://www.vox.com/politics/358461/replace-joe-biden-drop-out-kamala-harris
As presented, that hypothetical sounds okay to me, but I think there's a major problem that its use reveals. Is he claiming the parties are symmetric? I don't think that's how the Democrats want people to see things:
Right now, the Democrats (and pretty much the Western center-ish left overall) present their claim to rule as being deserved because they're the best at it. They are certainly not just photonegative Trump. No, they are the party of experts, the adults in the room, the best-of-the-best, the credentialed, the institutions. You can count on the left to do things right, unlike their manchildren opponents. They can be counted upon to not blunder when it matters.
But that means they have more to lose from obvious mistakes. Experts aren't supposed to make mistakes. Technocrats aren't supposed to look chaotic.
If Trump were in Biden's position, but otherwise himself, well - the chaos of replacing him would probably (though never say never) not be much greater than the chaos of sticking with him (supposing for this hypothetical that Trump has only Biden's kind of personal support base - not so in our reality!) When the dust settles, any replacement would be hard-pressed to be more of a loose cannon (though again, never say never!) Chaos is kind of the baseline there, but since I don't think it's overall a selling point, having to pick some emergency successor may turn out to be a positive in the long run, in that Vox hypothetical.
But the adults in the room are supposed to have steered us clear of emergencies. Ending up in this situation at all is a pretty fracturing blow to the desired perception of the Democratic Party as the systematically competent option. For how could they have let this happen?
Now, with enough narrative control, this perception probably could have been maintained. If the desire was to keep Biden, perhaps publicize claims made by Experts that Biden's debate performance - despite what laymen might think - showed that he was actually in excellent health, while Trump's showed that he very much was not, and anyone who questions this is some kind of undesirable. If the desire was to replace him, perhaps click one's tongue and say oh well, that one man had his chance, but now it's time to effortlessly switch to the Plan B that everyone always knew was waiting in the wings and is totally normal, laudable, and precedented, and anyone who questions this is some other kind of undesirable.
Abject panic from the ruling class (as shown by the pre-Elon Bluecheck class this past weekend) is the last thing that a technocracy should show if it means to preserve its mandate to rule.
This may yet be turned around. Maybe (surprisingly soon) all decent human beings will know that concerns about Biden's age or discussion of the June debate are to be replied to with "ugh, why are you so obsessed?" or similar, and raw social force will be enough to get people to act like they forgot this crack in the mask. Or maybe not. But if not, then this isn't just one bad debate, or even one bad candidate: the Expert Class must then face the question of just how expert they are, and if they're not: what are they?
I've been listening to Pod Save America and Ezra Klein in the same spirit in which I listen to Blogging the Boys after a devastating Cowboys playoff loss: schadenfreude watching arrogant people I hate fail. I also read the NYT sundayopninion section and some other reactions.
What strikes me about where the libs are at right now:
-- They have taken zero responsibility for their role in getting us here. As our perhaps soon-to-be-president reminds us: you didn't just fall out of a coconut tree. And neither did president Biden. Biden's candidacy was the result of a concerted ratfucking campaign against Sanders in 2020, as Bernie seemed bound to win the nomination the centrist Dems all agreed to drop out and endorse Biden to keep Bernie out. This despite the seemingly obvious fact that Biden was going to be 80 when he ran for a second term, which many people pointed out at the time. The Pod Save America guys and the NYT editorial page and Vox and all the rest were united on the point: vote blue no matter who, Trump is a threat to democracy so we need to prioritize "electability" and get behind Biden, if you say Biden is too old you're working for Trump. Kamala became VP largely for idpol reasons.
When the Cowboys lose in the playoffs, their fans, despite their complete lack of involvement in the process, rapidly recognize that their team needs to change how they do things. Not just the decisions made in the game, but the decisions made constructing the roster months or years before. Not the #resistance libs. They're incapable of recognizing how blind party loyalty left them with a brain lesion on the top of the ticket backed up by a woman no one likes, but who probably can't get passed over for a better candidate because significant parts of the coalition would storm off if they refuse to pick the "qualified" black woman.
Democrats are horrified, but so far I have seen very little self-examination or talk about the process that got them here.
-- They do not yet understand the seriousness of their condition. The talk is all about, does doing a hot-swap deliver a better chance of beating Donald Trump. The reason not to do a hot swap from the beginning has been that the chaos would discredit Democratic arguments, as you say, and doom the candidate. I think we may be more or less past that point already, Democrats need to stop thinking about beating Trump and start thinking about how to salvage as much downballot as they can. Republicans in my state are already striking, I've gotten mass texts and emails from multiple candidates attacking their Dem opponents by pointing out their support for the old coot in the white house, they claim Biden is competent to be President even though they know he isn't. Biden isn't going to have coattails, he's going to be an anchor dragging other Dem candidates down. Democrats shouldn't be worrying about beating Trump, they should be worrying about what top of ticket pick gives them the best odds in the downballot races. Put a nice, responsible, competent, mediocre face on tv and give the undercard a chance.
A fresh candidate, or even what's left of Joe Biden, might still have a decent shot, call it 10-30%, just based on Donald being Donald. Trump could do something absolutely insane and lose the thing. But the reason to swap isn't to maximize that chance, which is small. It's to protect blue candidates up and down the ticket from being embarrassed by association.
Some of the Democrats clearly think if they hot-swap out Biden, they can put in a tailored Trump-beating "Generic Democrat" who Trump isn't ready to face since he doesn't have the track record for Trump to attack, nor (obviously) the personal attributes, who will automatically get the votes of Democrats, and who will get the votes of the people who "just want a responsible adult in office". This candidate has the advantage that they don't have to win the Democratic primaries; they can be chosen solely for Trump-beating characteristics.
It might work; the Democrats are really good at this game, and being able to swap out your candidate when he looks like he's losing is a big advantage. Their biggest problem is that Kamala Harris definitely is not that candidate, and seems unlikely to go gently into that good night.
I wonder if they could mollify her with a spot in the historical record books as the "first woman president" by pushing Biden out early in exchange for selecting a different ballot replacement? She can dine out on that for the rest of her life, and even run again in 4 years if she wants to as "former president Harris."
Hillary would be fuming, I love it.
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