site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of August 12, 2024

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.

5
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

New homes and end to price-gouging: Harris sets economic goals

The Democratic presidential nominee's plans build on ideas from the Biden administration and aim at addressing voter concerns after a surge in prices since 2021.

The campaign's proposals include a "first-ever" tax credit for builders of homes sold to first-time buyers, as well as up to $25,000 in down-payment assistance for "eligible" first time buyers, a move that her campaign estimated could reach four million households over four years.

She has also called for capping the monthly price of diabetes-drug insulin at $35 for everyone, finding ways to cancel medical debt, and giving families a $6,000 tax credit the year they have a new child.

She is supporting a federal law banning firms from charging excessive prices on groceries and urged action on a bill in Congress that would bar property owners from using services that "coordinate" rents.

Though analysts say some of Harris's proposals, such as the ban on price-gouging, are likely to be popular, they have also sparked criticism from some economists. Bans on price-gouging already exist in many states, applied during emergencies such as hurricanes. But economists say the term is difficult to define and widening such rules could end up backfiring, by discouraging firms from making more at times of short supply.

Everyone likes free money, right? Building houses is good, having kids is good, paying less for life saving medications is good, taking power out of large landlords hands is good. But maybe trying to apply emergency price gouging laws to non-emergency situations is not so good. Maybe write a law that you have to lower prices when things are good as quickly as you raised them when they weren't so good. What are Trump's plans?

With populism ascendant in both parties, that cost has not dissuaded Trump's choice for vice president, JD Vance, from backing an even bigger tax credit expansion.

Economists predict that increased drilling would have limited impact given the global nature of energy markets and have warned that Trump's pledge to impose a tax of 10% or more on imports would drive up prices.

We're already producing a boatload of oil, but with russia somewhat out of the picture our european friends might appreciate it. Not sure about bringing down prices though.

Btw - CNN and WAPO are very critical of this parts of her policy? Any explanation for that especially CNN? Convention surprise?

I think it's possible that no one wants to starve, even journalists, and they are hoping to dissuade Harris from committing to this policy while still hoping she wins.

Yes, I think this is exactly right. Of course these writers don’t want Harris to lose, they’re writing because they want her to win and they want that win to be successful.

CNN is a centrist(well, center left), establishment platform. Left populism is not that. CNN understands basic economics when it benefits their 'team' and that team is 'let the experts rule'. The experts really hate price controls.

I mean, after the past month I'm certainly inclined to consider political motivations. But it seems most likely to me in this case that the media outlets actually see her proposals as bad for the country. Being a partisan hack doesn't preclude calling out genuine insanity if you see it. Especially when there are people from the Obama admin saying they're very critical. They get to quote "experts" and look fair and balanced at the same time.

They may also think that by proposing dangerous economic policies, she's setting herself up for failure, whether in November 2024 or November 2028. And they don't want the first female president to fail.

Being a partisan hack doesn't preclude calling out genuine insanity if you see it.

That's not how I remember the last decade. So I think your latter explanation is a lot more likely. Especially given how the criticisms are phrased.

The sudden disloyalty is surprising, but I think the people fantasizing about a convention replacement may be deluding themselves.

There is a legitimate case however, that Harris essentially coup'd herself into the candidacy and the people whose hand were forced shut up for a time, but were not going to shut up forever.

Convention replacement would truly be absurd.

I don't fantasize for convention replacement because I think she is the second worst candidate democrats have. The worst is Biden ofc. And she plateaued in polls lately - so media frenzy can push you so far.

I always want both parties to put forward their best candidate.

They are.

Debatable, Abott is arguably the GOPs best canditate but part of what makes him the best candidate is being smart enough to keep his head down and keep building up connections and parallel institutions.

To be clear, Abbott is also smart enough not to take on Trump directly. From his perspective waiting for 28 is a win-win.

Everyone who knows him in the Texas GOP is quite clear that he intends to be president one day. He just thinks 'successor to Trump' or 'Trump was a good president, but he's 83' are both better pitches than going toe to toe with him. He can also expect abortion(his biggest liability) to take up less room in the discourse the longer he waits.

That scans.