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 -
Econtalk recently had an interesting discussion about the Argentinian government, its people, and how inflation affects them in their day to day lives. One of the biggest factors is how Argentinians essentially find ways around their failing currency to maintain wealth; any payment in pesos is immediately converted to other stores of value more readily capable of holding its value ranging from hard goods such as bricks, to US dollars, to Crypto. The day-to-day table talk is almost always about how to maintain what limited wealth they have. The average US citizen, for example, probably has no idea what the current exchange rates are of dollar to other currencies, be it CAD, Yuan, Pounds, Euros, etc. while every Argentinian knows a few different currency exchanges and their rates. The exchange of currencies to goods almost all run through black markets instead of through government approved exchanges to the point where 'breaking the law' isn't just about endangering others, but necessary to survive in the country. The government simply doesn't have enough power (as well as being too politically damaging) to create and enforce basic monetary tightening methods be it taxes or having a central bank so it simply keeps printing more and more money to pay for whatever spending the government needs as they do not receive enough capital through taxes to actually self-fund the government.
With the US midterms around the corner, it made me think about effective governance and what that actually looks like. A lot of the difference between Democrat and Conservative (and yes, I mean the political parties and not the Red/Blue common usage here) ideological divergence predicates on social dilemmas. Abortion, Trans rights, Race issues, etc. are all social issues that we can focus on because most people in the US simply because the general gears of governance in Western Civilization is, despite the 'gross incompetencies' and 'brainless politicians', stable. The taxes generally get collected, the Fed generally will adjust interest rates depending on economic forecasts, and people generally have a decent quality of life. These are things the average American don't think about because these aspects of government are done competently and effectively enough that the real implications of a government who cannot finance itself is not one of regular pressing concern for the average person.
One of the reasons why I want to point this is that it explains why many Latin American voters are seemingly leaning Republican. It is not social issues that change voting allegiances, it's protecting their investments, jobs, and assets. The paradigm and reason for party allegiances is not equality and certainly not about government handouts, considering how every citizen of their home country sidesteps the government to black markets where exchanges are made at better rates. The current Democrat party is actually damaging their bottom line through their fiscal policy.
https://www.econtalk.org/devon-zuegel-on-inflation-argentina-and-crypto/
Call me skpetical. What makes you confident it has a strong impact on voter habits? You have presented a theory -- a possible factor of influence -- but no reason to believe it has any more predictive power than any other explanation of voter preferences.
You're correct that this is conjecture, I am hypothesizing as to reasons why Republicans like DeSantis would be preferred by Latino voters over Democrats who would generally be considered the favorites of ethnic minorities. The podcast shared an interesting perspective of the functions of government, and I was extrapolating without evidence in a thought experiment.
More options
Context Copy link
It seems to me that there are good reasons for your skepticism.
First, it is unclear to me that there has actually been a meaningful change in Hispanic voter preferences. Gallup's polling on party stated party preference shows little change since 2011, and what change it shows is a slight decline in support for the Republican Party. That graph ends in 2021, but general party preference has shifted toward the Republican Party (which I believe is normal during off-year election season), so I assume Hispanic preferences have shifted as well. Still, unless the Hispanic shift is greater than the overall shift, that really doesn't say anything much about Hispanic preferences per se.
Second, there is little evidence that Democratic policy actually harms their bottom line; historically, the economy has been somewhat stronger under Democratic administrations. Moreover, the current unemployment rate among Hispanics seems to be the lowest on record.
Of course, inflation is up, and more importantly, perceptions of economic well-being do not always accord with reality, but the OP certainly needs to bring more evidence to the table.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link