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 -
The United States was not meant to be a "democracy." Benjamin Franklin famously described the government created by the Constitutional Convention as "A republic, if you can keep it."
While there were certainly people in the founding generation who saw a place for a heavy democratic element in the United States, such as Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson, I think it is fair to say that most educated gentlemen around the time of the founding were steeped in a tradition going back to Aristotle and Plato where "democracy" was the term for a bad form of government by the many.
Despite Alexander Hamilton advocating for the current Constitution, his original hours-long presentation to the Congress had a much stronger executive, and Hamilton famously told Jefferson, "The greatest man who ever lived was Julius Caesar." There's many ways to interpret this statement, but I think it is obvious that Hamilton hadn't completely shaken off the monarchical thinking of an Englishman, and wanted a strong central authority as the best guarantee of liberty for the people.
Federalist Paper 51, written by Madison, describes how the checks and balances of the United States republic are meant to function. The whole letter is worth a read, but I will focus on one part:
(Emphasis mine.)
Schlessinger's The Imperial Presidency, and Higgs' Crisis and Leviathan both document how this vision failed from different angles. Schlessinger examines the history of the growth of executive power, and the various techniques presidents used to get their way - from operating secret naval wars without congressional approval and oversight, to the use of impoundment to appropriate funds earmarked by congress (which was eventually eliminated after the Nixon presidency, due to his perceived abuse of the power.) Higgs looks at the way that crises created opportunities for the federal government to seize ever greater power, and while it is not limited to the growth in presidential power, it is impossible to ignore all of the emergency powers Congress ceded to the President across the constant cycle of crises.
Higgs was writing in 1987, and Schlessinger in 1973, and the trends they described have only continued.
And so we come to the present day, where Donald Trump became President on January 20th, and began what some are calling an "autocoup." On a diverse forum like this one, I am sure that there are at least a few monarchists that would be thrilled if that was true. I'm sure I can't convince them that an autocoup would be a bad thing, if that is, in fact, what is happening. But for the classical liberals, libertarians, conservatives and centrist institutionalists, I want to make the case that the way things happen matters as much as what is actually happening.
Some are defending actions like Elon Musk's DOGE dismantling the Department of Education without any apparent legal backing, by saying that this is what Trump supporters voted for.
But this simply isn't true. Or more accurately, that's not how this works.
I repeat: America is not a "democracy." America is a republic with checks and balances and a rule of law.
To the extent that we have democratic elements in our republic, then I certainly think that Trump and his supporters should be able to do what they were elected to do. If they want to pass an actual law that gets rid of USAID or the Department of Education, then let them do it. If they want to pass a law to rename The United States Digital Service, and give it unlimited power to control federal funding, then they should pass a law to do so. And if they can't get the Congress they voted in to make it happen, too bad, that is how a Republic works. The same applies if federal judges or the supreme court strike down a law or action as unconstitutional. One person doesn't just get the power to do whatever they want, without any oversight or pushback from the legislative or judicial branches.
I think the United States seems to be heading for a form of democratic tyranny, with few checks and balances. I don't know if there has actually been an "autocoup", but I do think there are shades of it in what has been happening the last few weeks, and I think any lover of American liberty and prosperity should be a little bit worried as well, even if they like the effects of a lot of these unilateral actions by the Executive.
EDIT: Typos.
I would have guessed the Covid Hysteria would have been when you were worried about "democratic tyranny, with few checks and balances" given the rule of law was thrown out the door, judges refused to do anything to help, and tens of millions of people were seriously harmed. Were you opposed to and outspoken against those vast power expansions and legal, constitutional, and civil rights violations?
The "rule of law" and "checks and balances" thing is all an illusion (or at least a poor description); the actual check and balance is power. The way you get back to a détente where the "rule of law" and checks and balances illusion looks like the real thing is you have the ability to harm and punish the political opposition who would do otherwise.
Free speech, rights, etc., only exist as long as the people who want them have enough power. When they don't have power, they are ran over irrelevant of whatever law or constitution or anything else.
I've written a little bit on my views on the Covid response here.
Sometimes, I view it rather differently: A society allowing free speech is often a sign of the ruling coalition's power, and the weakness of its citizens.
China needs to control speech because they are weak. The speech of their people actually poses a threat to them.
The United States doesn't usually need to control speech because the ruling coalition is strong. The speech of its people poses no threat to its overall stability.
COINTELPRO is the kind of thing that happens in the US when a group poses an actual threat to the United States, and has moved from words to actions.
Agreed, the regime even in totalitarian system doesn't care about the free speech of the raving guy on the street corner. But where does that leave us with respect to "the rule of law" for any group which participates in the political system at all?
The US currently, right now, engages in vast violation of the 1st Amendment rights and "free speech" rights of its citizens. The Biden Administration saw a vast complex of both government and government financed NGOs which worked diligently through carrots and sticks to coerce social media companies to engage in vast censorship of American citizens, including financing overseas NGOs to lobby governments to ban and threaten those social media companies. There are dozens of lawsuits showing this to be the case. There were group chats within these companies of "former" intelligence officials who were coordinating with their government colleagues to direct and enforce this censorship.
Sure, you can show how pretty much all actions and statements by the government during the covid response were bullshit, but then you'll lose your bank account, you will be banned from government grants (thus making you unemployable in academia), you'll be banned from social media companies, and you'll be banned from payment processors, and any licensing boards you're apart of, e.g., lawyers and doctors, will attack your ability to practice your profession. So as long as you don't care to have any job with any power or influence, you had "free speech" off the internet but also you couldn't go to public places because no one was there and businesses and social gatherings were banned. We don't have to go back to the 1960s to see what the US Government does to attack dissidents and violate free speech; we have rampant examples in the last few years.
"Checks and balances" is an illusion. The separation of power between various factions of government requires them to have actual power and also requires them to not be the same people, but in the modern era they are the same people and a part of the same faction. The "rule of law" is an illusion, it only looks that way because victims of the violations have power. When they don't have power, the law is no hurdle. One faction punishing the other faction for its wanton violation and weaponization is necessary if you want to get back to a détente which can be inaccurately described as "rule of law."
You say "social pressure" is enough, but that social pressure is currently manufactured through this vast web of government money and overreach. Its power is just as serious as the beatings on the street, except it's more deniable. Spread out, faceless total state is worse than a system with an actual knowable and identifiable sovereign. "Social pressure" is used, just like during the Covid Hysteria, to create a minority small enough and powerless enough so that more explicit use of power can be brought to bare to force the dissidents to conform and then that will be attempted.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link