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 -
It's fair that you complain. But, let's be honest, 99% of the complaining is not coming from principled libertarians. It's coming from totalitarian statists who are mad that their toys are being taken away.
Suddenly, when their 300k per year no-show job is under threat, they rediscover the Federalist Papers.
I'm not a libertarian either, and I also didn't like seeing the expansion of executive powers under Obama, or much of anything that Biden did.
Mostly what I see here is arguments over who smashed the Defect button first. If we can't get back to a stable equilibrium where everyone isn't choosing Defect, then whatever America becomes, it will just be wearing labels like "Democracy" and "Republic" as skinsuits. (I'm aware some people believe this is already the case. But if you're an accelerationist who thinks we should just abandon the pretense and make Trump God-Emperor, then I'm not interested in your opinions about executive authority.) There is very little Trump can do that a succeeding Democratic administration can't undo (except perhaps fix it so there can never be another Democratic administration - is that what you are actually hoping for?), and of course, they will continue following precedent and the next Democratic president will act even more like a monarch. Everyone cheering for Trump and Musk now will be outraged - outraged! - at this abuse of power and violation of norms.
Yes, a lot of the people outraged today are hypocrites who thought it was just fine when Obama and Biden were abusing their authority. So what? Do you think it's actually bad for presidents to do this, or do you think it's only bad when it's not the president you voted for? If the former, then what do you expect to be the outcome of each president being encouraged by his supporters to expand his powers? That your party will be in power forever so it's okay?
I guess I should say here that I am very much in a "Wait and see" mood right now. As I said before the election, I don't think Trump is going to be a good president, but I'm willing to be proven wrong, and I am enjoying the leftist convulsions. However, the President can't just abrogate the powers of Congress and decide (or delegate to Elon Musk to decide) which pieces of the federal government he'd like to keep and which pieces he'd like to do away with. (And if you are saying "Yes he can!" and triumphantly quoting Andrew Jackson, well, see above. Better lube up for when the Democrats return to power. And Andrew Jackson also ran a notoriously corrupt spoils system, in which federal employment was explicitly conditioned on party loyalty and when your party lost an election, you lost your job. This obviously created undesirable incentives, and led to the civil service reforms some are so eager to dismantle.)
On a slightly more pedantic point, I see a lot of people talking about "$300K laptop jobs." No government worker makes $300K - even the top of the SES pay scale is capped at around $250K, and the GS workers (with or without laptops) are making far less. If you mean NGO workers, maybe some of their executives make that much, but the peons who are mostly the ones losing their jobs don't. Lobbyists, lawyers, and contractors, though? Sure, and oddly enough, I don't see many of them losing their jobs yet.
There are two possible outcomes. One: The Democrats do it when they are in power, and the Republicans refrain when they are in power. Two: Both do it when they are in power. The second is less bad, unless you're a Democrat.
And this was a major error. Better that the civil service change political valence with elections than it become a power bloc of its own which remains aligned with one side regardless of who is in power now.
There is another possible outcome. Can you see the one you are missing?
Having actually read American history, I strongly disagree. There are ways to rein in excesses by any branch or segment of the government that doesn't require the entire government simply become spoils for the victor, or one branch ignoring the other two. Of course I don't think you have an accurate conception of the "Deep State" any more than you have an accurate conception of people who are not aligned with you.
Have you lived recent American history?
The administrative state is not, formally, a branch outside the Executive.
Indeed I have, and I'm older than you.
No, but we have laws (which the other two formal branches have a say in) which the Executive can't just override. Just as every military officer, in theory, serves at the pleasure of the President, his ability to unilaterally dismiss officers has been constrained by law (since around 1950, IIRC). The civil service works for the President, but he can't just order them to ignore laws imposed on them by Congress and Supreme Court rulings, or fire people because they aren't personally loyal to him.
I am not against the president "reigning in" a bureaucratic state out of control and probably agree with you about some of the ways federal agencies have inappropriately balked his intentions in the past (so I understand, if not agree, with why he's acting the way he is now). But either we actually have laws and a Constitution, or else stop talking about laws and civil society and admit you just want to be the boot.
This seems like a violation of separation of powers. Should the President have a say in who Congress hires too? Maybe he can choose Sotomayor's clerks?
We have laws and a Constitution, but the way they are enforced is entirely non-evenhanded (both directly politically, as in the Democrats get better treatment, and indirectly, as in deference to the administrative state over its opponents) and we are not going to get to a better situation by the Republicans playing along with that lack of evenhandedness.
For an obvious example, note the lack of any consideration of standing in the SDNY challenge to DOGE access to treasury records.
Congress passes laws, the President executes them. No, the President shouldn't be able to make up new laws to impose on Congress. Yes, Congress can pass laws that are imposed on the President. That's how things are meant to work. Sometimes Congress overreaches, the President defies them, and there is a fight. (See: Andrew Johnson being impeached for ignoring the Tenure of Office Act, which Congress passed explicitly to screw him over.) Don't like it? Change the Constitution. Congress and the President and the Supreme Court are supposed to be divided and jostling for position. Anything else gives unilateral power to one branch - which apparently you want when your side controls that branch, and don't want when your side does not control that branch.
You think it's a violation of the separation of powers that the President can't order civil servants to violate laws passed by Congress? Or are you only talking about hiring and firing? If you want to give the President the power to hire and fire any government employee at will (what about military personnel?) then you're advocating a return to the spoils system of the early 19th century. Andrew Jackson's handpicked successor, Martin Van Buren, pretty much created the Democratic machine politics you hate so much, and he did it with the patronage system you are saying we should return to.
Okay, do you have any limiting principal, or is it just, as I said, you want to be the boot? You've been posting that laws are fake and nothing matters because Democrats do whatever they want for years. Rather tedious, really. Could practically be generated by an Eliza script. Now that clearly the shoe is on the other foot, you eagerly embrace Republicans rendering laws and the Constitution irrelevant. Of course when Democrats start doing it again, you will once again be outraged and doom-posting.
Or do what Johnson did: Defy Congress and win.
I think it is a violation of separation of powers that the President cannot fire employees of the executive branch. And certainly a violation of separation of powers that the President cannot order the Treasury Department to open its books to other executive branch employees. Certainly he should not be able to e.g. order them to spend money not appropriated, but that's a different matter.
My embracing of the Republicans doing it is a consequence of both the fact that the Republicans are doing things more aligned with what I want (with exceptions; I oppose the no-birthright-citizenship order), AND the fact that the Democrats have been doing what they want. As I said, a check that only checks one side is no balance at all. Either the Democrats move the government one way while they are in office and the Republicans move it the other.... or the Democrats move the government one way and the Republicans are stymied so nothing happens while they are in office. I prefer the former.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link