site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of February 17, 2025

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.

4
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Regarding the latest executive order re: independent agencies, I'm struggling to understand why conservatives might think this is a good idea long term. Is the plan to just never lose/hold an election again? It seems like trump is massively expanding the scope of executive power versus judicial/legislative power to the point where any president with more than 41 votes in the senate can do essentially whatever they want, with the sole exception of raising non-tariff taxes. Given that its easier to create than to destroy [edit: this was a type, I meant "easier to destroy than to create"], that's of course a benefit for anti-welfare conservatives... but direct presidential command over regulation combined with the stance that the president is beholden to nothing but the supreme court seems like a perfect recipe for vindictive actions against corporations and industries that the president doesn't like. And considering the next democratic president is probably going to look much more like the bernie wing of the party than the obama/biden wing of the party, that's a recipe for economic disaster.

Necessary disclaimer: I'm a trump-hating neoliberal.

The most recent executive order is little c conservative regarding the law, in that it takes Loper Bright a step further in curtailing unelected legislating by bureaucrats.

It does not put the executive over the legislative or judicial branch, despite fear mongering. Instead, it puts the White House/AG over "independent" agencies. All regulations must be reviewed by the White House/AG's office, and agencies must defer to their interpretation of vague laws.

The judicial branch still has the ability to overturn those interpretations (they actually have more power to overturn those interpretations after the death of Chevron).

The legislative branch can avoid the issue by making more specific laws. This will never happen, because Congress has been fine with passing the buck to the executive branch to avoid reelection fights for a long time now. The legislative branch can also move certain agencies (or agency functions) into the legislative branch. Congress can make ALJs specialty Article III courts, to increase their independence from the President. Congress can move regulation-making functions underneath relevant subcommittees in the legislature, but that would increase their workload in reviewing what agencies are up to. Congress has delegated a lot of power to the executive, and the most recent EO is an example of how that can go sideways. If they didn't want the executive to have the power to interpret vague laws, they should've made less vague laws. The three branches were always supposed to be at war with each other, not casually handing over powers such as the tariff power.

It doesn't really impact what a Democratic president would or would not do - it's logical to think that Democrats, who are a fan of letting "experts" use their expertise, will return decision-making to independent agencies instead of wading through regulations at the Presidential level.

But the hyperbole around all of this is... Weird. If things are so bad, why do people/legacy media feel the need to exaggerate the impact? Idk. The language part of the culture war has always gotten to me.

Congress set up the federal bureacracy with an intended balance of power. This is important because, fundamentally, congress is just 435 dudes. They have no magical power to oppose the president-- only the practical power of what they can threaten him with if he won't comply with their demands. Removing the independence of independent agencies removes one of the things they can threaten the president with, making it permanently easier for the president to flout the law. It doesn't matter how precisely a law is defined, or what congress does in their subcommittees. If the president has the actual raw power to do whatever they want, it's trivial for them to say, “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it.”

Congress set up the federal bureacracy with an intended balance of power.

Where was it said that the balance of power was intended to be at heavily ideologically progressive skew of the pre-Trump level? Why should anyone care after all the abuses of the executive from FDR to Obama?

Where was it said that the balance of power was intended to be at heavily ideologically progressive skew of the pre-Trump level?

Congress said it, right now, by not passing a law to do it themselves. I wouldn't exactly be happy about congress passing a law to reduce the independence of independent agencies, but it would at least be government operating in its proper course. Alternatively, the president filing suit to get the legal framework of independent agencies before the supreme court would still be respecting constitutional norms in a way that at the very least can't be symmetrically copied by a later democratic president (since republicans are likely to control the supreme court for the rest of my life, barring court-packing.)

Doing this with an executive order is a naked grab for power from both the courts and congress, with no recourse for either.

Why should anyone care after all the abuses of the executive from FDR to Obama?

Two wrongs doesn't make a right, buddy. Especially when this latest wrong enables dramatically more impactful wrongs in later presidents.

Congress said it, right now, by not passing a law to do it themselves.

Where is it said that only Congress can do it, and only by passing a law?

Two wrongs doesn't make a right, buddy.

If literally no one who is bothered by this voiced their protest about the past abuses, how am I supposed to believe they consider it to be two wrongs?

Especially when this latest wrong enables dramatically more impactful wrongs in later presidents.

That doesn't make it different from past abuses.

Where is it said that only Congress can do it, and only by passing a law?

In the part where the constitution gives the branches particular enumerated powers and "the power to regulate" isn't assigned to the president.

If literally no one who is bothered by this voiced their protest about the past abuses, how am I supposed to believe they consider it to be two wrongs?

This is a bullshit argument and you know it. People complain incessantly about the abuses of their own side-- particuarly with the technocrat and left-populist factions of the democrats having been at odds since 2016.

That doesn't make it different from past abuses.

There's a difference between killing one person and killing ten people, even if they're both murder. I'm still struggling to understand why you think the best remedy to presidential abuses of power is to cheer them on when they abrogate to themselves even more powers to abuse.

In the part where the constitution gives the branches particular enumerated powers and "the power to regulate" isn't assigned to the president.

So this all rests on the Constitution not giving specific powers to a particular branch of the federal government? Do you have any idea how many ships have sailed from that port?

This is a bullshit argument and you know it. People complain incessantly about the abuses of their own side-- particuarly with the technocrat and left-populist factions of the democrats having been at odds since 2016.

No, I don't know it. First, unless by "populist left" you mean people like Glenn Greenwald, this doesn't even seem all that true to me, and secondly, we're not just talking about what the left would consider abuse in the context of an intra-left battle, we're talking about things not allowed by the constitution.

There's a difference between killing one person and killing ten people, even if they're both murder.

I'm yet to hear the argument for why what's happening now is comparable to the guy killing ten people rather than one.

I'm still struggling to understand why you think the best remedy to presidential abuses of power is to cheer them on when they abrogate to themselves even more powers to abuse.

For the same reason I wouldn't feel bad about flirting with a colleague, after I found my wife cheated on me.

Okay you say the president doesn’t have the power to regulate. Can you show me where in the constitution the SEC has the power to regulate? What branch of the government? Who delegated those powers and are those powers delegable?

Congress delegating the power to regulate under specific constrained conditions (that the regulation take place in an independent agency) does not mean the president irrevocably has total power to write regulation.

Or, well, I guess now it does. Let's see how sanguine you are about all this the next time a non-republican president is in office.

More comments