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 -
So the White House finally released some demands for lifting the tariffs and it just highlights the economic illiteracy behind their thinking even more. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/2025/04/cea-chairman-steve-miran-hudson-institute-event-remarks/
What the Trump admin seems to think is that other countries work like centralized command economies where he can demand a leader buy more from the US and have the country follow through, rather than individuals and businesses making their own personal purchasing decisions in aggregate.
Even if all trade barriers (including the nonsensical things he includes as trade barriers) are completely gone, there is no easy way for say, Australia to force their businesses to start buying more American made products. They're not a communist nation and unless we want our allies to turn that way, they can't reach down the hands of government and force private business to do so.
Ignoring the absolutely laughable "just give us free money" fifth demand and the "just don't fight back" first demand, the only thing that these countries can truly do without going into command economy mode is half of the 3rd demand, increasing defense spending.
It's like they expect the EU, UK, Australia, etc to essentially issue orders from the government forcing their wealthy investors and businessmen to spend their money and resources in the US. Now many of those richer nations might have wealthy investors who want to do so anyway, but what about the poorer nations like Lesotho or Vietnam with barely any capital? They can't suddenly flip around and start buying large amounts of US goods when they can barely even afford their poor lifestyles.
It also shows that good faith tariff negotiations are doomed from the start. They truly believe that trade deficits are being on the "losing end" of trade, and his view of them as centralized command economies slots into that neatly. In the same sense there's a weird attempt to tie in the US account deficits as some major loss, which also serves as evidence they view western economies less like open market economies and more as this weird form of centralized government command economy. Again these are individuals and businesses conducting the trade and any method you take to reduce this requires big government to interfere.
They also just keep repeating this claim which we already know to be false.
We already know that the reciprocal tariff formula has absolutely nothing to do with trade barriers and is simply the U.S. trade deficit with a country, divided by the value of the goods the U.S. imports from them. Not only that but as many point out, including conservative think tanks, it's not even done correctly.
Global public goods! No, by all means, shrug this great burden aside, teach humanity a lesson, show us what the world without American self-sacrifice looks like.
I can't figure out to what extent Americans realize how off-putting their rhetoric is for people on the outside. Too drunk on power to care, or actually believe themselves to be victimized, justified in belligerence? Either way, very effective at making people root for US humiliation. If not reflected at the top of US hierarchy, I'd think it an astroturfing campaign ran by US adversaries.
A couple thoughts: America-bashing has been de rigueur in much of Europe, as an example, and its intensity varies by country, but coexists with interest and appreciation. We have the same, here, in the inverse.
Nothing is monocausal in the national politics of a huge country with 340 million people. One valuable framework to pair with others would be an understanding of different regional cultures given America’s great size. I think Woodard’s American Nations is an improvement over Hackett Fisher’s Albion’s Seed. Some regional cultures are comparatively insular, and some more cosmopolitan. Our presidential elections to an extent involve voting blocks of regional cultures, with some historically wedded to one party, and others not. Note, these regions are not defined by state lines. Woodard’s Left Coast is designated west of the coastal ranges. Portland and Seattle are similar. The eastern two-thirds of Washington and Oregon are similar to Idaho and Wyoming.
Education level has much to do with whether or not Americans are aware of the sentiment inspired by Trump’s trade war. Which Americans you’re talking about informs how much sensitivity they have to the mood of our allies abroad. The inland American West has sparse population due to little water, has been treated as a kind of internal colony largely because of this, and has thus developed a very independent culture. They’re standoffish towards New York and D.C. so you can guess their level of concern for London and Tokyo.
One final thought about the pot calling the kettle black… My family are mostly college-educated, upper middle class white collar Republicans, who have quietly voted for Libertarians or relatively moderate Democrats, when they can be found, which is not easy given where we live, since Trump and MAGA have asserted broad control over Republican primaries. We’re not Trump supporters. But I can’t help note some hypocrisy from our European allies. Many Germans were shocked at Vance’s speech and his statements that were taken to be intervening in their politics. Ask the same what are their views are on Merkel receiving Obama in Germany while he was only the first-term junior senator from Illinois, and a presidential candidate — not even the president-elect — which was clearly designed to boost Obama’s foreign relations bonafides to U.S. voters ahead of the election, and you get shrugs. Obviously the impact of Trump’s trade war is far more serious than either Merkel’s actions or Vance’s speech. But I wouldn’t classify the populations of our allies abroad as always concerned with how their actions are perceived here, either.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link