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 -
More Congressional procedure shenanigans? We talked last week about some House rule inside baseball related to a proposed rule to allow new mothers to vote by proxy. I want to somewhat resurrect the topic now because it's also important for the ongoing tariff discussion. First some background.
On February 1st Trump declared a national emergency related to fentanyl and illegal aliens. This declaration was a necessary precondition to Trump's using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose tariffs on Mexico and Canada. There exists a mechanism (50 USC 1622) for Congress to terminate a declared national emergency. In particular 1622(c) describes the process for the joint resolution between the two houses. This joint resolution is subject to presidential veto, but can be overridden by a supermajority of both houses. Back on April 2nd the Senate passed Senate Joint Resolution 37 which was a joint resolution to terminate Trump's declared emergency on February 1st. 16229(c)(3) provides:
So, within 15 calendar days after Senate passage the resolution is supposed to be reported out of committee and then voted on by the House within 3 calendar days after that. There is, of course, a bit of a wrinkle to this (hence this post). Recall back to mid-March and the House Resolution 211. This resolution established the terms of debate for the concurrent resolution funding the government for the rest of the year. Section 4 of that resolution provides:
Basically, the 15/3 day mandatory periods are put on hold for rest of the Congressional session (which I believe ends Sep 30th). Hat tip to Gabe Fleischer at Wake Up To Politics who wrote about this at the time. This is the same kind of thing Johnson tried to do (unsuccessfully) with the new mother proxy rule. Other House members have noticed and filed their own resolutions starting the clock on such bills again. Though whether they pass remains to be seen.
I bring this up now because I've read some reporting online (no links yet) that Johnson intends to do something similar with the actual Congressional budget, adding a similar provision to stop considering of any joint resolution ending the national emergency Trump declared on April 2nd that form the basis of his current tariffs.
The foregoing is, in a practical sense, a little academic. If a supermajority of the Senate and House wanted to end Trump's national emergencies they could. I suppose the key here is that these rules provide a kind of cover for people to be vocally against Trump's tariffs without having to go on record in opposition. Trying to get the average voter to understand the intricacies of Congressional procedure as opposed to "your rep voted for/against this bill" is a herculean task. This is also not the only way Trump's tariffs could end. He could change his mind (as I write this I hear announcements that we are increasing tariffs on China and changing all other countries to a flat 10% tariff). There's also a lawsuit that Trump's emergencies do not satisfy the "unusual and extraordinary" conditions of 50 USC 1701 and so are invalid.
Fascinating. And I agree about the key at the end. In fact, I would say a key function of party leaders (esp the Speaker) is to insulate their members from having to go on the record with hard votes. Vulnerable members have nothing to gain from voting either way -- against it and they'll anger the MAGA base, for it, and they'll alienate everyone else.
There's as much to learn by what isn't being voted on. For example, no one is voting on a Federal abortion ban these days.
Have I misunderstood the over-turning of Roe-versus-Wade? I thought that it was over-turned on the basis that abortion was a matter for States, not the Federal Government. So a Federal abortion ban would be struck down by the Supreme Court; no point voting for one.
No, it was overturned on the basis that abortion was not protected by the federal constitution and therefore was a matter for the federal and state legislatures (or for the state judiciaries if they find that abortion is protected by their constitutions), not for the federal judiciary.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link