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 Ed West has a good piece up on immigration. He's British, so naturally he will focus on the British angle but I think his main takeaways have wider applicability across the West. His argument is that so-called "experts" have consistently underestimated the potential for mass migration for decades. Ed makes the case that given a confluence of factors (established migrant communities, English being the lingua franca, a whole apparatus of NGOs/judicial activists and a very pro-immigration media envionrment), we're likely to see a continued rise in immigration unless there is a drastic shift in policies.
For my part, I think any serious restriction is out the window. That ship has basically sailed for the West. Trump did what he could but was sabotaged by the courts and political insiders at every step. So instead of trying to prevent what is essentially the inevitable, better ask what our future look like.
American social scientist Garrett Jones has written an important new book which argues that new research suggests that assimilation is fact very rare and cultural patterns persist for decades, perhaps even centuries. Even if we were to restrict ourselves to white immigration, how many of the Catholic and East European immigrants who came to the US during the 1870-1924 period truly assimilated into the Anglo-Saxon ethos of limited government? Was JFK's and FDR's winning coalitions not in small part due to these new immigrants?
Jones makes the case that even attitudes like propensity to save or social trust are passed down through generations. This would suggest that the future of the West is a hyper-unequal and low-trust society. Perhaps we are already well on our way. Politically, it could paradoxically help the right since to enact a leftist agenda on economics you need a cross-racial coalition among the working class and this seems to be unlikely if you cannot have assimilation across population groups even after decades, as Jones suggests.
It's the job of Congress to set immigration policy, not the President. The focus on the President as the end-all of the American government is understandable but misplaced. Congress is a large body and it's difficult to assign individual responsibility to particular legislators so its gets kind of diffused out. But for better or worse, they are in a far stronger position to steer the ship of state than the President.
In any event, looking at the tally it seems fairly clear that this policy doesn't command anything close to a majority of the House even when it was GOP controlled.
And if Congress passes vague enabling acts empowering the President with immense discretion, then it becomes the President's job de facto.
Fair point. And indeed a lot of the INA is maddeningly non-specific.
At the very least, though, when the President does anything that can be defended under the statute (+Chevron deference), we ought to assign responsibility.
The whole thing is a vicious cycle. Congress' vague language enables massive discretion, the assignment of responsibility ("Obama did", "Trump did") fuels further for Congress to pass the buck.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
If you read the actual immigration policy, as set by the Congress in the actual acts it passed, you’ll observe that Trump’s actions were very much in line with what the immigration laws actually are. For example, he made some moves to enforce the public charge rule, for the exact reasons this rule was passed into the law in the first place. His problem was not so much that he was blocked by the Congress, which passed different policy, but instead by judiciary and lawfare, which instituted policies contrary to what the Congress passed into law, and the Executive actually tried to enforce.
It would seem that Congress did not agree with your fiat that the public charge rule meant what Trump said it meant, or else it would have amended the statute to say so. Congress is more than capable of being precise when it suits them and conversely of being extremely vague when they'd rather pass the buck. And Trump could very well have asked for specific language to that effect but AFAICT he didn't make a specific push for it.
What I mean to get at here isn't the object level of any particular provision, but more broadly that the government is a huge ship and the best way to make policy change is to get both Congress and the President steering in the same direction at the same time.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link