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 -
The Republican party is generally claimed to be the party of fiscal responsibility. Note the term "claimed" here; I do not think the record of Republican governance proves this claim at all well, but nonetheless the default expectation seems persistent. When I was younger, this was certainly a selling-point of the party to me, and I voted for Bush II in the hope that he'd get government spending under control. Then 9/11 happened, and he wasted trillions wandering our military through the middle east.
Now the debt is very bad, and people are once more raising the banner of Fiscal Responsibility. Is it in Republicans' interest to enforce "fiscal responsibility", and if so, how? If we were to seriously cut spending and raise taxes, as people claim the fiscal situation demands, this would almost certainly cost us the next election. In the best possible case that I can see, we would be expending our political power to create stable economic conditions for our opponents to then rule. The more likely case would be us expending our political power to ameliorate spending that our opponents increase to gain power for themselves, resulting in a much shakier economy and our complete political irrelevance.
Why not offer the Fiscal Responsibility mantel to the Democrats? The economy is very complicated after all, and they are at this point clearly the party of Expert Opinion: who better to determine and implement the hard-nosed measures necessary to right our economic vessel? When I was younger, the obvious rejoinder would have been that they would do a bad job of it and disaster would result, but it seems to me that we have not done all that much better, and disaster seems likely in any case. If disaster cannot be meaningfully avoided, then why expend limited resources demanded by a serious political conflict on an unfixable resource-sink of a problem? What's the actual plan, here?
Behold the thirdworldification of American politics. “If we make the country better off, our political opponents will probably benefit more from it than us, so better for us to continue looting and pillaging from our common legacy until the country dies.” The reason you balance the budget is because you actually care about your country and its long-term well-being.
In the first place, it is not obvious to me how implementing "fiscal responsibility" measures actually results in the country being better-off in any meaningful sense. What can be implemented by one government can be overridden by the next government.
In the second place, it does not seem prudent to maintain a commons that others have no interest in maintaining and benefit greatly from depleting.
In the third place, "my country" is a phrase, not a reality. We are well into the "voting on our rights" stage of the split. Large portions of the country are places I will not willingly visit, much less consider moving to. Increased state capacity is not a benefit to me if I believe that state capacity will be used to violate my rights as a human.
Presumably you disagree. How does balancing the budget improve the country's long-term well-being, in concrete terms? Why is securing this long-term well-being solely the responsibility of the Republican party? If one actually lives in a third-world environment, what is the benefit of pretending otherwise?
...I appreciate that I am not exactly breaking new ground here. In my defense, it seems that neither are you, and of the two of us, it seems my position has more of a connection to bedrock reality. You are appealing to ideals. What evidence do you have that these ideals are workable, and that pursuit of them is likely to lead to an improvement of our actual situation? Do you think implementing Fiscal Responsibility will improve Republicans' electoral chances? Do you think Democrats, having won the subsequent elections, will scrupulously maintain those measures?
Scott once described how Conservatives were valuable, because they serve to moderate Progressives' worst impulses and bad ideas, thus smoothing out the road to Progress. To the extent that this role is legibly valuable to at least some progressives, why should Conservatives see it as valuable? We fight you to make your victory over us smoother, yay?
[EDIT] - I'm reminded of an old joke my father taught me once:
Three French convicts are scheduled to be guillotined. At the appointed hour, the first is brought forward to the apparatus. The presiding officer inquires:
"Would you like to face zee blade or zee floor?"
"The blade. I do not fear death."
The man is affixed within the fatal machine, the blade is raised, released, and flies downward, only to jerk to a halt three inches above his neck.
Shocked, the officer releases him from the machine.
"By zee laws of France, zee Guillotine's failure is a sign of divine pardon. You are free to go."
The Guillotine is carefully inspected, the tracks oiled, the blade polished. Then the second victim is brought forward.
"Would you like to face zee blade or zee floor?"
"The blade. One should always act with courage."
Once more the man is locked down, the blade is raised, released, and flies downward- and once more, it jerks to a halt two inches above his neck. Flustered, the officer releases him as well.
"By zee laws of France, zee Guillotine's failure is a sign of divine pardon. You are also are free to go."
The Guillotine is once more inspected, the senior engineer summoned, the machine partially disassembled and every part examined in the minutest detail. The machine is carefully reassembled, the tracks sanded and re-oiled with the most tender care. Several test-runs are performed, and the machine works flawlessly.
Finally, the officer summons forth the third unfortunate.
"Would you like to face zee blade or zee floor?"
"The blade, please."
His neck secure in the stock, the man watches as the blade is raised to the point of release-
"Hang on, I think I see the problem!"
Because lots of government debt is bad, so less debt is good
Yes but the logical conclusion to this train of thought is that government should never do anything, lest it gets undone in a few years. That sounds like a fucking awful society.
Why invest in defense to preserve sovereignty if the Democrats will just cut it later? Why improve the medical system if the Republicans will rip it up later? Why build this bridge to facilitate commerce if the $OTHER_TEAM might tear it down later?
This is true but again if this stance was held at all levels of power you're basically just advocating for anarchy? Why collect garbage and take it to a landfill if other people don't bother to dispose of their garbage properly? Because "most garbage goes to the landfill" is infinitely better than "no garbage goes to the landfill"
Western nations have gotten pretty cooked, but seriously man you should consider therapy or something because your outlook is profoundly nihilistic, pessimistic, and defeatist. It's making me sad to think about how you think about the world.
Also again, if your beliefs were scaled I'm pretty sure it would immediately lead to anarchy.
Because perpetual defecits that exceed GDP growth eventually lead to massive inflation, economic collapse, or both? This is bad.
It's not, but I think the defecits feel worse coming from them, hence the focus. They did love going absolutely ape shit over any/all democrat spending during the 2000s/2010s, so it feels hypocritical.
Kind of? You're incredibly negative and myopic though, which is a lens you are viewing reality through.
That's a good question, but I think you should ask it of yourself. If your ideals were implemented at a government scale, would that make the situation better?
Unfortunately not really, I'm honestly kind of worried about our societies inability to deal with anything, but if we give up then we go from "maybe fucked" to "definitely fucked" and I don't see that as an improvement.
Unfortunately not really
The part you are failing to engage with is that "fiscal responsibility" is electorally unpopular, while "fiscal irresponsibility" is electorally popular. Implementing "fiscal responsibility" will obviously cost one political power, while implementing "fiscal responsibility" will obviously gain one political power. So long as this is the case, actual fiscal responsibility is not a possible outcome in any but the shortest of terms.
To the extent that this is fucking awful, I direct you to the litany of Tarsky.
No. I am positing that political power is a scarce resource, and it should be used where it plausibly might deliver positive results. "Fiscal Responsibility" fails that test. If you don't like that fact, well, legibly admitting that it is a fact might just be the first step to changing it.
Aiming to secure what value might be gained under the conditions that observably exist is not nihilism, pessimism or defeatism, but rather realism and applied rationality.
Does the Democratic party agree? What's their plan for solving this problem? Is that plan realistic?
Perhaps. Can you lay out an equally-realistic assessment that's less myopic and more positive?
Yes, and we also spearheaded the GWOT, which added trillions to the debt. But notably, we have since exiled the faction that spearheaded the GWOT, and are trying to an isolationism that is the best possible path to reduced defense spending.
Alternatively, maybe making it clear that the Republican Party does not consider the debt to be a problem we're in charge of fixing will make it clear that someone else has to step up. Or else, we all accept that there is no fixing it, and at least we have the maximum warning possible that disaster is not, in fact, going to be avoided.
Then your plan is that Republicans should sacrifice their scarce political power for nothing, correct? Why would you expect Republicans to do that willingly?
You have many harsh words for my perspective, and many admonitions for why I ought to think differently, but no actual corrections about what is, no more credible account of the realities actually facing us. It appears to me that you are objecting to me pointing out obvious facts about how things actually are, and would prefer that I argue based on fantasy. I decline to do so.
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