site banner
PaperclipPerfector  6d ago (text post)   28298 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of June 2, 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
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Major Protests in Las Angeles

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/live-blog/paramount-california-home-depot-protest-rcna211650

Earlier the LAPD had to rescue a group of federal agents surrounded by, ahem, 'boisterous' protestors.

The Los Angeles Police Department today responded to a claim by ICE acting Director Todd Lyons that officers took two hours to respond to help calls from federal agents who faced boisterous protesters yesterday.

Lyons said it took LAPD officers more than two hours to come to the aid of federal agents downtown after help was requested multiple times. He said agents were surrounded by more than 1,000 protesters following federal immigration raids on three locations in L.A.

In response, the feds are federalizing the national guard to deploy to LA:

Border czar Tom Homan said authorities are mobilizing to deploy the National Guard in Los Angeles amid protests over immigration raids this weekend.

Gov. Newsom doesn't like the idea:

The federal government is "moving to take over" the California National Guard and deploy 2,000 soldiers, Gov. Gavin Newsom said today.

“That move is purposefully inflammatory and will only escalate tensions,” he said in a statement. “LA authorities are able to access law enforcement assistance at a moment’s notice.”

Of course, that last bit is patently false- see above- but the current situation on the ground is very much fog of war.

So why this protest now? As far as I can tell, this all started when federal agents arrested David Huerta for obstructing an ICE raid(https://ktla.com/news/local-news/union-president-among-44-arrested-in-los-angeles-ice-raids/). David Huerta, for those of you who don't know, is president of the SEIU, America's more aggressively left wing federation of labor unions(the AFL-CIO is moderately pro-Trump). He released the following statement:

“What happened to me is not about me; This is about something much bigger. This is about how we as a community stand together and resist the injustice that’s happening. Hard-working people, and members of our family and our community, are being treated like criminals. We all collectively have to object to this madness because this is not justice. This is injustice. And we all have to stand on the right side of justice.”

Maybe-maybe not a call to arms, but the SEIU absolutely does not play around when it comes to protests, so put two and two together- and the union released its own statement, separately, which is more clearly combative:

In a post on X, SEIU California wrote: “ICE picked the wrong side. The wrong state. The wrong person. and the wrong union. David Huerta stood up. And 750,000 SEIU workers are standing with him.”

Again, not unlawful incitement. But most people would interpret that as mildly threatening. Newsom is maintaining that this was an arrest for 'observing'- patently a lie, given video evidence.

This has the potential to be a domestic test of Trump. I'm of the impression that the SEIU, like most unions, Does Not Play By The Rules when it would mean not getting their way, so selective prosecution under RICO is possible, but more than likely Trump will just make himself look strong and Newsom weak by cracking down on LA protestors. This is a pretty core federal power and assaulting a federal law enforcement officer is almost definitionally something with federal jurisdiction for prosecution; presumably the feds can access the database of everyone who clashed with the LAPD to charge them too.

Agree with most of this. On the last part, I don't think you can prosecute your way out of corrupt unions. Labor law in the US was broadly designed to keep the peace, not to promote virtue.

I also think putting the DA on dealing with dozens oir hundreds of obstruction charges is probably a tactical success but a strategic mistake, given that it diverts resources from more serious prosecutions. If it were me, I'd tell them to pick a few to make an example of and plea the rest out to save powder.

Riots during Trump admins have been politically genius. If the admin Does What It Takes to restore order, he confirms the image the left has painted of him of being a dictator. If he just lets them run their course (which he has done every time thus far) his presidency looks chaotic and people yearn for normalcy.

Puts him in a double bind.

(If you ask me, if you're in a double bind anyway you should do the right thing.)

I'm sure all the civil libertarians are just struggling with how passionate they are about norms and standards and the rule of law, and that's why none of them have come around to express outrage at the gangs of foreigner men waving foreign flags and attacking federal agents performing lawful duties.

🍿🍿🍿

I don’t see how anyone intelligent can see the protests continuing when the NG can arrest and shoot people who interfere in a federal investigation. Nor do I believe that Newsom is going to avoid prosecution for siding with the protesters assaulting federal officers. They wanted this, they wanted to mess with the government because they have TDS. Now they can paint tge ground with the blood of protesters who want to LARP as rebels.

You don't think Newsom will avoid prosecution? What kinds of timeline and odds are you offering for this, because I'm eager to take the other side of that one.

Have the police fire on the crowd. That always works, just look at history.

Is January 6th the only time that's worked?

Worked on the Bonus Army.

I think it would have worked at Tiananmen square if anybody had ever protested there

If you're trying to analogize based on yesterday's event's, it's unclear what crimes, if any, were committed, besides normal low-level protest crimes like failure to disperse and whatever charges you can levy against people throwing objects at police. Getting someone for interfering with an investigation or official duties would require showing both that the agent were actually engaged in official duties and that the person took a specific action to interfere. Realistically, this would look like ICE trying to make an arrest and the protestors physically impeding the officer from doing so. The reports I've read suggest that ICE was merely staging for a raid (which is itself just an interpolation from the authors; there's been no official word that I'm aware of) so there's no official duty at this point to interfere with. At this point it looks like there was a raid that was about to go down but got called off because of the protests. Charging everyone present because their protesting made it inconvenient to undertake a planned future action is already stretching the law beyond anything it's been used for in the past, but it comes with the additional complication that actions that you are claiming are obstruction are core First Amendment activities. So even if you could show that the elements of the crime were satisfied, you still might not be able to get a conviction due to constitutional issues.

require showing both that the agent were actually engaged in official duties and that the person took a specific action to interfere

I think the guys [EDIT later: in the famous video I surmise everyone has seen] standing in front of the ICE vehicle probably qualify. The agent was engaged in an official duty (going to/from some place) and standing in front of a vehicle is a pretty specific action to interfere with it.

The rest of the crowd egging them on are obviously not though.

So if the cops arrest my neighbor, and I see them gathering outside, I can get between them and my neighbor and not have interfered? As long as the cops haven’t officially declared they’re now on official duty they just aren’t? It like, cool, I can loot a 7-11 and have twenty big guys “protest” outside and keep the cops out. It’s just ridiculous to me to say crowds of people can surround a bunch of cops, prevent them from even starting their official duties, and hide behind the first amendment even if they’re throwing rocks (which is assault).

If they're actively in the process of arresting him you'd be interfering. If they were gathering across the street in preparation for a raid, and a group of protestors gathered on the sidewalk in front of your neighbor's house, the police would have to ask them to move before they could be arrested for interfering, and at that they'd only have to move enough to let the police through. In the 7-11 raid the guys would have to let the cops in, but they couldn't be arrested for just protesting outside. The rock throwing would be covered by assault, and may also be impeding, but it would depend on the circumstances. Suppose for a moment that the protestors in LA knew nothing of the ICE raids, didn't know ICE was there, and were having an unrelated protest about environmental policy or something else totally unrelated to ICE. It did, however, make it difficult for ICE to execute the raid. Should all of the protestors in that scenario be charged with impeding official duties?

Charging everyone present because their protesting made it inconvenient to undertake a planned future action is already stretching the law beyond anything it's been used for in the past

Jan 6th?

I don't believe anyone from Jan 6 was charged with obstructing an ICE agent performing his official duties, or any corollary that would apply to the National Park Police or DC Police.

Newsom is going to avoid prosecution for siding with the protesters assaulting federal officers

I don’t think Newsom has actually done much- strongly worded notes in whatever direction are legal, and that’s basically all he did.

Newsom is the last person I expect to put himself in legal jeopardy because he got carried away defending left-wing sacred values.

I would agree with that assessment.

I'm eagerly waiting for all the deeply sincere civil libertarians who were minted on January 6th, 2020, to come forward and angrily denounce these insurrectionists. I expect calls for Palantir to have them all IDed and then rounded up and fed into a woodchipper of a prosecution storm, including random grandmas who just happened to be at the protest, but too close to someone obstructing federal business.

Trump sends in the National Guard, Newsome looks like a pussy.

It is a strain to compare a large protest which involves people obstructing and assaulting law enforcement to a large protest which involves people breaking into the country's main legislative building. Whatever you think about the severity of either, they are firstly surely quite different in nature, and secondly the former is quite common across Western countries while the latter is very rare.

Please explain your line of reasoning because i do not see how anyone could reasonably make this claim in good faith.

The country's main legislative building is arguably the most legitimate target for protest in the country.

That the J6 protest escalated into a riot that eventually spilled into the building itself is more about the abject security failures than anything special about what the rioters did.

people breaking into the country's main legislative building

I could point to the 1954 Capitol shooting, in which Puerto Rican separatists (Americans) fired 30 rounds in the House of Representatives chamber, hitting five representatives. Their sentences were commuted by Jimmy Carter in 1978 and 1979.

Or the 1983 bombing of the Senate, done by a self-described "Armed Resistance Unit" protesting US involvement in Lebanon and Grenada. Their sentences were commuted by Bill Clinton in 2001.

Or the 1971 bombing of the capitol done by Weather Underground, whose leadership largely escaped any criminal charges and went on to be professors in universities throughout the country.

Comparing those three to Jan 6th (or even seeing them as strictly worse, considering the clear murderous intent) seems fair to me. That doesn't mean the LA stuff is.

The actual best comparison is the 2011 Wisconsin statehouse takeover, wherein a large mass of hostile protestors Occupied the legislature building for the express purpose of preventing legislation from being passed, while openly calling for the deaths of the Republican legislators and governor.

But leftists disrupting legislative proceedings in DC is so common it's banal. There's procedures, where the "rioters" wait in line for their turn to get into the room, make a scene, get "arrested" and then released to go brag about it to their friends.

I have to agree. While I'm broadly more aligned with the right, all of the equivocation of BLM riots with Jan 6th is annoying and mealy mouthed in my opinion. Breaking into Congressional buildings is an extremely different situation than protesting and even rioting.

Breaking into Congressional buildings is different than protesting but (in the context of a mass event that started as a protest) a central example of rioting.

Breaking into Congressional buildings is an extremely different situation than protesting and even rioting.

Why? It's political violence either way.

Political violence directly or indirectly, charitably, aimed at the congressional capital where legislators are actively working is quite different than rioting in a random city. Even if the rioters are attacking city hall or police stations, the degree is significantly greater.

Acting as if they are equivalent is ridiculous and playing games with “political violence.” It’s like saying slapping a politician you don’t like the exact same as murdering them, because it’s “political violence” either way.

So you're just going to say it's obvious and not actually explain why? Come on.

Is it mere geographic proximity? Are you saying one is more likely to work? What?

I could understand if congressmen were assaulted. Hell, going to people's homes might actually be an escalation. But it's just rioting on some official building we're talking about.

It’s like saying slapping a politician you don’t like the exact same as murdering them, because it’s “political violence” either way.

I can explain the difference for that one, only in one case is the politician removed from play and unable to do anything anymore. Which is how Japan's left wing coalition once collapsed.

I don't really see that clear a difference between causing property damage in fed buildings or police precincts except who has to pay for it.

All I see is people with no power breaking things to make themselves look more intimidating than they actually are. I think your degrees are more aligned to the targets of the intimidation or the symbolism thereof than its actual severity or destabilizing effect.

So you're just going to say it's obvious and not actually explain why? Come on.

Is it mere geographic proximity? Are you saying one is more likely to work? What?

The symbolic and indeed legal status of say, Pittsburgh downtown versus the Capitol of the United States are indeed quite different, and I do think it's obviously true. There are specific laws about threatening Congress, crimes on federal land, etc. Even if there weren't, the implicit statement the rioters are making is vastly different. One is random wanton destruction, one is destruction aimed specifically at the ruling body of a nation.

I could understand if congressmen were assaulted. Hell, going to people's homes might actually be an escalation. But it's just rioting on some official building we're talking about.

Congressmen were in the building that was raided. That counts as attempted assault at least, in my book. If the rioters had gotten to the elected officials, I don't doubt there would've been some violence.

All I see is people with no power breaking things to make themselves look more intimidating than they actually are. I think your degrees are more aligned to the targets of the intimidation or the symbolism thereof than its actual severity or destabilizing effect.

Not sure what you're saying here. I agree that rioters with no power are breaking things - I see it more as a sort of mob pressure release rather than an actual plan to become intimidating, but don't think that is a big deal.

What do you mean my degrees are more aligned to the targets? Are you saying the BLM riots were more severe and destabilizing than J6?

Are you saying the BLM riots were more severe and destabilizing than J6?

It's as obvious to me as the opposite seems obvious to you. And not just because the deathcount is an order of magnitude higher.

I see it more as a sort of mob pressure release rather than an actual plan to become intimidating, but don't think that is a big deal.

I just see another irregular verb.

I release pressure. You riot. He is an insurrectionist.

What do you mean my degrees are more aligned to the targets?

You think trashing the desk of a congressman is a strictly less legitimate form of political expression than trashing that of random people or that of policemen. As a Frenchman I find that exceptionally weird. If anything the proper order of a republic would go the other way around.

What do you mean my degrees are more aligned to the targets? Are you saying the BLM riots were more severe and destabilizing than J6?

Yes, definitely.

@ArjinFerman

I thought you said there was a legal argument for it being worse, rather than merely symbolic?

Violence committed on federal property is a bigger issue. Violence or threats of violence against Congress is a bigger issue than property destruction, legally.

More comments

Nah. The singling out of "main legislative building" is nothing more than special pleading aimed at pretending one is different from the other, when they are very clearly not.

No, it's special pleading to pretend like breaking into Congress directly after a Presidential election is the exact same as rioting in a city. They are quite different things, even legally.

I'm open to hearing your case. Please tell me what is the argument for setting a police station on fire being less illegal than breaking into the building of the legislature.

First, police stations are state property. They are of a lesser legal status than federal property when it comes to crimes against them, is my understanding.

Furthermore you've got specific laws against obstruction of Congressional proceedings, and threatening officials. Not sure if the J6 people were charged with those in particular.

Either way the major argument I'm making is more symbolic - I think the legal points are relevant but not going to fight to defend them if it's not the case.

First, police stations are state property. They are of a lesser legal status than federal property when it comes to crimes against them, is my understanding.

On the other hand, burning something down to the ground is an act of greater violence than breaking in and aimlessly walking around the premises until asked to leave. How do you know the former amounts to greater crime?

Either way the major argument I'm making is more symbolic

The symbolic argument is far more subjective, I don't see how you can insist you're obviously right with it.

Furthermore you've got specific laws against obstruction of Congressional proceedings, and threatening officials. Not sure if the J6 people were charged with those in particular.

They were charged with "obstruction of an official proceeding", which is a fairly new crime created by the Sarbanes-Oxley act. You may recall that Sarbanes-Oxley was about financial stuff -- the official title is "Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act". The application here was a stretch, and one the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 against, though prosecutors were trying again with some defendants when Trump rudely interrupted them.

Well, I think that pretending that the seat of one of the branches of government is nothing special just so you can equivocate is special pleading. If it's so non-special, why do protesters not storm it more often? Manifestly, doing so would shut down a central government function that pisses a lot of people off, and guarantee eyeballs in a way that torching some random police station in bumfuck nowhere won't.

Other countries also hold that legislatures are special: in Germany, for example, where there is otherwise a fairly strong right to public protest, there is a special cutout prohibiting assemblies in a certain radius around federal and state legislatures and the constitutional court. This has been in place since 1920.

Well, I think that pretending that the seat of one of the branches of government is nothing special just so you can equivocate is special pleading. If it's so non-special, why do protesters not storm it more often? Manifestly, doing so would shut down a central government function that pisses a lot of people off, and guarantee eyeballs in a way that torching some random police station in bumfuck nowhere won't.

Oh no. I think it IS special, just in the opposite manner. There is no reason for anyone to protest a Binny's Beverage Depot in Chicago and take 300 bottles of Tequila because a cop stepped on a black guy too long in Minnesota. OTOH, protesting the seat of government over their proceedings is inherently legitimate activity. Therefore, the question turns more to how an ordinary protest turned into a riot and a riot turned into a bunch of unarmed, uncoordinated, people essentially sacked a 18th century fort.

As to the first question, I would say its about 20% that the J6 protestors were a more animated group of folks than the average protestor, but thats not a very good explanation. They really werent a particularly aggressive group, and very few professional agitators were in the group. Law enforcement's failures explain a lot more. They were severely understaffed, as you can see on video and as was testified by many witnesses at the Congressional hearings (multiple requests for additional staffing were denied). Given that, they were also incompetently deployed. You can see multiple teams of 2-5 police standing behind a couple of those metal gates they use at Six Flags to make sure people queue in an orderly fashion. This is not actually a crowd control device. Given the size of the crowd, those poorly thought out isolated positions would have been overwhelmed with no violence at all. And, of course, they were. And that is what led to the escalation, because the retreating police from those idiotic positions were the first to physically engage with protestors in an aggressive manner.

So now we have multiple rapidly collapsing "defensive" positions with police having the obvious fallback position of the building's doors. If they can just close those and lock them. No amount of people shoving, kicking, etc can get into the building. You'd need a SWAT battering ram to start to have a chance, and even that would probably be inadequate, those doors are thick and heavy. BUT, of course, the doors are never closed and people just kind of flood in right behind the retreating police. Often you can see people entering the building while officers just kinda stand there at the door watching. In other words, the entrants at that point shouldn't even qualify as trespassers or rioters. They are, implicitly, invitees, as the local authorities have implicitly blessed their entrance.

I think that pretending that the seat of one of the branches of government is nothing special

I would argue that this is a very American sentiment actually. The only reason there's a building is that Congress kept getting hassled without one.

The building itself is not meant to hold any sacred character because government is the affair of the people for themselves, not that of their betters. Be them kings or Gods. Congress is just a bunch of Americans deciding for themselves what to do and explicitly not a holy ritual. Though I always thought it was a funny contradiction with the intense Rome aesthetics.

The special pleading started during the summer of love. It was the fact that protest was so essential to our nation that it overpowered medical science, so essential that it justified burning and looting cities, that caused the Jan 6ers to think storming the capitol was a good idea. In a way they were primed to do it - if burning and looting is an appropriate response to the perception that black men are being slaughtered by the police, what is the appropriate response to the perception of the theft of the election?

If it's so non-special, why do protesters not storm it more often?

For the same reason people don't burn down that specific police precinct in Minneapolis more often.

Manifestly, doing so would shut down a central government function that pisses a lot of people off

The protest in question did not result in the shutdown of the central government.

God-willing these lawless men who roam our streets, threatening innocent people will be identified and brought to justice.

Trump sends in the National Guard, Newsome looks like a pussy.

Why would he look like a pussy for refusing to help ICE agents who he disagrees with? Letting them get locked in a building for 2 hours is an alpha chad move, he's showing that feds aren't welcome in California.

Rock and a hard place. Newsom has ambitions to run for the presidency in 2028 but he needs the California vote to get anywhere, and if he loses that then he loses the primary (most likely) because the party is not going to pick the guy who lost the support of the safe state or if he makes it to be selected as candidate, he loses the national election (because no way he has enough support nationally).

That’s fine, but throwing a hissy fit about activating the national guard and then letting the feds commandeer his troops anyways makes him look like a pussy.

In the Texas border standoff Greg Abbott correctly calculated that the administration was too weak/indecisive to take over the army he’d assembled on the border and so he could continue taking over a core federal function while impeding the federal operation of the same. This made him look strong, because he got what he wanted. But Newsom won’t raise his own army, he won’t defy federalization orders, etc. He looks like he’s all bark, no bite- and already has that reputation.

feds aren't welcome in California.

I feel like Newsome isn't stupid enough to call for a second Civil War, but you could be right.

Newsome is trying to pivot to look like a moderate in preparation for a presidential run. He needed a Sista Soulja moment here, and instead he's whining on Twitter about how Law and Order will only make things worse. Meanwhile protestors, his constituents, are slashing tires, breaking into federal buildings, and assaulting federal officers while they carry out their duties.

Newsome is a clown whose chances of winning the presidential nomination are approximately zero. Ironically, he's generally making the same mistake you are wherein moderation is confused with accommodating and/or praising the Trump administration. While I believe that a moderate is going to win the nomination in 2028, it's going to be a real moderate like Shapiro or Beshear who has show that they can govern moderately and give pointed criticism toward the administration when it does something bad for the state, as opposed to governing like a lefty and trying to compensate for it by schmoozing with Republicans. That, and Newsome has no record of outperforming Biden/Harris is red districts.

I wouldn't put him at zero because right now who do the Democrats have? Tim Walz? Kamala again (if she doesn't decide to run for Governor of California instead)? The others - Pete, Gretchen, etc. who have already been rejected in previous primaries? Josh Shapiro, who they couldn't even decide to pick as Kamala's running mate?

I agree that Newsom does not have national appeal, but the Democratic party is stuck for a choice of "does not appear totally crazy progressive, can be painted as a moderate" candidates, and Newsom has been making some recent moves (or speeches) in that direction.

"random moderate from who knows where" is going places I think. Whoever comes up with a winning coalition formula might just become the next Bill Clinton.

I'm not sure you're really raising any good arguments here. Most elections feature a major party candidate who has lost a primary. Regan, Bush I, Dole, McCain, Romney, Hillary Clinton, and Biden had all sought the nomination in the past and failed, and that's not counting Harris. I don't see how you could argue that having lost in the past somehow prevents you from getting the nomination. And to my knowledge Gretchen Whitmer never entered a presidential race, so you can cross her off of that list. I don't see what Shapiro not being selected as vice president has to do with anything. Literally every Democrat not named Tim Walz wasn't selected. I'm not going to go through a list of names, but there are plenty of people out there who can be nominated, and I can probably name more moderates than progressives at this point.

I feel like it's trendy now to see the Democrats as a party in disarray, and while those criticisms are valid, the Republicans might actually be in worse shape going into 2028. We've spent the past decade-plus wondering why Democrats have underperformed the polls in the past several presidential elections, which is especially baffling considering that the polls have been more or less accurate in other elections, and have even gone in the opposite direction, with Democrats winning against the apparent odds. This is coupled with MAGA candidates regularly losing any election that isn't a 100% safe Republican lock. While various theories for these phenomena have been proposed, I think the reason for this is pretty obvious at this point: There is a huge mass of traditional non-voters who will only vote when Trump is on the ballot. Since these people traditionally don't vote, pollsters don't get to them, because pollsters have traditionally only been looking for people who are likely to actually vote.

The upshot is that the Republican nominee in 2028 can't expect to get the same amount of support as Trump did in 2024. For instance, suppose it's Vance. Vance is a MAGA creation and Trump's heir apparent, and nominating him is as clear a signal as you're going to get that the party intends to continue riding Trump's legacy. Well, Vance simply isn't going to get 100% of the Trump voters, and it's difficult to see him pulling in enough non-Trump voters to make up the difference. In fact, Vance seems to offer the worst of all worlds politically, considering he'll have been in office just the wrong amount of time by election day 2028. 6 years total, 4 of them completely subservient to the president. He can't run as an outsider, he can't run as an insider with tons of experience, he can't run as a maverick who forged his own path, he can't run as a bipartisan dealmaker, he can't run as a moderate, he can't run as an arch-conservative, he can only run as a continuation of an administration that will undoubtedly enter election season with net negative approval ratings. The only case in which a Vance nomination has a ton of upside is if Trump pulls off some miracle where he gets his approval rating up among Independents and Democrats, but that seems like a longshot. Ronald Regan he is not.

This wouldn't be that bad if the Republicans had enough of a buffer where they could afford to lose votes. But Trump won the "Blue Wall" states by razor thin margins in 2024 and lost all of them in 2020. Winning any of them in 2028 would be a tall order in any election, and they don't have the votes to spare with Trump off the ballot. Of course, the Republicans could always nominate someone else, but that would suggest that Trump's star has faded even within the party, and would probably be an even worse outcome. It would be like McCain in 2008—The Republicans nominated a good-natured moderate war hero who was well-liked by the opposition and had the misfortune to represent a party that was in such disarray pretty much everyone who mattered had stopped trying to defend the incumbent president. Now imagine what would have happened had the Republicans nominated Dick Cheney or Donald Rumsfeld instead, and tried to sell it as a continuation of the Bush presidency. Because Bush at least had the self-awareness to largely sit that election out. Now imagine the party tries to move on with Trump constantly talking about how anyone who doesn't back Vance is a traitor to him personally. Because that is what is going to happen if Trump doesn't get to pick his own successor.

Beyond that, I haven't seen any suggestions that the Republicans have a particularly deep bench. And for all the criticism I see of Harris's performance in 2024, no one seems to realize how close she came to winning. Trump had a 1.7% margin in Pennsylvania, 1.4% in Michigan, and 0.9% in Wisconsin. Take away the Trump Bump. Take away Harris being tied to an unpopular incumbent. And take away it being Kamala fucking Harris (who isn't getting the nomination, though she has a better shot than Newsome), and the Republicans have their work cut out for them.

I don't see what Shapiro not being selected as vice president has to do with anything. Literally every Democrat not named Tim Walz wasn't selected.

Shapiro was such an obviously good pick (popular, moderate, highly increases chances of winning an important swing state) that not selecting him his strong Bayesian evidence that being a Jew is considered electoral poison by the DNC. If he's the nominee, leftist anti-Semitism becomes a major campaign issue and major source of internal strife for the Democrats.

I feel like it's trendy now to see the Democrats as a party in disarray, and while those criticisms are valid, the Republicans might actually be in worse shape going into 2028.

They're not in disarray, they're in freefall, posting record low popularity ratings. Meanwhile, Trump is polling in the 60's with Hispanics. A lot can change in three years, but Democrats are facing relegation.

Also, I think you are wildly overestimating how much people give a fuck about experience. Obama was plenty inexperienced, and look how that turned out.

Off the top of my head- you're leaving out Desantis, Hawley, Abbott, Cruz, Youngkin, Rubio, and Noem as conventional presidential candidates who could easily win over Trump's anointment.

To be clear, I'm assuming that these people would have to compete against Vance running with a Trump endorsement. It's possible that Vance doesn't run or that Trump doesn't endorse anyone, but I don't see that happening. VP is a traditional springboard to the presidency. If Trump had wanted a skilled insider who could negotiate with congress or provide behind the scenes advice, he would have gone with Rubio. Instead he picks a guy whose political experience is a year and a half in the Senate and who won't win him any votes he wouldn't otherwise get. The only reason Vance made sense as VP pick was because Trump wanted a young guy who owes pretty much all of his political success to him. As for Vance himself, I don't see him leaving a Senate seat to be VP for four years before going back into private life. With that, let's look at who you mentioned:

Noem: She had little national profile before becoming DHS Secretary, and none prior to Trump becoming president. And, for whatever it's worth, she had trouble winning the governorship in 2018 in a state where it should have been a blowout. I don't think she has the juice to resign from her cabinet position and win the nomination over Trump's objection.

Rubio: He's the candidate you listed who has the best chance of winning, but I only see this happening if Trump endorses him. But if that were going to happen, why not make him VP? Without Trump's approval, he has the same problem of running against the incumbent administration, which may require him to resign and stake his entire political future on a presidential bid, since it's doubtful that Vance would bring him back into the fold if he were to become president. Even in that case, his current position makes him too tainted by Trump for Republicans looking for a change to support him in the primary, and for independents and moderates to consider him in the election.

Desantis: His tightrope act of refusing to embrace Trump as governor and refusing to criticize him as a candidate backfired horribly; it still isn't clear what his opinion on Trump is. Unless he starts criticizing the administration soon, he's going to lose all credibility as a possible Trump alternative, and it's a long shot even then. He also has the face of a dogcatcher and absolutely zero charisma. When Nikki Haley does better in the primaries than you do, you know you're in trouble.

Cruz: He could win the nomination over Trump's objection, but he has too much of a history as a far-right firebrand to win a general unless the Democrats nominate a real lefty.

Hawley: He has a decent record of going against the grain, most recently with his opposition to Trump's spending bill, but he has the same image problem as Cruz.

Abbott: He might win the nomination over Trump's objection, but he's unelectable nationally. First, he's a Texas product, but without the homespun relatability of George W. Bush. Worse, he's another firebrand who is most known for ignoring the Federal government. That kind of thing might play well in the South, but whether he'd be able to beat Vance plus a more moderate candidate elsewhere is another story. The way the primary calendar is set up he'd have to withstand early losses and hope for a big Super Tuesday just to remain competitive. In the general he'd be dead on arrival.

Youngkin: He's the only one I can see winning over Trump's objection. He has shown he can win over moderates. He hasn't leaned into MAGA, but he hasn't done anything to piss them off, either. I only see him winning the nomination over Vance, though, if there's a massive blowout in the midterms, followed by a series of Trump boo boos, such that only the real MAGA diehards will vote for Vance in the primary.

Compounding the problem is that it isn't likely that one of these people gets a shot against Vance head-to-head, but that two or three of them will by vying to be the Vance alternative once primary season gets into full swing, splitting the vote. Any of them will have the same problem Desantis had the last go-around. Every Republican I talked to with an IQ above room temperature preferred Desantis to Trump, and I argued here repeatedly that if Trump ran again, he didn't have a chance. I was excoriated for this opinion, but the Desantis campaign did miserably. The problem for Republicans is that enough Trump voters will lose interest in voting for another candidate that it will keep them from winning the general, but not enough to keep Vance from winning the nomination, if only due to establishment inertia. Anyway, I'd love to hear why I'm wrong and what kind of scenario you think would lead to any of these people winning the nomination over a Trump-endorsed J.D. Vance.

I don’t see Newsom getting the nomination in any contest that involves an actual primary. Older black Democrats in the south have a lot of pull in the primaries and they don’t like slick sharky Patrick Bateman types. Biden’s goofiness was actually a big advantage for him in those contests.

LA authorities are able to access law enforcement assistance at a moment’s notice

I don't see how this is false. He said "LA authorities", not federal authorities. ICE is not an LA authority, and should not expect any help when they're interfering in states where they aren't wanted.

I feel like Alabama tried this line of reasoning 60 years ago.

Then they can't reasonably complain about deploying the national guard.

interfering in states where they aren't wanted

Federal law enforcement does not need local permission to enforce federal laws.

National law enforcement is 'interfering' now?

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats