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 -
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.
In response, the feds are federalizing the national guard to deploy to LA:
Gov. Newsom doesn't like the idea:
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:
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yeah, but I think you've encapsulated the problem right there: they picked the wrong candidate. Now, there are reasons for that, mostly to do with Biden insisting on running again and everyone in the tight inner circle hiding his decline until it couldn't be papered over anymore, leaving the party with a very short run-in to the election and only Harris as their main choice.
But they still refused to have a primary, refused to consider any alternatives, and let her/her campaign staff run a terrible campaign. Add in that allegedly she picked Walz over Shapiro because Walz was willing to stay in the background and hold her handbag, and that tells you where it was going.
Do you honestly think the same party, with the same people in charge, are going to turn around and pick "well Shapiro is electable!" this time round?
Considering the same people aren't in charge, having declined to continue their leadership due to what you just posted, I don't think that's a possibility. It's also worth pointing out that Democratic leadership doesn't pick the candidate, the voters do.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link