site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of November 28, 2022

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.

I said that it plummeted in 1964, which is exactly what happened; it dropped from the 25-30 pct it had been from 1936-1960 to something like 5% in 1964

That brings the interesting question of what did cause that drop. The usual answer I see is the Nixon's Southern Strategy, but this is too early for that. The CRA is an obvious thing to look at, but Republicans voted for it in significantly higher margins than Democrats, albeit as the minority party in both chambers. Is it something plausibly chalked up to the 64 election being Johnson vs Goldwater, and then lock-in effects from there?

Well, the CRA was very much a signature initiative of a Democratic administration, and Democratic leadership in Congress (including Hubert Humphrey, who was instrumental in getting the civil rights plank added to the Democratic platform in 1948, leading to Southern segregationists walking out and [running their own candidate for President[]). Note also that the Wikipedia page you link to indicates that Southern Republican representatives (not that there were many) unanimously voted no. So, being pro-Civil Rights was

And, as for Goldwater, he rather famously voted no on the CRA. So, when you have an election in which the candidate for one party pushed hard for the CRA, was promised to enact the Voting Rights Act if reelected, and the candidate for the other party voted against the CRA, it is not surprising that African American support for the latter party plummeted. As for why it was locked in, the Johnson Administration followed up by pushing through the Voting Rights Act, a campaign highlighted by this speech, which famously used the civil rights movement's refrain, "We shall overcome." Moreover, in the wake of the Voting Rights Act, it is hardly surprising that African American voters, especially newly enfranchised ones (this states that the pct of African Americans registered to vote went from 23% before the VRA to 61% in 1969), it is also unsurprising that the new support levels became permanent.

Finally, just as white voters in the Deep South continued to vote for Democratic (often segregationist) candidates at the state level even as they shifted to supporting Republicans for President, it is certainly possible that African Americans in the Deep South did not support Democratic candidates at the local level at the same rate that they supported Democratic candidates for President.

And, as for Goldwater, he rather famously voted no on the CRA.

It was on free market principles, not hatefully standing against regulation of hateful exclusion, that Goldwater voted against it. Every time you fill out a form for employment or credit which asks your ethnic heritage, it’s because of a vast bureaucracy of statistics and lawyers enabled by the CRA working in the background for statistical fairness, and more lawyers ready to pounce on and destroy anyone who doesn’t agree.

Of course he handed the Democratic Party a huge PR win by standing on principle, and we’re now about halfway through LBJ’s predicted century of control of the Black vote.

It was on free market principles, not hatefully standing against regulation of hateful exclusion

I am really trying to focus on analytical arguments, rather than normative ones. I did not claim that Goldwater was racist, but rather was trying to explain why African Americans might be disinclined to vote for the Republican nominee in 1964. And, it is certainly not surprising that African Americans, and many others, myself included, might hear a candidate say, "free market principles are more important to me than ending Jim Crow," and conclude, "Gee, this candidate might be a wonderful person without a racist bone in his body, but nevertheless his priorities are misplaced; therefore, I will not vote for him."

That is a good question, but as I was saying to @Stefferi it's one of those things that so hopelessly compromised by politics that it's unlikely that anyone will be able to deliver a straight answer.