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 -
Sorry, I have to push back about the VP chosen because Black Woman narrative. This is wrong, and absolutely NOT the "Original Sin". It's true that Biden committed to a woman as VP. But the reason Harris specifically was chosen was loyalty. So we shouldn't be surprised that she never stabbed him in the back, because she was chosen on precisely that criteria!! Being Black or possibly the beneficiary of Democratic affirmative candidate action is mostly irrelevant. Extensive evidence here about the process of selection. If you want to play with counterfactuals, the other women in contention were: Elizabeth Warren, Gretchen Whitmer, and Susan Rice. So the more fair question is if Warren, Whitmer, or Rice were VP, would they have spilled the beans, or pushed back against a doomed re-election campaign?
That the government works fine without the extensive input of the President is a feature, not a bug. The fact that most Americans don't recognize that this has always been the case, even with more attention-hungry presidents, has more to do with how attention-hungry presidents are than the facts of who does the work. The Cabinet and bureaucracy has always done the lion's share of the work. And most Cabinet members, quite honestly, are also at least nominally capable of being president themselves, so it's not as if they are incompetent. And (relative) stability in US governance is partly why the US had such an excellent 20th century (of course far from the entire reason, but it helps a lot).
Ultimately I agree that Tapper doesn't actually want to find the Original Sin too badly. I just don't think there is a smoking gun anywhere. It's a larger Democratic problem, and not even a new one! However, if you insist on identifying, if not a smoking gun, that at least a moment in time that demonstrates the impending problems, you don't need to look any farther than 2016. Hillary Clinton and her campaign is the Democratic Party's original sin. Or, maybe, that Obama decided to make a deal with the devil in the first place? Anyways, nearly every single flaw of the Democratic Party today is visible in nascent form in 2016 already, from the cynical insider takover of the primary process, to the sanctimoniousness of the rhetoric about electing a woman, to the lack of Obama-style vision to help regular people's pocketbooks, to the mistrust of a temperamentally and ethically aloof Clinton herself.
But the American president is not a figurehead, he is meant to be the one running the country. If the Prime Minister's girlfriend is in fact the one making the picks as to who gets a job, that is an unfortunate reality, but the girlfriend was not the one elected to do the job. If the Permanent Under-Secretary for Filing Cabinets is the one running the country while the President goes golfing, that is not what the people decided should happen.
And if that is what happens, then the people should be informed, not laughed at for being too dumb to realise that they have been lied to for decades.
It's unfortunate that so many people believe this, but this isn't really the case. The perception of this has more to do with candidates over-promising on the campaign trail than what civics classes actually teach. Let's check the Constitution and see what kind of language it uses about the President. I'll pick out the most relevant bits:
What kind of vibe do you get from this? He's in charge of the military, pretty much full stop (exceptions for declarations of war), but most of the other duties? Notice how often there's a give and take between Congress, the officers that the President supervises, heads of departments, and the President. Even the foreign policy stuff is supposed to be "by and with the Consent of the Senate". The Constitution is pretty clear that although he's supervising the executive structure, he doesn't have full control. He can appoint a lot of people, but the most important ones must have Senate approval. He can appoint (and nowadays, does extensively) a lot of "inferior Officers", but the Constitution is pretty clear that this is actually Congress' right intrinsically, but that they may choose to delegate to the President (or alternatively the department heads themselves, who are Senate-confirmed, and this is also decided by Law, i.e. both houses of Congress). To me, this doesn't really sound a whole lot like "running the country". The whole point actually IS that a very large number of the actual bureaucracy is a supposed to be a joint effort between the legislative and executive branches, with the whole back and forth between appointments, nominations, confirmations, etc.
That is, the people with the levers of power are still chosen by an indirect democratic process. That's why the US is a representative democracy, we are supposed to elect people with good judgement, and then there's a series of checks and balances between those people as they hash out the details amongst themselves, so to speak, with periodic input from the electorate. Even the design of the elections, famously, is intended to strike a balance between responsiveness to public will (which is good) and resistance to fads (which are bad). Of course the two are difficult to distinguish, so you kind of want the best of both worlds: that's why there are two houses of Congress, for example, and you'll notice a lot of this "Advice and Consent" is specifically given to the Senate, which is the more long-term outlook of the two (six year terms, with only a third up for election at one time in any given cycle). Again, that's by design!
The modern fact that the Senate, specifically, has devolved way too much power to the President is a known issue, and publicized if you're paying close attention, but not really a Constitutional one per se. They could claw back a lot of this power if they wanted to, even now.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link