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 -
RFK Jr. fires two top staffers in leadership shakeup
There are two things I'd like to discuss here: the procedural and the inside baseball.
One of the most interesting aspects of the second Trump presidency is that unelected officials are being fired, and that the news is reporting on it.
Historically, firing high ranking officials was not uncommon. In recent years, however, it seems like it has gotten more difficult to do so, up until 2025.
What has changed? Is this entirely downstream of recent court precedent, or has the executive fundamentally changed in some way compared to Biden and Trump I?
There's a lot of supposition and kremlinology below, so if you're not into that, feel free to skip this section.
Moving on, I've seen a few rumors floating around that these firings are due to the officials in question approving the Moderna COVID vaccine while RFK jr was on vacation. If this is true, and that's a big if, it's interesting for a few different reasons.
Historically, federal officials had a lot of power to ignore and subvert the will of their bosses. Usually though, it's passive behavior. Appointed bosses come and go, so sandbagging on unpopular orders is a common strategy. Sometimes (like military leadership lying about force dispositions in Syria), they'll go so far as to elide or bend the truth on topics that won't get back to the president until its too late to matter. Rarely though, do they engage in something that would go against the will of their appointed Boss in a way that is both active AND verifiable.
Give all that - if the reason for the firing is true, it has some interesting implications.
To be honest, I'm not sure which possibility is most interesting, because they all have a lot of downstream implications for federal government.
Yeah, I’d like to see the numbers on this. I remember thinkpieces in Trump 1 about the number of empty positions, the rate of turnover, etc. Was that normal? Was it any different than the attrition today?
I’m going to bet against the vaccine thing.
Not sure if I believe CBS’s suggestion that it’s a show of annoyance at Trump. But the CNN theory is simple enough. There was some infighting between the two of them and RFK axed both. I find that more plausible than a couple staffers having some sort of rogue policy push.
More options
Context Copy link
5. The boss wants to appear to be against it and is generally happy to let underlings do it with plausible deniability so that he doesn't personally take political heat for an unpopular choice.
Every governing body has to figure out how to make those kind of choices. A system that allows them to made while protecting the boss from the blowback is part of the design.
More options
Context Copy link
Do the officials in question even have that power? The FDA is under the aegis of HHS, but they have a separate review team that handles these things. I doubt Kennedy's Chief of Staff has veto power over FDA decisions.
The person who actually approved the vaccine is Vinay Prasad, director of The Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research. He reports directly to FDA commissioner Marty Makary, who in turn reports to Secretary Kennedy.
More options
Context Copy link
TBH, that's part of why I posted this. My experience with the federal government is largely limited to contract compliance. Once you get into questions of who has the power to do anything, I rapidly get out of my depth.
Would the recent supreme court decision about independent agencies have any impact on that power?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Based on my experience working in the government and large organizations, it's #4. Leadership is so far removed from where the work is actually done that intent and desire doesn't matter, you have to make clear updated rules and guidelines for the low-level managers and employees to follow. If I'm FDA reviewer #123456 and a vaccine approval comes across my desk, am I going to cover my ass and follow the official guidelines my bosses constantly tell me I have to follow to the letter, or stick my neck out and do what I assume RFK Jr. wants me to do?
More options
Context Copy link
I think the answer to that one is that the electorate, at some point, willed the agency into existence with a mission statement, and thus their job is to follow this mission statement, period, until the electorate amends the mission statement or closes the agency. In theory, of course, it shouldn't be up to government employees to do political analysis to try and figure out the electorate's wishes. Still, I think this arrangement gives them a lot of leeway, especially with a disfunctional legislative body that is unable to direct these agencies, at that point everyone kinda hopes for and turns a blind eye to agencies stretching their mission statement.
I hadn't considered how Congress fit into all of this. Thanks for giving me something to ponder.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link