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 -
Anyone else watching the drama play out electing the Speaker in the United States House of Representatives? You can watch for free on C-SPAN. Today is the first day of the 118th Congress and the House's first order of business is electing a Speaker. Normally this is a pro-forma affair and whoever is the leader of their party cruises to victory on their first ballot. The last time a Speaker election went beyond one ballot was 1923, and that was resolved only after five ballots. So far today we've had one ballot in which Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) (the presumptive speaker) has not only failed to win a majority of votes cast and become Speaker, but to win even a plurality of votes in the ballot (the Democrats voted unanimously for Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY)). The current split in the House is 222 Republicans to 212 Democrats. So if every member votes then 218 votes are needed to win and McCarthy can afford to lose just 4 Republican votes (assuming no cross-party-voting). Currently McCarthy is on his way to lose a second ballot, with 19 votes having gone to Jim Jordan (R-OH). On the first ballot McCarthy lost 19 votes, mostly to Andy Biggs (R-AZ) but some to Other. Jordan has already exceeded Biggs total, but the voting isn't finished so it remains to be seen whether more people have fallen in line and voted for McCarthy or if Republicans coalesce around Jordan or some other candidate.
It seems to me the most likely outcome is Republicans eventually fall in line and elect McCarthy, but other outcomes are possible. Republicans could potentially coalesce around another candidate (Jordan seems possible). Since what's required is a majority of all votes cast Jeffries could win if enough Republicans abstain or don't vote, leading to a Dem speaker in a majority Republican house.
It's interesting to look at the drama today through the lens of the common complaints about infighting among the Democrats and the left. For all that discussion it seems the Democratic Party has gotten behind Jeffries as Pelosi's replacement in short order, while Republicans can't seem to reach consensus on who should be their leader in the House.
ETA:
At the end of the second ballot the results stand at:
Jeffries - 212
McCarthy - 203
Jordan - 19
This means McCarthy picked up no votes between first and second ballot. All the votes that went to Biggs/Other on the first ballot went to Jordan on the second ballot.
ETA2:
At the end of the third ballot the results stand at:
Jeffries - 212
McCarthy - 202
Jordan - 20
McCarthy now officially losing ground to Jordan. This is kind of funny because Jordan (at least by his own words on the House floor) doesn't want the job and wants McCarthy to have it.
ETA3:
The House just adjourned (Speaker still undecided) until noon tomorrow.
I think people in this thread are underestimating how dysfunctional this is. A party caucus in a legislature isn't just a talking shop for mutually sympathetic legislators - it is an agreement to accept party discipline in order to gain the benefits of power. The whole point of a caucus being in the majority is that the caucus votes internally on issues like who to support for the speakership, and then they all vote the same way. If you can't get the caucus to vote together, then you have a majority in name only. Despite the classic meme status of "I belong to no organised political party - I am a Democrat", the Democrats never managed to f*** this up in this way, even when their party was split between Northern leftists and Dixiecrats.
The incoming House republican caucus held its internal vote after the elections in November, and voted 188-31 (by secret ballot, which is the norm for internal party votes) in favour of McCarthy. The whole point of being a caucus is that all 222 Republicans are now supposed to vote for the duly selected Republican candidate (i.e. McCarthy) in the public vote. The rebels (who do not include Jim Jordan himself - he voted for McCarthy like he is supposed to, and indeed nominated McCarthy on the second public ballot) are the real RINOs here - they are not accepting the basic responsibilities of caucus membership. If the Republicans can't agree on a Speaker, then in a very real sense they are not the majority.
This is why we are not seeing a move to choose a compromise candidate (according to gossip on various right-wing websites, Steve Scalise is acceptable to both factions). McCarthy thinks he is entitled to the speakership because he won the Republican caucus vote and the Republicans are in the majority. And if the Republicans were an organised political party rather than a clown show he would be right. And the 188 Republican congressmen who voted for him think they are entitled to the benefits of being in the majority, and the 31 dissidents should vote with the party if they want to share in those benefits. And if the Republicans were an organised political party, they would be right.
If the Republican rebels don't climb down after making their point for the cameras and the majority Republicans negotiate, then there are not two organised parties in the House with the Republicans in the majority. There are three parties (Democrats, Republicans, and MAGAtards) with nobody in the majority. And Scalise wouldn't be a Speaker leading a majority party, he would be a Speaker leading a coalition.
Don't do this, please.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link