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 -
Sounds like they were doing a great job helping Democrats defeat Republicans. Democrats basically did the opposite when they spent money to promote far right Trumpist candidates in the midterms; a strategy that appears to have been successful for them. Median voter theorem does suggest the more centrist candidate should usually win.
Also see Scott's post on money in politics https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/09/18/too-much-dark-money-in-almonds/ I pretty much agree with it, if the voters really want a given candidate to win, no amount of money spent on ads will change that. Money in politics tips tight races, and it has the advantage of getting a politician to hear your ideas; a politician will never propose a bill about something they've never heard of of course. But it won't get a politician to do something blatantly against the voter's interest; a construction company won't be able to spend a billion dollars to lobby the government into giving them a trillion dollar contract.
Maybe.
Thing is; working class/ populist dems have a VERY good record in mid hard red areas these past few cycles.
EG, imagine if the Dems had run a working class slate in Texas. They coulda picked up way more than than they did with the usual financial class goobers they went with.
Seems in the Dems interests to run safe, centrist picks in light blue/swingy areas, and more risky populists in light red areas.
More options
Context Copy link
Well there's a paper that says differently. If you scroll down to figure 1 on page 574, it shows how likely a policy is to be introduced depending on the support of the general public, the top 10% of income-earners (which they use as a proxy for the truly wealth elite but could just as well stand for the professional managerial class) or lobby groups. They find that ordinary citizens have minimal influence, elites and lobby groups have significant influence. It basically does not matter whether the public is 90% in favor or 10% in favor - it's up to those who actually matter to decide the issue.
https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf
For example, the death penalty is fairly popular amongst the broad population, often above 50%. Yet in Britain, Brazil, Europe and Australia, it's been banned for decades. When they abolished it, popularity was usually in the 60s.
That article has received a great deal of what seems to me to be pretty convincing criticism. Eg here
Edit: PS: OP said "[Money in politics] won't get a politician to do something blatantly against the voter's interest." That article is, at best, only obliquely about money, and does not say anything about going against voters' interests. It addresses only voters' policy preferences, which is not the same thing. Eg, my personal policy preference, reflected in my vote in a past election, was to increase my property taxes to improve a public swimming pool, even though neither I nor anyone I know used it.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link