site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   31779 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 2, 2023

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.

10
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Welcome to day three in the United States House of Representatives quest to choose a speaker. Previous thread here. Yesterday ended a little abruptly, with the House reconvening at 8 pm only to immediately adjourn until noon today. Word on the street is the Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) was worried someone was going to nominate Steve Scalise (R-LA) for the Speakership and that Scalise would be a compromise candidate who could defeat McCarthy. Allegedly a deal was reached overnight that will bring some 10 or so dissenters to McCarthy's side but, unfortunately for him, that will still not be enough for him to win. In order to get an outright majority (assuming all members vote) McCarthy needs to get 17 of the 21 Republicans not currently voting for him.

Interestingly it seems some of these Republicans are not even looking for rule changes, they are just Never-McCarthy. Matt Gaetz (R-FL), for example, told the news yesterday that he was prepared to vote "every hour, every day, every week, but never for [McCarthy]". If four other Republicans feel similarly I believe that will be enough to deny McCarthy the Speakership in perpetuity. Having other McCarthy supporters vote "Present" to decrease the total needed doesn't work because McCarthy loses votes faster than the threshold decreases. The "Present" voters would need to either be among the five opposed to McCarthy or among Democrats, both of which seem unlikely to me.

ETA:

At the end of the seventh ballot the results stand at:

Jeffries - 212

McCarthy - 201

Donalds - 19

Other - 1

Present - 1

Matt Gaetz was the Other vote and cast his vote for Donald John Trump. It seems the alleged compromise failed to actually move any of the dissenters against McCarthy, including Victoria Spartz (R-IN) who has voted Present in the last few ballots. Nor has anyone nominated Scalise yet. We're now looking at 4 ballots across two days with basically identical results. Well and truly in a stalemate.

ETA 2:

At the end of the eighth ballot the results stand at:

Jeffries - 212

McCarthy - 201

Donalds - 17

Other - 3

Present - 1

Few more Other votes this time. Two for Kevin Hern (R-OK) and one for Trump again. Seems holdouts may not be sold on Donalds but aren't coming around to McCarthy. Wish we could skip the nominating speeches (who are not convincing anyone) and move to a speedier method of voting than this call and response. Heard rumors after the first vote that McCarthy wanted to adjourn but the Dems + holdouts probably wouldn't let them (need a majority to adjourn).

ETA 3:

According to a CNN reporter quoting Rep-Elect Michael Lawler (R-NY) the 18 Republican Members of the House that were elected in districts Biden won in 2020 are not moving from Kevin McCarthy as Speaker. So if these 18 won't vote for anyone other than McCarthy and at least 5 other members will never vote for McCarthy then it's impossible for the Republicans to get anyone over the majority line.

ETA 4:

At the end of the ninth ballot the results stand at:

Jeffries - 212

McCarthy - 200

Donalds - 17

Hern - 3

Other - 0

Present - 1

Ken Buck (R-CO) did not vote. We've now passed the number of ballots the last time there were multiple ballots in a Speaker election. This is officially the longest Speaker selection by ballot count since 1859. That election took 44 ballots. Probably see adjournment after this though I'm unsure until when. Pretty convinced at this point there is nothing McCarthy can offer that's going to get the holdouts to vote for him and I'm unclear if there's a non-McCarthy candidate that could get a sufficient number of votes unless McCarthy himself drops out. Probably House adjourns after this for dinner although until when I could not say.

ETA 5:

At the end of the tenth ballot the results stand at:

Jeffries - 212

McCarthy - 200

Donalds - 13

Hern - 7

Other - 0

Present - 1

Ken Buck (R-CO) did not vote. Kevin McCarthy fails to secure the Speakership for the 10th time. Looks like Republican dissenters might be migrating from Donaldson to Hern. No movement between any of the three coalitions (Dems/McCarthy/Other). Might be more votes depending on where the votes stand for adjournment.

ETA 6:

At the end of the eleventh ballot the results stand at:

Jeffries - 212

McCarthy - 200

Hern - 7

Trump - 1

Other - 12

Present - 1

I think just about all the Other votes were for Donalds, not sure why no one re-nominated him. Something darkly amusing about back room deals going while these votes are counted because members need to be on the floor to vote and don't have the votes to adjourn, so they have to retire to their private meeting rooms in the brief period when they can.

ETA 7:

On a 219-213 vote, with one Republican joining the Democrats, the House is adjourned until noon tomorrow.

Some updates from a CBS congressional reporter. Sounds like the House Freedom Caucus getting a lot of decision making power and committee slots related to budget. Some people are slightly concerned about a potential default on the debt. If the deal goes through as reported it certainly seems like the HFC got exactly what they wanted from bucking the party line.

Also:

Ken Buck (R-OH)

Ken "I do not wear high heels" Buck is from Colorado not Ohio.

Thanks, corrected.

I wonder if this will be enough to get McCarthy to a majority. Last I had heard it wouldn't.

I suppose this is intended to be a catch-all response to the various people here and elsewhere saying that this is actually a demonstration of good healthy democratic-body function. This doesn't concern arguments about a) The inability of a GOP house to take meaningful action with a Dem Senate and President, or b) the belief that a non-functioning House is a positive because the federal government mostly harms and doesn't help.

The issue I take with this viewpoint is that while other parliamentary systems operate in a manner which is more similar to what we're seeing - the norms and practices of the house are actually reflective of the consent and will of the people who participate in it. There was a process to determine the speaker at the Republican Conference (as there is for every congress - sometimes more than once), including negotiating, concessions, a vote etc. This was not smoke and mirrors or shrouded from the public - it is not the system's design that every thought and whisper happens in public, but that votes and procedural action is public. To borrow another parliamentary analogy - this is the equivalent of voting against a confidence motion. It's not reflective of any actual negotiation or democratic participation. The freedom caucus is obviously technically allowed to violate this norm despite being a small minority because the GOP margin is so narrow.

While it does seem like an unmerciful mess, it's at least better than the Fall of the House of Truss, where there was chaos, Whips swearing, manhandling, and resigning (and then unresigning), MPs (allegedly) weeping and contradictory messages coming out of Downing Street.

Has anyone set up a head of lettuce to see which lasts longer - the lettuce, or McCarthy? 😁

Oh that lettuce was such a wonderful romp.

this is actually a demonstration of good healthy democratic-body function.

The issue I take here is that this position is either naive, cope, or disingenuous. You can say you think open debate is good and even mean it, but the proceedings are public. Anyone watching can quite clearly see that there no debate or negotiation. That all happens - by necessity - behind the scenes. A couple of people make insipid nominating speeches before each round of balloting, votes are tallied, and the process starts over. This isn't going to start some new practice of speakers being chosen by floor debate. Whatever resolution comes of this will be the result of a backroom deal that is then presented to the public.

The inability of a GOP house to take meaningful action with a Dem Senate and President

It absolutely can - it can acquiesce in various democratic legislative priorities, impeach various officials, hold various oversight hearings, change legislative rules to increase or decrease the power of individual members or sub-caucus interest blocs, advance compromise bills of their own, etc.

it is not the system's design that every thought and whisper happens in public, but that votes and procedural action is public.

Oh, I'm sure that the Kevin McCarthys of the world prefer the design where they get to say, "get in line or I will ensure that you never sit on a committee again" behind closed doors, I'm just unclear how this is supposed to be a compelling argument in favor of that design for those of us that are enjoying the proceedings today. I want the norms and practices changed. The status quo has led to runaway federal spending and power to the extent that I'm amenable to a few wreckers attempting to do some actual wrecking. What is lost in doing so?

One thing that I think is a bit under remarked upon is that the Democratic Leader choices have been extremists, while the Republican choices have been moderates. To avoid coloring this with just my personal perception, let's look at DW-Nominate. During the previous term, Pelosi and Jeffries ranked 33rd and 35th, respectively, putting them roughly in the left-most 85th percentile of Democrats and 92nd percentile overall. In contrast, McCarthy was the 131st most right-leaning Republican, putting him in the 41st percentile among Republicans and 70th percentile overall. Prior to McCarthy, Paul Ryan and John Boehner similarly represented the middle of the Republican Party.

Pelosi was the Democratic Leader for 20 years (wow!), so I'm wondering if her tone-setting carried over to selecting another staunch progressive, if it's just a coincidence, or if the current Democratic Party is selecting for extremely progressive leadership in a way that Republicans don't select for right-wing leadership. I think it's also how this fits in with the widely held belief that the Republican Party has been captured by extremists - it seems like they actually select moderate leadership, while the Democratic Party stops just short of its further left flank.

Analyzing the data you linked, the phenomenon you described is just a result of democrats as a whole being more centrist - so that an 80th percentile most extreme-left Dem is about the same distance from center as a 40th percentile-right GOP. Dems have a single rep with a score of over .7, whereas the GOP has half a dozen people at least .8[You can approach this multiple ways, there are 30 democrats at greater than .500 from center, but 109 republicans]. The specific example of speakers reflects this, Pelosi is at .49 from center, and McCarthy is .454.

Hm, I think both you and OP may be reading into this a little too much. Correlation of party vote has much more to due with party cohesiveness, unity, and strategy than it does with extremism. Also, votes against bipartisan measures seem likely to count you as more extreme where I would argue they make you less extreme. For instance, only Russ Feingold. voted against the Patriot act in the senate, whereas in the House 90% of Republicans and only 20% of Democrats voted for it. Does this mean Republicans are farther right than the Democrats are left, since they were more cohesive than the Democrats?

What I think would work MUCH better would be a breakdown based on whether the bill passes or fails, and whether the candidate's party supports or opposes the bill, weighted by how close the bill was to passing/failing. If a vote passes overwhelmingly, I don't think that voting against it is evidence one way or the other--you could oppose it, or you could think it doesn't go far enough. If a vote barely fails, and you voted against it, and your party supported it, then that's much better evidence that you actually opposed it. Even then you're basically just measuring how many independents register and win in each party.

The mean score of the senate is 0.088, while the median is 0.055. I'm not sure what zero represents, but it isn't the center of the Senate.

I don't know who made up the numbers, nor did I post the link, I was responding to someone else's analysis of how the percentiles relate to the data. If you have an issue with the data take it up with Walterodim

The Wikipedia article sorta explains where those numbers come from. But given that it's essentially a numerical summary of how people voted, it seems like it would be greatly affected by what exactly they were voting on (which the Speaker of the House has a lot of control over). That is, it's a measure of how liberal/conservative an individual's voting patterns are, not their politics, and the choice of what to put up for votes could significantly change the interpretation of those two relative to each other.

There’s something infuriating about a protest vote for Trump. Is it supposed to represent anything other than pandering?

What about this is infuriating?

Also: this is an extremely low effort post. Please don’t post like this.

https://www.themotte.org/rules

A protest vote is a signal. Usually “X deserves this more than any of the leading candidates.” But just deserts aren’t really at stake here. Other uses of the protest vote include “Even X would be better than your guys,” which doesn’t fit either.

I’m left with something like brand recognition. Trump’s name is supposed to remind people how hip Gaetz is, even though he has no real connection to the vote. It’s like an applause light: content-free, but not without context. I can’t tell why it’s supposed to be a good thing, just that he expects it to work, and that makes me feel like I’ve been had.

Maybe an interesting comparison is land acknowledgments. They aren’t intended to right a wrong so much enshrine a certain level in the public consciousness. So you get a ceremony-as-advertisement.

Or, hell, the Kanye-Taylor Swift thing from a forgotten era. “Trump has the greatest political career of all time. Of all time!” We get it, Gaetz, you really want Beyoncé to know how you feel.

A protest vote doesn't men X deserves this more than all of you. I want to waste my vote just to say fuck you and fuck your whole system. Voting for Trump is probably the most effective choice to deliver that message of any options available in the last 30 years.

I’ll second Mr. Deuterium in asking why.

A protest vote is intended as a signal. But I do not understand what is being signaled by this particular gesture. It’s not the traditional “X really deserved this,” or its opponent, “These all suck even more than X.” Just injecting the Donald into an unexpected situation.

Edit: it feels like advertising where I’m not the intended customer. Is this how other people feel about woke super bowl ads??

I read it as a cheeky backdoor response to Trump's ineffective call for support of McCarthy. Boebert was on hannity last night, giving really word-vomity double talk about how she loves Trump, but isn't listening to him on this. The MAGAs are stuck still paying lip service to Trump, but are spotlighting his waning influence.

I thought Gaetz' vote was intended similarly. A subtle, "ah-No Donald, you aren't part of this discussion", without having to suffer the backlash or brand-damage of publicly dissing him.

Maybe I'm totally wrong here, but that's how I initially read it - post-ironic - both a subtle dig and a performative bow to Donald's fading candle.

Not an American, but I would’ve imagined woke super bowl ads to be an order of magnitude more infuriating.

"Business as usual is not coming back. Either our concerns get addressed, or we will burn this entire system to the ground."

This isn't burning the system down, this is getting the Democrats elected in 2024.

Personally, I think the organized efforts of the media, big tech, and the federal security apparatus to both conceal truths harmful to democrats and propagate lies harmful to Republicans is probably what, if anything, is going to get the Democrats elected in 2024. Be that as it may, the thing where establishment Republicans get to enjoy the delights of elected office is part of the system in question.

...This is generally where moderates of various stripes claim that such tactics have a cost, disrupting the vital, necessary work of our legislative bodies. A reasonable claim! I'd be interested to hear what clear good that legislative body has accomplished in the last, say, ten years? Twenty? More? Can you make a case for the accomplishments of our august legislative body?

Personally, I think the organized efforts of the media, big tech, and the federal security apparatus to both conceal truths harmful to democrats and propagate lies harmful to Republicans is probably what, if anything, is going to get the Democrats elected in 2024.

It's kind of weird how that didn't get enough Democrats elected in 2022.

Or 2016.

Or 2014.

Or 2010.

Is it your contention that the current state of affairs, the players involved, their ideological commitments, and the state of the infrastructure employed were identical in 2016, 2014 and 2010 as they are now? If so, I think you are mistaken. Things change. Changes can be observed, and trends noted. Further, is it your understanding that election shenanigans are either utterly decisive, or completely nonexistent? Is it not possible for such interference to simply provide a significant statistical advantage?

In any case, FBI interference in the 2016 election is now a matter of public record. I'm going to take a wild guess and say you probably think it's fine for the federal security services to collude with Twitter, facebook, google, and most major media corporations to manipulate the information available to voters. That's your choice, of course, doubtless made easier by the apparent lack of any downside to such an assertion. Others disagree, but what are they going to do about it?

More comments

Why?

Because it's an emphatic rejection of the arguments typified by the OP and many others in this thread. It's a refusal to accept the existing system on the terms it demands. Trump is worthless in most ways, but his capacity as a symbol stubbornly remains, despite his own efforts to the contrary. Here, it appears to be used to humiliate the GOP establishment, highlighting their impotence to actually break his dominance over their party. Even, amusingly, when he's siding with the establishment!

It's almost as though Trump's relationship with the Republican base isn't quite as simple as the standard cult of personality claims. Almost as though he served as a schelling point, a coordination mechanism for a pre-existing population interested in something more than blind following.

There's a small chance that it's some sort of comedic joke, given that Trump endorsed McCarthy. But it's more likely that Gaetz is just a putz; I doubt he expects any of his constituents to take notice of that compared to the rest of this circus.

Honestly I love this stuff. Isn’t this what Democracy is about? People fighting over how to govern? I guess there are two ways to do it.

  1. Make a decision in a smoke filled room and every one falls in line and votes how their suppose to.

  2. Have an open public debate on how to govern and people fighting in public.

(2) feels far more Democratic to me. Sure eventually the no votes need to fall in line and vote McCarthy but they deserve every right to try and trigger an exodus to someone else.

Yeah. I don’t know why people are so pissed. If it goes on for a fortnight sure, but a few days or even a week? Seems dare I say healthy?

Genuinely, who is pissed (aside from Kevin McCarthy)? Democrats, as far as I can tell, think this is a hilarious vindication. The anti-McCarthy Republicans think they're fighting the good fight. The media loves it because it's a circus. The people who seem to be most upset are normal Republicans, and they seem more embarrassed than angry.

I love this so much it’s unreal.

One of the more mask off moments is seeing all the dems saying on twitter and various cable news interviews that the republicans are obstructing and that this is, of course, a danger to our democracy.

They leave out that those dems could simply vote for McCarthy and Restore Democracy. It’s like they really do believe that they have a right to everyone’s vote, no matter the voters actual preference, and that only their preferences are right and just and Democratic.

The holdouts are objectively obstructing. Mostly their own “teammates,” so it’s a bit silly for Democrats to act wounded, but still. Matt Gaetz et al. are representing their constituents at the expense of the GOP—per their mandate.

Why should it be Democrats’ responsibility to pick up after the toddlers?

Not trying to single you out here, but I hate the word "obstructing" in politics. Its use is a motte-and-bailey. The motte is "blocking a thing from happening." As you say, the holdouts are "objectively" blocking the election of a speaker. But the bailey (which I'm not accusing you of using here) is "blocking my team from doing what we want without compromise," which was how the term was used through most of the Obama administration.

Why should it be Democrats’ responsibility to pick up after the toddlers?

I also really loathe the use of child-related words to describe politicians' actions. "Petulant," "childish," "toddlers," "tantrum," and of course the bizarre flash in the pan from a few years ago that was "pissbaby." Nobody in any of the three branches of government is a "toddler" (though I'll make allowances for Trump). This sort of language smuggles in the idea that the other team are the "adults" who are mature, responsible, serious, reliable, and more deserving of power. Assuming it's not being used cynically, it represents a failure to fully grok one's outgroup's motivations.

For example, Gaetz casting a vote for Trump isn't being a "toddler" or "having a tantrum," it's a middle finger to the establishment GOP. You might think it's an ineffectual or tasteless gesture, and it may well be, but there's a serious intent behind it. It's not the act of an irrational "toddler."

Democracy in Crisis just means progressives not getting what they want. But why would the Democrats want to stop this? It makes Republicans looks incompetent and signal boosts the embarrassing Gaetz wing of the party. Imagine The Squad pulling this against Pelosi in 2018. Republicans would just laugh.

Fyi, there was a serious movement demanding the "Squad" do just that in 2020 - i.e. block Pelosi until they were promised a floor vote on Medicare For All, or a 15-dollar federal minimum wage, or other progressive goals - but they fell in line with the caucus and didnt do it.

I'm guessing the Squad got something for their support. The defectors here know they'll get nothing regardless of promises, so they have no incentive to fall in line.

Didn’t they block build back build back better and decided who you want to blame Manchin or the gang the bill never got passed in original for or anything close to it.

Yes and the Republicans just sat by and watched them fight. The inability to select a speaker is a different level of dysfunction compared to the inability to pass $4T in new spending (while inflation was picking up steam) requiring 100% yes on a pure party line vote.

They're not toddlers, they're obeying their electoral mandates, as you just said. Why should Democratic Party lockstep solidarity be privileged over the business of government?

For the Democrats, this is more a moment to say "our opponents can't get their shit together". It's a showcase for the argument that the Republicans can't or don't want to govern and opportunity to throw Murc's Law in the faces of their critics.

Wordlessly and thanklessly picking up after toddlers is what adults do. If this is actually Extremely Dangerous To Our Democracy, then suck it up and throw a few votes to McCarthy to end the circus and move things along. Crying and caterwauling about how the situation is so bad, but you refuse to do anything about it is the behavior of a shitty 10 year old.

As has been the case over the past few years, I think it's important to hear "Our Democracy" as "OUR Democracy" to better understand how people not voting the way someone wants could be a danger to democracy.

Why should it be Democrats’ responsibility to pick up after the toddlers?

Because they're the ones complaining about the "obstruction". Every member of the House has the right to vote for whomever they wish. And if the Democrats think it's sooooo bad that the process can't move forward because of the split in votes, then it's on them - not the Republicans - to sacrifice the vote their conscience says they should make in order to get things to move along.

It's the responsibility of those who think it is a problem to offer and implement solutions.

This here. A few of the republicans voting McCarthy could also stop "obstructing" by voting present and letting Jeffries win, that way teaching a valuable lesson to the Republican holdouts.

Most republicans would prefer no congress to Jeffries and anyone going down that path would be primaried.

I mean, Jeffries is the clear plurality winner in every vote taken so far. The Reps should just vote for him!

I do not wish to live in the timeline where Gaetz throwing Trump's name into the ring for speaker of the house actually leads to him becoming the speaker of the house, but if it actually happens it would be must-see tv to see Trump interacting with representatives on the house floor

I can just imagine trump booing Biden during the SOTU. Would be must see tv!

Allegedly a deal was reached overnight that will bring some 10 or so dissenters to McCarthy's side but, unfortunately for him, that will still not be enough for him to win.

Well, so much for that

Really wish the GOP would adopt a strategy of being the “adults in the room” as a counter to the woke excess side of the Dems. Unfortunately there seems to be much more money to made by being an attention whore like Gaetz than attempting to govern.

The GOP are being the Adults in the room in this case: they are standing up for what they believe in, willing to sink the ship of state and engage in brinksmanship rather than be intimidated and role over like children being threatened by their teacher. Only a child would fall for the same "Well what are you gonna do, vote for the other guy?" shit that has been happening over and over to Democrats for 30 years now.

The petulant children are the Squad et al; willing to threaten and wheedle and whine, but they never get anything done because they'll never risk mommy's displeasure. The left wing of the democratic party sits on its hands and does nothing productive, where the right wing of the Republican party throws out leadership, primaries leadership, throws elections, and spits on the centrist blackmail about "Well then the Democrats will win!"

I don’t see Matt Gaetz voting trump for speaker as a principled stance to take.

I suppose in the end it doesn’t really matter, but just another disappointment from politics.

Why not?

What major right-wing goals do you think the House could achieve with a Democrat Senate and President if they were to adopt the strategy of being the "adults in the room" and why is it important that they be done without a couple days of protests votes regarding McCarthy?

It’s a consistency thing. I’d like the GOP to consistently show that they are serious about governing. It’s been difficult for me to take the republicans serious since Trump and the midterms.

Honestly this just sounds like “boo outgroup” to me. The other side isn’t “serious” because they aren’t behaving how I want them too.

The GOP is my in group! It shows how far gone parts of the GOP base has gone (the part that is responsible for losing the senate majority) that my criticism is making me out to be a liberal. Matt Gaetz voting Trump for speaker is just another example of him and his followers not being serious people.

What would "serious people" be attempting to accomplish at this juncture?

What does "serious about governing" mean? Does it mean "doing everything possible to ensure that law enforcement is not interfering in politics?" Because that's what some of the holdouts are demanding with regard to the FBI and J-6 committees. Does it mean "do everything possible to ensure that major policy choices are publicy debated and openly voted on, as opposed to smuggled out the back door as riders on unrelated bills, as just happened with the water bill and omnibus?" Becuase the holdouts are demanding that too.

It really seems to me that many calls for "seriousness" or being "the adult in the room," unless tied to specifics, are just about aesthetics, and displeasure with anything unruly or that breaks with current practice in a way that displeases anyone with a megaphone.

Can you explain why this is unserious? Listen to Chip Roy. He doesn’t seem like a non-adult. Yes it is different compared to what has come before but adding 20 trillion in debt over 10’years doesn’t seem like an adult move. Waiting until a week before the end of the session to pass an omnibus doesn’t seem like an adult action. Maybe throwing sand in the start to try to prevent the temptation of those things later on is in fact the adult thing. The siren song is strong.

I don't know if "they are serious" is false because of the word "serious", but it's at least false because of the word "they" (with "GOP" as the antecedent). If the Republicans were voting as a block to try to prevent the things you're describing from happening, and if they actually meant it, that would be impressive. But even if we assume for the sake of argument that McCarthy is a traitor to the responsible anti-spendthrift prompt-budgeting causes, he's only got 19 or 20 Republicans trying to stop him, not 219. In a favorable interpretation of their actions we would have to say that only 10% of GOP House members are serious about governing, but they're being thwarted by the other 90%!

And that "being thwarted" is a bit embarrassing too. Maybe I'll be more optimistic after we find out what juicy concessions they extract or what compromise speaker they get instead, but for now, I'd be more sanguine about Republican improvements to the future of non-last-minute budget negotiations if they could at least negotiate with each other without a stalemate.

OK, but what are the specific goals you'd like to obtain if they're serious about governing? My perspective has been almost the polar opposite of yours; I agree that Trump and friends come off as clownishly incompetent, but the reality of their policy positions and pre-Covid outcomes was preferable to what I'd expect to get with more of the very serious people in charge. I'm just not clear what I should find appealing about the very serious people continuing to increase the concentration of wealth and power in the federal government.

Republicans have a different set of priorities to democrats, and democrats are less willing to compromise on Republican priorities, which include ineffectual border pork, social media laws that do nothing except increase legal costs, and grandstanding in the name of Covid accountability than republicans are on the de facto democrat priorities, which include bombing things, making upper class tax cuts more complicated, and smearing money around to their political friends’ nephews’ fraternity brothers.

Both-sidesing low-effort and uncharitable group criticism does not really cure the low-effort and uncharitable nature of your criticism. Please remember that

We want to engage with the best ideas on either side of any issue, not the worst.

If the House Republicans could present a similarly united front,

But the Republicans aren't a united front on many issues, and haven't been for nearly a decade. The parties are different.

That's only because the Republican congressional leadership are such sell-outs toward their base, desperate to curry favor with Washington, D.C. elites and the left-aligned mainstream media. Democrats will never be so generous, because they get those things for free. Unfortunately for the GOP, they may have sold out too much this time.

I don't think I'm following - sure, Democrats were able to get a bunch of increased spending passed by Trump, but I don't think this implies that Republicans will be able to get a bunch of decreased spending passed by Biden. If, instead, the suggestion is that they should just figure out which things they'd like to increase spending on, then we're back to there being a couple dozen "extremists" that are against increased spending and are serving their constituents by rejecting the promise to compromise by spending more on slightly different things.

The sort of claim made in that Wiki really chaps my hide:

The sequester lowered spending by a total of approximately $1.1 trillion versus pre-sequester levels over the approximately 8-year period from 2013 to 2021.

Let's cut things a bit short so we don't bump into the Covid spending and just look at 2013 up through 2020. Federal outlays increased from $3.72 trillion to $4.87 trillion over that 7-year period. Only in government could this be considered a budget cut and only among Republicans could this be considered a negotiated victory.

Spending increased between Q1 2013 to Q1 2015, going from $3.72 to trillion to $3.97 trillion. There were no "cuts", just a slowdown in the planned rate of growth. My position is that a Republican Congress that is led by the "adults in the room" will continue to increase federal spending. I do not see any prior experience that suggests that they will actually decrease the federal budget or even make meaningful cuts to the worst sectors of federal government. You referred to the sequestration deal as "doing well" and I regard it as a perfect example of how Republican wins tend to be conservative losses.

More comments

Except the game isn’t rigged. To win you need to win elections and then govern once you actually win. The Dems managed to pass quite a bit of legislation while in power recently and it’s debatable if republicans would be able to do the same if given power again.

Republicans are conservative. Which means keep things as they are. The primary conservative position is to legislate rarely and mostly obstruct. I don’t know people on the left keep saying the GOP should do more. When conservatives by definition are primarily obstructionists. Occasionally act to roll back something that went to far. And occassionally something happens in the world and they have to do something. 9/11 being an example of this.

Republicans are conservative. Which means keep things as they are.

No they actually aren't. Republicans have a large number of fairly radical proposals which most of the party (though not all of it) agrees with, including destruction of large parts of the federal bureaucracy, and roll-back of many current federal laws.

“Occasionally act to roll back something that went too far”. Which I completely agree with doing with regards to the federal bureaucracy. And I’ve posted that in prior threads. They want the fbi to go back to catching drug dealer, white collar thieves, etc.

You are not contradicting my point.

Also this session won’t be a legislative session. To roll back the bureaucracy it’s going to be hearings and proving their cases. They need the presidency in all likelihood to launch the war. Right now it’s about visibility on the overreach of the Feds.

Do you think that is YouEssAyyy's actual opinion, yes or no?

Gaetz and Green are probably the ones to ignore; they’re clown shows who can be counted on the defect regardless.

If a deal’s been reached with Roy and Boebert, then chances are the other dissenters will join in with it.

According to a Fox News interview with Scott Perry (head of the Freedom Caucus) there has been no deal and he accused McCarthy of leaking information to his benefit.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats