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 -
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.
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.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
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.
More options
Context Copy link
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.
More options
Context Copy link
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?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link