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 -
On the sqs thread, @Capital_Room had an interesting query, about whether Trump is actually being authoritarian:
Is there anything to this: "The Coup We've Feared Has Already Happened"?
Is this what it seems like to me — just more lefty pearl-clutching and crying wolf — or is there something to the arguments James Bruno and Tonoccus McClain are making?
Some of the commenters like @MadMonzer offer an interesting response:
That substack is a bad take on it - the best version of the theory I have seen is spread across multiple posts on lawfaremedia.org. But the underlying story is absolutely serious, and as far as I can see it is true. The three-bullet version of the story is
The slightly longer version is:
The claim that Trump and Johnson are trying to change the US budget process to one where (at least as regards discretionary spending - the only changes to entitlement spending have been done in regular order through the OBBBA) Congress does not meaningfully exercise the power of the purse seems to me to be straightforwardly true.
Overall I tend to agree that Trump's admin is acting in authoritarian ways, and even moreso than past administrations. However, it seems to me that the Congressional structure is so broken that, it kind of makes sense?
The way I see it, and the way Trump et al probably sees it, is that the Three Branches as they exist are extremely dysfunctional, and cannot do the actual job of governing the country pretty much at all. This has allowed NGOs and other non-state actors to come in and basically take over by deploying social and cultural capital in key areas, craftily created a sort of secret network of influence, etc.
The only way for us to get out of this morass, the theory goes, is to have a strong executive who basically burns this gridlock down. Though I don't know if Trump's team would want to restore a functioning American government after or just keep an extremely strong executive.
Anyway, I can't say I fully agree with Trump's seeming plan to just destroy jurisprudence for the executive and do whatever he wants, but I admire the sheer boldness. OTOH, I'm also not convinced that the U.S. has more than a 2% chance of meaningfully falling into an authoritarian dictatorship under Trump, or even in the next 10-20 years. Hopefully I don't eat my words!
Very big, if true. I don't have a lot of confidence in this forum's ability to evaluate these claims.
How would the situation be different, if the House GOP simply couldn't get its shit together? Aren't they generally unable to get their shit together and isn't Trump generally exceeding limits on executive power faster than they can be enforced?
The thing that gives me the most pause is the enduring mystery of how Johnson became Speaker. To the Christians: Are deals with the literal devil known for "monkey's paw" outcomes? That would be as good as any explanation I've ever seen for that circular firing squad.
This particular part is why I can't take the article in the OP seriously. The House HAS done its job and passed a bill to fund the government. This entire shutdown is in the court of like 8 Democrats in the Senate.
I'm modestly surprised the Republicans haven't pressed them to give a standing filibuster. I guess it would give them a pulpit to speak, but it also has the optics of "we're trying to reopen the government and they're standing up there reading children's books" (Ted Cruz once read Green Eggs and Ham during one), or even just rambling poorly at 3:00AM while the majority of the Senate is ready to end the shutdown (and go to bed).
But maybe there is a strategic reason to not do so. Or a long-standing gentleman's agreement not to.
The government being shut down doesn't hurt republicans, they're getting what they want.
More options
Context Copy link
Apologies, but this is a personal interest of mine. "Filibuster" commonly refers to two different rules of the Senate, with different implications.
The "talking filibuster" comes from Senate Rule XIX 1(a):
Importantly, a talking filibuster can delay the business of the Senate no matter how large the majority of Senators that want to proceed.
The "filibuster" that blocks most legislation is not the threat of a "talking filibuster" but rather Senate Rule XXII. I am not going to quote the whole thing here (it's very long) but the short version is that to force the Senate to move to actually voting on passing a piece of legislation you need 3/5ths of Senators to agree to a motion to do so. Implementing a filibuster under this rule just means having two members present on the floor of the Senate and, like, move to adjourn over and over again. That motion would be privileged over any motion to vote on a bill and the only way to stop it being made would be it invoke cloture, which requires the 3/5ths vote threshold.
More options
Context Copy link
The reality is that forcing them to do a real filibuster would likely kill multiple Senators.
At the very least, there are numerous prominent Senators in their 70s. Putting them through a real filibuster with 24 hour sitting and quorum checks would be humiliating.
I'm not seeing the downside there...
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
No one will see the poor rambling, but the most glowing and positive 15 seconds will be on every morning show and news network.
Also, you'd have to listen to Hakeen Jeffries talk.
I figured the worst 30 seconds would get prominently featured in attack ads targeting federal workers, especially essential ones. "This is what [your incumbent] was doing while trying to delay your paychecks" would seem pretty effective: IIRC one (blue) federal union's leadership has already started complaining.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The whole thing seems in lalaland for missing that key fact.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
"The House GOP" isn't a singular entity with a cohesive purpose and rational preferences. It is an agglomeration of representatives, and even if they are each individually cohesive and rational, Ken Arrow already told us that this doesn't translate to the aggregate.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link