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 -
So, the Ontario Reagan ad thing.
As the governor of Ontario, Doug Ford (Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario) produced a 1-minute ad in favor of free trade ad targeted at US residents, with some high-profile airings during some sports events. The ad consists of spliced together sentences of a 1987 Reagan address.
The Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation claims that "the ad misrepresented Reagans address". The reaction of Trump was to suspend trade negotiations with the Carney (Liberal Party) government of Canada:
I watched the original they linked, and I honestly can not see what their problem is. In the original 5 minute version, there was also a message of "we have introduced duties on semiconductors from Japan because their companies were not competing fairly, but we do not want a general trade war". But having watched both the ad and the address, I agree with the fact-checkers that Reagan was not quoted out of context. The ad agency basically took a five minute speech, of which at least three minutes were a spirited defense of free trade as the foundation of prosperity and condensed it into a one minute defense of free trade.
I understand how the ad would annoy Trump. Reagan is a time-honored hero of his party, and his voiced ideals are in stark contrast to Trump's policies. The message "this man is stepping way out of line of the tradition of his political ancestors" certainly seems a good way to persuade traditional conservative demographics to reconsider Trump.
But for all his annoyance, I think Ontario is basically well within it's rights to use ads to affect US trade policy. Even without Citizens United, the US would be the last country in the Americas to have any standing to object to foreigners interfering, especially if the interference is only attack ads and not coups.
And as far as attack ads go, it is incredibly tame. A clear policy message without any ad hominem jabs or name-calling.
This makes Trump's reaction utterly bizarre to me. Diplomacy sometimes means negotiating with people who would love to murder you and dance on your grave, never mind seeing you voted out of office. Then there is the fact that Canada is not an absolute monarchy, and their federal government does not control its provinces. Assuming that PM Carney has control over Ford would be like assuming that Trump has control over Newsom. If you are willing to walk away from negotiations because of that, then either you were not seriously negotiating before or you emotions are making you irrational.
Even if the ad was paid for by Carney, Trump's reaction would not be appropriate for an adult. It seems that he is mentally sorting people into two buckets, the ones who support him and are loyal to him, and the ones who are opposed to him. This is basically the world view of a toddler. Reality is more complex. Of course Canada would love nothing more than the US electing Democrat majorities in the mid-term and them killing Trump's tariffs. Presumably, Trump in turn would love for Canadians to elect a MAGA fan who is willing to bend over backwards and give Trump all the concessions instead of retaliating. But in the likely event that neither side get what they want, it still makes sense to negotiate.
To me, it seems pretty clear that a mass media campaign like this is directed at the electorate. In Trump's mind, it is meant to influence the SCOTUS. This makes me question his world model even more. What is the proposed mechanism of action? A SC justice is watching a sports event on TV, sees the Reagan free trade ad, gets the message 'tariffs bad' into his head, then decides a case which hinges on what powers Congress can delegate to the president purely based on if he likes how the president has used these disputed powers. It seems that Trump is a victim of the typical mind fallacy here -- just because he could persuaded by a TV ad to make unprincipled changes to his policy to get some desired object-level outcome, he assumes that the minds of justices work the same way. At the risk of likewise typical-minding, I think that he is wrong. Perhaps, some judges are partisan hacks who will rule for or against Trump on general principle. But my model of the median SC judge is someone who cares about the long term policy outcomes and making consistent rulings, rather than someone starting by writing "therefore, Trump's tariffs are legal/illegal" at the bottom of the page according to their leanings and then filling the space above with some legal argument. (Which is kinda what Roe v Wade did.)
In short, if Ontario wanted to influence the SCOTUS, TV ads seem like the worst way to go about it. I would recommend they pay high profile legal scholars to publish in academic journals. Or more cynically, invite some justices to an all-expenses-paid retreat.
That is true. And Trump is well within his right to say fuck you and stop negotiating with a party that finances attacks on him. I think it is absolutely within bounds to require some restrain when it comes to hostile actions and posturing during negotiations. This is negotiation 101 be it nations, companies or individuals - especially if you hold all the cards.
Trump did the same with Zelensky in the past where he also misread the situation. Zelensky was in weak position and came literally to beg for money - but he could not help himself and overplayed his hand. So he got fucked and in turn he fucked his nation - he apparently did not realize that he needs to change his behavior under new administration. Last time Zelensky behaved much better, he even brought his suit.
Now one can still criticize Trump for his style, but it seems to be working. He was able to negotiate peace between India and Pakistan, he managed peace between Israel and Hamas, he managed peace between Armenia–Azerbaijan, he presides over cooling of tensions between Cambodia and Thailand and he even turned Modi and Xi Jinping against Putin with his latest oil embargo. It is not as if he is just a buffoon without results.
I think that the US has sound strategic reasons to supply Ukraine, and that these are orthogonal to how much Zelenskyy is willing to grovel before Trump's throne. I do not think Zelenskyy disrespected Trump in a way that would have harmed him. I can not imagine an opinion piece by the (very pro-Ukraine) liberal media about how Trump was letting Zelenskyy walk all over him by tolerating him wearing his trademark army fatigues.
A typical rational actor does not like to grovel. Making the other party grovel will lower their utility function, so in turn their more tangible demands will be higher. If one buys a house only if the seller is willing to give a blowjob as part of the deal, it seems very likely that one will severely overpay for the house.
Again, there is an optimal amount of aid the US should be willing to give to Ukraine for strategic reasons, and likely other amounts will be less effective.
I do not think India and Pakistan were that keen on a big nuclear war. The US (which is kinda allied to both) probably helped, but I think this is something which the Biden administration would have done just as well.
Regarding Hamas, his strategy was basically to give Nethanyahu the card blanche. This (questionable) victory is Bibi's, not his.
I remain skeptical if Trump really manages to get China and India to forgo cheap Russian fossil fuels. In general, with Trump, the winning move seems to tell him "yes", and continue as you did. Chances are he will either have another good phone call with Putin or a bad phone call with Zelenskyy and go back to not caring about Russian oil exports.
I don't think it is about groveling. In the past countries like Germany or Canada took USA for granted and even outright mocked Trump when he gave his speech as in this example. I am not even US citizen but I do think that other NATO members really held their noses too high, it was as if they were entitled to everything that USA provides either trade or security wise in exchange of mockery and disrespect. I think demanding respect was absolutely in order.
Paradoxically Euros or other western countries do not have problem groveling before Xi Jinping or Saudis or even before Iranian dictators. But suddenly they are too good to show some respect to USA just because they think they can farm internal US political dispute.
I think the actual motivation was that the European leaders understood that Trump doesn't have any actual, real power over the military industrial complex which decides these things. Trump doesn't have the ability to stop the MIC (hell, they don't even tell him the truth about military operations) so who cares what he thinks? Zelensky knew that no matter what he did the flow of materiel was completely outside Trump's control.
This is conspiracy level thinking. When you say Trump doesn't have "power over" the MIC, what do you mean?
Budgets, which pretty much everything is down stream of, are firmly the responsibility of congress.
Military operations, short of a declaration of war, are 100% an executive branch function with WIDE latitude. Remember, the President is the commander in Chief.
But I feel like what you're trying to hint at is a shady world of lobbyists and backroom deals and executives at Lockheed etc. If this is what you mean a) say it and b) provide some evidence. Because the very, very sad truth of the matter is that most of the companies within the "military industrial complex" are welfare-parasite companies that are reflections of growth (or decline) in Congressional Budgets. The most recent CEO of Raytheon was literally trained as an accountant. These people aren't out there moving and shaking, they're inside (indoor kids) who can stomach the tedium of working budgetary processes and Pentagon PPBE processes over decades. In terms of FMS (Foreign Military Sales), that process is mostly about convincing the State Department that you aren't exporting anything particularly advantageous (the US doesn't let the really good stuff go overseas), and doing all of the paperwork that says your sales team wasn't trying to bribe the foreign government*.
On the Ukraine specific issue, it's hilarious to think that the big players in the MIC really care about arms deals there. Ukraine is dead fucking broke. The US assistance to them, although not insignificant, is not the prize pie for MIC. They're after the multi-decade long domestic deals. The F-35 program, over its entire lifetime, will bring in revenue for Lockheed in excess of $1 trillion. The ground based updates to the Nuclear Triad will get Northrop half a trillion. According to the State Department from this March total US assistance to Ukraine has been about $70bn all in from the start of the war. But wait! that's mostly direct transfers of equipment - i.e. things that the US already purchased (in budgets!) years prior. It's not like that was a $70bn check to Ukraine or even $70bn of new military purchases.
That number is less than $5bn (same link). That's the Foreign Military Financing (FMF) number. That is the "help Ukraine pay for stuff" budget. $5bn isn't anything to sneeze at but you have to think - like the MIC does - in terms of ROI and opportunity cost. Do I, Lockheed / Northrop / Raytheon / General Dynamics et al., really care want to do all of the extra and politically fraught work of supplying to Ukraine for a share of $5bn when I can just make more patriot missiles for the Army at home and collect $2.7 bn dollars.
There are several good reasons to not support supporting Ukraine. There's a bunch of threads here on that topic. I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing this idea that the MIC "loves war" because it means sales go up and that, furthermore, they're so gifted as to be able to manipulate a whole host of world leaders.
That's not the case. The MIC's wet dream are a bunch of hyper expensive programs, run mostly domestically, that go nowhere. Government IT, for instance, is, annually, on the order of $100 bn. Government IT is also were money goes to commit suicide because it's all horrific mismanagement of dated computer systems that provide no value to the taxpayer but are mandated by Congressional budgets. See where we end back up at? Budgets. American, Congressionally approved budgets. That's where the MIC spends most of its energy. Budgets. And it isn't sexy hollywood lobbying. There are no steak dinners, cigars, and cognac with Senators who give you a wink and a nod so long as you donate to their campaign. No, it's a lot of repetitive zoom calls and in person meetings with the Budgeteers at the Pentagon and staff on Capitol Hill and then hoping that the paperwork shuffle ends up with a single number next to your Program Element Number going up.
On FMS bribery, I should do an effort post but it would be too specific to not be doxx bait. The long and short of it is that every American arms company knows that for close to all foreign governments, bribery is required for a deal to go through. For the Europeans its a lot of soft bribery - fancy dinners, sales meetings at resorts, whatever. All of this can actually get written off totally legally. For those countries with less of a Western sensibility, however, bags of cash, coke, and hookers are often part of the deal. With the State Department going over everything with a fine toothed comb, however, no American firm is going to take a chance. What exists, then, is an actual shadowy network of lawyers and "consultants" based out of places like Switzerland, Barbados, and the like who provide "advisory" services to the American firms, for a fee, and then act as a liaison to the foreign government.
You might think "oh, so it's just pass through bribery!" But, no. There's actually a tremendous amount of risk here. The American firm can't simply say to a foreign government "Hey, here's a bunch of money to help us get the contract. But, it's going to come from Shady-Uncle-Hans over here." That's transparent. The American firms have to have real not just plausible deniability of knowledge of any illegal activities. So, they hire these "consultants" and the consultants go, of their own accord, to the foreign government parties and do whatever they think needs to be done. Then, they send a bill for their service fee to the American firms.
In effect, the American firms are pushing money into a black box and hoping that the magic bribery fairies are on their side. This is often not the case. Anecdotes are crazy - literally comic book levels of fraud. There's a lot of middle manning and skimming off the top. Over promising and then disappearing late in deals etc. Ultimately, the American firms who do FMS hate these people and see them only as a necessary overhead expense. They prefer to work directly with a non "bribe me" government to work out actually good security deals.
But, again, what the MIC firms really want is domestic program dollars. The largest arms deal in history was with the Saudis at $142 bn. That's big money, for sure. But there's no guarantee that it all gets paid out, that there aren't weird changes to the contract, or that it could grow to, I don't know, $1 trillion. In the domestic market, the government always pays (unless you really fuck up), if the contract does change it will do so slowly and, most of the time, it's an opportunity for the contract to charge more and, finally, if it's a big enough program in enough congressional districts it can literally turn into $1 trillion over the course of several decades.
First of all, I'd just like to say that I agree with the vast majority of what you wrote. That's a great takedown of MIC corruption and how the sausage actually gets made in certain sectors.
First of all, I don't think "conspiracy level thinking" is much of an insult. When I look at the Iraq war and try to understand it, I have no problem believing the conspiracy theory that they didn't actually have any WMDs. Similarly, I believed in the conspiracy theory that the NSA was spying on domestic communications even when James Clapper went and said that they weren't doing it to congress. All of the conspiracy theories about Trump being surveilled by the intelligence agencies on false pretexts were completely true as well - and the mainstream, non-conspiratorial theories on these topics are just transparently false. This line of attack probably would have worked in the 90s, but that dog just won't hunt in a world where I can go and read the PRISM documentation or the full story of the Carter Page FISA warrant.
But as for what I mean, I mean exactly what I said - the military-industrial complex has more power over the actions of the US military than Trump himself does. The military directly lied to his face about circumstances on the ground and encouraged him to take actions which he explicitly said he did not want. Trump famously said that to attack Iran would be the mark of an incompetent president with poor negotiation skills, and he relentlessly promised in his campaign that there'd be an end to the pointless foreign wars. Once he got into office, the pointless foreign wars kept on going and nothing changed.
I understand that this may seem a bit trite (of course politicians aren't going to keep all of their campaign promises) but it reflects a serious problem in the mechanism of democracy. A candidate ran promising an end to wasteful foreign wars and military adventurism - only to get the US involved in more wars, bomb additional countries and start getting ready to invade another country for oil (Venezuela). A politician wanted to do something, received a democratic mandate for it... and then absolutely nothing happened. I'm not going to claim to know precisely where the actual decisions are being made, nor do I think there's some shadowy figure behind the throne or learned council of elders deciding everything (my belief is that the US state has multiple competing power groups with divergent interests, and the actual actions taken by the US government emerge from that competition).
What I am claiming is that the actions of the US military/empire are very clearly resistant to the desires and will of the voting public. Maybe Trump is corrupt, maybe the generals are lying to him again, maybe he's being blackmailed by someone with access to the Epstein tapes, maybe the military has gone rogue and explicitly does not answer to civilian leadership - I can't tell, and until the dust settles I don't think anyone will be able to tell. But the fact that I can't explain precisely why the actions of the US war machine grind on regardless of the expressed wishes of the populace doesn't change that reality.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link