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 -
Did you know that Karine Jean-Pierre was a Black LGBTQ Woman? Of course you didn't.
The above link is to KJP's "interview" with the New Yorker. It's exceptionally horrible. I don't usually get too wrapped up in "bad interviews" because journalists routinely use them to get the other party tied up in knots with impossible to answer questions.
The thing about this interview is that Isaac Chotiner isn't even really asking questions. He's mostly politely asking KJP "what do you mean?" and she keeps answering it worse and worse. I'm having a hard time thinking of a worse written interview.
The culture war angles are too obvious. DEI, rejection of reality, identity politics. They're all here. What stuck me those most was the word salad. Trump is always ridiculed for his own word salad but the left, yet, this is the White House press secretary struggling to build cohesive thoughts.
I've held an unprovable theory for many years now that people who routinely hold demonstrably untrue ideas in their head do some sort of literal brain damage to themselves. A sort cognitive self-harm wherein an emotional appeal is so strong that it dulls the synapses. Again, unprovable, but this interview makes me hold that faith just a little more.
Reading the interview, the interviewer was on a warpath. KJP seems to have stepped outside the party line with her book and now she needs to be brought to heel or pushed aside. Lines like this from the interviewer:
Wow, what a shitball of a question.
This comes after KJP maintains that the Democrats had no idea if they had a better candidate than Biden. Which has to be considered at least somewhat true. So points to her for that.
Outside of that, it's rather obvious KJP is carrying water for Biden. But to what end? Is he not out of politics? The earnest defense of his honor, whilst admirable, is a political dead end. Suicide, even. She's a fish out of water and the interviewer is hammering on that fact again and again. To a point where it obvious, which KJP picks up on at the end of the interview:
I think these final lines sum up the interview quite well. A politically daft operator and a democrat establishment shill embarrassing one another. Sure, KJP was floundering throughout the interview, and I'm sure the book seemed incoherent to those who feel which way the winds blowing politically, but getting caught off guard by a political hitman in a hostile interview can happen to anyone.
To steelman KJP: Running with Biden through the election and then benching him and getting Kamala in as VP was probably the best choice given they did not have a better candidate than Kamala. My guess is that the people behind the scenes got greedy, pushed Biden aside and went with Kamala to their detriment. To that extent, KJP defending the honor of Biden is just as much a political dead end as the interviewers defense of the current democrat establishment. Two political losers fighting over lost scraps.
I think that some claims are more difficult to defend than others. If you write a book without controversial claims, perhaps a work of fiction or a textbook on a well established field, then an interviewer would likely not feel the need to cross-examine you.
But if you published a book about how Trump is secretly a lizardman, I would hate to see an interviewer who just goes "interesting opinion, man".
Claiming that Biden was forced out of the race for some nefarious reasons while he was mentally fine to be president is trying to claim an 'alternative truth'. I hate it when Trump does these things (starting from the size of his inauguration crowd), because I feel that people should strive to agree on facts. I do not like it any better when some lefty makes claims which seem factually wrong, and I applaud efforts to probe if she has extraordinary evidence for her extraordinary claims.
I do not think that "Biden had dementia which made him an unappealing candidate" was a particularly Democratic party line. It was basically the consensus reality. Anyone who pushes back against people trying to make our collective map of reality worse is doing god's work.
I think that by the time of the TV debate, the Democrats had already maneuvered themselves in an unwinnable position. Running with Harris as a candidate was not great, but running with someone who had been seen on TV as suffering from dementia would not have gone better.
I think this is overly charitable. The Democratic Party Line up until halfway through the debate was "This is the best Biden has ever been and any suggestions or "video evidence" otherwise are cheap fakes from that liar Trump."
Then the debate happened, and the extent of Biden's decline was at last laid bare before the voting populace, and the movers and shakers in the party acknowledged his dementia just long enough to force him out of the race and replace with Kamala in a Hail Mary effort to not get destroyed down-ballot.
After which the party line flipped to something like "OMG, why are you even talking about this? Who care who was running the country, or how many people told how many lies about it? Trump is old, too!"
The real problem with KJP is that she is still talking about it, and she's not even remotely smart enough to thread the needle of lies there. Quite possibly no one is. Biden's overall situation is bad enough that it ought to be a crippling scandal for the party, and the Democrat Party Line is to simply brazen through on sheer shamelessness, an important part of which is simply pretending it never happened. Writing a book and putting it back into the news cycle because KJP is a sub-midwit who is just blindly following the formula without reading the room, is counter productive to this tactic.
Compare that to Jake Tapper's book on the topic (As an aside, I'm going to need either him or James Clapper to drop out of relevance forever. I'm sick of getting them mixed up because their names rhyme.) Tapper's book was utterly, shamelessly retarded and disingenuous. But it served the purpose of providing a fig leaf for the "Democrat operative with a chyron" media and the Democrat party to pretend they had no role in the scandal and sweep it all under a rug. It let them pull the "We've been over this, it's old news, MoveOn.org" rhetorical trick.
I'd say no one with a brain believed it, but there are plenty of people even here who get very upset about Trump's cheating fuckboy relationship with the truth who seem to mostly not care who was actually running the country for the Biden years, and certainly haven't updated on the degree of known dishonesty that was clearly involved among functionally all high ranking Democrats.
Which brings us back to the real problem with KJP. She gave me a platform and excuse to hammer all that home again, really rub everyone noses in the reminder that Biden's dementia was a scandal a thousand times worse than Watergate, and that anyone who doesn't write off most of the DNC doesn't get to pretend to care about truth and norms ever again. And she did this not just while failing to provide any useful rhetorical chaff, but while making the situation actively worse and also reminding everyone about the consequences of DEI hires.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Here is the thing. I can imagine a world where Jen Psaki, much as I disliked her and everything she stood for, takes that question and makes the interviewer deeply regret asking it. I deeply loath her, but I can admit she was good at her job, if you take her job being to make reporters look more stupid than the administration.
Likewise, look at JD Vance, being the current administration's attack dog, going into hostile media environments and generally having pretty good message discipline, as well as being verbally nimble enough to not appear that he's pointing to a deer and calling it a horse. He generally does a pretty solid job making reporters regret asking him questions by making them look stupid.
KJP was, and is, a preposterously stupid individual who was terrible at her job. Her elevation to the position, and the fact that she somehow rode it until the wheels fell off, was probably one of the most obvious signs that nobody was in charge in the Biden administration.
More options
Context Copy link
I wondered about that, too. Turns out (when I looked it up) that she served as "as the chief of staff for U.S. vice presidential candidate Kamala Harris during the 2020 presidential campaign."
Kamala Harris is making noises about running in 2028 (after a lot of people thought she was dropping out of politics altogether) so I wonder if this is less about Biden and more about positioning herself for Harris maybe hoping to get another job with the second campaign (if it happens)? And part of Harris pitch is loyalty to Biden so anyone hoping to be onside with her has to repeat the message (as much a signal that she can sell the same message Harris is selling as anything).
From Harris' book:
So the line is Joe was great, but yeah he had to step down, but yeah he was great and while he was president he was fine and that is what matters. It's threading the needle of "was he incapacitated while in office and if so, why didn't anyone speak up about it?" 'No he was fine so I/we didn't have to speak up but later on yeah he got tired and overwhelmed and that's ancient history now'.
To his credit, the interviewer specifically picked up on this:
So basically refusing to even answer the (real, 2029) question. Sadly, not new - that was the whole initial bit, was how the Biden campaign would insist "he's fine now" and then go silent when asked if his trajectory was stable enough to last through 2029. The debate wasn't just a shocker because it was at odds with "he's fine now", but also because it established a clear downward trajectory, you didn't even need to extrapolate that much; you could simply look at the 2020 debates and the difference was obvious.
Kamala, by the way, is deliberately cultivating the "I'm going to drop out of politics" angle, it wasn't accidental. She knows that only after losing she can drop the "our politics is broken" line, and thus attempt to curry favor with the disenfranchised "fellow kids". You're probably right about the Harris angle, and furthermore since Kamala obviously doesn't have a good grasp on what kinds of things are actually persuasive, she might even blithely bring KJP back.
More options
Context Copy link
It seems worth noting that, while this woman will never be in the limelight again, she clearly wants to stay in dem politics. And absolute, unconditional loyalty to the boss, even retroactively, is... something politicians value.
Except Biden isn't the boss anymore, and she's questioning the judgment of the people who are in charge now. If she had just kept her mouth shut then she might have had a future. Then again, maybe she knew she had no future, and figured her only chance was to criticize D leadership for the election loss.
She's trying to sell books likely because she heard (somewhat incorrectly) that it's a good way to earn money. I mean, who is going to hire her? Maybe some kind of lazy progressive nonprofit, but that seems it.
More options
Context Copy link
I mean we can write that off as ‘she’s stupid and bad at her job’.
More options
Context Copy link
I wonder. There does seem to be a power struggle going on between the faction of the party that is, let's take Platner as an example: "we need to ditch the more extreme progressive/idpol/lefty stuff and move towards the centre to appeal to a broader set of voters" versus the "hell no we need fifty Stalins" faction right now, in the wake of Harris' defeat.
Look at what Jean-Pierre was saying in that New Yorker interview about black women being the backbone of the party. I think she's pinning her hopes that the progressivists will come out on top, and she's staking her claim: you guys need the black vote, particularly since the Hispanics/Latinos are ditching you for the other lot. You need the blacks and the LGBT+ set, and if you want to make history by having the First Female President, you need Harris instead of (let's say) Newsom.
So she's signalling her loyalty to the party line about "we did nothing wrong, Biden was great, it was sexism and racism that lost the race for Harris not any flaw on her part, and giving in on any of this is throwing the black and queer vote under the bus and appealing to the Nazi fascist element in the party".
I wonder how much influence Biden (or his inner circle) still have. He had a long career in politics, he made a lot of alliances and presumably has a lot of favours still banked. Crossing him or his faction could be a real mistake, while signalling loyalty may be more of a help than we think. Who exactly is in charge of the Democratic party right now? The old guard are hanging on, even while others are attempting to shove them off the stage, and some of the ones wanting to do the shoving are the progressive elements. "I am a queer black woman and if you try to shove me out of the way I will cry racism sexism homophobia" is still a credible threat.
Biden has very little influence. He has cancer, he's bitter at people, he's blamed by almost everyone in turn, his presidential library (a useful barometer) has been receiving hardly any donations, and he never extended much trust to people outside the inner circle in the first place so it's no surprise as there weren't many true-believers to begin with. And he even managed to dumpster his own reputation in record time with stuff like breaking his promise and pardoning his family (handing an invitation to Trump on a golden fucking platter to abuse the pardon power himself). I'm a moderate, I liked Biden as a person, I even liked some of the stuff about his governance, but that last bit alone was more damning that anything else he ever did, in my eyes.
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
The Biden political machine exists post Biden. Biden was in politics for 54 years. Generations of people have worked for him.
Many of those people are continuing to work post Biden, and I'm sure some of them appreciate her loyalty.
More options
Context Copy link
I'm glad you posted this. I hate KJP but it was an obviously hostile interview.
If the Democratic establishment is capable of selling vastly incompetent black lesbians down the river again, congratulations to them.
More options
Context Copy link
Biden is clearly relitigating his legacy. Which is why Hunter came out not too long ago or we get comments when Jake Tapper releases a book.
But it is interesting that the two people who seem most willing to public go down with the Biden ship are black women.
It makes some sense with KJP since she'll never get another major role in the party.
But Kamala seems to be making noises like she'll run for something again and she's still providing cover for his health issues. She was also a late addition that wasn't particularly loved in Bidenworld apparently so one wonders what she gains.
This is not actually a defense of KJP and her ilk.
What most likely happened was that Kamala was already on the ticket and so could use the money raised. The other issue is that many of the other Democratic candidates that did seem viable saw the situation was a mess and knew they could run in four years (when Trump might have nuked his popularity again) with a full campaign. Once Biden spitefully endorsed Kamala it was especially not worth it.
But that's not the reason it's not a defense of KJP. Another factor was people like Jean Pierre who deliberately tried to poison the well on any sort of contested primary by making it about the denial of a black woman her legitimate role. That was another reason candidates couldn't jump on.
If that had happened, KJP would be complaining again as a black, queer woman.
Interestingly enough, it recently came out that Obama had agreed with Pelosi not to endorse Kamala too soon, as they were hoping for a mini primary. But Pelosi broke her promise early due to peer pressure. Especially since several other would-be opponents took themselves out of contention pretty quickly - I think that fact gets lost a little bit in the narrative, but that was a big deal. Day 1 consisted of Biden and the Clintons endorsing Kamala, Obama publicly urging something more deliberate (but vague), and a few governors including Newsom endorsing. Day 2 was Whitmer and Pritzker and Shapiro and Pelosi. Also, Dean Phillips endorsed but wanted a straw poll or something, but this was ignored. Day 3 was Schumer and Jeffries, and by then it's over. In other words, by the second day there wasn't any frontrunner even considering not backing Kamala, so it's kind of doubtful a primary would even have made sense.
Part of that was not so much about money, but a few filing deadlines that were only a few days away. I'm not completely sure how influential/accurate that point was, though. Ultimately, if a primary was going to happen, Biden would have had to push for it right away.
I'm still only on chapter/day three of Kamala's book (too busy at the moment plus it's not riveting prose) and it's amazing how even this early in the book, it's clear she wanted the job - who the hell lets their brother-in-law make plans for if suppose just say maybe somehow someday you need to replace the boss? and forget all her coy 'oh I didn't want to dwell on it', she never said 'drop it, Tony, this is not how things are done' - and how she didn't need or want no stinkin' primary; it was gonna be her or nobody (there's also the slightest of hints that Obama, as you say, wasn't 300% on board the Coconut Queen Express):
I have to laugh about her brother-in-law working for Dukakis, Kerry and Obama campaigns; two out of three that went nowhere is not a great omen for her campaign!
*Given the allegations of how she ran her staff as VP, no way four 'core team members' are gonna have any meetings behind her back if they don't want to be ex-team members. They knew that tacitly, if not explicitly, she's just fine with succession planning and having her brother-in-law draw up a road map for when she is coronated. This is some deniability bullshit in action: "no way I had anything to do with it, I knew nothing, it was all my family members and then suddenly out of nowhere it all became relevant due to circumstances beyond our control". Simultaneously "I was loyal and not scheming behind Joe's back" and "nevertheless, I too was sadly aware of his decline and preparing for the stepping down" so she can appease all sides.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The Biden element in the party, if there is one, may still have some influence. Or more that if Jill et al. feel spiteful about what happened, they can make sure she crashes and burns. So trying to placate the Biden partisans is worth it.
Especially if there is the hint that maybe Obama wasn't as enthused about Kamala as she might have liked, which even as early in her book as I am, I am getting. And she definitely has it in for Gavin Newsom, so once again, building alliances to counter her rivals is important:
Incredible gigachad move. Makes me move him up a notch (to notch 1).
No, move him back down. Newsom did put out an endorsement that same day, and was in fact one of the first to do so, so I wouldn't give him too much credit there. So the inclusion of this text in the book is actually a smear against a potential rival and a mischaracterization. Not that I'm going to cry any rivers about it
Yeah, if he did endorse her, then this is Kamala getting her retaliation in first. She really is planning to run herself, or at least queer the pitch for Newsom. I am now fascinated to know what behind-the-scenes dust-up in California Democratic politics is behind this rivalry. Maybe she was thinking of running for governor herself previously but Newsom out-manoeuvred her there (he did manage to get Biden to throw support behind him during the recall election, which might have been when Kamala got squished, if indeed she was thinking that was her chance; it looks pretty clear they were only willing to let no-hopers* go forward so Newsom would not be seriously challenged).
*E.g. "Kevin Paffrath, YouTuber Real estate broker UFOlogist Opioid Vendor Landlord". UFOlogist? Well, it is California!
Okay, that was 2021, she was VP. Can a sitting VP resign and run for a different office, or is that a no-no? Was she maybe bummed out that, if she had known there would be a recall in 2021, she would have waited for that instead?
State level politics regularly has utter clowns get into surprisingly important backbencher positions that get to jump into the limelight for stuff like that(Texas had an ancient aliens theorist as a criminal justice committee head a couple of congresses ago, because the coalition politics required a democrat and he was the seniormost one without serious delusional higher ambitions. These kinds of stories just happen all the time in state level politics everywhere).
I'm also not sure that Kamala's ego can be discounted from political factors. She's made some poor political decisions in the past and 'it's my turn now' is a known failure mode for prominent democrats.
I was wondering why the heck she was making remarks about possibly running again. Someone with sense would realise that VP was as high as she is going to get, and that the only reason she got the job is Jim Clyburn and the black caucus demanding quid pro quo for supporting Biden, that it was owed to them to give a black woman the job.
But she may be vain enough to believe all the cope about "greatest candidate ever, sexism and racism and MAGA to blame" and think that the party and the nation are breathlessly waiting for her to announce she'll run again. Hence the dig at Newsom.
What the heck she thinks she's doing re: Buttigieg I honestly have no idea. This far into her book, she's all "oh my great pal Pete" but then she gives an interview about "couldn't possibly pick him for anything, way too gay". That's just begging him to refuse to take her calls in future: "Sorry, Kamala, wouldn't want to get my gay cooties all over your shiny campaign". If she's trying to distance herself, however clumsily, from the LGBT2SQIA+ stuff now that wokeness is on the wane, then okay "Pete too gay" but it's a terrible way to go about it.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It's on a ten-point scale, so notch 1 isn't high praise.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Oh, I think that for California power politics, Newsom has her taped and she knows she can't beat him. That's why I was surprised that she didn't decide to run for governor while he runs for president, but then again maybe the inside baseball there is that his machine is too entrenched to let her have an easy victory there. I am surprised she is willing to take him on, but I guess she's hoping to invoke the power of the narrative around "Which do you, the party of representation and inclusion, want to pick as your public face: a Black and Asian woman or yet another (moderately) rich white guy?"
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