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 -
Within the realm of the possible this is one of the most dramatic federal turnarounds in generations.
Ten years ago presumed Republican frontrunner Jeb Bush called illegal immigration an act of love. Now the president is openly talking about remigration. Come on, if you think this is a good thing, this “betrayed again” eeyore attitude is just a bad model of politics. Trump is mainstreaming mass deportations. Not a single other American politician comes anywhere close. Do you really want to complain that it’s not good enough? Because if you have the option to help row the boat and instead get out your signs wailing “THE END IS NEAR” that says more about you than Trump.
Trump is using BBB to amass the largest deportation force in American history. Net migration is down. H1B restrictions. Benefits shut down. Remittances taxed. It’s not as though Trump is refusing to push the “fix everything” button. These are extremely controversial policies that are facing concerted pushback and lawfare. Trump’s new travel ban is even trying to deny citizenship ceremonies to new immigrants who have otherwise qualified. So, what? Let’s blackpill because we want to be going 88mph and Trump has only taken us from 0 to 50?
“Den Teufel nicht an die Wand malen.” (Don't paint the devil on the wall) - German saying
MAGA's demand for 88mph makes sense in context of their fears. But, by acting in response to those fears, they may in turn be making them real.
Internet MAGA supporters are terrified that a future Democratic govt will level the MAGA project and these 4 years are their last gasp hurrah. They believe they must move the goalposts far enough to the right, that Democrats will be caught up in reversing the damage. Ideally, public opinions will be sufficiently altered that Democrats can't change the new normal at all. To them, the only way to avoid the pendulum from swinging the other way is to break it altogether. Historically, anxious over-extension (ex: last 100 years of the Israel-Palestine conflict, the Versailles treaty) often backfires. MAGA demands for 88mph may indeed end up radicalizing enough democrats that the utter demolition of the MAGA movement becomes a reality.
Broadly, the Democrats are a party of educated moderates with a fringe that tags along. The moderates keep the fringe happy and away from power. On the other hand, MAGA is a party of fringe populists with moderates who tag along. Here, the moderates are kept out of power. This causes meaningful differences in how either side operates. Yes, MAGA eventually settles on moderate policies because 'Trump Always Chickens Out'. But, their public rhetoric remains extreme, and as a result, causes faster radicalization of the opposition. This is in contrast to Democrats who take a 'boiling the frog' approach to rhetoric.
For a party that's controlled every elite institution this millennium, the Democrats have been judicious in exploiting this advantage. Some may say they were recklessly passive. Maybe they drank too much of the 'demographics is destiny' and 'reality has a left wing bias' kool-aid. I sense things are changing now. As MAGA proudly exhibits its malicious compliance and loophole finding capabilities, Democrats are taking notes. I won't pretend that MAGA are the only ones to escalate. Yes, Dems have gotten away with violating 14th amendment rules, leaving the border open and letting woke-scolds infiltrate non-partisan institutions. But that was an excruciatingly slow process. Now, they're swinging for the fences. For example: California's about-turn on gerrymandering, NYC voting in Zohran, urban reaction to ICE.
IMO, MAGA's belief in 'pushing the pendulum so far that it breaks' is suicidally risky. Biden, Clinton and Obama were milquetoast liberal elites. Moderates through and through. Yes, if the pendulum breaks, MAGA wins. But if it doesn't, it may create the populist energy for a proper left wing populist President. I don't think anyone in this country is ready for that. Remember, Bernie got pretty far in 2016 & 2020 and Trump seemed far-fetched in 2015.
Cards on the table, I like the elite liberals, but Trump 2 (and Israel vs Palestine) has triggered a clear change in energy among my peers. The Obama-lite messaging of Ezra Klein and Pete Buttigieg has stopped being effective. In comparison, the class resentment oriented populist rhetoric of Zohran and AOC is hyper ascendant. I left the 3rd world to be in civilized country. Sadly, looks like America is rapidly devolving into 3rd world politics. What to do ?
Biden was the most insane and deranged liberal president in all US history. He literally singlehandedly executed the largest migration in human history from the worst shitholes in the world directly to the US.
He's also is an extremist on dei issues, bushing black women around solely on the basis of their race and gender.
No he's not a moderate.
More options
Context Copy link
Call it cucked, but I would rather live in a civilized country that’s a little more hostile to me than another third world shithole. Not that we’ll have the choice, and not that I’d gladly take President Groyper, but I could make my peace with a President Carlson.
More options
Context Copy link
Your examples aren't wrong, but I think the right here is more likely looking at the New Deal or Great Society. Despite decades of hand wringing from (parts of) the right, Social Security isn't going anywhere. Neither is the Civil Rights Act or Titles IX: they are, if anything being leveraged by the current administration in their (claimed) efforts towards egalitarian outcomes.
I do worry about your last point, though.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Yes he is. Has Trump even asked congress to strip Article III courts of jurisdiction over immigration claims from noncitizens? Has he even threatened to withdraw from UN refugee treaties?
How is either of those a “fix everything” button Trump is refusing to push? One requires Congress, which makes it extremely unlikely. The other is just some idea. I admit I don’t even know much about it. Can Trump withdraw unilaterally? Would this erode his political capital? Does it actually do anything? How much time does it take to draft up the provisions to withdraw? How high should this be on the Presidents agenda relative to the ten thousand other policy items competing for his attention? Are there better uses of his time? How well-understood and well-known is this policy fix?
Or is withdrawing from a UN migration treaty really just the one idea that fixes everything with no cost and zero downside that Trump and his team know all about but are refusing to do because they’ve betrayed us all or are lazy or don’t know how to govern?
I get it, I want more too, but this is watching the President accelerate in real time and complaining he hasn’t reached top speed, while every faction not aligned with Trump is trying to slam on the breaks.
More options
Context Copy link
Why would he need to? Immigration claims are already handled in Article I administrative "courts".
Well gee, I sure do see a lot of immigration cases in Article III courts.
My sense, without having comprehensive encyclopedic knowledge of the legal process, is that decisions of the Article I administrative courts are reviewable (with certain limited exceptions) by Article III courts.
I think that's a case of constitutional law and not statute; there has to be some method of Article III review, but it can be absurdly deferential to the Article I court and can come only after all administrative remedies are exhausted.
Reread Article III and Article I Section 8. The jurisdiction of inferior courts comes from congress, and the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction is subject to exception and regulation by congress. The Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction can’t be stripped by congress, but it is irrelevant here.
I'm aware of that interpretation, but as far as I know, it does not hold; complete jurisdiction-stripping isn't allowed. Congress could create a special Article III court for these cases whose decision was final, but could not take the case out of the judicial branch entirely.
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