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 -
The question is how do we get there from where we are. Congress is supposed to govern but is some combination of unwilling/unable to do so.
Honestly? More money in politics. If Congressional and Senate seats were actually sold to the highest bidder I think you'd get a higher quality of official than you have now.
If that seat cost fifty million dollars then you can be sure that whoever is in it will be both willing and able to govern. And they would be willing to compromise with the other side because they're prioritizing using the office they spent money on to pass legislation, not using the office they won in a popularity contest to make money by insider trading.
Although, I think you could probably do better than Simony as a system of government. It does have certain obvious drawbacks. I'm just saying the bar is currently on the floor.
A larger House actually cuts against the Simony argument. Right now a serious House campaign costs $2-5 million minimum, which means you need a party machine, donor network, or both. That's the uniparty/duopoly's real structural advantage.
Scale from 435 to even 1,568 seats (1910 ratio) and the average district drops to 211,000 people. Push it to 3,344 seats (1850 ratio) and you'd have the largest representative body on earth, a distinction currently held by China. You'd get more money in politics overall, but far less per seat. Suddenly a small business owner or local pastor can run a credible campaign for $300k. You don't need the apparatus anymore. Third parties and independents already outperform at the local level precisely because the electorate is small enough that you can actually know your constituents.
Bigger House, cheaper seats, less uniparty dependency. The opposite of Simony and probably more functional. The bar is on the floor but making seats more expensive doesn't raise it, it just guarantees the same people keep buying them.
More options
Context Copy link
If I'm Jamie Dimon and JP Morgan just bought a dozen House seats, I am going to put a star legislator in one of them (who I can then get onto important committees and represent my interests) and 11 donkeys who will vote as instructed in the others. When seats in the British House of Commons could be bought, people didn't buy them planning to sit in them themselves. Some of the nominated MPs were younger sons from aristocratic families where the Lord owned the seat (and couldn't sit in it because peers were disqualified from the Commons), and some of those were exceptionally able, but most went to uninspired placemen who could be trusted not to think for themselves.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link