site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   26009 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 9, 2026

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.

3
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

A tiny note on the war

In the previous thread, I got some pushback for suggesting that not only did the US strike the Iranian school in Minab, killing 170 children or something like that, but perhaps it did so intentionally (or at least without remorse for the possible consequences of erroneous targeting). I admit that wasn't fully sincere. I realize that, even morals aside, there is no perceived military value in bombing children, at least not for the US (I do think Israelis may target children of IRGC officers out of their usual Bronze Age blood feud sentiment, Oct 7, Gaza and all, seen enough of their remarks to this effect; but then again they don't operate Tomahawks).

Well now the question on it having been an American strike appears settled. As for the intent – it's not so straightforward:

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has gutted the Pentagon oversight offices that would have investigated the recent strike on an Iranian girls’ school — a move that has degraded America’s ability to protect civilians amid its largest air campaign in decades.
The Pentagon chief last year slashed offices that didn’t contribute to his goal of “lethality,” including the group that assists in limiting risk to civilians, known as the Civilian Protection Center of Excellence. Around 200 employees who worked on the issue, including at that office, have been reduced by about 90 percent, according to two current and former officials and a person familiar with the effort. The team that handles civilian casualties at Central Command, which oversees the Middle East, has dropped from 10 to one.
Hegseth can’t close the offices because they are approved by Congress. But he has managed to make them nearly inoperable, according to the people, as the Pentagon investigates its responsibility in what could be the worst U.S.-led killing of civilians since 2003. Iranian state media said the strike killed about 170 children and 14 teachers.
“The fact that our secretary of Defense, that our Central Command commander, cannot actually tell us whether or not they dropped a bomb in this location, that is so unbelievably unacceptable,” said Wes Bryant, the Pentagon’s former chief of civilian harm assessments until last year. “It just points even more to recklessness in this, in the entire planning and execution of this campaign, the fact that they don’t have any idea.”

Does it matter if there was no intent if the United States, as of now, also has a revealed preference to not bother with minimizing such risks, in favor of «lethality» and some zany Judeo-Christian nationalism courtesy the power-tripping macho TV host Pete Hegseth? I believe it does, but marginally; about as much as those girls matter to Lethal Pete. I rest my case.

More to the point. It's remarkable that there's so little discussion of contemporary historical events on here. I won't criticize anyone, be the change you want etc.; but what we are seeing is pretty astonishing from the culture war standpoint. Could someone like Pete be imaginable as the Secretary of War – no, Defense – in 2023? 2019, even? 2016? It looks as if the politically dominant culture of the United States changed overnight. Does everyone just like it too much to find the change worth commenting on?

There are an amazing number of people responding with, essentially, "shit happens in war", seemingly with giving any further thought to questions like "can we make shit happen less in war?", "does what we're trying to achieve justify this shit?", and "should the fact that shit happens in war make us more cautious about going to war?"

Christ

Because its in serious. Even vulgar Pete Hegseths critiques of the rules of engagement have not been seriously addressed in public, because everyone knows the dial was turned so far in one direction that, even going 10 steps in the other direction, you'd still be sacrificing combat effectiveness for dubious gains in civilian well being.

In addition, whatever you believe the war's goals are, regime change, fomenting rebellion, simply degrading military capabilities to a little baby turtle, full on ground invasion, etc. For any of those goals, the reality is that many civilians will die. In fact, they must die, we don't have some chemical agent we can sprinkle on Iran that targets only regime members, soldiers, and financial backers. We have actual real life bombs, shells, and bullets. Not magic.

I'll note, the same pearl clutching faced America in Iraq and Afghanistan when Bush was in charge, and recently Israel. Even though all those factions obviously used human shield as SOP. It seems more likely to me ROE objections are meant to prevent victory, rather than protect innocents.

Because your take is pure Arguments as Soldiers. When I saw the NYT article on the topic, clawing at implication and carefully phrased vagaries to push a narrative as hard as they could with extremely limited facts and knowledge, it just made me recall the old line "They're not anti-war. They're just on the other side." Remember, the only source we even have for the casualty count is the Iranian government. How much do you trust them? The US has hit Iran with thousands of bombs and the general level of precision is terrifying sci-fi absurdity. There's Iranian doctors purportedly reporting that literally every single casualty they've seen is non-civilian. Meanwhile, Iran responded by flinging missiles willy-nilly all over the region, including a bunch of civilian targets that no one cares about because it's just brown people failing at killing brown people.

Focusing all your attention on the single incident that might possibly have been the US hitting a civilian target is so obviously bad faith that it requires years of brainwashing and hyper-selective framing to take your performative outrage seriously.

"The US fired 3000 bombs and only a single one was possibly a misidentified target or misfired. That means the US has less shit happen during war than any other army in the combined history of humanity. Maybe that should make them much more comfortable going to war than any other polity that has ever existed on the face of the earth."

Christ.

I think we have some reason to believe we did strike a school and plausibly hit children (who, on priors, spend much of their waking time in schools): https://archive.is/9bWjL

An ongoing military investigation has determined that the United States is responsible for a deadly Tomahawk missile strike on an Iranian elementary school, according to U.S. officials and others familiar with the preliminary findings.

Officers at U.S. Central Command created the target coordinates for the strike using outdated data provided by the Defense Intelligence Agency, people briefed on the investigation said.

A visual investigation by The Times showed the building housing the school had been fenced off from the military base between 2013 and 2016.

Satellite imagery reviewed by The Times showed that watchtowers that once stood near the building had been removed, three public entrances were opened to the school, ground was cleared and play areas including a sports field were painted on asphalt, and walls were painted blue and pink.

I think this incident is of little overall significance, it's the sort of thing that happens in every war. At the same time, it probably did happen.

The US has hit Iran with thousands of bombs and the general level of precision is terrifying sci-fi absurdity. There's Iranian doctors purportedly reporting that literally every single casualty they've seen is non-civilian.

Really? The US military kills lots of civilians in all prior wars, even up to the very end of the Afghan war they were accidentally hitting random people with suspicious tubes in their truck.

Suddenly they've developed incredible accuracy and precision, in the last couple of years? Under the watch of Hegseth 'slash and burn, oohrah, real manly warfare no legal bullshit', just as they cut the office who's supposed to be preventing this? And they can manage this precision in a country with much more sophisticated air defences than Afghanistan or post-invasion Iraq, where ISR drones can and are being shot down?

How can this be? AI? Israel makes great use of AI and they killed lots of civilians in Gaza in some combination of neglect and malice.

Killing civilians is part of the nature of war, that's the risk taken on when starting a war, just like how losing soldiers is inevitable.

Focusing all your attention on the single incident that might possibly have been the US hitting a civilian target

It's not going to be just a single incident, come on. Weapons miss, intelligence is faulty, fog of war is fog of war.

Really? The US military kills lots of civilians in all prior wars, even up to the very end of the Afghan war they were accidentally hitting random people with suspicious tubes in their truck.

The conditions and scrutiny of most recent US military campaigns would be totally insane by any historical metric. 'You must only hit confirmed military targets in a hostile populace who have every incentive to deliberately misreport the status of casualties and have a bunch of weapons that can be profoundly lethal out of nowhere plus you have an aggressive media operation actively jumping on any excuse' is not a proposition that could really exist in any prior period.

Killing civilians is part of the nature of war, that's the risk taken on when starting a war, just like how losing soldiers is inevitable.

I didn't say 'you must only hit confirmed military targets'. I say that this innate risk must be taken into account, wars must not be whitewashed as squeaky-clean 'precision strikes' against just the buddies. There is no 'sci fi precision' killing just combatants, there is no 'literally every single casualty is military' outside a propaganda reel.

I don't think even Hegseth would disagree with me here, if he were being honest.

It appears the Trump administration has completely surrendered the propaganda war. All the MSM including the Wall Street Journal is assuming the administration doesn't know what they're doing and the war is hopelessly lost, and that everyone at the DoD is murdering war criminals who killed an ever-increasing number of schoolchildren and nothing else while ignoring the Straits of Hormuz because no one even thought of it. Maybe they just figure there's no way to win that one so they're not bothering. Only way out for them is a decisive victory in the real war, and honestly, I can't see one -- there's no Iranian organization able to take advantage and revolt, so without troops on the ground, there's no way to take down the regime or even force them to the table for real.

There's Iranian doctors purportedly reporting that literally every single casualty they've seen is non-civilian

I've only seen reporting going the other way, that a significant amount of the casualties are civilian. Presumably the source is also "Iran" and it's being accepted at face value, because what other sources are there at the moment, really?

because what other sources are there at the moment, really?

None. Even "independent" news are required to toe the Iranian party line as a condition on being allowed into the country.

Not here to argue either point but what’s the source on these precision claims?

Pretty big warfare development if true!

Ok - what is the acceptable rate of school situated in former military barracks bombings in such a massive campaign. If the answer is zero - you put such burdensome rules of engagement that make US victory impossible. If it is one - we are right at the tolerance border.

Iran hasn't send the US list of civilian object and military objects with coordinates verified by international bodies that they are true. US is forced to operate half blind. Iran itself does way more indiscriminate targeting from what I have observed. It is just that their weapons are shitty.

Ok - what is the acceptable rate of school situated in former military barracks bombings in such a massive campaign. If the answer is zero - you put such burdensome rules of engagement that make US victory impossible. If it is one - we are right at the tolerance border.

I'd put it at "zero for the opening salvo", and then increasing over time. There's no excuse to not have a fully up to date target list for the first hour, when everything is choreographed and friction and Murphy haven't yet had a chance to really get to work.

Ok - what is the acceptable rate of school situated in former military barracks bombings in such a massive campaign.

It depends on what you are trying to achieve.

Look, I thinking the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagaski were justified. It was horrific, but weighed against the alternatives and the enormity the problem, it was probably the least bad option. It is, at the very least, highly arguable. If circumstances were different, however, it might not have been justified. Or, to take another example from the Middle East: there was a US airstrike in 2017 that killed ~200 civilians. Not great, and it is important to (sincerely) investigate why it happened and how it could be avoided in the future (and simply shrug and say 'oops'). But in the context of defeating ISIS, grudgingly tolerable.

What I see in the responses here is people using the mere existence of this problem of tradeoffs as an excuse not to care. If someone, questioned about the atomic bombings (or Tokyo, or Allied strategic bombing more generally), waved off the issue by saying "shit happens in war", I would take that as a very worrying sign regarding their instincts even if I agreed that the actions were ultimately justified. I certainly wouldn't want them making targeting decisions.

Iran itself does way more indiscriminate targeting from what I have observed. It is just that their weapons are shitty.

True, but also: irrelevant. The moral inadequacy of others is not an excuse for your own behavior.

For this war zero. Because it's pointless unjust war of aggression started for no reason. At least not one our leaders can articulate.

It's not for no reason, to the degree that the US has ever had a consistent diplomatic position that position has been "don't touch the boats", IE "don't fuck with international trade".

The Iranians weren't blocking the Straits of Hormuz until after the war began.

No, but they were threatening to do so, Which is where a large part of this conversation comes from.

The lack of articulation is really on the general public though. There is a very long winded explanation involving Iran's ballistic missile production rates and available US/Israel strike capabiltiy that comes down to "either we hit them now, or we will never again have the capability to significantly deter them from developing nuclear weapons without incurring massive civilian casualties as colateral damage". The administration made the (likely correct) decision that such an explanation would only play with the analysis nerds and fall disasterously flat with the general public, and didnt really bother.

As far as the unjust part goes, any government that happily massacres 30,000+ of its own citizens (by its own admission, outside estimates are higher) for the crime of protesting has lost all moral legitimacy, and its removal by outside forces is just. Wise? Dunno. Just? Absolutely. Fuck the mullahs, and fuck anyone who supports them.

I would guess that's the Israeli's reasoning I'd like to here Trump say that as eloquently as you. The administration has offered up half a dozen reasons and win conditions. So I'm not going to read tea leaves to figure it out. If what you said is correct then they should consistently say that.

Yes sure the Iranian regime sucks but it's not they job of the US to overthrow every bad government in the world. The US has explicitly said this war is not for the people of Iran and that we don't care about civilian causalities, also that we won't be doing nation building and that they'd be fine with someone internal taking power. They've said... many other things too. But that is the whole problem there is no consistent communication of reasons and goals. You can certainly derive one from the Jackson Pollak of ideas they've thrown around but I don't have any faith in it when they can't keep their story straight.

You're never going to get eloquent or consistent reasoning from the Trump admin. That's never been their M.O. You will grand unsupportable claims and petty X-fueled posturing. The best you can hope for is that they do something resembling the best reasoning and don't let their attention drift or self-sabotage through incompetence -- which is also unlikely, unfortunately -- and ignore why they say they are doing it. I don't like this, but it's how they operate.

There are an amazing number of people responding with, essentially, "shit happens in war", seemingly with giving any further thought to questions like "can we make shit happen less in war?", "does what we're trying to achieve justify this shit?", and "should the fact that shit happens in war make us more cautious about going to war?"

I suspect part of the problem is that the "shit happens in war" crowd perceive that for the most part, complaints about the school situation are not being made in good faith, but are rather being used as a club to beat up on the out-group. As someone who is pro-Israel, I regularly see the "isolated demand for perfection" game being played, and it's not by people who sincerely care about civilian deaths -- as evidenced by their selectivity.

In any event, I think your questions have pretty much been answered implicitly, but for what it may be worth here are my answers: (1) no, we can't make shit happen less in war; (2) if the war was justified in advance of the school situation, it's still justified now because everyone knows that bombing campaigns inevitably endanger civilians; and (3) no, because we don't want to reward or encourage bullying from behind human shields.

Probably my answers are a little overstated, e.g., there may very well be improvements that can be made to our military to lessen (but not eliminate) the chances of incidents like this. This is a topic which probably should be discussed, but it needs to be approached in such a way as to make clear that it's being raised in good faith and is not about beating up on the out-group.

Alternately 'you can never do anything potentially mean since there might be unintended targets' doesn't really allow for anything resembling a productive society. Tradeoffs are going to have to be made, this is the logic that leads to massive second-order impacts from things like COVID lockdowns since people just cannot process the scale of any large endeavor

Yes but there is a cost. I don't think anything the US is doing in this war is worth the death of a single child because the whole war is a farce. I think going to war should almost always be defensive after sober deliberation for the cost of taking human life. I don't see that here and the obvious lies by our leaders make it worse. At least own your mistakes with somber dignity instead of blustering about phantom Iranian tomahawks. The whole thing was also a cowardly sneak attack in the vein of pearl harbor.

Yes but there is a cost. I don't think anything the US is doing in this war is worth the death of a single child because the whole war is a farce.

Then you should be arguing your reasoning that the war is a farce and not picking one aspect of it that, if different, wouldn't change your position.

You can't use the general existence of unpleasant tradeoffs to justify a particular set of actions; you need to actually articulate a defense of why a particular tradeoff is worth it. Here we have a bunch of people saying "I don't care, shit happens."

This is, at best, callous and least. It very easily turns into self-justifying brutality.

The problem is that this argument is a soldier, and nothing more. The entire point of bringing up the girl's school deaths and pinning them on the US is to say "TRUMP BAD FOR ATTACKING IRAN". It stops there. Both sides know this, so one side tries as hard as it can to pin the deaths on the US (including claiming as proof footage of a missile attack on the base next door) and reports uncritically the ever-increasing death count (including a surprising number of boys, for girl's school) claimed by Iran. The other side denies regardless of the evidence, and reports fishy stories about Iranian missile misfires. If the attack was definitely shown to be an Iranian accident or an intercepted US attack, the first side would switch to instead blaming the US because the incident wouldn't have happened had the US not attacked. If it was definitely shown that it was a mistargeted US attack, the second side would blame Iran for making the war necessary in the first place.

You can't use the general existence of unpleasant tradeoffs to justify a particular set of actions; you need to actually articulate a defense of why a particular tradeoff is worth it.

This feels like a common generalized critique of modern neoliberalism, though: "You can't do [THING], it might cause [UNPLEASANTNESS]", where [THING] ranges from "Invade foreign nation", which has pretty obvious unpleasantness in most cases, to "enforce existing immigration law", all the way down to "build that apartment complex" for values of unpleasantness like "would require destroying a historic, um, laundromat" or "would cast 1% extra shadow on a public park". We've very much used this set of unpleasant tradeoffs to justify privileging inaction in lots of cases, many with pretty clear consequences for the rest of us, although I think there is certainly reasonable ground for not blindly charging ahead with everything.

It's much the same as when it shows up in international politics: "Palestinians are firing weapons (rockets) at Israeli population centers again. But we can't allow them to respond -- someone might get hurt!". I'm not going to claim that any particular action is justifiable, but I've seen a lot of long-term bad consequences enabled by choosing inaction as a response assuming it'll be free in the long-term, just because the short-term "unpleasantness" is pretty clearly defined. And it's clear that some parties take advantage of these stated values to push boundaries and normalize worse outcomes.

I suppose somewhere in here could arise a principled (anti-woke?) political philosophy that prioritizes "we make hard choices, not because we relish them, but because we don't want them badly chosen for us."

The problem is that evaluating the trade-offs here is very very hard. There are many moving parts and many possible outcomes, and I simply don't know enough and probably can't under the current circumstances. I am highly ambivalent about these current events and don't have much to say other than the obvious, e.g. the inevitability of collateral civilian deaths justifies neither action nor inaction. At this point I'm crossing my fingers and hoping for the best.

The reason my priors are strongly against war, even though I am not a pacifist or even against initiating force in principle, is that war is chaotic in the extreme. There is a long, long, long history of foolish and overconfident war planners thinking they're going to get away with a short, victorious war and walking into disaster. Even the best planners make critical mistakes and those mistakes can have enormous human costs.

The US is powerful and secure enough that the consequences overwhelmingly fall on others, but I feel like that should make us more cautious. The lack of skin in the game makes reckless overconfidence easy. There are a lot of cases where the choice between action and inaction is not obvious or should be biased towards action, but war is not one of them.

@VoxelVexillologist

For the record I agree with you here: war is always a terrible choice, although maybe there are times when it's the best available one. I don't know details here, but it feels like there were other, better options here.

My claim in the lateral thread is more observing that, generally, preferencing some definition of "inaction" can lead to worse outcomes, and it feels like this is related to the perceived indecisive malaise of modern neoliberalism.

For a more relevant, concrete example, I've heard at least one or two historians opine that if the Allies had responded more firmly to the German annexations of Austria and Czechoslovakia, they might not have needed to do so at a much more dramatic scale when it attacked Poland (heck, the immediate response to that was anemic, too, until the Germans had turned around to attack France). Declaring "peace at all costs" is a sucker move from a game theory perspective.

I'm not quite sure I agree with that - I think the preference for inaction results from the combination of prioritizing harm avoidance and a (nearly universal) moral intuition that not doing something implies less culpability than doing something, even if the outcomes are similar in human cost (e.g. very few people think the US withdrawing humanitarian aid, leading to hundreds of thousands of preventable deaths, is really equivalent to the US directly killing hundreds of thousands of people).

I confess that I'm also not sure what you mean by neoliberalism here.

I confess that I'm also not sure what you mean by neoliberalism here.

I'm trying somewhat (maybe unsuccessfully) to see similarities in patterns that arc from local NIMBYism to limp-wristed international diplomacy in that we often find ourselves biased toward classes of answers that "sound nice", but in practice get taken advantage of by powerful actors (not infrequently masquerading as weak actors for sympathy) leading to worse outcomes for everyone else. Perhaps "neoliberalism" isn't quite the right term for what I'm looking to describe, but it's a related flavor.

I see this pattern all over the place: We can't build affordable market housing in California because it might obstruct rich homeowners' views. We can't build nuclear power plants because other countries have done it poorly in the past a couple times. We can't do anything about illegal immigration because it'd have bad optics. We can't reduce crime because it might require putting people in jail. We can't stop the flow of drugs in small boats because someone might get hurt. We can't automate our major ports and transit systems because unions might lose (economically-not-necessary) jobs. We can't means-test Social Security because (rich!) pensioners will go destitute. We can't do anything about foreign provocation against our friend nations and allies because it might escalate to war.

None of these things have easy answers. I won't even endorse any particular motion on any of them at this moment, but it feels like nobody in politics can: optics seems like all that matters, not outcomes.

I risk sounding like a broken record here but that old Clemenceau quote is relevant again: "America Is the Only Country That Went from Barbarism to Decadence Without Civilization In Between".

When you look at things through this lens everything explains itself perfectly. The Americans as a nation have never been properly civilised, their national myth includes things like the Frontier man and the taming of the wilderness, but in one of those rather all too common twists of irony I'd say the wild has transformed Americans far more than they have ever transformed it.

Once you realize that America as a country has never had civilisation in the sense a European, a Chinese, or even dare I say, a Persian, would understand it, (I mean as a country, many many Americans are perfectly civilised people, the problem is not All Americans, the problem is Enough Americans) everything starts falling into place and making sense.

The way to deal with such a country is to treat it like it is: rather than trying to support the US or help them in their war against Iran out of some misguided gentlemanly obligation, Europe now has an excellent opportunity to twist the knife and extract huge concessions from the US on Ukraine and tariffs in return for them being allowed to use European bases to run their war. And make your demands and the concessions you get public as red meat for your domestic base. It's no different to what the Americans would have done to you had the shoe been on the other foot.

  • -20

Haha! hahahaha even! Us canny europeans, despite committing demographic and economic suicide for thirty years, finally have these upstart Yanks right where we want them! Huzzah! Now, with just the right finesse of the diplomatic corps, we'll be able to get mild and tightly scoped tariff relief. Just. like. we planned it. And, don't you know, it's all because these colonials lack CULTURE!

The European mind simply cannot comprehend winning in a real sense. I get that World War 2 shattered your brain but it's time to get back in the big leagues of the world.

Keep in mind he's not a European.

When you look at things through this lens everything explains itself perfectly.

Does it? Lazy justifications (and, indeed, enthusiasm) for brutality seem to be a pervasive disease of human thought. Certainly, 'civilized' cultures have never struggled to commit superlative acts of barbarism.

That's a nice free-form contentless rant, and like Dase I know you love sneering at Westerners, and Americans especially, as hard as we will allow, under the cope of speaking from a delusional sense of superiority. But do tell me: in what sense are Americans not (or ever) "civilized"? Non-rhetorically. Step up. What do those words mean?

Because under every definition with any non-rhetorical meaning, this is simply nonsense. It's a snarky pseudo-elite bon motte with no significance beyond the performative revulsion, the affected contempt.

What you actually mean by "civilized" is "has a culture I like and behaves in ways I approve of." And sure, everyone is entitled to like their own culture and think it is better than other cultures. You can disapprove of America and wish we were more like you all you want. But if you want to start trading cheap sneers about respective cultures and how "civilized" we are and aren't, you sure would not want us to take the mod guardrails off when talking about Pakistan, or Muslim culture writ large.

Whenever I see you toss these haughty sneers like you're an aristocrat curling your upper lip at the revolting peasants, I am just astounded at the sheer arrogance. Not offended, but genuinely astounded that you can be so lacking in perspective and awareness.

But do tell me: in what sense are Americans not (or ever) "civilized"? Non-rhetorically. Step up. What do those words mean?

I actually found myself nodding along with him. America has never been fully settled, such that it's occupants are forced to turn viciously on each other in red status games. Americans have always had PVE as an outlet, as a way to foster trust and self-regulation and prosocial behavior. We're built for PVE, and we're so good at it and it's so rewarding that when we try our hand at guild war PVP, we roflstomp.

Compare that to a "late stage" civilization like China or India or Persia where the only way to get ahead is to screw over someone else. There's only so many spots in the civil service, so every Chinese kid who makes the cut necessarily means another doesn't. This creates an environment where being good or competent in an objective sense is less important than outperforming peers. To them, we look like little kids who haven't internalized tiger mom knife-fighting.

To us, they look like savages stabbing themselves for pitiful loot because they don't grok "trust".

Or at least, that's the rough sketch of an idea that's been kicking around in my head for a few weeks.

Or at least, that's the rough sketch of an idea that's been kicking around in my head for a few weeks.

I've been mulling a very similar idea that I had tentatively framed in terms of "Masculine" vs "Feminine" approaches to conflict. The masculine approach to conflict is active, direct, and open. Ideally there is a clear winner and loser that can be judged by some outside and ostensibly objective metric. The fastest time, the highest score, etc... The popular cliche is two guys get in a fight and then become friends afterwards.

Meanwhile the feminine approach is more subtle and passive aggressive. Direct confrontation is frowned upon as "unintelligent", "uncivilized", or "unrefined". The popular cliche is everyone being outwardly polite and supportive while quietly stabbing thier "friends" in the back, and jockeying for position. I suspect that this is because women are more often competing amongst themselves for relative status rather than against some outside threat.

In short, Mean Girls was supposed to be a satirical comedy, not a how to guide.

Mean Girls was supposed to be a satirical comedy, not a how to guide.

Thank you for giving me "proper" justification to continue my teen movie binge.

Maybe in the Qing dynasty. But now there are huge new centers of entrepreneurship in Shenzhen and Shanghai there's a lot of new wealth and new money. When I walk around Chinese cities thay they seem a lot more prosocial and trusting then Western ones these days.

I am just astounded at the sheer arrogance. Not offended, but genuinely astounded that you can be so lacking in perspective and awareness.

It's just a bit that he enjoys doing. And I suspect that he enjoys it because it never fails to get a bunch of responses. He's kind of like Kulak in that way. Kulak used to annoy me until I realized that his tough guy schtick was just a character he played online to get engagement. When you switch to analyzing the performance instead of the (thin) content of the argument, these characters become much more interesting and enjoyable to read. Unlike Ilforte/Dasein, they at least appear to be having fun. Don't hate the player, hate the game.

and like Dase I know you love sneering at Westerners, and Americans especially, as hard as we will allow, under the cope of speaking from a delusional sense of superiority

You deserve so much more, with your obscene sense of entitlement to boomered-out superficiality.

But for the record, I not only believe that Americans are civilized, but that they're distinct enough to merit classification as a civilization unto itself, separate from the Western one, more dynamic, with greater passionarity. Some don't like it, well too bad for them.

Maybe we can talk of Amero-Israeli civilization, or just Israeli civilization, in the vein of Hebraic Conservatism with offshoots – a very mainstream and respectable idea in America, despite it looking like insane sectarian gibberish to most Westerners! But I'd still say those, for now, constitute two distinct successful non-Western civilizations.

Replying to both you and @Shakes:

I'm not saying America has no achievements (obviously it does, and listing them like Shakes did doesn't refute the point). Nobody denies America has produced extraordinary things, half the things I use on a daily basis were made by them, and that's probably an underestimate (though I'd add that a lot and an increasing proportion of this is from immigrants who became Americans or their near term descendants, rather than "founding stock"). The telephone, jazz, the moon landing etc. etc. are yes, all real, all impressive. But a catalogue of inventions and monuments is not what civilisation means in the sense I'm using it, and people should get that from my post.

What I mean and what Clemenceau meant (however priggish you may call him) is something closer to what you might call institutional depth and cultural continuity: the slow accumulation of norms, restraints, and social trust that make a society self regulating rather than dependent on raw dynamism (which is something that Americans seem to prize above all else, even when it's the wrong tool for the job, hammer and nail come to mind). Europe didn't get that from being clever. It got it from centuries of catastrophe and making mistakes and importantly learning from them. The point isn't that Europeans are better people (I wouldn't even agree, even though I'd probably choose to spend an evening with a randomly chosen European over a randomly chosen American, never mind that they might not even speak English). The point is that the European political tradition, through sheer painful experience, developed a certain instinct for restraint, compromise, and institutional preservation that the American tradition never prioritised in the same way and is likely to very soon come back and bite it in the ass. America's founding myth is about breaking free of those constraints, not building them. That's not an insult, it's a description.

And the "civilised Americans exist, the problem is't All Americans but Enough Americans" line was doing work you both skipped past. I'm not painting 330 million people with one brush. I'm saying the political culture, the median and especially the current leadership of the country, trends in a direction that makes America an unreliable partner and that Europeans should act accordingly rather than sentimentally. Think Mark Carney, but with more spice.

Which brings me to the part of my post that was actually the point, and which neither of you addressed: the strategic argument. Forget whether Clemenceau was rude. Forget whether I'm being snobbish, I won't try and justify that further as I know it won't work (and no, Spengler didn't put me up to this). The question on the table is simple: should Europe give America unconditional support in its Iran campaign, or should it use its leverage: basing rights, logistics, diplomatic cover, to extract concessions on Ukraine and tariffs? The "American" would say "use the leverage", the European might say "we're all gentlemen here", except that that's no longer true, so might as well give them a taste of their own medicine.

The argument that America "pays for European defence" cuts both ways. If European bases are so essential to American force projection that Spain's wobble caused a crisis within days (which it's still not allowing to my knowledge despite what the Americans are saying), then those bases have price, and Europe is a fool not to name it.

The claim that America could walk away tomorrow and it would be Europe's problem, not the Americans well right there you're making my argument for me. If that's how America sees the relationship, then Europe has no obligation of loyalty either, and should negotiate accordingly. You can't simultaneously say "we do this for you" and "we don't need you." Pick one. The cakeism is very "American".

Well I appreciate you being a good sport about my rant and screed but I don't think any analysis of America that concludes it has no civilization is compelling. I could accept an argument that American civilization is an extension of European civilization, but that's just about the same thing. America has all the hallmarks of high culture and deep habits, except perhaps for a time measured in millennia (but if that's all civilization is then I'm not sure it matters much as a concept, it certainly doesn't explain much about what's in front of us with Iran).

Which brings me to the part of my post that was actually the point, and which neither of you addressed: the strategic argument. Forget whether Clemenceau was rude. Forget whether I'm being snobbish, I won't try and justify that further as I know it won't work (and no, Spengler didn't put me up to this). The question on the table is simple: should Europe give America unconditional support in its Iran campaign, or should it use its leverage: basing rights, logistics, diplomatic cover, to extract concessions on Ukraine and tariffs?

Mostly I didn't address this because I don't think the civilization question has much to do with it.

Insofar as we can discuss this, I think this is a question for Europeans to decide. I'm actually fairly appreciative of Europe in general and I respect their ability to choose. I'm just fairly convinced from everything I know about Europe that they're fairly deluded about the nature of their relationship with America. Europe is not seeing things rationally. Europe fails to understand America at all.

America pays the vast majority of Europe's defense costs. America supplies weapons and planes and intel that are beyond what Europe can produce on its own. America guarantees the supply of oil and natural gas. America provides the security framework that keeps Europe together instead of devolving into the old squabbles and wars. It's not all charity but it does come at some cost to us. Instead of ever appreciating it or trying to honestly assess the trade-offs, America is met with derision, scorn, tariffs, trade barriers, condescension, etc. It is frankly a little deluded of Europe, as see this:

If European bases are so essential to American force projection that Spain's wobble caused a crisis within days

We don't need Spain's bases to project force in the Middle East. We don't need Spain at all. We have bases there, it would be nice and convenient to use them, but American defense does not depend on Spain in this sense. It's laughable. Ok, so Spain wants out? Who keeps the sea lanes safe? Who keeps the oil flowing? Spain doesn't want American bases to be used for icky ugly things like war, ok, does that mean Spain will raise its own navy to protect its ships from pirates? No, because of course America will continue to do that, and Spain will gladly take advantage of it, as long as they don't have to confront the reality of what that means. It's delusional. Spain has no leverage over America. Believe me that this thinking inspires a lot of resentment in America and will probably ultimately kill NATO, unless Donald Trump successfully renegotiates it so that Europe actually starts to pay some of what they were supposed to pay all along.

The claim that America could walk away tomorrow and it would be Europe's problem, not the Americans well right there you're making my argument for me. If that's how America sees the relationship, then Europe has no obligation of loyalty either, and should negotiate accordingly. You can't simultaneously say "we do this for you" and "we don't need you." Pick one. The cakeism is very "American".

Yeah that's right Americans like having their cake and eating it there's no denying it. Except in this case it's Europe that gets to have its cake and eat it: we pay for your defense and then you put conditions on how we're allowed to do it. Ok then, walk away. You guys can deal with Russia, you guys can fix the Gulf. Which won't actually happen anyways -- America will find other allies in Europe because we don't really need the present order to survive. You do.

Brings to mind a good Substack article I read the other day: https://open.substack.com/pub/samkriss/p/youll-regret-it

Most European countries have already had one or several acutely manic phases in their past, the kind of energy that drives you to burst out into the world and do whatever you please until you’ve got a damn empire.

We might have had one or two in the US already, surely when we conquered the whole west from sea to sea, another when we came in and destroyed the axis powers and unleashed the greatest weapon ever deployed onto the planet.

But we’re still a juvenile culture and we’re currently in one of those manic phases of adolescent grandiosity. We can do anything!!! Just you fucking watch and try to stop us.

I don’t know if age always fully quiets down these impulses. Some pretty old cultures also get the itch from time to time. But we do have a radically smaller library of experiences to draw from as a culture and that might shape our behavior in meaningful ways.

We also suffer from a sort of rich kid who never faces consequences syndrome. Due to our privileged geography, we’ve pretty much never had our ass truly kicked or even realistically threatened by a foreign culture, like most other countries have. The only true at home ass kicking we’ve ever had was one we did to ourselves. A basic trauma that essentially all global cultures know intuitively, we just have no experience with.

I do think the cultural memory of these experiences ends up being important in shaping the psychology of a nation. And the US, we just haven’t lived enough to learn certain lessons that other cultures have.

There’s good and bad things about that, just as there is with the psychology of youth and maturity in individual humans.

America has all the hallmarks of high culture and deep habits, except perhaps for a time measured in millennia

Julius Evola would disagree:

The US has been compared, not without justification, to a melting-pot. It actually presents us with a case in which a human type was formed, with characteristics that are to a large extent uniform and constant, from out of a highly heterogeneous raw material. Emigrating to America, men of the most diverse peoples receive the same imprint; after two generations, except in rare cases, they lose almost all of their original characteristics, reproducing a fairly homogeneous unit in terms of mentality, sensibility, and behavior: the American type.

In this regard, theories such as those formulated by Frobenius and Spengler, who have asserted that there is a close relationship between the forms of a given culture and a kind of “soul” bound to the natural environment, to the “landscape” and the original population, do not seem applicable. Otherwise, an essential part of American culture would have been possessed by the indigenous element, which consists of Amerindians, the redskins. The red Indians were proud races with their own style, their own dignity, sensibility and forms of religiosity; not without justification, a traditionalist writer, F. Schuon, spoke of the presence in their being, of something “aquiline and solar.” And we will not hesitate to assert that had it been their spirit that to an appreciable extent had imbued – in its best aspects and on an appropriate plane – the human material thrown into the “American melting pot,” the level of American civilization would probably be higher.[2]

Instead, besides its Puritan-Protestant component (which, in turn, as a result of its fetishistic emphasis on the Old Testament, possesses many judaized, degenerate traits), it seems that it is precisely the negro element, in its primitivism, that has set the tone in important aspects of the American psyche. It is already characteristic that when speaking of American folklore, it is to the Negroes one is referring, as if they were the original inhabitants of the country. Thus, the famous Porgy and Bess by the Jew Gershwin, which deals exclusively with blacks, is considered in the US to be a classic work inspired by “American folklore.” The composer has declared that he lived for some time among American blacks in preparation for this work.

But the phenomenon of popular and dance music is even more conspicuous and general. Fitzgerald was not wrong when he said that in one of its main aspects, American civilization can be called a civilization of jazz, i.e., of a negrified music and dance. In this domain, very singular “elective affinities” have led America, by way of a process of regression and primitivization, to imitate the Negroes. Assuming there would be a need for frenzied rhythms and forms as a legitimate compensation for the mechanical and materialistic soullessness of modern civilization, one would have done much better to look to the many sources available in Europe: we have elsewhere mentioned, for example, the dance rhythms of South Eastern Europe, which often have something truly Dionysian. But America has chosen to imitate the blacks and the Afro-Cubans, and then from America the contagion has gradually spread to all other countries.

…

The brutality that unquestionably is a characteristic of Americans can well be said to have a negro character. In the happy days of what Eisenhower was not ashamed to call the “Crusade in Europe,” as well as in the early days of the occupation, we had the occasion to observe the typical forms of that brutality, but we also saw that at times, American “whites” went even farther in this respect than their negro comrades, whose infantilism, however, they often shared.

Generally speaking, the taste for brutality now seems to be ingrained in the American mindset. It is true that the most brutal of all sports, boxing, originated in England, but it is in the United States that its most aberrant forms have developed, and it is there that it has become the object of a collective obsession, soon transmitted to other nations. Concerning the taste for getting into fights and coming to blows in the most savage manner it is enough, though, to consider the greater part of American films and popular detective stories: vulgar fist-fighting is a constant theme, evidently because it corresponds to the tastes of American audiences and readers, for whom it seems to be the symbol of true masculinity. America, the world leader, has, on the other hand, more than any other nation relegated the traditional duel to the status of ridiculous European antiquated rubbish. The duel is a method of settling disputes, following strict rules, without resorting to the primitive brute force of the mere arm and fist. There is no need to point out the striking contrast between this American trait and the ideal behavior of the English gentleman, despite the fact that the English made up a component of the original people of the United States.

…

Another obvious aspect of American primitivism concerns the concept of “bigness.” Werner Sombart has successfully put his finger on it in saying that “they mistake bigness for greatness.” Now, this trait is not found in all non-European peoples or peoples of color. For example, an authentic Arab of the old race, a redskin, an East Asian are not overly impressed by merely material, quantitative, ostentatious size, including that related to machinery, technology and the economy (apart, of course, from already Europeanized individuals). It is a trait found only in truly primitive and childish races like the Negro. It is no exaggeration to assert that the foolish pride of Americans in spectacular “bigness,” in the “achievements” of their civilization, reek of the Negro psyche.

And as for:

But we’re still a juvenile culture and we’re currently in one of those manic phases of adolescent grandiosity. We can do anything!!! Just you fucking watch and try to stop us.

Evola continued with this:

Here, we ought to mention the oft-repeated nonsense about Americans being a “young race,” with the tacit corollary that they are the race of the future. It is true that a myopic gaze easily mistakes regressive infantilism for true youth. Strictly speaking, according to the traditional conception, this perspective must be inverted. Despite appearances, recent peoples, since they came last, are the most removed from their origins, and as such must be considered to be the most senile and decadent peoples. This view, moreover, corresponds to the organic world.[4]. It explains how paradoxically, the similarities of supposedly “young” peoples, in the above sense of late-comers, with genuinely primitive races that have remained outside of world history, and explains the taste for primitivism and the return to primitivism. We have already remarked upon the American predilection, from an elective affinity, for Negro and sub-tropical music; but the same phenomenon is apparent in other domains of more recent culture and art. We could consider, for example, the glorification of “négritude” by existentialists, intellectuals, and “progressive” artists in France.

It follows that Europeans, including the imitators of the higher non-European civilizations, demonstrate, in turn, the same primitive and provincial mentality when they admire America, when they let themselves be impressed by America, when they stupidly allow themselves to be Americanized and enthusiastically believe that this means catching up with the march of progress, and that it is a sign of being liberated and open-minded.

…

Pour la bonne bouche, we will conclude with a significant statement by a far from superficial American author, James Burnham (in The Struggle for the World): “There is in American life a strain of callow brutality. This betrays itself no less in the lynching and gangsterism at home than in the arrogance and hooliganism of soldiers or tourists abroad. The provincialism of the American mind expresses itself in a lack of sensitivity toward other peoples and other cultures. There is in many Americans an ignorant contempt for ideas and tradition and history, a complacency with the trifles of merely material triumph. Who, listening a few hours to the American radio, could repress a shudder if he thought that the price of survival [of a non-communist society] would be the Americanization of the world?” And unfortunately, to a certain extent, this is already happening.

I, uh, don’t think that’s a very good model.

First: the historical limit on an empire wasn’t ambition. It was logistics. You sprawled out until you hit a natural barrier (steppe, jungle, ocean) that was wider than your baggage trains could handle. Or until you made eye contact with a neighbor strong enough to stake out its own borders. Transport tech changes that first limit; military and economic tech pushes the second.

Second: it’s not like having those phases ever taught any nation anything! Look at 19th century France. Look at the interwar period. Look at today’s Russia. If the logistics and industrial fundamentals aren’t present, the best you’re gonna get is one generation. Then the revanchists will wrangle enough support for another round.

Third: what do you mean, a smaller library of experiences? There’s no Dune-style genetic memory. Institutional inertia is a joke and a political liability. Our President has more information available than anyone in history, and this is what he chose to do with it.

Third: what do you mean, a smaller library of experiences? There’s no Dune-style genetic memory. Institutional inertia is a joke and a political liability. Our President has more information available than anyone in history, and this is what he chose to do with it.

Germany here. The 20th century happened (because of the 19th!). The 21st is still not over it. So long as you keep this stuff warm, it lasts a very long time. It's baked into institutions, in a widespread and very visible manner that is by no means a joke, and continues to decisively shape people to this day and for the forseeable future. People in turn make sure the institutions don't drift away from the program. There's no need for living memory or genetic memory - culture and institutions do the job on their own, where the job is "make sure everyone learns the lesson, no matter how exaggerated or oversimplified or obsolete it is.". The Germany of today is intentionally the near-polar opposite of the Germany of the early 20th century, to a self-destructive degree, but we make very sure to stick to our programming because obedience is the only path to social acceptance.

I do think historical experiences affect a cultures outlook and subsequently behavior.

Modern Chinese politics is meaningfully affected by the century of humiliation.

The tone of Slavic cultures is shaped by repeated wars, famines, and massacres.

Turkish politics is influenced by memories of the Ottoman Empire.

There’s certainly a forgetting curve. We probably shouldn’t study Charlemagne in order to understand what Emmanuel Macron is likely to do tomorrow.

(Edit: Then again, Charlemagne looked back to Roman emperors, was himself relevant to how Napoleon behaved, the French Revolution drew from ideas from the Roman republic, and modern France has dim recollections of all of this built into its cultural identity as well as experiences from both victory and defeat in the world wars. Part of the founding mythos of being French includes empires and revolutions and it gets reflected in French behavior, such as a penchant for frequently protesting and rioting in the streets. Just as the American frontier is long gone but still affects our culture).

Continuing where I earlier left off…

But I do think there’s some historical continuity that gets built up. Having had all your cities razed, suffering a famine, conquering half the world, having an empire crumble, I think all of these things have influences on a culture that ripple across centuries.

Americans today always talk about how we are so optimistic while Europe is just this museum society. But basically all of those cultures had periods of floridly mad optimism in their history at different points, usually coinciding with when they built those structures.

Maybe we are just a uniquely optimistic and exuberant culture and will remain that way forever. But we haven’t even existed for long enough to know the other side of the coin, we’ve never even had the experience of being bested by a rival for example. And although it’s tempting to believe that we’re uniquely ordained by God or fate to never suffer such a disgrace and will never see the other side of the coin (like from the article, god is an Englishman, we invented the modern world and have its largest ever empire ffs), I’d say our time in the sun has its limits just as it does for all world dominant cultures. (Possibly coming soon if you believe Ray Dalio’s model). And after having experienced both the rise and fall, we’ll end up being a somewhat wiser or at least more mature culture which might naturally temper subsequent bouts of mania.

What I mean and what Clemenceau meant (however priggish you may call him) is something closer to what you might call institutional depth and cultural continuity: the slow accumulation of norms, restraints, and social trust that make a society self regulating rather than dependent on raw dynamism (which is something that Americans seem to prize above all else, even when it's the wrong tool for the job, hammer and nail come to mind).

No, that's completely wrong. "Raw dynamism" is a very American cultural myth that Americans like to tell themselves, and it's kind of weird to see you repeating it just because it sounds like an "A-hyuck! A-hyuck!" cowboy stereotype.

America has a great deal of institutional depth and continuity. For all that we fancy ourselves to have reinvented ourselves from whole cloth in 1776, the "American project" very obviously was both something unique and designed, and something that drew on the entirety of English Common Law and Western civilization. The Founding Fathers didn't just pull the Articles of Confederation and then the Constitution out of their asses; they had as much education and "civilization" as their European contemporaries did. That America was something relatively new and different at the time does not mean it was some strange savage MMORPG environment dropped onto North America.

America has institutional norms, restraints, and social trust. Arguably, those are being hollowed out right now. Arguably, so are Europe's. Arguably, a major reason for that is... well. People who do not share those institutional norms, restraints, and social trust.

I'm saying the political culture, the median and especially the current leadership of the country, trends in a direction that makes America an unreliable partner and that Europeans should act accordingly rather than sentimentally.

This may be true, but it's also both an observation very much of the moment (all governments change, and some governments change radically and catastrophically) and has nothing to do with whether or not America is "civilized."

The question on the table is simple: should Europe give America unconditional support in its Iran campaign, or should it use its leverage: basing rights, logistics, diplomatic cover, to extract concessions on Ukraine and tariffs?

Sure, that's a question Europe needs to answer, and I would expect Europe to weight European interests above American interests. But Europe has its own dysfunctions (which is a large part of the reason we're here) and is hardly in a position to be sniffing at Americans and how "unreliable" (or "uncivilized" forsooth) they are.

@Shakes is more interested in the "Europe versus America" question. I don't really care about that. I'm peering at your "civilization" quip and still trying to figure out what the hell you think you mean by it. You haven't described anything America doesn't have, just political decisions America is making that you don't like.

You say America has institutional depth and continuity, and that the Founders drew on English Common Law and the whole Western tradition and I agree. I never said otherwise and I'd have been stupid to. The US Constitution is a remarkable document (worth reading even as a non-American), the Federalist Papers are some of the best political thinking ever committed to paper, and the early Republic was built by men who were as educated and sophisticated as anyone in Europe, there's no argument to that.

But I think you're collapsing a distinction that matters: there's a difference between having institutions and having the deep cultural substrate that makes those institutions self repairing. England didn't develop parliamentary norms because someone wrote a brilliant constitution. It developed them over centuries of messy, bloody, often accidental practice until they became so embedded in the culture that violating them felt viscerally wrong to enough people to make it politically suicidal. That's what I mean by institutional depth: not the documents, not the structures, but the thickness of the cultural root system underneath them.

And you've actually conceded the key point yourself when you say they're being hollowed out right now. My reply is simply: how fast and how easily? Because that speed is itself diagnostic. If American institutional culture had the depth it lacks, what's happening right now would be much harder to do. I agree that European institutions are under strain too, especially from the hard right and parties like AfD and Reform here in the UK but they're harder, the damage is slower and meeting more resistance at every level. See how Europe managed to co opt Meloni in Italy into a standard right wing European party from the far right. Orban's getting kicked out very soon as well just to give you another data point. Europe is able to deflect and absorb the attacks to its institutions in a way the US hasn't shown any signs of doing.

Instead what we're seeing over there is that a single administration with a sufficiently bloody minded approach can hollow out norms that were supposedly two and a half centuries deep in what, a year and a half? The US has a proper full constitution and an extremely strong supreme court which could block all this with ease but it has folded like a marzipan deckchair. That's not what deep roots look like. That's what a brilliant structure built on shallow cultural soil looks like when someone finally decides to test the foundations. It sinks at the first real challenge. Compare to the UK where we don't even have a written constitution and parliament is technically sovereign and a majority can do anything they want, including reinstating slavery if they so wish and yet our institutions mean that even a government with strong support from its MPs can't do whatever it wants (as Boris Johnson found out with Brexit).

To put it differently: the Constitution told Americans what their institutions should be. What it couldn't do, because no document can, is make Americans feel that violating those norms is unthinkable rather than merely illegal. The "we don't do that" instinct, the one that in a deeply rooted institutional culture makes norm-violation politically radioactive even when it's technically possible, that's the thing I'm saying is thinner in America than Americans believe. And I don't think that's a controversial observation at this point. You yourself seem to agree the hollowing is happening. We're just disagreeing about what it reveals.

So to your final challenge "you haven't described anything America doesn't have, just political decisions you don't like" I would say that I've described exactly the thing America is currently demonstrating it doesn't have enough of. The decisions I don't like are the evidence, not the argument.

And briefly, since I've already made this case and don't want to repeat myself: this is precisely why the leverage question matters. You don't extend unconditional trust to a partner whose institutional immune system is failing this visibly. You negotiate. That's not sneering, it's prudence.

  • -11

I think a lot of this is compelling, and it's true that Europe has been much more institutionally resilient and stable over recent years than the US has been.

I don't think that civilisational depth and the accumulation of norms is, however, the most parsimonious explanation for why this is the case. Australia, for example, is younger than America and has been more institutionally resilient over the past few decades of populist headwinds than Europe has largely been.

The real reason the US is falling faster towards institutional dysfunction is more prosaic: its institutions are not well designed. That unified party control across different branches of government would still let each branch effectively check the excesses of the others was a naive theory at best. Instead political will flows through the channels of least resistance and carves them deeper.

One of the Westminster system's better features, which has achieved its final perfected form in Australia, is explicitly not tying the political ambitions and fates of would-be political leaders to that of whoever sits in the chair at a given moment. If there's no real way to self-correct a year into the term, everyone is sink-or-swim through any insanity.

One of the Westminster system's better features, which has achieved its final perfected form in Australia, is by explicitly not tying the political ambitions and fates of would-be political leaders to that of whoever sits in the chair at a given moment. If there's no real way to self-correct a year into the term, everyone is sink-or-swim through any insanity.

Yeah, Starmer has turned out to be a bit of a dud here, so he's probably out after the May elections and there will be a new Labour PM and a new Labour government and life will continue in much the same way (or perhaps even better) for the 90% of Labour MPs who aren't very closely tied to Starmer. The Labour MPs themselves will be the ones to get rid of him and there's very little Starmer can do to hit back against them; can you imagine the republicans in the US House or Senate voting to get rid of Trump?

Australia, for example, is younger than America and has been more institutionally resilient over the past few decades of populist headwinds than Europe has largely been.

I suspect Australia and Europe are under different pressures though, are they not?

The real reason the US is falling faster towards institutional dysfunction and is more prosaic: its institutions are not well designed.

I am inclined both ways on this question. The US' institutions have arguably survived longer than the ones in most of Europe! If you think institutions have a natural lifespan it's logically possible that they are both stronger than most European ones and that they are just now reaching a point of decay after most of Europe's crashed and burned. But I digress: the Constitution as originally written envisioned a very strong Congress. (BurdensomeCount fingers the strong US Supreme Court but that's actually much more debatable an institution, at least when it comes to original intent.)

I'll just incorporate by reference an older comment I made with my thesis that a lot of Trump's supposed puncturing of norms is due to wielding the accumulated powers of the executive (often delegated by Congress) in the one hand and the inherent, original, sometimes neglected powers of the executive on the other. But what I don't really discuss in that comment is why Congress seems so dysfunctional.

There is a simple (although I think incomplete) theory as to why this might be the case: Congress has not grown with the nation. The House has been capped at 435 members for more than 100 years. This has not kept pace with either population growth or the growth of the government. Put it simply, in this theory, Congress is overworked and isolated - they aren't capable of conducting proper oversight of the massive, sprawling bureaucracy, and they are a smaller, more elite portion of the population. The one thing George Washington cared about was that the ratio of representatives to citizens not exceed 1:30,000, and we blew past 1:300,000 around 1940. Today we're at a worse than 1:760,000 ratio.

This seems like an odd thing to finger as a major problem, but network effects are very real. Of course, increasing the size of the House to, say, FOUR THOUSAND would also have implications for network effects: FOUR THOUSAND or FORTY THOUSAND representatives are, perhaps, too unwieldy to come to consensus on anything. So, to add some extra ammo to your argument: however well designed America's institutions were or weren't originally, we should not expect them to function the same, distorted as they are.

Unfortunately, for all of that, it does not seem that a leaner ratio (In Australia that ratio is about 1:125,000, on a quick Google, and something like a blessed 1:75,000 in the UK) is actually effective at getting the cultural or legal outcomes that I prize. A pity!

More comments

I love my country, but I’m a strong critic of our constitutional structure.

I believe the assumption was that Congress would be jealous of its own power, in the way that the House of Commons was jealous of its own power in comparison to the King and the Lords, but the issue is that the elected Presidency created a countervailing center of political legitimacy, and blame, that’s independent of and largely unaccountable to Congress. The framers thought impeachment would be a sufficient counterweight, but failed to take account of the fact that removing a President would be a traumatic and partisan exercise, more akin to revolution against a king than the removal of a minister.

After centuries of experience with elected assemblies, it’s now clearer that the means of survival for democratic parties is ensuring that blame for anything that goes wrong rests on the opposition, not in delivering results. As a result, all blame and accountability for anything that happens politically rests on the President, who is quite impotent to accomplish reform, while little to no power actually rests in individual Congressmen.

So people who want to wield power don’t go into Congress, and Presidents are eager to expand their power by any means necessary. The checks and balances fail. I suspect the American system is designed almost for an inverted Whig revolution, where the executive has every reason to accumulate power by taking it from the legislature.

More comments

You're contradicting yourself and backtracking on every point that you initially used as evidence that America lacks civilization. I will just repeat: America didn't spring out of a vacuum. We had institutional depth from the beginning (albeit many new institutions had to be invented) because even the earliest colonists were not tribes wandering into the New World across the Bering Sea.

I agree that European institutions are under strain too, especially from the hard right and parties like AfD and Reform here in the UK but they're harder, the damage is slower and meeting more resistance at every level.

I sincerely doubt this. Maybe not about Europe resisting right-wing Trump-like movements, but that's not the only kind of change we observe.

Instead what we're seeing over there is that a single administration with a sufficiently bloody minded approach can hollow out norms that were supposedly two and a half centuries deep in what, a year and a half? The US has a proper full constitution and an extremely strong supreme court which could block all this with ease but it has folded like a marzipan deckchair. That's not what deep roots look like. That's what a brilliant structure built on shallow cultural soil looks like when someone finally decides to test the foundations. It sinks at the first real challenge.

Trump is not the first, nor the worst, challenge American norms and institutions have faced. The Civil War was not even the first time the government faced a severe challenge to its credibility and stability (nor was it the last). I have argued with other Motters because I think the probability of Trump actually destroying the Republic is low, but non-zero, and my lowball estimate is higher than they think is realistic. But it's not the first time there has been a non-zero chance of the American experiment ending.

Europe has not exactly been a continuous steady state of reliable governance for the past two and half centuries either.

Once you realize that America as a country has never had civilisation in the sense a European, a Chinese, or even dare I say, a Persian, would understand it,

Not only does this not make sense but it doesn’t explain anything. America has: the telephone, the light bulb, the computer, the airplane, eggs Benedict, jazz, cell phones, hamburgers, the Washington Monument, the skyscraper, speakeasies, brunch, baseball, Constitutional Democracy, mass education, social security, the automobile, Hollywood, the Golden Gate Bridge, Supreme Courts, southern food, basketball, Detroit, New York, California, Texas, television, the nuclear bomb, the nuclear bomb!

What are we talking about, am I being baited, did Spengler put you up to this? America has no civilization? America invented the modern world! Every country in the world that attempts to look down on us is using criteria America INVENTED. Europeans get more degrees? America invented mass education with the GI bill. Travel and leisure? We invented airlines, the five day work week, paid vacation. Democracy?

We have a beautiful civilization, Times Square, the Chicago World Fair 1893, the National Mall, Route 66, the Wizard of Oz, Gone With the Wind, apple pie. Many things are in decline to the point that we’ve forgotten how the White House was decorated in the Gilded Age and misremembered it as a ranch home aesthetic but America is a beautiful place.

We went to the moon! The moon!

Clemenceau is a priggish French asshole (whose pride at Versailles gave us World War II) of the worst type of French snobbery for which we forgive them anyways because we admire the French and respect their contributions to America. But what do they know! They are sitting in the corner watching while America remakes the world in our own image and the best they have now is to reinvent the definition of civilization with fake word games.

What is the idea that America is destroying Tehran out of some sort of civilizational jealousy? Or that we don’t understand the world so that we lash out at it? No it’s Europe that doesn’t understand it’s Iran that doesn’t understand. There are no concessions for you to extract. America is the world power because we have a spirit that nobody else in the world has even if I prefer French bakeries and Spanish wine. Wha are we talking about? Europe has no concessions to extract because America pays for their defense and in exchange they put tariffs and trade barriers up against us while proclaiming that their civilization is superior. Ok, try it, it will go as well as it went when Spain tried denying us our bases a week ago, what are you have no power to extract anything. This whole military operation is a favor to you because we’re not the ones who get screwed if the straits of Hormuz close, we could close down all our bases tomorrow and it would be your world in chaos, not ours.

What’s the thanks we get? To be lectured on how we don’t understand anything because we don’t have a real civilization and are just barbarians who need red meat? The civilization-wreckers are the barbarians in Tehran who want to bomb everyone and the loafers in Europe who believe in their own superiority but refuse to do anything to maintain it. Decadence? Europeans want to shut down their nuclear reactors, buy all their oil from Putin, then complain that America wrecks everything it touches. That’s decadence!

America invented mass education with the GI bill.

I didn't knew that Otto Von Bismarck was alive in 1946 ...

Mass higher education.

America still has some of the residual vitality of Western civilization, and that's just so cringe.

Europe has fuck all leverage due to lacking the upside of America atleast producing something and being absolutely weighed down by an infinite supply of net-negative foreigners who at absolute best might be able to find some fake zero-sum makework to briefly mask their inability to actually create a productive society on their own terms. The US might be clumsy and lurching but atleast they stand for something at some level.

The idea of targeted bombings is a lot like the idea of shooting people in the legs, the old canard that emerges after every iffy police shooting.

The reality is that you can't reliably shoot people in the legs and when you do you might kill them anyway, so we wouldn't encourage police officers to think they can shoot people in the legs to disable them because they'll end up killing more people shooting them when they don't want to kill them.

Similarly, innocent people die in bombing campaigns. Pretending they don't encourages us to bomb more people and cause more innocent deaths. We need to stop pretending we can target perfectly.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats