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 -
I’d like to take a moment to discuss the present and future of the Republican Party within the United States, specifically as it pertains to how a post-Maga consensus and organization may emerge.
Following the Afghanistan and Iraq interventions by then president George W. Bush, public sentiment had largely turned against what is colloquially known as the Neo-Cons, largely exacerbated by media outrage and Democratic politicians lambasting said interventions as wastes of time, lives and initiated upon faulty grounds. In spite of both operations being successful in toppling the reigning dictatorial regimes within the respective middle eastern countries, they were predominantly framed as failures both internally within and without. Largely as a result of this antagonism, a countermovement emerged within the Republican Party, led by Donald Trump which sought to subvert not only the Neo-Con interventionist stance, but also the Atlanticist and pro-NATO foreign policy which had dominated the party since the second world war, in favor of an “America First” way of thinking.
The result of his tenure as president, both first and second term combined has largely been to the disappointment of many, even the many hardliners within the party as the man in question proved unable to deliver on his many promises such as bringing manufacturing back to the Rust Belt (of which tariffs could not abate the decay), the end of Free Trade as a means of lowering prices back home (the former is arguably a success, the latter is not), and in ending foreign entanglements (more on this below). The GOP all the same has become almost entirely captivated by his personage, and outside of Trump, there is little consensus among Republican politicians and political theorists as to the path the party ought to follow. What is clear however, is that his rule has largely been to the detriment of the country, especially as it pertains to America’s relationship with its allies in NATO, and as it pertains to its capability to project force abroad.
The recent conflict with Iran underlines this point quite clearly. Unlike the War on Terror, which successfully managed to overthrow tyrannical regimes stoking Islamist sentiment within the region, the American military has failed to effectively incapacitate Iran’s nuclear enrichment capabilities (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/iran-how-many-nuclear-bombs-b2967811.html), nor has it effectively weakened the regime sufficiently for a popular uprising to topple it. Whether this is solely due to an atrophying of the military industrial complex, the lack of cooperation and involvement with allied countries via NATO, Trump hamstringing the army and navy due to his obsession with “making deals” or any number of other possible explanations (never mind the possibility of it being all of the above), it is quite clear that as of now the USA is in no position to contest the globe with the likes of China or Russia. Only once these industries are revitalized, the military let of its leash and true cooperation established once more within NATO can this problem be resolved, and that’ll require an end to this Maga experiment and Donald Trump’s hold over the party.
A sentiment which has become increasingly prominent over these past few years of Maga influence is the need for a revitalized GOP, capable of once more cooperating across the aisle with their Democratic counterparts for the betterment of America as a whole. Pelosi echoed this sentiment in 2024 (https://www.npr.org/2024/08/07/nx-s1-5058779/pelosi-says-we-need-a-strong-gop-and-that-this-one-is-a-cult-to-a-thug), noting the significant differences between prior Republican leaders and Trump, as well as the need for “a strong GOP”. Obama has similarly noted the need for a post Trump consensus last week (https://www.huffpost.com/entry/barack-obama-worried-democrats-republicans-gobbledygook_n_69fb66d0e4b0cb033e4de37a), which will require a rehabilitation of some sort for the past of the GOP, one which can only begin once we look past populist politics. Hasan, perhaps unsurprisingly in response to Obama’s words, said he wanted “no Republican party”, which is perhaps indicative of the conflicting interests between the two groups.
This goal of a strong GOP, as stated, will require a reexamination of past Republican politicians and presidents, and a more generous way of assessing their successes and failures. This work however has already begun, and was most notable during the campaign of Kamala Harris. Her campaigning with Liz Cheney, the fact that Dick Cheney prior to his death voted for her (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/dick-cheney-kamala-harris-liz-cheney-rcna169979), and Liz’s attempt at getting George W. Bush to endorse Harris (https://www.thedailybeast.com/liz-cheney-tells-george-w-bush-to-endorse-kamala-harris-its-time/) shows that there is a significant desire among the moderates of the GOP to escape the influence of Magaist politics. Naturally, how exactly this transformation of the party will take place after Trump leaves the White House is purely speculative, and doubtless there’ll be those who'll seek to emulate his success. However, I believe there is sufficient reason to assert that broad, consensus-based politics will once more emerge within America, which’ll hopefully initiate a process of rebuilding for the damages the last decade of Trumpist politics have inflicted on the nation.
Your analysis to me reads so differently from what I hear about American politics from my fellow Americans that, politely, I suspect you are not American or otherwise don't follow American politics that closely. You seem to ascribe great important to events or figures that nobody I know regards as important. (Liz Cheney?)
Trump has within the Republican party extremely high approval ratings. Whose disappointment? Later you cite the desire from Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama to have a reformed GOP. Liz Cheney also failed and was decisively rejected by the voters. "There is a significant desire among the moderates of the GOP to escape the influence of Magaist politics". Like the legislators just primaried in Indiana?
Perhaps your analysis that Trumpism has failed is motivated by something other than objective analysis? I mean, when I consult the oracle bones I'm not convinced MAGA will have run of the table after Trump fades, and there are a lot of ways this could all go. But MAGA is also the predominant faction now in the Republican Party, its mantle can easily be taken up by Rubio or Vance, and voters clearly still support it. MAGA is powerful. MAGA is more popular than the moderate faction you imagine supplanting it. MAGA has spent ten years purging the moderate faction. So where are you getting this idea that the moderate faction is about to totally win? From the pronouncements of the moderate faction? From the pronouncements of people who want MAGA to lose?
You see why this looks like wishcasting, yes?
The Japanese radio broadcaster assured me that the Japanese are winning in the Pacific -- it must be true. Let's discuss.
See what I mean?
I don't see why Republican voters would want to cooperate with the Democratic party, but I can see why the Democratic party would want pliant Republicans again.
Well I guess if you believe that Trump should be surrendering any day now, although he seems to have had the chance to already. But I have to add that if you are calling the war with Iran a failure and the war with Iraq a success, this is such an inversion of American sentiment that I'm not sure you really are a part of it. Are you aware of being provocative? Consider:
Nobody in America would judge that the MIC is getting weaker.
Nobody in America considers NATO all that powerful, frankly.
(Actually, I think if I went around to average Americans and said something like "We could have won in Iran already if the Europeans had joined us" I would get a lot of laughs. The only people who seem to consider the Europeans important in the way you're describing are the Europeans themselves.)
So the theory is that Trump is sitting on a big button labeled "Win the Iran War" and hasn't pushed it because he's too nice? He negotiates too much? I think I need an explanation here. The idea is that we are going to replace Trump, who is weak because he is "obsessed with making deals," with a "revitalized GOP, capable of once more cooperating across the aisle"? MAGA is weak because Trump is a failure because he likes making deals, therefore we need a strong GOP that... makes deals with Democrats?
This contradiction seems so damning to me in your entire frame of reference that I'm tempted to delete the rest of my post and just emphasize this. You believe that America should replace Trump and his "making deals" with a "broad, consensus-based politics"? Huh?
Besides this, there is obviously no hunger for that right now in America.
Are you European, by chance?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link