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 read up on the paper a bit and the authors did anticipate this argument . They wrote that they found the average rate of seeking re-election is 89.8%, so I suppose we can think retirement as 10% chance. A 1.6% increase in retirement rate can be thought of as a 16% increase from baseline. In contrast, having a scandal for example is a 12.66% increase in retirement rate (a 126.6% increase from baseline). (apologies to scientists if I am not using the correct words to describe statistical significance). I didn't do my due diligence regarding math and P-values but it looks to be very small as I skim it (p < 0.001).
Uhhhh, well, as other posters have pointed out, it really does help in a primary. I would like to quote this exhibit on the primary race where AOC had an upset against Democratic mainstay and longstanding leader Joe Crowley:
Anyway, back to your other point.
Point taken, and I agree, yet we are having a pretty dysfunctional congress, so I would like to not dismiss these points out of hand.
We're comparing a Congressman who essentially had zero physical presence in his own district and didn't even possess a home there to the possibility of not returning to your constituency virtually every single weekend over the course of an entire term in Congress. I don't think it's quite the same.
Also, regarding Crowley, I would somewhat question the oft-repeated statement that the guy was some kind of grand figure in Democrat politics - he was a reliable party insider in one of the safest blue seats of the country, not an actual decision-maker or vital asset for the party. The fact that he vanished from politics the microsecond he lost a primary somewhat attests to the fact that he wasn't really a big deal or any kind of political talent, as the DNC would have tried to keep him on their roster or have him run elsewhere. AOC's win was well-earned and she ran a strong campaign, but it was very much a "right place, right time" scenario, as a progressive wave was descending upon the Democrats during Trump I and Crowley barely bothered to campaign since he wrongly assumed it was a done deal.
Fast forward 8 years and AOC is now a global celebrity - which I strongly assume is a much better guarantor of keeping her seat than anything Crowley had to offer.
Returning to the weekend-trip issue, it just feels forced and at best like a minor issue to me: France's Parliament also draws its members from geographic circonscriptions, and French legislative elections are famous for "parachutages" - essentially having candidates stand in regions they have literally zero associations with, but were selected to run in because they have a high national profile and/or the specific race is deemed critical. Everyone knows this and rolls their eyes about it, but in the end it doesn't make a difference - because the vast majority of voters rank it extremely low on their hierarchy of issues. A left-leaning voter is not going to support a conservative or right-wing candidate they hate because the Socialist party candidate has never lived in their region - it simply does not matter enough, and why would it? The vast majority of parliamentary decisions made and voted on do not concern specific regions, but national matters, so whether your candidate has lived in your area his whole life or not is meaningless.
Don't get me wrong, I think there is definitely an electoral impact when members of Congress make a point of being highly present in their district - like how AOC hosts a local town hall every single month without fail since her election. I just really don't think enough people are keeping constant track of the weekend returns of their Congressperson, nor do I think it matters enough overall to make or break a political career without other factors at play.
The voters that are likely to keep track are exactly the kind of plugged in electorate that shows up for primaries or become volunteers or donate more, etc. It might not be decisive, but it's an effective line of attack that all members of congress has to defend against.
As for the comparison to France, well, it is derogatory isn't it (looks like the US term is carpetbagger)? From what I understand, usually there is a residency requirement for the various political offices in the US, which goes to show how important it is to the local/state residents that they enshrined it into law.
Also, France is smaller than Texas, distance from Paris to the South of France (Google Gemini: "The furthest continental (mainland European) political district from Paris is the commune of Lamanère in the Pyrénées-Orientales department. Located in the Occitanie region along the Spanish border, it sits 721 kilometers (448 miles) south of Paris") is shorter than a flight from DC to Tennessee. We don't compare French politics to Singapore politics for the same reason.
I do agree that the increased nationalization and polarization of politics means residency in your own district doesn't matter as much, but I wouldn't count it out to particular races or elections, even things "on the margin" can be the thing that push it over the line for some.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link