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 -
Sounds familiar. If that wasn't a problem for Republicans, why should it be for Democrats?
I think Trump's scandals are different from other politicians' scandals. This is why it never works when people say, "Trump was never phased by his scandals so scandals don't matter anymore." Scandals in fact routinely destroy politicians or derail sure-thing elections all the time: Roger Moore, Mark Robinson, George Santos, Anthony Weiner, Katie Hill, Katie Porter, John Conyers, Eric Adams, Bob Menendez, etc.
Half of Trump's scandals are him saying something he's not supposed to say. Voters mostly liked it. "I like heroes who didn't get caught" is supposed to be this scandal because how could you possibly criticize a war hero? But people wanted to see McCain dragged through the mud. "Blood out of her whatever," but people were tired of these feminist HR speech codes wielded by journalists like Megyn Kelly. "Until we know what the hell is going on" -- but lots of people wanted a Muslim Ban. And etc. etc. etc.
The next half of Trump's scandals are political attack weapons and treated as such. Most of them have aged poorly. We spent years embroiled in the controversy of whether Trump colluded with Russia, which would have been a real scandal if it were true. There aren't many people willing to treat it as true anymore. Same for something like E. Jean Carroll, where she could never remember even the year in which it was supposed to happen and New York changed the law so the case could go forward. I guess that's a big scandal for a lot of people, but how the story gets interpreted is clearly very divided. Likewise Stormy Daniels, Michael Cohen, "Very Fine People," etc. etc. etc. We can create however many controversies we want and as long as one side is willing to fight them they are by definition controversial and therefore even scandals. But nobody would say after i.e. Brett Kavanaugh that rape scandals aren't problems anymore. Well no it's just that lots of people didn't believe in that scandal. Rape accusations are still a great way to destroy a political career.
Then there's the third half of Trump's scandals -- well, we could debate J6 and 2020 and Covid and Impeachment and Jeffrey Epstein and Iran and those things all day. Objectively these are all very complicated with lots to interpret and dispute.
These are different in kind from, e.g., Mark Robinson calling himself a Nazi or Bob Menendez having gold bars from all the bribes he's been accepting. I suppose, actually, that to a lot of liberals these are on the same level as Trump granting pardons or owning hotels that diplomats stay at and so the "complication" as I call it is that Trump supporters are actually in a cult. But I want to defend this distinction. Scandals don't just fall out of the sky as objective controversies even if it is objective that there are controversies. Scandals are first and foremost accusations. And all accusations pass through several layers of voters or other players asking, "is this bullshit?"
The first layer is, "Is it real?" The second layer is, "How bad is it really?" Objectively, a lot of Trump's scandals are filtered out as "not real" or "not important". Perhaps, after that, there's a third layer of, "So what?" Which is where we get to the meat and potatoes of whether a scandal matters.
Brett Kavanaugh was accused of raping a drunk girl at a party 40 years ago in college. This accusation caused a lot of drama and a lot of people believed it. But, realistically, quite a lot of people thought it was bullshit. The girl could not remember key details about how it happened, Kavanaugh had solid alibis and records, and she could not establish herself as having credible moral authority that could substitute for proof. A lot of people decided it was bullshit. This doesn't mean that voters and the public don't actually care about rape anymore. "Is it real?"
George Santos lied about his professional background. He didn't tell complicated lies, they were very simple lies that were simply false. Everybody knew they were false. A comparable Trump scandal is his past as a businessman. Was he really just a conman or did his bankruptcies undermine his claim to have been a successful businessman? Those are very complicated questions to discuss (well, in one sense -- I personally think they're bullshit, and I know a lot of other people do too.) "Is it real?"
Katie Porter abused her staff and threw steaming mashed potatoes at her husband. She's probably an abusive person, and she comes off very annoying and shrill in interviews. Maybe, to your taste, the things Donald Trump says are just as bad or worse. But objectively people are more willing to tolerate Trump's flaws than Katie Porter's flaws, so the revival of her scandals has effectively ended her bid for California Governor. "How bad is it really?"
Eric Adams accepted bribes from the Turkish Government. Basically everybody admits it happened. It was also relatively small potatoes stuff. And in the scheme of New York City politics, there aren't actually that many egregious favors that can be granted to the Turks. They got some expedited building permits and exceptions and special deals. The real scandal and point of contention, in fact, was Adams relationship to other politicians. There's speculation that his attacks of the Biden administration over immigration are what lead them to investigate him in the first place. There's no doubt that his willingness to then work with Trump over ICE rose his prestige with MAGA and sank it with the left. So he lost re-election. But the scandal itself, which objectively happened, was just a pretext for other political battles it represented. "So what?"
So, Graham Platner.
He's got a Nazi tattoo. Everyone knows it would be bad if he were a Nazi. But maybe it's not real. Is it a common Nazi symbol? Could he have known it was a Nazi tattoo beyond a reasonable doubt? "Is this real?"
He's cheating on his wife. Maybe he's a sexual predator or a creep. "How bad is it really?" "Does it matter?"
The actual "scandal" here that could destroy Graham Platner's political career is his image. Liberals believe that Graham Platner is a candidate who can win Maine, so they're willing to overlook faults and flaws. If he's perceived as someone who will lose because his scandals are crippling, then there won't really be much point in defending them. If it came out for instance that he killed a kid, enough supporters would break rank that the discourse wouldn't really produce a second interpretation. But if he's "just" slimy or gross, well, maybe that's gigachad. Maybe he cheats on his wife because he's a winner. That's basically how discourse works.
My read is that Platner's scandals have taken some support away and I lean toward the interpretation that Susan Collins will outperform the polls again and Platner will lose. But none of the scandals have really been a direct hit and so far don't look poised to destroy his campaign.
More options
Context Copy link
Didn’t the shady business deals mostly start posts-2024?
All the Dems antics posts 2016 really told a lot of GOP to just not care and get it while the getting is good. They completely took away any shame or ability to punish the GOP because even Jesus Christ without sin would be punished. So just play for your team.
Plus there is widespread belief in the right (I think factual) that corruption on the left is massive. If the country is being looted by everyone else then MAGA should get their share too.
More options
Context Copy link
Those Republican candidates, other than Trump personally, were typically in safe seats. I think we know by now that Trump is a weird exception in a lot of ways, but he’s also done unusually poorly in New England; very plausibly, this kind of behavior still matters in Maine in ways it doesn’t elsewhere in the country, and Me-1 is too partisanbrained to realize it.
In which election?
Looking at state (and House district for Maine) results compared with the national average for the last 5 elections, Trump falls way short in Massachusetts (which arguably is the majority of New England's population. He also was below average in Connecticut except in 2016 and ME1 but outperformed in ME2 and Rhode Island..
I'm not sure it's a regional trend more than a Bostonian trend, but it's very strong in Boston.
I recall reading that the 2016 election was rather close in New Hampshire and Vermont(?).
New Hampshire has been close for all the Republicans, but I think that was Trump's best year.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link