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 -
It is worth remembering that Yglesias doesn't actually disagree with the activist left's goals, he just wants them to keep those goals on the DL until after they get elected.
The whole point of his "Popularism vs Populism" bit was that left wing activists would be better served by trying to boil the frog slowly rather than turning the heat up all at once.
Yglesias explicitly does not support the "Palestinian Cause" (which he sees, in my view correctly, as the destruction of the Jewish State and the reversal of the displacement of Palestinians from what is now Israel proper). The activist left are river-to-the-sea Palestinian maximalists, and right now they are saying that this is their most important issue.
He also explicitly opposes, apparently sincerely, the standard leftist positions on public order, market-rate housing, and frankly almost every economic issue except climate where he has expressed an opinion.
The only area where Yglesias explicitly supports leftist goals and only disagrees on tactics is climate. On open borders, he is personally in favour (but acknowledges that this is not an electorally viable position for the Democrats, and favours compromise with the electorate) whereas it is the organised left which tends to hide the ball while de facto supporting open borders through non-enforcement. He probably also agrees with a bunch of unpopular left-wing views on issues around race and sex, but they are mostly issues where the left have won and are playing defence, and therefore the activist left find it hard to give a crap.
The current incarnation of the populist right is fundamentally single-issue on immigration, so from your perspective Yglesias and the far left agree on the things that matter. But that is a function of how you see the issues, not how they do.
On historical grounds I conclude that Yglesias is closely aligned and simply lying about it.
(The only reason I don't say "totally aligned" is that even he and Klein can't possibly be stupid enough to throw themselves under the bus.)
More options
Context Copy link
Eh, I can believe Matty is still trying to do the Obama technocratic progressivism thing, like a Japanese solider holding out on a remote island decades after the War, but the problem with openly coming out in favor of tactical lying is that people tend to hold it against you forever.
I don't think Yglesian popularism necessarily involves tactical lying (although all politicians, populist, popularist or otherwise do a lot of it), and I don't think Yglesias personally is engaging in tactical lying about his political views. He definitely hasn't "come out in favour of tactical lying" in the sense of saying that elected Democrats should be saying more things that are not true. He is smart enough to know that enough things are true that you can make almost any argument by selectively emphasising true statements.
The essence of popularism is to talk about your popular policies and not about your unpopular policies. That can involve lying, but it can also involve ignoring awkward questions, whataboutism, agenda manipulation, and all the other not-technically-lying things that are staples of political communication. And, of course, it mostly involves saying true things about your popular policies while using the other set of staples of political communication to get heard. Once you put it this way, it really is just common sense, but common sense which the internal politics of the Democratic Party makes controversial.
The thing Yglesias is mostly pushing back on when he talks about popularism is Ford and Hewlett Foundation funded advocacy groups making Demoratic candidates and electeds say unpopular far-left things as a flex in intra-left factional politics, which (unlike doing unpopular things which are either nonpartisan good ideas or advance a left-wing partisan agenda) is all cost and no benefit.
He tweeted literally that back in the day. Can't find an easily linkable version now, but something like "Yes, advocates should fight dishonesty with dishonesty. That's an honest view." I mostly remember because people have been throwing it in his face for a decade.
I'm sure he deeply regrets saying it now, whatever his feelings on the topic.
More options
Context Copy link
Matt Yglesias has said, historically, that lying for political reasons is good. Article on the topic with a few extra links.
More options
Context Copy link
He has, he knows it, and he's not even good at it.
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