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 -
Surely you are aware that it requires 2/3rds of the Senate to convict.
There are about 12 GOP Senators who are waiting around for some excuse to vote to impeach and remove Trump so they can blame all their failures on Trump and get back to the real GOP values represented by people like Mitt Romney. It all depends on what deal they can strike with JD Vance, but after Trump's behavior towards Vance over the last couple years it may not be too difficult.
And sadly, there are any number of real scandals which could be used as the excuse in the context of a horribly unpopular president. If we're in 50 or 51 territory, this is out of reach absent one of the scandals catching fire. However, as we climb up much past 52 this becomes within reach for far lesser scandals. And the media will be throwing those scandals balls hoping for one to connect regularly and they won't even need to completely make them up this time.
I'm not saying it will happen because the smartest move would be do something to Trump to placate their voters/supporters, but also keep horribly unpopular Trump in office until they can capitalize on this in 2028. And so I think their targets will be people in the Trump administration and leave Trump on top.
This feels like something I'd hear on Tucker Carlson.
Trump's popularity ratings are in the same range as Obama and Biden, and certainly much higher than the nadir reached by Bush II. And he remains extremely popular within the Republican party.
Consider, for example, that John Cornyn lost his primary to Ken Paxton by 27 points! An incumbent! Against a supposedly very bad no good candidate in Ken Paxton. All because Trump went for Paxton.
The Republican Party as it existed before 2016 is dead.
Nevertheless, the current iteration of the party has a lot more integrity than you give them credit for. These extreme examples of party disunity or people trooning out and becoming leftists seem to be concentrated among a group of weird, young, extremely online people. Most Republicans continue to vote the party line, and the remaining leftists in the Republican party are actually being sent packing.
This feels like a paid-for post I would see on maga twitter
Trump's approval is around Bush 2's 2006 wipeout loss territory (<40)
What happens when people disapprove of Trump? They don't identify as Republican or MAGA anymore. Having a high approval rating among a much smaller group than previously isn't an argument in favor of Trump's popularity.
Trump famously stayed out of the Cornyn/Paxton contest despite Paxton being his #1 loyal soldier for years and only endorsed Paxton when the writing was on the wall that Paxton was going to win. And because of this, Ken Paxton is currently in the fight for his life in a 50/50 coin-flip because the NSRC spent $150,000,000 tarring and feathering Paxton trying to protect the horrible unpopular Cornyn from his just removal. I'm glad you brought this example up because it is representative of Trump's dumb interaction with the House and Senate and why despite resounding victory he's unable to pass basic legislation like the SAVE Act or even get his appointees approved in a remotely timely fashion.
the Trump coalition losses are concentrated among the young, that's true
Millenials and gen z are gone; what GWB did with the millenials to lose a generation to the Democrats until Trump came along is now being done to Gen Z and Millenials again
relying increasingly on the older boomer cohort is a desperate short-term strategy with horrible long-term losses, but good luck
Look, it's bad that Republicans are not popular with young people.
But it's not because of Trump. The people who are trooning out now were always going to troon sooner or later. If not about Israel or Epstein or data centers, then about some other low IQ thing. I'll admit that is probably too harsh. People are just the way they are, and the arc of history bends towards communism.
So let's say you are President. What are you going to do to make young people support Republicans without losing enough Boomers to permanently become an unviable party?
I don't think that's set in stone. In any case, the current bending towards socialism becoming a viable force in American politics again could be stopped by another New Deal-like compromise in which the wealthy make things better for the poor and the middles. I do not know if today's wealthy have the insight to do it, the will, or even the necessary political levers to make sweeping changes instead of getting bogged down in bureaucracy and regulations.
Now if by communism you mean social leftism, as the trooning example seems to indicate... I also wouldn't be so sure. I think that wokism is too authoritarian to ever be popular for long in a modern psychological climate... which is why it reached its high water mark a few years ago and has since receded a bit.
The problem isn't wealth. The poor and middle class are richer than ever.
The problem is wealth inequality. So how do you fix that without creating a stagnant morass like they have in Europe? (And Europe is still falling apart. They traded their wealth for nothing).
So where's your model of a country that is doing it right? Post-WWII America? But you can't recreate the conditions of post-WWII United States without, like, WWII.
I think most innovators will stay in the US even if there is more wealth redistribution, as long as there is not so much wealth redistribution that being based in the US becomes less attractive than being based in some place like Dubai or Singapore.
There is a lot of political terrain in between what the US is now and what Europe is now.
Housing is young people's biggest expense, so if I acquired FDR-like power I'd probably try to use Federal force to push through construction of more housing in cultural hubs. That already would go a long way. There would be second order effects, but I think the sense of optimism and dynamism that would result might make them worth it.
They won't go to someplace like Dubai or Singapore. They just... won't innovate. We'll get far fewer innovators. There's no reason anyplace else will benefit.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link