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 did a post back in May about the primaries in my area:
The point of the post at the time was to suggest that Republicans in general weren't as enthused as Democrats, and that that might be a harbinger of impending doom, though it was hard to make the argument since Bartolotta had essentially run unopposed for a decade and there was no way of comparing turnout to prior races. The more interesting observation in terms of your post is that, as recently as May, moderate Republicans in state-level races felt the need to prove their loyalty to Trump. For Bartolotta's part, she soon found herself in a bitter general election challenge from an independent running on a platform of opposition to data centers. Bartolotta came through again by double digits, but the race should never have been close; if a locally-prominent Democrat led that kind of challenge then fine, but an independent single-issue candidate shouldn't be able to mount a competitive race against a popular incumbent.
It seems obvious now that a lot of Republicans were disillusioned with MAGA and stayed home for the primary, and that Bartolotta could have more easily trounced Buchtan had she stressed her moderate views and willingness to work across the aisle. The Trump ass-kissing turned off a lot of a lot of independents and Democrats who would have otherwise supported her, and created an opportunity for an out-of-nowhere independent challenger. She ended up winning both races by comfortable margins, but, needless to say, there was no discussion of Trump during the general, and things were a lot tenser than they had been in the past. The overall point I'm trying to make is that a lot of Republican politicians don't know where they stand regarding how much of their support derives from MAGA and to what extent their support of it is a liability. In 6 months Bartolotta went from concern that not toeing the MAGA line over an issue everyone will forget about in a year would cost her the nomination, to having to distance herself from Trump to win a district with a massive Republican advantage.
So who in the Senate is willing to take this kind of risk? MAGA may be on its deathbed as a national political force, but there are plenty of individual constituents out there who don't want it to die, and there are plenty of Republicans who rely on those constituents. There are plenty more Republicans who have glued their lips to Trump's ass and can't pry them away without alienating the only people who would conceivably vote for them. If Camera Bartolotta couldn't read the tea leaves in a district small enough that door-to-door campaigning is a key part of her strategy, how can someone like Katie Britt or Mike Crapo do the same for an entire state? Are the people in the party who want change going to express that at the primary polls in 2028, or will they simply stay home? If it's the former, then supporting an impeachment bid may be too little too late for those who hitched their wagons to Trump, and if it's the latter, then the only people showing up will be those who are already in the bag for MAGA.
The question thus becomes which Republican senators have an obvious incentive to back an impeachment bid. I said in another comment that I think that after two failed bids, the Democrats aren't going to risk another one that may backfire, and that they'd only go along with it if a sufficient number of Republicans were driving the bus. The current best case for Democrats is 57 Senate seats, which would require 9 Republicans to favor impeachment. That's assuming that Fetterman goes along with it, which isn't a guarantee, but we'll be making a lot of assumptions here. Murkowski and Paul are the two obvious ones, so we need 7 more. Hawley is a maybe, but Missouri wasn't involved in any elections this year and is pretty Red. Looking at states that saw flips, Jerry Moran is faceless enough that he might be able to pull it off, but he probably wouldn't be vocal enough about it to inspire confidence. Chuck Grassley predates Trump and probably isn't running again, so count him in. Ted Budd is in trouble but is too close to Trump to turn on him. Tim Scott should theoretically be on this list but has only grown closer to Trump as his career has gone on, even as he's criticized Trump at various times. Put him in the maybe pile. Ted Cruz is an interesting one because he's the kind of guy who might be willing to risk it if he thinks it increases his presidential odds. Everyone else is either in a state where it won't matter or won't be up for reelection until 2030 and thus have no reason to go out on a limb. By my count that's 7 of nine needed, and I don't see Grassley, Moran, or Scott actually pushing for this, so the odds of a Republican-led impeachment and removal are unlikely.
More options
Context Copy link