site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 20, 2023

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.

13
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Just as follow on, and in the spirit that everything related to Trump is culture war:

https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/19/politics/trump-voters-of-color-analysis/

Pull quotes:

The fact that Trump is doing considerably better among Republican voters of color than White Republicans flies in the face of the fact that many Americans view Trump as racist. I noted in 2019 that more Americans described Trump as racist than the percentage of Americans who said that about segregationist and presidential candidate George Wallace in 1968.

This fact should be the smoking gun that we're not talking about the same thing that we used to with the term "racism". The american public pretends to believe that Trump was more racist than Wallace.

Indeed, the Republican Party as a whole has been improving among voters of color. The party’s 38-point loss among that bloc for the House of Representatives in the 2022 midterms was a 5-point improvement from 2020. Its margin among White voters stayed the same in exit poll data.

This is political realignment from the inside. It's slow, it could reverse or it could continue. I believe very strongly that the political coalitions are going to change composition quite a bit in the coming decade. I don't know what the issues will be, but the separation between the working class (see our discussion in last week's thread) and the middle class is becoming big enough to win elections on. The question is which party will get which side, and in what quantities.

As a point for discussion, if (and it's a big "if) the Republicans fully take up the flag of the working class, would that make them the left-leaning party?

As a point for discussion, if (and it's a big "if) the Republicans fully take up the flag of the working class, would that make them the left-leaning party?

Probably the best idea would be to breakdown the individual positions. Taking my working class neighbors at their word the positions they are roughly in favor of are (not a complete list of course):

  1. Reduced immigration - Right coded

  2. Traditional morality/End of wokeness/American values taught in schools - Right coded

  3. Universal Healthcare for Americans - Left coded

  4. Regulations on businesses to prevent them screwing over workers pensions/workers comp - Left coded

  5. Cheap college for their kids - Left coded

  6. Federal money into rural/rust belt communities - Both?

  7. Protectionist trade/manufacturing policies - Right coded nowadays?

I live in a rustbelt town where my neighbors are ex miners/steelworkers and the like. Notably Bernie Sanders got a pretty good reception nearby when talking about holding big businesses accountable for pensions and better access to healthcare. My neighbors don't want their kids to be miners or steelworkers because they have the injuries, missing fingers, limps, bad backs and the like to show for it. They want their kids to have "better" careers and options than they did. And for most that means they want them sitting in an office. And that means mostly a college degree. That's why so many want to send their kids off to college. Not all of course and I think if you look at plumbers and other tradesmen it changes somewhat. But most of the manual workers emphatically do not want their kids to have to do what they did. For better or worse, they have bought in, I think to the American dream, which involves higher education.

Trump was popular here for campaigning on/towards 1,2, 6 and 7. Bernie Sanders would have hit 3, 4, 5 and 6 perhaps. 6 is unclear politically because farm subsidies and green subsidies are in play for both sides so depending on framing spending could be either. Though it would probably annoy the Libertarian leaning wing of the Republican party. 7 used to be more left wing Union sides leaning but is probably more associated with Trump style populism now.

Interestingly the poisoning of the idea of unions has been very effective. My neighbors might wish there was a group that would advocate for the workers and protect them against rich business owners outsourcing their companies to India or Mexico, but they don't want unions because they associate that with corruption and the like. Trust in the Federal government is low, but the idea that the Federal government SHOULD protect it's working people over business owners is pretty strong, they would be likely to call big Business leaning Republicans as RINOS and the like. Whereas a century ago miners unions fought near wars against mining companies for workers rights.

Some excerpts from Sanders town hall in "Trump Country"

"He (Sanders) reminded everyone of how hard he was working to get Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to restore pensions and health care that they had been cheated of by the mining companies."

"They applauded Philip Lucion, an almost painfully sincere coal miner, recently rehired (Thanks, Mr. Trump!), when he told them, “I love being a coal miner, that’s what’s in my blood.” They also applauded when he said that most miners he knew would quit and do something else for the same pay and benefits if they could."

"They agreed with Bernie that climate change is real"

"Coal mining, they knew, killed you quick or killed you slow, and the only way to get anything out of it was to make a serious demand on power."

"Their support for “Medicare for all” seems genuine,"

This one was from a different town hall in PA:

"When the town hall moved to Medicare for All, the single-payer health-care plan that Sanders backs, Baier asked for a show of hands from everyone currently getting health care through their employer: Most of the hands in the room went up, Baier's and Sanders's among them. Then came the follow-up. "Of those," Baier asked, "how many are willing to transition to what the senator says, a government-run system?" Hands fired back up and the crowd began cheering."

A working class Republican party would be like a Trump/Sanders unity ticket. Trump's immigration and MAGA and protectionism combined with targeting the proceeds at the working class through healthcare, pensions and siding against big business/ the 1%.

I wonder how Medicare for all would poll against literally just giving everyone checks. Across the entire political spectrum, helicopter money from the government seems to be very popular. Getting something for nothing is always an easy choice. I think free stuff is what's popular here, not the prospect of being roped into a bloated government healthcare scheme. Given the choice, would a typical working class American rather have Medicare or $10,000/year?

One of the concerns about drastically changing the health care system is that, despite it's flaws, people using the system are concerned that changing it could make it worse in at least their local case. People want to "keep their doctor," and aren't sure whether their doctor covered by their current insurance would take Medicare For All. For better or worse, the folks shouting about "keeping government out of my Medicare" don't directly care that the government is paying, but they do care if they have to change doctors or pay more out of pocket: major changes to reimbursement rates or rules could absolutely cause their doctor to drop Medicare patients.

While insurance companies often mix things up (changing in-network providers to out-of-network annually), there isn't much trust that a federal solution would be better. Witness the SNAFU that was the launch of the ACA exchanges, or that the states promising to move to single-payer at the time have all quietly dropped those plans.

Helicopter money for healthcare probably polls better because it changes these things less directly by distorting the market and is difficult to compare.

Yes, exactly. Here's my model of the preferences of an average person.

  1. Government gives me $10,000/year per family member (average cost per beneficiary is $15,000 in 2021 FYI)

  2. Government gives me free health care

  3. Nothing changes

  4. Government forces me to pay $10,000/year government health care

Demagogue politicians like Bernie Sanders frame the issue as a choice between 2/3, when it is more accurately a choice between 1/2 or 3/4. If we're going to do helicopter money, we should just do helicopter money not spend it on the most wasteful health system imaginable.