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 -
Re the franchise, I think you’re half right. The problem isn’t women voting, it’s the voting. It’s a terrible way to make decisions in almost every situation because it turns every contest into a popularity contest. More political power rests in the PR and image creation teams than in any policy think tank. In fact if you want real power, it’s more important to project a popular image than to waste time learning how to govern, or studying issues. Any policy you have is about applause lines, it doesn’t have to work or make sense, but it better sound good when you say it on TV.
Empathy, and in fact most emotions run things because they’re easy to manipulate. Emotions are fairly easy to tap into and tend to short circuit any sort of logical, fact-based discussion of issues. But no long-term good decisions can be made when the path forward it to appeal to empathy, fear, or anger. You cannot empathically force drug users into treatment— the emotion makes you want to help, but it also means that solutions whether they work or not that sound mean won’t be available choices. You can’t kick disruptive kids out of class — it’s mean. But then nobody gets an education. You can do the same with fear. Guns are scary. Banning them seems to work. But it also means that you’re dependent upon the cops who might take a while to get there or do something.
Democratic systems have other flaws. They tend to select the worst candidates most of the time. Watch any election in your country and ask whether — given their resume and command of the issues and so on — you’d hire them for an important project. Nobody would hire Joe Biden, or Trump or Bernie or MTG or AOC to do anything important. But these are exactly the kinds of “leaders” we produce. They do well in focus groups, they dress the part, and that’s how we distribute power. They are beset by short term thinking. Solving a problem like homelessness will take decades. Putting a man on Mars, again decades. Fixing and modernizing schools, again, probably decades. But our elections are every two years— this is an extremely short window in which to “show progress”. Worse, the painful part — the taxes, the road cones, the traffic jams — all show up long before any of the benefits can be realized.
Is this because of the voting, or because of the options? Who exactly is out there ready to lead America to a new age of beauty and success but is prevented from rising to the top because of voting? If we had a Caesar or a Churchill waiting in the wings, do you really think they couldn't win an election? Against either of the geriatrics? Frankly, they're just not that good then.
The reality is our best and brightest don't try to become president because the president just isn't that important. The systems we've constructed as a society have many levers to control them, but they are very spread out. The president has less power over what type of buildings get built than whoever puts together the International Building Code, less power over environmental standards than the employees of the EPA, less power over the financial industry than the leaders of international financial institutions etc. If you want to make a big difference, becoming a top dog Democrat and trying to become president seems like a middling choice compared to going and starting a lobbying organization or something. At best you get to fight the system in the attempt to do things nominally in your power (RIP Trump), at worst you lose your goals in the process of getting there (RIP Obama) or have your staff run around you to continue business as usual (RIP Biden). There are many, many players at the top, and any single defector from the general direction of the herd gets thrown down pretty hard from what I've seen. There is no publicly visible #1 role, and probably just isn't a #1 person at all. That's what oligarchy is all about I suppose, and it seems to me we're already there.
Monarchy/autocracy seems like the solution to some people, but it's really just a roundabout way of achieving what we really need: the ability of society's best people to be in positions of power where they're able to say ''No, fuck you, this is how it's gonna work," and to be able to say it not just to the plebs, but to the rest of the elite.
I want the president of Harvard to be able to say "No, we aren't about inclusion, our whole purpose is to be exclusive so the best people can all hang out," and act on it, without losing his position. I want the President to be able to say "Yeah, we're building nuclear power plants everywhere, including your back yard. You're scared? Too bad. They're statistically optimal." Currently, those are just impossible. They'd be ripped apart by their own class, no matter how right they are. Of course, this level of power is ripe for corruption and may cause collateral damage. That's why great leaders are so important. Of course, no one believes we have great leaders at the moment, and so neither side wants anyone having those kinds of power. Why?
I think we as a society have just largely lost the ability to make great people. Outside of very narrow groups, parenting is mostly terrible, education ranges from mediocre to actively harmful, and nearly all societal systems work very hard to prevent people doing anything unusual or experiential enough to grow into a top-tier individual. No one has values, let alone a set we can all agree upon, and the idea of virtue is largely ignored. The best we've got are turbo autists blessed with immense intellect who are never taught the wisdom to use it well, and very boring run-of-the-mill groomed elite. The latter enforces the status quo, the former lacks the understanding required to shatter it.
How do you think parenting should be improved, and what are the values that you want society to agree upon?
Not all problems necessarily have practicable solutions, but I'll do my best.
Parenting: rebuilding intergenerational wisdom after a gap occurs is difficult, and the reality is traditional parenting is difficult to work in the modern world.
Additionally, the average parent just isn't that good at navigating the modern world in their own right. However, children need role models, guidance, and all that, and frankly the state should be able to provide at least some of that. State sponsored tutors, a restructuring of the school system, and similar things could help, or even just state funding for third-places with productive activities would be good.
Values: Mine obviously, but I'm not so unreasonable as to think that's a solution. I see it as [my values > your values > no values > my values inversed]. Most value systems I've encountered are broadly good, with some rough edges. What isn't good is a valueless society drowning in ennui. Obviously some values will prove to be maladaptive, but those inherently end up being uprooted one way or another.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Voting also has the problem that it tends to reflect the preferences of coalitions that can organise well in order to provide concentrated benefits to voting blocks (NIMBYs, trade unions, pearl-clutching environmentalists, activist grifters, retirees etc.) rather than disorganised groups whose policy preferences would provide dispersed benefits to heterogenous voters (taxpayers being among the biggest victims of democracy). And as you suggest, good long-term policies are undersupplied by politicians, because politicians generally lack incentives to think long-term. This contrasts with a lot of even short-term business: if I buy a house to fix up and resale, then I want to be able to convince buyers that it's a good long-term investment.
I'm not saying that there is a better alternative, but even Churchill's "Democracy is the worst system of government, save the alternatives" is a pro tanto argument against government as much as it is in favour of democracy.
More options
Context Copy link
I don't think is true more so than any other potential method of selection. The average democratic leader in the world right now seems pretty clearly superior to the average autocratic leader even when only comparing peer nations, if nothing else because democratic systems usually (though of course not always) seem to exclude the truly deranged; for every Ataturk you get several Mobutus, Amins and Kims.
True, but autocratic leaders are hardly immune from that; see Galtieri.
I mean let’s make a fair comparison and compare democracies to, not autocracies as a whole, but to the different types of autocracy and oligarchy.
So there’s the various remaining strong monarchies, which are generally well run and doing well or at least improving by their own terms even if they’re not your cup of tea. There’s PRC style oligarchies(and the PRC maintains the world’s highest level of trust in government- it clearly does some things right). There’s postsoviet kleptocracies, which are not doing so hot, and there’s short term strongman dictatorships which look pretty terrible. There’s also hybrid regimes like Hungary and Singapore, which seem to be doing at least OK.
Altogether it’s not clear that democracy is strictly superior to all options. Definitely superior to some, though, and probably superior on some axes(minority rights and freedom of expression seem plausible here) to all challengers, but also probably losing out to others on other axes(stability/cultural continuity seems plausible).
I think those three better looking forms of non-democratic governance still seems pretty deficient in the round compared to democracy. As for monarchies, the few remaining strong monarchies seem to mostly be coasting by on oil money, and arguably NK is a monarchy in all but name, and while the PRC and some hybrid regimes seem pretty stable that stability seems pretty transient. Chinese stability especially is pretty recent, and I'm not sure Singapore as a well-placed city state has many lessons to offer other more normal nations. Hungary is I guess doing fine, but hardly better than it's more safely democratic counterparts in Czechia, Poland etc.
Obviously this is a question more complex than a short forum comment, but just on the face of it I don't there's any particular reason to believe any form of non-democratic government produces notably more competent leaders.
Morocco and Malaysia are fairly strong monarchies doing better than average for the region and generally on the upswing for mostly non-oil related reasons. Liechtenstein is also a strong monarchy that’s carved out a pretty good niche for itself, although obvious micro state caveat. Jordan doesn’t seem like it’s notable for improvement recently, but it’s weathered recent challenges admirably well.
I agree that it’s difficult to cast hybrid regimes as obviously better than democracies, but it’s also difficult to cast them as obviously worse. Part of this is probably boundary effects and if we want to have a real discussion(obviously this thread is the wrong place for that as you yourself note) we should preregister what we consider a hybrid regime versus a democracy that’s simply corrupt(Ukraine) or dominated by one party(Japan) or both(Mexico).
As far as oligarchies are concerned I’d point to China and Rwanda as strong examples of countries that improved recently and notably after switching to oligarchic governance even if that oligarchy may not be my cup of tea. I might point to Kazakhstan as a weaker example, too. In any case this really is a topic that deserves its own top level comment if we wanted to get in depth, but my broader point was that there’s lots of different non-democratic systems and not all of them have a blatantly one sided comparison to democracy.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Well, true, if you’re looking at the current crop. But over the sum and total of history you’d have Augustus Caesar, Marcus Aurelius, Napoleon, Peter the Great, etc. And those who took power with an intention to rule often managed to fix problems in ways that elected managers cannot.
I mean if you have to reach back two millennia it's clear that history is not really replete with such characters. And in any case, there are plenty of democratic leaders who could well be said to fall into the same camp; Lincoln, Gladstone, Churchill, Peel and depending on what your ideological disposition is Attlee or Thatcher. I don't really subscribe to great man theory much but even if one did there are plenty of elected leaders who fit the mould.
Lee Kwan Yew, Paul Kagame, Park Chung Hee, and the Hashemite Kings are all well-within-living-memory examples of non-democratic but very high competency statesmanship. There's obviously examples of democratically elected leaders that could be counted as greats, as well, but I don't think "benevolent dictator" is the kind of black swan event you're making it out to be.
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