site banner
PaperclipPerfector  10mo ago (text post)   28342 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of May 29, 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.

6
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Do Trump Supporters Actually Want To Win?

Prompted by this sanctimonious, if interesting, FT column. Emphasis mine:

Just because liberals have always feared the emergence of a competent demagogue doesn’t mean populist voters have yearned for it to the same degree. How much of his base did Trump lose after failing to build that wall on the Mexican border?

DeSantis believes that politics is downstream of culture, that culture is shaped in institutions, that conservatives have ceded those institutions to the organised left. The Gramsci of Tallahassee doesn’t just diagnose the problem. He is creative and dogged in installing a rightwing counter-hegemony. Ask Disney. Ask the educational bureaucracies of Florida. This is more thought and work than Trump has ever put in to the cause. It is also perfectly beside the point. I am no longer sure that populist voters want to win the culture war.

For a long time, a certain pro-Trump (or anti-anti-Trump, if you want) narrative on the 'intellectual right' was that there was no real alternative to Trump. Sure, they conceded that most criticisms of Trump-the-man were correct, but this was the Flight 93 Election. The alternatives were all versions of Mitt Romney or Marco Rubio, who didn't say the things Trump occasionally did. We can restate the Flight 93 theory like this:

"Trump is vulgar, he's a liar, he's a cheat, he violates conservative or even general principles of decorum and morality. However, he's the only person even discussing the things we care about with a large public audience, and therefore it is a conservative responsibility to vote for him even if this amounts, merely, to a roll of the dice. If he wins, there's a chance he might do some of what he promises. The only alternative to Trump is certain defeat."

DeSantis' presence complicates the Flight 93 theory. DeSantis has a record of some competence on conservative issues. Certainly not enough for the very online dissident right, but they had soured on Trump by late 2017 themselves, and so have no horse in this race. Whether DeSantis of Yale and Harvard is a 'true believer' is a complicated question, but then again the same could be said about Trump of New York via Wharton; the former certainly seems a much more capable administrator.

The column posits that Trump's success against DeSantis in this phony war stage of the 2024 primary campaign is a case of "vibes based politics" winning over 'substance based politics'. In 2016, intellectual conservatives could defend Trump because - whatever the vibes were - he was the only candidate on substance, too. In 2023, the banality of Trump's support is more clear. Ironically, it leads to a case for an interesting question - if Trump had merely attached his vibe to Ted Cruz' political platform in 2016, would he still have won? Was it less 'build the wall' and more who the frontman for building the wall was? The smart case for Trump would seem to be reducible to:

  1. DeSantis is a "phony" or establishment conservative who will turn in office and resign himself to implementing the Mitch McConnell checklist of tax cuts, deregulation, more money for the military and cutting some welfare spending. The problem with this is that Trump was in office and accomplished little but (some of) the above, and hardly has a lifelong history of staunch conservative politics himself. If the problem is associating with elite circles, Trump has a long history of the same.

  2. DeSantis can't win the presidential election even if he takes the primary, Trump can. This argument is more persuasive, if only because Trump's record shows he has technically convinced enough people in the right places to vote for him to show he can win. But Trump also lost a presidential election, never hit a 50% approval rating (even once, something Biden has apparently managed) and seems not to be experiencing any great groundswell of public support from swing voters. The promise of Trump is now tainted by the reality of Trump, so MAGA might ring slightly more hollow to those who aren't true believers.

liberals have always feared the emergence of a competent demagogue

I love this line because thinking about what your enemies fear is often an interesting thought experiment. Republicans are being presented with a choice between Trump and an American Viktor Orban. Nothing is settled, but they appear to strongly prefer the former.

I think you need to think long and hard what you mean by "Trump Supporters" and "win" here. The simple fact that the race is effectively between MAGA: Original Recipe and MAGA: Hard Seltzer with nary an old-fashioned Patrician, Evangelical, or Romney-esque moderate in sight is in my eyes an illustration just how thoroughly Trump's Supporters have already won.

As I wrote back in September, The war for the soul of the Grand old Party is over and the populists have won. Sure, there are still a few members of the old establishment like Mitch McConnel hanging around, but at this stage they're just running out the clock. When they get replaced, they will be replaced by guys who came up through the Tea-Party and MAGA movements.

Likewise, I find it telling that the only criticism of DeSantis that seems to have really gained any real traction in conservative spaces is the suggestion that he might be too "establishment", or that he lacks the necessary self-destructive streak to fight the beast. But this is were also many of the choices that yourself and other posters here have described as "unforced errors" and "stupid stunts" start to look like the products of an astute tactical mind, because when the accusation that DeSantis is an establishment republican is leveled the counter that "would an 'establishment Republican' have picked a fight with Disney, or bused economic migrants to Martha's Vinyard" is already on the way.

Well, there are old-fashioned Patrician, Evangelical, and Romney-esque moderates in sight, they're a bunch of the other candidates in the republican primary. But first-past-the-post voting means they don't have a chance since they're not the established front-runners, so no one will vote for them. I'm not sure how best to measure popularity objectively.

It's something of a Keynesian beauty contest, in that people don't want to waste their vote, and want the candidate to be able to win the general election, so they have to think about how everyone else will vote, not merely whoever their favorite.

Well, there are old-fashioned Patrician, Evangelical, and Romney-esque moderates in sight, they're a bunch of the other candidates in the republican primary.

Name 3, Heck name one that users here could be reasonably expected to recognize without the aid of google, and then post how they're polling compared to Trump and/or Desantis.

While I concede the possibility that a dark horse candidate may emerge (of those declared my money would be on Scott or Haley who are both still at least MAGA adjacent), as it stands this is a race between Trump and DeSantis. No one else is even close.

Most of them could be categorized to some extent as evangelical, almost everyone comes across as more pious than Trump. But I can't name any who are clearly moderates that could be expected to be recognized, as they're irrelevant.

Everyone except Trump and Desantis are doing absolutely miserably in the polls, and mostly only have a chance if one of the frontrunners withdraws or dies.

I wasn't trying to say they had a chance, just that they existed. I don't know that we disagree, really.

Just because liberals have always feared the emergence of a competent demagogue doesn’t mean populist voters have yearned for it to the same degree. How much of his base did Trump lose after failing to build that wall on the Mexican border?

As far as voters are concerned, he lost none. He only lost people whose opinions do not matter anymore (like Ann Coulter). Either DeSantis or Trump stands a good shot against Biden, and there will be no defection if either loses the primary; Trump supporters will vote for DeSantis and vice versa. Attacking Biden on wokeness and inflation is an easy path for either of them for victory. Immigration and swamp draining is not as important now as it was in 2014-2017. I think DeSantis is slightly better because he has better odds of winning Florida.

desantis voters will vote trump because they would vote trump without desantis

the support of mcconnell, romney, jeb! et al. is toxic. a meaningful amount of trump support comes from whole-establishment hatred of him. in the event desantis gets the '24 nom he will be unable to draw on that support unless he heel-faces by torching establishment GOP.

desantis' manner and deed of pursuing the presidency prompts questions about his place in the GOP shift. as causing them to adopt certain populist positions or if they were already shifting, florida was a test, and he was just the lucky stooge. trump's 2016 win and 2020 turnout was enough for the GOP to change and the former implies contempt for the same old establishment desantis now gladly aligns with. priors go on the latter.

t. irrelevant demo

I think that there is road for desantis. He just need to look sincere in owning the Libs and Trump people will vote for him.

Trump will depend a lot on the Dems. They need to scare me enough to pull the lever. 2020 was close but we also had summer riots.

I could see myself abstaining on POTUS with Trump and voting straight GOP. Split power usually keeps excess spending in check. And would open the door better for Desantis in 2028.

That being said the Dems probably will find a way to get me to vote for Trump. POTUS years always seem to be blm riot years.

but we also had summer riots.

...and rampant cheating. one might almost call the 2020 election "stolen".

Planning to riot if you lose isn’t cheating, it’s one of the oldest democratic traditions.

And that's the reason we call ourselves "republicans", I'm not talking about the rioters.

I am not sure that there is an easy path for any Republican to victory. Incumbent presidents have only lost 10 times in the history of the country, whereas 21 incumbent presidents have served a second term. Probably a lot will depend on how the economy is doing next year.

Was it less 'build the wall' and more who the frontman for building the wall was?

It was both. Trump had a combination of being the man who actually talks about building the wall and who is crazy enough to actually try building the wall (or draining the swamp). Before him, almost 100% of the GOP candidates weren't. Now that Trump tried to build the wall, but largely failed to complete it (and has no significant successes in draining the swamp), the case for him becomes weaker. Is it weak enough for somebody to challenge him? I don't know, but I notice he spends a lot more time pissing on DeSantis than he does on explaining how this time is different than the last one and why this time he will actually drain the swamp, unlike the last time. Of course, the former is much easier, but I'm not sure it'd be enough anymore.

I am no longer sure that populist voters want to win the culture war.

One could argue that this misapprehends the problem. Populists might only want to win the culture war, and don't give a fuck about the policy war, which is what is being conflated here. The whole point is that the Republicans are trying to fight hte culture war with policy, and not very well. Trump never had any policy, but he fought the culture war like a champ.

It doesn't just "misapprehend", it completely fails to grasp. The populists are winning.

Trump never had any policy

Perhaps. But I keep seeing reports of court cases where a reasonable ruling or dissent comes from "____, a Trump appointee".

That’s like saying “we only care about winning the war; we don’t care about winning the war of bullets.” You can’t win the former without winning the latter.

I don't think so. Policy is part of how politics works, but the media landscape, cultural institutions, academia etc. are not really about policy at all. In short, the culture war is a bunch of stuff related to politics that isn't really politics. In the aggregate, politics is not about policy, almost no one gives a shit about policy. They care about group competition. Republicans still contest policy, but they gave up the culture war ages ago. The mainstream "conservative" voices are people like David French.

Trump was terrible at governing, never had a handle on how the place worked, and his policies were almost uniformly unsuccessful. The ones that were successful were mostly bad for his base (bump stock ban, etc.). But he was the first to fight the culture war on the national stage, without apology or dissembling. It is my thesis that this explains both the unprecedented hatred, and unprecedented support.

The left has been using culture to fight politics for a long time. Andrew Breitbart recognized this weakness ages ago, and deliberately set out to create parallel cultural institutions to engage in that fight. His project has slowly come on line, although he's been gone a while. It is now being co-opted by the reigning conservative money groups. But any fight needs a figurehead to go out and duke it out in the media, on Twitter, in court etc. And because the Republicans wouldn't do it, finally a shady real-estate grifter and reality TV show host took up the mantle.

I’m not suggesting doing only policy. That is pointless. But you can’t eschew policy either.

but he fought the culture war like a champ.

The "fought" here does a lot of work. If you understand it as "engaged", then yes, he engaged a lot. If you understand it as "won", then no, we aren't tired of winning the culture war, in fact we're not even close to it, and Trump didn't do much to stop the victorious march of wokeness through the social institutions. All the feeble attempts he made were instantaneously reversed once he was gone, except maybe for the SCOTUS which has and will deliver some important wins, but even there it's not assured, and also SCOTUS can't rule the country or the culture, it's not its function. So I am not sure he really deserves the title of "champ" here.

It's not hard to be the best when there is zero competition. The Republican party is almost entirely estranged from its base.

True enough but Trump is not really helping this, viciously attacking people in his own party when they try to become his competition, and often even when they don't but he feels (justifiably or not) slighted by them. This helps his personal brand, but doesn't help neither the GOP nor the base which needs things done, not an idol to worship. Well, to be honest, some do need an idol to worship, but it's not healthy and not helpful to them. Ultimately, they want the win (or at least a win) in the culture war, not a tragic hero that whines on Truth Social about how everybody prevents him from achieving true greatness.

Muslim is not a race.

I do recall liberals being pretty upset by Ted 'the Zodiac' Cruz. And Rubio, and Christie, and the rest of the republican slate, even Jeb Bush. At first they were worried about Trump the least of all of them.

Trump's secret sauce in 2016 was finding an issue set that got an extreme reaction from Democrats, while not pissing off too many Republicans. Not sure how much that strategy can be repeated for '24, though he might find a different route.

Might I suggest abortion as the issue to do this in 2024 or 2028? I'm certainly hoping for it.

By the way, I'd rephrase it:

Trump's secret sauce in 2016 was finding an issue set that got an extreme reaction from the elite while not pissing off too many proles. Not sure how much that strategy can be repeated for '24, though he might find a different route.

Plenty of Democrats became Trump voters because of the extreme reaction of their (now former?) co-partisans. Plenty of corporate Republicans switched the other way too because of Trump.

Back to abortion, I'm suspicious that a candidate that has completely pissed off the establishment Democrats could get away with supporting higher family spending (especially as payment directly to families) without much of Republican electorate even noticing, by a similar dynamic to how Trump was the first elected President to support gay marriage without the religious right seeming to notice much.

by a similar dynamic to how Trump was the first elected President to support gay marriage without the religious right seeming to notice much.

It's not that that they didn't notice it's just that opposition to abortion has always been the higher priority than sticking it to the faggots and trannies. Trump's willingness to endorse and attend pro-life events while the other GOP candidates (Jeb, Cruz, Rubio, Carson, Et Al) refused to do so bought him a lot of good will from the base.

Problem is that support for abortion can be made the number one overriding priority for the normies just by the media saying so, which means Biden wins.

What?

Did I stutter? During the general election, the media can center the abortion issue, make it of overriding importance for normies (mostly in the "purple" suburbs), and get them to turn out to vote for Biden to prevent the Republican candidate from taking control of their bodies. The other issues don't even have to matter.

Abortion seems easy to handle. No nationwide laws. Just argue States Rights conservatism.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4015551-anti-abortion-group-flexes-political-muscle-in-2024-gop-primary/

You would think, but multiple pro life groups are looking to make support for a nationwide ban a litmus test for the R primary.

Voters in the general public who actually care about States' Rights are and have always been a rounding error. It's nearly always a justification for a policy position somebody already wanted.

This goes all the way back to the antebellum period, when New England and South Carolina flip flopped instantly on States Rights when the question went from enforcing the fugitive slave acts and Dred Scott to Lincoln's election.

I mean going highly saliently anti-abortion (which is not necessarily hardcore in terms of policy, but it could be). I'm proposing a candidacy that the elite hate because of abortion.

This is not unique to Trump - I'm suggesting another type of anti-elite candidacy that could imitate the anti-elite character of Trump 2016 in important ways. That said, if it is Trump doing it, he would have one of his few policy successes to point to - his Supreme Court choices.

Literally every abortion referendum thus far, I believe, including ones like Montana's that were only banning really extreme cases, went in favor of banning restrictions on abortion, including in red states.

Talking about abortion isn't great for Republicans now, even if banning it might still be something worth doing for ethical reasons.

Trump could bring up and rehash all of his 2015-2016 talking points all over again, and it would carry him right back into office.

The main issue that would stop this are his stances on Russia and the Ukraine. Many of the population still remembers the cold war and the fact that Russia was America's #1 threat, and if democrats played their cards right, could use his stance there to put his campaign under ground.

Trump could bring up and rehash all of his 2015-2016 talking points all over again, and it would carry him right back into office.

I don't think it would be wise because it's no longer as salient of an issue. hardly anyone on twitter cares about immigration anymore. it's all attacking wokeness, and then second, attacking the left for being soft on crime and the societal breakdown of law and order. that is the angle now.

That's been a part of the major cultural arguments for at least ten years now. Racial crime rates are brought up each election cycle as part of right wing talking points in basically all major online efforts, so I'm not seeing what's changed.

Perhaps the tone of the arguments and what musk wants the algorithms of Twitter to do have caused the culturally-allowable talking points to change.

That Hillary was weak is a partial explanation I'll accept.

No one wanted Hillary as president, even nominal democrats.

Many of the population still remembers the cold war and the fact that Russia was America's #1 threat, and if democrats played their cards right, could use his stance there to put his campaign under ground.

I'm not sure this is the case. Democrats calling Trump a Russian Operative and claiming he is in Russia's pocket caused a lot of Trump supporters to not be anti-Russia, if not pro Russia. The was with Ukraine may have complicated that, but the Democrats bringing up Russia will just remind Trump supporters that Trump was erroneously tied to Russia by those same-self Democrats for 4 years.

I do. He and his team would need to freshen the talking points up and rephrase them. Instead of "Drain the Swamp", it's "Finish the Job" or similar. Trump's ability to take an accusation to his face, absorb it, then spit it back out at his opponents without missing a beat, the man may as well have walked on water.

That said, there is something to be said about democrats not voting for Trump, so much as voting against Hillary. The midwest and flyover states all hated her, so there's a large chance Trump won mostly out of spite.

A lot of the comparisons between Trump and DeSantis seem to rely on there being a consequential difference between them in power. I don't think that assumption is valid.

You can run a very explicit culture war campaign and 'actually do things' like DeSantis has done in Florida without doing anything of consequence in other areas. For instance, you can run a very traditional Zionist Heritage Foundation approved government that does nothing of value with regards to immigration and foreign policy and merely acts out on random anti-trans rhetoric. Can you imagine trans people not being allowed in womens sports and bathrooms? You can waste a year at least on just that and the only practical real world impact is an enraged left. Otherwise the decline can proceed as normal.

Trump did much less than that in 4 years and his supporters still adore him. Why do anything different? Pardon my cynicism but, is it for real now? Do we really believe? Are we fighting for real change this time?

Trump did much less than that in 4 years and his supporters still adore him.

3/3 good supreme court picks. Tax reform that hit one of the biggest left wing tax loopholes (SALT). Operation Warp Speed. Making the left and establishment right show their true colors.

I favor DeSantis, but lets not pretend Trump wasn't a great revolutionary president.

And nothing done about immigration, his biggest promise. I don't think it counts for all that much to make the establishment right show their 'true colors' just before you join them. Does anyone love Israel more than Trump? By the same token I don't think you can make much hay about his SC picks, given they are all basic establishment right shoe-ins. Trump had his chance with leveraging his wall funding with the government shutdowns. He caved and in return the US still has infinite illegal immigration.

If we go by rhetoric alone, he was the Che Guevera of US politics. By action? It was business as usual. Along with record low black unemployment numbers...

"Didn't accomplish X specific goal" != "waste a year at least on just that and the only practical real world impact is an enraged left".

I don't think it counts for all that much to make the establishment right show their 'true colors' just before you join them.

The net result is the public has seen this, and Republicans have become better for it. Post-Trump DeSantis >> pre-Trump DeSantis, for example.

Does anyone love Israel more than Trump?

...record low black unemployment numbers...

Trump never campaigned on being the white nationalist/antisemitic president you seem to wish he was. A reminder of his campaign:

https://twt-thumbs.washtimes.com/media/image/2016/11/01/Trump_c0-40-960-599_s885x516.jpg?f06bd400542c7f2dbc12a384be529bf86e07a1aa

https://th.bing.com/th/id/OIP.-_pm4l4mJKmt7kRHb0Y0dwHaJz?pid=ImgDet&rs=1

"Didn't accomplish X specific goal" != "waste a year at least on just that and the only practical real world impact is an enraged left".

This is a bad strawman, but a worse argument. Halting immigration is a goal in and of itself. With obvious 'practical' impact. The fact it would allegedly 'enrage the left' is irrelevant.

The net result is the public has seen this, and Republicans have become better for it. Post-Trump DeSantis >> pre-Trump DeSantis, for example.

The public has seen what? Republicans, outside of the most inane culture war rhetoric, are still the party of big business and Israel.

Trump never campaigned on being the white nationalist/antisemitic president you seem to wish he was. A reminder of his campaign:

I never said he did. He did, however, campaign on BUILDING A WALL and DEPORTING ALL ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS. Maybe you missed it.

I never said he did. He did, however, campaign on BUILDING A WALL and DEPORTING ALL ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS. Maybe you missed it.

And he did more or less everything he could to accomplish this but failed to defeat the deep state. The courts shut down basically everything he did. In contrast, remember Bush teaming up with Pelosi to pass amnesty?

I do not dispute that Trump failed in this goal. I dispute that Trump was "business as usual."

Desantis showed willingness to attack the actual centers of power currently occupied by leftists.

He went directly after DEI programs in the colleges and the Universities in his state.

And they signaled that they're going to comply.

It seems like he understands the nature and magnitude of the problem and the places where pressure needs to be applied in order to even begin to unwind the Gordian knot of special interests, diversity hires, grifters, and activists that act as the ground troops for the Cathedral.

Of course this all hinges on whether you believe it is possible to reverse the decline or if the only way out is through, but nobody ever said you have to buy into the hope in order to cast a vote for hope.

And Trump went after 'Sanctuary Cities' or whatever. Which ultimately amounted to very little since the root cause wasn't the cities, they were just a symptom. Very similar to the situation in academia. I mean, how did a 'Sanctuary City' come to be? Extremely lax immigration laws/enforcement? How did 'leftist' academia come to be? E.O. Wilson had a choice remark with regards to that:

We had a meeting to take the final vote on Lewontin at Harvard, and a group of the older professors said they were worried about reports of his behavior at Chicago—that he might be disruptive or might have gotten away from genetics, and so would not be the right sort of person to be at Harvard. I made the speech I will regret for the rest of my life: I said we should never accept or reject someone because of their political views. I felt so good about myself making that political speech!

Lewontin becoming one of the prime figures in the fraudulent Boasian anthropology cult that reigns supreme in every major institution in the western world to this day.

In essence, 'academic freedom' is worth about as much as a 'closed border' with an open gate. The decline is not irreversible, but reversing back to an earlier point of decline won't do much to prevent one from sliding down again.

Very similar to the situation in academia.

Academia ultimately is the root cause though, at least from a practical perspective and not counting abstract social forces.

You can have perfectly fine academic institutions that are not bloated with useless crap. My point is that these institutions in the west became bloated precisely because of the kind of attitude is being expressed by the DeSantis 'attack' on colleges and universities in Florida. The root cause is not academia in and of itself. It's instead whatever process that bloats it.

The root cause is not academia in and of itself. It's instead whatever process that bloats its.

What bloats it is part of academia. It's coming from inside the ivory tower. Before it got bloated, this tendency was kept in check by external forces (e.g. not enough resources to waste on it) which are now gone.

We keep returning to 'academia' as a current thing. Sure, current academia suffers from all the ills. My point is that an academic institution doesn't have to. To point at current academia and say that it had to become this way because it did is not very pertinent. Stricter oversight over what can be taught, rather than promises of more 'academic freedom' would be a step in the right direction, which is the opposite of the DeSantis rhetoric. Which at best deflates a small part of academia without removing its ability to inflate itself again.

I doubt the narrative that Desantis will be significantly more effective than trump, because we have a foretaste of who trump will appoint this time around and, say, Ken Paxton is likely to be at least as effective as Desantis when given a blank check. I really don’t expect trump to do much actual governing, I expect him to occasionally hold photo ops, nominate judges the GOP tells him to and give a far-right cabinet a blank check.

I think it was Hannania, who I think been crushing it lately, who said if a person takes a job in the Trump administration it’s the last job he will ever get while Desantis gives them the normal post administration options.

Perhaps this isn’t true but it feels correct to me. But I don’t think his cabinet with a check will have much power. They will be C people facing lawfare from everywhere. Putting out fires is all they will accomplish.

I think that that’s simply not true, and that trumps failure in the last admin is more attributable to resistance from govt employees.

This will likely be less of a factor in term two, because 1) trump can be expected to make it easier to fire the worst offenders and 2) he can be expected to appoint hardline rightwing loyalists.

Either Blues are too stupid to level the same firepower against a more effective Desantis, or Desantis wouldn't actually be as effective, or they would level the same firepower against a more effective Desantis. The first option seems quite unlikely, and the latter two give no advantage to Desantis.

Well Trump has at most 4 years. DeSantis has up to 8 potential years. That’s markedly different in a feud.

I think this grants too much agency to Blues as a group.

The level of firepower is almost never calculated. It’s intuited. Powerful blues do get to steer this process, as with news outlets trying to make a villain, but they’re responding to short-term incentives and easy narratives more than an overarching strategy. DeSantis will take less flak than Trump as long as he inspires less of a disgust reaction.

The level of firepower is almost never calculated. It’s intuited. Powerful blues do get to steer this process, as with news outlets trying to make a villain, but they’re responding to short-term incentives and easy narratives more than an overarching strategy. DeSantis will take less flak than Trump as long as he inspires less of a disgust reaction.

It is not obvious to me that Blue disgust with Trump was greater because of Trump's specific quirks, relative to his vocal commitment to Red values and the growing extremism within Blue Tribe itself. I am worried that Desantis, if he is an effective champion, will provoke an equivalent disgust reaction from Blues. Nor do I see how any of this bears on agency of Blues as a group; I am not claiming the apparent disgust was astroturfed or otherwise manufactured.

Don't be. (speaking form a blue tribe bubble and a leftist position here)

Trump is uniquely bad to the libs among us because he is a norm violator and has the affect and language of a low IQ prole type AND is also a tacky tasteless fat rich guy; a fucking unforgivable combo. Ron on the other hand is your standard political reptilian. Boring, in other words. Too bad for him, he is really on the horns here.

His problem is he needs to assume some of that trumpian glory and make himself exciting; which will also make people excited to vote against him. Him going full speed ahead on his culture war arc has the libs and the left taking notice; too many photos of empty library shelves and pallets full of books being removed, too much rhetorical light surrounding the don't say gay bill (eg; "its only grades 1-3/5/12/colleges also now) ; regardless of the how fake the whole thing is.

It's all great ammunition, and trump still being around is keeping the spirit alive in the base. I've been at socal wine tastings where the toast was "To trump and bidden: please don't die before 2025".

Basically, in order to inhabit Trump as a spirit totem, he needs to become more trumplike and piss off all the boring lib centrists out there.

I am worried that Desantis, if he is an effective champion, will provoke an equivalent disgust reaction from Blues.

This is my concern as well and I don't think it's unfounded. Every republican president has been literal hitler, and the volume of shrill panic has continuously spiraled upwards.

My blue friends have made no differentiation between Desantis and Trump (despite, in my mind, there being a massive difference in their approaches and palatability). I do think Destantis offers the people who work with him far more stability and long-term progress than his competitor, to @netstack 's point, and I think anyone who is reasonable as a moderate would be more likely to vote for Destantis than Trump.

No, part of being "more effective" includes, for example, drafting EOs with language that is less-susceptible to challenge than Trump's were, and avoiding explicit public statements which provide grist for the lawfare mill. Or being more familiar with the administrative process, and handling the promulgation of new regulations with the proper procedures. Or being more familiar with the wide variety of administrative and procedural tools that can be brought to bear against, e.g., rogue prosecutors, as DeSantis has been doing with Florida state's attorneys. Or being more dedicated to governing in an anti-progressive manner than in getting good press coverage (See, e.g., Trump firing Sessions, hiring Wray, appointing a special counsel re: Russia hoax, etc.)

I'm not arguing that Desantis can't be more effective than Trump. I'm arguing that there is no practical level of effectiveness that can prevent the FBI from ratfucking a president they don't like.

I agree that FBI opposition can harm an administration they don't like. However, I don't think that a more competent and audacious administration would have been nearly as harmed as Trump was by Russiagate. The FBI is nominally under executive branch control, and the President has the pardon power - an administration that doesn't concede to opposition pressure has ways of pushing back against rogue enforcement.

I think a middle ground exists where Trump is actually repulsive and undignified. Liz Cheney types would still around and the broad middle wouldn’t play ball with blue shenanigans.

I think a middle ground exists where Trump is actually repulsive and undignified. Liz Cheney types would still around and the broad middle wouldn’t play ball with blue shenanigans.

More repulsive than the Trans movement? More repulsive than the BLM riots and Antifa murders? If their judgement is that poor, why are they useful?

Those weren’t issues back in 2016-2020 as much. And after 2020 he had the election denial stuff.

Trump did things in 2016 like being mean to immigrants instead of just not wanting them.

Because Trump was the president. He defacto represents the R's, just like Bidden represents the D's.

Him being gross means that the R's are also gross through the transitive property, because he is king shit of R mountain.

I think it’s quite plausible that Desantis evolved at some point in 2020 not just in political decision to beat Trump but internally in himself. Something changed around that time that made something we didn’t notice before apparent. And since then all the revelations on the lawfare used against Trump when he was elected.

He probably was more of a George Bush conservative but I don’t think any of us realized how heavily the attack from the left was before then.

This is not a mystery it was the lockdowns, or rather the sudden the sudden reversal in the summer of 2020 from you can't go to the beach lest you catch the coof, to Fauci endorsing mass protests because "racism is a global health crisis" is what flipped the switch.

The CDC and the rest of "the expert class" revealed that they were not neutral observers but enemy combatants and DeSantis, being the proper Navy man that he is, responded by going the full Samuel B Roberts on thier asses.

Ironically, it leads to a case for an interesting question - if Trump had merely attached his vibe to Ted Cruz' political platform in 2016, would he still have won?

No, if Ted Cruz's platform includes monkeying about with Social Security (which he supported as a Senator, but went quiet about once he started running for President). The fact that Trump was not affiliated with the traditional right wing of the Republican party and was therefore credible when he promised to protect Social Security and Medicare was critical to his ballot box success.

DeSantis can't win the presidential election even if he takes the primary, Trump can.

Trump would have lost to an empty suit in 2016 in the Democrats had managed to run one and did lose to an empty suit in 2020. Thinking that Trump is unusually popular with the median voter is "How could Nixon have won? Nobody I know voted for him" level stupid. DeSantis, on the other hand, was re-elected by a landslide in what used to be considered a purple slate.

Trump would have lost to an empty suit in 2016 in the Democrats had managed to run one and did lose to an empty suit in 2020. Thinking that Trump is unusually popular with the median voter is "How could Nixon have won? Nobody I know voted for him" level stupid. DeSantis, on the other hand, was re-elected by a landslide in what used to be considered a purple slate.

Then how can we explain Trump's dominance over DeSantis in polls and prediction markets? He's currently at 70% to win the nomination, and he is slaughtering DeSantis in the polls.

https://www.metaculus.com/questions/11370/2024-republican-nominee-for-us-prez/

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/gop_primaries/

I'm sure name recognition plays a part, but as time goes by this becomes less and less credible. Republicans love Trump. They don't love DeSantis.

Certainly DeSantis has been popular in his own state, but this doesn't seem to translate to nationwide success. DeSantis might even win fewer non-Republicans than Trump. Trump seems to do well with some minority voters who love his machismo, even if he plays for the wrong team. DeSantis, with his high IQ and whiny voice, will not attract those voters. I hope I'm wrong, but 2024 seems to be a replay of 2016 for the Republican primaries, with Trump consistently being underestimated. He reaches people.

Those Prediction Markets are predicting the Republican nominee not the general election. It's totally plausible Trump is extremely popular with the Republican base and not popular with the general electorate.

But is DeSantis more popular with the general electorate? There was a time when this would have seemed plausible, but the headlines he's generated since he became the media's golden boy have all been related to whatever culture war bullshit he's promoting in his state. He painted himself into a corner and now he finds himself running to the right of Trump. Had he focused his campaign on administrative competence that vaguely hinted at effective implementation of MAGA-adjacent principles, I'd say he has a good chance of winning the general election. But the hasn't done that. He's publicly waged an all-out war against wokism and LGBT stuff, not to mention his quixotic war against Disney and the stunt where he sent immigrants from Texas up north. If he'd done these things quietly it may have provoked some kind of backlash but not nearly as much as centering his entire public persona around them. Plus, he seems unwilling to give interviews to anyone who will do anything other than lob softballs at him. It's nice work if you can get it, but he can't do this all the way through a fucking presidential election and expect to win. Remember, he needs to convince people in swing states who voted for Biden that he's the more reasonable candidate than Trump, and those states have all either stood pat when it was expected they may shift right a bit (Nevada, Arizona) or decisively shifted left (Pennsylvania, Michigan).

Trump was able to win in 2016 largely because he was a totally unknown entity running against a lousy Democtratic candidate. Once people knew what to expect, he lost. DeSantis doesn't have that advantage, and simply being a Trump who can wage the culture war better provided he has a compliant legislature isn't going to convince moderates and independents that he's much of an improvement.

DeSantis is not the media golden boy, just the opposite. The media desperately wants Trump to win the primary, both because of the guaranteed ratings boost and because they think he's more beatable in the primary. They are trumpeting every criticism of DeSantis that they can in, up to and including him being "short" and having funny faces in freeze frames.

He's not the media golden boy in the sense that they like him, necessarily, but in the sense that, up until relatively recently, they acted like he was the future of the Republican Party. They've backed off this pronouncement in recent months as Trump's enduring popularity has made it clear that this isn't true, but that's just because all available evidence suggests that it isn't.

If they manage to Pied Piper Trump right into the White House again, I'm having a good belly laugh.

Yes how could a candidate win without just getting softballs from the media. Wait, every single democrat successful presidential candidate from recent memory.

Also it’s far from obvious the “anti woke” stuff doesn’t play with independents. Most people for example don’t like elementary kids having porn in the school library. Taking a stand against that historically would be an easy win for a politician. My guess is we aren’t so degenerate that it still is an easy win.

Yes how could a candidate win without just getting softballs from the media. Wait, every single democrat successful presidential candidate from recent memory.

When conservatives talk about bias in the mainstream media, they're referring to any media that isn't specifically right-leaning. And the only kinds of people who regularly watch (and not hate-watch) specifically right-leaning media are people who aren't going to vote for a Democrat anyway, so there's no need to, though most Democratic candidates usually will throw a bone to mainstream right-leaning outlets like Fox. Republicans don't have that luxury. Yeah, you can dodge MSNBC but probably not regular NBC or CBS or even CNN. Fox news averages fewer than 2 million daily viewers while the big 3 networks combine for about 20 million for their evening news broadcasts. 60 Minutes alone averaged over 8 million viewers this past season, and that number would probably top 10 million if a major party candidate were interviewed. Their interviews with Trump and Biden ahead of the 2020 election drew around 17 million each. One simply can't get that kind of "earned" exposure by sticking with pliant conservative outlets, and these numbers obviously don't include the people who read articles summarizing the interviews. And does he plan on skipping the debates, too? A guy like Trump can get away with that since he has a comfortable lead, but DeSantis doesn't have that luxury. It's hard to make the case that Ron's a fighter if he isn't even willing to throw down with fucking Lesley Stahl.

As for anti-wokeness, I think it does play well with independents and probably most Democrats. I'm a Democrat who wishes this shit would just end, and a lot of my friends who are otherwise a lot more liberal than I am feel the same way. Ron's problem is twofold. First is that his solutions are more heavy-handed than a lot of people are comfortable with. If his "war on wokism" or whatever were limited to making arguments about how intellectually bankrupt and incoherent it is and refusal to play games in the name of whatever, then I think it would be palatable to independents. If it means enacting legislation to do things like curb private speech (e.g. restricting corporate DEI initiatives) then it's a totally different ballgame. The second problem is that even though a lot of people are annoyed by wokeness it's not necessarily something that's high on the priority list. Most people have no personal experience with the more egregious examples floated in the media, and even those who claim specific knowledge that isn't widely reported have, in my experience, mostly heard it second and third-hand. Like the guy at the bar who was claiming CRT material was being distributed in a nearby school district to where we live—he doesn't have kids or grandkids in school and is relying on reports from his cousin's son's friend or whatever. For most people the most they see is the occasional pronoun in an email signature, and while that's irritating it probably isn't something you're going to change your vote over. One thing the most recent two midterms taught us is that bread and butter issues win elections. The Democrats who flipped seats in 2018 did so on the backs of Republican threats to healthcare, and the Republicans who flipped seats last year were milquetoast moderates. The culture warriors did miserably. That's what it's going to take to flip D votes R, and I don't know that DeSantis really offers that kind of thing. I'd say his chances were better if he ran culture war to boost his chances in the primary but backed it up with solid moderate stances on mainstream issues, but I haven't seen that from him yet, and I think it's too late for him to change tracks now, especially since, at least so far, he's making Trump seem like the moderate option.

I agree that Desantis probably misstepped in the sorts of attention he's been getting. But DeSantis seems less unpopular, at least, for the moment. I'm pretty confident that there exist many independents who would vote for DeSantis but not for Trump. 73% of independents dislike Trump. But we have a long way to go still, much could change.

Personally, with my current knowledge, I'd be willing to vote for DeSantis, but in all likelihood not Trump after all the fraud claims and the attempt to overturn the election.

I think DeSantis has more appeal for moderates than Trump, but I doubt it's enough to flip very many Biden votes. You say that you'd pick DeSantis over Trump yourself but unless you voted for Biden in 2020 your opinion doesn't really matter; it just means that DeSantis might do about as well as Trump did in 2020 while Trump himself would do worse. Last I checked that wasn't the goal of the candidacy.

Well, it would matter if other people's minds have changed. Biden's popularity has fallen since he was elected, I believe.

I'd voted 3rd party.

I take polling this early with a grain of salt. Check back in a few months.

With that said, I don’t get the phony accusation. DeSantis in Florida did things that were not at the time establishment politics (even if the establishment came around to that position afterwards).

People support Trump at this point because of the people who hate him. The media hates him, the FBI hates him, the democrats hate him, the McKinsey class hates him, the intellectuals hate him, etc.

Michael Moore actually summed it up perfectly https://youtube.com/watch?v=TEHekdQSiXg

Trump is absolutely despised by everybody who sees The United States as a resource to be mined, packaged, and sold, and those same people seem to like DeSantis. It really isn't even about the policies. They just want to hurt their enemies.

those same people seem to like DeSantis

I would bet if DeSantis becomes lead Republican candidate, those people would trip over themselves to declare him literally Hitler. Just as it happened to Romney and McCain and Bush and all others. For now, he's not a threat to them, so they "like" him. When he becomes one, they'll show how much that liking is worth.

Trump is absolutely despised by everybody who sees The United States as a resource to be mined, packaged, and sold, and those same people seem to like DeSantis.

Those same people did very well under Trump though, nearly across the board. If you want to punish generic "people in power", the evidence suggests that electing Trump seems like a bad idea. Not only did they lose no power, asset prices boomed alongside New York Times subscriptions. Nobody was better for Trump's enemies than him.

Whenever reviewing the stats on Trump’s first term, I haven’t seen much disambiguating between BC and DC - Before Covid and During Covid. Consequently, both sides can point to the term and say they were right about Trump.

  • BC stocks soared, DC they plummeted.

  • BC employment hit record highs, DC it tanked.

  • BC a rising tide floated all boats, DC the megacorps were the sole allowed source for America’s goods and services.

So, what evidence are you citing for the very general statement “If you want to punish generic "people in power", the evidence suggests that electing Trump seems like a bad idea.”?

BC stocks soared, DC they plummeted.

Stocks did great during Covid, reaching an all-time high in late 2021. Covid, and the utterly retarded money printing that followed, were a boon for speculators.

BC stocks soared, DC they plummeted.

They plummeted and recovered during COVID, then fell After Trump.

Yes, the SP500 regained all its COVID losses by August of 2020, but it did not fall after Trump; it opened at 3816 on Jan 20, 2021 and was at 4700 at the end of the year.

Those same developments happened everywhere, also in countries that (obviously) didn't have Trump in charge.

Richard Hanania made some similar points: https://www.richardhanania.com/p/the-biomechanics-of-trumpism

Trump's popularity among his base seems to have far more to do with who he is as a person than any specific political stance he takes or policy proposal he advocates. DeSantis can copy Trump's policy base, he can even be far more effective at getting policies implemented than Trump was or will be, but that won't make people like DeSantis more.

I can sign off on this. It reminds me of reading original Lovecraft versus others doing "Lovecraftian" fiction. Sure, the original might have arguably worse prose, and predictable if unsatisfying endings. To say nothing of the nonexistent story or character arcs. But something genuine about Lovecraft's specific pathos grant the subpar material a life of it's own. The world through Lovecraft's eyes is terrible and fascinating in equal turn. And it's something no imitator or follower has replicated fully. And especially none that tried to "fix" Lovecraft.

So it goes with Trump. Through Trump's eyes, it's not a policy issue, it's a good versus evil issue. The swamp is destroying America and selling the remains to globalist. His policy proscriptions and his ability to work the levers of power are arguably worse than DeSantis. Like, a lot worse. But it's clear DeSantis doesn't have Trump's vision for diagnosing the problem. DeSantis without Trump leading the way to politically salient battles will turn out to be just another Neocon who never understood what Trump was really about. Trying to invoke references that sound "Trumpy" but totally missing Trump's point.

But it's clear DeSantis doesn't have Trump's vision for diagnosing the problem

How it is clear?

And also, the problem is already diagnosed. We know the problem. We have whole books upon books of diagnoses. We have the proofs, we have the receipts, we have the emails and the laptops. What we don't have is the treatment plan, and Trump doesn't seem to be in any rush to propose any. While DeSantis seems to have some experimental treatments successfully applied in Florida. So, maybe it is time to move from vision to action?

So it goes with Trump. Through Trump's eyes, it's not a policy issue, it's a good versus evil issue. The swamp is destroying America and selling the remains to globalist.

Trump can’t even describe how the swamp is destroying America. That’s exactly what Hanania says. Trump is probably the most pro-vaccine prominent politician in the GOP because he couldn’t let go of his personal belief that it’s a great achievement even as the base radicalized beyond him. Trump can’t explain why he isn’t a ‘globalist’.

I agree that Trump is the original, the real deal. But the real deal is a consummate showman, not a serious person. Some call it catharsis but it’s not really that, it’s entertainment. Trump is an entertaining guy, personally. He’s very funny. You can laugh at and with him, which is rare. He’s a great American character, not a demagogue, and that’s why Hanania thinks he’ll win (the primary).

Trump can’t explain why he isn’t a ‘globalist’.

Didn't he kill off international trade treaties ?

Didn't he promise to scale back NATO, and was seen as a threat because of that ?

Didn't he start a escalate a trade conflict with China

I'd say he could explain how he isn't a globalist.

Trump is probably the most pro-vaccine prominent politician in the GOP because he couldn’t let go of his personal belief that it’s a great achievement even as the base radicalized beyond him.

His narcissism helps him here.

He dies on hills he probably shouldn't, just to be stubborn.

But I guess it can come across as a costly signal of sincerity (or at least spine, something many of his 2016 competitors seemed to lack)

The fact that it causes the outgroup to attack him even more for this might be a secondary benefit of Republicans feel obligated to close ranks.

Yeah, DeSantis I think has a bit of the Hillary thing: he comes across as a careerist dweeb that'll tell you what you want to hear (like that SNL skit of Hillary morphing into Bernie)

Even when he has a point ( he'd probably be best on fighting wokeness on a legal level) I can see why it doesn't connect. Hillary also claimed the wonk title as a selling point for people who weren't bowled over by her charisma, some people just didn't care at all.

I promised myself I'd treat Hanania with more skepticism after his Ukraine call but the minute I saw DeSantis being mocked for his Twitter announcement that article plus his general view that DeSantis was going to be done in by Trump immediately came to mind.

Yeah, he's not going to be able to shake the establishment vibe.

I wonder whether it would be a good move for him to start publicly laying out very specific policies. He loses flexibility when in office by doing so, but it makes it clear that he actually has specific plans in place to accomplish things, and might decrease the perceived sliminess, in that it makes it clear that he has plans, he isn't just saying whatever is necessary to sate ambition.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats