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 -
Do Trump Supporters Actually Want To Win?
Prompted by this sanctimonious, if interesting, FT column. Emphasis mine:
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:
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
More options
Context Copy link
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.
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