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 -
Surprised no one’s posted this yet: https://apnews.com/article/texas-border-water-barriers-doj-immigration-83bcb38e7f5ab613117634d0c439d6b6?taid=64bee0cde6315400010b8821&utm_campaign=TrueAnthem&utm_medium=AP&utm_source=Twitter
The justice department has filed a lawsuit against Texas for installing a system of buoy barriers in the rio grande after Mexico demanded the federal government make Texas remove them, and Greg Abbott published a response to the justice department’s demand telling them to pound sand. This comes on the heels of a news cycle about Texas border security repelling migrants into the Rio grande and using razor wire, which in turn seems to have happened once the mass bussing of migrants to places outside of Texas became old news.
Politically, Abbott is strongly incentivized to refuse to comply, even if it’s illegal, and it’s worth noting that he’s literally a constitutional lawyer and knows that he’s not going to win the lawsuit. So the most likely outcome is this getting dragged out in courts until federal agents remove the barriers themselves.
The other major culture war angle here is that the state’s defense is a previous declaration of invasion giving them the right to secure their own border, even in contravention of federal policy. This argument does not seem likely to hold up in court; it’s based on far-right legal theorizing that gained traction for political reasons. As Abbott is a thoroughly establishment creature it’s an interesting development in itself and likely portends that the Texas center-right(which, despite what the media will tell you, is solidly in control of the Texas state government) will choose to build a coalition with the far right rather than the moderate left in the future, and it probably has broader implications/lessons for far-right movements in wealthy first world countries seeking political influence.
deleted
If we ignore the policy substance (i.e. the immigration culture war aspects of this), the federalism issues also have a long history as a culture war flashpoint.
The TLDR version of the two sides are:
It is very clear from the text of the Constitution* as well as the arguments made during the ratification that what the framers intended was (1) - although the Anti-Federalist papers make the case for (2), so it was a live issue on day 1. But the issue is not particularly relevant for the first 150 years because the enumerated powers of the federal government cover most of the things that 19th century statesmen negotiated treaties over (namely war and international trade). So the first time it starts to matter is with environmental treaties. The key SCOTUS case is Missouri v Holland in 1920 which said that a treaty with the UK (really Canada, but Canada was only de facto independent in 1920, not de jure) protecting migratory birds overruled State game laws in Missouri - note that under the pre-New Deal jurisprudence the Feds absolutely would not have won an argument saying that shooting migratory birds was interstate commerce.
The culture war on this point hots up after WW2 with the campaign for the Bricker Amendment which among other things would have explicitly reversed Holland - as far as I can see this is driven by John Bircher-adjacent conservative Republicans in the Midwest who don't like the Federal government because it did the New Deal and is probably full of Communists, don't like the UN for the obvious reasons, and are concerned about the possibility of the UN interfering in US domestic affairs. It naturally attracts the support of the White South (because the Federal government and the UN are both threats to Jim Crow) and so becomes one of the early "movement conservative" culture war issues. The Bricker Amendment was popular, and Eisenhower and LBJ had to twist a lot of arms to stop it passing.
The issue loses salience during the Cold War when the American right is bigger on anti-Communism than isolationism.
After the cold war the issue comes back on the agenda - mostly pushed by the group of libertarian legal scholars around Randy Barnett (who favours a set of new federalism amendments including something similar to the Bricker amendment). The key SCOTUS case is Bond which has utterly hilarious facts which will now be recounted, so keep drinks away from your keyboard.
Again this turns into a good issue to unite the right - Bond was supported by corpocons (who opposed the treaty because they didn't like the idea of UN weapons inspectors inspecting US factories making dual-use chemicals), neocons (who opposed the treaty because they thought the US should retain the right to make and use chemical weapons if they turned out to be needed), UN-haters (who broadly overlap with social conservatives), libertarians, and gun nuts (who saw the ban on private ownership of chemical weapons as the thin end of the wedge towards the UN neutering the 2nd amendment).
Why is "attempted to cause serious harm/murder to another person intentionally" not good enough?
The reported appeals don't say - possibly because it would be a State crime and not Federal and the FBI or AUSA didn't want to hand the case over to the local DA. Possibly because attempted murder is notoriously hard to prove (you have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that she knew the poison she was using would have been lethal if the stunt worked). But the only thing that hit the public record are the charges and the verdict.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The people who invented it do not have political power above the very local level, and are mostly borrowing ideas associated with various extremist groups hanging around the fringes of the hardline end of conservative right wingers. You're obviously correct that Abbott is a pragmatist rather than a far-right ideologue. The legal theory he's using to defend his actions is, however, pretty far right fringe that he's resorting to mostly because he doesn't have a better fig leaf and he expects to benefit politically from this.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link