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 -
Backlash to the border bussing policies: To the surprise of no one, sanctuary cities don't actually want hundreds of thousands of poor foreigners wandering about in their backyards. New York City- which has received the largest number of migrants shipped from the southern border by Greg Abbott- is the site of protests https://nypost.com/2023/09/05/another-massive-rally-expected-outside-staten-island-school-turned-migrant-shelter/ Obviously not all of these people are democrats, but some of them seem to be. But the real story is down below, in LA.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/la-city-council-texas-governor-migrant-busing/story?id=102840424
Obviously, some of this is just hypocrisy and looking out for number one- it's fine for you to have hundreds of thousands of asylum seekers camped under highway overpasses with no say in the matter, but don't you dare dump any on me- but I'm struck by 1), the fact that the LA city council thinks injunctions and lawsuits will work
When in reality Abbott has no incentive to stop when a federal judge tells him to, he has every incentive to appeal to the supreme court and ignore the federal judge- he does after all want to win his 2026 primary- and realistically unless the federal government decides to take over the border itself, or meet his demands, they can't make him stop. Both practically- he wants these people to be someone else's problem- and politically- this makes him look tough to a base that doesn't already think of him that way- there's every reason for Greg Abbott to just keep doing this until he's lost much, much bigger than anybody seems to be talking about, or his demands are met.
And of course, 2), the decision to cast this as human trafficking
When, likewise in reality, "free bus tickets to New York/LA/DC" is quite an appealing pitch to migrants living under a bridge in McAllen and Eagle Pass Texas. After all, most of them didn't walk from Venezuela with the intent of settling in McAllen, they wanted to go further into the US. And obviously Abbott's real incentive is to get them out of his jurisdiction as fast as possible, which means offering free bus tickets to the places they actually wanted to go to in the first place. There just isn't a scenario where the migrants stayed in Eagle Pass long term; they could be deported to Honduras or wherever they came from, or they could go somewhere else in the country.
Of course they can. They can put him in Federal prison for defying them.
I am really curious as to whether you think that is actually, in the reality we currently inhabit, going to work out for them, if we assume that the Government of Texas doesn't believe that any crime has been committed.
How do you imagine an attempt to physically take him into custody would go, and are you already assuming that the FedGov would be willing to roll armored vehicles and/or Apache Helicopters up to the Governor's mansion?
If he pushes it, it will work out quite well for the Federal Government. He won't push it though, he'll give in if a judge tells him to.
They roll in with overwhelming force, take him, and win. You don't really think the state police are going to try to fight the military (or a nationalized Texas National Guard for that matter), do you?
Is there any precedent, particularly in the past 50 or so years, where any sitting Governor got arrested for Federal Crimes without resistance from the State the Governor presided over?
I'll go ahead and give you the one I can think of:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_Blagojevich#Impeachment,_removal_from_office,_trial
And in that case they had no support in their own legislature and had indeed violated the state's laws as well.
Do you think Texas would impeach Abbot over such an arrest?
I think the downside for the Federal Government taking such a step is so vastly disproportionate to the upside that it would be absurd to imagine them attempting it. So the State police aren't going to 'fight' the military, but what do you expect the Federal Government to do if state forces merely 'obstruct' their attempts to arrest the governor, say by erecting roadblocks and refusing to stand aside for the arresting officers.
Who fires the first shot?
"Putting him in Federal Prison" entails giving him some measure of due process and a chance to have a hearing and thus isn't going to be a quick fix to the alleged issue.
Everything with precedent happened a first time. The last time it came close was the "Stand in the Schoolhouse Door". Alabama governor George Wallace yielded rather than be arrested.
Destroy the roadblocks and forcibly move the officers aside if it comes to that. But the state forces won't actually attempt to intervene bodily; they'll yield.
No, they just put him in for contempt on the word of the judge who gave the order.
Again this is without precedent, so I don't think anyone can be confident in this outcome.
In the vast majority of times the question of the State's authority to resist Federal intervention has arisen, the whole situation gets put on hold and fast-tracked to the Supreme Court. Since that's one of the main reasons they exist.
So understand that I can envision the scenario where Abbot backs down after a SCOTUS ruling establishing that he's apparently in the wrong, but I have a much, much harder time envisioning (and ascribe low probability to) Federal agents immediately jumping to arrest a sitting Governor on a contempt order where there is any probability that the State government declines to cooperate and there's likely an immediate appeal.
I mean Jesus, there IS precedent of Federal Agents Attempting to serve warrants in Texas wherein the party on the other side declined to cooperate. It was a debacle all around and I doubt that the FedGov has really forgotten that lesson.
Likewise, FedGov has folded in more recent memory when faced with CIVILIAN resistance. FedGov didn't just roll through the barricades and easily arrest those involved. It was way messier overall.
Cliven Bundy is, as of now, still a free man. Strange to see that FedGov can be cowed by a rancher out of Nevada and yet conclude they would simply steamroll the Governor of one of the largest states in the Country without a second thought.
Anyhow, I doubt any of this comes to fruition, I just think "they'll put him in Federal Prison" is not the easy checkmate move you're asserting.
There is plenty of precedent to throw people in jail for contempt on the word of the judge who claimed the contempt. That's how contempt works.
The precedents are now in place; no need to wait. The Insurrection Act exists, and the National Guard can be federalized at the word of the President.
Steamrollering Cliven Bundy doesn't politically benefit anyone; the bureaucracy might do it on its own but it doesn't help the political set. Steamrolling Abbott with a sufficient legal fig leaf is like steamrolling Wallace back in the day -- it shows who is in charge.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link