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 -
California has a likely new Senator, and her background is a doozy if you're someone as cynical as I am about political figures. With Diane Feinstein having died, Gavin Newsome can now select anyone he'd like, and had promised that the position would be selected from a strict affirmative action pool of black women. He apparently failed to find anyone that actually lives in California that fits the bill, so he has instead selected Maryland resident Laphonza Butler for the position. What, you might ask, are her exquisite qualifications that would make her the top candidate for such an important position? Wiki's summary suffices:
What exactly is EMILY's List?
Chalk up a win for patronage models of politics! This is someone whose entire career is built on raising money for politicians, culminating in heading a powerful PAC that is more explicitly built around money, money, money even in their very naming than any other PAC I've seen. Obviously, anyone paying attention knows that PACs are always about raising money and that's their express purpose, but I don't think I've seen one literally just make their name an acronym for the patronage enthusiasm. Big donors give money to politicians and get what they want and the organizer for acquiring that wealth is awarded with a seat in the Senate. In all, I see three things of note that are often the subtext of various choices and decisions, but I rarely see so blatantly:
The appointment will be explicitly about race and gender. If you're anything other than a Black Woman, you need not apply.
The Democrat party apparatus does not care in the slightest whether this person represents California, states are a stupid anachronism anyway.
The appointment will go to someone that has demonstrated loyalty and usefulness in assisting with the funneling of hundreds of millions of dollars to preferred sources.
On the one hand, it's all rather offensive, but on the other hand, I can think of no better Senator from California than a transient grifter that makes her living off of identity politics.
I think it's more productive to imagine who Gavin Newsom might have appointed, given political constraints and his national ambitions.
They have to be a solid Democrat. This is uninteresting and would apply just as much to a Republican appointing a replacement for a Republican Senator.
They can't be someone with ambitions for the seat. This is a bit less obvious, but choosing a particular candidate for the seat gives them a substantial advantage against rivals for the seat and generates bad blood.
2a) They can't be someone who plausibly would have ambitions for the seat. Once appointed, the Senator can very well say "actually I am going to run," which they will if it's best for their political ambitions. There'd be a bloody primary, but the appointee would know that should they win, everyone will rally around them (exact calculations complicated by California's jungle primary system). Newsom, on the other hand, has to deal with the fallout of causing a nasty, bloody primary.
So Newsom has to choose someone who 1) is a solid Democrat and 2) has absolutely no political base within California for any ambitions. Within those constraints, why not choose the person who earns you the most diversity points? And that's how you land on Butler. The fact that she's an out-of-state apparatchik is a plus in that constraint context, if anything.
My personal preference, for what it's worth, would have been James Sauls, Feinstein's Chief of Staff. Satisfies all the constraints and provides continuity of service in the meantime.
Except that the news story I read about it made a point that she was not barred from running in the proper election. So while I get why Newsom didn't appoint Lee (who seems to be spitting feathers over this), it's because out of the three Representatives going for the seat (Lee, Schiff and Porter) if he picks one, he's going to piss off the other two, and he doesn't need that kind of in-fighting in California. Especially if he has ambitions himself for the presidency in 2028.
Maybe she doesn't have ambitions and/or a local power base, so that's why he didn't put any limits on it, she's not a risk to him while on the other hand elevating a pro-abortion fundraiser will give him that all-important 100% rating from NARAL for the presidential campaigning:
She can run, but she would lose. Even if she somehow miraculously did find a way to run a competitive campaign, the point is that no one in the CDP even slightly believes that Newsom chose her thinking she could win an actual election. It'd be hard for Newsom to choose a less electable candidate intentionally (especially given that, until she establishes residency, she's not even eligible to run). Hence, no bad blood.
As far as her Emily's List work, I agree it's relevant, but with a different mechanism than a quid pro quo; NARAL won't care one way or another about this appointment come next Presidential election cycle. The real reason is that she's deeply ensconced in Democratic machine politics: those are her coworkers, friends, even her partner. Defecting in some unpredictable way would be far too costly to her professional and personal lives, so Newsom believes that she's reliable (and more pertinently, so does everyone else, so on the off chance she does go rogue no one will hold it against him).
I can see why Newsom picked her, she's all upside for him. But I can also see why Barbara Lee is furious about this, because this would be the perfect bedding-in for her in the seat she's wanted for ages, and then she'd have an incumbency advantage going into the primary proper. But if Newsom did that, given that Lee seems to be not guaranteed to win the primary, hence the other two going are strong enough in the party, then he'd piss off two other party members who might cut up rough later (and get their supporters to cut up rough) about playing favourites.
Tricky balancing act: has Lee enough clout to damage him if/when he goes for the nomination in 2028, or will Butler owe him a big enough favour that she can throw the women's and black women's vote behind him?
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