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 -
The Origins of Woke has not become a best seller. As of this writing, the top non-fiction book on both the Publishers Weekly and NYT best sellers lists is The Democrat Party Hates America by Mark R. Levin. While I haven't read Levin's book, I'm sure it's as disposable as any other political tract by a Fox News host, while The Origins of Woke is legitimately the most important conservative book of the last 20 years.
Argument: It's not selling well because of the Huffington Post article that exposed his old blog posts to the masses. Counterargument: Conservatives are the target market, and they tend not to "cancel" people over things like this.
Argument: It's not selling more copies because the name is cringe. Counterargument: Donald J. Trump Jr's book "Triggered" became a best seller.
Argument: It's not selling more copies because Hanania isn't a celebrity. Counterargument: Andy Ngo doesn't host anything or do many public appearances, but his book was still a best-seller.
I don't care whether Hanania is personally successful, but I really, really want the ideas in this book to gain widespread recognition. Hanania offers provide a plausible-enough plan to defeat not only wokeness, but also all of the ideologies that have gained popularity in the wake of Conservative Inc's failure to stop wokeness, including white nationalism and NRx. Speaking as a former white nationalist (or whatever you wanna call VDare readers), people with moderate temperaments adopt extreme beliefs because the mainstream hasn't offered any believable alternative.
Ben Shapiro says that we should just argue people into adopting our views because it'll suddenly work, even though we've been trying for years and it hasn't worked. Peter Brimelow says we should close the border and have white babies. Curtis Yarvin says that we should put a dictator in charge, or at least whatever FDR was. Caldwell says that we should repeal the Civil Rights Act, even though it's as much a part of our national identity at this point as the Constitution.
Hanania's proposal is essentially a modification of Caldwell's that takes political realities into account. Instead of repealing the Civil Rights Act, we should just re-interpret it in an originalist light and repeal the modifications made in the decades afterwards.
I can't say for certain why this book isn't making bank, but I theorize that it has to do with the fact that no mainstream conservative figure like a Ben Shapiro or a Steven Crowder has reviewed it or interviewed him. They're ignoring him, even though his politics are totally aligned with theirs, because they don't want to platform someone who was once a racist. National Review hasn't even reviewed The Origins of Woke.. and they reviewed Christopher Caldwell's Age of Entitlement!
So, here are three questions I have in no particular order.
Disclaimer, I haven't read Origins of Woke yet, partially because my understanding was that Hanania's solution boiled down to trying to bring white people into the fold of Civil Rights as you described. But one thing I don't get is why Hanania's argument is different from the Ben Shapiro, conservative "let's just change people's minds with arguments." Who exactly is going to buy an Originalist argument for including white people under the umbrella of Civil Rights protection? Almost nobody.
Originalist arguments have some power, the Federalist Society has its influence and many in its sphere are undoubtedly motivated by a commitment to Constitutional Originalism. But that certainly hasn't stopped Wokeness. I find it completely impossible that a so-called originalist interpretation of Civil Rights which calls to provide legal protections for White people, an interpretation which was absolutely not shared by those most influential in its creation, to be convincing to anybody except White Nationalists.
It manages to be not radical enough and too radical at the same time, which is not a compliment. I agree that the Civil Rights Act is "as much a part of our national identity at this point as the Constitution", and let's just say our Constitutional Originalist Libertarian friends have nothing to contribute to dismantling Wokeness, so a fake "Civil Rights Originalist" libertarian sounds even worse.
The difference is that Hanania argues that woke institutions, including corporations, are required to be woke by law, and he points out the specific laws and Supreme Court decisions (which are essentially laws) that need to be attacked. He wants to remove the disparate impact doctrine, for example.
I think even granting that argument, I don't see how advocating for "Civil Rights Originalism" is going to be more impactful than Constitutional Originalism. Constitutional Originalists correctly point out the ever-creeping spread beyond original intent in all areas of federal authority, maybe they can claim some credit for slowing it down or reversing it in some cases. But it didn't stop Wokeness, it didn't even stop Civil Rights itself for that matter. Even a good number of the most diehard originalists will still sacrifice their convictions on the altar of Civil Rights.
Civil Rights is indeed a good lesson in how "politics lie downstream from culture" is not entirely true, and culture often lies downstream from politics. I agree that is a point which needs to be emphasized, but I don't think advocating for watered down Civil Rights is at all a feasible political solution. It is both too radical and not radical enough. I should read his book, maybe I'll change my mind but I doubt it.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link