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 -
In the wake of the House of Representatives passing a Continuing Resolution maintaining current funding levels a group of Republicans, led by Matt Gaetz (R-FL), have filed a motion to vacate against Kevin McCarthy (R-CA). This is a motion that, if passed, would remove McCarthy as Chair of the House of Representatives after only nine months on the job. The reporting I'm seeing on Twitter says Democrats are united in supporting the motion, which means only three Republicans would need to join Gaetz for the motion to pass. I believe this would also be the first time in US history the House will have removed a Speaker with a motion to vacate.
What happens after that is anyone's guess. In a literal sense we move back to where we were this January and do another election for Speaker. Presumably Democrats are going to nominate and vote for Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) as they did then. It's not clear who on the Republican side would be a replacement for McCarthy. He still enjoys the support of a strong majority of Republicans, but the Republican majority is so small he needs basically everyone. His getting elected Speaker again would almost certainly need someone who voted to vacate to vote for him to Speaker. I'm skeptical there are promises McCarthy could make to the Republicans voting to oust him that could convince them to support him again. On the other hand I'm not aware of any consensus about who Republicans could be convinced to support except McCarthy. By far the funniest outcome, I think, would be the Republicans who voted to oust McCarthy abstaining in the Speaker vote, letting the Democrats elect Jeffries Speaker.
Vote on the motion is supposed to be held this morning though the House is currently debating other bills. You can watch the House Session on C-SPAN. Will update this post as the news develops.
ETA:
By a vote of 216-210-0 Kevin McCarthy becomes the first Speaker of the United States House of Representatives removed by a motion to vacate.
Vote breakdown by party (based on the vote on the motion to table, C-SPAN roll call doesn't break down by party):
As expected McCarthy retains the support of the vast majority of his own Conference. I think the rule is the House can't do business without a Speaker so I imagine we go directly into elections for Speaker of the House now. Given the multiple days it took to elect McCarthy before I am not confident about any particular path forward from here.
ETA2:
Am hearing online that the Speaker pro tempore (selected by McCarthy when he became Speaker) may be able to function as Speaker indefinitely. They may not have to have an election for Speaker on any particular time table.
Wait, so how’d McCarthy manage to cock up the support of his own team?
I wasn’t really clear on why choosing a speaker was so hard in the first place, to be honest.
Because the Republican majority is thin, and contains both people who are almost Democrats, full on Tea Partiers, and Full on MAGAs. Given his tiny majority and discordant caucus McCarthy has been possibly the most effective speaker of the last 25 years, adjusting for degree of difficulty. This is Gaetz taking home the ball because he only won 11-10 instead of 11-0 and saying he was fouled every play.
I'm struggling to find a single person who was less effective than McCarthy. The people above created and continued the dictator speaker era. In order to win the speakership, McCarthy conceded the speaker dictator era (perhaps ending it going forward) by making promises he didn't intend on keeping, strung his caucus along for 7 months as he avoided keeping those promises, and then lost his speakership the first time he tried to use his power to lean on his caucus.
I'm struggling to figure out how anyone has a positive view of Kevin McCarthy other than as the Ticketmaster of politics whereby your forgettable GOP congressmen can have McCarthy take the heat for unpopular programs instead of forcing an indiv vote which could be embarrassing for them, e.g., on Ukraine war funding.
McCarthy and the rest of GOP leadership made a clear decision during the last election cycle that they wanted a slight majority or minority which they could control which included them specifically and purposefully gimping their own party candidates across the country. GOP leadership got what they want except ~10-20 GOP Congressmen who made it through the gimp process weren't willing to go along with it. Giving McCarthy a pass for a situation he helped create is silly and even if he didn't help create it, he was a laughably ineffective speaker who lasted 7 months and lost as soon as he leaned on his speakership to bludgeon the people he lied to to support him.
His last dumb political move was thinking Democrats were going to save him because he kowtowed to their spending wants to avoid shutdown, hitting the cooperate button as Democrats continue to slam defect, which is a fitting microcosm of his entire political career.
McCarthy did not ask Democrats to save him and was aware in advance they almost certainly would not. McCarthy wanted to avoid a shutdown so he worked with Democrats to do that. McCarthy's issues are representative of the split within the GOP and nothing to do with Democrats hitting defect.
Whether you count the Freedom Caucus as hitting defect against the GOP by forcing outsized limitations (based upon how many of them there are) upon McCarthy to get him chosen, or McCarthy hitting defect against them because he did not go along with the agreements he made, none of it has anything to do with Democrats.
rumor was this was a floated possibility and discussion by McCarthy and Dem leadership in negotiation for the CR; you don't have privy information to closed-door negotiations and I'm relying on rumor, but you don't actually know what you're asserting
and even if that didn't happen; so your claim is that McCarthy and Democrats hitting cooperate button has something to do with Democrats, but then the foreseeable and threatened next vote on the floor to vacate McCarthy which Democrats refused to do anything about despite it being caused exactly by the previous vote to cooperate has nothing to do with Democrats because the vacate vote is caused by McCarthy's failure to keep his promises to his caucus? in a legislature with two major factions?
okay, well, we'll just have to disagree about that
You misunderstand. The Democrat's propping up McCarthy would have doomed him. He knew that, he said he would win with support from his own side or not at all. Having to be propped up by your opposition is political suicide when your whole job is wrangling your party. You don't get into his position without being a decent politician and this is basic politics. I think he probably could have bargained with Democrat's to not vote for vacating in exchange for the CR bill. But his public comments thereafter indicated that he did not, and that he understood why that would have been a bad idea. Some quotes from McCarthy
“They haven’t asked for anything. I’m not going to provide anything,”
“Hakeem Jeffries and I have a good relationship,” McCarthy said. “That doesn’t mean they’re going to vote for me. I understand where the Democrats are. I’m not asking for any special deal or anything else.”
and from Gaetz which illustrates why getting support from Democrats would have doomed McCarthy either way:
“I have enough Republicans where at this point next week, one of two things will happen. Kevin McCarthy won’t be the speaker of the House, or he’ll be the speaker of the House working at the pleasure of the Democrats. And I’m at peace with either result, because the American people deserve to know who governs them,” he told CNN’s Manu Raju.
I am going off what was said, plus what an understanding of politics tells me was his best option, and both of those align. If you want to put rumor over that, you certainly can.
So like passing Ukraine funding bill and the CR? edit:
Both of whichthe first did not have majority of the majority support and McCarthy relied on Democrat support to get both things passed. And you're right, it did doom him. This is him hitting "cooperate" button which lead to the vacate vote and Democrats not cooperating.You misunderstand me. I do not think McCarthy is bad at politics; I think McCarthy is very good at politics. I think he would have been a more effective speaker than any GOP Speaker since Gingrich if only his dumb behavior and speakership designs didn't lead him to push campaigns and money in ways which lead to a tiny majority in the House. McCarthy is an incredibly effective fundraiser and he used that skill to shape the caucus in a way to get him speakership. Unfortunately for him and the NRRC, their games they played to gimp candidates they didn't like in winnable races while pushing stooges in races which were a stretch like Maine 1, not to mention patently idiotic behavior by the GOP in the months leading up to the 2022 election caused by the Democrat unpopularity, drove down their own voter motivation so they only barely won a slight majority despite having better metrics to do far better than that than any environment in a decade.
I'll be honest. I do not believe a single thing which comes out of McCarthy's mouth because he has a long history of these sorts of comments about backdoor negotiations which were lies.
well, you have a quote from McCarthy which you accept as true (I don't) and one from Matt Gaetz which could support both of our opinions
so yeah, I'll take my rumor over what comes out of McCarthy's mouth about backdoor dealings
The issue is the rumor would require McCarthy to be a bad politician. Believe me, there is no-one who trusts politicians words less than me (I've worked with a lot of them,). But the good ones don't lie without cause. Here his words support what his best course of action was, so probably he wasn't lying, if we think he was a good politician. Indeed I think he is a good enough politician that he could have got concessions from the Democrats had he wanted, which is another piece of evidence (but not proof) that he was probably pursuing his best and only real option.
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
More options
Context Copy link