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 -
At least a handful of reps said Jordan could count on their vote only for the first round, so we might see decreasing support. Then again, they're in recess so he can horse trade, cajole, threaten, whatever, so I've got no idea which direction it'll go.
After their internal ballot, 55 people people voted against him in what was supposed to be a secret vote. Freedom Caucus folks then published their numbers and encouraged people to call in and harass them, and most of them fell in line. According to a few sourcs, including Tim Burchett, Jordan allies were even threatening to support primaries against holdouts. So idk what's really at his disposal, but he's certainly not afraid to fight for it.
Once again I'm astounded the Republicans don't do the thing everyone else in the world does where they have an internal party vote and then everyone is bound to vote for the winner on the floor of Congress or they get expelled from the party.
The problem is that, in this scenario as with McCarthy's ouster, the threat would be empty because carrying it out would not actually serve the interests of the people carrying it out. Maybe the threat of doing so would, but it's actual execution wouldn't. Either the 20 Representatives are just expelled from the Republican Conference, in which case they are still Representatives and much less likely to vote Jordan for Speaker, or they are expelled from Congress altogether, in which case Democrats would now have the majority.
Well you obviously have to accept the potential for losing a few members who call your bluff. That happens from time to time, and it theoretically can cost a government its majority. But the alternative is what we're seeing - the potential for half a dozen people in a party room of over 200 to completely derail your agenda and plunge you into a situation where you can't even elect a speaker. That's completely untenable.
Frankly I think the US has only just started to move towards getting serious about playing hardball politics in the last 10 years or so, and that's why they are only just now confronting issues that everyone else experienced and dealt with ages ago. The filibuster is still alive, for goodness sake - something like that doesn't ever survive in a genuinely ruthless political culture.
My impression is that Republicans would rather have the formal majority, and so be "in power", rather than actually be able to enact any particular agenda via legislation. There are lots of things (committees) you can operate even if you can't win a vote on the floor. I think there's also a perception that a substantial part of the Republican base support these holdouts and so there would be electoral backlash of unknown magnitude by expelling them. Maybe you get party discipline but if you lose the majority and potentially future majorities by doing so you definitely won't be enacting your agenda.
They don't have the Senate and they don't have the Presidency, so they can't enact anything via legislation anyway.
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