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 -
It's really weird to me how many people (including Trump himself) can apparently only see these cases through the lens of their political implications.
The plan isn't to smear or discredit Trump and therefore make him unpopular. It's to lock him up for the rest of his life.
Why should the political implications not predominate in the mind of anyone but Trump himself?
More options
Context Copy link
He’s never getting locked up for the rest of his life. The state cases he can avoid by staying in a red state, and the federal cases he will - at worst - be pardoned by the next GOP president.
Trump's 77; life expectancy for 77-year-olds in the US is 9.3 years. "The rest of his life" is not likely to be that long.
More options
Context Copy link
I don't think that works.
At least since 1987, interstate extradition is not optional, and governors must cooperate with an extradition request so long as the paperwork is correct. And even were a red state governor willing to flip the bird to SCOTUS (or order his entire executive branch to pretend they can't find him under a lamppost), and willing to get jailed for contempt themselves when they receive an order from a court, the federal government has a pretty big branch capable of serving arrests and then finding out whether the arrests were 'right' or not later.
((I'm... also skeptical that a Republican President other than Trump pardons Trump.))
A red state will keep him and have him guarded by the state guard or state cops, and the US Marshalls aren’t going to start a civil war. That in turn will lead to a further standoff and years of legal issues.
Trivially, you need state guard or state cops willing to deal with Trump in person, and Trump not doing something stupid, and nothing Weird happening with the Secret Service.
More seriously, that's the sort of behavior that gets federal jurisdiction in the courts and a very quick contempt of court orders for the gov in question. If the US Marshalls don't want to do it, the courts have fun tools that don't involve them. (Fines per day?)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Are those not the same things? If Trump was some other dude most of these charges would never be filed. Atleast half the charges are novel legal theories. The only case that doesn’t seem to be a novel legal theory would be the documents at Mar-a-Lago.
I agree with you the goal is to lock him up for the rest of his life because then he can never run for POTUS again.
It's pretty novel too -- previous presidents have all had large collections of classified materials that they were allowed to go through (in their own good time!) prior to submitting to the archives. I think most previous presidents retained their clearance and were allowed access to current classified materials, actually?
More options
Context Copy link
Why not? Unlike Debbs, Trump might actually pull it off, which would be a lot more damaging to the regime then giving him a second term.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
In this case, the political implications really do override, because it's a federal proceeding and therefore if he wins the election from jail he just pardons himself to get out.
I still think the funnier outcome is SCOTUS tells him he can't pardon himself and he has to rule from jail or give even more weirdly convoluted orders to the feds to get out.
Better would just put him in solitary and refuse to administer the oath of office, then per Article II he can't exercise any presidential powers.
Are you serious?
Remember that he won an election in this case given that we're talking about pardons. "Hey I know you won the election, but the losing side decided to put your president under arrest so you actually lose the election anyway." is not a message that would go over well with the general populace.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
That's true of the federal cases, but he can't pull that trick with the Georgia RICO case.
Hence FirmWeird's "this prosecution" and my "this case".
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
See, the problem is that doing this will actually make Trump's cause stronger, and while they would like it if he was locked up for the rest of his life... that's not something they're going to be able to do before the election without severe and serious consequences. I agree that they aren't doing this to discredit him and make him unpopular, but I never actually made that claim. The claim that I made was that the goal is to hamper his ability to campaign - and that's actually a very reasonable assumption, especially when you know the broader history of the efforts from within the government to defeat him.
The documents case and the Georgia case will take longer because they're more complex, but it seems pretty clear the federal Jan 6 trial will happen in March. It'll take a while, and sentencing will take a while after that, but he's most likely going to be in prison during the conventions. Consequences be damned.
Perhaps he could use the time to write another memoir, this time about his political struggles rather than his business career.
The Art of the Steal, perhaps?
More options
Context Copy link
I must say that's pretty funny.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
That would be extremely good for Trump's chances at re-election, but I don't actually hope for this outcome because I think the destruction of norms governing the prosecution of opposition candidates is far worse.
Not necessarily. It would be extremely good for Trump's popular support, but a conviction here would be used to buttress the efforts to take him off the ballot under Amendment XIV. Doesn't matter how many people support him if he can't be voted for.
Of course, that doesn't make it a good idea; the real result of taking Trump-as-Republican-nominee off the ballot isn't "Democrats win by default", but rather "civil war".
Honestly, I only see three ways out of this without Boogaloo: the Democrats can realise this is literal suicide and relent, the Republicans can nominate someone not Donald Trump Sr., or Trump is not able to run for reasons other than "banned" (e.g. being dead).
No, the Republicans will cave except a few hotheads, who will be shot to the approval of those who caved.
More options
Context Copy link
I don't understand why the "boogaloo" option is being seen as suicide for Democrats. Rebellions frequently end extremely badly for the rebels.
Actual civil war in America would be suicide for the Democrats and Republicans both. The winners of Civil War 2 would be China and Russia, with Hamas getting a consolation prize as the flow of US aid to Israel gets turned off. The losers would be everyone who has to live in the country, as every pre-existing division in society gets thrown into stark relief by the breakdown of the infrastructure which supplies power, internet communication, water, oil and food. There's no real way to defend those in the US in the context of a civil war, and the nature of the conflict as rural food producing regions fighting against import-reliant cities portends an incredibly nasty fight for everyone involved.
Basically this.
To answer @AshLael's question, the problem for the Democrats/Professional Managerial Class is that "the rebels" are likely be in physical control of a lot of critical resources and infrastructure.
There's also the part where Reds and Blues value different elements of society in different amounts, and speaking very generally, a lot of the delicate, high-complexity parts are valued much more by blues than reds, while the more durable, lower-complexity elements are valued more by reds than by blues. If this is the case, then significant disruption of our current delicate, high-complexity society would tend to advantage Reds over Blues, all else being equal.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
My guess is it would end extremely badly for everyone. The things that make me call it suicide for Dems in at least a substantial chunk of possible worlds are the potential for the armed forces and police to split, the food issue with the countryside being Republican, and the "PRC opportunistically invades Taiwan" issue which quite likely means nuclear exchange.
More options
Context Copy link
'Winning' a rebellion can be as suicidal, especially for the leadership. In the last decade we've seen rando schizophrenics hit both sides of the aisle at the Congressional level and only by grace of God and emergency medicine did they fail to kill. Garland has a home address, and he's given tacit 'moral' sanction for protests of homes, and the only reason that's not a day-by-day thing is that the sort of Red Triber who recognize his name knows the rule doesn't generalize.
Like, that's supposed to be one of the motivations for the gag order here.
((In practice, I think this is insufficiently cynical; if you start getting non-LARP non-schizo people devoted to hating you with every fibre of their being, there's a lot worse options that just being dead yourself.))
More options
Context Copy link
The assumption is that most of the army and the cops are red. I personally believe they'll still mostly be on the establishment's side. You don't become a soldier to be a rebel.
The history of civil wars and military coups tells us that in conditions of political turmoil, military loyalty lies not in declared offices but in personal friendships and commands. Administrative leadership fades away in the confusion and what ends up mattering to who controls divisions is who actually leads the men.
This is why dictators so often bear the rank of colonel. The best position to hold if you want to take power by force is that of a relatively young, charismatic leader who has seen combat and is trusted by his troops. The man Burke calls "a charismatic lieutenant" in Reflections on the Revolution in France before his name came to be that of General Bonaparte.
In the context in question, the higher strata of officers are blue and the lower strata down to the troops are red. Which makes it difficult to see who would remain loyal to whom, especially without a particular circumstance. If the Joint Chiefs of Staff start ordering civilians rounded up and executed it's not the same as if they order a crackdown on a terrorist group, and yet in the conditions of confusion and disorder that usually lead to civil wars, the difference between these becomes extremely subjective.
But though as you say one shouldn't underestimate the loyalty that's been trained into these men (and the amazing inertia of power), one also shouldn't forget the special luster glory has to young military men. Many a rebel were soldiers.
To be honest, given the availability of weapons, military experience and defensible terrain, I predict a second american civil war would be an incomprehensible mess of warlords where distinctions like "democrat" and "republican" would soon become meaningless. That is how modern civil wars have looked like since the 50s, after all.
The conversation in JTarrou's infantry threads around the fact the in the modern military even very low-level officers rarely see combat seems relevant too -- I get the impression that the point of the spear sees the officer class in general as more something to be worked around than a group of people to whom they would feel personal loyalty.
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
The norms have already been broken. The best outcome for norms is for the prosecution to be successful but Trump to win in a landslide and be gracious in his victory. Presumably no one would try and pull this shit again after the electorate rejects it.
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