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 -
Coming to the end of our third week without a Speaker in the United States House of Representatives.
We started the day with something like nine Republican candidates in the running. Eventually this was narrowed down to one by internal Conference voting. Then a sufficient number of Reps said they would refuse to vote for the winner on the floor anyway so now we're back to... internal Conference voting! I seriously do not understand the point of these votes. If Reps won't honor the result in sufficient numbers such that the winner can't actually be elected what purpose is the internal vote serving? I thought it was a meme when I someone on Twitter say (paraphrasing): "There are only two results some GOP Reps accept: We win and try again." Apparently their may be some kind of discussion about a joint Speakership between McCarthy and Jordan? I'm pretty sure Speaker of the House is a constitutional position, it has to be one of them. Would each candidates opponents really trust whoever was actually the Speaker? I can feel Hakeem Jeffries odds rising in real time.
We're about 3 weeks out from the end of the current CR on 11/17. There's some dark comedy in Kevin McCarthy losing his Speakership to avoid a government shutdown and then we have a government shutdown anyway. At least it'll be after Virginia elections so maybe Republicans can do well there!
Can any republican supporters here or people who feel they can speak for republican supporters post their reactions to/opinions of this saga?
From the perspective of a moderate dem, basically pro-Biden guy, this really cements my view that the new crop of republicans are embarrassingly unserious clowns with no skill or interest in governing, and the people who elect them are just burn-it-to-the-ground sour grapes losers.
I know the “Russian interference” or “Chinese interference” is a dumb conspiracy theory but if I were a KGB guy this is exactly the kind of outcome I’d be aiming for.
Does anybody actually like what’s going on?
Yeah. The government establishment mainly does things I don't like, half or more of Congressional Republicans don't want to stop it, and I hope none of them can have their way. The current crop of Republicans are unserious? For the last 30 years serious Republicans have sold the base out on immigration while they debate which new countries to bomb. They've always been clowns. It's just now that the base has started to fight back that they're mad about it.
The smart move would have been to elect Jim Jordan, because it would please the base, and then MAGA would be left holding the bag when Republicans inevitably screw it up. ("We told you so!") But centrist establishment Reps couldn't stomach this and voted against Jordan, because they're all petty small-minds. (Aside: Democrats are largely also petty small-minds.) It's like when McCain stabbed Trump over healthcare, or when NeverTrump tried to throw the election, or when Romney and Cheney voted to indict. Did they think the base would never hit back?
The likeliest outcome here is this drags on until a Government shutdown is back on the table, at which point the "adults in the room" solemnly gather together so they can elect some milquetoast as Speaker and go back to funding wars. I'm not expecting anything particular or good out of this fight. But I'm happy they're fighting, and I imagine that some day soon the stakes will be higher and the odds will be better. One day soon it won't just be business as usual!
I don't really think that's a fair characterization. You mentioned for example distracting the base with empty immigration promises. But wait. Who killed the 2013 Gang of Eight immigration reform bill that passed the Senate and died in the House on Boehner's watch? A serious bipartisan effort that passed 68-32? A real, not-vaporware bill that both gave a path to citizenship alongside border security improvements and expanded employer verification? Yes, short sighted right wing House members under Boehner's weak speakership. Sound familiar? Meanwhile, I don't see a strong correlation between centrists and war hawks. Some prominent Iran hawks for example include a wide range of Democrats and Republicans both and of various polarities. You have Ted Cruz and Lindsey Graham and Tom Cotton and McCain historically on the GOP side, to name a few. Hardly close allies.
The current feelings are largely, I think, largely a reaction to the Republican Congress largely sitting on its hands out of spite during the early Trump administration. The refusal to fund the border wall was especially egregious, in my opinion. This lack of accomplishment with a unified government firmly convinced a lot of people that the Congressional Republicans did not really support the things they claimed to.
More options
Context Copy link
Blech 🤮
This is exactly what I don't want: Republicans who work with Democrats on sweetheart deals that include "path to amnesty" (now) and "border security improvement" (later!). But maybe you aren't familiar with the history of Congress's empty promises to fix the issue.
None of these guys are actually conservatives aligned with the base, they just play one on TV. Lindsey Graham and Tom Cotton especially are the worst fakers. Ted Cruz is nominally more conservative, because he's so unlikeable that this is his only play. But otherwise all of these guys are the exact type I described: they will sell the base out on issues we care about so they can get another crack at bombing Iran, which is the serious, bipartisan compromise.
I don't want serious bipartisan deals. I want the right-wing Obamacare, where the whole party gives me what I voted for even if it's controversial. I want the right-wing Nancy Pelosi, who will hold half of Congress against a hostile President and Senate and not blink, and nobody goes on TV and says Pelosi is being irresponsible and needs to be adult in the room and give up every point. I don't want Repubublicans that appear serious to you, a centrist Moderate Biden-voting Dem -- not because I'm mad at you personally or acting out of angry animus, but because I'm tired of electing Republicans who appear more reasonable to the other guy than to me.
And that's why the Republicans can't win. If they set out a hard line against the Democrats, the TV will say they are irresponsible and intransigent. If the Democrats set out a hard line against the Republicans, the TV will say the Republicans are irresponsible and intransigent.
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