site banner
PaperclipPerfector  5mo ago (text post)   29125 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of December 18, 2023

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.

6
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The Colorado Supreme Court holds:

A majority of the court holds that President Trump is disqualified from holding the office of President under Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Because he is disqualified, it would be a wrongful act under the Election Code for the Colorado Secretary of State to list him as a candidate on the presidential primary ballot. The court stays its ruling until January 4, 2024, subject to any further appellate proceedings.

[recent related discussion, slightly older]

The Colorado Presidential Primary is scheduled for March 5th, for both parties. As the decision notes, January 4, 2024 is "the day before the Secretary’s deadline to certify the content of the presidential primary ballot)"; while the matter is open to further stay should federal courts intervene, such an intervention would itself determine at least the state presidential primary.

How are the procedural protections? From the dissent:

As President Trump, argues and the Electors do not contest, section 1-1-113’s procedures do not provide common tools for complex fact-finding: preliminary evidentiary or pre-trial motions hearings, subpoena powers, basic discovery, depositions, and time for disclosure of witnesses and exhibits. This same concern was raised in Frazier; the then-Secretary argued that “it is impossible to fully litigate a complex constitutional issue within days or weeks, as is typical of a section 1-1-113 proceeding.”...

Despite clear requirements, the district court did not follow section 1-4-1204’s statutory timeline for section 1-1-113 claims. The proceeding below involved two delays that, respectively, violated (1) the requirement that the merits hearing be held within five days of the challenge being lodged, and (2) the requirement that the district court issue its order within forty-eight hours of the merits hearing.

And the other dissent:

Thus, based on its interpretation of Section Three, our court sanctions these makeshift proceedings employed by the district court below—which lacked basic discovery, the ability to subpoena documents and compel witnesses, workable timeframes to adequately investigate and develop defenses, and the opportunity for a fair trial—to adjudicate a federal constitutional claim (a complicated one at that) masquerading as a run-of-the-mill state Election Code claim...

and

Even with the unauthorized statutory alterations made by the district court, the aggressive deadlines and procedures used nevertheless stripped the proceedings of many basic protections that normally accompany a civil trial, never mind a criminal trial. There was no basic discovery, no ability to subpoena documents and compel witnesses, no workable timeframes to adequately investigate and develop defenses, and no final resolution of many legal issues affecting the court’s power to decide the Electors’ claim before the hearing on the merits.

There was no fair trial either: President Trump was not offered the opportunity to request a jury of his peers; experts opined about some of the facts surrounding the January 6 incident and theorized about the law, including as it relates to the interpretation and application of the Fourteenth Amendment generally and Section Three specifically; and the court received and considered a partial congressional report, the admissibility of which is not beyond reproach.

Did the Colorado Supreme Court provide a more serious and deep analysis of the First Amendment jurisprudence, at least?

The district court also credited the testimony of Professor Peter Simi, a professor of sociology at Chapman University, whom it had “qualified . . . as an expert in political extremism, including how extremists communicate, and how the events leading up to and including the January 6 attack relate to longstanding patterns of behavior and communication by political extremists.”

He testified, according to the court’s summary, that (1) “violent far-right extremists understood that [President] Trump’s calls to ‘fight,’ which most politicians would mean only symbolically, were, when spoken by [President] Trump, literal calls to violence by these groups, while [President] Trump’s statements negating that sentiment were insincere and existed to obfuscate and create plausible deniability,”

There are interpretations here other than that of the Russell Conjugation: that stochastic terrorism is limited to this tiny portion of space, or perhaps that shucks there just hasn't ever been some opportunity to worry about it ever before and they're tots going to consistently apply this across the political spectrum in the future. They are not particularly persuasive to me, from this expert.

Perhaps more damning, this is what the majority found a useful one to highlight : a sociology professor who has been playing this tune since 2017.

If you put a gun to my head, I'd bet that this is overturned, or stayed until moot. But that's not a metaphor I pick from dissimilarity.

This whole quagmire could be avoided if republicans simply let go of Trump and supported someone not so old and so indicted, but they love marching into a trap.

  • -23

I have a lot of doubt about Trump's ability to win in 2024, but I can't think of any better option for Republicans to run. Who do you think the Republicans have who would have a better chance of winning the general election than Trump does? Haley slightly outperforms him against Biden in swing states according to a recent poll, but for me that's an "I'll believe it when I see it" kind of thing because to me Haley seems pretty devoid of charisma* and every single President since maybe George H.W. Bush has had at least some level of charisma, whether it's the Clinton and Obama "cool young guy" thing, the George W. Bush "down-home guy you can imagine having a beer with" thing, the Trump "funny macho troll" thing, or the Biden "cantankerous old guy who's willing to talk a bit of shit" thing.

But maybe I'm overrating charisma, or underrating how much of it the non-Trump Republican candidates have.

*Which is not entirely her fault, I think. It's just that to the viewer's ape brain, her combativeness works less well because she is a woman than it would if she were a man.

I have a lot of doubt about Trump's ability to win in 2024, but I can't think of any better option for Republicans to run.

I can't either, but that is itself an indictment of Trump, Trump-Ism, and the Trump-Ist Republican Party. It's been eight years since Trump started his takeover, and there is no credible successor to his role. There is no political, or even peripheral non-political, figure who is sufficiently loved and respected by the majority of MAGA Republicans to rally behind. Without Donald Trump, the whole idea collapses. Donald hasn't selected and groomed a successor, the party hasn't hyped up anyone who matters half enough to pull it off, his followers haven't congregated and selected someone. Desantis isn't Trump, Haley isn't Trump, Cotton isn't Trump. Essentially everyone else has taken sides against Trump at some point. The best pick might be one of his kids, but I'm not sure any of them have the gravitas to pull it off, and Don hasn't done nearly enough to build them up on their own.

It seems like "picking a successor" is very low-hanging fruit that isn't very often picked in US politics. Or am I missing some good examples? Is there an argument that Reagan did that successfully with H.W., and then H.W. did that successfully with George W., as part of an intentional plan, or is that typically taken to be happenstance and situational maneuvering?

It seems like planning your successor, if you are a popular president, is a really easy and obvious thing to do. But I guess the issue is getting everyone else on board with that. There's a lot more demand for the Office of the Presidency than there is supply...

Who do you think the Republicans have who would have a better chance of winning the general election than Trump does?

I think the answer to that question is basically 'Anyone else on the stage at the Republican debates'.

It's not as if voters need to like a candidate in order to vote for them, polarization is too high for that to matter. Either side could run a sack of potatoes with an 'R' or a 'D' sewn onto it and get 45% of the vote (and this isn't even irrational, which party's priorities the candidate will be a conduit for has a much greater impact than variance in individual competence/character).

The problem with Trump is the same as the problem with Clinton - the other side hates and fears him so much that running him drives up turnout on the other side. Anyone who doesn't do that will likely have a better electoral outcome.

Democrats did that with Fetterman. Maybe he really did have stroke issues but now that he’s woken up I don’t mind him as a politician as he’s pissing off progs on multiple issues including Israel. He’s basically declared himself as not having the woke mind virus.

Hates Ticktock and thinks it’s ruining the young (sounds kind of maga). https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/fetterman-argues-tiktok-is-warping-young-peoples-views-on-israel-hamas-started-this/vi-AA1lNkWO

I don’t have a problem selling US Steel to Japs but also Maga protectionism. 98% of merger arbs go thru (witness X) if it dips on these concerns there is likely a trade.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/dec/19/john-fetterman-vote-block-us-steel-sale

Anti-immigration

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/is-john-fetterman-changing-or-were-progressives-mistaken-about-him-yes/ar-AA1lLlBd

Some of these might be things Sanders would support but not woke.

I think the answer to that question is basically 'Anyone else on the stage at the Republican debates'.

Spoken like a man who wants a democrat in the White House in 2025. Nobody else can get elected because everyone else sucks. Haley is a neocon pipe dream. DeSantis blew his load too early. These people can't overcome the demographic advantages of Democrats after decades of unrestricted importation of democrat voters.

Donald is the only proven loser amongst them in a presidential election, though. It’s not that criticism of them isn’t valid, it’s that much of it applies to Trump (who will preserve most ‘neocon’ foreign policy to the extent that it exists) and again, Trump isn’t a guaranteed winner either.

Trump is harder on China, on immigration, on NATO, than any neocon I've ever heard of, or any other politician in my lifetime. You can't make me believe that there's anyone else like him, it that he'd like anyone else, and you certainly can't make me believe that any of the more palatable Republicans can match his willingness to defy the uniparty.

At least, not until I see it for myself from someone else.

A quick glance at Commentary doesn’t suggest that Trump is tougher on China than the neocons. Of the major neoconservatives most other than Max Boot (who completely renounced neoconservatism years ago, hates Bibi, considers the Iraq/Afghanistan wars major mistakes now etc) are harshly anti-China. Commentary is literally publishing articles claiming the Chinese government is training the Iranian revolutionary guard, for a neocon that’s tantamount to calling for a declaration of war lmao. Kristol is tough on China on Twitter. Podhoretz was highly critical of Blinken’s ‘outreach’ efforts to China over the summer, aligning with Trump.

Podhoretz

None of those people have even tried to get elected once. Not even as dog catcher. Trump ran for president in 2000, at least, and intended to get elected.

They are not politicians, they are pundits, and I don't care to compare politicians to pundits.

Talk is cheap. They can say all these things, but will oppose any concrete actions against China.

... why can Trump overcome that supposed demographic advantage, again?

Because he motivated nonvoters in ways unseen in decades.

The problem with Trump is the same as the problem with Clinton - the other side hates and fears him so much that running him drives up turnout on the other side. Anyone who doesn't do that will likely have a better electoral outcome.

I believe this is now fully baked in for all Republican candidates. Haley gets GoodGuy points at the moment because she's a loser that has zero chance of beating Trump. If she were nominated, she would immediately be a Nazi, dangerous to our sacred trans children and innocent asylum seekers. Normal, completely ordinary policies from a decade ago are now treated as signs of literal fascism. We're going to need a long period of de-escalation before a Republican winning the Presidency isn't treated like a reason for riots.

I mean yeah the rhetoric is always going to be that whoever is on the other side of the ballot is pure evil, that's just campaigning.

But what matters is how much the voters viscerally feel that rhetoric to be true, and how motivated they are by it. I absolutely do not believe that Democratic voters would be equally motivated to hate and turn out against any other candidate the way they are for Trump, there's a long shared trauma around the Trump name at this point that other candidates lack.

I sort of feel like maybe there's a blind spot here among the anti-democrat crowd, where they believe (or need to believe) that Trump is pretty normal and unremarkable and everything the other side tries to throw at him are lies and exaggerations. And that's a perfectly reasonable position to take, but I think it can blind people to teh fact that the other side does not feel this way, and actually believes and feels the things they are saying about how much of a unique and horrible threat he is.

If you believed that your opponents believed that Trump was perfectly normal and unobjectionable, then the only conclusion you could reach is that the other side is happy to lie outlandishly and histrionically about whoever is heading the GOP in order to get power, and the entire act in insincere from the highest halls of power to the lowest level voter. And it feels like some people are coming to that conclusion, implicitly or explicitly.

But as usual for cases like this, what's actually going on is that the other side doesn't believe what you believe, and is actually acting pretty normally in ways that you would recognize and probably do yourself, if you did believe what they believed.

Disagreements about matters of fact are a far more common and parsimonious explanation than one half of the country suddenly diverging from human nature to become elaborate liars larping every moment of their political engagement for a decade.

the only conclusion you could reach is that the other side is happy to lie outlandishly and histrionically about whoever is heading the GOP in order to get power

I remember that Mitt Romney was going to bring back slavery, tortured his dog, and never paid his taxes.
I remember when MAGA chuds tried to lynch a Black actor in Chicago and people who expressed doubts about it were outlandishly and histrionically accused of being pro-lynching. Then the accuser laughed it off because he never believed in the first place, it was just effective "rhetoric" for someone who treats every conversation as a struggle session, and every conversation partner as a victim to be insincerely manipulated.

And that's a perfectly reasonable position to take, but I think it can blind people to teh fact that the other side does not feel this way, and actually believes and feels the things they are saying about how much of a unique and horrible threat he is.

People are perfectly able to convince themselves of ideas by motivated reasoning when the idea is convenient for them to believe. "Lying" is probably the closest word we have to this. Or maybe "motivated reckless reasoning" or some such.

Okay, so they aren't mostly liars. The ones in the media actually are, but the typical sort-of-engaged voter is not.

But, this means they are something more insidious than a liar. They are people who easily let themselves be convinced that [current republican candidate] is an existential threat to democracy, a dogwhistling cryptofascist, etc, etc. They may not be lying, but they so thoroughly selectively lack skepticism that they let bad news headlines convince them that Mike Pence electro-shocks gay children.

Yes, you and them disagree about matters of fact, and at least one of you is wrong.

I myself am not an optimist, I suspect that they are wrong, you are wrong, and I am wrong about most of our beliefs on all of these topics. We simply don't have the level of truth-preserving information channels it would take to expect to consistently do better than that as a society.

I absolutely do not believe that Democratic voters would be equally motivated to hate and turn out against any other candidate the way they are for Trump

Sure, but Republican voters are also probably not going to be equally motivated to turn out for any other candidate the way they are for Trump.

The thing is that bonus Trump voters in guaranteed red states aren’t worth anything, while less Biden voters in purple states are.

Boosting voter turnout in Wyoming or Arkansas is worthless for the GOP.

Perhaps.

My impression is that Republicans are motivated by a sense of crisis around a pervasive culture war that seeps into every nook and cranny of life and lies behind every public and private institution. The election was stolen by a hundred different election officials and a thousand collaborators covering for them, teachers are transing your kids and teaching them to be Marxists, immigrants are pouring over the boarder and taking your government services, etc. A diffuse, broad crisis that requires decisive and far-reaching leadership to combat.

Whereas I think Democrats have very much focused their own sense of crisis around Trump specifically, claiming that he personally is a threat to democracy and decency and needs to be defeated at all costs.

My impression is that removing Trump from the equation dissipates the sense of crisis and urgency felt by the Democrats, but not that felt by the Republicans.

Republicans may not love the new nominee, but they'll be driven to vote for him out of the fear of the ongoing existential crisis anyway, in the same way that Democrats are historically unenthusiastic about Biden but are turning out anyway to vote against Trump.

I could of course be wrong, but that's my sense of the field.

Of course, all Republicans are "fascists", but do you truly not see a difference in the tenor and hyperbole over Trump?

I do think a different candidate would be much harder for the Democrats to attack in this way. Trump makes it easy because he is an obviously narcissistic prick.

Of course, all Republicans are "fascists", but do you truly not see a difference in the tenor and hyperbole over Trump?

Not really, no, just the effects of increased polarization driven by other factors, mainly social media. I absolutely think the polarization would be no less with any other Republican.

I think replacing Trump with DeSantis would immediately result in the rhetoric being that it's even scarier, that it's Trump-but-competent, that Project 2025 is still a danger to Our Democracy, and so on. Maybe they couldn't whip up the populace quite the same, I don't know, but the attempt would exist and I would still expect riots if any Republican wins in 2024.

Yeah, the attacks on DeSantis in 2020–2021 made me realize that whoever the Republicans nominated, they'd be attacked mercilessly by the media.

It's somewhat sad that people seem to have forgotten the pandemic so quickly. I view DeSantis as a hero for what he did in Florida.

It truly is amazing the collective amnesia

Exactly correct - the rhetoric will be like that no matter who is on the ballot, that's what campaigning is like these days, but it won't actually energize Dems to get out the vote if it's not aimed at Trump, meaning it's an advantage to Reps.

*Which is not entirely her fault, I think. It's just that to the viewer's ape brain, her combativeness works less well because she is a woman than it would if she were a man.

I remember when some people ran with this idea, trained actors to perform a gender swapped Hillary Trump debate, and it did not turn out the way they had assumed it would.

Haley seems like a mirage. There hasn’t been constant attacks against her and her record isn’t great. Vivek is right that she is corrupt.

She is a trap.

Trump goes down in the polls if he's found guilty, which he very well may be. Nimrata Haley is complete trash (pro war and anti anonymity), DeSantis is the obvious right choice.

DeSantis is the obvious right choice.

If I had pearls, I'd be clutching them right now 😁

Vote for DeathSantis? The monster responsible for turning Florida into such a fascist state, representative organisations issued travel advisory warnings to LGBT+ and BIPOC people about visiting there?

Why, even I - white-skinned as I am - might be in peril because I speak with an accent!

Travel to all areas of Florida should be done with extreme caution as it can be particularly unsafe for people of color, LGBTQIA+ communities and individuals who speak with an accent, and international travelers. Due to unconstitutional legislation signed by Governor Ron DeSantis and supported by Legislative Leadership, every county in Florida poses a heightened risk of harassment, possible detainment, and potential family separation based on racial profiling.

In Florida, routine daily activities for those who cannot immediately prove United States Citizenship and lawful residency at all times may result in devastating consequences. These consequences include arrest for operating a vehicle, no matter the state you are from, reduced access to healthcare services, and compromised safety. Exercise extra caution if you are over 6 weeks pregnant due to restrictions on reproductive health services*.

It is recommended to consult with a licensed attorney if you fall into any of the above mentioned groups before traveling to Florida in order to assess the level of danger you may encounter in being searched, questioned, and/or arrested.

Since we dast not venture into the Heart of Darkness that is Tallahassee and parts east, west, north and south, you suggest that the beast who dens there is fit to be considered as leader of the great nation of the United States of America? Gasp! Swoon! Amaze and alarm! 🤣

(*Call me an out-of-touch dinosaur, but I can't honestly imagine pregnant travellers deciding that hey, since I'm visiting Disney World, might as well fit a spur of the moment abortion in while I'm here!)

It doesn’t matter. Yes, NYT journalists would care as much, but your average ‘moderate’ undecided blue-leaning voter doesn’t think DeSantis is near as much of a fascist as Trump and it seems highly unlikely the press can replicate 9 years of anti-Trump messaging in the year before an election, even at maximum effort.

your average ‘moderate’ undecided blue-leaning voter doesn’t think DeSantis is near as much of a fascist as Trump

"Not as much" is not the same as "not a fascist".

but your average ‘moderate’ undecided blue-leaning voter doesn’t think DeSantis is near as much of a fascist as Trump

What are you basing this on? Is there polling on this?

Nimarata, not Nimrata. Two a's.

Three As, actually.

How do I get that wrong. I should delete my account in shame.

The problem with DeSantis is that his record of legislation, rhetoric, and stunts is 'evil' enough by progressive/Dem standards that once they were educated about him in the General election, he might drive up Democratic turnout at the polls almost as much as Trump does.

What the Republicans should do if they want to win is put up some boring bog-standard fiscal conservative. Run Mitt Romney again or something. Republicans won't be excited about him, but it's not like they're going to vote for a democrat.

Political pundits have been wondering for years how Democrats have such low approval for Biden and really don't want him to run, yet also turn out to vote for him and his party consistently and plan to support him 100%. The cause for this unusual state of affairs is the hatred and fear of Trump, serving as a rallying point to turn every election cycle into a crusade. No Dems are going to step out of line or tolerate their friends doing so while a second Trump term is on the table.

Take away that rallying point, and the whole thing could collapse. Dems could remember how much they are uninspired by Biden, and not show up to the polls. The long-expected fight for the soul of the party between the old-guard classical liberals and the young progressives, which has been suppressed by mutual hatred of Trump for most of a decade, could finally boil over into open conflict in the middle of an election, ensuring an easy win and Congressional landslide for Reps.

There's been lots of talk over the last 7 years about how Trump and MAGA represent a major realignment for the Republican party, and how the chaos of that realignment has fractured and weakened the party in ways that turned expected wins into losses. Democrats are also long-overdue for such a realignment, Republicans just need to get out of the way.

Mittens had binders full of women and was a high school bully and corporate buzzsaw (and today he'd probably be tarred with buying up homes to charge them high rents).

Sure, all of which is a lot less sensationalist and a lot less motivating than 'literally a fascist, literally a rapist, going to end democracy as we know it'.

I think it'd be good for the country to have a centrist like Mitt Romney in charge just so that everyone can calm down for a bit.

The worry for Republicans, and why they won't nominate a centrist, is that centrist Republicans have completely caved to globalist pressure on core issues like immigration, Covid lockdowns, and LGBT celebration.

I agree with you that the media will lay off any Republican who defects on core issues. Want to cut taxes for the rich and start a couple new wars like George Bush? No problem. Want to stop illegal immigration and shut down youth gender transition? Jihad.

But we actually had Romney as a candidate and he was smeared as a misogynistic devil, "vulture capitalist", etc. The mildest possible Republican was the presidential candidate and it didn't matter. They'll be just as hysterical in their smears. Then, years later, they'll reminisce about how Republicans used to not be so bad, like Romney.

I think it'd be good for the country to have a centrist like Mitt Romney in charge just so that everyone can calm down for a bit.

No. Blues do not get to veto Red leaders by threat of violence or institutional destruction. They have broken the social contract. They have to lose, and the correct play is to either hold position or escalate until that happens.

They have to lose, and the correct play is to either hold position or escalate until that happens.

What if they can't lose. What if we "escalate" as far as we can, and still get crushed utterly?

Trump is probably the most centrist candidate, if you look at actual polling on the issues. He's only "not centrist" in that he dissents from the nondemocratic "Washington Consensus" established by entrenched by would-be technocrats, bureaucracy, and special interests.

That's a great point. Trump is a dissident, not a radical. It's okay to be conservative as long as you are part of the blob. (Witness, the rehabilitation of George W. Bush). Being a dissident is never allowed.

I agree with you that the media will lay off any Republican who defects on core issues.

They won't lay off. They didn't lay off Romney himself last time he ran. They want a "moderate" Republican to run so they win either way, but they'd still rather win big with the Democrat.

They didn't lay off Romney himself last time he ran.

It's an issue of scale isn't it? The media treatment of Romney (binders full of women!!!) was stupid, but it never approached anything like what we're seeing now. It's like the difference between conventional and thermonuclear weapons.

Our current president said to a largely-Black crowd at a campaign rally that Romney would put them "back in chains".

The spectre of Republican fascism is exactly what Democrats use to keep their internal realignment from happening. It's a useful idea for the people running the party, and will be employed against any Republican who runs. Go talk to regular Democrats, they might be worked up against Trump specifically, for the moment, but they also bemieve that most if not all Republicans are complicit, and just as dangerous. (Remember in 2012 that Joe Biden campaigned by saying Mitt Romney would put black people back in chains.)

At this point elections aren't about persuading mythical moderates, but turnout. A Romney Republican would lose for the same reason that Romney lost: he couldn't excite the base to vote. A lack of enthusiasm can be made up for by machine politics getting out the vote, but it's fairly obvious by now that Democrats are far more advanced than Republicans here.

The ground is already laid for DeSantis or Ramaswamy to be declared as fascist, existential threats. (Aside: in high school one of my history teachers proudly displayed posters saying "RESIST THE FASCIST BUSH REGIME," which she breezily claimed were of historical interest and thus not political.) The only Republicans who won't be so castigated are anti-Republicans like Liz Cheney or Adam Kinzinger. (And even then... -- remember how John McCain used to be quite friendly with John Stewart and the Daily Show, until he ran for president, and then became was suddenly an extremist with no charity afforded?)

One clear pattern of the last 5 election cycles is that Democrats have shown they are much more willing to turn out for any D on the ballot than Republicans for any R. The primaries were rigged against Bernie from the start, but he still dutifully tells his people to vote against the bigger evil. Trump wins his primary handily, and a swarm of Republican officials declare that they won't support him, or are only voting under duress.

Voter turnout surging on the left when Trump runs suggests that it does matter who the GOP runs, though. The average purple state moderate isn’t in perfect lockstep with the NYT or Washington Post approved opinion.

Of course for the left DeSantis and Haley will be fascists, just like Bush and Reagan and Romney before them. But that doesn’t mean blue turnout will be as high as it is when Trump is on the ballot. The gamble is, of course, because red turnout will be lower too.

Liz Cheney would be a fascists if the GOP moved to her. All her dad’s sins could be brought up as a sign of her fascism. The neocons would reunite around her. Half the right would probably agree with the left that she’s a fascists.

Not sure on McCain. I just think Cheney would be an easy target for fascism claims once she’s no longer a useful idiot ally.

Run Mitt Romney again or something.

What DeSantis is today, Romney was twelve years ago. This is a dishonest request, because after Romney I can't ever trust Democrats to tell the truth about a republican candidate. They're going to go apeshit over all of them, even the Mormon former Massachusetts governor.

The long-expected fight for the soul of the party between the old-guard classical liberals and the young progressives, which has been suppressed by mutual hatred of Trump for most of a decade, could finally boil over into open conflict in the middle of an election, ensuring an easy win and Congressional landslide for Reps.

Isn't this basically what already happened in 2016? You're predicting the show we've just watched. It wasn't until after Trump's win that Democrats got their shit together and whipped their ranks into line.

They're going to go apeshit over all of them

This is very much not my recollection of that election, what are you talking about?

Like, they made a big joke out of 'binders full of women', but that's the normal tomfoolery every campaign gets up to (remember Swift Boat Veterans for Truth?). Obviously they weren't going to say that their opponent is cool and good actually, but I don't think the rhetoric was anything like what's being lobbied against Trump, and the Dem voters certainly didn't have the same visceral hatred and existential dread about him.

So I'm not really sure what you're referring to.

Romney did pretty good in that election, winning more of the popular vote than Trump did in 2020, and that was running against a historic and widely loved incumbent.

This is very much not my recollection of that election, what are you talking about?

/

The current sitting President of the United States, then VP campaigned against Romney by claiming he would put African-Americans back "in chains". Romney was campaigning against hormonal birth control, somehow. Romney's VP pick faced attack ads that had him wheeling grandma off a cliff. Ann Romney was a repeated target of pretty shitty media coverage that conveniently intersected with her multiple sclerosis. People were absolutely sure Romney-Ryan were going to ban gay sex, somehow! The IRS leaked NOM donation records that just conveniently happened to have his donations included, and just so happened to get delivered to the HRC.

Harry Reid famously and falsely claimed that Romney'd paid zero taxes on the floor of Congress, and after it had been widely distributed, widely believed, and at cost proven wrong, then years later said he had no regrets because "he lost, didn't he"!

Yes, like I said, campaigning.

This is all markedly less vitriolic and existential-threat-invoking than 'literally a fascist, literally a rapist, literally the agent of foreign powers, will end democracy as we know it'.

I think DeSantis' problem is that he is also a charisma vacuum. If he wants to have a credible chance to win the general election, he needs to spend the next few months figuring out how to look like something other than a fairly geeky guy who has a nasally voice and is a bit anxious when engaged in public speaking, doing stuff like looking down at his notes a lot.

I'm not trying to negatively judge DeSantis as a person when I say the above, but all that stuff is important to the voter's ape brain.

I think he should lean into it. Yeah I’m pretty boring. Yeah I’m a bit awkward. But what I am is pretty damn competent and will do things that make your life better. Look at what I’ve done in Florida.

People might appreciate the authenticity. Ron might not be the person you want to have a beer but he would be the kind of person you’d want your daughter to marry.

Ron might not be the person you want to have a beer but he would be the kind of person you’d want your daughter to marry.

I doubt it. He's a slimy, dishonest, power-seeking lawyer.

That said, I am fine with a political leader being a slimy, dishonest, power-seeking lawyer. I don't have to find someone even slightly appealing on a personal level to prefer their policies. Trump is a piece of shit in his personal life, but I still like him better than quite a few honest and decent men.

People say he seems to have a real genuine relationship with his wife.

The one he cheated on with a porn star?

More comments

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats