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 -
The remaining primaries and convention at this point serve as little more than a coronation for the inevitable Trump nomination. It was discussed last week the unlikely circumstances in which Trump is prevented from running. The questions now are:
The likelihood Trump wins? Betting markets put the odds between 40-60%, which is not that useful but is what I would expect. The election will be very close and come down to the usual swing states like in 2020 and 2016. Biden's approval ratings are precariously low for an incumbent, especially given that the Electoral College works to Trump's advantage.
What will a second Trump term be like? My guess is much like his first term. A lot of hollow populist gestures to his base but not much happens. I still don't understand these people who are otherwise centrist or middle-left like Matt Yglesias and Noah Smith, who predict or expect a foreign policy crisis if trump wins , but always fail to articulate what this entails. I guess they have to keep toeing the 'orange man bad' line even though he was not that bad, and the economy and other metrics did well under his presidency (until Covid, which was out of his control anyway). Key alliances were strained much, as commonly feared in 2016-2017. The leadership of allies like Germany and France begrudgingly accepted Trump, and not much else happened.
Trump made the mistake of building a personality cult instead of a party. Orban or Erdogan built a party base with vast infrastructure supporting them. They could take power because their people are running local governments, staffing embassies and serving in the police. Trump couldn't even get members of his own party to support his vision in the senate. Trumpism can't achieve change in itself without replacing tens of thousands of managers. Franco wouldn't have been able to rule Spain if there wasn't loyalty from the officer corps and church which in turn could be used as a talent pool.
Had Trump wanted to MAGA, he would have spent the last 9 years building lots of local chapters of local supporters and future apparatchiks.
With that said I do believe Trump is a revolutionary candidate for the simple reason that he will ensure that the US government will be unable to function due to being bogged down with intra-elite infighting. This provides a window of opportunity for Texas to implement their own immigration policy.
For the first two years of Trumps administration he was dealing with successful RussiaGate ops by the Dems he wants prepared for. He also didn’t come in with institutional creds.
He also got a lot of things right during his Presidency which is pulling people like me into his camp. Musks is essentially Maga now. Jamie Dimon probably won’t vote for him but he’s praised Trump of late so you don’t have his tribe trying to undermine Trump now.
Institutionally the Heritage was against him in 2016 and now they are for him. That gets you your government middle managers with Plan 2025.
Trumps got the Governors trusting him now with this Abbot immigration play showing unity.
IMO Trumps orders of magnitude much stronger now. He was a dissident in 2016 but now has had 8 years figuring stuff out. The Party is being built.
More options
Context Copy link
I agree, although it wasn’t a mistake, it was just who Trump is. There are two big risks for populist reactionary movements. The first, as in Europe with Meloni, Le Pen Jr, Weidel etc is that careerist politician types vaguely amenable to a more moderate version of the platform become its leaders. But the second, which is less fully appreciated, is that a single figure concerned primarily with his own popularity and temporal, near-term successes might hijack the impulse to a popular movement, leading to its utter subsumption beneath a pointless and ineffectual personality cult. And that’s what Trump is.
It’s impossible to look at rally footage, interview footage and even polling data in the US and not conclude that it’s not really about ideas, it’s about Trump. As you say, a genuine movement would have included a whole party apparatus, local organizations, a whole superstructure through which countless small town mayors and district attorneys and state representatives would be figures within a broader platform for a specific program of political change.
Trump doesn’t care, he’s not a true believer. And that’s fine if true believers are in control, but they’re not, Trump is so irascible and so mercurial that he actually is in control to some degree, and his motivations are to be a “winner”, by whatever definition strikes him as valuable at whatever given time.
He will spend his second term on a crusade through the justice department against his enemies, which will certainly distract some portion of the left. But it’s hard not to see it as equally bad for the right, because there’s going to be no real push from the White House for conservative policies while the full energy of the president is devoted towards hunting down people who are mostly no longer even relevant.
Agreed, with one caveat—it is very much possible to look at him and insist that it’s about ideas. A significant fraction of the country is doing that. It wouldn’t be a very good personality cult if he couldn’t accrue his own true believers.
I wonder if it would be fruitful to ask supporters about predictions for a second term. Not necessarily about effectiveness so much as strategy. Will Trump ever endorse a successor?
More options
Context Copy link
It doesn't matter. Red states establishing illiberal regimes is the main hope for right wing policy in this country and that depends on declining federal state capacity.
Red states can only do so much short of actual secession. It’s like the Texas border thing, even if Abbott could do what he wanted there’s nothing stopping migrants entering California, having children who are constitutionally 100% American citizens entitled to US passports, and them deciding to move legally to Texas.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This is what passes for analysis, I guess. Question: How much of the GOP was amenable to MAGA in 2016 vs now?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link