site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 4, 2024

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
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Trump case out on him being an insurrectionists.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-719_19m2.pdf

Compared to the Reddit debates and how the SC would prevent this as a non-lawyer I thought the opinion was fairly basic and simple. It seems to me that they just declared it a Feds power in Federal elections and the States don’t get a say. Personally, I did come to a belief that it was self-executing.

I think they avoided really touching on all the novel legal theories both ways going around on Reddit or twitter.

It came down to what I believe was one of my original views that letting States have any say in declaring someone an insurrectionists would be a complete clusterfuck and basically turn into state legislatures electing Presidents. Therefore they declared it a federal power.

I would call this pragmatic versus legally correct in my opinion. They avoided 100 page treatise on whether the President is an office holder.

I predicted something between 7-2 and 9-0. 9-0 seems better for the nation.

Because there are (and perhaps will always be) more Red states than Blue states (in terms of who is elected to state offices) because of geographic and demographic population distribution, it simply didn’t make sense for the progressive justices to allow the striking off of candidates by state officials. Returning power to the states is, broadly, OK-to-bad for the left and OK-to-good for the right.

Hot take: what if the judiciary isn’t making decisions based on states’ rights? Maybe the Constitution is just, you know, actually clear on this one. 14.5 says Congress has to do it.

I guess I still believe the Supreme Court splits more on philosophical than partisan lines. Those are correlated with, perhaps even a proxy for liberal vs. conservative politics, but they’re not the same thing.

Either way, I think states’ rights are a dead issue. They’re more popular with reactionaries, libertarians, and contrarians than with the mainstream.

I dunno, states' rights seem pretty popular among normies in Texas right now.

Maybe I overstated it.

Abbott is definitely pitching his particular border control plan as a states' rights issue. And a secessionist issue, and a logistics issue, and a "screw Biden in general" issue...it's accomplishing a lot of political goals. But I suppose you're correct that Texans are fairly receptive to it.

Maybe the Constitution is just, you know, actually clear on this one. 14.5 says Congress has to do it.

If congress repealed the voting rights act could Alabama ban black people from voting? Sure, the 15th amendment says, “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude,” but it also says, “The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.” You wouldn’t read that as giving Congress the option to decide whether the 15th amendment applies or not.

Hmm. I don’t have a good answer for that. It’s an interesting parallel, because in the absence of direct action by Congress, states did try to run circles around the 15th. The VRA wouldn’t exist if everyone followed the amendment. But here we have the SC telling states that following this amendment isn’t their job.

This is why I think the court mostly led on pragmatism.

I think the best argument is he didn’t do insurrection.

If a politician with 50% popular support actually did insurrection (raise an army etc) we wouldn’t be talking about the Constitution or the Court. We would be talking about civil war or a Treaty creating two or more nations. We would be past the Constitution and creating a new sovereign by the ultimate law of power.

Either way, I think states’ rights are a dead issue.

States' rights to what, exactly? Anticommandeering doctrine is alive and well. Wayfair expanded state ability to levy revenue extraterritorially, and gave the dormant commerce clause some whacks. States even won the power to judicially interfere with federal enforcement and regulatory policy in Massachusetts v. EPA