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 -
Newsom would be dumb not to take the opportunity now. There's no guarantee of coronation as candidate in 2028, just ask 2008 Hillary.
The flip side was RDS. He was in a tough spot. If he waited until 2028 and Trump won, then he is going against Trump’s VP. If he ran with Trump and Trump lost, then he is done. If he ran against Trump and loses, then he also is probably done. He choose the last option. People will blame RDS for running a bad campaign but once the indictments hit the election was over. Indeed RDS still had pretty high favorables amongst republicans (including trump voters); they just preferred Trump.
Timing a run for president is basically really hard. Sometimes going too early is a problem. Other times waiting is also a problem. Sometimes the stars simply don’t align.
Desantis lost because he was too much of a coward to actually run against Trump. He was facing an uphill battle anyway, but his plan of tickling Trump's balls was always guaranteed to fail. He never answered the question of why MAGA voters should support him instead of Trump when he should have been slamming Trump for being a fat old man, a puppet of his advisors, a sore loser, a man who fundamentally did not have the right stuff to Make America Great Again.
You’re not wrong but I also think DeSantis lost because anyone running against Trump was suspected of being a spoiler candidate. Trump’s unique asset is that he is obviously and viscerally loathed by the Cathedral / rich donors and got to the top through TV fame so he is felt to be uniquely independent. The more respectable people pushed DeSantis as being ‘Trump but respectable’, the less popular he became.
Trump's unique asset is that he is deeply and irrationally loved by a significant body of low-IQ conservatives who will rabidly attack anyone who challenges him. As such, he can threaten to spoil any Republican strategy that doesn't elevate him. The point the strategy outlined above is to try and break his hold on these people because insofar as they are responsive to anything, it's to vulgar social dominance. You're never going to win them over by arguing that you're better qualified or more competent, because they don't care. Nor can you win them over by appealing to principles, because they don't have any. You have to simultaneously tear Trump down as a weakling and present yourself as a better vessel for their inchoate rage.
Insofar as Desantis had a plan, it was hope that Trump was too old or too imprisoned to run.
There are genuinely smart people who genuinely love Trump above Desantis and Nikki Hailey. They point to his regulation cuts, relative isolationism, and that he says exactly what he’s going to do.
More options
Context Copy link
The Trump base might not be the most articulate but there are absolutely smart people in their orbit who understand their grievances and why they're so angry. You can win them over to someone who isn't Trump - but you need to understand why they went for him in the first place, and if you're going to claim that was because of vulgar social dominance you're going to fail each and every time. If you're interested in a good article that explains what attracted those voters to him, I recommend https://www.resilience.org/stories/2016-01-21/donald-trump-and-the-politics-of-resentment/
I didn't say every Trump supporter is stupid. I said that he has a dedicated core of supporters who are very loyal but not very bright or discerning, which I will stand by because I think it goes an enormous way towards explaining the durability of his support in particular despite losing as an incumbent and because it conforms to the general pattern with populist politicians more generally.
I've read it before. I'm not impressed. Many of its factual claims are tendentious or more reflective of self-image than reality (e.g. the persistent efforts to paint Trumpism as the voice of the working class). Much of it boils down to saying "liberals don't like conservatives and say mean things about them." Conservatives don't like liberals either and say mean things about them, so I'm not sure what I'm supposed to take away from that, other than that maybe conservatives care more about what liberals think of them than vice versa.
Once we cut past that, it is essentially a more sympathetic framing of my claim that Trump functions as an empty vessel for the nebulous fury of his supporters. The difference is that Greer thinks they are basically justified on grounds of economic neglect while I think the economic anxiety narrative is bullshit and they are attracted to Trump because he promises to vicariously remediate their sense of humiliation.
I actually agree with this, but I think that this is true of any large political movement. There are plenty of people in the democrat base who are utterly thoughtless and pick their vote/political allegiance based purely on tribal instinct as well - this isn't something unique to Trump. though his personal charisma likely means he has a larger number of these people than other politicians.
I disagree with this reading of the article - you don't seem to have grasped the point actually being made, which is that Trump has been using this tendency on the part of the left to ingratiate himself with his base. He knew that he'd be able to get the talking heads to talk shit about him in ways that would make people who dislike those talking heads support him as a result, and so he went out of his way to get the media to attack him. This is stated explicitly in the article so I'm not sure if repeating it here will do any good, but that's what you're meant to take away from that particular section.
You think the economic anxiety narrative is bullshit? Do you have any kind of argument against the claims he makes?
Where's the bullshit here? Are you living in another America that doesn't have a massive fentanyl crisis and didn't outsource huge swathes of productive industry to China? I (and Greer, based on the quote) can understand not wanting to talk about it or admit that it happened, but there's a substantial amount of fire beneath the smoke of economic anxiety. Is there an element of vicarious remediation of humiliation? Absolutely! But to pretend that's the only motivating factor strikes me as absurd.
What is very distinctive about Trumpism is that the loyalty is to Trump, specifically. Non-personalist political movements can and do regularly replace leadership figures when they become a liability, while their duller supporters are usually the least motivated and exert minimal influence over leadership selection.
I was never disputing it it. It was central to my claim: "they are attracted to Trump because he promises to vicariously remediate their sense of humiliation." My point there is that the "grievance" is hollow. There's no material injury. Trump supporters have an inferiority complex and feel humiliated when college-educated liberals look down on them. (They, of course, have never been shy in their own hatred for CELs, but nobody seems to regard this as a reciprocal grievance. Nobody is visiting yoga studios to do pop-anthropology of Hillary voters or hand-wringing about how they might start a civil war if we prosecute her.) To the extent that these people have been abused (referring primarily to rural conservatives, rather than affluent exurbanites), it has generally been by their own leaders who they continue to support. The reason the town's factory closed down wasn't because of snooty Democrat journalists from NYC. Though in fairness to the Republicans, even a maximally protectionist industrial policy isn't going to fix competition on the international market.
The socio-economic composition of Trump's voters and the economic (and political for that matter) history of the United States. Like,
is prime bullshit - a politically expedient claim made with no regard for the truth. I won't go so far as to call it a lie, because while I think Greer probably knew it wasn't true he wasn't so much willfully misrepresenting facts as making an... emotionally satisfying statement. Nevertheless, the fact that he says this with a straight face makes it hard to take him seriously. It is both an overly rosy portrait of life in 1966 America and a comically pessimistic one of life in 2016 America. Single income couples with children are still common in the US and are overwhelmingly not homeless, as I'm sure he knows. They're not as proportionally common as they used to be, but that's mostly due shifting social norms around women working, not because modern America is such a wasteland that there's no other option. And let's say nothing about the legal status quo in 1966.
You don't have to think the US is a utopia with no economic issues to doubt the claim that Americans are worse off now than they were in 1966. At least on grounds of material abundance like Greer appears to be making. If you want to make a normative argument about the desirability of segregation and women's labor force participation, I'm going to have to pass on that discussion.
For Trump's die hards? It's the sine qua non. They have other concerns, but they are either standard Republican things (tax cuts, abortion, nativism) that most Republican candidates would deliver on (and thus don't really explain Trump's particular appeal) or at odds with the reality of policy under the Trump administration (e.g. the Republican Party continues to be anti-labor).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This is leaning way too heavily into "boo outgroup." Let's not start the "low information voters" and "NPC" discourse here. You're free to argue that a specific group behaves a certain way or that a specific position or belief is uninformed, but just labeling all your opponent's supporters "low IQ" ain't it.
I don't think Skibboleth did?
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
More options
Context Copy link