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 -
Maybe a little, but you are not the only one nor the most egregious.
None of this contradicts the claim that...
In fact Pam from The Office might even say that they are the same picture.
It doesn't matter for the reasons I go into in the following paragraphs. To answer your question, "the big lie" is that the underlying axioms and organizational principles of the respective parties today are fundamentally different from what they were before. That the parties today are somehow "the reverse" of what they were in the 19th century. Where as the truth is that the positions of parties never changed, what changed was the status quo.
It is a myth, the so called "Southern Strategy" is another one of those "Big Lies". Contra the popular narrative Nixon didn't win the 68 election by inviting segregationists into the fold. He won because the Democrats ended up splitting their votes between Wallace and Humphrys and a lot of people on both sides of the aisle found themselves suddenly receptive to Nixon's appeals to "Law-and-order" in the immediate aftermath of MLK's assassination and the associated race riots. Why current year Democrats might want to sweep these associations under the rug is left as an excercise for the reader.
Reagan won a supermajority by making an effort to appeal to working class Democrats and blacks in addition to the existing Republican base.
A cynic might even suggest that Reagan's success in this endeavor explains both the Democratic party's abandonment of labour-based principals and the increasingly "populist" tenor of the GOP.
I don't think Nixon invited segregationists into the fold and the Republicans suddenly became the party of the KKK. I think Republicans became right wing when they used to be progressive, and Democrats became left wing when they used to be... well, not really conservative but certainly more appealing to cultural conservatives.
The Republicans became the party of conservatives and the Democrats became the party of progressives - which was essentially a reversal of their previous roles. Someone who voted Republican in the 1850s would probably vote Democrat today, and vice versa. Obviously direct comparisons are not going to fit exactly (an 1850s voter wouldn't even understand many of our issues, and many things that were important in the 1850s aren't now). Perhaps it's simplistic to say they simply traded places, but their "axioms and organizing principles" absolutely changed, and in many cases were reversed.
As far as I can tell, your objection to the "myth" (which it is not) that Republicans and Democrats have changed and come to represent very different constituencies (which party attracted black voters from after the Civil War and which party attracted the working class throughout most of the 20th century) is that you'd really like to keep hanging racism around the Democrats' necks, and they'd really like to claim Republicans are now the party of racists. Both arguments are tactical political ones but neither addresses what actually historically changed.
...and I don't think that this claim is borne out by the historical record.
The Republican Party of the late 1800s is a big tent coalition organized around a core of aligned religious and business interests and that remains a fairly accurate description of the Republican Party today. This along with the fact a man like William McKinley (with his rhetoric about unskilled immigration is driving wages down, and advocacy for higher tariffs and lower taxes to promote investment in American business) is not only immediately recognizable as "Republican" within the context of the contemporary parties but surprisingly relevant for someone who's been dead for over 120 years, is strong evidence against the claim that the party's axioms and organizing principles have changed significantly in the intervening years.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link