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 -
It would seem obvious to me that there are, in fact, a lot of Americans who like what the Democratic Party has on offer - obviously! A party can't survive for ages if no-one likes what it has on offer! - and are happy to have it represented by what has always seemed to me a basically (though not expectionally) competent politician (competent at politics, that is) who happened to have an off-season in 2020 and doesn't have an off-season now. Thus, there is not anything particularly special to what is happening now.
What I wonder about is how hard it seems to be for American conservatives to believe that there exists a non-astroturf sentiment (and what does astroturf even mean these days, anyway? Both major parties have well-honed political machines to make basically literally any movement existing within their purview at least partly astroturf if you choose to look at it that way) supporting American liberalism organically. Why wouldn't there be? The last four years have seemed to be quite good for a fair few Americans, materially, especially compared to what is the most natural comparison to me - Europe's continuing malaise and doldrums.
I think you've identified a genuine sentiment here, and it's related to the accusations of NPCism/groupthink that the right frequently levies against the left.
Other replies have brought up good points that I endorse. I'd like to add that there's a certain asymmetry to these accusations in general which could be taken as evidence of their veracity.
Both sides use plenty of generic insults that are little more than emotive expressions of sentiment. Rightists say that leftists will usher in an age of civilizational decline, that they're only doing what they're doing out of self interest, that they hide their true intentions until the right opportunity presents itself, etc. And vice versa. Precisely because these accusations are symmetrically employed by both sides, they don't reveal much interesting about the actual policy positions of the right/left or the psychology of rightists/leftists. There's little signal to separate from the noise.
The NPC meme, in contrast, is used far more often by the right than by the left. Why is that? If it was just a generic insult, if it was just a synonym for "stupid" or "uninformed", then we would expect leftists to use it too, given that it has proven itself to be a meme of rather potent virility. But they don't - not nearly as much, anyway. And I think that indicates that the left doesn't really believe it to be true about their opponents, whereas the right very much believes it to be true about their opponents. And the best explanation for a widespread asymmetrical belief of that sort is that belief having some actual correspondence to the facts of reality, however attenuated that correspondence may be.
Certainly there are versions of the NPC accusation that are employed by the left - it's common to hear rhetoric about Trump supporters being fascists who all march in lockstep, for example. But the tenor is different. There is a much greater focus on the morally deleterious content of the Trump supporters' beliefs rather than the form of their thought itself (the old "rightists think their opponents are stupid, leftists think their opponents are evil"). I think there's also the implication that the alleged fascist Trump supporter marches in lockstep because of some fundamental moral deficiency which draws them to fascism specifically, whereas the prototypical NPC could be made to follow virtually any ideology if the Cathedral declared it to be The Correct Belief.
All this is a very roundabout way of saying: I'm not going to evaluate the first-order claim that "support for Kamala/liberalism/etc is astroturfed", and at first glance I'd agree that that claim is not entirely fair. But the mere persistence of the claim indicates that there is some phenomenon here that is worth investigating. People don't just make shit up. If enough people are repeating something, there's usually some reason for it.
The only reason the left doesn't call the right NPCs is because the NPC meme is right coded and everyone knows it so left wingers find the idea of using it icky.
Instead every comment that goes against the left wing hive mind is a bot. Same idea, different terminology. Kind of like how Red Pilled and Woke mean exactly the same thing (awake to realities that normies don't or won't see) but everyone who uses one hates the other.
More specifically, a "Russian bot."
More options
Context Copy link
Bot implies that the personality behind the account is faked and it's being directly used by a malicious agent to spread misinfo, unlike the NPC meme where it's actual people who get "programming updates".
Also, it's been a while since I've seen "woke" used by anyone other than right wingers (as an insult).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The NPC meme also seems low key to be about masculinity
Is it? That never occurred to me. I don't think that the type of person who is apt to criticize someone for not being traditionally masculine is also the type of person to care much about epistemic hygiene. But perhaps I'm off base here.
The NPC critique is that the other person outsources his thinking to another and just believes what the consensus says. Traditionally part of being a man is believing what you believe regardless of the popularity.
And yet, it appears that traditionally men believed what was popular and what men believed was popular. The Overton window within a given society was far more narrow. Men did act differently, according to their ability and social strata.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Only in as much as its about agency, which men are supposed to have at all times.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I think that the right-wingers do genuinely recognize an actual pattern - in left-wing circles opinion-forming happens through reorienting consensus, in right-wing circles there's more individualism but also room for strong leader types - but the category error made is thinking that the consensus shifts mainly through some actor above the grassroots, like the DNC, issuing marching orders, when it's really a more subtle and diffuse process among the activist class with at least some room for actual grassroots-level interaction.
Also, I'd guess it's easier for many conservatives to believe there was actual grassroots support for Sanders, especially in 2016, than, say, for Kamala now.
A good example of this is the split between Trump and his base on the Covid vaccine's Operation Warp Speed. He could brag about that non-stop and it would convince none of them. But within an hour all loyal Democrats will replace their Twitter profile pics with Ukraine flags and make jokes about couches. It's an open question whether the centralized media/messaging on the left and the decentralized media/messaging on the right is reflective or formative of the respective groups and their information heirarchies.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I have no trouble acknowledging that there are many people that support a bunch of Democrat policies that I don't like much. If, for example, someone just doesn't think they should have to pay their student loans, they're probably going to vote Democrat.
On the flip side, the enthusiasm for Harris is genuinely hard to understand. I accept that the firmware update worked as intended and people really mean it, but it is genuinely puzzling to me what they're seeing that they're excited about. The answer is apparently as simple as the fact that she's 60 and lucid rather than 80 and comatose, which is fine as far as it goes, but doesn't really get me to understanding excitement.
As a bit of an extra point, I think if you'd told me this was how it was going to go down a few years ago, I would have thought a bunch of Democrats would be annoyed that they didn't get a say in picking their candidate. Instead, everyone just happily agreed that they're coconut-pilled now, that they're not going back, and that it's time embrace what can be, unburdened by what has been. That, above all else, is why I can't stop thinking of the situation as embodying the NPC meme. It is very hard for me to believe that people authentically watched some teleprompter speech and thought, "wow, now I can't wait to get out there and campaign"; I don't think it was astroturfed, but I do think that this is almost entirely an exercise in groupthink.
You make the mistake of the intelligent.
Politics are not really about policy. Kamala has a poor track record and every policy she's advocating is, at least in its current form, going to be disastrous in concept or execution. This has not tamped down the enthusiasm for her any.
She is photogenic, she smiles for photos, she looks attractive for her age and isn't obviously decrepit. Trump looks like a shriveled tangerine. America lies about a lot of things, in particular, that they don't care about looks. Obama wouldn't have gotten anywhere near the electoral success he did had he been unattractive. Don't hate the player, hate the game. The meta in American presidential politics is to run a supermodel or attractive actor who will say the right things. They can be more easily understood as a figurehead for what will let Americans feel good about themselves.
I hate Kamala, but she's definitely got a shot as America's president given that she is an accurate representation of what one half of America believes itself to be. Attractive, opportunistic, professionally presentable and economically illiterate.
There's also the side factor that - well, teenagers who only remember Trump and then Biden as president see a chance for Hope and Change in their generation. They haven't had that yet. Older people got their Hope and Change, when's their turn? Older people got their Vietnam to feel good about, why can't they get to feel good about Israel?
Men 18-29 are now a Trump-leaning demographic.
Men 18-29 have always been a Trump-leaning demographic. His brand is winning bigly and actually putting up a fight on behalf of red team. The newer, younger ones, though... those guys have seen him win, fail to achieve many of his right wing aims or win the culture war while in office, then lose, whine about losing, and get a clown invasion of capitol hill condemned as an insurrection. How much impact he had on each one of those outcomes is limited, but people like winners.
Young men, a Trump-leaning demographic, are not switching to Kamala Harris. The suggestion is preposterous. It can only be made in the fatalistic Motte fantasy world where people continue to not know anything real about Donald Trump.
Fight! Fight! Fight!
They can also abstain from voting or go third-party, which is positive for Kamala.
I don't detect the energy that Trump's campaign had in 2016 in 2024. He's a known quantity now and he didn't actually "drain the swamp", "lock her up", or do any of the things that young men actually wanted.
You seem to assume that the Motte is fatalistic because it lives in a fantasy world. In fact, the Motte is fatalistic because both sides of the political fence have failed to make a cogent argument for rationality and truth-seeking order. Both sides are retreating from this; some are even loudly claiming that this is the dead end the Enlightenment tradition has led us into. The entire COVID debacle had people here very loudly slashing their wrists over the mass denial, the reaction, the overreaction, the bad science, and the memory-holing. Even the most pure of quokkas would, having being equipped with basic powers of observation, have felt a collapse akin to finding out how stupid and apathetic people really are about being at war with
racists who think COVID is a big dealanti-vaxxers who believe COVID isn't a big dealpeople who refuse to isolate people who refuse to wear chin diaperspeople who think it's bad to campaign publicly for BLM during social distancingpeople who don't social distanceEurasiaEastasiaconspiracy theoristspeople who think COVID spending is a bad ideapeople who think COVID didn't disproportionately hurt black people[software update pending, please hold, fill in the blank as you wish depending on what the people in power want you to hate].This place doesn't have many shared values anymore but one of the very few is a desire for truth seeking out of a belief it produces better outcomes and that houses built on sand cannot stand. Finding out that the truth is like poetry, and that most people fucking hate poetry, even if it can recognizably produce better outcomes, is like finding out the Earth is flat and that proving it isn't makes you into the lunatic they burn at the stake.
Call it learned helplessness it you want, I prefer the pithy "Oh shit, people really are that stupid and easily led" and "if they could mindfuck millions of people into doublethink this easily, what else are they mindfucking us into?" Older people remember the Iraq war, maybe next time the powers that be will pick a juicier target.
Trump is polling higher than he ever has before. A month ago he was shot in the head and dodged a bullet. Then he got on his feet and started a fight chant.
The people saying they don't feel 2016 energy are all people who, in 2016, were certain that he was going to lose and could never possibly win. This time 2016 the Republican party was abandoning him in droves, "grab them by the pussy" was coming out and convinced everyone that this campaign was finished, and Hillary was giving interviews about how far ahead she was. This feels some some new meme fatalist consensus: but the same doomsayers were doomsaying then too.
People aren't satisfied with Trump? After 4 years of Biden Trump looks better than ever before. People remember peace and a stronger economy and groceries that didn't triple in price. He didn't drain the swamp? Gee, yeah, I wonder what happened.
This is what I'm talking about: the fatalism here is people who don't like Trump and never liked Trump rationalizing increasingly desperate forms of depression. What on earth does this have to do with the Enlightenment? The average poster here is pretty smart, but I doubt 1 in 10 could give a coherent definition of that period of time without consulting Google. Desire for truth? Maybe in principle, but I see bullshit repeated here all the time.
I thought Trump was going to win in 2016. I actually won money off of people for betting on it.
I don't think he's going to win now. It's not guaranteed, but Kamala is less of a disaster candidate than Hillary Clinton for the majority of Americans who don't pay attention to politics.
More options
Context Copy link
Eh? Kamala jumped ahead as soon as she was anointed and only dropped slightly.
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
From what I have seen, in my very blue bubble, it's 90% the euphoria of believing you were doomed and suddenly realizing you have a good chance of winning. Immediately after the attempted assassination of Trump, the mood among Democrats was bleak indeed. Pretty much everyone believed the election was basically Trump's to lose, and Biden gave little reason to hope.
The DNC had no real mechanism to force Biden to withdraw, and I was pretty convinced he would never do so voluntarily. Even if he did, I thought they would have to have an emergency primary, with the unappetizing choice of Harris (who until five minutes ago was considered an even worse candidate than Biden) or equally bad prospects like Gavin Newsom.
That the Democrats actually pulled off (1) getting Biden to withdraw, (2) instituting Harris in his place as a fate accompli, and (3) making it seem like a smooth transition, was actually a pretty impressive bit of political maneuvering. Republicans spent a little while trying to generate crocodile tears about the undemocratic nature of the process, but not only did this not stick, but the whole thing basically pushed Trump's post-shooting boost right out of the news cycle.
Now it's increasingly looking like Harris's race to lose. All the stuff being thrown at her and Walz look like cheap shots that aren't landing. Of course the Democrats are ecstatic. I was personally convinced Trump was going to win, and now if I had to place money, I'd bet on Harris. I think she will have to screw up hugely, or Trump will have to pull a hat trick of the type that is not really his forte, for her to lose. Any October surprises or sudden catastrophes will only help her.
To be clear, I absolutely agree there is nothing about Kamala Harris personally to inspire excitement. She's a political nothing (like most VPs, to be fair). But the fact that she's basically a generic Democrat with nothing terrible in her closets (as far as we know) and will be the first (POC) woman president is enough to make Blue tribe giddy at the prospect of the Revenge of Hillary Clinton.
It's "fait accompli".
As a systemic victim of shitty autocorrect, I'd say there's no point in correcting people on the spelling of foreign phrases.
There's a fairly-simple solution to autocorruption; turn it off. It's what I do every time I get a new computer, browser or word processor.
The problem is that I fucking hate typing on touch screens, and anything that can help me minimize it is a plus. There's an open question if the medicine is better than the disease, and if the best solution isn't just to postpone my shitposting until I'm in front of a keyboard.
This is certainly what I do (I hate touch screens even more than normal, as I'm used to typing with fingernails).
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
In some countries, they refer to this as a "coup".
I generally agree with the rest of your post, but it isn't Kamala's race to lose. Right now, this is a toss up, which means it's about the next "thing" that turns into the "current thing" that each candidate has to respond to. Remember, Harris got a two free news cycle passes in a row - when Biden dropped out followed immediately by the DNC. In the next few weeks some-"thing" will happen. Then, the race actually starts.
No, it isn't.
First, a party can nominate whoever it wants; it doesn't have to go through a "democratic" primary process, and the Democrats only did that in the most disingenuous way possible for this election.
Second, it's absurd for people on the right to try to claim that, both, A. Biden is mentally unfit; and B. It's a "coup" to replace him. If A, then B must happen in the name of civic responsibility.
I'll grant that a lot of Democratic Party shenanigans stink to high heaven, and this whole election process makes them look like the most cynical operators. But it's rich for people, most of whom don't even think Biden was legitimately elected in the first place, to try to claim that switching out nominees in this case is somehow deeply illegitmate.
More options
Context Copy link
Trump followed with the RFK Jr. endorsement followed by the Gabbard endorsement. The latter didn't even make a splash; it barely got an offhand mention here. If you have a "thing" but the media downplays it, it's not a "thing".
That's a very fair counterpoint. I hadn't thought of that.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Coup has two meanings in a way which makes this confusing. The term derives from the French "couper" meaning "to cut" in common French but closer to "to strike" in fencing terminology, which is where the relevant English idioms get the word from, including coup d'etat, coup de theatre, coup de grace etc.
So we have "coup" meaning an achievement analogous to a well-executed hit in fencing - the dictionary describes it as "successfully achieving something difficult" but I think it is only idiomatic if the achievement is an apparently sudden and surprising victory in an adversarial setting analogous to a duel. In this case Pelosi and other Democratic elites removing Biden cleanly is clearly a coup.
We also have "coup" used as a shorthand for "coup d'etat" - specifically the idea of a sudden violent replacement of a government (although again "coup" is only idiomatically correct if the success is so spectacular that only minimal violence is actually needed - otherwise it is a civil war or a revolution). The replacement of Biden by Harris is clearly not a coup d'etat - the rules as written were followed and there was no threat or use of violence.
More options
Context Copy link
To me "coup" implies coercion. And, while I don't know what happened behind closed doors to get Biden to step down, so far at least I have not seen any evidence that there was coercion.
Wait you think Biden did it willingly? It is pretty clear they told him step down or we will 25th amendment you. Legal? Yeah. Coercive? Yeah.
More options
Context Copy link
I don't know, the fact that it happened on twitter without any visible involvement of the man himself (and famously even the wrong signature) does it for me.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
When a political party replaces one candidate with another candidate (who is in fact the deputy of the current candidate) that can hardly be called a coup. Coups involve replacing the government, Kamala's government position (VP) hasn't changed, she's just now the person standing to be the next president instead of Biden.
Candidate choice is an internal party matter for the Democrats (as it is for any political party). There is nothing even remotely coup-like about this.
This is absurd. Candidate choice is not an internal party matter. We have these state run things called primaries that have determined nominations for a long time in this country. I know it’s convenient to say “internal matter” but most internal matters don’t require the local Secretary of State to get involved.
But it is still true. You are right to point out state involvement. But most states have no law about whether delegates are bound legally and those that do almost invariably have an exemption for the candidate withdrawing. Plus many other exemptions for being unbound after rounds of voting or if their chosen candidate is doing too badly.
But regardless of all that the Supreme Court held that state election law cannot override a parties internal processes in any case. It is literally legally an internal matter.
Regardless of the primaries, the delegates were legally free to pick Kamala. All the DNC delegates are bound to do is in good conscience represent their voters. If they in good conscience think their voters would no longer want Biden they can and indeed should switch even if he didn't step down. Note this rule was changed in 1980 when they were trying to replace Carter as acandidate with a Kennedy, and only their own internal rules prevented them from doing so. So this is something that has been planned for. The only thing they have to do is manage the political fallout if any.
The truth is the primaries are theatre legally. The only thing that binds the parties are their internal rules. Hence an internal matter.
There are principles of norms and there are legal realities. The fact is people have understood for a long time that primaries are how we pick candidates. The fact is those processes are run by states.
And now when the Dems were going to lose they claim “well it is just an internal matter” ignoring the norm that even involved the state!
Except they did the same back in 1980 but were stopped only by their internal rules. Which they then changed, so they could do it if they wanted. The fact they haven't needed to, doesn't change the fact they were prepared for it, over 40 years ago.
People can understand all sorts of things, it doesn't mean those things are true. As long as the DNC is competent at convincing their voters then we have established there is no actual other impediment. In fact the Supreme Court relied on the ultimate norm. The Constitution. The first amendment is what allows the parties this broad latitude.
Is your position that norms should override Constitutional rights? Because that seems somewhat problematic for other rights you probably support. Its certainly been the norm in blue states to make owning guns difficult. Does that trump 2A rights? If New York is forced to allow open carry will you curse this overriding of norms?
At the end of the day, what happened was legal. Indeed it would have been legal even without Biden stepping down. With him stepping down it is both legal and I would argue within the norms most people consider. My delegate will choose someone other than my candidate if they step down or die is one of the norms of primaries after all.
If enough people dislike how it was done, they can punish Democrats at the ballot box.
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
and she's not Trump. Don't forget who this election's really about. This is the elation of "oh shit we can win" that followed the desperation after Biden's debate performance. I honestly think this is explained by fairly standard human emotional dynamics.
Of course the emotions get narrativized, but that's just what humans do unless (and often still when) they have uncommonly large amounts of self-honesty
More options
Context Copy link
The idea that you were, at one point, bound to lose (particularly immediately after the assassination attempt) and, all of a sudden, you're now bound to win is pretty exciting in itself, no?
One could argue that the Dems had a say in picking their candidate - in 2020, when they accepted Harris as the person who would take the reins if the President became killed or incapacitated. Now the President is sort of incapacitated - yes, it's a very odd sort of incapacitation that apparently means you can no longer run for Presidency but can still function as a President, technically - so Harris takes the reins for that one particular thing.
Personally, I'm not too sure whether the tension inherent in Biden being smoked out by the media and party elites has been quite resolved yet and might still come up and bite Harris on the butt after the convention fever is out, and it is certainly not confirmed that Harris's current lead will continue, but I guess it'll take until November to see what will happen.
huh? there was a primary for the VP slot that I didn't know about?
No, but there's an election where you vote for a ticket consisting of a president and a VP.
but that election is between the two major parties, not a selection of VP candidates.
More options
Context Copy link
Look me in the eyes and tell me that you, personally, believe that this constitutes picking your candidate.
I dunno? It's not my job to pick the US Democratic Party's candidate.
A lot of people do seem to think that way, though, from the speed at which they united behind Kamala. I'm just spitballing for reasons why that happened. I could, of course, also just go with "they're dumb lib NPCs who do what they're told", but that doesn't seem quite the satisfactory explanation.
Well then - you might have your answer for why some people have such a hard time believing it's not an astroturf.
I don't see how that follows.
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
I don't relate to politics that way, no. I have trouble empathizing with other people that do, at least outside of people that are directly involved in campaigns or work in policy positions. It's not a sport, I'm not cheering for it, and I don't get excited about it in this fashion. Politicians are, at best, instrumentally useful when it comes to getting the things I want done.
But sure, this does seem to be exactly how other people relate to it. Their team was down big in the second half, suddenly got a quick score, and now they might win. Wow, how exciting! Is Kamala Harris good, or committed to any particular values, or someone that earned the job? Who gives a shit, she got a pick six and now those Republicans are so fucked! They can't stop her!
The shape of my understanding for how this works has certainly evolved slowly, arriving much after events unfold, and it has not done wonders for my opinion of my fellow man.
I dunno, I think many people are excited now because they can see it's useful to be. That extra bit of voter zeal for Harris could make a difference to the election, whereas the same wasn't plausible with a Biden ticket. It seems more rational now to add one's excitement to a pot that could overflow into an electoral win. Whether Harris is herself all that exciting is a secondary consideration.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The "both parties are like this" heuristic is normally a good one. In this case, though, it's pretty clearly wrong.
Donald Trump was the result of a genuine grassroots movement. The Republican establishment very much did not want him around, but simply got run over.
Kamala, on the other hand, had the Vice Presidency and then the nomination handed to her by party insiders. She still, as far as I know, is not allowing any unscripted appearances or interviews. It is pure astroturf, much more even than Hilary's 2008 and 2016 campaigns. All interactions between her and the public are mediated by the party and the media.
Amusingly enough, I had a discussion with someone earlier today on that, on the theme / note that Trump has toppled a number of prominent political dynasties over the last decade. We spent a good minute trying to recall whether he'd upset more Republican or Democratic dynastic arrangements.
More options
Context Copy link
And yet, after getting run over, they acquiesced and acclimated to the situation very fast, and Trump ended up governing pretty much like a standard Republican, and now there's not a particular visible difference between the "Trump movement" and the Republican party in itself.
My point was more that when you're talking about the national politics at this level, there's no firm line separating a wholly grassroots movement from a wholly artificial one. All notable movements have at least some organic popular support, all movements also involve someone planning things from the above and conducting at least campaigns of at least some level of artificiality.
Are you kidding? there is still a huge difference between the average republican party member and the average republican party voter. Are you forgetting they booted their speaker for the first time in history? Does the propaganda just work differently on you guys? You can't remember basic political happenings from a year ago? Is the dissonance between what you're told to believe and what actually is just so great that your mind starts to paint over things?
And how much did that change, concretely?
Again, there doesn't seem to be a particular visible difference between the "Trump movement" and the Republican party - because the Republican Party is Trump's party, and what the Trump movement does is follow Trump and rationalize his actions, no matter what they are. Trump wants Mehmet Oz as a candidate in Pennsylvania despite him being an obvious charlatan? Then Oz is a candidate. Trump wants to moderate on abortion, or throw away free-market principles? Then that happens. Anti-vaxxers who believe the vaccine was a genocide going to bat for Trump, who couldn't stop talking about his big beautiful vaccine that came to be because of him? No sign of cognitive dissonance in evidence.
What the "non-Trump" Republican Party, insofar as it has an independent existence (staffers, politicians etc.) thinks, seems to be ephemeral. Either they pledge allegiance to Trump or they're out. And it's easy to pledge allegiance since Trump didn't want any radical ideological changes anyhow - the most radical things he did, ie. around Jan 6, were simply related to his continual desire to cling in power.
It delayed funding (money laundering) for globalist wars for a few months. After that it changed nothing, but this isn't because the republicans in congress are captured by Trump. It's because they rebelled against Trump and enough of them were talking about voting with the democrats to push the funding through. The reality is that Johnson isn't a Trump populist. He does what the other snakes in congress do and pays lip service to Trump, Trump is shallow and doesn't learn from his betrayals so this works, and then ultimately does what the neolib/neocon police state wishes.
They don't care who Trump appoints to get elected because the elections are already rigged in a, heads I win, tails you lose way. If Oz is a charlatan and loses then their guy that is willing to go to bat for the imperialist occupiers still gets in via the dem candidate. McConnell will even play with republican campaign funding to help that happen.
The anti-vax thing is just another weak man. Republicans were no more anti-vaccine than dems, if anything the vaccines cause autism thing was more of a California hippy, "nature is good, not nature is not good" thing prior to covid totalitarianism. The friction came when the state decided to force it on people and use a bizarre and illegal interpretation of OSHA rules to pressure employers until that was struck down. Before that there was a lot less pushback and maybe if the globalists hadn't held back news that the vaccine had passed trials til after the election to help their team republicans would've been more for it.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Posing rhetorical questions in the second person is not against the rules, but it is very often a sign that you are dropping into an antagonistic rather than productive conversational pose.
These in particular are standard issue hollow accusations; they seem routinely applicable to basically everyone, and are equally routinely dismissed with "eh old news." So if you actually want to talk about relevant past events, you should put in the effort to specify which events you find most relevant, why you find them most relevant, and how you think that matters.
In short, none of the questions you asked appears to be a solicitation of actual information or in furtherance of discussion. You're just being performatively incredulous at your outgroup.
Don't.
More options
Context Copy link
Yes, the average Republican Party member sits sufficiently further to the right that Republican politicians need to moderate hugely from their party platforms to avoid mass defections from among their voters.
The hardline conservative quintile staffs and runs the Republican Party. Even the rinos have offices mostly made up of uberconservative hardliners, with aids constantly pushing for things that would have been called tea party wish list items back when that was the term in use. A successful GOP politician like Abbott or Desantis manages to thread the needle of moderating enough to keep the normies while giving GOP members(hi!) enough of what we want to harness our enthusiasm.
I know and have even dated Republic staffers. They are generally significantly more moderate than the base, and behind closed doors lament the voters in their own party. They are not "ultraconservstive hardliners": I don't know how you make sense of conservative politics of the last 20 years if you believe the party is sympatico with the base.
Yes they frequently lived for a long time in places like DC. It is in the water. If the republicans were smart, they would campaign on making DC poor (eg move the house to say Tulsa and the senate to say Orlando).
They tried moving the Department of Interior to Colorado Springs under Trump, but bureaucratic revolt/heel dragging kept much from actually happening before Biden was elected and reversed the decision.
Moving the agencies out of DC to help cure the government monoculture has been a Republican wishlist item for decades, and I wouldn't doubt it if Project 2025 has a whole chapter on just that. Easier said than done, unfortunately.
More options
Context Copy link
Yes. Starve DC. Move every federal department to a cheap rust belt city.
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
Why not? "Lesser of two evils" logic could support no one liking what any party has to offer.
It's not that there's a reason there couldn't be, it's that no one seems to be able to argue for Kamala directly. The enthusiasm is always in another castle.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link