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 -
Shower thought: conditional on a Harris win in 2024, what are the odds that Trump runs again in 2028? I want a return to the dynamics of pre-Trump elections, where at least the candidates had the decency to act embarrassed at being shown to be corrupt, so the fewer times he gets at bat the better.
He'll have the existing huge demand for populist wrecker policies and style that most politicians can't supply, so the crowd will want him back. The crowd wants him back, so it seems like his narcissism would pull him back in, but his age might preclude it, and a loss might drive him away from Presidential elections via sour grapes.
I don't know much of his psychology, and of course there's four years of unknown unknown developments until then. What other factors can you all identify? How do we beat them all against each other to get a spread of probabilities?
I think they'd be pretty low. 82 is old, he'd be president til 86. After Biden that will be an impossible sell, Trump makes decisions emotionally but I think even he would see the futility in running in 2028. He also does listen to some of his closest advisors, family etc. and they'd certainly advise against it. I'd give it maybe 10% tops.
That said I'd give a return to pre-Trump election dynamics even lower odds than that. You'll have someone like Vivek or Vance running next. The neocons were jettisoned and joined the dems, Republicans are solidly the populist party for now and I don't see any changes in the political trends that caused the political realignment. If anything there will be long term effects of the recent mass migration that will fuel populism and racial spoils politics for decades to come.
More options
Context Copy link
There is no going back to pre-Trump, any more than there's going back to pre-FDR. The milk is spilled, the eggs are broken, the die is cast. Trump is not the driver of this sentiment, he is just the only one willing to harness the latent desires of the electorate.
If you care about corruption, Nancy Pelosi's career of insider trading is right there. What you want has nothing to do with corruption, or you'd mention the net worth of politicians on a congressional salary. You'd mention book deals that are explicitly excluded from bribery and ethics policies. What you want is something else.
I think what you want is to return to the migration consensus, because that's what I think is the only true difference between politicians and parties these days. You know this is true because of what happened in France, where, when push comes to shove, there's the remigration party and there's everybody else. This explains the Never-Trumpers and the likes of the Cheneys and Mitt Romney. This explains the hysteria over Trump, and the uniparty. Maybe I'm wrong, but I this isn't about corruption, and Trump is not particularly corrupt when compared to other politicians.
But who else can? J.D. Vance? Seems kinda unlikely. Desantis? Tried once, failed... maybe he could succeed without Trump as opposition, but it seems doubtful. What the Democrats hope is not that the GOP goes back to pre-Trump, but that their base basically dries up and blows away, becoming an unaffiliated and impotently dissatisfied group who can be ignored electorally. The GOP keeps the neocon remnants that haven't gone over to the Democrats, plus a few paleocons and business republicans who aren't neocons, and as a result is so small that it never is able to mount a serious challenge again.
Vance, DeSantis, Abbott, and Scott are the obvious candidates that spring to mind, and I wouldn't rule out Kushner or Don Jr. either. Unlike the Democrats, the Republicans also have a reasonably deep bench of young-ish state level officials of which i expect at least a couple to ready for promotion to the national stage within the next 4 years.
Recall that no one outside of Florida had even heard of DeSantis prior to 2016. (Sure he'd been a state rep. since 2012 but how many people know who thier own state rep. is much less who anyone else's is?)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The problem for the Republicans is what does the post-Trump era look like.
I love J.D. Vance. I think he's the smartest politician we've seen for a long time and he is clued in to the real problems we face in a way that the dinosaurs in both parties are not. He is probably one of the few politicians who has read Scott.
But let's be honest. He'd get slaughtered in the general. High IQ white guys like Vance don't win minority and blue collar voters.
Now that the Republicans have gone populist, they will need populism to win. It feels overly dramatic, but I am seriously worried that unless Trump wins we will have uniparty rule for a long time.
I feel like this is something the Pumpkin-Spice class tells itself to justify not even bothering to try. Reagan, Bush II, and to a lesser degree DeSantis, all being clear counter-examples.
Maybe I'm over updating. I'm a huge DeSantis fan who legit thought that he would win the Republican nomination. He is massively popular in Florida. But he couldn't even get off the starting block.
So here's my updated theory. In the current climate, 95% of the media is enemy territory. You need some sort of guerilla strategy to get airtime. Simply having a great track record and great ideas isn't enough. Look what the media did to Vance. If he gets coverage at all in the media, it's heavily negative. Meanwhile, a midwit like Walz gets tons of positive coverage despite having a terrible record and being a phony to boot. So Republicans need to hack the media to win, which is what Trump did in 2016.
The idea that a conventional candidate like Romney or Bush Sr. could thrive in 2024 just seems anachronistic. The elites wholesale abandoned the Republican Party for the Democrats starting around 2010. Without their support, you need something special.
I don't know. I hope I'm wrong.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
He's 78. He'll be 82 in 2028. He's already showing signs of fatigue and cognitive decline. I wouldn't put it past him to still think he can make a run (I don't think he's capable of admitting he was beaten), but I can't see it being a realistic possibility.
More options
Context Copy link
If Trump doesn't win he will go to jail (80% certainty). I think this might constrain his ability to run.
But I think he might run anyway. Contra the people who say he is senile (a sure sign of TDS by the way) he is still very energetic and funny as hell. Last night's speech at the Al Smith dinner was a banger. The guy had a crowd of New York democrats roaring in laughter.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=XI0MUoW28VE
I could write some of the jokes out but they wouldn't do it justice. It requires a feel for the crowd and comedic timing that only a really talented performer can deliver.
He was fine. If you disengage from your partisan inclinations and watch Obama, Bill Clinton, even Bush I and II speeches they’re all often very funny and have good jokes. That’s what happens when you hire professionals to write these things for you. Trump’s delivery is fine. He does the job. He’s not embarrassing or bad. He’s also not great or anything.
More options
Context Copy link
I’ll be honest, I found his speech at that dinner very grating. Yes, his speechwriters supplied him with a couple of mildly funny lines. The lead-up to those lines was 15-20 minutes of rambling, political self-promotion (I’m aware that politicians routinely attend these functions as part of campaigning, but the talented ones are able to be far more subtle about it than Trump was) and mean-spirited, unfunny jabs at Kamala Harris, Bill DeBlasio, and Chuck Schumer. Now, look, I hate all three of those people. I’ve said far meaner things about all three of them than what Trump said. However, that’s totally against the spirit of an event like this.
I’m not sure that Trump really grasps the purpose of a “roast”. It’s supposed to be compliments disguised as insults. Celebration disguised as denunciation. Love disguised as hate. And the disguise is supposed to be thin enough that anyone with a modicum of subtlety and tact can easily discern what’s really going on. Whereas Trump genuinely loathes the people he’s talking about (and to) so there is no warmth.
And perhaps that’s inevitable, when you invite powerful and controversial individuals (like Chuck Schumer, or Bill DeBlasio, or Donald Trump) to such an event. Maybe the “roast” style is just fundamentally unsuited to accommodate differences of opinion and interests this divergent. Certainly I’m not gonna weep for Chuck Schumer’s hurt feelings, or Kamala Harris’ tarnished dignity. As someone with a lot of genuine love for roasts as a comedic/social art form (and someone who has participated in a few of them myself) the whole thing came of as very unseemly and inappropriate to me.
Oh man I read this the exact opposite of you.
I thought Trump was extremely, savant level charming. It honestly made me sad that most of our politicians are so terrible.
Him pointing out that he wrote Schumer his first check, or getting in the jabs and stuff against Eric Adams (even if they were all pre written, which I doubt since it sounded very much like trumps “voice”) made it feel like there is hope that we can all actually get along.
Maybe this is just crack to me since I’m an upper-class-adjacent (friends and I are now scheming to buy a table at this event) Catholic, straight, cisgendered white male with a wife and children.
I loved this event last night. I am legitimately in afterglow this morning from it text back and forth with the aforementioned friends making (probably just aspirational tbh) plans about going to this event.
More options
Context Copy link
Yeah, he's a bit of dick.
One interesting thing about this situation is that, supposedly, Trump decided to run for President when he himself was the victim of a mean-spirited roast by Obama at the Press Correspondent's Dinner in 2011. This whole thing could have been avoided if Obama had just resisted the urge. But it was too tempting.
Like Trump, Obama has great comedic timing. I laughed back then at Trump's expense much like I laughed at Schumer's this time. Being actually funny (a rare trait in politicians) excuses a lot in my book.
The Zapruer Film of the 21st century. Obama had just given the order to kill Bin Laden. Seal Team Six was making final preparations as he spoke. The newly-released long-form birth certificate listed the time as 7:24PM, but on history's clock it was sunset, and the sun of the old world was setting in a dying blaze of splendor never to be seen again.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I don't think he's senile. I think he's showing signs of decline. Clearly not as bad as Biden, but come on. It's not TDS to recognize the man is old and shows it.
I thought the same as you but today I heard a recording of him talking in 2014. I think his vocal pattern is just like that, regardless of cognitive decline.
More options
Context Copy link
All I can see is what I see. When I watch events like the Al Smith dinner I see a person far more present and capable than Harris (who appears absolutely haggard to me in her rare unscripted appearances).
Let’s not forget that age 60 is not exactly a spring chicken either.
I do agree that the odds of Trump falling off a cliff in the next 4 years are non-zero. You can't cheat father time. But, no, it hasn't happened yet.
I've seen Trump look sharp and alert, and I've seen him ramble and spew word salad. Maybe, like Biden, he has good days and bad days.
Harris, after watching her Fox interview, I think really is just dumb as a post. And yes, it's ridiculous that she's the "young" candidate.
But I remain of the opinion that Trump at 82 will not be in any shape to run for president, let alone to perform.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Are you suggesting Trump is unique in his shamelessness?
Placeholder reply: I have thoughts on this, but I don't want to divert the evolution of the discussion yet.
Maybe I'm not evolving the discussion much but I think he is unique or at least extraordinarily unusual in his shamelessness.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link