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 -
In non-American election news of note, the German governing coalition has collapsed with German Chancellor Scholz (SDP party) sacked his Finance Minister (FDP), setting the stage for a snap election in the next few months, possibly as early as January.
The collapse occurred for typically German reasons, which is to say over money and budgets and deficit spending. Specifically, how to cover a 60-billion euro hole in the budget after a German court in November 2023 annulled a plan to repurpose COVID emergency funds, when more money is needed to conduct domestic stimulus / address EU issues / further support Ukraine. Scholz and other members of the coalition wanted to suspend the German balanced budget amendment, i.e. the 2009 debt break amendment to the constitution. The FDP, a more neoliberal minority member of the coalition but who had the finance minister portfolio, refused. Scholz had an exceptionally emotive press conference yesterday, and now the issue is turning over to the timing of the vote of no confidence to bring forth a new election.
Yes, Germany- the country which helped replace multiple governments in southern Europe in the name of enforcing austerity and balanced budgets- just saw its own government collapse over deficit spending. There are jokes to be made here.
While this issue was German internal politics in nature, however, the timing was almost certainly a consequence of the US election, which is to say we could blame Donald Trump. The issues are not new and have been building for a year, while German election results in recent elections have shown a rise of the right that worries the German establishment whose coalition is as much to keep them out as it is to keep itself in. The confluence or risks was acceptable while Biden was in the white house, and might have continued had Harris won.
The victory of Donald Trump in the American election, however, provided new future risks. If the previous German expected election cycle occurred in OCT 25, that would be the better part of a year in which budget-locked Germany couldn't maneuver diplomatically on any major financial issue, even as Trump is almost certainly going to make that a major issue. Further, Scholz would have been in a lame duck position as the months ticked by, unable to do much and no one necessarily expecting his continuation into 2026.
By quickening the election to as early as January, right as Trump transitions into office, Scholz will (possibly) mitigate those risks, while also (probably) benefit from substantial anti-Trump sentiment in Germany that will probably support the SDP more than it's further-right rivals. While Scholz himself may / may not be the leader of the next government, the election may break free the FDP log jam on deficit spending.
Which, to put it lightly, will have major political (and social) implications for not just Germany, but Europe as a whole.
German political power in Europe- overt and soft- has for a decade and a half been limited as much by German budgetary restrictions as by German reputational inclination towards fiscal restraint. But if Germany is willing to spend big, this will be a tidal wave of money no one else in Europe would be able to match, which no existing systems were expecting to absorb and utilize, and so a lot of money which many in the European Union will seek to channel. This is both in terms of other countries trying to get what benefits they can out of spending to benefit their own needs, whether that's debt cancelation or military investments or so on, but also at the EU level, where Germany will have a lot more purse for a lot more power of the purse. There have long been dreams of German-financed financial consolidation in the EU that were economically impossible so long as Germany barred itself from funding them- but if the debt break barier is removed, then it's 'merely' a very difficult lobbying effort.
It will also create an interesting context for other countries seeking to shape the incoming government. In 2021, for example, remember that the Belarus migration crisis was itself timed to the German government formation, and which led to a partial rapproachment between PIS-Poland and Germany due to Polish tactics to force back migrants aiming to go to Germany (and thus the enabler-governments behind those migrants willingness to poke Germany in the eye at a senstivie time). Expect non-trivial cross-europe lobbying and advocating within Germany as well, as countries try to enable foreign voting from their territory (if they think ti might benefit) / mobilize expatriats / good old fashioned election propaganda and social media and newfangled AI-propaganda influence efforts.
None of this is a guarantee, mind you. The German election could be more divided and create a weaker government rather than a stronger one. There's no guarantee that the FDP fiscal log jam will be expelled. The government might be 'worse' by whatever standard of good you choose.
But this could be significant that will impact the next years of European politics.
In similar "news" from Sweden: ~90% of the Parliament (take a guess who wasn't on board) recently came to an agreement to change budget surplus goal to a "balance" goal, meaning we won't have to run a budgetary surplus anymore and can therefore spend more money (or will be able to in 2027 anyway).
Beyond that, there is talk of handling a fair bit of investments, like new nuclear reactors, in infrastructure outside of the budget. I personally think it might be reasonable to separate investments and running costs into different buckets so that it's easy to tell what we're actually spending money on and that we're not getting in debts for unsustainable running expenses, and set different goals for the different categories of expenses.
Regardless this is more money and demand going mostly into the EU economy.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link