site banner
PaperclipPerfector  14hr ago (text post)   1998 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of November 18, 2024

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.

Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

In the weeks up to the election, I started listening to the NYT podcast, especially "The Ezra Klein Show" by Ezra Klein, "The Daily" by Michael Barbaro, and "The Run Up" by Astead Herndon. I usually thought of the NYT as this bastion of liberal thinking leftist thinking, uncritical of what they are. I no longer think so. I now think that the best journalists of the NYT (the ones who get to have podcasts) are self-critical, intelligent, and are powerful voices articulating the current problems of the world. Obviously people have flaws and they might not be able to understand their own biases from time to time, look no further than Michael Barbaro's recent interview with Bernie Sanders where Sanders at one point exasperatedly remarks "Michael, you haven't heard a word that I've said, and that's... impressive". But on the whole, I respect individual NYT journalists a lot more after this US election.

For my first top-level post, I want to draw attention specifically to an episode of "The Daily" titled "On the Ballot: An Immigration System Most Americans Never Wanted" which has Barbaro interview David Leonhardt on his investigation on the immigration issue. I thought it was a good look at the historical progression of immigration laws in the United States. And like the journalist on that episode, the conclusion was: "It's the Democrat's fault, and the elites". Whether it was LBJ and RFK (sr) who fought for the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, promising that the country won't be flooded with immigrant worker, but then didn't think to close the loophole that is family immigration, or it was Bill Clinton who couldn't deliver on the findings of the U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform lead by Barbara Jordan (btw, an absolutely awesome woman), or Biden with his perplexing loosening of the southern border compared to Obama.

The closing was especially poignant, Leonhardt noted:

It simply is not sustainable in a democracy to have our elected representatives promise us one thing and then have it do the exact opposite of what they promised ... I think we're not going to get to a sustainable immigration system until Washington reckons with the past failure to produce what it promised the American people it was going to do.

To be fair, like the video pointed out, there were reasons why the Democrats made such missteps. LBJ/RFK was too idealistic regarding family immigration (they never thought of chain migration) and the opponents of the bill were racist (right message wrong messengers). Clinton had the pulse of the electorate, he set up the commission, but was opposed by both Democrats (pro-immigration idealists) and Republicans (corporate interests in keeping wages low). Biden, worst of all, had Trump-derangement syndrome with regards to immigration and loosened policy.

One might ask "why now? why didn't this become such a huge issue for the American electorate in the last half of century". Well, it's because times were good. Immigration is just another big issue but never one of the biggest. Economic growth smoothens immigration concerns (and there are a lot of upsides to immigration). The crux is this exchange [emphasis mine]:

Barbaro: I guess I don't quite understand why Bill Clinton would have bowed to those pressures David, because it sounds like a bunch of elites activists, business leaders, are the ones trying to torpedo this. But Bill Clinton has many political gifts and one of them is to recognize what gets someone elected or reelected, and it feels like what Barbara Jordan is really telling him is that high levels of immigration, legal and illegal, are a threat to working class America. And Bill Clinton would have understood, I'd have to think, that working class America is really essential to the Democratic party that he leads.

Leonhardt: I think two things are happening here. One the economy just keeps getting stronger over the course of the 1990s, which is a reminder that immigration is just one force among many that shapes an economy and it's not the main one. And the second thing is that political elites really matter. And what has happened over the last few decades is that both of our parties became ever more dominated by college graduates, and people who had the concerns and interests of college graduates as opposed to working class people. And so Democrats become a little bit less focused on what blue collar workers want, and we see this with both trade and immigration. And in the Republican Party those same corporate interests that have long had huge sway over the Republican Party do. And so when you think of official Washington and the people who are making policy and who are lobbying for it, you just have much less pressure for changes to the immigration system than public opinion might suggest that you would.

Barbaro: this is reminding me so much of what happened with NAFTA, with the North American Free Trade Agreement, which is that elites, powerful entrenched forces in Washington, increasingly disconnected from working class America, see nothing but upside in globalization and free trade, and don't anticipate the ways in which NAFTA will hurt working class America. there's not much dispute that it does.

Leonhardt: I think that's exactly right. And I think one of the real mistakes that proponents of immigration have made, and this is both business conservatives who want more immigration, and it's progressives who from a justice perspective want more immigration, I think one of the real mistakes they've made is they tend to argue that immigration is a free lunch and in fact immigration just benefits everyone. And the research doesn't support that idea nor do people's everyday experiences support that idea. Immigration has trade-offs, it has enormous advantages for an economy, but it also has some costs, and those costs do tend to be borne disproportionately by working class people and that's part of why so many people are so anxious about it.

As an aspiring US immigrant myself, how Leonhardt interpreted the findings of Barbara Jordan keeps ringing in my head:

there's a fundamental difference between being pro-immigrant and being pro-immigration and she says we are a nation of immigrants but at the same time she says that doesn't mean we should always want higher and higher levels of immigration in fact sometimes having higher and higher levels of immigration can hurt immigrants immigrants who came here several years ago are often the ones who compete for jobs with the very most recent immigrants and when immigration gets too high it can lead to a political backlash that hurts people who came here often legally several years before.

Or as Barbaro summarizes:

if you're to pro-immigration it will undermine the position of being pro-immigrant

Or as how I would put it:

Being pro-immigrant does not mean pro-immigration

In the end, I have a growing sympathy for the anti-immigration argument (irregardless of how much more stress or heartbreak this is going to cause me the next few years), a new respect for the journalists of the NYT, and at least three more podcasts I look forward to every week.

I suppose my question to kick off discussion are:

  1. How have your thoughts changed on the issue of US immigration after this election season?
  2. Who are the people/pundits that you've changed your opinions on?

For what it’s worth I’ve been really impressed with Ezra Klein, Pod Save America, Matthew Yglesias, and others in the wake of the election. Lots of pretty brutal criticism of stupid things that the Democratic Party has been doing, and quite sophisticated analysis of voting patterns etc.. I get the feeling that a lot of these people wanted to speak up more loudly sooner, but it was only once progressives were properly on the back foot that they felt empowered to do so. I hope this is a general trend for the left going forward, and that they’re able to become a big-tent intellectual hothouse of a movement again.

I’ve been struggling quite a bit to understand the whole Trump phenomenon. Despite the rivers of ink spilled on the topic, we still don’t have a robust theory of what makes him appealing to voters. A complex multicausal explanation involving loss of institutional prestige, social media, economic changes, and the like seems attractive, but there are good reasons to be suspicious of such explanations.

Maybe it’s just immigration. The single biggest failure of Western Democracies that sticks out like a sore thumb is their complete inability to control immigration. The UK is the prime example of this. The people voted to leave the European Union, causing easily foreseeable economic damage, because they were tired of immigration. Then the Conservative government in power proceeds to not actually lower immigration.

If you live in a Western Democracy and you want a secure border and less immigration, you can’t just vote for someone who says they want a secure border and less immigration. You have to vote for someone who viscerally hates immigrants. Someone who hates them personally, and who hates the very idea of what immigration represents. If their heart isn’t in it, they will predictably fold. Arguably Trump himself doesn’t go far enough here. We didn’t even get a wall last time.

Despite the rivers of ink spilled on the topic, we still don’t have a robust theory of what makes him appealing to voters.

He literally just ran a campaign wherein he successfully appealed to voters. Have you tried looking at his actual appeals to voters, and what voters say they found persuasive about them?

The single biggest failure of Western Democracies that sticks out like a sore thumb is their complete inability to control immigration.

What about the wars? What about cost disease? What about culture war? What about Institutional trust and social cohesion?

This all seems quite straightforward to me, and I'm at a loss where the confusion is coming from. Blue Tribe achieved a high degree of social and political dominance. They became The System. They then failed to deliver appreciable progress, and their failed efforts burned institutional trust and social cohesion. Because of that loss, the public is now rebelling against them en-masse.

I wanted to vote against the dominant foreign policy consensus, typified by endless, pointless foreign wars. Trump seems like the best candidate available to do that.

I wanted to vote against the dominant economic consensus, typified by offshoring and free trade, the service economy and the decline of industrialization. Trump seems like at least one of the best candidates possible to do that.

I wanted to vote against the dominant social consensus, and particularly against the repeated and coordinated attempts at forcing epistemic closure on the part of major political, media and corporate institutions. Again, Trump.

I want to vote against rule by an unelected, unresponsive and uncontrollable federal bureaucracy. Again, Trump.

I want to vote against crime and unaccountable political violence. Again, Trump.

I want to vote against entrenched corruption on the part of government officials. Again, Trump.

I want to vote against censorship and propaganda coordination between the government and major media corporations. Again, Trump.

I want to vote against the disastrous educational policies that have been shambling forward like a zombie for the last fifty years or so. Again, Trump.

None of this even seems to require "multicausal" explanations. I want to break the social and political dominance of Blue Tribe. All of these are just expressions of that dominance, and the insulation from consequence or accountability that has resulted from that dominance. And sure, there's a lot of Trump voters who probably wouldn't describe their view in the way I have above: they'd say something like "everything's gone to shit" or "I don't trust the democrats or the media" or something along those lines. Tomato, tomahto.

Arguably Trump himself doesn’t go far enough here. We didn’t even get a wall last time.

Trump had many failures last time. But given the record of how his last administration went, it's hard for me to grasp an argument that the problem was Trump, and not the entrenched elites working to foil and destroy him from the second the 2016 election ended. This goes well beyond immigration, into a whole variety of very serious illegalities and norm violations taken in an effort to end or at least stonewall his presidency and to protect his opponents.

A lot of people support Trump because they want to fight back against a system they perceive to be deeply pernicious and entirely insulated from accountability. They want that system removed, because its continued existence forecloses their ability to hope for a better future.

Where it gets complicated is that at least some of these things could theoretically be achieved by other Republicans like DeSantis who wouldn't have Trump's ability to make unforced errors (with an idiot-savant ability to tell how much his party is willing to tolerate).

And yet, Trump blew them all out in the primary.

who wouldn't have Trump's ability to make unforced errors

Desantis's entire campaign which burned through hundreds of millions of dollars was a train of unforced errors from horrible staff picks to position picks

basic interaction with Trump supporters should make clear they thought Desantis was a fraud like so many other Republicans, especially ones with neocon tendencies who claim their idol is George HW Bush

De Santis was not working to achieve these things prior to the rise of Trump in 2016. He fell in line behind Trump after Trump was already ascendant. If the Blues can successfully destroy Trump, I am not confident he will not simply tack back to the center. He is efficient and effective, but not reliable.

Blues have made destruction of Trump an overriding priority, and therefore a legible proxy for their control. Reds, it seems to me, correctly perceive defense against such destruction as a Schelling point to coordinate around. We believe that our own party has been grifting us for decades, and we are attempting to weed out the grifters, to align the party with our values in fact rather than only in appearance. Part of that is rejecting the sort of "compromises" that have been used for decades to sell those values out. A good way to avoid those compromises with our enemies is to force them to compromise with us instead. Trump is excellent at accomplishing this, and the "never Trump" movement has successfully removed a large proportion of these people from our party.

If Trump had lost the primary, the argument would be that "Trumpism" had clearly failed, and that it was time for "moderation" and "reconciliation" and for the Republican Party to "regain its sanity". In other words, total capitulation to the Blue consensus. We know this because this was the argument for why it was a mistake for the Republican party to support Trump in 2024. And if it had worked, the argument would have smoothly transitioned to "The republican party is still tainted by the shadow of Trump, and all his supporters/policy goals/constituency must be purged". And once this was accomplished, in another few years all the articles about how the current Republican candidate was actually Hitler would start back up, and Cthulhu would continue swimming left. We need our leadership to reject the authority of Blue Tribe in total. We need them to ignore and delegitimize the media and the knowledge production apparatus generally. We need them to break the bureaucracy. They can't do that if they're convinced that fighting is doomed and "compromise" with Blues is the only path forward.

I’m every bit in favor of a sane policy on immigration. We’d probably have a better handle on illegal migration if it were plausible to get into the country legally with a reasonable record and work history and no criminal record. Our current process is long and drawn out and doesn’t allow people to immigrate quickly. If the choice is a 5-10 year wait or hop the fence, I don’t think you can act shocked when a lot of people jump the fence. At the same time, I don’t think it’s sustainable to have millions of people come in, then throw up your hands and act shocked when people whose town population doubled in the last year with people who don’t speak English want them rounded up. Our system is the dumbest most convoluted thing I can think of, topped with zero effort at enforcement. If you’re here illegally, you can basically do whatever you want with no worries. And eventually you get amnesty and thus you get to apply for citizenship and all that comes with it. Insane.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats