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 -
While the discussion here is focusing on the grand-dynamic of USAID's disruption, I'd just throw out that the organizational change is liable to be almost as important longer-term. At the very least, if the Trump administration keeps and formalizes USAID as a part within the State Department, this has a decent chance of being a grudgingly kept reorganization that a future Democratic administration is less likely to reverse.
Put very briefly- in organizational terms, orgs. like USAID are competitors with foreign policy establishments, loose canons who take resources away and can undermine deliberate efforts by virtue of not answering to the nominal heads of foreign policy.
In most countries, foreign aid is understood and viewed as a means to an end, not an end in and of itself. You offer aid as an incentive for countries to do what you want them to do, you withhold it as a response to things you don't want them to do. It is a lever for advancing national interests. Note that this is reflected in some of the Trump-bad arguments, that USAID is good because it advances American interests.
But USAID's reputation in some ways is the inverse of the premise: an organization that sees its purpose being to spend money for [good things], in and of itself, without the 'selfish' elements of state interest. It is supposed to be 'apolitical,' offering aid regardless and building bridges, figuratively (and maybe a little literally). The goodwill of the American people, made manifest, etc. etc. etc.
What that means, however, is that if the State Department or Ambassador in a country wants to reign in support, and the USAID teams want to go forward... well, the State Department isn't the boss of USAID, and so the bureaucratic turf fights mean they might work together, but that it's personal rather than institutional. In turn, local actors know that- those who can are able to leverage USAID for funding even if the Ambassador disapproves, even though the Ambassador is supposed to be the lead US representative.
Worse, from an institutional perspective, is that the funds that go to USAID are funds that are not going to the State Department, which is already a not-particularly-resourced wing of the US government. And to make that worse, many lay-persons think that they are aligned... and so that spending on one (the USAID feel-good side) benefits the 'other part,' even though they aren't one in the same. Resources are a zero-sum goal, and resources for USAID for foreign policy purposes aren't, well, going to the foreign policy institution.
As a result, the significance of Rubio being 'acting director' is that USAID, if not dissolved outright, will almost certainly be folded into the State Department. And that means that the local state department leads- which is to say the Ambassadors and Embassies- will be able to trump the USAID bureaucrats in any turf battles, bringing them into line or replacing recalatrant administrators who were used to a far different culture.
You do not have to think well of Trump to appreciate that change. And when the post-Trump changeovers happen, even if those new Ambassadors are dyed-in-wool Democrats and political allies... well, they aren't going to want to lose their Embassy resources and control, just in the name of anything-but-Trump.
So, just on a organizational self-interest angle, the USAID reorganization is liable to stick. A lot of the protests we're seeing now from the grant side or the Trump-bad side are contextual objections of those who stand to lose money, or those who would oppose any change by Trump. But when those patronage networks are dissolved, I'd be surprised to see them recreated out of any sort of nostalgia.
This reputation has been destroyed by DOGE. They could claim that ZunZuneo was a one-time blunder and they were all about the goodwill of the American people otherwise: food, medicine and infrastructure, no strings attached. Except that suddenly Ukrainian journalists and Iranian activists start doomposting about their lack of funding. Who's going to let USAID back into their country after that?
I assume that covert influence operations are structured
90% food, medicine and infrastructure
10% subversion
and that looking inside the 90% food, medicine and infrastructure, it is actually 60% food, medicine and infrastructure 30% corruption and pay-offs.
The locals who benefit from the 30% corruption and pay-offs would be keen to let USAID back in, and either don't care about the 10% subversion, or consider it acceptable if it means that they get their cut.
More options
Context Copy link
The same people who let it in before. That USAID members and advocates fancied it in a certain way never meant that other actors shared in that view. Iranian activists weren't exactly being supported from inside Iran, and the Ukrainians who are getting support aren't exactly at odds with the Ukrainian government.
I was thinking about unaligned third-world countries, the ones that have internationally recognized sham elections. The US used to be able to come and say, "here's our aid, but you will let USAID distribute it directly because your institutions are corrupt", which was true. But now some African president will be able to counter this with "we won't let USAID into our country because it's a known supporter of subversive activities, as reported by your own newspapers".
Do you think that westerners bearing ‘gender based violence reduction initiatives’ and ‘pro-democracy grants’ were generally beloved by tinpot dictators?
More options
Context Copy link
'Used to'? 'But now'?
You're acting as if they claims didn't already exist. Conspiracies inflating USAID are more common in those countries, not less. There was nothing preventing the powers from making those claims or objections before, not least because they have made such claims before. This doesn't introduce a new dynamic.
Moreover, the reason most countries let in USAID regardless is stronger if USAID is rolled into the State Department, not weaker: picking a fight over it is picking a fight with the American embassy in your country. When USAID and the American Embassy are divided, it's a lower political cost (if at all) to block them- hence why there are more countries with US Embassies than USAID. When USAID and the Embassy are one in the same, blocking USAID now a constant issue with the Ambassador... who, of course, can block other aid / assets / diplomatic favors / etc. until you want in.
And sure, there are some countries that write that off... but these are countries where USAID was not active regardless.
Whereas for any country that wants to maintain American economic inputs in addition to all other sources (i.e. trying to maximize money gained), an argument of 'we won't accept your money because it comes with your influence efforts' is not particularly compelling if your country accepts significant amount of money from China which similarly comes with influence efforts. Unless, again, you are the sort of country where USAID is already not active regardless.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I don't suppose you also recently read the CSIS article on USIA merging with the state department? Which, oddly enough, I found from following a Brookings link that purported to link to an entirely different topic.
Not recently, no, though I am familiar with the line of argument. I will admit I don't find it particularly compelling- the argument is basically 'we do more and better apart than together,' when most strategies are about aligning synergistic efforts that reinforce eachother. It also relies on the assumption that Development + Diplomacy gets more money than Development-unified-Diplomacy, which I don't find particularly compelling... and which the recent action rather disproves, since USAID is currently getting the axe for a lack of institutional/political protection that it would have had with the State Department.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link