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's fair that you complain. But, let's be honest, 99% of the complaining is not coming from principled libertarians. It's coming from totalitarian statists who are mad that their toys are being taken away.
Suddenly, when their 300k per year no-show job is under threat, they rediscover the Federalist Papers.
I'm not a libertarian either, and I also didn't like seeing the expansion of executive powers under Obama, or much of anything that Biden did.
Mostly what I see here is arguments over who smashed the Defect button first. If we can't get back to a stable equilibrium where everyone isn't choosing Defect, then whatever America becomes, it will just be wearing labels like "Democracy" and "Republic" as skinsuits. (I'm aware some people believe this is already the case. But if you're an accelerationist who thinks we should just abandon the pretense and make Trump God-Emperor, then I'm not interested in your opinions about executive authority.) There is very little Trump can do that a succeeding Democratic administration can't undo (except perhaps fix it so there can never be another Democratic administration - is that what you are actually hoping for?), and of course, they will continue following precedent and the next Democratic president will act even more like a monarch. Everyone cheering for Trump and Musk now will be outraged - outraged! - at this abuse of power and violation of norms.
Yes, a lot of the people outraged today are hypocrites who thought it was just fine when Obama and Biden were abusing their authority. So what? Do you think it's actually bad for presidents to do this, or do you think it's only bad when it's not the president you voted for? If the former, then what do you expect to be the outcome of each president being encouraged by his supporters to expand his powers? That your party will be in power forever so it's okay?
I guess I should say here that I am very much in a "Wait and see" mood right now. As I said before the election, I don't think Trump is going to be a good president, but I'm willing to be proven wrong, and I am enjoying the leftist convulsions. However, the President can't just abrogate the powers of Congress and decide (or delegate to Elon Musk to decide) which pieces of the federal government he'd like to keep and which pieces he'd like to do away with. (And if you are saying "Yes he can!" and triumphantly quoting Andrew Jackson, well, see above. Better lube up for when the Democrats return to power. And Andrew Jackson also ran a notoriously corrupt spoils system, in which federal employment was explicitly conditioned on party loyalty and when your party lost an election, you lost your job. This obviously created undesirable incentives, and led to the civil service reforms some are so eager to dismantle.)
On a slightly more pedantic point, I see a lot of people talking about "$300K laptop jobs." No government worker makes $300K - even the top of the SES pay scale is capped at around $250K, and the GS workers (with or without laptops) are making far less. If you mean NGO workers, maybe some of their executives make that much, but the peons who are mostly the ones losing their jobs don't. Lobbyists, lawyers, and contractors, though? Sure, and oddly enough, I don't see many of them losing their jobs yet.
No there is a difference in kind. DACA is an example of the imperial presidency. There is clear law on the matter. Obama created a new system diametrically opposed to the law.
In contrast, Trump is trying to rein in the unaccountable bureaucracy in a way that can square with congressional delegates (see my above comment to anon_).
That is, just because Trump and Obama both aggressively used the power of the president doesn’t mean they are the same thing. There are important differences that make them different in kind. So your analysis rests on a faulty assumption that the actions are similar.
I agree with you about DACA. I do not agree that what Trump is doing is different in kind, or "a return to norms." I think you just like what Trump is doing and disliked what Democrats did.
What do you think is his limiting principle? If granted success in unilaterally abrogating the power of Congress and the Supreme Court, do you think he will refrain at any point from doing other things he wants on Constitutional grounds?
I don’t fuck with pointless hypos—yes if Trump had all of the power he would probably use it. Few men wouldn’t.
But explain how you think curtailing the power of the admin state is akin to DACA.
Exactly, which is why we should enforce the constraints that are supposed to prevent him from doing that.
There are a lot of things that fall under the category of "curtailing the power of the admin state." Some of them are legal, and are even things I would agree with. Some of them aren't. The President can't just dissolve agencies that were created by law, or redirect or deny funding that was appropriated by Congress. Ending birthright citizenship is another example - even if you think birthright citizenship should be abolished, that requires a Constitutional amendment, not just the President saying so. DACA was the President making new law with his pen, which he's not supposed to do. It's directly equivalent to a lot of the things Trump is doing now.
You seem to be giving into unfounded fears. The bureaucratic state isn’t what stops Trump from having all of this power.
Also the president absolutely can stop funding for an agency without congressional action and is probably required to do so. Again let’s say Congress said “50b to USAOD to accomplish Y.” But USAID spent it to accomplish Z. The president would actually be failing his required duty by not stopping USAID from spending on Z. Full stop. And if you determine the people in that agency are lawless then you need to fire them.
If the president then later on fails to take steps to put people into the agency to accomplish Y then he also failed his duty. But that’s a future issue. Right now he is acting within those safe guards.
Re birthright citizenship I think you are probably right but the president’s position is colorable (even Richard Posner seems to think the better view is the constitution doesn’t require birthright citizenship). There is a difference between taking a position that may not be correct and doing something that is obviously incorrect.
No, it's the Constitution, which allocates powers to Congress and the Supreme Court as well, which is what you seem to want Trump to (sorry, can't resist) trump.
Okay. Agreed. But what I have seen so far is a lot of outrage bait and not much evidence that there's been a sober, meticulous audit of what USAID was authorized to spend money on and what it wasn't. Congress almost certainly did not issue a bullet-pointed list of what USAID was supposed to fund, but a more general mission with probably a lot of discretion (quite likely too much discretion). Before you hop up and get het up, I am not, in principal, against curbing USAID. It looks to me like it's overreached and needs a much tighter leash, and I'd be fine with Trump putting the agency under a freeze while they go through things. Instead we have Musk tweeting outrage fodder about trans operas in Brazil and thus shutting down everything. I think it's throwing the baby out with the bathwater, and you may disagree and think whatever good USAID does is vastly outweighed by Brazilian trans operas, but I don't think the President has the authority to just decide "I don't like what this agency is doing because I'm ideologically opposed to it so I will summarily decide they're breaking the law." Same deal with the FBI; if you want to investigate their prosecution of Jan. 6 because you think it was politically motivated and it made Trump's life difficult, go ahead and investigate. It's good for federal agencies to be put under the spotlight. But unilaterally declaring that everyone who was involved at all (even agents who were assigned to that case - what were they supposed to do, declare "This is an unlawful investigation?" and refuse? Do you think that is actually true?) gets fired (illegally) is not how it's supposed to work.
I've read pro and con arguments and agree that the case for birthright citizenship is muddy. But given that the current state of things is Constitutional law as enforced today, do you think the President should be able to say "I think the Supreme Court was wrong so I'm overruling them"? If you want to end birthright citizenship you need to either pass a Constitutional amendment or bring it before the Supreme Court with a new argument.
So if we are agreeing that the president could stop unauthorized spending then we are disagreeing on method. I think they found out USAID was doing a lot of bs and have decided freeze spending first and then backfill what is actually needed. That seems like a perfectly reasonable approach and not a constitutional crisis. It is only a crisis if they don’t backfill afterwards. That is, you seem to want business as usual in Washington where they start with last years budget and try to find something that may not fit. They are zero baseline budgeting.
Re birthright citizenship the caselaw here is actually muddy. You could argue that the permanent resident case people cite cannot be squared with Elk and therefore the permanent resident case could be read to apply only to lawful permanent residents and not illegals. That is, you could factually distinguish the two.
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 Trump tried to repeal it, and was told by the judges that he'd have to go through the proper administrative procedures to do so -- even though it was not created through those procedures. A check isn't a balance if it's a check on one side only.
That was one of the most absurd rulings — sure it might be illegal but the president saying he won’t enact a program because he think it’s illegal is not sufficient to stop a purely EO.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I feel I should point out that there's a middle-ground here: specifically, "fix it so that SJ is a political non-starter" such that there might be another Democratic administration but it wouldn't get there without abandoning SJ (and then wouldn't want to roll all of it back).
The most obvious, rapid and permanent way to do that ("start WWIII, laugh as the Blue Tribe burns"), I'm decidedly against, at least assuming there's no proper reason for one. The subtler methods I'm less sure about; dismantling the SJ lock on academia-as-gatekeeper-of-the-middle-class I'm fervently in support of, while extreme measures like e.g. bringing back sodomy laws and stripping the vote from those that break them I'd oppose.
Do you really think "SJ" is the biggest problem? Are you putting every single disagreement about how society should operate under that umbrella? Trans issues and DEI make the most noise in politics today, but I really do not think they are actually the biggest problems facing the country, and while 90% of discussion on this forum is about culture war issues, it is, as always, the economy, stupid. (A quote- not actually calling you stupid.) We're trillions of dollars in debt, facing major issues from cans that have been kicked down the road for decades, we've got China and Russia and maybe WWIII, and AI that may or may not be civilization-threatening issues on the horizon - all of these things, IMO, are more important than the "SJ" stuff we like to argue so much about here.
I'll also note that several people replied to me saying, basically, "You're ridiculous for suggesting two sides compromise and work together, that just means one side unilaterally disarms (because the other side is evil)." But when you say "make SJ a political non-starter" - as much as I personally think most SJ stuff is a distraction, it's a major plank for Democrats, so you're just saying they should unilaterally disarm (i.e. abandon all the things they stand for). Sure, it's nice to dream your opponents will abandon all the goals you don't like and focus on the things you care about.
Among your solutions, I agree (obviously) that WWIII (or American Civil War II) would be bad. Likewise a reTVrn to sodomy laws (and repealing the 19th Amendment, and expelling the Jews Edward I-style, etc.) Dismantling the "SJ lock" on academia I'd be in favor of, which is why (I whisper so my friends in academia don't hear me) I'm not entirely against abolishing the DOE, though I'm not sure the bull-in-chinashop way Trump and Musk are going about it is legitimate (or legal). But I really don't think breaking woke hegemony in academia, even if it can accomplished, is our biggest issue. It just makes lots of Red Tribers cheer and forget about the more pressing economic issues that affect them more.
Not disagreeing (I'm on record as saying I'd vote for our SJ party if they had word one about civil defence), but SJ (and the reaction to it) seems to be what's driving the polarisation, which is AFAICT what you were discussing.
I'm not making any demands. I'm pointing out that there are levers Trump/Vance 2028/the Republicans have access to that might alter political demographics* such that it's impossible (or at least vastly more difficult) to assemble a winning coalition while holding to SJ, and thus such that the Democratic Party will have to either jettison SJ or keep losing (and of course I defend their right to pick either), which is a third option omitted by your previously-proposed dilemma of "either set up a one-party state or get everything rolled back later". I agree with pulling some of those levers (the academia one is particularly justified, IMO, as this seems more like "undoing creepy enemy social engineering" than like "doing creepy social engineering in its own right", and the lever Elon Musk already pulled of "buy and uncensor Twitter" seems to have gone pretty well) and not with pulling others, but either way I have essentially no input into which ones the Republicans including Trump do and do not pull.
*To quote B5, "I'll tell you something, my friends, the world is changing every day. The only question is, who's doing it?"; people do change their minds, people do get born or immigrate and start voting, people do die or emigrate and stop voting, and the state of the public square and the education system and the immigration system affect all of those.
More options
Context Copy link
It's certainly extremely pervasive. And by instituting political tests for various positions (such as university faculty, lawyers, doctors) it is a major long term problem. Maybe not the biggest, but very big.
if the Republicans had the re-institution of Jim Crow as a platform plank, would you not insist they abandon it?
I can't insist they do anything, but it would make me even less likely to vote Republican. Do you think everything that can be categorized under the umbrella of "SJ" is equivalent to reinstituting Jim Crow laws? The way people use SJ here seems to refer to liberalism, writ large. "Criminalize leftism" is literally a position I know at least one poster explicitly advocates (and many others clearly would endorse) but it's dumb to suggest that liberals would seriously consider this proposal. A more appropriate analogy would be me "insisting" the Republicans abandon social conservatism. As a liberal I might like that, but it's dumb to think it's a serious proposition.
No analogy is perfect, but it's a pretty close one.
So, again, if the Republicans were pushing re-institution of Jim Crow, would you argue that the Democrats should compromise and work with them? How about if they were pushing for something worse, like slavery or mass "eugenic" culling of the population?
Yes, but compromise and work together means defining what can be negotiated and what can't. Of course each side is going to have red lines, and if the Republicans were seriously proposing reinstituting slavery, I would hope the Democrats would not compromise on that. If you want to define certain things you think the Republicans should not compromise on, fine. If your certain things are literally "everything Democrats want," then expect them to do the same.
Also, however much I dislike the current DEI regime and trans ideology, I do not think they are equivalent to reinstituting slavery or mass eugenic culling. Come on. You might as well ask "What if they were proposing we make worship of the Aztec gods a state religion and practice mass human sacrifice on the National Mall?" You're resorting to argumentum ad absurdum.
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
Yes, it's bad when presidents abuse their authority and Congress is dysfunctional and supine. But it is worse when abuses of authority are only ever policed in one direction and thus policy only ever moves as a one-way ratchet. That dynamic is far more unhealthy than the underlying abuse itself because it cuts at the popular legitimacy of the democratic process entirely, and also leads to degradation of the quality of the party in power (see California, Illinois, NY, etc.).
More options
Context Copy link
I agree with most of what you said but I just want to correct the record and say that plenty of NGO officers make 300k or more much.
More options
Context Copy link
If you can ask "so what?" when it comes to Bush and Obama, why can't you do it regarding Trump?
Anyway, forget the talk about hypocrisy, and let's just focus on the outcomes. Yes, if Trump keeps ruling by decree, the next Dem administration can just undo everything by decree. What you're leaving out is that if Trump doesn't do that, the Dems can still just rule by decree (and have the advantage of not having their institutions disrupted). Show me a path to sustainably reducing abuses of power in the future, and you'll have a compelling argument, but right now you're asking for unilateral disarmament.
That's what I'm doing - I don't really care much about the hypocrisy on either side. I expect both sides to be hypocritical. "We are upset when their side does it, but when our side does it it's good" is practically a default in politics.
I don't know that there is one, but it would require people to actually value bipartisanship again, because you'd have to have people in both parties actually negotiating with each other, instead of treating a political victory as the opportunity to sack and pillage until the party's over.
Look, I understand (and expected) your "You're just asking for unilateral disarmament" argument. I can tell you with lots of Dems (and very liberal ones) on my Facebook feed, that they absolutely feel the same way every time they were asked not to get carried away under Biden, or when they were gloating about all the things Harris was going to do to own the conservatives, and now, when they are being asked to reflect on where it brought them. You are, after all, evil, and norms and rule and law don't really apply when you're trying to fight Nazis. Wow, you say, how terrible and unreasonable! This just proves we should crush them harder. Yup, and so we get exactly the same argument from the right - Democrats are so evil, so unreasonable, so unhinged, that norms and rules of law don't really apply.
So it goes. I'm not quite a doomer yet, but there's no way out unless at least some people want a way out that isn't "unilateral disarmament."
Well then, it's going to be hard for your charges of hypocrisy to mean something. You detail the thought process behind it yourself, and how it's so tragic that both sides see each other as evil and refuse to talk to each other, but if I offer to out my monkey-brain urge to get even on hold, let bygones be bygones, an all I want in return is some plan to ensure this won't happen again, and you've got nothing... then I'm sorry, fighting with gloves off is not hypocrisy. You need to offer a clear and actionable alternative if you want to criticize others.
There's many ways to address this, from "who started it" to disputing whether or not what is happening now is even approaching what they did in the past, but in the end you can always say "they see you in the same way", so I'll give you an argument where I think this does not hold true.
Again, let's forget about the past, and focus on the future. Ultimately, I wish your liberal friends all the best. I want that they are able to live their lives according to their values, free from the interference of evil chuds like me. When I'm in a good mood, I even wish that it brings them all the happiness they expect, rather than what I think are the likely consequences of their ideas. Even though by now they came up with things that warrant a holy crusade, and a declaration that the child sacrifices will stop (and this is more literal than some might expect), I'm willing to accept a cease fire where they their thing in peace, as long as I'm allowed the same. Would you say your liberal friends would find those terms acceptable? If not, than I'm sorry, but we are not the same, and any implication that we are equivalent is false.
I think some of them would, and some of them would not. Just as you personally might be willing to live and let live, but many (most) of your fellow rightists would not. So yes, I think you are equivalent, and the way out is either war or the "moderates" among us persuading the majority to curb the extremists. I do what little I can (I have had relationships suffer as a result); do you ever tell your side "Hey, maybe dial it down a bit"?
Well, I'd love to hear from some of them, whenever I asked this, it was made clear to me that the terms are unacceptable. Trace literally pointed to this as one of the irreconcilable differences.
Ok, now you're just making stuff up.
Depends what you mean. When people are attacking someone on the other side, who doesn't deserve it, yes I intervene. If you mean dial the extremist rhetoric, I'm sorry I am an extremist, and I'm in no mood to come back to le moderat centrism.
I'm making up the fact that there are a lot of rightists who do not believe in compromise or coexistence with leftists? Really?
"Most" is my opinion, but I don't see how you deny "many."
Okay, so you just said "We are not the same" (about my liberal friends who you think are uncompromising extremists).
If by your own admission you are an uncompromising extremist, well, you are the same. Which places neither of you on higher moral ground.
Reread my commment. I didn't say "compromise and coexistence", I said "I leave you alone, and you leave me alone, and we both get to have spheres that are in accordance with our values". You completely changed the conditions I offered.
With that in mind, yeah I'm pretty sure most right wingers would not be uncomfortable with those terms, whereas most leftwingers would, and that it does mean we are not the same and I have the moral high ground.
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
There are two possible outcomes. One: The Democrats do it when they are in power, and the Republicans refrain when they are in power. Two: Both do it when they are in power. The second is less bad, unless you're a Democrat.
And this was a major error. Better that the civil service change political valence with elections than it become a power bloc of its own which remains aligned with one side regardless of who is in power now.
There is another possible outcome. Can you see the one you are missing?
Having actually read American history, I strongly disagree. There are ways to rein in excesses by any branch or segment of the government that doesn't require the entire government simply become spoils for the victor, or one branch ignoring the other two. Of course I don't think you have an accurate conception of the "Deep State" any more than you have an accurate conception of people who are not aligned with you.
The trouble with making this argument is that at some point you have to actually make the argument, not just snark about it. I don't think you have, and I don't think you can, and I don't think the foremost advocates can or will.
More options
Context Copy link
Have you lived recent American history?
The administrative state is not, formally, a branch outside the Executive.
Indeed I have, and I'm older than you.
No, but we have laws (which the other two formal branches have a say in) which the Executive can't just override. Just as every military officer, in theory, serves at the pleasure of the President, his ability to unilaterally dismiss officers has been constrained by law (since around 1950, IIRC). The civil service works for the President, but he can't just order them to ignore laws imposed on them by Congress and Supreme Court rulings, or fire people because they aren't personally loyal to him.
I am not against the president "reigning in" a bureaucratic state out of control and probably agree with you about some of the ways federal agencies have inappropriately balked his intentions in the past (so I understand, if not agree, with why he's acting the way he is now). But either we actually have laws and a Constitution, or else stop talking about laws and civil society and admit you just want to be the boot.
This seems like a violation of separation of powers. Should the President have a say in who Congress hires too? Maybe he can choose Sotomayor's clerks?
We have laws and a Constitution, but the way they are enforced is entirely non-evenhanded (both directly politically, as in the Democrats get better treatment, and indirectly, as in deference to the administrative state over its opponents) and we are not going to get to a better situation by the Republicans playing along with that lack of evenhandedness.
For an obvious example, note the lack of any consideration of standing in the SDNY challenge to DOGE access to treasury records.
Congress passes laws, the President executes them. No, the President shouldn't be able to make up new laws to impose on Congress. Yes, Congress can pass laws that are imposed on the President. That's how things are meant to work. Sometimes Congress overreaches, the President defies them, and there is a fight. (See: Andrew Johnson being impeached for ignoring the Tenure of Office Act, which Congress passed explicitly to screw him over.) Don't like it? Change the Constitution. Congress and the President and the Supreme Court are supposed to be divided and jostling for position. Anything else gives unilateral power to one branch - which apparently you want when your side controls that branch, and don't want when your side does not control that branch.
You think it's a violation of the separation of powers that the President can't order civil servants to violate laws passed by Congress? Or are you only talking about hiring and firing? If you want to give the President the power to hire and fire any government employee at will (what about military personnel?) then you're advocating a return to the spoils system of the early 19th century. Andrew Jackson's handpicked successor, Martin Van Buren, pretty much created the Democratic machine politics you hate so much, and he did it with the patronage system you are saying we should return to.
Okay, do you have any limiting principal, or is it just, as I said, you want to be the boot? You've been posting that laws are fake and nothing matters because Democrats do whatever they want for years. Rather tedious, really. Could practically be generated by an Eliza script. Now that clearly the shoe is on the other foot, you eagerly embrace Republicans rendering laws and the Constitution irrelevant. Of course when Democrats start doing it again, you will once again be outraged and doom-posting.
See the Steel Seizure cases. Where there is a use of the explicit core power of the president, then his power is at its zenith. His ability to take care the laws are faiths executed is a core power. Preventing him from firing people (or even putting them on admin leave) meaningful interferes with his core constitutional duty. If the president can’t fire the bureaucrats for failing to faithfully execute the law then the president cannot discharge his duties. Thus any law in opposition to that is facially unconstitutional
More options
Context Copy link
Or do what Johnson did: Defy Congress and win.
I think it is a violation of separation of powers that the President cannot fire employees of the executive branch. And certainly a violation of separation of powers that the President cannot order the Treasury Department to open its books to other executive branch employees. Certainly he should not be able to e.g. order them to spend money not appropriated, but that's a different matter.
My embracing of the Republicans doing it is a consequence of both the fact that the Republicans are doing things more aligned with what I want (with exceptions; I oppose the no-birthright-citizenship order), AND the fact that the Democrats have been doing what they want. As I said, a check that only checks one side is no balance at all. Either the Democrats move the government one way while they are in office and the Republicans move it the other.... or the Democrats move the government one way and the Republicans are stymied so nothing happens while they are in office. I prefer the former.
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
I don't think it was necessarily an error in and of itself. Neutral civil services are a thing. Even Bush had far less issues on that front than Trump, and TTBOMK it did great for the first 100 years or so. It's a problem when polarisation and especially educational polarisation are very strong, which they often aren't.
Are they? I agree with FC's take that this sort of neutrality is just an artifact of relative homogeneity. The distance between Bush and Obama or Biden just isn't that great, there's a reason why all the neocons jumped ship to the Dems, and why the supposedly neutral civil service started having problems with neutrality when Trump showed up.
(I think I tried to post something like this a few days ago, but something messed up somewhere. I was prepping for a colonoscopy at the time, so I was rather distracted by the whole "shitting acid regularly" issue and then afterward by the whole "recovering from sedation" issue.)
I'm not sure we actually have a substantive disagreement here. I said that strong polarisation (causing loyalty to tribe to exceed loyalty to the job and to society) and particularly educational polarisation (causing the civil service to not reflect the electorate and thus be incapable of self-policing) are the factors that cause a "neutral" civil service to become just a permanent weapon for one side. I noted that these factors are not always present. You seem to be agreeing with me by talking about relative homogeneity (i.e. a lack of strong polarisation and strong educational polarisation).
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 know you're not directly calling me out here, but I must say in my defense: I don't think I've ever claimed to be anything I'm not.
I'm neither a principled libertarian, nor a totalitarian statist, but I'm not just discovering the Federalist Papers for the first time. I've spent a lot of the last few years reading history from antiquity to modernity, and political theory from Rawls to Julius Evola. I don't think I've reached a point of equilibrium, but I do find a lot I agree with in the Classical Liberal tradition, especially in my recent forays into Mills and Locke.
But I have no idea where I'll end up once I fully digest all the ideas I'm considering, because I'll admit I think there are attractive ideas in a ton of mutually incompatible political positions. I'd tentatively say I'm a left-of-center state capacity libertarian, but my views are still evolving.
Fair enough. Our views are always evolving, and I definitely would have disagreed with my 2008-era self who was ecstatic about Obama being elected.
I think we should all be given the grace to consider many different positions and try, as best we can, to arrive at the truth. That journey will be different for everyone, and I'm willing to admit that my current opinions might be very wrong
That said, what is your current position on the Covid response?
Honestly, the Covid response was one of the big hurdles that caused me to take a step back and reconsider a lot of my views, though I was interested in philosophy and ethics before that.
I'm capable of being pragmatic, and acknowledging that something like a one or two week lockdown at the beginning of the pandemic to wait for information to emerge was probably inevitable, if not mostly justifiable. But as the weeks stretched into months, and a hodgepodge of interventions with only a loose relationship to the evidence began to emerge, I lost a lot of faith in the response.
If Covid had been the Antonine plague with a 1 in 3 death rate in healthy young people, I think more draconian interventions might have been justified if people weren't opting to take the precautions on their own. But it wasn't the Antonine plague, and most of the people who died were old and on death's door already, or unhealthy in some way.
I do think the United States, at least in my neck of the woods, never adopted policies as bad as some of the things happening the UK, Australia or China, but that is damning with faint praise.
I'm mostly positive on the vaccines themselves, but I think pure social pressure without state backing would have been enough to get most people vaccinated, and so we probably shouldn't have used vaccine mandates. (I'm still developing my ideas around the appropriate use of social pressure. I think there's a place for it in a functional, free society, but I think it can also go wrong, as has been seen in cancel culture.)
social pressure, through a vast complex of government influence, regulatory power, and money spending, is used to whittle down the group of people the state dislikes until those people are small in number and power so that they can be explicitly forced without a high cost
and then the state does just that
More options
Context Copy link
I am mostly with you except it isn’t clear to me it makes sense to vaccinate during a wave because that encourages vaccine resistant viruses ie original anti genetic sin.
More options
Context Copy link
Thanks for this. This is mostly my position too. The reason I asked is because I think it’s a pretty good Rorschach test for motivated reasoning. The strongest opponents of Trump’s overreach in 2025 were the greatest proponents of totalitarianism in 2020. Those people suck, frankly.
Probably where we differ now is on pragmatic grounds.
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