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 -
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.
Well, sure, but that's a high risk strategy. Johnson survived impeachment by one vote. It's also basically saying "It's only illegal if you lose."
Well then change the laws, or else the Supreme Court will have to agree that the civil service reforms of the last 150 years are unconstitutional. But believing the President should be able to fire any civil servant at will does not make it legal.
It actually isn't. If a civil servant in theory can't be ordered to commit an illegal act, but if he refuses to commit an illegal act ordered to by the president, the president can fire him, what do you think happens? Especially if the president is telling an entire agency "Do what I want or I will fire you all?" We might hope some brave souls will refuse on principal, and some probably would, but you are clearly setting up a system where in practice the president has the power to direct the entire government to do whatever he wants regardless of what Congress or the Supreme Court says. More indirectly, this is why they changed the system so that federal positions can't all be patronage appointments.
I would like to check both sides. Accelerationism checks neither. And your view that it's only ever Republicans who make concessions and it's only ever Democrats who go too far is ahistorical claptrap.
Insisting that the laws be changed is denying the separation of powers issue. If the separation of powers argument is correct, the laws are without authority.
I'm not calling for accelerationism; that would be if I wanted the Democrats to go further and eventually collapse the system due to the inherent contradictions or some such nonsense. I'm calling for the Republicans to not just slow things down temporarily, but to actually go in the opposite direction. And when the Democrats complain that the Republicans are bypassing all the institutional checks and balances that the Democrats blithely bypassed in building this monstrosity, the Republicans should not let that deter them.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link