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 -
I’m going to steelman him a bit- the USA becoming a hybrid regime is indeed a specific danger of a Republican dynasty founded by a Trump successor winning in ‘28. Abbott/Vance/Desantis/Don jr are all probably more competent and ruthlessly power-hungry than Trump himself.
The main danger to democrats’ electoral prospects is their absolute and steadfast insistence on purging anyone who suggests moderating on issues in which they are unpopular. This is a limiting factor to their ability to have the kind of winning streak you need for a hybrid regime, especially if the civil service is going back to the spoils system, and it’s deeply structural to the party. The staffers and over educated progressive wing seriously expect to be in charge and the democrats have so far shown no interest in moving outside their bubbles.
By contrast the Orthodox Jews and conservative Catholics staffing the republican political machine understand they’re a junior coalition partner and settle for minor concessions. Republicans also tend to have a better farm team for recruiting good candidates.
Can I make a counter argument for capital-D Democratic municipal government? Specifically, planning commissions/zoning boards, etc.
You cannot build housing in blue cities without a huge fight. Changes in density are opposed. New construction on vacant lots is opposed as gentrification. Construction that requires no zoning waivers makes the local busybodies angry if they can’t demand input for new housing that already meets all existing laws/requirements.
The amount of negotiation and community hearings drag out the process and developers have their capital tied up for additional months, so they can’t afford to build as much as they otherwise might.
Nationally, the number of units of housing per capita has declined, as housing stock hasn’t kept pace with population growth.
But red states have less regulation, and often laws that restrict the power of local planning commissions and zoning boards. We’re, nationally, in a supply-side housing affordability crisis. But it’s not as bad in red states. And while not mono-causal, it has been significantly shaping population growth.
Blue states like NY, CA, and IL are seeing their populations decline and housing costs are a huge driver. MN’s population is roughly stagnant. All four of these states are currently projected to lose seats in the U.S. House of Representatives, as well as electoral college votes if trends don’t reverse before the 2030 census. The reapportionment of house seats and EC votes will happen before the 2032 elections.
Red states like TX, FL, TN, MT are projected to be the recipients of those lost blu state house seats and EC votes.
Interest in politics in the social media age has collapsed focus onto national politics. But meanwhile, municipal Democratic politicians may have inadvertently given the Republicans a huge structural advantage set to kick in, in seven years.
I mean sure, but how is that a counter argument? If anything it reinforces my point.
More options
Context Copy link
If a mixture of R and D voters are leaving blue states, this dilutes red states - actually a substantial structural flaw in the Republican electoral map. Same is true if mostly D votes leave, until the incredibly unlikely scenario where enough D votes leave to change Senate elections in previously blue states.
If R-leaning voters are leaving blue states for red states, this only moves the house if the R-leaning voters are coming from House districts that weren't already R-leaning.
If R-leaning voters are leaving predominantly blue districts in predominantly blue states for predominantly red or purple states, that could create a House advantage - assuming it doesn't get gerrymandered away during redistricting.
There's a very narrow path to D municipal governance having any significant structural impact on elections. I think it's correct to suggest their greatest threat lies elsewhere.
It is, actually, more republicans than democrats moving out of blue states and into red ones, though. Texas’s transplants are the reason Ted Cruz is still a senator.
Again, this only matters if they're leaving D-leaning districts. If they're being chased out of the tiny handful of R-leaning districts, this is just changing the letters after the R in the House seat.
IIRC the average transplant to Texas comes from Las Angeles.
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