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 -
Impeachment is worthless without removal. Given the immunity ruling, the president has the unilateral power to do whatever they want so long as less than 60 people will vote for their removal.
Democrats are staring down the barrel of that right now and believe me, it is terrifying. You better hope republicans have a plan to rig every future election because otherwise that gun will be turned on you.
If congress wants to not have independent agencies, it's within their power to legislate that. They didn't. Trump seized control of the independent agencies away from them by fiat. If they don't do anything about it... well, for now they'll get some easy policy wins. But in the long term, I don't think they're going to enjoy what happens.
I mean, I've been staring at that barrel half my life as well, so my sympathies. Maybe we can agree at this point to not delegate so much to the executive?
What do you think it's been like to be a Conservative this whole time? Do you think we like not having the Comstock Act enforced and have our taxes go to killing babies in their mother's womb? What are you worried about that tops that?
I agree on this point, and that's exactly why I liked that these agencies were independent. The senate could have killed the filibuster instead and started passing laws to deal with the administrative state if they wanted to-- but they didn't because presumably the ability to loot the government and install bureacrats via a patronage system is more convenient. Oh well.
Climate change. I'm a catholic, and therefore anti-abortion, but the net effect of stuff like "not funding abortions" is dramatically outweighed by the net increase in deaths caused by droughts, floods, famines, and famine-related-instability.
But oh well, at least this power is symmetric. I hope the next democratic president just straight-up regulates carbon intensive industries out of existence.
I don't understand. Is this a real argument? There's no mechanism even gestured at, it's just words.
What mechanism do you want? I vote in accordance with my conscience, and my conscious tells me I'm going to save more lives by voting for climate action than by voting for anti-abortion measures. I wish I could just concentrate my beliefs in a single party but unfortunately we don't live in a parliamentarian democracy.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Ok, then let's rephrase. Can we agree not to delegate so much to unelected bodies unaccountable to anyone either? I don't want Independent agencies or a Executive with so much regulatory power. I don't want either to have so much regulatory power. I want Congress to stop awarding either with broad powers that are easily abused and difficult to be held accountable.
Do you have evidence for this? I have seen reviews that show that, while the amount of property damage has increased over time, this is not due to storms getting worse, but rather that things have gotten more expensive. It doesn't seem like there has been an increase in deaths as a percentage of population or severity of storms.
If we wanted to reduce the Earth's temperature, we could do it very quickly with some basic geo-engineering. That we don't is a sign that nobody seems to think the problem is very severe yet.
(Also, as a Catholic you should know it's not about the effect of paying for an abortion, it's about the remote material cooperation with evil. Being made complicit in the murder of a baby is the thing that really upsets us and Congress explicitly tried to protect us from.)
Beyond gut instinct fermi estimates, no. But I should clarify that I'm speaking of the net effect of voting for politicians that promote particular anti-abortion policies. If I had to choose between two buttons labeled "end climate change" and "prevent abortions in the US for a hundred years" I would pick the second, but I don't think any sort of federal ban is actually enforceable. I'm suprised and impressed that republicans actually managed to overturn roe-v-wade, but most estimates of that claim that it only saves about ~30,000 lives a year. Compared to the marginal effect of preventing ISIS-style wars I'm unimpressed. I'm aware that the comparison is a little unfair because I'm imagining an intervention that could singlehandedly halt climate change at some degree thresholds-- but at the same time, I think it's likely that the most deleterious effects of climate change are liable to happen at the margins, where it might be possible to just hold the breaks long enough to get to a tipping point.
I'm concerned primarily with the net loss of life. But if we're speaking in terms of remote material cooperation with evil without considering numbers, preventing immigrants from making better lives for themselves also qualified.
More options
Context Copy link
Independent is almost certainly worse.
The incentives are frequently to grow the power of the agency.
People who eventually work on policy decision typically believe in the mission in the department and therefore are ideologically predisposed to grow the agency more.
There are little checks on the agency decision making process. And because people coming up in the agency generally share the same beliefs, there is little hope for change.
Finally, the bureaucracy is largely chosen from the people in DC. DC is over 90% democrat.
Basically wanting independent agencies is wanting permanent statist democrat rule.
I agree, largely because of #3. I'd rather have a President with this power than an "Independent Agency," though I'd rather have more rules made as laws in Congress instead of rules made as regulations by the Executive.
Basically, the Legislative Branch should never give the Executive authority to make regulations that the Legislative isn't comfortable changing every few years.
I’d be more comfortable with something like the Reins act where each regulation only goes into effect with an up / down vote by Congress. Ideally, they’d be subject to four year renewals or something like that.
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
We were staring down the barrel of it previously, and this was the best recourse we could find. I personally would prefer the power not exist; actually using it as we see fit and Progressives resisting where they may is the clearest path to eroding that power that I can see. Under Biden, we already saw state-level defiance to Federal orders. We're seeing more now versus Trump, and we'll see yet more when the Progressives are once more ascendent. Either unified power will break down and durable Federalism emerges from the conflict, or we escalate smoothly to actual civil war.
What you are seeing with MAGA is precisely "I don't think they'll enjoy what happens" for Blue Tribe in general. "I don't think they'll enjoy what happens" wasn't a restraint on Blue ambitions under Obama or Biden (or Clinton or Bush II for that matter). The escalation spiral is a very evident phenomenon. Why expect departure now?
The basic problem is that we can no longer agree on core values, on what the laws should be and how they should be enforced. All the formal structures of our system of government assumed baseline homogeneity of values. Without that, none of this works, and what will happen is what we have seen happening for decades now: irreconcilable values-conflict blowing out one conflict-limiting mechanism after another as the pressure for a resolution one way or the other rises over time. Either someone has to win, or we have to have a divorce. There isn't really a third option.
Republicans control all three branches of government. This was the best recourse you could find? Republicans could easily have looked for a solution that favored the power of the legislative branch (where they have a structural advantage) or the courts (where they'll soon have an incumbency advantage.) Instead, they gave the power to the presidency? Seriously?
This part I agree with. That's why I'm so confused: why are the republicans giving the democrats the ammunition they need to win the divorce?
But Democrats managed to create a fourth, unaccountable, branch aligned largely with themselves. So the first order of business is to tear that branch down and/or put it under Constitutional control.
And also control of the legislature and the courts doesn't count for much if laws and judgements can simply be ignored. Illegal immigration was always illegal. The federal government spent at least dozens of billions of dollars directly supporting and subsidizing violations of the law. Ditto for drug laws and many laws protecting the ownership of firearms and practice of Christianity. Ditto for Bruen and Heller and any other decisions Blue Tribe doesn't like.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
We pass Federal laws and secure Supreme Court decisions, and Blue Tribe state governments, circuit courts, and large portions of the federal bureaucracy simply ignore them. Immigration and Guns are two issues where this pattern is more or less undeniable with a history stretching back decades; recently, we were surprised to learn that basic law enforcement was one of these as well. This has actually been a long-running conversation here on a number of threads, and is the reason why Red Tribe is currently doing what we're doing: We've lost faith in process as an impartial arbiter of outcomes, because we have, as a tribe, caught on to how "Manipulation of Procedural Outcomes" works.
We don't think the allocation of Ammunition works the way you seem to think it does. If you have five bullets and I have no bullets, and I pull a lever that gives both of us five bullets. there's a sense in which I'm "giving you more ammunition", but that doesn't make pulling it an obviously bad idea.
We already know that Blue Tribe ignores any law it doesn't like, and we already know that Blue Tribe is entirely willing to abuse power against us in lawless ways without significant consequence. Either we get to exercise meaningful power too, or the power should be denied totally. This is us attempting to exercise meaningful power. When Progressives get the Presidency again, we'll work on the "ignoring laws we don't like part". If it is not, in fact, possible for us to use power the way Blue Tribe does, we need to know that. If it is not, in fact, possible for us to ignore laws the way Blue Tribe does, we need to know that as well. We need legibility more than anything, and the current strategy does a good job of producing it, in my view.
In any case, the cumulative effect of this back-and-forth wrenching will not, I think, be a net increase in state capacity and control.
I think you're dramatically underestimating the bully power of a president with full regulatory authority over the corporations and therefore culture of the united states.
But oh well, at this point we're still discussing counterfactual. I wish I could just remindme! 8 years.
Unless-- do you have a manifold account? We could make some prediction markets to resolve this.
We have already had corporations coordinate economic warfare against Red States. We have already had the Federal Government use regulatory power to turn corporations into tools of repression against Red Tribe power centers and interests. What we lose in additional power used against us, we gain in legibility, in additional ability to coordinate common knowledge that we are, in fact, being repressed by unaccountable state power, and that we should escalate further until that repression is defeated for good.
I bet with my life choices, and my bet is that my side will win and my children will inherit a better world than the one we have now. You should do likewise.
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