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 I am glad you've now moved your position to 'it was milquetoast' rather than 'it was last minute,' your starting premise is still incorrect- the Democrats did not have full control over institutions, which is why building public support is a requirement, especially when survival is on the line.
The state is not actually a monolith of power. The state is an abstraction for groups of people each with their own host of powers, and 'the full power of the [group of people]' hinges on the ability of those component groups of people to agree to work together. But the flip side is that is you are too hostile to the sorts of power centers in the state, i.e. groups of people already within the state, then the state is in conflict with itself. And in the case of the United States of America, the state is deliberately designed to be able to shut down the power of the state.
When the Democrats came into power in 2021, they- rightly and wrongly in different ways- perceived they were not in full control of the entire system. They did not, in fact, control the Judiciary- hence the numerous proposals to pack the Supreme Court. They did not, in fact, control the entire bureaucracy- much as they were able to do Resistance activities from within the government, there were/still are substantial parts of the behemoth of state that are not firmly or uniformly Democrat. This is particularly true for the security state apparatus. And, finally, the Democrats were not in total control of the Legislative branch- they had a majority, but a fragile majority, and it only would have taken a handful of Democratic dissidents to paralyze the Senate and thus the ability to legislate.
To utilize the 'full power of the state' against Trump, the Democrats leading anti-Trump efforts didn't need to keep their base appeased, they needed to keep their political rivals appeased as well, because their rivals- not only Republicans and Red Tribers but also Democratic party rivals- are part of the state whose power / assent / cooperation is required to use the 'full power of the state.'
Hence, in turn, the attempts in 2021- from the very start- to establish a managed opposition relationship with the Never Trump Republican wing of the Republican Party. Because if the opposition party leadership were to be on board, then that would be a whole host of powers of the state additionally available.
More options
Context Copy link