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 -
EOP staffers are, in general, not "Officers of the United States" - nothing they do legally matters except in so far as it results in a signed order crossing the Resolute Desk - legally, even the White House Chief of Staff is just an Assistant to the President. (The use of the Presidential autopen complicates this a bit, but that is the principle). The EOP staff who can do things on their own authority (like the head of the OMB, who has an official role in the process of signing off CFR regulations) are Senate-confirmed.
The "inferior officers" clause in the Constitution requires Congressional action - by default all Officers of the United States are Senate-confirmable, but Congress can by law exempt inferior officers. So if someone is acting as an Officer, they either need to be Senate-confirmed, or appointed to a specific "inferior office" created by Congress.
So the question is whether either the de facto head of @DOGE (i.e. Elon Musk) or the administrator of the United States DOGE service (i.e. Amy Gleason) is acting as an Officer of the United States, rather than an assistant. Telling a Senate-confirmed agency head, "You should fire these people/cancel these contracts or I will tattle on you to POTUS." is not acting as an Officer. Breaking leases and cancelling contracts on his own authority probably would be. Signing cheques for the Treasury (or modern equivalent) is definitely acting as an Officer. If, as has been alleged in numerous places, DOGE is overriding the decisions of departments with Senate-confirmed heads about how Congressionally-appropriated funds are spent, then that is an Office and the person who does it is an Officer, and the Appointments Clause is being violated because neither Musk nor Gleason nor anyone else in DOGE has been confirmed as an Officer by the Senate, or appointed to an inferior office established by Congress.
More options
Context Copy link