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 -
What are their options?
It seems safe to say a significant part of the reorientation of the young vote is a reaction against "Wokeness." So I don't think they will go that route. The left-economic populism route might appeal to young voters but it won't appeal to the more affluent voters or doner class which the Democrat party has made massive inroads with recently.
A reorientation towards liberalism is unlikely to appeal to young voters for the reasons you've suggested. It will also alienate the progressive base who might churn towards right wing populism as a response.
Obviously they can adopt any combination of the three but it's hard to suggest the right combination of those options that will appeal to young voters.
I mean, affluent voters usually think America can run deficits forever unless they're partisan republicans. I don't think welfare handouts would turn off the laptop class neurotic base democrats have gained recently. 'Medicare for all and free college' doesn't mean anyone in particular actually pays for it- what are we, European?
More options
Context Copy link
Probably option 2 in the next financial crisis. Some major donors will leave, others won’t. Many ultra-rich Dem donors are fine with higher taxes on the rich. The Disney heirs, Laurene Jobs, plenty of others besides.
I don't think the Sanders-style socialist talking points are going to activate the suburban college-educated voters (who are going to increasingly come from the younger generation). It's old stuff, every Gen Z voter supporting Trump has heard it all before. Sanders says the exact same thing every speech. It's not going to cause a generational shift.
Dems have lost much of the comparative advantage against right-wing populism, compared to the former state of Republicans adopting strict free-market liberalism. They aren't going to have a monopoly on economic populism any more.
It needs to be something new and I am not sure the left is capable of generating anything new at this point. The Right Wing has soooo much greenspace in comparison.
Not only that the “tax the rich” thing only works until you start living on your own and get into a permanent job. It’s popular with college kids because they don’t pay taxes and would get free money, essentially. But once you see your first check at a full time salaried job and realize that you’re paying nearly 40 of your check to the government, the appeal of “gibs” goes down a lot.
It’s one of the biggest red pills that people get alongside having a child and owning a house. Once you see how these things affect your life and family, you get cured of socialism really quickly because you realize that you are the one who will pay for it all.
Not necessarily. I'm reminded here of my dad's last employer before he retired. Jake was a landlord who owned various properties — apartments, a commercial warehouse, houses — all either as rental properties or as investments to repair/improve and "flip." He was worth somewhere in the tens of millions at his peak. He'd take vacations down to Vegas at least once a year and blow five figures on poker.
Jake also disliked paying taxes. That's pretty much how he ended up going out of business, after he had to liquidate and sell off a bunch of assets when the IRS came after him for a bunch of back taxes and associated fines.
And yet, Jake was a solid Democrat, an avid NPR listener, and a frequent proponent of increasing taxes on "the rich" to pay for more socialist "gibs."
How did he square these things?
Simple. As far as Jake was concerned, he wasn't part of "the rich." He's just your ordinary, overtaxed middle-class millionaire. No, it's the billionaires and the hundred millionaires who need to be paying "their fair share" to fund all these programs he supports, not him. Because when he said to tax "the rich" more, he meant anyone richer than him.
Never underestimate the power of envy.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Gen Z is in a much better position economically than millennials were at the height of Occupy and then the run up to Sanders’ campaign in 2015. Unemployment is extremely low and outside of tech (which only a small minority will pursue careers in) jobs are relatively plentiful for now. It makes sense that economic populism is an unattractive message. “Make the rich pay” always comes back into style when the going gets tough, as does expanding the state to provide more money, more welfare, more services.
A pivot for the GOP into full social conservatism and progressive economic policy is theoretically possible, but not under Trump or his likely successors, who on economic policy still preach a small state, lower taxes, fewer regulations, more liberal financial markets and deregulation etc.
Of course they wouldn't pivot to this: modern "social conservatism" is progressivism, and the Blue party is their political arm. One only need look at what progressive economic policy is- that being "never develop anything, ever"- to see that.
Hence why the Blue party was elected in 2020. Progressivism defines {man, white, straight} as "the rich", and their literal mission statement(s) are about making them pay.
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