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 -
The short, inadequate answer would be something like "What rules are and how they work" and "what values are and how they work". The Founding Fathers had no context for Postmodernism, for the fully-developed concept of a "Living Constitution", or for the reality that human values could be incoherent at scale. They mistook local values-homogeneity for universal features of human nature, and they assumed that legible rules could meaningfully constrain human Will. They lacked a deep understanding of "manipulation of procedural outcomes" and rules-fragility.
That's my understanding, anyhow.
I remembered that post fondly, but had forgotten the key-words or who it was from! Thank ye.
Separately / concurrently- given that the American Founding Fathers didn't predict the rise of political parties, and had to amend the constitution pretty early for the vice president kerfuffle, I think the 'did not necessarily understand the procedural implication of their own rules' is a fair critique.
In some respects they did- slowing the progress of government change in some respects- but that itself just locked in various self-catalyzing changes, like the New Deal coalition leading to the rise of the imperial presidency and administrative state that would compete with the chief executive.
If you think that Presidential democracy was a mistake (I do, and the Framers' writings make it clear that they would see it as a mistake in hindsight if they saw what a modern partisan Presidential election looks like) then there is an interesting question of how it happened.
Theory 1 as I see it is that the Presidency was designed knowing that Washington would be elected unopposed as the first President, and would almost certainly remain President as long as he wanted. So even if the Framers had anticipated the rise of political parties, they assumed that national treasures like Washington would generally be available, and that the machinery of the Electoral College would help them beat partisan candidates.
Theory 2 is that the main model for the relationship between the President and Congress available to the Framers was the relationship between King and Parliament in Great Britain, and in the late 18th century that relationship was in an unstable equilibrium - that either the Crown would re-consolidate power and turn Parliament into a rubber-stamp (as Louis XIV did with the French Parlements, and as has happened in most Presidential democracies established on the US model) or Parliament would consolidate power and force the King to appoint a Prime Minister acceptable to the Parliamentary majority (as actually happened).
In both theories the Constitution was no longer working as advertised by 1796 (Adams-Jefferson was a partisan election). Under theory 2 the reason why the US was able to stay in unstable equilibrium as long as it did was the lack of party discipline.
Do you think 5 is less than?
That's not a coherent question, right? You have to have two numbers to be able to talk about whether one is less than the other. 5 is less than 6. 5 is not less than 4.
But the same applies to any question of the form "Was X a mistake?" Was Presidential democracy a mistake compared to remaining part of the British empire? Probably not - the colonists did have some legitimate grievances. Was Presidential democracy a mistake compared to a Parliamentary democracy with a Prime Minister? Maybe, but not obviously so; we can see the cracks in parliamentary democracies too, today.
Was Presidential democracy with first-past-the-post voting a mistake compared to an approval-voting system? Here I'd opine the answer is clearly "yes", but when the Constitution was ratified Condorcet had just barely started publishing on voting theory, and Arrow and Duverger were a century away from being born, so I can hardly fault the Framers for lacking the benefit of hindsight here.
They did try to leave us with a mechanism for changing the Constitution to fix their later-identified mistakes, which has been very fruitful in the case of some other mistakes, and which you'd think would be sufficient in general... but the trouble with changing a mistake in the mechanisms by which people and parties gain power is that, almost by definition, the people and parties in power have strong incentives to want that change to not be made. If you're a partisan demagogue whose route to election has been "take advantage of your polarized base, plus a few moderates who can be convinced that the opposing partisan demagogue is more awful", why would you want to make it easier for challengers within your ideology to run against you and simultaneously make it likely that you'll face less-awful opponents from other ideologies?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The founders mostly died expecting their experiment to fail in a big and obvious way, though, and while they wouldn’t recognize the modern US, this hasn’t happened.
I think that some cultural aspects of the modern US would shock and appall them but the big picture would look very familiar to them from a historical level. I imagine they would immediately start making familiar analogies to the Roman Republic and its transition to empire.
Not that I necessarily think that those analogies are 100% correct, but I suspect it would pattern-match for them quickly. I'm not sure they would think it was good but it probably would feel familiar.
More options
Context Copy link
The Civil War seems like a pretty significant point of failure. Otherwise, there's a lot of ruin in a nation, and especially one as fortuitously positioned as the United States. Give it time.
More options
Context Copy link
Although if Jefferson had survived to see the Civil War, he would totally be running around saying "I TOLD YOU SO!"
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link