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 -
Limiting the presidency's power was an explicit goal of the founding fathers. They didn't want a system where we elected a single person in a single election to control everything. The entire basis that Trump is even implementing these tariffs under is arguably unconstitutional because the commerce clause explicitly says Congress is the one with the power "to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes".
The entire point is that you don't just win an election and become the ruler, you have to compromise and negotiate with other representatives and obey the court. "Checks and balances" is so fundamental to our system that it's hard to believe so many people shocked Trump has limits haven't heard about it till now.
Even if we accept the argument that they can delegate this power to the executive for "unusual and extraordinary threat" scenarios as the The International Emergency Economic Powers Act wishes to do (which is very arguable on its own considering the constitution doesn't make provision for that), it's hard to see what threat is so unusual and extraordinary to demand a plan like this.
Especially since this threat is apparently "unusual and extraordinary" but also very open to constant delays and personal negotiations. It doesn't sound very pressing if the claimed solution can be delayed for months without any noticeable problems.
Edit: To be even more nitpicky
The system wasn't designed for party majority to = complete control either. You still have to get the different factions within them to agree. If Trump is unable to rally the Republican majorities in Congress to pass the bills he wants then that's his failing, not the system. "Mandate" is a word used to describe a political phenomenon, not some encoded thing. If Trump does not have the political influence to push Congress using the bully pulpit then he de facto does not have the mandate to do it.
Supporters should be asking themselves why Congress isn't passing Trumpian tariff bills (most likely answer, they have upcoming elections too where they will be accountable to their constituents), rather than complaining about the intentional distribution of power not creating a king out of the executive.
More options
Context Copy link