site banner
bolido_sentimental  1yr ago (text post)   4133 thread views

Small-Scale Question Sunday for December 25, 2022

Merry Christmas, everyone!

4
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

How large and serious is the opposition to US support of Ukraine in the republican party and it's grassroots supporters?

In the party? The House vote for the $40B aid package last May was 149-57 in favor, and support is probably going to be lower going forward. Among the grassroots? It's about 50-50, and dropping quickly, with the most unwavering support ("for as long as it takes, even if American households have to pay higher gas and food prices as a consequence") down to 33% among Republicans.

Trawling through conservative forums I still see a lot of moral support for Ukraine, but I also see a lot of the "these big bills are how the government-military-industrial complex launders money" thinking that I used to think was a solidly left-wing position. The median right-wing belief today seems to be approaching "Okay, the tankies are wrong to support Russia, but is it really our job to get involved?", and it really does seem like a funhouse mirror of what you'd have expected from the two sides of the culture war 60 years ago.

But how about the disintegration of Yugoslavia in the 90s? Bill Clinton was gung ho for intervention, while Senate Republicans mostly tended to the position "this conflict is literally in Europe's backyard, why can't they solve the local problem, since logistics couldn't be easier?"

Republican foreign policy at a grassroots level tends to be borderline isolationist, unless there is a clear threat to American interests.

I think it has a lot to do with how Dems do absolutely zero to explain any of this or gain any bipartisan support (or at least I do not notice any outreach effort). I mean, they do it like that all over the map - "shut up, you deplorable bigot, you are a Putin's asset!" is heard much more than "let me lay out the argument for why it may be in our mutual interests to do this". But in this particular case it is really not clear for people why they must sacrifice to support Ukraine, especially if so many of their other interests are already has been sacrificed. There are good arguments, including those that the Red Tribe would accept if given the chance, but nobody from the left that I have seen takes any serious effort to do this. And as such, it gets more and more painted as a Blue tribal behavior. Especially after Blues have already done so many things under the guise of "it's an emergency, no time to discuss or explain anything" - and now they are doing the same again. So people are viewing it as a pattern and develop an allergy to any measures done in this way.

Surprising gop support is so low. 10 years ago gop would be solid support.

The fundamental issue is the war people are now the GOP’s cultural enemies. And they’ve been lied to too much by the “expert” class. The fundamental issue is Liz Cheney (and her dad) have played the GOP base too many times and groups have trouble thinking for themselves and disassociating an issue from the people who run the programs. So in many ways it’s surprising how strong support for the war is in the GOP since the people who have fucked them the most are the neocons.

Probably doesn't help that the Biden family has some corrupt ties with Ukraine.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats