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 -
As an American, my vague impression was that the Canadian confederation of provinces had, if anything, even less centralization of power at the federal level than in the US. In particular, the absence of anything like the Interstate Commerce Clause means that Canadian provinces can and do get into trade wars with each other. And moreover my understanding was that the famed Canadian healthcare “system”—which is misunderstood by nearly all political commentators in the US—was in reality administered by each province separately, with the federal government’s role relegated to transferring money from one province to another.
Is my understanding correct? If so, could it be that Canadian federal politics sees no pushback against the Laurentian elite because (to steal a quote about academic politics) the stakes are so low?
Healthcare is under provincial jurisdiction. So what the federal government did was to set some standards which need to be met to get federal money which funds a large part, but not all, of the healthcare system. The systems themselves are run by each province, but they need to meet certain standards, such as covering certain things such that they're free and allowing visting residents of other provinces to use their own province's health insurance.
Of course, if the federal government can just tax everyone and only give the money back to those who do what it wants, I don't see how provincial jurisdiction is meaningful. The federal government can do what it wants if it has the political will. It's currently in the process of setting up a national subsidized daycare program, even though this is also an area of provincial jursidiction. It did something similar with the carbon tax, although it probably didn't have to.
I think a big part of the story is that Canada isn't really a natural country. It's just the leftover provinces of British North America that didn't join the United States. Geographically and culturally, it doesn't make much sense. Before they joined Canada, the different provinces didn't have much to do with each other. They had closer ties to the neighbouring parts of the U.S. Most provinces either have a history of trying to separate from Canada or it almost joined the U.S. instead.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link