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 fundamental issue that the EU had in England was that it lacked legitimacy. What's more, it never attempted to build any legitimacy, it always held the England in disdain. Therfore English populists (and the far right) would rage against a government that they felt was imposed on them. Notably, pro EU people in England don't express themselves in favour of the EU, but against England. You would find it difficult to find one who could name the European commissioner.
Continentals don't have that issue. The EU was started, for Germany, to allow themselves back into the European community, for France, to rebuild and continue the French power in Europe stretching back centuries, and for the Netherlands, Belgium, etc, to stop (excessive) domination by another country.
It makes sense that European populism and far right movements would fit more neatly into the European Union.
This is dubious - there was a 2/3 supermajority for membership in the 1975 referendum, and zero sign of meaningful public support for changing this until UKIP get 16% of the vote on a 38% turnout in the 2004 European Parliament elections. Eurosceptic parties do embarassingly badly in Westminster elections until 2015, by which time UKIP have learned that they need to headline a populist domestic programme - Brexit is relegated to an appendix in their <a href = "https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/ukipdev/pages/1103/attachments/original/1429295050/UKIPManifesto2015.pdf"manifesto.
This is simply false. It is true that "I see myself as more British than English" is the best predictor of remain-voting (better than age or education) and that the patriotic section of the pro-EU movement used British rather than English symbols. But the anti-patriotism wing of the British left is anti-British (mostly anti-Empire) at least as much as it is anti-English. The only people who are noisily anti-English in British politics are the SNP.
The main reason why pro-EU people in the UK are pro-EU is that we believe (correctly) that EU membership is in the national interest - Dominic Cummings' focus groups confirmed this. Our support for the EU is a fundamentally pro-British position. (And therefore, indirectly, pro-English). There is a minority of fanatical pro-Europeans who would support EU membership if it wasn't in the national interest - they express this support by waving the EU flag and singing the Ode to Joy, not through being anti-English (which, as I have said, would just make them look like angry Scots).
The driving force behind right-populism in the UK is (similarly to other countries) a combination of:
General Boomer nostalgia
Vibes-based beefs about the economy, which mostly appeal to a generation of pensioners who are nevertheless enjoying an unprecedented level of affluence in retirement.
Opposition to Muslim immigration, which has very little to do with the EU.
The fact that this expressed itself through opposition to the EU, rather than opposition to the UK domestic policies which caused the problems, is a mistake on the part of right-populist voters - the Brexit we are getting is, as promised by the Johnson wing of the Tories, leading to increases in non-EU legal migration and is also leading to increases in illegal migration. And the Brexit-supporting faction of the Conservative party that supported Johnson, although not Johnson himself, are committed to the "Thatcherite" domestic-policy agenda that is what the people beefing about the economy are beefing against. So the interesting question is why the nascent right-populist movement in the UK self-sabotaged by focussing on Brexit. The question of why right-populists in the rest of the EU are not making the same mistake is easy - because they can see what happened in the UK.
Some of this is bottom-up (the age group that is most susceptible to right-populism is also the cohort group that has always been the most anti-EU, going back to the 1975 referendum). But a lot of it is top-down:
Pre-Farage, Euroscepticism is mostly a libertarian-adjacent project which although deeply unpopular with the voters, is well-funded and backed to the hilt by powerful foreign-owned media. So the right-populist movement that looks most likely to deliver Brexit and then cuck (i.e. UKIP vs the BNP/EDL/English Democrats) is the one that gets the cash and favourable media coverage. And even the existence of this movement is somewhat contingent - if Margaret Thatcher's senile dementia progresses differently then the bizarre idea that the true Thatcherite position on the EU is the direct opposite of Margaret Thatcher's approach to the EEC as Prime Minister may not get off the ground.
Cameron promises the Brexit referendum because of internal Conservative party politics, not because of any public pressure for it. (Remember how pathetic UKIP are in Westminster elections). FWIW Cummings says that promising the referendum did not help the Tories in the 2015 election, mostly because the promise was not believed.
If you look at the leave campaign messaging, both Vote Leave (Cummings) and Leave.EU (Farage) made blaming the EU for Muslim immigration a core part of their campaign. Vote Leave mostly do this using the "Turkey is joining the EU" lie - which only sticks because Cameron personally supported Turkish EU membership back in the pre-Erdogan era when it was a live political issue. Farage focusses on the 2015 Mediterranean migrant crisis (which was technically Merkel's fault, not the EUs, but the politics didn't reflect this) - which is taking advantage of a piece of good luck. But critically, neither campaign makes migration of EU citizens a core issue, because opposing the immigration of hard-working law-abiding culturally-Christian immigrants was not a vote winner.
The EEC and the EU are not the same thing. 2004 was the year Blair opened the borders to Eastern Europe which had a major effect on the lives of the English working class.
Does a 38% turnout not indicate a lack of legitimacy?
I'm not sure i've ever met anybody who is pratriotic and Pro-EU.
I would argue new labour were fairly anti-English.
Agreed, up until the the EU allowed millions of people to march in through schengen.
First of all, the reputation of the Poles and other Eastern Europeans as hard working the is completely overblown and is a good indication that they have never worked in industry in England. Anecdotally, the major difference between a Polish forklift driver and an English one is the Polish ones don't look back when they're reversing. And when you get to the other Europeans (Romanians, Bulgarians, etc), trying to get any work out of them at all is difficult, often they will pretend they don't speak English, even when you have had a conversation with them before.
Second of all, law abiding? ehhhh, maybe. They don't tend to commit too much violent crime, and most of it is "mutual combat".
Third of all, White working class people don't care if the people who are replacing them are culturally Christian.
More options
Context Copy link
I remember reading a pamphlet by Tommi Uschanov (a Finnish equivalent of Matt Yglesias - can't offer a better description) that argued that all the complicated, cultural/historical explanations of Brexit are false (referring to things like the 1975 pro-EU referendum etc) and essentially the sole explanation for Brexit was Thatcher deciding to go anti-EU during her waning years and this then becoming a litmus test for being a true "dry" Tory and things snowballing from there. Not sure if I buy that thesis fully, but there's also something a bit exhilirating reading someone give a very simple explanation hinging on one particular point in history for an ostensibly complex topic.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It‘s main goal (and legitimacy derived from it) was the prevention of war between france and germany (something benelux had a vested interested in) by combining war-making materials markets. Just because it‘s taught in school doesn‘t mean it‘s naive nonsense.
Since the EU is a rather invisible, undefined blob otherwise, it is what you need it to be. The extremes find it convenient to assign it to the outgroup. When you‘re crafting dodgy underdog stories about constantly losing to flawed assholes despite having the support of the people, a supranational supernatural entity putting its thumb on the scale is a useful scapegoat.
The EU didn‘t fill Birmingham with pakistanis, Nanterre with algerians , and Malmö with syrians. London, Paris and Stockholm did. Maybe secede from them? And when you‘ve finally declared the independence of podunkville, you‘ll find your neighbour was the problem all along.
The US and Soviet troops secured the European peace after the war.
I agree. One of the funny things about Brexit is that the EU became everything to everybody.
True.
True.
False. They allowed them to march through the Schengen area.
I would if I could.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link