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 -
I think Project 2025 is actually promising. The sentiment that you couldn't do anything meaningful on the right because it would just get knocked down by liberal SCOTUS justices used to be common and the right remedied that via its own version of the long march through the institutions. Persistent vetting and advocacy has resulted in a SCOTUS and justice system overall that is notably to the right and notably more originalist than in the past. With a major drive to acknowledge that personnel is policy and thus the personnel must be replaced, it's possible to actually make a much bigger difference this time around. In 2017, I think Trump was under the impression that the bureaucracy would behave as though he was the CEO of the country, but it seems to me that he has learned that it doesn't work this way and could plausibly replace large amounts of that bureaucracy.
When you see people in the media handwringing that he's going to replace "professionals" with his "cronies" or similar language, this is exactly what they mean, that it seems as though the Republican plan for 2025 really does include a rapid shift in personnel. Whether you find that invigorating or horrifying will depend where you sit, but there is actually a plan.
What bothers me about this point is - why didn't he figure this out 3 months after he took office, if not sooner? If he didn't figure it out and take effective counter-action against it then, why should we believe he is properly prepared to do it now?
A really effective conservative President at this point should come into office like Elon Musk went into the CEO position at Twitter. Everyone who might be opposed to him is out on their asses in 5 seconds. Cut every office that is obviously useless and like 50% of the company too, just so everyone knows you're dead serious. Adopt policies that are a little wacky at lightning speed just to be really sure everybody is going along with it whether they like it or not. Etcetra.
Hell, maybe we should do Musk for President. I may not love every bit of his politics, but he has demonstrated the ability to rapidly and decisively break a large bureaucratic machine to his will.
That's the first coherent 5D chess explanation for what's going on at Twitter.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The problem for Trump, though, is that he doesn't really have any cronies other than the kind of people for whom ass-kissing is their only skill. Trump's most notable battles weren't with faceless lifetime bureaucrats who refused to follow his orders, they were with people he chose himself. The constitutionally-mandated role of the Cabinet is to advise the President. If he's not willing to take advice when it goes against his own preconceived notions then the Cabinet is basically useless. If he's unable to select well-qualified people whom he's willing to listen to and who broadly agree with him on policy without getting into public spats whenever they give him advice he doesn't like, it says more about his own ability as a policymaker than it does about "The Swamp" or whatever.
Yup. If he's elected he'll appoint Ken Paxton as AG or something, then 11 months later Paxton will be out on his ear for some dumb petty reason and writing books about what a shithead Trump is.
More options
Context Copy link
You're not necessarily wrong here but I think it is worth pointing out that the inability to hire good people was actually a direct result of said faceless bureaucrats. Anybody who signed up for a prominent job in Trumpland also signed up for an immediate bad-faith prosecution and investigation (this was one of the reasons the Mueller special counsel was spun up). This is also a case of the process being the punishment - even defending yourself against one of these investigations would be extremely expensive, and they'd be going back over your entire historical record. Finding competent people is hard enough when you aren't also asking them to subject their entire life to the baleful gaze of a motivated deep state.
Really? The only people in the Trump Administration I can think of who were prosecuted were Steve Bannon, who briefly held a position that was created specially for him, Michael Flynn, and Mark Meadows. So two people in important positions he actually had to appoint. There were a few minor aides indicted in Georgia but nobody of any consequence. Kellyanne Conway was accused of Hatch Act violations but nothing ever came of it. The wave of Trump associate indictments is mostly people outside of government — personal lawyers, campaign advisors, Trump organization employees, etc. Other than those I mentioned above, I am unaware of any high-ranking Trump Administration officials who have been blackballed from polite society because of their associations with him. There are plenty of conservative think tanks and consulting firms out there who are willing to put people from any administration on the gravy train. It certainly beats working for a living.
This gets exceedingly difficult to untangle, because several of the people involved in the Trump administration, including Trump appointees, were working against him for the entire time. Take Rod Rosenstein for example - he was a Trump-appointee, and took over managing the Mueller investigation after Sessions recused himself... but he was one of the people who signed off on the Carter Page warrant, and he authorised the raid on Michael Cohen's offices to boot. Several of the people in Trumpland were actively working against him for the entire time he was in office, and that doesn't include the people who were simply passively resisting. Nobody's going to blackball Rod Rosenstein for being a Trump hire, because he was never actually working for Trump and did everything he could to bring him down.
I include those mentioned above as people who were subject to this kind of politically motivated prosecution, and the other problem is that the strategy worked. Trump had an exceedingly difficult time finding people who he could trust to staff various positions, and in many cases he didn't. The Mueller investigation was a massive sword hanging over Trump's head, and it had a big impact on what he could do and the people who would have been willing to work for him.
Why do you think he inspires so little loyalty in those closest to him?
I don't think that's the right lens to view this with - it doesn't matter how good you are at inspiring loyalty when you're being forced to recruit from a pool of people that are diametrically opposed to both you and your base of support. The main problem that I was talking about was that the recruiting pool for a lot of these positions is not that deep - how many people do you think would have been viable contenders for Comey's job? Picking ones who actually supported Trump's goals from that extremely small list would have been extremely challenging and I'm not at all surprised that he ended up with a bunch of people in his orbit that were actively working against him.
...such as John Kelly, Mike Pence, Bill Barr, Jeff Sessions, etc, etc, etc.
Actually I was referring to people like Rod Rosenstein, Reince Priebus and Christopher Wray. The US government is actually exceedingly complex and has a lot of moving parts - I'm not going to disagree that some of those people were turned off Trump by his conduct or actions, but I object to the implication that there can only be one cause for all these personnel issues. And as for Jeff Sessions, I'm honestly not sure where he stands - his original recusal seemed explicable, but his own connections to the issue were actually far less substantive than Rosenstein's (who notably did not recuse himself and then went on to actively work against Trump).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Because they're not suicidal. Even if you agree with him, always having the rest of the political establishment as your enemy will be bad for you.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I agree - that's why I'm optimistic about Heritage just doing the lower-level staffing for him. Trump isn't going to give a shit about who the Senior Advisor and Interagency Coordinator for Artificial Intelligence Information Technology Policy is, but the thousands of people in those sorts of roles will set policies for four years if Heritage gets their way. Having a roster of actually competent people signed up to take those roles in the first 6 months of the administration would be huge.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Except, AIUI, the permanent bureaucracy is >95% Leftist, and the only people "qualified" (meaning "credentialed by left-captured institutions") to be hired into it are even more solidly Leftist. Instead of Right-wing "action" from Congress or the President being "knocked down by liberal SCOTUS justices," it will simply be ignored by the 2-million-plus permanent Federal bureaucrats.
Indeed, I remember many articles from his term about that, including quotes from government officials about how this meant he was "acting like a king" and "didn't know how things work," and a lot of other statements implying that whatever your civic textbooks might say, the "experts" of the civil service are the ones who actually make policy, and the President's job is to merely put a face on it.
And that's where I disagree: I don't see any plausible way to replace any of the bureaucracy if it doesn't want to be replaced.
And my point is that that plan will necessarily fail, because, as things are currently constituted, such a personnel shift is in practice impossible.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link