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 this post relies too much on a definition of Republican and Democrat that do not mirror one another and change depending on which paragraph they appear in.
The Democrat party has a long bench only if you count people who aren't traditional Democrat party people, as it concerns people who are the same sort of people as Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton, everyone is of a similar age. The Republican party bench is just as long with Trump weirdos and freedom caucus guys if not longer, but the establishment pick for the 2024 election is Nikki Haley who lost the election before the first debate.
The disease that is killing the republican party is just as present in the democrat party if not more so, they've just had their TEA party moment in team red already so that machine has already been dead since Obama.
So what will the Republican Party look like come 2030, barring the actions of the other side? Every institution and think tank is entirely in flux at the moment and it is going to come down to who can exhibit real power next year and specially in 2026 and 2028. What is likely going to happen is that Rand Paul continues to rise to where he is one of the most prominent politicians in the party establishment just from seniority, which is going to be a bit wild to think about.
As it concerns the future of the Red Tribe intellectual, the Ivy Leagues got their start as seminaries and future red tribe elites are probably going to have a lot more MDivs and DDivs, less PhDs and JDs. There are a lot of new players like American Reformer and First Things on team red that are explicitly religious and I expect that trend to continue as who they represent rise in power on the right, while a lot of existing journals veer smart-religious or die. This is generally because those sectors that support these publications and produce those intellectuals have children and cause drastic worldview conversions in other people as a regular part of life. They can also get these intellectuals a job fairly easily as there are deep and growing shortages for well paying positions based around conservative outreach. The Hasidic Jews also have high TFRs and inevitably are going to show up to the future as well, and are naturally going to be in the red tribe.
This will also be a regression to the mean as it concerns American politics, and if the seculars are going to want to keep their happy tribe they are going to have to fight for it.
Welfare dependent urbanites with very low male employment rates are going to naturally be red tribe?
Your traditional Catholics get respect from red tribers for their similar family sizes and social conservatism, sure, but that’s because they pay their own bills through work and produce children who do the same thing. Hasidic Jews do not do that.
And they are crossing 10 kids per household in many cases, it is likely that just by sheer volume there is going to be enough castoffs to fill volume. It is going to be similar volumes for the mennonite population.
I don't doubt that apostate hasidim will be a notable population in the future, but what does that population actually look like? Low-proficiency English speakers from the projects do not do very well on their own and I doubt that apostates have much community support.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link