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'm not sure. The rule that states may not add additional qualifiers for federal office has some loopholes but some well-established precedent.
However, there's also been serious sets of legal challenges and a well-promoted campaign to argue that the 14th Amendment automatically disqualifies from the ballot anyone who 'participated in insurrection', by a vague and broad definition that includes whatever they think Trump has done.
I'd argue that they're wrong to do so, but I'm not sure what I think matters.
The 14th Amendment is rather quiet about how it's insurrection rule is to be enforced: it's not clear who actually gets the power to decide "insurrection" occurred. The federal courts? The states? Local officials setting up ballots?
Some of those options are better than others, but if you choose poorly I think you'll find "was overruled once by SCOTUS" to be grounds for finding "insurrection against the Constitution" in any case where unfriendly partisan officials are empowered to so decide. Obviously Obama's fake "recess appointments" in Noel Canning were a deliberate attempt (from a famed Constitutional Scholar!) to subvert the Constitution if you let Ken Paxton decide.
To be fair, it's not clear how the Constitution's eligibility rules would be enforced generally if someone nominated, say, a child who was obviously under 35. Birtherism runs a bit more into the Full Faith and Credit Clause, though.
All the amendments are similarly quiet. The idea that it is specifically the courts that are responsible for enforcing (say) the 1st amendment is quite recent. At the time of the founding, the dominant view was that all political actors were obliged by their oaths of office to act constitutionally - that legislators should not pass unconstitutional laws, presidents should veto them if they do pass, etc.
The same approach to section 3 of the 14th is that it is incumbent on everyone not to allow insurrectionists into office. Parties should not nominate insurrectionists, secretaries of state should not put them on the ballot, voters should not vote for them, presidential electors for insurrectionists should go faithless (the Constitution overrides faithless elector laws) and the joint session of Congress should object to the electoral votes if they don't. The job of the courts is then to handle the inevitable litigation when people disagree about whether Trump really is an insurrectionist. Obviously, this is bad and puts you straight in a constitutional crisis.
But America is already in a constitutional crisis. Either Trump is right and you are a country where elections are routinely rigged, or Trump is lying and you are a country where there are no electoral consequences for spamming false allegations of vote-rigging the way most politicians spam promises of other people's money and demanding criminal investigations of local election officials for doing their jobs, or Trump is delusional and you are a country which is about to elect a madman as chief executive.
This is scary, man. And I don't even live in America.
Even if this was a trilemma, it would not constitute a Constitutional crisis.
Elections being routinely rigged are bad, but not a Constitutional crisis. For it to be a Constitutional crisis it would have to set up a situation which at least apparently could not be resolved within the Constitution.
There being no electoral consequences "spamming false allegations of vote-rigging" is also not a Constitutional crisis. Electing liars is something which happens every election day, and claiming something different about this particular lie is blatant special pleading.
Electing a madman as chief executive is very bad but also not a Constitutional crisis.
It is possible for Trump to be wrong but neither lying nor delusional, thus, no trilemma.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link