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 you can over-emphasize its importance. The political tit-for-tat and flouting national norms goes back a long time. But I would politely suggest anyone looking to the Garland -> Gorsuch -> Kavanaugh arc of the Supreme Court as the only relevant history is either misinformed, or using deeply-motivated history.
As some examples:
The modern history of contentious Supreme Court Justice Nominations really starts with Robert Bork.
Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh (and perhaps even Amy Comey Barrett) were subject to far more contentious nominations than anything Democratic appointees have ever been subject to.
Bush v Gore probably did more than any other case to convince the public that the Court is a political actor.
The Roberts opinion affirming the Constitutionality of Obamacare probably comes second.
Looking past SCOTUS: Russiagate pee tape accusations and George Floyd had a far more radicalizing effect on the Left than Garland being denied a seat.
Politics is of course a two-way relationship, but if we were to arbitrarily tally up norms broken in the last 30 years (or 40, or whatever), I think it would generally be the left breaking more of them. A lot of the Right's exceptions would be contained to Bush's actions over the Iraq War, with many of Trump's actions being broadly disdained by the GOP. (They wouldn't even let him declare an emergency to build a border wall.)
The difference being that those are names of 3 Supreme Court justices.
Yes, the Democrats did reject one Republican nominee 35 years ago. But he was rejected after an open and pulib hearing and vote, and then the next Republican nominee that replaced him was unanimously approved. Reagan still filled his seat.
The issue is not that Garland had a contentious hearing, or even that he was not confirmed at his hearing. The issue is that he had no hearing and no vote, the Republicans just pretended he didn't exist.
There has indeed always been acrimony and fighting over SC seats, and using the rules to ratfuck the other party wherever possible.
But this one went beyond the established rules in a way that was genuinely surprising/baffling/outraging to people at the time. A big fight with lots of mud slinging and feet dragging was expected, what happened was just weird
And as such, I really do believe it expanded the borders of what types of ratfucking and acrimony could be reasonably entertained.
If he had a hearing but they never were going to vote yes would that have satisfied you?
If they then went on to unanimously elect Obama's next nominee, which is what happened in the Bork case, then sure, that would be fine.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Bork's rejection was unprecedented and for fundamentally political reasons. You can argue why you think it was justified, but that's not the relevant question: we're talking about the long-escalating fight over norms. As such:
This was also true of Bork's hearing. Everyone admitted he had one of the finest legal minds of his generation and was immeninently qualified to sit on the Supreme Court. (It is the ultimate irony that it was Biden who lead the push against Bork at the time, and has had to deal with the consequences.)
I don't doubt that Republicans' treatment of Garland was an escalation, although I quibble with some of these details. (I always hear it said that it was appaling that the GOP never even held hearings -- but I don't think, if they had voted no after some show trials, that it would really have helped anyone feel better.)
I'm also not arguing here that Democrats are uniquely bad and Republicans have never fouught back. But in the modern context I don't think the Garland nomination is this uniquely radicalizing moment. Probably in the top ten. Maybe it cracks the top five.
If they had voted 'no', and then unanimously voted yes on Obama's nest appointment, as is what actually happened with Bork, people would have felt a lot better.
No one is particularly attached to Garland in particular, they're attached to the seat.
They wouldn't have voted yes on Obama's next appointment. They made it clear that they wanted the seat, not to slight Garland specifically.
I'm not saying Republicans didn't really do anything provocative. I'm saying that the specific is irrelevant.
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