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 -
few Trump voters would pick Trump if you asked them, "You get Trump but he does nothing and 'fails' or you can get Desantis and he actually does all the things he's promising and 'succeeds'"
even slight exposure to Trump voters, or especially die-hard supporters, makes clear they think Desantis is a fraud who will sell them down the river like so many other Republicans, not that he's just not Trump
Trump is a reaction to "American conservative" elites being unserious people and, worse, complete losers.
funny enough, the exact opposite of what Trump wanted to do and what caused his support to begin with
trump didn't run on ending abortion in 2016, he made immigration and trade the election topics pretty much single-handedly, and it wasn't the driving message in 2020 either
"trump is a dumb failure and the peasants support him to fail even if they could succeed" may scratch whatever itch you have, but it's nonsense
one, a claim the US or the median American only spends "a pittance" on America's empire is nonsense and attempting to make the entire discussion about "America's empire" as only talking about a couple hundred billion dollars going to Ukraine is dishonest
two, "American conservatives" and Trump supporters are not the same group of people. Many Trump supporters are fine and proud of American empire, they're upset that it's being used to impoverish them while they get no benefit. They were proud when they went over or sent their sons to fight for it. An easy way to see this is when Trump makes comments about the middle eastern wars that we conquered and didn't even get the spoils. Others want a different "American empire"; they don't like seeing their cities and towns gutted and turned into drug-zombieland as their jobs and wealth are shipped overseas and the wealth to the coasts. Very few want the US to not matter on the world stage.
it's not that "Trump supporters" or "American conservatives" don't want "empire," it's that they don't want an "empire" which means getting their sons killed and them impoverished to make Kabul, Baghdad, and Tehran safe for Pride parades all the while making people who hate them fabulously wealthy
three, even if this was an accurate description of the "American conservatives" who support Trump and of the "pittance," trying to portray ending Affirmative action, an institution which may as well be the bedrock of American institutions, and ending sending "a pittance" to a war on the other side of the planet as in the same category of things to prioritize is just silly because one is relatively easily obtainable right now and the other is revolutionary
additionally, the SCOTUS which exists in its current form due heavily in part to Donald Trump, did deliver a blow to Affirmative Action, Inc., in SFFA v Harvard
a tv show host clown beat the vast political machines of the GOP and Democrat Parties to become President of the United States on the slogan "Make America Great Again" because his supporters wanted to go back to a time they thought America was "great"
a claim these people do not "aspire to greatness, personally or collectively," is simply ridiculous; for some of them, collective greatness is all they have left
your model of Trump supporters and American politics generally is way off
Bingo!
I already linked the editorial in reply to another to another comment in this thread, but I believe Glenn Reynolds hit the nail on the head back in 2016 when he argued that guys like David Brooks and Mitt Romney effectively "Created Trump" through their own fecklessness. When politeness and orderliness are met with contempt and betrayal, do not be surprised if the response is something less polite, and less orderly. If you make a big show of not representing your constituent's interests, don't be surprised when they drop you for someone else who promises to do so. The Republican Establishment spent the better part of a decade in the late 00s and early teens shitting on their base and then had the chutzpah to be "shocked and appalled" when said base decided that they wanted nothing to do with them anymore.
It was clear from the first debate on that Trump understood gamesmanship and the stakes at play far-far better than anyone else in the room. That's why he was able to run the table on both the Media and Republican Establishment so readily, and it's the reason that a good chunk of his supporters in 2016 voted for him.
To paraphrase Lincoln in reply to demands that Grant be dismissed for drunkenness and insubordination. "He may be a drunk but he's the only general we have who can actually fight."
More options
Context Copy link
I would not be so sure about this. War has generally been a a popular platform for the right . first-order patriotism/nationalism takes precedent over second-order questions like who profits or whose interests are served. An empire by definition means being global and enforcing its interests abroad.
If trump were replaced by someone else, his replacement would get probably the same # of votes, so for all intents and purposes they are the same people . Even if you vote for Trump grudgingly, that still is a show of support.
what the empire looks like or should look like and what are its interest are subjective; part of "the right" soured on the middle east adventures and when asked they tell you why and it's some mix of what I listed: they don't believe the empire benefits them, they don't like what the empire is and who it benefits, and they don't like a lot of what it pushes, consuming their blood and wealth to keep running
no, this couldn't be more wrong; Trump wins because he motivates non and low likely voters to show up when they otherwise wouldn't
the reason why the GOP loses despite great metrics is because they do not motivate voters while Democrats have bottom-up get-out-the-vote machines going in every small city and larger across the United States who deliver ballots to friendly counting centers
in a state like Ohio where Trump won by over 8 points, the last election had a Biden +2 electorate; where did all of the Trump voters go? they didn't show up in his absence
Trump voters are not GOP voters and to the extent they vote GOP it's because Trump gets them to show-up
This presupposes that Trump wins. He lost the popular vote to Dolores Umbridge in 2016 and lost the popular and electoral votes to an empty suit in 2020.
Trump appeals differently to swing voters compared to the Goldman-Aramco Republicans, but it isn't obvious that he appeals more to them. What is clear is that the Republican base prefer Trump to the Goldman-Aramco Republicans that run against him in primaries.
thankfully, the national popular vote isn't how presidents are elected in the United States and the other candidates on deck in 2016 or 2020 would have lost much worse
sorry mottezens, Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz weren't going to win in the midwest, some of those states for the first time in over a generation, in 2016 against Hillary Clinton
You just don’t know this. Romney would have won in 2016 against Hilary, he just couldn’t win against Obama (and neither would Trump have been able to).
I don't know that a counterfactual which didn't happen "would have" won in 2016 against Hillary? No, he wouldn't have. A claim that Mitt Romney would have won PA, WI, MI, or even OHIO in 2016, all necessary states to win to win the presidency, when he lost in OHIO by over 3 points to unpopular incumbent with policies so unpopular they caused the largest seat swing for the GOP in 80 years in 2010 is just ridiculous.
No, Mitt isn't winning Ohio in 2016 either after ads hit the TV screens with cry stories of people who lost their pensions because Mitt Romney and Co. bought their companies and gutted them to sell them off to foreigners so they didn't have assets to finance the pool.
your model and info is just way off reality
Do you think Trump would have beaten Obama in 2012?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Speaking of things no one actually knows ...
Yes, that kind of ridiculous counterfactual is my point!
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
Trump also brings out non-regular voters on the other side.
The non-regular voters and non-voters don't split their votes evenly between red and blue; Trump has commanding leads in the non and low-voter turnout demo largely because non-regular voters who lean blue are already well mobilized by Democrat "nonpartisan" get-out-the-vote operations across the US which deliver ballots to friendly counting centers. This is even more true in the midwest, GA, NV, AZ, etc.
The GOP low turn-out Finkelstein strategy of the 1990s doesn't work and hasn't worked in the general for 15+ years. We've seen this strategy fail repeatedly and recently. Despite the best generic ballot in decades, the GOP was able to deliver only a neutered majority in 2022. It's really only still effective at shaping the primaries towards Party derps who then go on to lose.
Sounds a bit like the main man himself.
A lot of the electoral issues the GOP has faced over the past 6 years is crazy MAGA candidates winning primaries on Trump's endorsement and then going on to lose the general.
this is simply wrong; low voter turnout doesn't benefit MAGA candidates in primaries, it's the opposite
without MAGA, there are no big GOP victories, especially at the national level
The GOP’s best recent moment for Congressional elections was 2014, tellingly the last major period in which Trump wasn’t the face of the party.
no, the best recent moment is 2010 when the GOP picked up approx. 65 seats in the House and approx. 5 seats in the Senate on the back of the Tea Party insurgency, not 2014
was that because Trump wasn't on the ballot, too?
if anything, the avoidable mistake that was Mitt Romney delayed taking the Senate in 2012 despite great metrics to do so
the GOP idiotically coopted and gutted the energy of the Tea Party movement, we'll see if they manage to do the same to MAGA
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
Truly, a festival of democracy. How can we ever repay Donald?
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