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 -
Well yeah, greys aren’t a majority. But a lot of that stuff looks like they could get it in a coalition if they were willing to drop ridiculosities like shrimp welfare.
Forget the extreme positions; this is America. We barely have a mechanism for coalition-building at all!
The Reform Party garnered 8% of the vote in ‘96. Thirty years later, how many of its planks have been adopted by either party?
I don’t have the timeline for adoption, either. My suspicion is that immigration solidified in the mid 2000s rather than as a response to Nader or Perot, for example.
Point is—our most prestigious and well-funded third party couldn’t get seats in Congress. It certainly couldn’t get a President or a an amendment. The policies which got any traction weren’t implemented by coalition; they were picked up by one of the big boys as a weapon in the culture war.
Could a modern third party expect anything better?
Yeah, there's a reason "electoral reform" followed closely by "legislative reform" are at the top of that list and others like it. As far as I can see, the available levers to actually effect political change of this kind (i.e. movement on an issue other than what appears in the major party platform) are:
Apparently, voting for a third party in a presidential election doesn't make the list. Sure, make your protest votes if you want, but as you say, the major parties will just ignore them unless they got a lot of the vote.
More options
Context Copy link
This is true to some degree on the electoral level but less so on the legislative. Coalitions in the contemporary party system are relatively visible (more so than they were a 15 years ago) and primarily function in congress by getting courtesy approval rights over language in bills of particular interest before party leadership takes them to the floor, weighed against their desire to fight alternative language and likelihood of success if they do. Because of the nature of the Speakership under current rules this most strongly effects House majorities, but organized minorities in either party's delegations actually have relatively actionable autonomy compared to the centralized parties of other democracies— just this session a junior coalition faction successfully rerolled leadership selection.
Sure, there was the manchin/sinema bloc. I also heard recently that one Alabama senator managed some grandstanding by blocking all military promotions for a period. It’s not impossible to get an issue to the floor. But it is damn tedious, and the odds of actual implementation are pitiful.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I don't mean that they're a majority, I mean so insignificant that purely by numbers they can't make up a political force that would offer something to the coalition table. (Of course they might have money beyond their numbers, and that's something too.)
In the US they could get a bunch of regulatory reforms through the republicans if they’d drop the green stuff and open borders. A willingness to actually look for coalition partners and work with them can get you far, especially when your demands are oddball enough not to have a lobby against.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link