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 -
In this election, both candidates are pretty well hated by the public.
If you say to someone, "you can have Donald Trump, Joe Biden, or the what's in the mystery box", many people will answer "The box. The BOX!"
https://youtube.com/watch?v=XsNIFD7TxwU
In this environment, swapping in a cipher like Michelle Obama at the last minute starts to seem like a pretty good idea! Let's not forget that Joe Biden was sort of in that same position 4 years ago. People didn't know much about him, he didn't stand for anything, and that was good!
Of course, a 3rd Obama term would be just like a 2nd Biden term. All the same people would be running the show. But there are lots of Americans who (wrongly) think that the problem with the Biden administration is Biden. It doesn't take too many people to fall into this trap to move the needle. I think Michelle Obama would capture enough of the middle to win by 10 points.
Now, Michelle Obama might not do it because she's smart enough to realize her reputation will go from great to dogshit in 18 months. But they could find someone. Hopefully someone who just says buzzwords like "hope" without getting into the specifics of how they're going to raise your taxes to give more money to people who don't work.
I don't think Michelle is interested in the job. She's never given off those political ambition vibes to me, unlike Hillary who couldn't wait for the chance to be the anointed Empress and tried three bites at the cherry (she was unlucky Obama ran the first time, and her campaign did not like that at all). If Hillary thought there was any chance under heaven that she'd replace Biden, she'd be shoving Joe aside so hard he'd end up in Australia.
More options
Context Copy link
Biden's been in office making bad decisions for decades. He tried to get a precursor to the Patriot Act passed years before 9/11. In my extremely biased view he had many decades of examples of how to be a bad Democratic politician.
Perhaps you should re-evaluate based on him ascending to the presidency? He is an example of an excellent Democratic politician, even if such a thing succeeding is bad for the country.
Right: he's a 36 year Senator, then two term VP and now President. He's the best of their best by some measure that accounts for extreme seniority.
He's an example of their worst by my biased accounting against the Democratic party elite. "Consistently wrong for decades" and also ascending to the highest offices. Great for him, massively enriching to his entire extended family, bad in some larger sense by my estimation.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I think this is a more suitable video.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=hXOjyv4d998?feature=shared
There's not really a plausible alternative to the two.
More options
Context Copy link
Biden had a decades-long political career and was a former VP.
Not sure if anyone is seriously floating Michelle Obama, but I think Kamala Harris would be an absolute disaster.
Serious in the 'haha just kidding unless' since. No one is 'serious' since no one would 'seriously' try to directly unseat the sitting President, but if Biden were to fall for completely unrelated reasons, Michelle Obama would be one of the most serious contenders in a convention-negotiated candidate.
Among her positives, she has the name-recognition, is broadly associated with positive things/better times, is directly connected with the Obama-wing of the party which remains the dominant institutional actor of the party, and due to her 'inexperience' would be expected to/can credibly offer significant policy influence to the wings of the party in terms of appointments, more so than a more factionally-locked candidate might. She's also- significantly- not in a current position of importance/would not derail political careers/induce risk of election loss by stepping down as an incumbant and possibly open up a meaningful billet for an election loss.
This is all very, very positive in a convention-negotiation scenario, which would be an absolute disaster in general. No one from a back-room convention will be able to claim the mantle of legitimacy from all the state party selections, and in lieu of that it's critically important to have few in-party enemies (Michelle basically has none in the public awareness, unlike Hillary whose factionalism was legendary), have connections with other symbols of legitimacy (her marriage to Obama), have connections across a broad part of the Party (again, her marriage to Obama, who remains a key Democratic influencer), avoid sharing the issues the brought down the previous person and forced the choice (Michelle is young(er) and fit), and finally be able to take the dive gracefully in a way that sets up the next iterative round.
A Michelle election strategy would very likely run on a 'she's above the nastiness' while letting proxies attack, serving as best as possible as a foil rather than a mirror for Trump (where, whatever else one thinks of Biden, he also is easily cast as 'other old white corrupt liar'). It wouldn't necessarily be a bad strategy either- possibly the best from a bad hand- even as it (theoretically) could play to a lot of the Democrat's party interests and must-have coalition members, including the African-American vote, and the general professional female cohort. It's something more likely to help hold the party together in a way that appeals to its current core interests (urbanized professionals and progressive activists) than some of the other possibilities who could drive off the activists or deter the ongoing realignment progress of the national-security never-trump republicans, which has been party target since Hillary.
I think it’s widely acknowledged that Oprah (1st) and Michelle (2nd) would be the ‘ideal’ candidate. George Clooney is probably up there too. But none of them want to do it.
Oprah has way too many skeletons in the closet or she'd have run for something eons ago.
Hanging around shady Hollywood types like Weinstein wouldn’t sink her with the base, it’s not like Trump’s past affiliations sunk him. She’s also a woman (a black woman especially) which is Teflon against those accusations especially in front of a base that’s predominantly older women and POC. Any shady men she hung around can be excused as the kind of thing you have to do as a black woman to succeed in America. I think she just doesn’t want to do it.
I think Oprah is smart enough to realize that being a politician is a really bad deal, and michelle has enough first/second hand experience to know that. Besides, Oprah is an influential, household name already- it’s not like she needs to become a politician to get influence.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This all hinges on her wanting the job. And I’m not certain that she does.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I also think it is unserious (and not something she even wants). But I keep seeing mention of it. People missing the Obama presidency keep bringing her up.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link