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 gonna assume the two elections prior to 2016 that you're referring to are 2000 (where he ran in the Reform Party primary) and 2012, where he drummed up birtherism but declined to run.
The obvious explanation for why he didn't take off in 2000 was because he was running in the primary of a third party that included such disparate figures as Ralph Nader and David Duke, and which was falling apart with Jesse Ventura leaving. He could have won the primary but doing so wouldn't have gotten him anywhere in the general with the party hollowed out by infighting while the two mainstream parties fielded serious candidates.
And the obvious explanation for why he didn't take off in 2012 is that he chickened out after Osama Bin Laden was killed, crimping his plan of hammering Obama for being soft on terror and darkly insinuating that he's One Of Them. He maybe could have won the nomination in 2012 but he would have been competing with the rest of the parade of anyone-but-Romney caricatures who got a week each in the spotlight before the media and polls moved on to the next one.
The difference in the 2016 primary? There wasn't a consensus establishment pick for the nominee so the non-establishment candidates were on equal footing with the establishment ones, and Trump could outcompete the others on non-establishment bona fides, or more generally just staying in the spotlight and making the conversation about him all the time. And he could expect to face off against a general election opponent that he thought he could beat (though, notably, he didn't seem to think it was a sure thing).
Same thing on 2024, the establishment was split between DeSantis and Haley, but neither had the charisma to get grassroots support. But more importantly, Trump had successfully spent the last eight years reinforcing, through constant jousts with the media, that any criticism of him must be coming from the Bad Guys who are Out To Get You so any challenger in the primary couldn't possibly criticize him without inheriting the stink of the dreaded Enemy.
The trajectory of a political campaign depends on a lot of things that aren't necessarily in the control of the candidate. It matters who else is running and what else is happening in the world. Very talented figures who could do well in a general election can easily get passed over if they don't get their foot in the door with party insiders. And very counterproductive figures can be elevated to placate insider groups.
More options
Context Copy link