r/PoliticalDiscussion • u/eldomtom2 • 23d ago
Is there a culture war? What are the causes of it, if so? And how should we solve it? Political Theory
Issues relating to culture, especially around matters like race, have been gaining increasing prominence recently. But little common ground can be agreed upon. Is the right enflaming innocuous or irrelevant actions by the left, or is it responding to genuine infractions by the left? Is "culture war" even an appropriate term? And what positions, ultimately, should our culture take when it comes to these issues?
I use right and left as general descriptors; I don't generally believe in linear political spectrums and in this case I certainly don't think it's a simple left/right issue even if you do accept their existence.
19
u/personAAA 23d ago
Depends on how you define the culture wars if it is the political fights over the so called social issues, yes that keeps happening and not going to stop any time soon. Some of it is the intersection of religion, values, and politics.
The classic issue is abortion here. Neither side will back down. The question is when do rights attach to new people.
More generally what are the values of our society? How do we source values? How much can religion influence people's values including the values they make political decisions with?
These are tough questions for a society that does not share a religion. (For sake of argument, atheism is a religion here) Even nastier now that people disagree if religion is a good thing or not.
13
u/sujeto16 22d ago
"The classic issue is abortion here. Neither side will back down. The question is when do rights attach to new people."
Its deeper than that,because it comes from a basic understanding of reality that wildly changes the framework people works with.
From a christian point of view,a fetus already is an individual with a soul and an abortion is Murder. I understand the rage if i believed that. It comes from a christian way to view reality.
From an atheist point of view,a fetus not only doesnt have a soul(no concept of soul),it doesnt even have a conscience to experience pain,or to have the will to live.
Its irreconcilable.
7
u/spotolux 21d ago
In my understanding the bible doesn't consider a child alive until it has taken it's first breath. The bible even discusses how and when pregnancies should be terminated. The Christian stance on abortion is a modern thing, deliberately used to draw voters to the conservative end of the spectrum. It is part of a strategy that began after Barry Goldwater lost his presidential run in the '60s. That is when the concept of social conservatism was adopted to get people who don't benefit from the traditional conservative economic agenda to support them, hence you have poor people who are drawn to social conservative issues arguing for low taxes and against unions.
1
10
u/bl1y 21d ago
From an atheist point of view,a fetus not only doesnt have a soul(no concept of soul),it doesnt even have a conscience to experience pain,or to have the will to live.
The atheist point of view, assuming they believe in some form of natural rights, would still have to answer the question of when rights attach.
Your comment hints that this might have something to do with the ability to experience pain, or having the will to live. What I've found so frustrating in the abortion debate is the pro side refusing to offer a reasonable argument for why rights attach at birth beyond just "because that protects abortion."
1
u/[deleted] 20d ago
[deleted]
5
u/bl1y 20d ago
I think the current law is when the baby becomes viable outside of the mother
What do you mean by viable outside of the mother? Is that different from just being alive outside of the mother?
Normally, viable refers just to fetuses, not to babies.
1
4
u/ballmermurland 21d ago
From a christian point of view,a fetus already is an individual with a soul and an abortion is Murder. I understand the rage if i believed that. It comes from a christian way to view reality.
There is no biblical backing to this belief, however. There are even passages in the bible that describe creating a tea that induces an abortion as a test for a soldier's wife when he returns home to her being pregnant.
Furthermore, if you believe that life begins at conception, then you must accept the fact that there are millions of miscarriages each year where many women don't even know they were pregnant. How many "souls" are lost without even a name or a likeness? Will you meet them in heaven? Nobody can say for sure and those who do are just guessing.
2
u/blaqsupaman 22d ago
I'm a very pro-choice Christian but I realize I'm probably an outlier.
5
u/DisastrousBarnacle60 22d ago
That's a fairly recent phenomenon. It's used to be a "Catholic thing" to oppose abortion. The Southern Baptist Convention actually outright supported it until the late 1970s! Hell, the Bible doesn't even see fit to mention it. For something so all-consuming for Evangelicals today, you'd think it would be a bigger part of their main religious text.
6
u/11711510111411009710 20d ago
The bible does mention a way to abort. It never mentions it being a sin.
1
u/SuspiciousSubstance9 19d ago
I agree with you that definition can be very subjective. For me, a "cultural war" [in the US] is fought first by changing the perception of society so the politics will fall in line after.
I'm not going to disagree about abortion being a classic issue. However, a classic won "cultural war" is gay rights and hopefully soon LGBTQ+ as well. Clinton signed DOMA in 1996 and now the Democrats are their champions. There has been constant cultural pushes to normalize this issue and public perception changed. Now it's becoming codified, only after we changed the hearts of the majority.
Climate change is another topic that has been fought only on the societal side, unfortunately.
-5
u/eldomtom2 22d ago
Abortion belongs to the previous culture wars. In the present culture wars, neither side is unambiguously pro-life or pro-choice.
7
u/personAAA 22d ago
No, the strong camps are very much around. Laws at the state level keep getting passed both on the most extreme ends.
-1
u/eldomtom2 22d ago
Oh they're still there, of course, but so are fundamentalist Christians, and their culture war is decidedly over. The lines are shifting, and abortion is losing its status as a key divider.
6
u/personAAA 22d ago
Did you not see an appeals court just uphelded another set of abortion restrictions?
Did you not see Biden having to shift to left on abortion during the campaign?
The strong camps are more powerful than ever. Those than dissent from their party on abortion are strongly pressured. There are no more Pro-life Democrats in Congress. The last one was primary out. There are no pro-choice Republicans in Congress. (at least off the top of my head)
The abortion fight don't make much press right now but is still very much going on. Too much other news going on.
-2
u/eldomtom2 22d ago
I said it was losing its status, not that it had lost it. In the current culture war, the left side can find common cause with pro-lifers in some cases...
6
u/personAAA 22d ago
I don't think that it is losing status. There are still lots of single issue voters on it.
Abortion is not talked as much in the news cycle, but come election day it matters.
1
u/eldomtom2 22d ago
There are still lots of single issue voters on it.
But are new voters becoming single issue voters?
1
u/FourForYouGlennCoco 18d ago
I’d say that abortion is very much a live issue in real world politics, but is less visible in political debates online. Im not sure whether that’s because young people are more generally, or because everyone basically knows where they stand on the issue so it isn’t as exciting to debate as the shinier, newer issues. My guess is the latter.
8
u/AgoraiosBum 22d ago
The culture war is - broadly - an urban / rural divide. It has long existed, and is fought over different things at different times. The short of it is "the people making the rules are different from me and people like me, and they are making the wrong rules!"
In many ways, it goes back to the Peace of Augsburg and the impetus for the Dutch Revolt and 80 Years War and the 30 Years War - will the ruler (the rule maker) be following the appropriate religious doctrines (or will they follow the doctrines laid down by a distant King?). The term "culture war" itself came from the Germans, from efforts by Otto von Bismarck, the protestant, Prussian aristocrat who saw picking on Catholics as a useful tool for nation-building, for separating church and state and making the German state predominant over the Catholic Church (in German it is KulturKampf)
It can be solved in one sense with greater local controls - although this is something that both sides generally disagree on, and even with local control, culture war issues (the argument that the rule makers are making bad rules related to culture that aren't a proper fit for an area) will often be used in political battles if other terrain (like economics or foreign policy) is not discussed. Because what true local control translates to is no state standards, no federal standards, and those with state or federal power looking the other way when a locality makes choices that the power-holder strongly disagrees with - for example if Austin massively expanded abortion rights and legalized psychedelic drugs, the Texas State Government (based in Austin, but made up of members throughout the state, especially more rural areas) would be very upset with those choices.
3
u/eldomtom2 22d ago
The short of it is "the people making the rules are different from me and people like me, and they are making the wrong rules!"
Yes, but you can turn any political divide into this.
1
u/Own_General5736 21d ago
Well put. I myself have believed for quite some time that most of the culture war would end if we reversed the modern centralization of government control. If Idaho wasn't dictating to NYC and LA wasn't dictating to Kentucky most of the antipathy would fade away as the problems just wouldn't be there.
Though yes, as you point out, there would still be the state-level urban/rural divide I believe it would be less acrimonious due to less distance and the presence of more cultural ties. Though there would be some specific situations (Austin, Portland) where there would still be extreme friction I think you would see most situations calm down due to the shared cultural touchstones.
1
u/sujeto16 22d ago
There are other points of conflict besides urban/rural. Inside cities you have also divide by race, individualism/socialism, poor/rich, christian/atheist,etc.
22
u/Mineturtleboomderp 23d ago
There has always been a culture war I don’t think there is anything to do about it that would “solve” it i believe it just occurs naturally at some points it’s really relaxed and isn’t involved in everything and people live there lives relatively uninvolved then you have other times where it really heats up usually around elections especially the ones that end in a controversial way sometimes it can really get cranked up when the economy is bad for example the Great Depression hard times brought a near 180 flip in the domestic policy of the government in terms of managing the economy
35
u/wm_cra_dev 22d ago
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
, , , , , , , , , , ,
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
Here's some extra punctuation you can borrow.
15
3
u/KamiYama777 21d ago
The main culprit is a 24/7 news media that presents entertainment and opinion shows as factual news, couple this with social media disinformation campaigns and actual illegitimate news like Newsmax and Infowars and you have a very politically engaged yet opinionated population who is blinded so deep by bias they are incapable of seeing the bigger picture
Now don’t get me wrong culture wars have always been an issue in the US but only a couple of times has it been this bad, the solution is Governments need to regulate news and social media with an emphasis on fact based non bias reporting and making sure social media companies are not purposely flooding news feeds with political outrage porn nor are they being manipulated by foreign governments
3
u/Own_General5736 21d ago
I mean, you're exacerbating the issue right here and now by acting like only one side does it. You name Newsmax and Infowars but ignore Huffington Post and DailyKos despite those two outlets being different only in leaning and not actual lack of factualness.
2
u/Cluefuljewel 21d ago
Infowars is in a class by itself as it trades in straight up lies like no other other outlet I can think of except maybe the daily stormer. Which is banned everywhere.
-1
u/[deleted] 19d ago edited 2d ago
[deleted]
2
u/KamiYama777 19d ago
This is EXACTLY the issue we are facing right now. Little tyrants in a teacup like you whose only solution is censorship.
Yeah I will be honest with you I am open with being ok with censoring people who are telling you the election was stolen but won't offer proof, accuse people of insane shit like cannibalism without any evidence, and tell people to overdose on horse medicine, claim that children dying are actors part of a global conspiracy to target them, etc.
When you live in a modern civilization you are REQUIRED to practice a certain standard of social responsibility, especially during hard times like a global pandemic. Objectively the US would be a better place to live if the media and social media was regulated to stop the spread of partisan misinformation which guess what, mostly comes from the right wing, if you don't like that maybe go back to your right wing forms and convince your friends to start using facts to argue your positions instead of Russian backed bullshit
6
u/monjoe 22d ago
Culture wars are how conservatives frame the tension between progress and tradition. Leftists want to dismantle traditional power structures to allow for equity and social justice. Conservatives generally benefit from the current social hierarchy so they stand to lose power if leftists get their way. If marginalized people obtain more rights to get a bigger piece of the pie, the dominant group's overall share of the pie decreases. From the conservatives' perspective, it's a matter of preserving the hierarchy to maintain their social status. They rationalize it as fighting for their identity (associated with the traditional hierarchy). It's to fight for their way of life, or rather, their culture.
This dynamic has played out over and over again since the 18th Century at least.
4
u/Own_General5736 21d ago
Leftists want to dismantle traditional power structures to allow for equity and social justice.
And those things are, to many people's ethical frameworks, immoral. Equity is not equality and we are supposed to be a nation of equals. Justice does not need a modifier and adding one makes it injustice. The state progressives want to "progress" to is the same state we were in before but with the hierarchies flipped.
-6
u/QuiGonMike 22d ago
Ummm. Not really. A lot of the "culture" problems that certain people have is simply that they dont value education, work, and things that promote a productive lifestyle. And NO, its not a race thing at all. There are culturally bankrupt people of all races just like there are hard-working and successful people from all walks.
While a small percentage of people do fall behind through no fault of their own I can show you plenty who make bad choices again and again and now want society or the Govt to bail them out. They want free stuff and/or dont care how they get it. Thats the problem. Its called an entitled society and we have a lot of that right now.
18
u/CCHistProfWest 23d ago edited 22d ago
Currently the culture war is about race and to a lesser extent, gender and LGBTQ issues. Mostly the "T" and the "Q" now that the same sex marriage fight was won by the left in the last decade.
The fight about race is how much to focus on America's racism vs. how much to ignore, dismiss, deflect, or move on from it.
This is happenning in a context of native-born white Christian conservatives getting to be smaller proportion of the population than they've been used to for 70 years.
Also an immigration fight which is related to that shrinkage anxiety.
In the 00s it was mostly about the "L" and the "G" part of LGBT and how much to accept in society. There was also a fight about "life," remember Terry Schiavo? This was the last gasp of Christianity dominated politics (for now).
In the late 1970s-90s it was about abortion mostly and manifested as church getting inserted into politics.
In the 1960s it was about.... well it was the 60s. It was about a backlash to mainstream post war culture, and civil rights
In the 1950s it was about communism.
In the 1930s-40s we had bigger problems.
In the 1890s-1920s it was about alcohol & prohibition which was also a proxy for the immigration fight. Also urban vs. rural issues.
10
u/NardCarp 23d ago
- The fight about race is how much to focus on America's racism vs. how much to ignore, dismiss, deflect, or move on from it.
Completely disagree with this premise. I think the fight is between what is and is not caused by racism. The fight isn't about ignoring racism but standing up against the idea that every struggle a minority faces is because of racism
My guess is you would claim that the sentencing disparity is due to a racist judicial system. This would imply racism needs to be removed from the justice system to correct disparities in sentencing. I'd completely disagree.
It isn't me dismissing, or ignoring racism, it's me disagreeing that the cause is racism. Just because a number appears racist, doesn't mean it is.
For example, if I point out 39% of violent crimes are committed by black people who only make up 13% of the population and said this number points to black people being inherently more violent I would be dead wrong. The number alone doesn't tell the story and far more critical thinking and nuance is needed to understand that number.
But when someone says black people are sentenced, on average, 6% longer than white people, no critical thinking is applied, no nuance, just assumptions of racism. I do not agree with that, especially when a simpler explanation exists.
Of someone asks why do black people commit 39%of violent crime, you would likely talk about exponentially higher crime rates throughout history and the world in densely populated poor areas regardless of race You would point to poverty, and the cycle of poverty in these areas causing a breakdown in family, education playing a part, along with the prolonged and exposure to violence making people more violent etc.
And you would be right, but all of that also explains the sentencing disparities. See in all the studies there wasn't a single one that found and judge or courthouse sentenced people differently based on race. These disparities only come about when you average two different communities together.
High crime areas will sentence people longer than low crime areas. Has nothing to do with racism
Black people make up a disproportionate % of high crime areas which is why they get a disproportionate % of the longer sentences.
In my opinion, that is what leads to sentencing disparities, not racist judicial systems.
9
u/CCHistProfWest 22d ago
I was referring to the CRT fight, and I think that both the right and left combatants of that fight would say it's about more than racism's effects or lack thereof on the judicial system. Although the left would say that is a factor and one example of why teaching about racism is important. So what you're discussing is a battle within the war but not the war.
-2
u/NardCarp 22d ago
My first paragraph is my stance on "the culture war", the rest is an example of how/why I came to that stance
Discussing CRT itself is a quagmire. Both sides have good arguments for and against. The bigger problem is both sides often get confused about what CRT.
Sure it's a legal argument taught in Law schools (but that argument had a lot of flaws), but there are also teaching in our schools that are loosely based on CRT and those things parents have every right to be upset about.
Teachers who really don't understand it start doing things like having kids stand up and announce their privilege etc. While not technically CRT, teachers are doing this kind of stupidity because if CRT and their weak understanding of it combined with a desire to be progressive.
But in the end any discussion about CRT and the culture war turns into what counts and what doesn't. A boring conversation imo
10
u/TechyDad 22d ago
I think one of the main "racism" battles is about the past and how much it affects the present. Some people claim that racism is in the past, doesn't exist in the present, and therefore past racism should just be forgotten. Others claim that racism is alive and well today and that past racism has resulted in repurcussions that minorites face to this day. These people want the past racism brought up so that past injustices can be addressed.
Personally, I agree with the latter group. To use your example of violent crime, one of the main drivers of crime is poverty. People who are unable to earn enough to survive on are more likely to commit crimes (even violent crimes) in order to get something extra for themselves or their families. They're also more likely to join gangs as those gangs can provide a semblance of stability that a life of poverty alone might lack.
So why are so many black people poor? It isn't that they are just genetically predisposed to be poor. It's that redlining in the not that distant past (1940's to 1970's) marked white neighborhood as good for banks to loan money to and black neighborhoods as bad. With low interest loans, white families were able to build themselves up while black families struggled to get by. Add in racism that kept black families out of white neighborhoods and it's easy to see how racism caused the wealth gap.
3
u/Own_General5736 21d ago
The counterargument to your "modern poverty reflects historical discrimination" argument is that it ignores the many, many corrective programs targeted at that community over the decades. From straight-up welfare payments to special scholarships and admissions standards we have spent decades giving extra special help to that community. Despite that the problems are, if anything, worse than they were when the discrimination was active.
This isn't to say it's a genetic thing, if anything I'm making the opposite argument. I'd hypothesize that all that aid has created a learned dependency problem, that by removing the baseline need to be self-sufficient we have created multiple generations that have not been subject to the pressures that create functional people.
0
u/Super_contrarian 22d ago
Choosing to raise kids in single parent households certainly hasn't helped the racial wealth gap. Why focus only on redlining?
4
u/RegainTheFrogge 21d ago
Choosing to raise kids in single parent households
Not much of a choice when one parent goes to prison for the better part of a decade on a possession charge for weed.
2
u/Super_contrarian 19d ago
Oh man, this red herring. No, it is definitely a cultural choice.
Go ahead and take a look at the percentage of incarcerated comprised of drug possession cases: https://images.app.goo.gl/CsdHjR3T59MrHvhh6
65% of black children are raised in single parent households. https://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/tables/107-children-in-single-parent-families-by-race
This is cultural, but your political partisanship won't allow you to admit it.
-1
u/eldomtom2 22d ago
Does this historical focus actually benefit anything though? Does it not restrict our avenues of solving black poverty if we treat it in terms of righting historical wrongs?
5
u/TechyDad 22d ago
It can inform us as to how we got to this situation and thus what would work best to fix it. Without the historical context, people might just assume that black people tend to be poorer because of something inherent in black people (lazy or some other racist reasoning). We could also wind up tossing money at the problem without addressing the root causes. For example, giving one time payouts to black families which, while good in theory, might not address the fact that banks still won't give them loans at good rates.
With the historical context, we can get a better idea of WHY this situation exists and what solutions would work best.
0
u/eldomtom2 22d ago
I think you are fundamentally misunderstanding what I mean by "historical focus". What I mean is where solving racial issues is looked at as a case of righting historical wrongs via things like reparations.
-2
u/NardCarp 22d ago
Reparations is a horrible idea.
Helping people of all color get out of densely populated poor areas would do more good than reparations. It would be cheaper too.
Ask yourself what "racist" out comes do you want to fix?
Less black people in prison - if you break up densely populated poor areas black people will commit far less crime
More educated black people - if you break up densely populated poor areas you can provide a far better atmosphere in school by minimizing the violence and getting students out of the negative stigma towards school in densely populated poor areas
Less police brutality - if you break up densely populated poor areas you will have far less violent crime, less violent crime leads to less police brutality
On and on, most the problems that the black community faces are byproducts of living in a densely populated poor area. Break up the densely populated poor areas and a lot of those things are greatly reduced
1
u/eldomtom2 22d ago
Reparations is a horrible idea.
Why do you think that I support reparations?
0
-1
u/NardCarp 22d ago
I'm all for looking at the history and completely agree things like redlining and the great migration need to be addressed. I would fully support efforts to break up densely populated poor areas by giving the people who live in them aid to move to more sparsely populated areas. I'd support gov subsidies/tax breaks etc to help create jobs/opportunities in the areas we move people too. (Though it should be based on economics not race help all in that situation, and black communities would end up being helped the most)
The problem I see today is the focus is in the wrong thing. The courts and cops aren't racist. Do screaming about racist courts and judges won't really do anything.
The underline violence is the cause. Police brutality, excessive arrests, longer sentences aren't biproducts of racism but biproducts of a violent community.
People in the community become violent because they are surrounded by violence, the police are no different.
Police brutality isn't a thing in low crime areas, not because of racism but because cops aren't surrounded by violence.
Anyway, I'm all about addressing the problems caused by yesterdays racism but we need solutions that can actually work, not just pretending if we through some money at it, it will get fixed.
12
u/Walter_Sobchak07 23d ago edited 23d ago
Black arrestees are also disproportionately concentrated in federal districts that have higher sentences in general. Yet even after we control for these and other prior characteristics, an unexplained black-white sentence disparity of approx- imately 9 percent remains in our main sample.
Well, there goes that theory.
0
u/sujeto16 22d ago
Its about Racism,a large sector of American society is extremely Racist towards black people. Its not only sentences,its insults,discrimination,killing by police,opportunities at work,study,etc.
6
u/NardCarp 22d ago
I don't believe this at all. In my experience traveling America is one of the least racist countries in the world. A lot of the things you think are racism just aren't.
For example, black people make up 26% of the police shootings. But the commit 39% of the violent crime.
I'm sure we agree being black doesn't make you more violent it is growing up in violent areas that make you violent.
If black people are committing 39% of the violent crime it would make sense that they made up 39% of the violent interactions with police, but they only make up 26%.
That number is even more interesting when you take into account the fact that high violent crime areas have a much higher police presence, so the police v criminal interactions are going to happen more often, yet still well below the number.
Lastly, you would expect cops to be more trigger happy in violent areas, that wouldn't make them racist.
Black people face a disproportionate amount of police violence because they make up a disproportionate % of the population in violent areas.
Oddly enough, they should face more police violence than they do when looking at the numbers.
You want to opine about how the racism of yesterday created the situation today where black people are disproportionately represented in densely populated poor areas I'm right there with you
But I don't agree with calling cops today racists
1
u/sujeto16 22d ago
America is one of the least racist countries in the world? There is a constant feed of videos and news of black profiling,police racial abuse, white people going in hate rants against blacks,insults,online harrasment, community segregation, wanting to build a fucking wall in the border with Mexico,blaming mexicans of the gang problems and crime created by the consume of drugs by americans who fund the drug cartels activity in the first place. You had racial segregation in school and buses no longer than 50 years ago,the KKK still exists. In hollywood movies the principal roles of blacks and mexicans is criminals. Are you serious?
12
u/NardCarp 22d ago
There is a constant feed of videos and news
So what do you think, 1,000 videos, 10,000. 100,000, a million? In a country of 350 million. You probably think war and famine are rampant in the world despite it being the most peaceful time in recorded history, along with the lowest % of people going hungry in human history.
You have fallen for outrage porn because outrage porn generates ad revenue
-1
u/sujeto16 22d ago
They are representative of a bigger picture. Together with what is seen in your media,the racist things politicians say,the lack of black people in important positions,statistics and general analisis of american history it shows the prevalent institutionalized racism that your country has. You just dont want to see it.
8
u/NardCarp 22d ago
They aren't representing the bigger picture they are putting a magnifying glass on a small part of the picture.
Love to hear what country you are from
0
1
u/sujeto16 22d ago
The inmigration its actually about race too,most people arent bothered by white europeans moving to america.
Also another major conflict is individualism/socialism/communism. America has fear of socialist policies that are proven effective in the rest of the world( healthcare,work laws) because they dont conceive that socialist policies its not the same as the soviet union or Venezuela. Germany/Sweden/Norway are succesful countries with socialist policies.
3
1
u/sharp11flat13 21d ago
Medicare and Medicaid are popularly supported programs, as far as I know. So is the ACA. I’m sure there are many more.
It seems to me that Americans have a fear the world ‘socialism’, not socialist policies.
2
u/sujeto16 20d ago
I worked for a medical company from the US,worked with private and public insurances all day. Medicare and Medicaid dont cover almost anything compared to other countries. For example here in Uruguay,we are covered by the state( its not the best service compared to private,but everyone is covered,if you are poor,you pay almost nothing,you have access to medication almost for free,dentist,vision everything. And if you are working,your employer is obligated to pay for your medical enrollment in any of the available private provider you want. Most expensive medicine its subsidized by the state. Just to give you an example in costs, some years ago i had severe headache for unknown reason,they decided to do an MRI scan, it costed me $10 dollars.
1
u/sharp11flat13 20d ago
I’m Canadian, so I have no-fee access to excellent healthcare. Our system has its problems (some of which have affected me personally), but I wouldn’t trade it for an American style system under any circumstances.
There may be a case to be made for more private involvement in our system, but since there are a few people in my country who would like to see a fully privatized system, efforts in this area are seen by most of us as a potential slippery slope towards abolishing our public system and we push back very hard against the idea.
1
u/KamiYama777 21d ago
Gay marriage is absolutely not settled yet, if the right is able to push back hard enough on LGBTQ issues they will absolutely return to a platform of wanting to ban gay marriage and later just make homosexuality illegal altogether
Unlike civil rights for racial minorities which most likely are safe seeing as how by 2030 whites will probably make up less than 50% of the US population
2
u/CCHistProfWest 21d ago
They might try but I feel that would be beating a dead horse.
1
u/Own_General5736 21d ago
They might have a better chance than you think. The main reason that people gave ground on gay marriage was the "who cares what we do in our bedrooms" argument, but the modern evolutions of that fight are quite explicitly not about what happens in the bedroom. I could see a very successful campaign that points out that what we were promised would not happen (everything outside the bedroom) has happened and so we should reverse all of it.
6
u/hallam81 22d ago edited 22d ago
Watch Hamilton again. You can see the culture war forming even then with the Hamilton/Jefferson debates.
6
u/pjabrony 22d ago
The interesting thing about pre-Jacksonian politics in the US is how alliances and positions ebbed and flowed, and there wasn't really a dichotomous battle with clear sides like afterwards. Adams and Hamilton were federalists and wanted strong central power, particularly in finance, but he and Adams hated each other and Hamilton sided with Jefferson over Burr. Franklin sided with Adams against Jefferson on slavery, but Franklin and Jefferson were massive Francophiles while Washinton and Adams favored England and nearly got us into a war with France. Washington and Jefferson were both Virginia planters, but Washington was a federalist and Jefferson favored states' rights.
2
u/sujeto16 22d ago
Is there a culture war?
Yes,but there is always social conflict when you have a diverse society.
What are the causes of it?
Having to work and live with people you dont agree with, and their believes and way of life affect you in some minor or major way.
In America the major points of conflict are Religion/Science, Racism(you could say inmigration,but most people dont care about White Europeans moving to America,so its mostly race),and Individualism Capitalism/ Communism( America is the only first world country seriously lacking in access to Medicine for everybody,labor laws,unions,etc) This is mostly a relic from the cold war and the soviet "monster" in american consciusness.
And how should we solve it?
You dont, one side view usually wins and becomes accepted by the majority of the population,or both sides are influenced by the other and meet at a "middle point" in policies.
However new conflicts arise,the topics change.
3
u/personAAA 22d ago
There is not a fight between religion and science. There is a fight between religion and atheism.
-1
u/sujeto16 22d ago
I am not saying Religious people dont believe in or use Science. In fact they do for most things in their lifes. However there are points in which the 2 clash. Pro life vs pro choice is Religion vs Science(the concept of soul,evidence of consciusness,development of the brain). No sex education in schools comes from puritan no sex before marriage,sex for pleasure is evil religious view. Creationism(no scientific evidence)/ evolution.
And i am sure there is quite more.
3
u/personAAA 22d ago
There is no fights over evolution any more. The creationist camp is extremely tiny.
The abortion fight is not over religion. It is a fight over when do rights attach to a new person.
4
u/Blear 23d ago
I don't know what a culture war is exactly, but what we've got now is an enthusiastic media reporting on fringe groups at the extremes of our culture and enjoying subsequent controversy. Most of which is online.
There are some issues, like vaccine acceptance, that are very relevant, but I don't know who's actually warring over them, as opposed to facebooking.
There are other issues, equally cultural, like our nation's vastly overinflated military budget and footprint, that should be the subject of a culture war as they were during Vietnam, but are not.
0
u/eldomtom2 22d ago
is an enthusiastic media reporting on fringe groups at the extremes of our culture
Fringe groups, maybe, but I wouldn't call academia an extreme of our culture.
0
u/Blear 22d ago
I don't think mainstream academia is involved with this stuff, are they?
2
u/eldomtom2 22d ago
Anything the left does in the present culture war can be directly traced back to academia. It is far more leftist than most people realise.
4
u/monjoe 22d ago
Is it a coincidence that research and empirical methodology results in mostly leftist ideas?
4
u/eldomtom2 22d ago
Social sciences are often not hard sciences. A historian does not come to leftist views by looking at experiment data.
7
u/monjoe 22d ago
Academics are still required to provide evidence and are peer-reviewed to filter out poor studies. Peer-review might cause one to conclude it's a measure of conformity. But actually it's far more lucrative for an academic to have a contrarian opinion.
The opposition to academia do not have to go through the same rigor. Which makes them easier to fund.
4
u/eldomtom2 22d ago
Academics are still required to provide evidence and are peer-reviewed to filter out poor studies.
You assume to be biased you have to outright lie.
But actually it's far more lucrative for an academic to have a contrarian opinion.
And your source is? Where are all these contrarian academics who get published in journals?
2
u/Own_General5736 21d ago
The replication crisis negates your claim of "research and empirical methodology". When there are fields - particularly in the soft "sciences" - where under 50% of "findings" can be reproduced those fields are quite clearly and obviously not using empirical methodology.
0
u/Blear 22d ago
Except that that line itself is blatant propaganda. "Did you know there's such a thing as The Left? And they're taking over America at the behest of radicals in our universities? Gasp!". Glenn Beck, Tucker Carlson, Rush Limbaugh, all those guys have been parroting that stuff for decades. And they do it... Say it with me now... To. Make. Money.
5
u/eldomtom2 22d ago
I have read a large number of academic articles, and almost without fail they take the leftist position. Do you have any actual evidence that academia isn't primarily leftist in the areas leftism is interested in? There are many places where academics proudly describe themselves or others as "radicals", and they aren't talking about the radical right...
2
u/Blear 22d ago
I've also read a number of academic articles, and most of them don't have anything to do with politics one way or another. They're about biochemistry, medicine, linguistics, history. Now, as far as I know, it is true that people in academia are more left-leaning than the general population. But this is what propagandists do: They connect dots that don't deserve connecting.
Like this:. 1. College professors are more likely to vote Democrat. 2. College professors are all ultra-left Marxist terrorists... Skip a few steps, and... 13. Universities are destroying America in precisely the ways that most threaten you, personally! Buy our magazine, donate to our candidate, and we'll the restore the lily white America of 1945, just like your grandparents remember!
See what I mean? It's just not an intellectually rigorous exercise. If you really want to believe there's a "culture war" or Leftists or Antifa terrorists or whatever out there acting like a boogeyman, that's fine. But ask yourself this. If you weren't feeding into these commentators and authors and podcasts telling you about all these horrors, what evidence would you really have that they're even real?
2
u/eldomtom2 22d ago
I've also read a number of academic articles, and most of them don't have anything to do with politics one way or another. They're about biochemistry, medicine, linguistics, history.
Shockingly, there is not much room to be political in biochemistry. But what history articles are you reading? I'd say history is one of the most politicized fields...
But ask yourself this. If you weren't feeding into these commentators and authors and podcasts telling you about all these horrors, what evidence would you really have that they're even real?
Gee, I don't know, all the journal articles I've read that advocate leftist perspectives? You seem to think that I've gained this view from listening to political commentators, but it's actually from first-hand experience reading academic articles. Can you say the same?
3
u/Blear 22d ago
Ok, so let's be clear about our terms then. When you say, "all of academia," you actually mean "25% of social scientists.". Doesn't sound nearly so ominous that way, does it?
This is another tactic of conspiracists and propagandists. They find voices that are radical, or strident, or easy to parody, and then amplify them to make it seem that there's a huge consensus behind those voices when that's not the case. Does some journal somewhere publish stuff that lefties like? Yes. Obviously. Do many journals publish stuff that lefties like? Again yes. Does the entire cultural, educational, and financial structure of academia itself threaten American political discourse with annihilation? No. If that were the case, it wouldn't be Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter telling you about it, it would be the UN and Boris Johnson and Der Speigel. If it were true, everyone would know.
3
u/eldomtom2 21d ago
When you say, "all of academia," you actually mean "25% of social scientists.".
Where are the 75% of non-leftist social scientists then? Where are the non-leftist historians, the non-leftist cultural critics? You've just pulled that percentage out of your ass!
that there's a huge consensus behind those voices when that's not the case.
If there wasn't a consensus behind these views in academia, you'd see a large number of papers criticizing them.
If it were true, everyone would know.
What the fuck kind of logic is this?
2
u/geoffbraun 23d ago
The media as a whole, both left right wing media choosing which stories to post and not to post. You see people in the right downplaying the evils of their side as the left downplaying the evils of the left. I can’t leave behind my partisanship but what I can say is if you want to be informed on what’s going on you need to listen to as many diverse outlets as possible
6
u/NardCarp 23d ago
Propaganda is out of control in the US.
People think propaganda is about telling lies but it isn't. It's using partial truths to push false narratives.
It's about highlighting and framing facts that support the desired narrative and minimizing, ignoring facts that don't push the narrative.
2
u/redrocketunicorn 22d ago
Housing inequality has a lot to do with it.
To be brief:
When the middle class was growing after ww2 and going suburban, blacks, and many other races, were not allowed to participate in the prosperity because they could not purchase land. Inflation only provides benefit to those that own or invest. Whites were basically the only race allowed to own and invest so due to the incredible rate of inflation after ww2 and how it is ever growing, whites are the only race prospering.
Here's some more in depth reading:
source 1: A recent apology by NAR
source 2: History of The Fair Housing Act and how it basically didn't work until like the late 90s
source 3: How Housing discrimination still effects POCs today
source 4: There are still issues and opportunities
It is important to note that the growing wage and wealth gap from "Trickle down" policy is helping to ensure that fewer and fewer are prospering though. If we look at how housing inequality was so successful at marginalizing groups of people by race we can help ourselves not only rectify the situation but fight it as it happens currently to everyone outside of the elite class.
2
u/Personage1 22d ago
The history of the US (and prior) is practically a giant set of culture wars. The puritans came here literally over culture, as did the founders of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. Virginia started pitting white and black indentured servants against each other when they got friendly enough to threaten the control of the ruling class. All the groups created all sorts of cultural justifications for squatting on and stealing indigenous land.
When later immigrants came over, there were more culture wars (much more literally). Abolitionists, some of them even doing it because they were anti-racist, worked for decades to end slavery. Anyone who even suggested that we shouldn't keep stealing indigenous land was ignored at best. Jackson outright responded to the SC with "you and what army?"
Feminism. Civil Rights. Indigenous Rights. Gay Rights. Religious Freedom (from Religions). Trans Rights. There is a long history of a group of people saying "hey, why don't we not treat this group like shit" and another group of people blowing up over it. That group of people blowing up have basically always done it out of a terror of something new and different.
So yes, there is a culture way. This conservative reaction to anyone different is tied into the essence of our country. Solving it is tricky. For some things, you simply let the old people die and young people grow up, because when you've known uncle Joe who is gay your whole life, it's hard to hate gay people. For other things a big step is simply getting people to interact. I grew up in the Midwest, and basically didn't have any black people in any of my classes until creative writing senior year in high school. When I moved to DC, I was stunned by how much internal racism I had, since I had tried to be anti-racist my whole life, but it became obvious that never interacting with a group makes it hard to internalize that they are just people. Gender issues are a weird one because there are literally 50/50 boys and girls our whole lives, but socialization is so different it sort of acts to create that divide.
In some ways the overreaction by the Right to more diverse representation in media is actually spot on, because similar to growing up around different groups, if you are exposed to different people in media your whole life, you are less likely to be able to be afraid of them. It's one of the simplest and easiest ways to fight the culture war, because having a character who isn't a white straight cis male is really not a high bar, and so it's easier to expose the overreaction as such.
1
u/sujeto16 22d ago
I really liked your analisis. I would add that not all cultural conflict is about not thereating a group like shit. There are cultural problems that arise from different perspectives or ways to view reality,which are not compatible.
Individualism(guns,economic freedom,deregulation) vs socialism (healthcare,work laws,etc). Or abortion. Its a matter of values and perspective. Both sides can be trying to reach the same objective( better way to organize society for the benefits of all), but are totally opposed in how to do it.
0
u/Personage1 22d ago
It should be pretty clear by now that I'm pretty liberal but....
What I see repeatedly is that the more conservative side consistently declares values that it immediately turns around and works against. Again going to the founding of the country, "All men are created equal," never mind all these men (and women) who we aren't counting there. More recently, gun rights (unless it's black people), deregulation (unless it's something we don't like like CRT), economic freedom (never mind which states take more from the Federal government than pay in taxes), abortion (we won't support the things that actually reduce abortions, like comprehensive sex ed and free/easy access to birth control). I disagree that these are just differences in perspective with no malice.
0
u/sujeto16 22d ago
Dont worry,in my country i vote the left coalition and my ideas in the US would be considered "far left" even KGB agent like hahahha. Yes,the right its full of hypocrisy,in the US the biggest one is that most of them dont admit they are racist. However most of the things you are naming i believe its due to lack of education(serious anti-science movement) and cognitive bias and not malice by the most part. They just part from bad premises and reach wrong conclusions(Religious zealots,Fox News Propaganda,integral racism and homophobia absorbed from their surrounding society,fear to socialism due to the cold war,fear to something different. I dont think they are "bad people" (most of them,some are pieces of shit)i think they have beliefs which are not aligned with Logic or Humanism. There is malice from the elites that keep feeding them that rethoric,and i do agree the Republican party right now has 0 backbone,they have 0 values,the politicians remaining in the party are power hungry sociopaths.
Leaving that aside,there are positions in the right which i dont agree but respect.
I understand the abortion posture from christians.
I understand economic freedom.
I even understand the anti inmigration posture when not based in racial prejudice(economic,social impact of no regulated inmigration)
1
u/Personage1 22d ago
My issue is I come to a simple question, what practical difference is there to someone who supports cruel policies out of ignorance and thanks to propoganda, and someone who supports those policies out of actual malice? You can't get through to either group through reason. Both groups will implement policies that hurt others.
1
u/sujeto16 22d ago
The difference is that with enough exposure or by them learning through experience you can change the views of people who are not acting out of malice,the ones that are being ignorant or manipulated. Practically you should direct your effort to change their opinions. The best way to do it its talk with them in a no jugdemental manner,give them your perspective ,maybe give examples and let them know that its aligned with their values of empathy,freedom,love,etc. If they dont agree or get defensive,dont insist,you already planted the idea in their heads,some of them with time will change their opinion.
3
u/Personage1 22d ago
Meanwhile their decisions are killing people, and while you were trying to reach out to them you could have been working to simply get more people who already agree with you more involved.
I also question how often it actually works. Reddit loves to circle jerk about Daryl Davis, but in all the decades he worked he has gotten, according to him, just 25 or 26 robes. Are we sure all those people even actually left the KKK, or stayed out?
1
u/sujeto16 22d ago
Meanwhile their decisions are killing people. Yes,i have learned to just do what i can and move on,the world its shitty,if you spend time worrying about the things you cant change,you are too deppresed or tired to change the few you can. Accept it and move on.
"Daryl Davis"I didnt mean it like that,just live your life, when in a party,reunion or event the theme pop ups express your opinion,or here in reddit,give your point of view. Talk with your friends or family if they have racist or homophobic behaviors. Or explain to people why socialized medicine works in the rest of the world.
3
u/frannypack01 22d ago
I believe politicians (and corporate America too) love the "culture war" because it allows them the ability to waste time arguing with each other about nonsensical things and not actually deal with the policies that will really improve people's lives. It's the perfect distraction so there is no real incentive to resolve anything; it actually serves them to continue escalating things.
-2
u/Player7592 23d ago
There’s always been a culture war, with progressives dragging conservatives, kicking and screaming into the future.
10
u/eldomtom2 22d ago
I am unconvinced that this is anything other than hindsight bias. Of course history leads to our current values.
0
u/EntLawyer 22d ago
I can't think of any culture war issue that was raging on in my childhood being pushed from the left that isn't a readily accepted mainstream belief now. I can't think of one from the right. Can you?
4
u/eldomtom2 22d ago
How old are you? There are some great examples from a century ago...
1
u/EntLawyer 22d ago
Are there any from 30-50 years ago?
2
u/eldomtom2 22d ago
Why does that make a difference?
1
u/EntLawyer 21d ago
I mean can you not even name one from our lifetime? Seems pretty obvious, no?
0
u/eldomtom2 21d ago
Do you not see the tautology in saying that "history trends towards progress" when "progress" is defined as "my values"?
2
u/EntLawyer 21d ago
You're obfuscating the question because you know you don't have a good answer to it. In any issue of culture war in this country, there's two general viewpoints clashing with each other. If one school of thought wins out in a free society and becomes part of the normal accepted fabric of reality by everyone years after the debate, that's called being on the right side of history.
0
u/eldomtom2 21d ago
If one school of thought wins out in a free society and becomes part of the normal accepted fabric of reality by everyone years after the debate, that's called being on the right side of history.
If you decouple "right side of history" from any moral judgement, sure.
→ More replies0
u/blaqsupaman 22d ago
Can you name a few?
2
u/eldomtom2 22d ago
Eugenics. If you ever read anything written by eugenicists, what will strike you is how utterly convinced they were that they were on the "right side of history".
-1
u/blaqsupaman 21d ago
Eugenics is not a left-wing idea.
3
u/eldomtom2 21d ago edited 20d ago
Because it's been defined out of leftism because it failed! Go back to the 1930s and you'll find plenty of people who saw absolutely no contradication between supporting eugenics and being left-wing.
And certainly, in the case of eugenics it was the people who wanted to change society who failed, not the ones who wanted to keep it the same.
Edit: And I just remembered, if you want something that definitely was by the left wing, you have the 1977 French petition against age of consent laws.
0
u/AgainstModernity 21d ago
This is being downvoted but it is mostly correct, the right is just plain awful at fight the left.
0
u/Friesennerz 22d ago
There might be a few measures to mitigate tribalism, but i doubt they can be installed in the US and it woult take at least 3 generations to heal the damage that is already done.
- bringing back rules for networks. At least for "news" networks truthful and balanced content must be mandatory to maintain a license.
- investing in education. Tons of money.
- a mandatory year of social service in another state (!) after highschool
- a travel abroad for two weeks for 10th grade classes.
- a cheap nationwide railway ticket for young people to encourage them to explore their own country
- replacing the competitive mindset by a collaborative one: universal health care and a social security net that mitigate the risk of poverty
It's basically confronting people with strangers and foreigh culture, making them travel and teaching them to care for each other.
Or: make America Europe
4
u/personAAA 22d ago
We already spend so much on education. The worst districts spend the most.
The problem ain't money. The problem is people caring.
-1
1
u/sharp11flat13 21d ago
This is a great collection of thoughts and ideas. Have you considered running for office?
2
u/Friesennerz 20d ago
Thanks, but I'm not american and everything I listed is based on programs we had in germany to fight racism and nationalism after WW2 up until the 80's. The german governments identified fear of your neighbors as source of nationalism. Knowing each other reduces fear and hate. Every country in Europe invested a lot into exchange programs, we installed a system of partner communities. My town has partner towns in GB and France and we have a High School that has an Exchange program with a High School in Fargo - yup, that Fargo. All this was successful. The EU would be impossible without these educational efforts.
The tribalism in US today imo has the same roots as the nationalism that led to WWI and WWII in Europe. So maybe the same measures could help. But I don't think it is possible to install any of it in the US.
2
u/sharp11flat13 20d ago
The tribalism in US today imo has the same roots as the nationalism that led to WWI and WWII in Europe.
This is a very astute observation, and an opinion I share. I continually fail to see why it isn’t obvious to more Americans. I’m Canadian and I am repeatedly shocked and dismayed by how little many Americans seem to know about my country, even in the states on our border. So if they can’t get to know us very well (and we’re easy to find :-)), maybe it’s not terribly surprising that some people might be blind to what’s going on in their own country.
The nationalism you note and Trump as president were a terrifying combination for me. I’m feeling a bit more secure since Biden’s inauguration, but as a Redditor I can see that it’s pretty clear that the sentiments that put him in office continue to run rampant. I know it might sound hyperbolic, but an American civil war (everybody has guns!) or the rise of a demagogue that might think Canada’s natural resources look pretty attractive are not outside the realm of possibility to me.
And meanwhile one of the ‘tribes’ is doing everything it can to stop measures that would end the pandemic and continue to block all attempts to deal with climate change.
Anyway, sorry for the rant. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I hope the right people take them to heart.
-3
u/Katie-MacDonut 22d ago
Personally I think the issue is more about value systems. On the left, you have intersectionality, CRT, big government, and social justice. On the right, you have meritocracy, equality (not to be confused with the "equity" of the left), prioritization of rights and the nuclear family, and a preference for small government. These are two very different lenses through which to view the world, and I'm not sure there is much middle ground. It's hard to even have the conversation when nobody's speaking the same language.
4
u/EntLawyer 22d ago
On the right, you have meritocracy, equality (not to be confused with the "equity" of the left), prioritization of rights and the nuclear family, and a preference for small government.
That's what they used to pay lip service to but is no longer the party platform of the right. Have you watched a Trump rally? The new party platform is just white grievances, conspiracy theories, and owning the libs. That's it.
4
u/errantprofusion 22d ago
On the right, you have meritocracy, equality (not to be confused with the "equity" of the left), prioritization of rights and the nuclear family, and a preference for small government.
The Right doesn't actually believe in any of those things, though. Maybe the nuclear family, as long as it's white and Christian. Everything else they routinely go against if they think they can gain power or hurt their enemies by doing so.
Incidentally, can you define CRT In your own words?
6
u/Skalforus 22d ago
Who on the right is against the nuclear family for non-white households? That's such a weird assumption.
-4
u/errantprofusion 22d ago
Did you fall into a coma and miss the last four years or something?
7
u/Skalforus 22d ago
No. I've just never heard someone on the right say that for example, black families should be single-parent only. Their support of a nuclear family structure doesn't seem to have a racial component.
-3
u/[deleted] 22d ago
[removed]
10
u/Skalforus 22d ago
At all? Zero non-white immigration and all non-white Americans lose their citizenship?
That isn't a mainstream right-wing opinion. It's like saying all liberals are communists. Some are, but definitely not the majority.
0
u/errantprofusion 22d ago
It was the stated goal of the Trump administration (and the people behind its policies like Steve Bannon and Stephen Miller) to drastically reduce legal immigration, not just illegal immigration. What do you think the Muslim ban was for? The exceptions were when they floated the idea of prioritizing the immigration of white South Africans.
8
u/Skalforus 22d ago
The "Muslim ban" was a 3 month executive order that didn't apply to the vast majority of the global Muslim population. It was a poorly thought out, and ineffective way of scoring political points right after Trump took office.
I would still like to see a poll that shows 40%, or even 30% of Republicans believe that America should remove all of its non-white citizens.
2
u/errantprofusion 22d ago
No, that's the Muslim ban that made it through the courts. They wanted an indefinite ban on Muslim immigration, and Donald Trump campaigned on banning Muslims entering the country. We've reached the point where Trump apologists have to pretend he didn't mean what he repeatedly promised.
I would still like to see a poll that shows 40%, or even 30% of Republicans believe that America should remove all of its non-white citizens.
I never claimed this. I said that Republicans don't want non-white people in the country, not that they favor removing all non-white citizens.
→ More replies5
u/TheTrueMilo 22d ago
Black job applicants are routinely passed over for job interviews solely on the basis of their first name sounding "too black". Is it more or less "meritocratic" to correct this using some sort of action, of the affirmative variety?
4
u/eldomtom2 22d ago
I do not think discrimination inherently proves the need for affirmative action. Why is preventing the discrimination insufficient?
2
u/TheTrueMilo 22d ago
I don’t know, let’s ask these guys:
MLK:
A society that has done something special against the Negro for hundreds of years must now do something special for the Negro
Malcolm X:
If you stick a knife in my back nine inches and pull it out six inches, there’s no progress. If you pull it all the way out, that’s not progress. The progress is healing the wound that the blow made.
2
u/eldomtom2 22d ago
You are not proving a need for new discrimination. Merely quoting famous people does not do that.
1
u/TheTrueMilo 22d ago
You don’t right a wrong by stopping wrongdoing. You have to make things right. And the US has not done that.
You are not going to solve centuries of racial “wrongs” with racial “neutrals.” At some point, you have to do right.
3
u/eldomtom2 22d ago
You do realise, don't you, that these racial "rights" will become racial "wrongs" eventually?
1
u/shockopod 22d ago
On the right, you have meritocracy, equality (not to be confused with the "equity" of the left), prioritization of rights and the nuclear family, and a preference for small government.
Maybe in 1959 some of this was true. Now it's just words that they have proven conclusively through action that they don't believe.
-3
u/NardCarp 23d ago
There is a disconnect between what people believe are the cause to a lot of problems in this country.
This gets exacerbated when anytime someone disagrees they are labeled a racist/Marxist etc
We are not anywhere near solutions because we are to busy calling each other names over what causes the problems.
This "culture war" is simply politicians riling up their base to keep their jobs. "The other team is evil and is spreading ignorance and some ism"
Division is the easy way to keep your political position
-6
u/mintpaddy 22d ago edited 22d ago
The Democratic machine is meticulous in guiding their voter’s positions on race, equity, and justice. These issues resonate with their base because they directly impacts their lives and as a result, are resilient to a lot of criticism. Examples are police reform, social programs, healthcare and race.
The Republican machine has a much tougher job. It’s harder to sell their governance of lower taxes and limited government to people these days. So they can’t be as meticulous in their strategy. As a result, they take whatever attention they can get to rile up their base. That also makes their uncontrollable and sometimes more damaging than initially thought. Examples are masks, vaccines, CRT, and voter fraud.
Both sides have news outlets to drive their perspective with little critique from the other. This reinforces both sides but leaves little room for the middle. Sometimes people try to learn about both sides, but become so inundated with the information that they decide all politics are bad and they disengage. In the culture war, this is a Republican victory because don’t need everyone to vote. They just need people not to vote Democrat.
Most importantly, this culture war gives cover for dark money to apply legislation at the local level that gathers more power from one side to the other. Then the news outlets pick up those stories and the cycle repeats. The only “solution” is for each individual not to engage. That’s easy to say, but extremely difficult in practice due to the emotional appeal and validity of some culture war issues.
-1
u/shockopod 22d ago
The Democratic machine is meticulous
Gonna have to stop you right there. Nothing about the democratic party is "meticulous". They don't even keep voter outreach info from one election to the next, and are a notorious big tent mess on positions.
1
u/mintpaddy 22d ago
nothing about the Democratic Party is meticulous
It’s too bad that you stopped me right there, because I gave examples of contemporary issues where the Democrat messaging was concise in my opinion. I didn’t say anything about other mechanisms of the party. The culture war is rhetoric, which works differently than tracking voter outreach that you mentioned.
they are a notorious big tent mess
Big tent positioning goes both ways because we have a two party system that serves a variety of political factions. You have to build coalitions in American politics. The trick is to make it appear all consistent through rhetoric and culture wars.
Which goes back my broader point - there are two machines driving the culture war and they are supported by the media. Each party has a different strategy. As a result, I find one party has a message more organized than the other. Meticulous even.
If you disagree, feel free to read the rest and elaborate more on your point.
2
u/shockopod 22d ago
I did read the rest, pardon me for making a glib joke.
police reform, social programs, healthcare and race
I don't even know what to say. Defund the police was not only a terrible slogan, it did not have even close to universal appeal within the party. There are constant arguments and tension about all of the rest.
The republicans are far more disciplined, or at least were until 2016. And people love to hear "lower taxes", but when they realize they've been ripped off (expiring middle class and non-expiring corporate), they do tend to get annoyed.
I think you are talking about the media left, which is not the democratic machine, which is the party and related apparatus. IDK, even there they aren't doing much of a "meticulous" job, since they are slagging hard on the current president for Afghanistan.
0
u/mintpaddy 22d ago
I'll address a couple of points and then leave you a link that better captures how I feel all these worked together. Sorry, I quoted you out of order:
And people love to hear "lower taxes", but when they realize they've been ripped off
That's an excellent point. The pandemic caused more people to realize they were being ripped off. People felt this more and more leading up to the 2020 election. Conservatives leaned into that by talking about mail-in ballots and arguing that COVID mitigation efforts infringe personal freedom. In turn, Democrats talked about social injustice, health care reform, and social reform. That messaging resulted in a record number of newly registered mail-in voters for Democrats, which won the 2020 election. It doesn't matter if "Defund the Police" failed. Overall, Democrats won because of their effective messaging. Maybe you are right; maybe Dems just stumbled their way to victory without being meticulous, but I think that is unlikely. You can read about how the machines or apparatus (or whatever you want to call it) worked together here: https://time.com/5936036/secret-2020-election-campaign/
The republicans are far more disciplined, or at least were until 2016
So they aren't disciplined at all. Even less than Democrats. That's the broad point I'm continuing to make. I think what you're trying to say, though, is that the GOP's lack of discipline doesn't make the Democrats more disciplined. I would agree with that as well.
1
u/shockopod 22d ago
Fair that republicans are not what they were. But they do quickly rally behind... whatever the right wing machine generates is the outrage du jour.
I think I misunderstood where you were coming from. There is a very uniform "message" that goes out via CNN, MSNBC, etc. I would say this is center-left and it truly does impact the culture wars, you are right about that. I was pushing back on the idea that the democrats have much cohesion within the party. For sure they make massive errors every election cycle, for example recently assuming the latino/hispanic voters are a bloc on their side. But its a different issue than the one you raise.
Will read the Time article, looks interesting.
1
u/mintpaddy 22d ago
pushing back on the idea that….
I think I got a little defensive. My apologies. But yeah, I for sure see your point. I live in the southwest and it should’ve been easy to see the Latino monolith mistake from a mile away, had they given it a more detailed look. Thanks for engaging
2
u/shockopod 22d ago
No problem. I started with a snide joke, which is so common on other subs, but should be avoided here where people are trying to have a real discussion. Tone is hard to pick up in text, I didn't mean it in a rude way.
Thanks to you too, interesting points.
•
u/AutoModerator 23d ago
A reminder for everyone. This is a subreddit for genuine discussion:
Violators will be fed to the bear.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.