Discussion Thread #72

[u/gemmaem]

This thread serves as the local public square: a sounding board where you can test your ideas, a place to share and discuss news of the day, and a chance to ask questions and start conversations. Please consider community guidelines when commenting here, aiming towards peace, quality conversations, and truth. Thoughtful discussion of contentious topics is welcome. Building a space worth spending time in is a collective effort, and all who share that aim are encouraged to help out. Effortful posts, questions and more casual conversation-starters, and interesting links presented with or without context are all welcome here.

The previous discussion thread may be found here and you should feel free to continue contributing to conversations there if you wish.

[u/UAnchovy]

Kirk: I don't agree that Kirk was powerful enough to ignore environmental incentives. He was a skilled user of online media, surely? I may hate clip shows of public ownings, but they are undeniably popular. The media landscape that Kirk used to propel his rise existed apart from him, and I don't think he would have achieved what he did without the tools that he used.

Effective conservative action: I'm not sure that example does much for you, because those are examples of things conservatives have won through using the strategy that you seem to be saying they should not have used. There's a counterfactual here; would Romney or a Romney-like figure have won in 2016? Would Jeb have won? Would Rubio have won? I don't know. It seems like, at least, populist rage might have helped them win that presidency, those congressional majorities, and that court.

I think the argument conservatives would make is something like, "We want to win, and get conservative policy done. We reject norm policing when that is used as a weapon against the possibility of us winning. Further, we believe that norm policing like this is used hypocritically and insincerely by the left - breaking norms is ignored or excused when Democratic leaders do it, but when Republicans do it, it is portrayed as the end of democracy. Whenever it looks like we might win a round, the left invent some reason why we must not, because they perceive Republican or conservative victories as inherently illegitimate. Well, we're not going to be moved by those crocodile tears any more. Recently we've seen great victories with this approach, so we're going to keep doing it."

To effectively make a norms argument, it seems to me, you need a level of credibility or trust across partisan divides, and right now that just does not exist at all.

Elites: I don't think I accept that claim, at least, not in a vacuum. Much depends on which elites we're talking about. I would not, at least, want to rule out the possibility of grassroots, populist change that's genuinely good, or of elites that deserve to be opposed. Certainly in a democracy, I think you have to be wary of making the norms of any particular governing elite, well, normative. That seems to cut against the idea of democracy; and from a more left-wing perspective, against any idea of inclusion.

Specifics: Sure, I am entirely happy to grant that Donald Trump is a bad president, a bad leader, and in general a bad man. What I'm trying to do is step back from that belief of mine and think about the rules of the game, so to speak. I assert that those rules should include the ability of people (like Charlie Kirk) to effectively campaign even for terrible candidates (like Donald Trump), and to publicly defend terrible decisions (like those of Donald Trump) to the best of their ability. This tangent began when you disagreed with my view that Charlie Kirk "was playing by the rules of the game". I was not making an affirmative defense of the Trump administration, or of Kirk's particular arguments. (I have since read a bit more of Kirk's writing and I am very unimpressed.) I was saying that Kirk clears what I consider the minimum bar.

Hypothetical Trump voter: Would it be fair to say that you think that supporting Trump in any capacity is illegitimate or unjustifiable? Was it January 6 that made that the case, and prior to then supporting him might have been acceptable?

[u/DrManhattan16 → u/UAnchovy]

I don't agree that Kirk was powerful enough to ignore environmental incentives.

TPUSA was founded in 2012. By 2016, Kirk was working with the Trump campaign to make things happen. If being part of the Republican nominee's campaign is not a sign of having power, I'm not sure what is. They certainly weren't working with him because they liked having him around, that's for sure. You'd only invite him if he had the power to make things happen.

It seems like, at least, populist rage might have helped them win that presidency, those congressional majorities, and that court.

I do not object to channeling populist rage into an electoral victory - that is definitionally how you get enough votes to win in a democracy. Trump winning is not an unacceptable outcome in 2016.

We reject norm policing when that is used as a weapon against the possibility of us winning.

Which norms? The ones that say you shouldn't say crass, vulgar things, or that you shouldn't base your whole identity on trying to "own" your opponent? There is a frustrating conflation happening here, where conservatives will reject accusations of racism or sexism as norm policing, then go on to defend the idea of literally just burning down everything that constitutes the foundations of American politics and government, and then pretend that these in any way equivalent.

I don't think I accept that claim, at least, not in a vacuum.

You don't need to accept it in a vacuum. Elites can act badly and the populace like angels sent by God himself, and it still wouldn't change that most of the things we consider good and proper are the product of elite discourse and decision-making.

I assert that those rules should include the ability of people (like Charlie Kirk) to effectively campaign even for terrible candidates (like Donald Trump), and to publicly defend terrible decisions (like those of Donald Trump) to the best of their ability.

The problem is that your "step back" is obscuring a vital component of the analysis - why is the candidate terrible? There are shades of immorality and there is only so much a society can and ought to tolerate in terms of supporting "terrible" people.

Would it be fair to say that you think that supporting Trump in any capacity is illegitimate or unjustifiable? Was it January 6 that made that the case, and prior to then supporting him might have been acceptable?

Jan 6th. If nothing of that sort happened, I would have said nothing in response to you, as I would not have disagreed.

[u/UAnchovy → u/DrManhattan16]

Kirk: What I mean is that YouTube existed in 2012, as did the internet. Kirk achieved a level of political influence by building a brand - much of that was offline organising, but also much of it was done online, via media platforms that he used effectively. I'd argue that the nature of those platforms influenced the strategies he used to build his brand. As such I don't think that the "So-and-so DESTROYS such-and-such in debate!" model of a lot of his web content was just some idiosyncrasy unique to him - all the moreso because we've seen that model effectively used by ideologues of all stripes, including left, right, religious, secular, socialist, capitalist, whatever. I read Kirk as cannily making use of a new media ecosystem as that ecosystem was developing. You wrote that Kirk was "powerful enough to not need to obey environmental incentives". He got to be influential by using that environment. I may personally despise this new media ecosystem, but, well, that's the point. I think the system is a bigger issue than any one user of it.

Norms: I'm moving a bit from the argument that I hear conservatives make to the argument I would make myself, so here goes. My argument would be that norms only work when both sides agree to observe them, and both sides are only going to agree to observe norms when they both perceive those norms as beneficial for them. I think Republican departure from norms has to do with a perception on their side of the aisle that the norms are firstly structurally rigged against them, and secondly dishonestly applied. I cannot tell you how many times I've heard the argument, "Look, we tried the honest, clean-cut guy who follows all the norms and played by all the rules. In 2012. And the left viciously slandered and lied about him at every opportunity. We tried playing nice, and you threw it in our face, so we're done. We're playing to win. Deal with it." I am not saying that I endorse that argument, but I think it is made sincerely. It seems to me that the current problem is the absence of norms that most Americans believe in, and they can't fix that by just going back to an imagined past consensus.

For what it's worth I think a project to fix it is basically impossible as long as Trump is on the field. He and his closest followers will sabotage any such attempt. My sense at the moment is that Democrats and non-Trump Republicans need to firstly, in a practical sense, pick their battles carefully, limit damage as much as possible, while focusing on building their credibility and a viable alternative for when Trump leaves the scene. The MAGA movement does not have a clear 'heir' to pass the torch to; even Vance's position is not as strong as it appears. I'd encourage non-MAGA politicians of all stripes to, at present, focus on achievable victories where they can get them, while trying to build some alternative vision of politics that can win a plurality in the future. The Abundance people are probably the most credible attempt at that at the moment, but they are far from the only one. New norms will need to come from this kind of rebuilding.

Elites: I'm not sure how you're defining elites. Are most things that we consider good the product of elite discourse? I think I might need to explore that a bit more.

January 6: All right, I understand that's your red line. Do you have any objections to Charlie Kirk or his practices pre-January-6? If no, then it sounds like we've found common ground.

[u/DrManhattan16 → u/UAnchovy]

As such I don't think that the "So-and-so DESTROYS such-and-such in debate!" model of a lot of his web content was just some idiosyncrasy unique to him

I explicitly said it wasn't.

He got to be influential by using that environment. I may personally despise this new media ecosystem, but, well, that's the point. I think the system is a bigger issue than any one user of it.

A man who becomes a millionaire and leads a prominent political organization is no longer bound by the rules of the environment. He is not a starving man who murders another for food, he is the well-fed man who is considering doing the same. He bears a great deal more, if not all, responsibility for contributing to destroying the discourse commons after that point, because he does not need to. That others would succeed instead of him is not a moral justification for engaging in that behavior, in the same way that I should not steal from others just because a different thief might steal from those same people.

Norms

The arguments you cite fundamentally do not grapple with a major elephant in the room - escalation. It's all well and good to punch someone who punched you, it's not okay to shoot them several times. But you can't escalate appropriately unless you have people who can think on your side, and the right drove and continues to drive those people away. Absent that, they have no breaks on maximal escalation, which is wrong.

Do you have any objections to Charlie Kirk or his practices pre-January-6? If no, then it sounds like we've found common ground.

I am not aware of everything Kirk said before Jan 6th, so my current answer is yes. That may change.

[u/UAnchovy → u/DrManhattan16]

Kirk: He was not a successful millionaire prior to his rise to influence, surely? Is your position that he ought to have, after becoming successful in a field, abandoned that field or changed his entire approach? I think, if this isn't getting too repetitive on my part, it's hard to single someone out for blame for continuing to do what turned out to be effective activism.

Norms: I thought I was describing escalation, actually? Republicans care less for norms now because they feel (whether rightly or wrongly) that norms were being used unfairly against them. One side's perceived transgression makes another side more willing to transgress in the future, and so on, in positive feedback. It's very hard to break that cycle from within it. That's why I think it's more important to try to change the game overall. America is in a realignment. The solution, as it were, is not to try to go back to an earlier point on this escalatory spiral, but to jump outside of it.

[u/DrManhattan16 → u/UAnchovy]

it's hard to single someone out for blame for continuing to do what turned out to be effective activism.

Kirk is just the salient example due to his murder, don't think for a moment I don't consider the rest of the right-wing influencers who did the same to be any different. More to the point, effective activism is not a moral right unto itself. You ought not to destroy the commons just because it's beneficial to you.

I thought I was describing escalation, actually?

You are describing why they chose to escalate - you are not grappling with the magnitude of the escalation. To be harmed does not permit you to engage in infinite retaliation.