6 ms·

Actually, yes, there seems to be. The Republican political playbook seems to be mostly getting their based riled up about meaningless culture war nonsense. Here

Actually, yes, there seems to be. The Republican political playbook seems to be mostly getting their based riled up about meaningless culture war nonsense. Here they can present themselves as fighting to get lazy liberal remote government workers back to the office rather than wasting tax money at home. It fits right into their style.

actually_a_dog 4y ago
This is true, but let's not pretend the Democrats don't do the same thing. It may not be "culture war" stuff per se that they put forth knowingly without the votes to pass, but they use this tactic as well.
- hirsin 4y ago
  Putting your opponent on the record as against something is a strategy, and a perfectly valid one. Whether you out them on the record over culture war stuff, things your base cares about, or better, things their base cares about, is what makes it good strategy or not. (Not that I'm exactly impressed by the strategic success of Democrats)
  - actually_a_dog 4y ago
    That would be great, but that's not what this tactic does. You can't put your "opponent" on record when there's not an election, and even when an election is happening, typically at least one of the candidates is not already in the legislature. This is just to show off for the people at home. Nothing more, nothing less.
rayiner 4y ago
It is culture war, but it strikes me as denialism to call it meaningless. There is a meaningful difference between knowledge work industries, which tend to lean strongly Democrat, and agricultural or extraction industries that lean strongly Republican. It’s not “meaningless” for a political party to underscore these differences. That’s how political a works: do stuff for your coalition that’s bad for the other side’s coalition.
- mrguyorama 4y ago
  >That’s how political a works: do stuff for your coalition that’s bad for the other side’s coalition. So typical for conservatives to see things like this. No, the job of politics is not to hurt the other team.
  - xyzzyz 4y ago
    No, that’s how every politician sees things. If you think this is only done by conservatives, you have some fundamental blind spot about things done by liberals which are explicitly designed to hurt the other team. Until you learn to understand the conservatives, you’ll forever be mystified why the partisanship in this country grows and why compromise is becoming harder and harder to attain.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - mikebenfield 4y ago
      Like what? Name some. What things are done by liberals just to spite Republicans?
      - xyzzyz 4y ago
        Assault weapon bans, for example. They do absolutely nothing to reduce gun violence, and they only serve to annoy law abiding gun owners and enthusiasts. Laws focusing on handguns would have made some sense, as most crime is indeed committed with handguns, but the suggestion that banning pistol grips in rifles does anything other than annoy and spite people is preposterous.
        mikebenfield 4y ago
        This certainly doesn’t appear to be designed to spite Republicans. It appears to be a legitimate attempt to reduce gun violence (even if you don’t believe it will be effective), which is a serious problem in the US. Contrast that with the topic of the article at hand, which is a solution for a non-problem and serves no purpose.

actually_a_dog 4y ago

This is true, but let's not pretend the Democrats don't do the same thing. It may not be "culture war" stuff per se that they put forth knowingly without the votes to pass, but they use this tactic as well.

hirsin 4y ago
Putting your opponent on the record as against something is a strategy, and a perfectly valid one. Whether you out them on the record over culture war stuff, things your base cares about, or better, things their base cares about, is what makes it good strategy or not. (Not that I'm exactly impressed by the strategic success of Democrats)
- actually_a_dog 4y ago
  That would be great, but that's not what this tactic does. You can't put your "opponent" on record when there's not an election, and even when an election is happening, typically at least one of the candidates is not already in the legislature. This is just to show off for the people at home. Nothing more, nothing less.

rayiner 4y ago

It is culture war, but it strikes me as denialism to call it meaningless. There is a meaningful difference between knowledge work industries, which tend to lean strongly Democrat, and agricultural or extraction industries that lean strongly Republican. It’s not “meaningless” for a political party to underscore these differences. That’s how political a works: do stuff for your coalition that’s bad for the other side’s coalition.

mrguyorama 4y ago
>That’s how political a works: do stuff for your coalition that’s bad for the other side’s coalition. So typical for conservatives to see things like this. No, the job of politics is not to hurt the other team.
- xyzzyz 4y ago
  No, that’s how every politician sees things. If you think this is only done by conservatives, you have some fundamental blind spot about things done by liberals which are explicitly designed to hurt the other team. Until you learn to understand the conservatives, you’ll forever be mystified why the partisanship in this country grows and why compromise is becoming harder and harder to attain.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - mikebenfield 4y ago
    Like what? Name some. What things are done by liberals just to spite Republicans?
    - xyzzyz 4y ago
      Assault weapon bans, for example. They do absolutely nothing to reduce gun violence, and they only serve to annoy law abiding gun owners and enthusiasts. Laws focusing on handguns would have made some sense, as most crime is indeed committed with handguns, but the suggestion that banning pistol grips in rifles does anything other than annoy and spite people is preposterous.
      - mikebenfield 4y ago
        This certainly doesn’t appear to be designed to spite Republicans. It appears to be a legitimate attempt to reduce gun violence (even if you don’t believe it will be effective), which is a serious problem in the US. Contrast that with the topic of the article at hand, which is a solution for a non-problem and serves no purpose.