These are the issues that generate heat. The issues that actually impact the operation of government power are more technical and boring, but ultimately more important, because power can be used to compel favorable resolutions across all disputed issues. Noticeably, you omit race as a big issue, and that does seem to have oddly dropped behind. DEI is so unpopular that even people who support it don't want to talk about it. And all of this is fluid and lines of conflict have not yet formed. Trump is finally hitting some pushback in the Federal Courts in the last couple of days. The regime is rallying after being shocked by the opening assault.
"Social conservatives were long ago found out as homophobic, and the liberal principle of tolerance paired with the conservative principle of governmental non-interference combined to keep the state, or society-at-large, from ‘policing the bedroom’ or from pontificating on anybody’s sexuality."
Yikes, wait a second. Homosexual behavior happens across all social boundaries, regardless of political affiliation. (Remember the report about how Grindr blew up in Milwaukee during the 2024 RNC?) It doesn't mean social conservatives aren't homophobic, of course. But a casual reader could easily conclude that you're suggesting social conservatives are straight and it's only in liberal circles where you find homosexuals. This, in turn, would appear to explain the homophobia on the right and excuse their hypocrisy (and, in the case of gay social conservatives, their self-hatred).
"The narrative on the right — this certainly settled into place in JD Vance’s pungent “childless cat ladies” comment — isn’t necessarily to reassert patriarchy or to exclude women from their rightful place in the workforce and power structure (although that would certainly be the left’s gloss on it) but to argue that something incalculable is lost in deemphasizing the maternal aspects of a woman’s life, whether that results in not having children at all, in privileging work over child rearing, or in treating an embryo as essentially a disposable entity in the decision to have an abortion."
What Vance is really arguing about? Making sure that white women breed by keeping the focus on maternal capacity as destiny. The only "loss" is men's loss of control over women's fertility. As for treating an embryo as essentially a disposable entity, we have long since left behind any discussion of men's role in creating the embryo in the first place. I haven't heard the statement that men should "keep it in their pants" or that a guy got a girl "in trouble" or any of those lines that at least suggest men have a modicum of responsibility when it comes to an unwanted pregnancy in at least 5 years, but probably more like 10.
Also, the emphasis on women's parenthood surfaces the total incoherence of their desires for men's parenthood--to be absolutely crucial to a child's development, but in a conveniently distanced way which does not concretely include any of the mundane parental work that would make it possible for *both* men and women to balance their children with their careers.
That’s fair Andrew. I’m trying to think through what the ‘vibe shift’ really is and what some of the deeper political fault lines that we have are. I became convinced that the 2024 election was mostly about gender and, sorting through the tea lives of this moment, I think that it’s fraught questions about gender and sexuality that largely determine where people sit on the political axis.
I agree with your assessment. I agree with your breakdown of the landscape. I didn't get a strong feeling of what the writer thought of how to resolve the dilemmas. Maybe that wasn't the point here. Also I'm very strongly on one side of the gender conversation. I see the whiny male thing as a pathetic loser tactic men are doing to sustain power. Period. All the stats and whining is fake to me. Just bullshit to hold power from women, cause they are too lazy to compete with women in the work force.
The lack of conversation about the financial, political and military support of genocide in Gaza is probably one of the most important non-discussions happening right now in America. Trump trying to Disnetfy the ongoing destruction as some sort of Resort du Genicidotopia for the “world’s people” is as crass as it is cynical but also a very clear view into the brain worm that affects so many of his fans.
"The emergence of trans issues in public space triggers a different set of principles (see point one above) with the right holding that trans rights — as articulated by so much of the progressive left — don’t hinge on arguments about tolerance but on an attempt to reconfigure the entire public sphere to accept less-than-fully-scientific precepts which fly in the face of some fairly obvious facts about sexual dimorphism."
This sentence, and how neatly and concisely it captures the position of the right on trans issue, was the highlight of your essay.
There's a piece I read in Politico last night about our current president not having much of a stance on "woke" issues (and he's quoted on that) until he noticed how well it worked for DeSantis. Then, he used it to his benefit in the last election.
Thanks Jo. I need to read the Politico piece but I'm pretty skeptical of that. I think Trump has been deeply anti-woke and anti-PC for a long, long time, and that's sort of the core of what he stands for actually. The emergence of a cogent "woke" worldview just helps him to more clearly identify the positions he's opposed to.
I think you could be right, eg, the ad he took out against the Central Park 5. I don’t know many other early signs of his anti-woke or anti-PC line of thought there were back then, but I suspect enough that people who are old enough to remember them and agree were happy when he officially entered politics.
Let’s circle to these issues once you realize there’s no money to propagate them. See what really matters, kind of like being a victim of a wildfire caused by your own fecklessness. You suddenly realize the bare necessities over your indecent indulgences. The 81 genders and gender identities was a bit much, don’t you think? You lost your sense of humor over it and now you’re wailing like little bitches. The world pities you. But you’re pathetic. Pull yourselves together and stop pointing fingers.
From where I see an overturning of norms happening there are other issues than the wonky ones. If you donot know where yourself stand on the use of violence to draw a line in the sand( beyond which donot come) donot worry. We are animals, your response to being hit in the head will depend on your long gratitude to life, whether overall you had plans, or always were put down. There are zero helps, nor direction to be gathered from the trans movement. The memo went out to that cadre of soldiers for expanding the circle of our concern during Trump 1. That allies are false faced and not to be trusted. Ask them, and if they tell you they love their allies, that is different. The right has said their piece. They wish outloud for one point to be added to the Gdp and beyond that : have asked for a little bit of blood letting, not much. To resist those outcomes was enough for anyone who imagines they can see the consequences of those accomplishments. As human sized institutions, we have redlines, may you all find your voices to ask for quiet late in the day, accelerating natural processes donot care but maybe the dramatic personnae of men and women will comply with our mini asks.
Kind of crazy to do a round up of “politics right now” and not mention the complete and slavish capitulation to billionaire interests and oligarchy. I’d say this is a list of conservative-approved debate topics that exist in the first place to mask sustained social critique
Thanks Robbie. There's a lot to politics that's not covered in this piece. This piece is more about trying to understand where the fault lines are of the current culture wars. It's very different than where they were in, say, the '60s culture wars.
Appreciate the response, Sam. I do think that presenting the 'culture war' as if it were a natural condition of modern life (and not a highly engineered strategy by the right) is misleading, though. As is juxtaposing trans liberation with a belief in science. There is nothing un-scientific about the existence of trans people - nobody is denying, for example, the existence of chromosomal sex. I also think that framing this argument about sexuality as being defined in terms of 'choice' is off. The point is that it's not someone's choice to have a marginalized sexual identify. Bodily autonomy, maybe. If there is some hypocrisy here, it's probably around like attitudes about vaccines and the state's role in administering them.
Not trying to hate - I really like your work generally but this whole frame seems analytically weak to me.
It seems to me that an awful lot of words are spilled over what looks like could be framed as biological. On these points are variation, reproduction, and competition/cooperation...and, at base, resources.
Wish seeing the forest for the trees held more appeal. We have potential to go beyond our basal instincts but instead find more and more sophisticated ways to fight over what began 4.5 billion years ago.
It seems to me that implicit within all of these very well identified aspects of contemporary argumentative life is the proliferation of identity-based philosophy as central to the nature of fractured society. The word identitarian still seems to be mostly used to refer to a specific historical group of right wing extremists, which is ironic because in some ways it feels like we’ve all been taught to become moralistic about how specific identities make people good or bad … whether in regards to ethnicity or gender or sexuality or in particular political ideology, it feels like the only unifying principle these days is who we decide are our collective enemies, and to your end point, I don’t foresee it going particularly well for a while.
That's a great point Samuél. The turn towards identitarianism is really bad news for our political discourse. I felt it happen during my lifetime and was very uncomfortable with it and now it seems too late to turn back the clock. I think it was in the 2000s, largely on the left, when imagery of the "melting pot" or "multi-culturalism" gave way to ideas that you had to find yourself by "owning" your identity. That shift was kind of internalized by my generation and then in the 2010s it broke out in the public sphere and really pulled the country apart.
This paired with the brand-ification of personality certainly felt like the death knell of something. I wonder when the thrashing monster of commodified ego will sink into the depths. Probably will take a while but here's to hoping it's sooner than we think? The pendulum must swing ... or at least we can dream
These are the issues that generate heat. The issues that actually impact the operation of government power are more technical and boring, but ultimately more important, because power can be used to compel favorable resolutions across all disputed issues. Noticeably, you omit race as a big issue, and that does seem to have oddly dropped behind. DEI is so unpopular that even people who support it don't want to talk about it. And all of this is fluid and lines of conflict have not yet formed. Trump is finally hitting some pushback in the Federal Courts in the last couple of days. The regime is rallying after being shocked by the opening assault.
"Social conservatives were long ago found out as homophobic, and the liberal principle of tolerance paired with the conservative principle of governmental non-interference combined to keep the state, or society-at-large, from ‘policing the bedroom’ or from pontificating on anybody’s sexuality."
Yikes, wait a second. Homosexual behavior happens across all social boundaries, regardless of political affiliation. (Remember the report about how Grindr blew up in Milwaukee during the 2024 RNC?) It doesn't mean social conservatives aren't homophobic, of course. But a casual reader could easily conclude that you're suggesting social conservatives are straight and it's only in liberal circles where you find homosexuals. This, in turn, would appear to explain the homophobia on the right and excuse their hypocrisy (and, in the case of gay social conservatives, their self-hatred).
"The narrative on the right — this certainly settled into place in JD Vance’s pungent “childless cat ladies” comment — isn’t necessarily to reassert patriarchy or to exclude women from their rightful place in the workforce and power structure (although that would certainly be the left’s gloss on it) but to argue that something incalculable is lost in deemphasizing the maternal aspects of a woman’s life, whether that results in not having children at all, in privileging work over child rearing, or in treating an embryo as essentially a disposable entity in the decision to have an abortion."
What Vance is really arguing about? Making sure that white women breed by keeping the focus on maternal capacity as destiny. The only "loss" is men's loss of control over women's fertility. As for treating an embryo as essentially a disposable entity, we have long since left behind any discussion of men's role in creating the embryo in the first place. I haven't heard the statement that men should "keep it in their pants" or that a guy got a girl "in trouble" or any of those lines that at least suggest men have a modicum of responsibility when it comes to an unwanted pregnancy in at least 5 years, but probably more like 10.
Also, the emphasis on women's parenthood surfaces the total incoherence of their desires for men's parenthood--to be absolutely crucial to a child's development, but in a conveniently distanced way which does not concretely include any of the mundane parental work that would make it possible for *both* men and women to balance their children with their careers.
Hi Carol, well in this piece I'm trying to see how the right sees it. This viewpoint can certainly be rejected and in the strongest possible way.
Of course, I understand that. But I was following a through-line of rejection to those arguments that I felt was insufficiently articulated.
Fair enough. Thanks Carol!
Hmmm not sure I got a clear idea here as much a critic and layout of the landscape. Well written.
That’s fair Andrew. I’m trying to think through what the ‘vibe shift’ really is and what some of the deeper political fault lines that we have are. I became convinced that the 2024 election was mostly about gender and, sorting through the tea lives of this moment, I think that it’s fraught questions about gender and sexuality that largely determine where people sit on the political axis.
I agree with your assessment. I agree with your breakdown of the landscape. I didn't get a strong feeling of what the writer thought of how to resolve the dilemmas. Maybe that wasn't the point here. Also I'm very strongly on one side of the gender conversation. I see the whiny male thing as a pathetic loser tactic men are doing to sustain power. Period. All the stats and whining is fake to me. Just bullshit to hold power from women, cause they are too lazy to compete with women in the work force.
The lack of conversation about the financial, political and military support of genocide in Gaza is probably one of the most important non-discussions happening right now in America. Trump trying to Disnetfy the ongoing destruction as some sort of Resort du Genicidotopia for the “world’s people” is as crass as it is cynical but also a very clear view into the brain worm that affects so many of his fans.
I agree with these fault lines. Maybe could add more how race plays into immigration anxiety etc.
For sure. This is a short piece and there are very many more fault lines!
Recently I realized it feels like the Confederacy won the American Civil War.
"The emergence of trans issues in public space triggers a different set of principles (see point one above) with the right holding that trans rights — as articulated by so much of the progressive left — don’t hinge on arguments about tolerance but on an attempt to reconfigure the entire public sphere to accept less-than-fully-scientific precepts which fly in the face of some fairly obvious facts about sexual dimorphism."
This sentence, and how neatly and concisely it captures the position of the right on trans issue, was the highlight of your essay.
There's a piece I read in Politico last night about our current president not having much of a stance on "woke" issues (and he's quoted on that) until he noticed how well it worked for DeSantis. Then, he used it to his benefit in the last election.
Thanks Jo. I need to read the Politico piece but I'm pretty skeptical of that. I think Trump has been deeply anti-woke and anti-PC for a long, long time, and that's sort of the core of what he stands for actually. The emergence of a cogent "woke" worldview just helps him to more clearly identify the positions he's opposed to.
I think you could be right, eg, the ad he took out against the Central Park 5. I don’t know many other early signs of his anti-woke or anti-PC line of thought there were back then, but I suspect enough that people who are old enough to remember them and agree were happy when he officially entered politics.
Let’s circle to these issues once you realize there’s no money to propagate them. See what really matters, kind of like being a victim of a wildfire caused by your own fecklessness. You suddenly realize the bare necessities over your indecent indulgences. The 81 genders and gender identities was a bit much, don’t you think? You lost your sense of humor over it and now you’re wailing like little bitches. The world pities you. But you’re pathetic. Pull yourselves together and stop pointing fingers.
From where I see an overturning of norms happening there are other issues than the wonky ones. If you donot know where yourself stand on the use of violence to draw a line in the sand( beyond which donot come) donot worry. We are animals, your response to being hit in the head will depend on your long gratitude to life, whether overall you had plans, or always were put down. There are zero helps, nor direction to be gathered from the trans movement. The memo went out to that cadre of soldiers for expanding the circle of our concern during Trump 1. That allies are false faced and not to be trusted. Ask them, and if they tell you they love their allies, that is different. The right has said their piece. They wish outloud for one point to be added to the Gdp and beyond that : have asked for a little bit of blood letting, not much. To resist those outcomes was enough for anyone who imagines they can see the consequences of those accomplishments. As human sized institutions, we have redlines, may you all find your voices to ask for quiet late in the day, accelerating natural processes donot care but maybe the dramatic personnae of men and women will comply with our mini asks.
Kind of crazy to do a round up of “politics right now” and not mention the complete and slavish capitulation to billionaire interests and oligarchy. I’d say this is a list of conservative-approved debate topics that exist in the first place to mask sustained social critique
Thanks Robbie. There's a lot to politics that's not covered in this piece. This piece is more about trying to understand where the fault lines are of the current culture wars. It's very different than where they were in, say, the '60s culture wars.
Appreciate the response, Sam. I do think that presenting the 'culture war' as if it were a natural condition of modern life (and not a highly engineered strategy by the right) is misleading, though. As is juxtaposing trans liberation with a belief in science. There is nothing un-scientific about the existence of trans people - nobody is denying, for example, the existence of chromosomal sex. I also think that framing this argument about sexuality as being defined in terms of 'choice' is off. The point is that it's not someone's choice to have a marginalized sexual identify. Bodily autonomy, maybe. If there is some hypocrisy here, it's probably around like attitudes about vaccines and the state's role in administering them.
Not trying to hate - I really like your work generally but this whole frame seems analytically weak to me.
It seems to me that an awful lot of words are spilled over what looks like could be framed as biological. On these points are variation, reproduction, and competition/cooperation...and, at base, resources.
Wish seeing the forest for the trees held more appeal. We have potential to go beyond our basal instincts but instead find more and more sophisticated ways to fight over what began 4.5 billion years ago.
It seems to me that implicit within all of these very well identified aspects of contemporary argumentative life is the proliferation of identity-based philosophy as central to the nature of fractured society. The word identitarian still seems to be mostly used to refer to a specific historical group of right wing extremists, which is ironic because in some ways it feels like we’ve all been taught to become moralistic about how specific identities make people good or bad … whether in regards to ethnicity or gender or sexuality or in particular political ideology, it feels like the only unifying principle these days is who we decide are our collective enemies, and to your end point, I don’t foresee it going particularly well for a while.
That's a great point Samuél. The turn towards identitarianism is really bad news for our political discourse. I felt it happen during my lifetime and was very uncomfortable with it and now it seems too late to turn back the clock. I think it was in the 2000s, largely on the left, when imagery of the "melting pot" or "multi-culturalism" gave way to ideas that you had to find yourself by "owning" your identity. That shift was kind of internalized by my generation and then in the 2010s it broke out in the public sphere and really pulled the country apart.
This paired with the brand-ification of personality certainly felt like the death knell of something. I wonder when the thrashing monster of commodified ego will sink into the depths. Probably will take a while but here's to hoping it's sooner than we think? The pendulum must swing ... or at least we can dream
Gender played a large role in election and is now with dismantling of the Department of Education. Promoting gender chaos backfired.
Half full vs half empty. People are basically good vs people are basically bad. Satan vs God.