I think your argument makes sense. It fits well with my experiences with "MAGAers" and "SJWs". I also think this style of politics is here to stay, as it is the dominate strategy. America has a fracturing hegemony: there is no longer a single universally shared set of basic beliefs. Because we no longer share the same basic beliefs, disagreements are now less likely to be due to logical validity and more likely due to unshared premises. This means the way of politics I think we'd all prefer, of arguing logically from shared core beliefs, will be less useful, making the alternative, arguing emotionally about premises, more effective. I think people "come[ing] across by chance doctrine which appeal to a special part of themself, be it religious, political, or social doctrine" is this effect in action.
Though, some criticisms of what you said:
1. It can depend on surroundings. A leftoid will rightly feel like an independent mind in a conservative area and a rightoid will rightly feel like an independent mind in a liberal area.
2. Your logic can misidentify skeptics as traditionalists. It is easy to misconstrue a progressively minded skeptic as a conservative because they criticize most currently popular progressive issues.
On a personal note: as a progressively minded skeptic, in my experiences with society, coworkers, friends, significant others, and family, I feel I have increasingly been lumped in as a "deplorable conservative." I have felt this cultural shift coming for many years now, when "SJWs" (I know this hits a sour note with many liberals, but I don't know how else to succinctly categorize these people) first started cropping up in the spaces I frequented:
0. The removal of Christmas celebration from my elementary school
1. Atheism+
2. My school's official hackathon group (was taken over by left leaning people who said you cannot form teams based on peoples' programming ability)
3. My school's official programming FB group banning "spicy" posts (an example being one where people were arguing failing fizzbuzz is an acceptable way to decide someone is not a programmer)
4. My school via the coed programming fraternity- it was a place full of people involved in 2 and 3
5. The wider programming community (donglegate, stallman's cancellation, linus and sarah sharp controversy, github and meritocracy, redis CoC controversy, etc)
6. Gamergate (specifically attempts to politically pressure games to alter their stories and design to suit audiences that aren't the typical customer).
7. Politics that are safely expressable at work without having a meet 'n greet with HR. Very, very far left ideas are routinely plastered at work, and political "courageous conversations" meetings expect exclusively uncourageous mainstream ideas.
8. Politics that are safely expressable with acquaintances, friends, and family without risk of being excommunicated.
9. For brevity, I exclude many others.
Thankfully, the latest batch of ideas (abolish police, abolish suburbs, abolish capital gains) have such a large impact that it has finally given me a hill worth dying on, and I feel free to non-anonymously express, with all the snark of a twitter checkmark, that these ideas blow ass. If that skepticism makes me an oppressor, then I embrace being one. I suppose I do deserve some credit for not being silent, since that would be violence.
At some point ideology meets reality and that's when things begin to crumble.
If we construct society and organizations as if merit is not a highly important parameter in achievement, wealth, and success - and instead rely on cosmetics, as if this were inconsequential, then we'll see erosion in all factors which deem a nation or organization successful.
Totally agree. It's unfortunate though that evaluating merit is so dependent on culture. To me, proving what is and isn't merited feels very similar to proving which programming language should be selected for a project. Except for some very rare scenarios you will find yourself dealing with soft reasoning, and the arguments you construct will depend on the audience you are trying to convince. Perhaps this is a problem of my own, but along this vein I find myself producing different proposal documents depending on whether I will be presenting to a developer, manager, or 3rd party team.
My belief in there being some major cultural influence on people's reasoning of the connection of their ideology to reality is what gives me some sympathy and belief in arguments from people I almost always disagree with, namely proponents of fixes to systemic * ism. I typically disagree with them on the definition of systemic * ism and the correct fix to the systemic * ism. I believe (with some evidence) the inputs to the system produce the disparity to a much larger extent than the individual components of the system being * ist and as such I believe we should work to correct the inputs rather than altering the components. And when people do propose changing components of the system, I find it does often come at the cost of beneficial things like merit. I think that the people proposing these ideas don't necessarily dislike the ideas the system is based on, but rather than have a dislike of some transitively caused property of the system, propose the most obvious fix to it, and then fail to consider further than first order effects of their change (ex: removing merit resulting in lower quality output). And this is why I consider myself a skeptical progressive: I think the cause of fixing systemic * ism is good, but I think the currently proposed solutions are damaging.
I think people who believe everyone who disagrees with them are deplorable would be surprised at the results of sitting down and talking with them. Perhaps the internet is just a bad medium for this.
> Thankfully, the latest batch of ideas (abolish police, abolish suburbs, abolish capital gains) have such a large impact that it has finally given me a hill worth dying on
Who's seriously calling to "abolish suburbs"? It's easy to stand up against ideas no one is advocating for - that's called a straw man.
YIMBYs I guess. People who want to be able to live near work without paying millions for the privelege, people who want to be able to use public transit, people who don't like subsidizing others' desire to drive and park everywhere, people who think coffee shops should be allowed to be built within walking distance of their homes.
This is called “ending subsidies for suburbs” or “ensuring affordable access to housing” or “promoting livable neighborhoods” or even “removing onerous regulations preventing development in our nations most productive urban areas”. That’s very different than “abolish the suburbs”, which makes it sound like you’re going to ban single family homes.
It doesn't ban single family homes, but it would ban communities composed exclusively of single family homes. Whether it is called "abolish suburbs" or "promoting livable neighborhoods," once the veil is pierced, it will be interpreted the same. You are right though that "abolish the suburbs" is more rhetorical than fact.
Why is it wrong? I am reading from his own platform.
Biden's plan specifically calls for ending state and local policies that allow "exclusionary zoning" and cites the "Home Act." Looking into the Home Act, "exclusionary zoning" refers to "single-family zoning" as "exclusionary zoning."
> As President, Biden will enact legislation requiring any state receiving federal dollars through the Community Development Block Grants or Surface Transportation Block Grants to develop a strategy for inclusionary zoning, as proposed in the HOME Act of 2019 by Majority Whip Clyburn and Senator Cory Booker. Biden will also invest $300 million in Local Housing Policy Grants to give states and localities the technical assistance and planning support they need to eliminate exclusionary zoning policies and other local regulations that contribute to sprawl.
Neither of those eliminate single family zoning for locations that want to keep them.
It requires communities that receive certain subsidies (community development block grants and surface transportation block grants) to make a plan to address inclusionary zoning. That's also not ending single family zoning; if you want to keep your existing zoning you can, you just can't get subsidized by the federal government to do it.
Also it doesn't even come close to "abolish suburbs". Curious if you still think that was an accurate characterization?
I'll stand by it, but I admit my argument is weaker than needed to match the rhetoric.
I don't think the proposal directly bans suburbs, but I think it may transitively. I wouldn't expect there to be a single state that doesn't receive federal dollars for community development. And if the state receives any dollars at all, per this proposal they are required to move towards bans on "exclusionary zoning" aka "single family zoning." So if a state wants to ensure federal funds for communities and allow for single family zoned suburbs, there seems to be a conflict. Because I believe every state would be interested in doing both (subsidizing poorer communities and permitting suburban communities), it worries me greatly that this bill will effectively ban suburbs.
I would absolutely remove my characterization of this bill as abolishing suburbs if the bill only applied to states that use federal funds to subsidize the creation of suburbs. I would still have a problem with it, but it would be very minor.
> And if the state receives any dollars at all, per this proposal they are required to move towards bans on "exclusionary zoning"
No, they aren't required to “move toward bans” on anything. They are to move toward inclusive land use by some combination of zoning policy and other regulation. And it's only CDBG recipients that have to do this, which are often local governments. Rich suburbs probably aren't competing for CDBG grants in the first place, and wouldn't have to do anything.
The specific examples in the act of policies which can meet the requirement, and many of the examples are consistent with single-family zoning.
[Edit] the specific line from Biden's plan that included "states" which gave me the initial idea this policy applies to states rather than individual communities. "Biden will enact legislation requiring any state receiving federal dollars through the Community Development Block Grants or Surface Transportation Block Grants to develop a strategy for inclusionary zoning"
I will continue researching nonetheless. It may just be misleading copy.
> I would absolutely remove my characterization of this bill as abolishing suburbs if the bill only applied to states that use federal funds to subsidize the creation of suburbs.
That would be all of them. The federal government explicitly subsidized the creation of suburbs after WWII though FHA and VA insured loans (as in, this was their literal intended purpose). In some cases they even directly hired builders to construct suburban towns wholesale (e.g. Levittown and Daly City)[1].
You know, I find this conversation pretty ironic in the context of this thread. It's clear you haven't researched this issue at all but are willing to announce fairly strong opinions about it based on nothing more than an obvious mischaracterization by the president.
I realize all states do this, but your response does not address my intended point. That's my fault, I will improve my point.
1. My reading of the proposal, and the reason I dislike the proposal: if a state uses federal funds for any community development project, some forcing function will cause them to stop single family zoning. This jeopardizes single family zoning in all states, since it has tied funding to all community development spending rather than specifically to federal funds going to single family zoning. Even if a state stops directing federal funds to single family zoned communities, they are still encouraged to not create single family zoned communities.
2. A proposal I would be more comfortable with: if a state uses federal funds specifically to fund single family funded communities, they must move toward ending single family zoning. States can continue receiving federal funds as long as they don't spend them on single family zoned communities.
[edit follows]
> You know, I find this conversation pretty ironic in the context of this thread. It's clear you haven't researched this issue at all but are willing to announce fairly strong opinions about it based on nothing more than an obvious mischaracterization by the president.
Disagree it is ironic, disagree it is clear I haven't researched it, but I agree I am shameless in announcing my strong opinions. Hopefully my clarification above gives you something clearer to bite into.
> if a state uses federal funds for any community development project, some forcing function will cause them to stop single family zoning.
This is specifically about two types of grants (not all federal funds for community development) and it does not require the elimination of single family zoning.
> federal funds going to single family zoning
What does it mean for funds to "go to" single family zoning? CDB grants are largely allocated to specific cites and counties already and the portion that is given to states is mostly spent on projects in urban areas[1].
> if a state uses federal funds specifically to fund single family funded communities, they must move toward ending single family zoning. States can continue receiving federal funds as long as they don't spend them on single family zoned communities.
The actual proposal is weaker than your proposal since there is no requirement to move towards ending single family zoning.
> Disagree it is ironic, disagree it is clear I haven't researched it
The conversation has moved from "abolish suburbs" to "a proposal to require certain cites to make a plan to implement policies that reduce barriers to housing development". So either you were being disingenuous originally or hadn't researched the topic. It's also the exact sort of emotionally charged rhetoric you were decrying earlier.
Biden; the wording is unfortunately sourced from a Trump talking point, but it flows well with the other two "abolitions," and Biden's actual proposed policy would have that effect. Some things in the policy that constitute its "abolition":
1. Ending of single family zoning [1][2]. A suburb by definition is single family zoned. I think Americans should be free to produce communities that live in a manner they desire- and if this is single-family zoned, so be it.
2. Fighting sprawl. Biden wants to implement policy that prevents and disincentivizes sprawl. A suburb is by definition not dense. People should be able to live in sprawl if they want to.
We've already ended single family zoning in California!
In most of the bay area, people live in sprawl who do not want to, because people are not allowed to live in dense housing with first floor retail if they want to. Should they be allowed to do that?
Yes! California should be free to do what Californians want, but California's desires are not necessarily aligned with the rest of the nation's desires. Each part of the nation should be free to do what that part wants. And yes, this is a potentially unachievable ideal, but we should still strive for it when possible.
Though, some criticisms of what you said:
1. It can depend on surroundings. A leftoid will rightly feel like an independent mind in a conservative area and a rightoid will rightly feel like an independent mind in a liberal area.
2. Your logic can misidentify skeptics as traditionalists. It is easy to misconstrue a progressively minded skeptic as a conservative because they criticize most currently popular progressive issues.
On a personal note: as a progressively minded skeptic, in my experiences with society, coworkers, friends, significant others, and family, I feel I have increasingly been lumped in as a "deplorable conservative." I have felt this cultural shift coming for many years now, when "SJWs" (I know this hits a sour note with many liberals, but I don't know how else to succinctly categorize these people) first started cropping up in the spaces I frequented:
0. The removal of Christmas celebration from my elementary school
1. Atheism+
2. My school's official hackathon group (was taken over by left leaning people who said you cannot form teams based on peoples' programming ability)
3. My school's official programming FB group banning "spicy" posts (an example being one where people were arguing failing fizzbuzz is an acceptable way to decide someone is not a programmer)
4. My school via the coed programming fraternity- it was a place full of people involved in 2 and 3
5. The wider programming community (donglegate, stallman's cancellation, linus and sarah sharp controversy, github and meritocracy, redis CoC controversy, etc)
6. Gamergate (specifically attempts to politically pressure games to alter their stories and design to suit audiences that aren't the typical customer).
7. Politics that are safely expressable at work without having a meet 'n greet with HR. Very, very far left ideas are routinely plastered at work, and political "courageous conversations" meetings expect exclusively uncourageous mainstream ideas.
8. Politics that are safely expressable with acquaintances, friends, and family without risk of being excommunicated.
9. For brevity, I exclude many others.
Thankfully, the latest batch of ideas (abolish police, abolish suburbs, abolish capital gains) have such a large impact that it has finally given me a hill worth dying on, and I feel free to non-anonymously express, with all the snark of a twitter checkmark, that these ideas blow ass. If that skepticism makes me an oppressor, then I embrace being one. I suppose I do deserve some credit for not being silent, since that would be violence.