I think what they dislike is the liberal democratic leadership of Europe and the EU, they are surprisingly high on Europe itself as part of the Western civilization.

So they want to change the leadership and ideology of Europe, hence the support for the far-right political movement in Europe. It does actually make sense if you look at it from their ideological perspective. They see themselves as the saviour of the US people, and so they want to extend the favour to Europe too if possible.

It does actually make sense if you look at it from their ideological authoritarian perspective. — ChatteringMonkey

Might as well say it as it is.

Sure, they would say the same of the liberal democratic perspective. Ones freedomfighter is anothers terrorist.

That this whole "Liberation Liquidation day" would indeed be "a negiotiation tactic" is simply too much of a Hail Mary even to imagine, hence Musk is trying to resurrect his totally collapsed popularity / credibility.

Still the stagflation hasn't gripped the global economy. Still this could be fixed, but with every day the window of opportunity get's smaller.

Likely Trump will stop like a deer in headlights and think that he portrays credibility and determination by sticking with his much beloved tariffs and simply thinks that the "green chutes" of his brilliant trade policy will emerge later.

I think we should talk to Trump. There is a lot of misunderstanding between Europe and the new US administration.

They view our goverments basically as the same as the democrats, which is only partially true. We never had the same 'woke'-agenda in most of Europe for instance. And we view them as authoritarian fascists in the same mold as World War II fascists, which is also only partially true. They are not nearly as far down that road yet.

The knee-jerk reaction is to double down to stop them at all cost and polarise even further, but I think that is precisely how these populist parties tend to become more extreme, if they feel like everybody is against them no matter what.

I think we should talk to Trump. There is a lot of misunderstanding between Europe and the new US administration. — ChatteringMonkey

There's no misunderstanding. Or the misunderstanding won't be erased by talk, but only by actions.

Trump is his own reality show that where he plays the center stage, which he just loves.

What he basically can do is make a lousy deal to the US, if he looks like a winner at first. I'm not sure there's going to be Hail Mary passes.

Apparently we already made a zero to zero tariff proposal to the US on industrial goods, which has been refused before by Trump. He probably wants some of the other EU barriers gone too,... or maybe that's already reading too much into it, who knows?

I guess we are going to escalate then.

I think he truly think what he says.

Once you have trade barriers, factories will sprout in the US to take care of the demand. You simply cannot turn his head on this.

Again we think that in the end we will get a result that we got in Trump's first administration, the follower to NAFTA, the USMCA. Believing the end result like that is to believe that after everything, the Hail Mary pass will give Trump (and the World, actually) a touchdown.

I watched an illuminating segment by one of Trump’s media critics, Rachel Morrow. She re-told the tale of how Peter Navarro got into the picture. Trump had vague ideas about tarriffs early in his first term and asked Kushner to do some research on it. Kushner logged onto Amazon and noticed a book by Peter Navarro, ‘Death by China’. She notes, this book has several references to another author, Ron Vara, as a purported source of economic expertise. It turns out there is no ‘Ron Vara’, that this is an anagram of Navarro. Anyway, it’s Navarro who stood up in front of the press last week and said that tarriffs would generate $6 trillion in revenue for the US. I myself don’t know enough economic theory to judge him, but I do know that he was an enthusiastic purveyor of The Big Lie and went to jail for refusing to testify before Congress. I *suspect* he’s a crank, one of the many that DJT has sorrounded himself with in the echo chamber that is his current cabinet. A lot of economists are sure pointing the finger at him as one of the chief instigators of this situation.

I *suspect* he’s a crank, one of the many that DJT has sorrounded himself with in the echo chamber that is his current cabinet. — Wayfarer

Navarro was also lecturing Dr. Fauci on the miraculous curative effect of hydroxychloroquine.

The Daily Beast labeled this story "Rash Decision"...

Measles vaccination clinics hit by funding cuts
^{— Xavier Walton · The Hill · Apr 4, 2025}

Bulldozing without considering, clinics scrapped, health workers laid off, the heck are they doing? Seems like an RFK Jr thing, which may be coincidental. Shouldn't the government appoint someone who thinks?

Our thoughts are also with the measles-ravaged country America. I hope we are screening them before they come to Africa. — Elnathan John

:D

Actually many people are disgusted about both sides. — ssu

If that's the case, I've definitely missed it being more than a small, almost fringe, group. Though it may just be that these people are not commentators.

Fixed it for you — Benkei

Not all men.

Trump had vague ideas about tarriffs early in his first term and asked Kushner to do some research on it. — Wayfarer

It's noteworthy that Trump has had this thing for tariffs even earlier. He was in first in the "Japan will overcome us" -camp and wanted tariffs to be implemented against the Japanese in the 1980's. This then changed to China. But otherwise, as Trump doesn't read books and isn't aware of economics, it's very likely that Navarro got involved as described.

If that's the case, I've definitely missed it being more than a small, almost fringe, group. Though it may just be that these people are not commentators. — AmadeusD

Remember the algorithms, what makes a debate. It's not those who agree.

Yet when it comes to the Trump administration (and Musk's role in it), there's a lot of criticism around even from the moderates.

Remember the algorithms, what makes a debate. It's not those who agree — ssu

I maybe either too dumb or too tired to know what you're saying here?

Yes. There wasn't much from the moderates about hte abysmal Biden era, though. I think there's an imbalance in this sense. Its more acceptable to talk shit about "right wing" concepts and people. Same as there is no issue, whatever, with publicly saying something like "What the fuck is wrong with white people?" But if you switched any other ethnicity in.. you're in hot water.

I maybe either too dumb or too tired to know what you're saying here? — AmadeusD

Ok. If everybody agrees on something, there isn't much discussion then, is there? But if you come with really extreme views, a lot people might comment as it's obvious that many don't share the extreme views, hence this creates discussion. Two people with totally opposing ideas creates a heated debate, not the one where they understand each others points and discuss some subtle differences.

The computer algorithms used is simply to get people hooked on to what they are following.

Its more acceptable to talk shit about "right wing" concepts and people. — AmadeusD

Well, there was a lot of talk especially during the times of Biden about wokeness and the woke, even here on PF. Now when the Trump administration is fighting wokeness with deleting photos of the B-29 "Enola Gay" because of the name, it's different. Talk of an overreaction.

If everybody agrees on something, there isn't much discussion then, is there? — ssu

Ah yeah I see what you're getting at. Weirdly, I get about 50/50 left/right content. Commentary seems very much skewed - But again, I don't know everything so i put this entirely to the side for now.

Talk of an overreaction. — ssu

I think, possibly, the Biden-era mouthpieces constantly contradicting earlier policies (including Obama's) was an overreaction to Trump doing similar things to Obama (and prior liberals). I think your example is a good one in terms of "point and laugh", but not a great one in terms of consequence. I think politicians lying about their academic career is worse, for example.

I think your example is a good one in terms of "point and laugh", but not a great one in terms of consequence. I think politicians lying about their academic career is worse, for example. — AmadeusD

The so-called "Culture War" has been a way to heat up political debate and get supporters of a party to be active. It has been used in the US for a long time. During the Bush senior era in 1990's, I remember it was a political debate about burning the US flag. The "Culture War" debate is a way to rally your supporters around one's party, when economic or other policy differences don't get people fired up. The debate around bathrooms might get the interest of those that aren't interested in foreign policy matters.

But here's the problem: When JD Vance went to the Munich Security conference and gave basically a "Culture War" speech on the absence of free speech in Europe, that wasn't at all what the attendees heard. What they heard was deep differences in security policy between the US and Europe and obviously openly hostile intervention into the domestic politics of EU countries. It would be similar if the EU would suddenly start to "support the Democrats in the US in the Constitutional Crisis that is happening in the US because of the Trump regime, which is an existential threat for democracy and the Republic in the US." How would Republicans and MAGA people react to that? Likely in the similar fashion that Germans responded to Vance's speech. They would be also first flabbergasted and immediately angry about such intervention into domestic politics.

Another problem is that the actions of the Trump administration are taken as a whole. Hence when Trump campaigned against DEI during the elections is one thing, but now the actions against DEI implemented by the Trump administration are in the same category with things like extraditing people to El Salvador and not caring about what the SCOTUS says on the issue.

I just don't see things this way and find it quite hard to put myself in a position to see it that way.
The 'culture wars' are certainly not a 'tool' of any kind. They spring up out of the the tension between what people actually care about, and what politicians are doing. Its certainly cyclical, and has some hallmarks of a 'game', but that seems patently not what's happening.

People get fired up because its hte future of their country they're debating. Not sure this needs any further justification or explanation. Males in female bathrooms was always something that people got upset about until around 2015 when things got weird (take that negative or positive, doesn't matter to my point). Because more males started being in female bathrooms, for whatever reason. Doesn't need any further to understand why people care..

I just don't see things this way and find it quite hard to put myself in a position to see it that way.
The 'culture wars' are certainly not a 'tool' of any kind. They spring up out of the the tension between what people actually care about, and what politicians are doing. Its certainly cyclical, and has some hallmarks of a 'game', but that seems patently not what's happening.

People get fired up because its hte future of their country they're debating. — AmadeusD

Talk shows, podcasters and other commentators etc. can surely debate Culture war issues, but do notice how the Culture War is played and handled by the politicians. And you already said it yourself: "tension between what people actually care about, and what politicians are doing". What politicians do or decide is inherently political. And when it is thought to be negative, it is in the interest of the other side of the political field to embrace the issue and use it. Otherwise something like Colin Kaepernik taking the knee or if corporations have DEI training would be such an issue. In fact, in Trump's second election victory not only inflation, but also Culture War issues played a big part (apart from the Dem's struggling and finally replacing Biden with Harris). As I said, it's far more easier to get the voters interested in Culture War issue than economic or foreign policy issues, which one needs a lot of information to judge (or to get angry about). But trans-athletes, burning the flag or use of toilets? Far more easier to have your own view about those things.

The politics of the Culture War is shown when you can put the issue at hand into an accusation of the opposition: "Look at what this administration is doing to X." That's where you see how these issues are used in politics.

People get fired up because its the future of their country they're debating. Not sure this needs any further justification or explanation. — AmadeusD

And that would not be political??? Isn't that the centerpiece of a politics?

Then I have no idea what you're talking about. There seems no difference.

It seems your just describing political discussion as 'across the aisle', noting it can get aggressive.. and....??
the Culture Wars such as they are branded are simply the set of issues people want to be dealt with either socially or politically. To the degree that parts of that whole apply to political discussion: yes. They do. There's nothing wrong, weird, untoward or manipulative about that. Almost all 'culture war' issues became issues because real, actual people, really, actually came into contact with those issues in their actual, real life and had actual, real feelings about that. If we want to trivialize this I can kind of understand where you're going.. otherwise, i'm kinda lost.

Can you maybe let me know what the difference is, for you?

You can argue that the politicians respond to Culture War issues that people are already talking about. I would be here a bit more skeptical. I would argue that it's the political parties and the politicians who make many Culture War issues an issue that the people then start to heatedly to debate. Here the initiator of a debate usually has an agenda why to make something part of the "Culture War". The Culture War is something that divides Democracts, but unites Republicans and thus it's the Republicans that promote in the US the Culture War debate. In other countries the rhetoric of a Culture War is mimicked by conservative and religious parties.

Just look at the definition of Culture War:

A culture war is a form of cultural conflict (metaphorical "war") between different social groups who struggle to politically impose their own ideology (moral beliefs, humane virtues, and religious practices) upon mainstream society, or upon the other. In political usage, culture war is a metaphor for "hot-button" politics about values and ideologies, realized with intentionally adversarial social narratives meant to provoke political polarization among the mainstream of society over economic matters, such as those of public policy, as well as of consumption.

As practical politics, a culture war is about social policy wedge issues that are based on abstract arguments about values, morality, and lifestyle meant to provoke political cleavage in a multicultural society.

Notice the role of politics in this definition above.

The Culture War is something that divides Democracts, but unites Republicans and thus it's the Republicans that promote in the US the Culture War debate. In other countries the rhetoric of a Culture War is mimicked by conservative and religious parties. — ssu

The world has been full of culture wars for decades, on issues like race, LGBTIQ rights, education, abortion, guns, religion, refugees, and privacy. Most of these battles have played out on Australian soil too. They're not owned by one side of politics; they’re fought by both the left and the right. These are emotional issues, often dominated by extremists on both sides, whom the media reliably spotlight to stir up the usual confected outrage.

Vietnam sparked a culture war, but we didn't use the term then. Slavery was a big one in the 19th century.

Today, it seems odd to me that something like trans rights, such a relatively small issue, can generate so much outrage and energy, while something like economic inequality, which affects umpteen millions, evokes far less passion. You can't help but wonder to what extent culture war politics are just a great way to distract us from real structural problems and get us fighting among ourselves about toilet use, while the corporations and the billionaires continue to expand their power and finances. :wink:

Today, it seems odd to me that something like trans rights, such a relatively small issue, can generate so much outrage and energy, while something like economic inequality, which affects umpteen millions, evokes far less passion. You can't help but wonder to what extent culture war politics are just a great way to distract us from real structural problems and get us fighting among ourselves about toilet use, while the corporations and the billionaires continue to expand their power and finances. — Tom Storm

I totally agree.

And this is why it seems to me much more of a manufactured issue as the intent is clearly to get supporters to rally around a cause and get them voting. Especially if the economy isn't so great and there are true problems in the society, Cultural War issues might be a safe bet for the politicians. Homosexuality is a minority issue, yet being trans is even a smaller minority. Yet, as you stated, these issues evoke outrage and passion, which aren't typically the feelings from something like financial and monetary policy, which actually affects us all every day. (Perhaps with Trumpnomics and the Trade War sillyness we will really get there.)

Perhaps I would add that usually once when a political movement achieves it's actual clear goals, then the next "wave" of the movement have to go with something new, and in the end it becomes rather silly. Just think about what liberalism was fighting for at the time of Adam Smith compared to the anarcho libertarians of today or the suffragettes to the feminists of today.

I would argue that it's the political parties and the politicians who make many Culture War issues an issue that the people then start to heatedly to debate — ssu

I understand. A fair take. I disagree, on historical grounds, but this is not something particularly arguable. It's how I see it, rather htan some set of facts.

In political usage,

This seems to betray what you want that 'definition' to say. When it's not being used as a political cudgel (or similar) it refers to the conflict between cultural views. This is a decidedly social conflict, as I see it and politicians just pick up on this (knowing they aren't the right arbiter) to get less-intelligent people to vote for their buzz-word speeches. So, we see politicians the same, at least LOL. Just a reversal of directionality.

I would also, in some degree, reject that definition. It seems designed to play into a leftist "if you disagree you're a bigot" type thinking. Ironic LOL (but also probably partially bias on my part).

This is a decidedly social conflict, as I see it and politicians just pick up on this (knowing they aren't the right arbiter) to get less-intelligent people to vote for their buzz-word speeches. — AmadeusD

Wait a minute.

Isn't politics all about moral issues to what existing laws don't give us direct straight forward answers? Isn't politics about what is wrong and what is right or what is beneficial to us and to our society? Yes. we think of politicians to be these corrupt power hungry narcissists, but in reality shouldn't politicians be the arbiters of social conflicts?

I would also, in some degree, reject that definition. It seems designed to play into a leftist "if you disagree you're a bigot" type thinking. Ironic LOL (but also probably partially bias on my part). — AmadeusD

Lol. Well, I've voted all my life for the conservative party in my country, but I'm not surprised that Americans or Brits would see me as a leftist.

Isn't politics all about moral issues — ssu

Hmm, I can see why this is the take, but I don't think so. This seems best illustrated by the illusory way politicians have us thinking they care about hte social issues. I think there's a reason "social politics" is a term.

Yes. we think of politicians to be these corrupt power hungry narcissists — ssu

Hahaha, not always, but yeah, largely.

in reality shouldn't politicians be the arbiters of social conflicts? — ssu

No. Unsure what more to say LOL.

I'm not surprised that Americans or Brits would see me as a leftist. — ssu

That wasn't at all what I was trying to say. But, fair lol. I meant to say that your quoted passage seems to be, itself, a left-leaning frame for what "culture war" amounts to. Though, i agree with anyone who thinks "culture war" is a reasonable term - but I also disagree with anyone who thinks its some media invention. One of the most naive takes I've ever heard about social life (very, very common in NZ left circles).

As someone said, when debating the Culture War, one doesn't have to use the brain.

And anyway, it seems that "Elon Musk's unprecedented intrusion deep into the mechanics of the Federal Government", as @Wayfarer stated in the OP, is coming to an end. I think that Elon will be quietly going to withdraw from the Mar-a-Lago and the White House scene. So perhaps it should be good to look at what I first wrote in this thread three months ago.

As I've stated again and again. Elon Musk will be the most hated man in the US in the future. You see, it will be alright for the South African born billionaire to be hated even by the Trump crowd, as God-Emperor Trump cannot do anything else than his genius blessed acts. But Elon can go. Because this won't end happily, really. The man is bouncing too hard here and there.

Let's start from the basics. Musk owns a very overvalued car manufacture. Somebody now buying a Tesla will make a clear political statement. And that is bad. This is the reason just why corporate leaders usually try stay out of the media limelight. And the demand for Tesla has started to plummet dramatically. — ssu

Now a disastrous first quarter results made this clear to Musk. I gave too much credit to what DOGE could do as Musk didn't last even until the summer and the cuts have basically been meaningless as the Trump administration is spending a bit more than the Biden administration now. I presumed that DOGE could really to go for serious cuts in the expenditure (which would have made Musk even more hated). Likely now only the Democrats and liberals got offended about Musk, but Republicans didn't get to be as annoyed at him as I predicted. And for Trump, the midterms are too far off to notice that there might be use for having the Worlds richest man around (or one in the top ten). Then he might beg for Musk, but already that one election of a judge that Musk lost has shown that he cannot buy everything.



It seems that now Trump is likely to cave in his delusional ideas about tariffs saving everything when the recession hits home. Other countries just can wait and let Trump's situation get worse. That's the next step, but an issue for another thread.

As someone said, when debating the Culture War, one doesn't have to use the brain. — ssu

I'm not sure why. That's true of any debate. Don't use your brain if you don't wnat. If you want to say anything of substance, you'll use it. A very ironic line, in the event LOL.

is coming to an end — ssu

Possibly. I'm unsure. Usually, the media predictions are not right because they don't reflect what's actually happening. But, i abstain anyway - just saying this as its relevant.

when the recession hits home — ssu

Well see. I don't see this happening. Call me ignorant

I gave too much credit to what DOGE could do as Musk didn't last even until the summer and the cuts have basically been meaningless as the Trump administration is spending a bit more than the Biden administration now. — ssu

Weren't all of these measures simply Trump lashing out at a Government that he hates, using 'waste and fraud' as a pretext? Similar to how he is having people deported on the pretext of them being 'violent criminals' even without any convictions having been recorded purely to appease the xenophobia of his base.

It seems the wind has been taken out of Musk's sails. He's said to have been having screaming matches with Scott Bessent in the West Wing and to have considerably annoyed many other cabinet members. Tesla is clearly wounded and may not ever recover (and it doesn't help that the Cybertruck is on the way to being an historic dud.) I think Musk was literally power-drunk when it all kicked of. Now for the hangover. Even so, the consequences of the DOGE chainsaw will be felt for years to come.

Weren't all of these measures simply Trump lashing out at a Government that he hates, using 'waste and fraud' as a pretext? — Wayfarer

I think that these guys were truly sincere in their goals, yet the disdain and hate they had towards the system was clear right from the start. The strategy of "Let's just go in quick and cut as much we can do and then solve later any issues that rise up" had basically the effect of just lashing out at the government. The normal way would simply been for Elon to go through the government and then make list of things to be cut and that to be given to the Congress to chew on. But yes, as you said, power went to their heads.

It seems the wind has been taken out of Musk's sails. He's said to have been having screaming matches with Scott Bessent in the West Wing and to have considerably annoyed many other cabinet members. — Wayfarer

Things can get heated in any administration, but with the inept leadership qualities of Trump it's a sure end result. And of course this was baked in from the start as there no DOGE officially exists and Musk isn't part of the actual administration (as he obviously didn't want to set aside his wealth and companies). The de facto but not de jure status was first seen as a great advantage, but when DOGE fails to do anything but stir up a mess, it becomes easily a nuisance in the administration.

) I think Musk was literally power-drunk when it all kicked of. — Wayfarer

Indeed he was. You could see it from his crazy attacks against various European countries (Germany, Poland, the UK).

But we shouldn't forget that the most power-drunk person has been and is still Trump himself. There is nobody around him that would saying anything against him, hence the only thing that get's him to change his views are the effects of his policies in the stock market and the economy. With Elon, it's his companies, with Trump it's the US economy and the international status of the country and it's alliances.