There was a time in the UK when “culture war” conjured up a certain ugliness that disfigures political discourse across the Atlantic. Particular kinds of Americans, went the narrative, “get bitter, cling to guns or religion, or antipathy to people who aren’t like them”, as Barack Obama put it in 2008, nearly torpedoing his quest for the Democratic presidential nomination. His opponents put rocket boosters under so-called culture war strategies when he was president – from racist conspiracies about Obama’s birth certificate to unabashed Islamophobia. The Donald Trump phenomenon was forged in those fires.

You can see why the British right would seek to import this poison, because there have been political dividends Stateside. We also already had significant homegrown sources, thanks to our highly aggressive rightwing newspaper ecosystem. Regardless of the provenance, in simple terms, the approach allows you to flood the airwaves, drowning out discussion on substantive issues. When vulnerable minorities are in the firing line, attention is deflected from the rich and powerful. The “culture war” strategy seeks to place opponents on a defensive footing. As Ronald Reagan once summed up: “If you’re explaining, you’re losing.”

But a new report by the centrist thinktank More in Common both suggests that the culture war strategy may have run out of road, and that there are limitations in how the topic is framed. Just a fifth of the population are familiar with the term and its meaning, according to its polling. That said, the report itself lacks a clear definition of what a culture war is for people to refer to and........

© The Guardian