I was talking to a Turkish guy a while ago, and he said: “Turkey has many big problems. But it doesn’t have a big Armenian problem.”
This article was a cry of: “My tribe good, their tribe bad.” But wars aren’t won by righteousness; ask the Armenians about that. Wars are won by power. So think three times before you start a fight. You can start it unilaterally - but the other side gets a say in how far the escalation goes.
2
The biggest problem is that the parties are speaking different languages. Democrats concentrate on blame and revenge. Republicans see that as a defeatist attitude and would prefer solutions.
There are studies, notably by Jonathan Haidt that indicate conservatives and moderates understand liberal viewpoints and Are able to articulate them, but liberals simply do not understand conservative viewpoints. It seems they don’t have the necessary mental traits necessary for that particular mental function.
Since they can’t comprehend conservative viewpoints, conservatives think they’re stupid. They aren’t stupid, they just are lacking a few, shall we say, extensions for their CPU to consider while processing political information.
And, since they don’t understand conservative viewpoints, all they can surmise is that conservatives are haters, steeped in religion, or ignorant..
Sorry, but I have to put this blame on to Democrats. Republicans may be rigid in there thinking, but at least they understand the issues. As long as Democrats are incapable of understanding all sides of an issue, it is impossible to have a rational conversation with them.
The article is completely bogus because it is based on a critical lack of knowledge.
1
Find two tribes somewhere on Earth that live peacefully next door to each other without conflict, and have done so for a few hundred years.
<i>E Pluribus Unum</i>, From Many, One, melding together all the people into one has served is well. Identity politics as practiced by liberals and Democrats is what tears us apart.
1
“Maybe we pushed too far,” Barack Obama is quoted as saying in a new memoir by Benjamin Rhodes, one of his closest aides. “Maybe people just want to fall back into their tribe.”
Just following your lead, BO! Thank you (and Ms Merkel) for helping unleash identity politics! Couldn't have done it without you!
1
i scanned the first ten “readers
picks” and guess what.... it’s all the republicans fault. i would say the answer is no... we
can’t
compromise.
1
Blacks consistently vote 95% plus democrat...if Whites voted 95% Republican would that qualify as "tribalism?"
1
Tribalism" is your, i.e. the political Left's, word.
"Some fights are not talked away; they are, in the end, either won or lost."
Yes, elections have consequences, as someone once said. But won't we be better off if we try to build bridges among the tribes? If we look for common ground? If we seek ways to build trust?
Friedman's recent piece seems like a much better guide for how to proceed.
1
There will be no compromise. Only the law.
I don't know what to think. IMHO, the "law" is compromise. In Europe, the Autobahn has a very open speed limit. Same for many Midwestern states... 80 + mph is OK... but in the cities, or other congested areas, there are speed limits. Even your choice of location, represents a compromise in your feelings.... Texas is a state in the United States of American. The Republic of Texas doesn't exist anymore... Frankly, I wish Texans and Californians would vote to leave the Union... both would be better served on their own....
The example in the first paragraph of the article is very instructive. to rephrase Marshall McLuhan, the messenger is the message. Trump is proof positive of this phenomenon. He can contradict himself twice a day in tweet after tweet, he can lie big time (e.g., saying that Saudi Arabia promised to boost oil sales by 2,000,000 bpd) and the White House staff has to take it all back; but his supporters do not care. They do not appear to notice.
Why? Their leader is speaking and has the bully pulpit. That is all that matters to them. That his trade war is a world wide disaster means nothing to them?
Again, why? Because the economics of trade and finance have become far too complex for the average American to understand. They do not sense disaster until they lose their jobs. Then they will blindly strike out at the perceived enemy. Unfortunately, Trump is already training them to see minorities and foreigners as the perceived enemy.
As Trump declared during the campaign, "I love the poorly educated." The well-educated want nothing to do with him. They understand that a racist con is being setup in case this economic gambit fails (and it will).
3
It should be noted that the ads playing before videos on Breitbart have been exclusively marketing guns for sometime now. It was clear to me from the start: the best way for this country to survive the Trump presidency would be for the left to try to compromise, conciliate, and where possible co-opt. But because the left refuses to abandon its dream of a multicultural utopia in which "whiteness" (misconstrued as an arbitrary construct, a pure concept, rather than a term that rigidly designates a whole class of people) will be abolished for good, they've dug in their heels, opted for endless moralizing "resistance" --a strategy that privileges self-righteousness over effectiveness, as it only further polarized the situation and encourages Trump's worst, truly extreme and dangerous instincts.
1
Identity politics is at the core of the Baby Boomer 1960s radical left, which has firmly entrenched itself in the universities in the time since. Female, African-American, etc "studies" departments founded by former hippie radicals are the source of it all. They are based on Marxism, with "identity groups" taking the place of class in a never-ending "dialectic" of conflict between the "oppressed" and the "oppressor". The labyrinthine task of determining a pecking order of oppression has led to the calculation of "intersectionality".
All the article has to offer in its "whataboutism" is drawing analogies with slavery and segregation, regardless of whether the new intersectional identity agendas have anything to do with them. And so it continues. The Left must maintain its neverending conflict, or it has no reason to exist.
1
Projection is a favorite and well-worn strategy of “progressive” Marxianity but this article displays a particularly high degree of intellectual arrogance which suggests an agenda; and agenda claiming neither side can claim the moral high ground but when people “are on the receiving end of brutal policies” sometimes might makes right in an unavoidable "winner" take all confrontation. Making tenuous and ultimately false, equivalences between the intentionally manufactured tribes of the false religion Marxianity and average Americans in flyover country is a postmodernist rationalization of an equal, or higher, morality when the truth is far simpler.
In 1861 Sir Henry Sumner Maine published his work Ancient Law which put forth his thesis that governance progressed from a Society of Status to a Society of Contract; every form of governance before the Constitution of the United States reflected a society of status wherein who you were determined what benefits would be derived from governance. “Progressive” Marxism is reactionary in the extreme with tribes favored falling far short of the Constitution's contract society; John Adams nation of laws not men axiom held for 200 years until the “progressive” judiciary circumvented the amendment process on its way to a “social justice” constitution when stopped by Trump’s election.
There are but two political ideologies; those who adhere to the “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God” and those who do not…and it really is that simple.
A good bankruptcy will do much to wrest our attention away from frivolous concerns such as now divide us. It appears that there is not even a semblance of the desire to avoid this fate. Both "tribes" embrace unpaid for spending although they do have slightly different priorities. I can well imagine that come the final denouement we will look back nostalgically at our current worries.
"If only we could calmly talk about our differences, the argument goes, we would reach some compromise."
Raise your hand if you think this real...or imminent.
Considering fight vs. compromise through the lens of the Senate and House, we did manage to compromise more successfully in the not-too-distant past. And then came Gingrich. At that point, lines were drawn, never to be crossed. Every GOP rep signed the Norquist pledge. With his departure and ethics violations things got a bit more bipartisan--Iraq! but then came--Obama. And McConnell swore NEVER to work with any Democrat, never to allow an Obama "win" under any circumstance, and that the GOP's
sole goal was winning the next election and the next election and so forth. Is it surprising that Congress rates lower than Charles Manson? Are you guys representing the interests of Americans or are you spoiling for a fight and spending 3/4 of your working day raising money?
For the next eight years FOX, Rush, Ryan, Mitch told their audience about the aloof, imperial Muslim golfer who wouldn't even talk to Republicans. Imagine.
I apologize for displaying my own brand of tribalism. Getting back to compromise vs. fight, I see little tendency toward more compromise. Old saying: "I've never witnessed an argument that resulted in either party changing their mind".
1
Huh. Congress approval rating generally trends up when republicans hold the majority. This is true from last 30 years. 92 - 2002 the trend was up.
1
Wrong. The end of compromise and civility started with the scurrilous demonization of Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork in 1987, led by Ted Kennedy and Joe Biden.
1
This is ridiculous. Dems consistently vote as a bloc. The reason gop has a hard time governing is because they don’t vote as a block.
Great piece. But the author risks a false dichotomy between civility and "pushing through" with non-discursive action. Both are required for effective social change. The Civil Rights Movement used both dialogue and direct action - and for direct action, it advocated forms of non-violent resistance, drawing on norms of respecting one's adversary. My main worry is that if we lose the ability to dialogue across differences - which requires tolerating disagreement and restraint -- we will be unable to effectively govern, which most certainly does require dialogue and being able to reason together.
Remember the scenes on the nightly news during the civil rights era. The Blacks were nonviolent and non confrontational while demonstrating for their rights. It was the Whites who were ugly and shouting and hateful. It was impossible not to feel sympathy for those who were being kept down or shame for those who were against them.
Most Americans will never side with those who confront cabinet members at restaurants or with Antifa breaking windows or burning cars. Think 1972.
1
Humans run on emotion. As much as we would like to think that we are rational creatures, the primitive emotional part of our brain dominates our behavior. Tribalism is a perfect example and explains why many Trump supporters would rather go down in flames by voting against their own self-interest than abandon their tribe. The tribe is an opiate. The emotional buzz of lemming-like behavior – even if it means self-destruction – is a stronger force than reason.
Our country was founded on tribal affiliation, on the interests of the dominant tribe: white, male, and propertied. With calculated irony, the founding fathers, to retain tribal power, promoted the very opposite - a myth of solidarity and inclusion, “of the people, by the people,” marketed with soaring 4th of July rhetoric. Conservatives, against all historical evidence, continue to promote the fantasy that America was a single tribe with a common narrative, religion, values, and a unified purpose. But as honest historians have pointed out, our history has always been one of tribal conflict: workers against owners, religion against religion, masters against slaves, and whites against anyone who wasn’t white.
The Republicans have long recognized the dominance of emotions in voter behavior and have become masters at preying on those emotions. The Democrats have yet to master the power of tribal emotion. But like it or not, they are now in a tribal war. Their intellectual high road has been closed to traffic.
4
Problem is, there have always been two tribes here, and the American "melting pot" concept was hobbled at birth when the Northern states gave away much of their ideals in order to rope in the southern states, who were less inclined to break with Britain and worried of their seat at the demographics table. So a Declaration that would have disavowed slavery from the start instead institutionalized it, and also gave the white landowners some giant thumbs on the scale - through the disproportional Senate and Electoral College. Those factors continue now skew an 80% liberal country to the tyranny of a minority.
There are two countries here, with one being the mostly-urban maker that finances the other (it's the opposite of what conservative pundits think). I respectively suggest that the two countries amicably divorce, before we damage the world beyond repair, or start a civil war with nukes. This could be done based on the geography of cities (all of which are blue) vs states (all of which, outside of the cities, are mostly red. I don't think I could say which side would leap more quickly to leave the other. Let's please face it.
7
Except the electoral college weakened the more populous southern states in the senate and the electoral college. Educate yourself. Look at the numbers in the first census and beyond. You might learn something.
I disagree with your thesis, but agree with your conclusion.
1
Hutus and Tutsis, Shiites and Sunnis, Democrats and Republicans - no difference really.
5
Democrats, Republicans and Independents
not really the same as
Shiites, Sunnis and Alawis?
or
Hutus, Tutsis and mixed blood Hutu/Tutsis?
astounding that the author can live in the age of Trump but sneer at the allegedly ever compromising Obama. this kind of ignorance elected trump. even now she apparently can't get the point that Obama was better than trump. even Hillary was. but when you're too noble for retail politics, then you pave the way for Trump and McConnell. so guess what lady: the joke's on you.
2
Thank you. Best lugh I’ve had in a while.
The assumption in this piece is that tribalism is a bad thing. Tribalism is bad only if your tribe loses; if your tribe wins, it's wonderful.
If you think that's untrue, keep in mind that tribalism created America (whites versus Indians); Israel (Jews versus Arabs); Australia (whites versus aborigines); and so on, and so on.
The ranting against tribalism these days is because the present winners are terrified they're going to become the future losers.
3
Over 200 million Americans -- about two-thirds of the nation's population -- live within 100 miles of the perimeter of the mainland of the so-called 'United States.' A strong majority of voters in that swath of the country are liberal/progressive. Those 200 million plus include many recent immigrants and are diverse in age, religion, national origin, skin color, sexual orientation and language. They are better educated than the population in the rest of the country. They generate over two-thirds of domestic GDP, and with few exceptions - like the deep Southeast - they pay far more in federal taxes than their states receive back from the U.S. Treasury. California, New York and a few other 'blue states' heavily subsidize West Virginia, Tennessee, Alabama and other bible-thumping right-wing strongholds.
Disproportionate political power is vested in the one-third of the population living in 'the heartland,' which skews older, white, less educated, 'Christian' and 'conservative.' The 'heartland' states, with two senators per state, regardless of population, and a passel of votes in the Electoral College, can readily control Congress and the White House, which in turn also allows them to pack the federal court system with 'conservative' judicial nominees.
Guess what - something's gotta give. The Confederacy lost the Civil War, but it is now ascendant in the GOP and in U.S. politics.
In my dreams, California, Oregon and Washington secede and become a Canadian province. Buh bye!
12
I have the same fantasy about New England.
1
Where do I go to sign up for a tribe? Sure I've got one by default -- 60-plus white guy -- except that my belief are way, way out of step with this demographic. But I don't have a parish church or even an funky Caucasian ethnic group where people say 'yo, buddy'. Not something in the DNA of we Scot-Irish-German-rancher-Americans.
Somehow must've figured this out early on. So I just loved the depiction of the US from the civics textbook in 1963, an idyllic territory where tribes would exist only as quaint cultural constructs and we would all come together as Americans believing in cooperation, integration, freedom and speech and assembly, and making life better for the historically disadvantaged.
But that doesn't go as far as it used to.
2
I just finished Celeste Ng's "Little Fires Everywhere". An aphorism quoted in the book ran something like, "Anger is the Guardian of Fear." Perhaps each of us should ask, "Of what are we afraid?"
5
FDR first inaugural: “So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is...fear itself — nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.”
Time to 'keep pushin'!
Compromise is impossible with right wingers who have no concept of intellectual discourse, whose idea of debate is if they shut you up they win the debate. Every day on right wing websites there will be some manifesto or other concluding with "we have all the guns". That tells you everything you need to know.
5
Tribes form, alliances are created and people choose sides at the precise moment the government begins to threaten the rights and interests it’s members have in common.
2
It seems to me that using the words "tribes" and "tribalism" papers over what is really going on. Fundamental arguments over what life or a human being is, are philosophical debates, not beliefs belonging to a tribe. Up until 1973 it didn't matter, but the argument became crucial when the Supreme Court decided that unborn babies could be killed because they weren't "alive" or "human". Now we have part of the country that considers the government guilty of mass murders while another part cheers the situation as "protecting women's rights". THAT's what is tearing the country apart, not "tribalism".
The older I get, the more I begin to believe that we need to re-think the concept of a “united” states of America.. I don’t really have anything in common with someone in southeastern Kentucky. We literally want a different way of life based on a different set of laws and beliefs. Why are we allowing the central government to make one law for both of us? Why can’t we envision a new structure split into regions with common interests? For that matter, why not entertain the notion of a more balkanized, sectionalized country where local governments are vibrant and shape laws according to constituents that they know? Like an amicable divorce. No fight, no illusions of togetherness, just a recognition that we want to live differently and a structure that reflects that reality.
13
you mean, like the Confederacy? this states' rights argument wasn't so hot 250 years ago, but it is absolutely obsolete in today's world. we're not the only ones on the planet, you know, and in a lot of ways Earth is a dangerous neighborhood.
2
Obama has divided our nation more than any other American president.
Millions of Americans think so according to the polls and the trouncing the Democratic party received.
He has set poor against rich.
He has set blacks against whites.
He has set young against the aged.
He has set workers against employers.
He has set states against government.
He has set Democrats against Repubicans.
Even worse.
He failed in his promise to bring us together with his "rainbow coalition."
5
Obama advocated for the little guy and the powerful accuse him of divisiveness. Trump advocates for the powerful and the powerful accuse the little guy of identity politics for pushing back.
12
What a tribalist response.
We were not "trounced", your party failed to produce 3 MILLION votes needed to edge your terribly flawed candidate over the popular vote line. It was the failure of our antique electoral system to prevent such an event that leaves us with a government gleefully leaping into fascism. If you think this is a worthy goal I might direct you to another fascist government who set out to eliminate classes of people--- we Jews are still here, as are handicapped and intellectuals, press and union members. But the leaders of that movement ended in bunkers with cyanide fumes and bullet holes.
Compromise is not possible over moral obscenities like blatant racism and internment camps and, most of all, open treason. We must utterly defeat this this administration, its lackeys and its supporters. We must defeat them mercilessly to demonstrate clearly that the US is not a neo nazi state and that the majority of our citizens will not tolerate foreign meddling in our affairs. We must change media licensing laws to eliminate foreign propaganda, imprison the president, his family, administration members for treason corruption and theft and thoroughly investigate our clearly blackmailed congress people for possible treason. And we must shame anyone who still supports this travesty after all the dirt is revealed. As the effects of current policy becomes clear moderate sensible Rs and Is will realize they have been conned. They will not be happy. We are the majority and we are coming. November 2018. November 2020. November 2022. And every special election in between. We will win eventually. We need morally sound super majorities to pass constitutional amendments limiting the influence of the wealthy and corporations. The sociopathic wealthy are using this chaos to rob our children and destroy our nation and they will not compromise. Why should we? Winter is coming you greedy historically ignorant fools. And we will not compromise. In the end we will win.
17
"Schools were desegregated though a Supreme Court decision, which had to be implemented with the help of the National Guard."
Schools have not been desegregated in NYC. Only flyover country has it done with the help of the National Guard with New Yorkers pointing their fingers in disdain. I guess that take the heat off of them.
Truly the best of the New York Times Magazine - hypocrisy second to none.
10
And, strangely, the bipartisan elite in Washington, DC choose to send their own children to private school instead of public school. Yes, both parties. Did Chelsea Clinton or the Bush girl twins go to Washington, DC public schools? Not a chance. Did the Obama children go to Washington, DC public schools or Obama Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland's children? Not a chance. How about the children of Republican Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts? Nope, not his either.
All go or went to elite private schools like Sidwell Friends, Episcopal Academy, boarding schools in New England, etc.
Amy Carter was the last child of a president who actually attended Washington public schools.
11
This article and all the comments are just NYT liberals talking to each other. This is about the 4,000th anti-Trump/GOP column that the NYT has printed in the last two years. That is not an exaggeration. You guys are stuck.
One thing that the NYT columnists and readers have to face is that liberals are never going to come to power in the US Congress. Democrats could, however. The Democratic Party has been going down hill for 50 years in its ability to get candidates elected. I really think that if it moderated its views and told those liberals that the Iowa couple was cussing out to quieten down, it could get a majority in Congress. Note that Hilary Clinton was not one of those liberals--as NYT commenters repeatedly pointed out during the 2016 election. She won the popular vote by quite a bit.
9
Is this the same Hillary Clinton you were all screaming to lock her up? That she for the most part did not show up for the campaign and still won the popular vote speaks volumes. The positions she did take were in fact for the most part co-opted from Bernie Sanders.
3
I never hear people talk about tribes or tribalism. Apparently that happens in New York City. This seems to be a true of a lot of "First Words" columns. Some local euphemism or code word gets magnified as if it was sweeping the country.
3
This reads like a well thought out almost gentle incitement to riot. You are right that the tribes are retreating to their silos, and Democrats are trying to be the coalition party of tribes. But it is not the same country any more. We are also a country of mass hypocrisy. You hate police, except when you need them. You empathize with criminals except when they hurt you. You are against abortion until it’s your daughter. You use the undocumented to do the dirty work even as you pretend to be for or against them. You don’t like gays except your son who happens to be gay, You hate bigots but you are one whether you are white or black or brown. Nah. America these days is all about the franchise of being offended, while freely offending whoever you don’t agree with. There won’t be civil war because under it all hypocrisy trumps tribe, and our self interest is our shared creed.
13
Consider, what we call USA, has always been a caldron of discord.
The founders --- Hamilton vs Burr and Adams were no better than what we are experiencing now, and American history is replete with national discord AKA our exceptional democracy. What is most disturbingly is the current leadership so far removed from reality, its careless disregard for truth, and and a large proportion of citizenry unable to perform critical thinking. November 2018 may be our great experiment.
8
The country has taken a frightening turn, who knows what direction. Outlawing abortions, insulting leaders of our staunchest allies. Chaos in the White House. Trumps lies and hate is real.
The world is clearly in peril due to fanatical Republican tribe.
13
And people who advocate ending/opening borders and killing cops are not fanatical??
7
None of us Progressives advocate for open borders or ending borders. I suppose when you refer to "killing cops," you are referring to white domestic rightwing murderers and terrorists who buy cop-killing bullet-proof vest piercing bullets -- the very extremists who would be the first to commit mass murder of innocent civilians whom they do not like. So there! And know this: none of those who belong on the Progressive side of the divide have ever advocated killing police officers. You have just described your own Conservative fanatical anti-governmental types.
1
Nobody is doing either of those things.
In this age of Trump Neo-Fascism, compromising means appeasement. THAT does not end well. Ever. Seriously.
12
Birth tribes based on race and to a lessor degree ... but not much ..... religion are in my opinion the real tribalism. The other tribes you speak of are more fluid with people coming and going.
The white you speak of .... should really be "western civilization" 100 years ago that 1/4 of my Mediterranean makeup was anything but white and had no power.
assimilation is the antidote to tribalism -- identity politics is the fuel that feeds tribalism .... nothing good can come from it.
10
Answer: NO.
There is no possible compromise.
A 21st Century Fort Sumpter looms.
5
We are tribal by nature, and, according to my old Anthropology professor, we are killer apes.... Personally, I believe both proposed traits to be true.
Neither proclivity bodes well for any society...
Cormac McCarthy’s “The Road” May be more prophecy than fiction...
6
That would probably be a fitting end, since our country began with Blood Meridian.
1
People divide themselves into tribes when they feel their interests being threatened. Remove the threat of police brutality, criminalization of abortion, sex harassment, discrimination based on sexual orientation, racial profiling, slandering of immigrants and Muslims and people won’t divide themselves along these lines.
2
It's kind of funny how so many of the people who most vociferously warn against the dangers of rising tribalism, like Orrin Hatch, Jonah Goldberg, and Amy Chua, already have helpful tribes of their own. (Hatch, for example, is a Mormon, and Mormons often do very well in politics, in part because of Mormon solidarity in the Great Basin.)
3
We should ALL be crystal clear on both sides of this that "compromise" is a lie. "Compromise" means someone lost. You can "compromise" on the price you pay for a new house. You can "compromise" on tax rates. But you can never, ever, ever, compromise on civil rights. And that's what they want us to do.
A much more pertinent, timely, essential article that Laila Lalmi could be better spending their time on is "WHAT ARE THEIR DEMANDS??". Let's smoke them out in the open and expose their ugliness. Let's get them to own up to their fervent, fevered desires to see those not like them hurt. Economically, politically, and yes, physically. They are already out in the open in comments that I've read right here in the NYTIMES telling me "god is good" in the contest of LGBT losing rights, specifically marriage rights. So let's give them the stage: let's have them tell us their terms. Let's know now who wins and who loses, and loses in stark, horrifying terms. But let's not waste much internet ink or real ink on stupid premises of "compromise" when it comes to civil rights and who gets to survive. It is intellectually insulting. It insults every group throughout history that met their fate at the hands of the tyrannical mob.
9
Simplistic presentation. Sloppy and tendentious history. Nevertheless, the conclusion of this piece is correct. In times of non-violent civil war, like today, "compromise" is appeasement on the path to surrender. Just note the cast of bigots and apologists whom the author quotes decrying tribalism: the nakedly anti-Filipino Chinese-cultural-chauvinist Prof Chua, the disingenuous nihilist Mr Goldberg, and the Trump enabler Sen Hatch. Of course these people want us to "compromise". Don't fall for their siren songs.
3
The irony of Barack Obama was his relentless attachment to the alleged virtues of compromise and reaching out to the opposition. But for the fact that abolitionists refused to compromise and wrote off the slave-holding class as unreachable, Obama's seat 'at the table', let alone the head of it, would still be an impossible dream today. Same could be said for MLK, Thurgood Marshall and LBJ. Obama got to be President because of the people who refused to compromise.
It's interesting that Obama thinks he "pushed too far." I see the exact opposite. His Presidential library will be a shrine to his 2008 campaign, because he has little else to show for his eight year tenure. He was more interested in "process" than accomplishment. Accomplishment requires either persuading people to do what they'd rather not, or simply imposing it. Democracy can do both. Obama wasn't willing to do either. So here we are today; the great promise of the 2008 election a bitter memory, and a reactionary tribe, funded by plutocrats, poised to impose their own twisted vision on the nation. They've already won.
7
How about accepting the fact that people have beliefs and opinions, that they inherently differ to varying degrees, and that they must struggle to work them out, whether legitimate or questionable, within a democratic context, instead of labeling such differences as expressions of fashionable clichés such as "tribes" and "tribalism"? Why do American pundits foolishly assume that we should somehow resolve these differences by adhering to centrist politics?
6
I agree with Ms. Lalami, but her inference at the end that Barack Obama should have pushed things further is incorrect. Pushing things further is our job. If the first president of color had pushed things further, the situation now would be even more polarized, the divisions even more violent.
8
I have a suspicion that we are doomed to repeat history even if we remember it.
10
Interesting expose on the evolution of tribalism but it falls short by not answering the fundamental question: fight or resolve over sweet tea?
I live in Los Angeles and the world has gotten much more chippy in the last 12 months. Micro aggressions feel like very short fuses to altercations, and not just verbal ones.
Tech has empowered everyone to blast their outrage to the world and video its causes and roots, then post. It’s nothing to lie about facts, personalize a disagreement, swerve in front of an irritating driver. This isn’t just tribalism, it’s the end of an open society.
Welcome to the prequel to The Road Warrior.
11
And while American tribalism tears our Nation apart at the seams over guns, abortion, immigration, health care, welfare, social programs, education, labor rights, campaign finance, and income tax policy, Russia successfully develops and tests a hypersonic nuclear weapon which we cannot defend against, and China builds 206 of the worlds fastest supercomputers. Herein lies the issue with our Nation. While our leaders think in terms of election cycles, quarterly earnings, and FEC filing deadlines, other Nations play a decidedly longer game of geopolitical dominance.
And now that our 250 year free-labor head start (slavery, ahem) has been eroded to zero, the real test of our great National Experiment begins in earnest.
12
What I notice the most is just how much we have drifted into partisan politics. It’s as if we are in armed camps. Each “side” can see no good in anything the other side does. At present I see this mostly on the left.
There is nothing that Trump can say or do that would ever meet with anything but derision. There is absolutely no willingness to consider arhat he might achieve anything of value. The branding of his supporters as “deplorables” by Hillary has stayed with us.
I for one am sick of litmus test politics. If you support “X” then it is assumed that you also support a list of other issues; a rigid ideological mindset if ever I saw one.
I personally don’t identify with a political party. I vote for or against specific candidates based on their platform. I support issues on an individual basis; not because it is expected that I will if I also support some other issue. This is a very lonely place to be in this country which seems so very polarized. I essentially am treated with derision by all “sides”.
Is there much hope for us? I’m not sure there is. Being tribal is deep in our DNA. Being part of a group provides safety in a large and scary world. I think this has always been so. It’s just now we have access to social media that every person can contribute to at will along with blogs, websites. Facebook groups and 24 hour news. This allows for an unrelenting barrage of tweets, posts, videos and the like which can be accessed by the rest of one’s tribe.
7
All societies go through cycles, from tolerance to intolerance is one cycle, protectionist to free trade is another, war monger to peace is yet one more. Some times to find out what is truly important to you, you have to experience its opposite. If at your core you are kind and forgiving, to discover that is your true self, you may have experience a period of intolerance and anger. Then you may say "Wait a minute, this is not who I want to be!"
I believe we are going through such a period now. This is both a blessing and a warning. A blessing in that it could show us that we have gone too far. A warning that if these attitudes become solidified, no country is immortal, even Rome fell.
4
And when was our "tolerant" phase again? We've been engaged in non-stop racist wars of aggression costing millions of lives and domestically, the contempt for minorities, atheists, scientists, Muslims, writers, thinkers, poor people, etc by Republicans has never waned.
6
Carl Bernstein calls this a “Cold Civil War.”
As the author points out, sometimes it take strong action, including force (be it Union soldiers or thousands of peaceful marchers), to redress human wrongs and improve society. This is one of those times.
Our first show of force must be a the ballot box.
2
'The Union and the Confederacy did not resolve their differences through dialogue,' nor thru war since the long term political outcome restored the South's full political power to further their tribal warfare on the nation. Southern states using the seniority of their long serving Senators controlled the U.S. Senatorial leadership with a conservative evangelical agenda.
2
Obama's coddling of Wall Street, with the complicity of Eric Holder, paved the way for Trump. The fact that he didn't send anyone to jail for the crash of 2008 demonstrated his true sympathies and convinced many that the system is indeed rigged. The idea that he pushed "too far" is both insulting and self-aggrandizing.
Obama's tribe wasn't in Kenya, it was the chummy network of Ivy League grads, Wall Street, and Hollywood. He wasn't out of office two weeks before he was shamelessly snapping selfies with a bevy of billionaires; he couldn't even restrain himself decorously for a few months. He's also given a number of Hillaryesque speeches to Wall Street firms since his tenure ended. If Obama has any idea of stumping for progressive candidates in the midterms, he should quickly disabuse himself of that ill-fated notion.
7
Not to mention continuing the neo-con wars in Iraq and Afghanistan for the entire 8 years of his presidency. In spite of all the lofty rhetoric, Obama ended his presidency with the shameful distinction of longest wartime president in US history.
Brought zero accountability versus James Clapper when he lied about mass warrantless surveillance. Zero accountability to John Brennan when he brazenly lied about spying on Senate Intelligence Committee, in direct violation of CIA's agreement with the Senate.
So much for the constitutional law professor we thought we were voting for.
5
But Obama and Hillary, despite their militarism and fealty to Wall Street are deemed by this country to be WAY WAY too liberal. Obama, despite being a center-right politician is as far left as this country is ever going to get. His election was a fluke...a momentary pause in the long line of reactionary maniacs: Nixon, Reagan, Bush 1, Bush 2 and now Trump.
2
Political tribalism in our country is a result of a slow brain washing by the two political parties and the media conglomerates. The reason it has worked is because of our abundance of uneducated voters. Watching political rallies is now like going to a football game. The two gangs that are our political parties encourage it because it keeps voters pointing the finger at the other party. The fact is that both parties are equally corrupt. The only way to change is to stop voting. If voting gets below 10% nationally it will force change, or a viable third party will arise. Other than that, welcome to the plutocracy.
2
American tribalism is driven by the American 40% who are white, Christian, largely rural, middle class, found a spokesman in Trump, and are terrified of becoming second-class citizens in their own country. The rise of minorities, women, and gays in media is changing the definition of what it means to be a man and an American, reflecting demographic changes and cultural domination of the urban coast over middle America. All Americans face the same needs—decent paying respectable jobs, health care, education, housing, stable communities and families. Trump, Schumer/Pelosi, CNN, and Fox News use tribalism to whip up a following. Grassroots organizing, discussing abortion and guns, jobs and health care, one-on-one or in small groups, is the only chance to build, not unity, but a working alliance.
6
When you are young and idealistic it is easy to believe in
Globalism/Universalism/One World.
As you get older and your interests are no longer just
like those with whom you shared your Freshman Dorm -
tribal loyalty become more and more natural and important.
While Urban rich may want a revolving door of immigrants to be their Maids/Nannies/Gardeners
they do not want to send their children to the same
school as the children of their economic slaves.
While Liberals and Progressives Congressmen state
they believe in a diverse society, they make sure
they don't send their children to public school in
Washington, D.C. Likewise, those in Rural America
rather pull down the Temple about them they have
their moral view of the Universe upended by Progressives.
Since few of us can live solely on the efforts of our
own labors. We need others to help us - either in
sustaining our moral view, our economic well being,
or sense of belonging.
Thus our natural longing for a tribe.
Progressives have failed to respect that natural need
and have forced societal, cultural and legal changes
too quickly and too absolutely.
Do we really need lawsuits to be filed over wedding cakes, flowers and the refusual of self-described
transexuals to invade the privacy of those who are not ?
Or can these issues be worked out over time and Common Courtesy and dare I say, Common Sense,
and Compromise ?
10
The author can speak for herself. But not for me. As an LGBT person, I’d be happy to sit down over sweet tea and hash out a compromise.
6
The Washington Times op ed piece says the civil war has already started ... and the left is to blame. They claim outraged victimhood for the right by way of the Trump lies that have been repeated so often they have becone propaganda truth for the right. If the GOP, right wing media and the Republican base have decided to blindly loyally support and follow a carnival barking snake oil salesman as leader of their tribe, someone who would turn around and shoot them in the face if it suited him, then so be it. But it is the height of arrogance when your tribe has all the power to claim victimhood against the legitimate outrage of your opponents who believe that Trump and his tribe are destroying America through practically every course of action. What will it take for Trump’s Tribe to wake up? Massive bankruptcies and failures to pay medical bills? China refusing to buy American bonds in retaliation for the trade war? Debt default? Moody’s downgrade? Preventable environmental catastrophes? Weekly school mass shootings? Escalating foreign manipulation of American democracy and life to foment tribal differences? All of these potentialities completely caused by yet denied by Trump in his arrogance?
-
Somehow, someway, in today’s America every problem can be spun as the other tribes fault. Right wing media is expert at this. America could well destroy itself if people don’t realize that their fellow Americans are not their enemy.
3
The hard core, maybe 3/4 of the Trumpkins, are true believers. None of those things will change their minds, anymore than the Civil War and Reconstruction changed the minds of most white southerners. The best we can do is move away from them when possible, as the African-Americans did in the great migration; outnumber them by increasing the turnout at the polls on our side; and hope that demographics and the passing of time further marginalize them. Their children, as a group, are less hateful and more open than they are.
4
The worst and most dangerous form of tribalism is one that probably conventional thinkers would never highlight: nationalism. And when a powerful nation thinks it is the world's premier, exceptional, and indispensable tribe, look out world!
1
Ever since the anglo protestants brought over the irish catholic 'indentured servants', this country has been a collection of tribes (as have the native 'indians') with a fairly rigid caste system.Immigrant tribes accepted the hierarchy of anglos at the top of the heap, ruling the others, and acting as if they owned the country.Not only has this country never been a democracy,but the very opposite - deluding themselves with the most obscene unrestrained bigotries while also brainwashing themselves with a repugnant self-righteous sanctimonious medieval -style religious fakery.Hence the catastrophic psychological emotional and alienated violent mindset.Americans,as always will continue to pay for this.
1
the second civil war started when Garland was not given a vote. The left now has no choice but to go to war over Kennedy’s replacement. ten-twenty years from now i worry about where we will be. neighbor against neighbor, city vs country, white vs other, christian vs other. the left has seen that the right does not play by the rules and that the republicans have no spine and no principles. trump has weaponized every institution and the coasts are openly debating non compliance, revolt, and secession. moderates of a generation ago have no home in either party.
American survival is not preordained. no country survives forever. our sun appears to be setting.
5
About 90 percent of Republicans approve of Donald Trump's actions as President. Approval by independents falls to 35 percent. Approval by Democrats is about 5 percent. The gap between people in the two main parties is wide, and it feels like we cannot even discuss our differences, much less expect to reach reasonable compromise. Another civil war seems unthinkable, but increasingly possible.
6
Talk about tribes and tribalism throws zero light on anything.
Tribe, a term coined by the ancient Romans, refers to a hypothetical endogamous group of groups.
The word can be generalized because the tendency to form such groups is a human universal:- any transgenerational collective identity (class, caste, ethnicity, nationality, etc.) is tribal at bottom. E.g. Americans talk of "our forefathers" while simultaneously insisting that American identity and nationality are rooted in fidelity to certain principles as opposed to shared ancestry.
Morality is tribal thinking taken to its ultimate extreme: viewing all people members of one giant tribe of which all other groups are sub-tribes (i.e. rests on the thought that "all men are brothers").
History is the ceaseless churn of "tribes," including the decline and disappearance of old ones and invention and spread of new ones. We have no idea what tribal or ethnic configurations existed 25000 years ago. We can be pretty sure that most if not all of them have disappeared and that most if not all of the ones we have now did not exist then. Similarly, we can be certain that no ethnic, national or "tribal" identity of today existed 30000 years ago. The written record of the last 5000 years ago reflects the constant creation and destruction of tribal groupings.
3
It often seems that people are speaking different languages even within America's liberal tribe. It's as if liberals were separated not only by the inevitable cognitive differences of political emphasis, but also by affective differences rooted in temperament or subculture.
Here in the Times commenting community, it's common for a liberal op-ed or comment to elicit a heated response from liberal readers who seem to think they're rebutting an attack on liberal interests. People understand words differently. We bring different degrees of preconception to our reading. We make different assumptions about intellectual rigor.
We of the liberal tribe stumble over these differences the most when reacting to some outrage by the other side. It reminds me of an anecdote from World War II in which a special-warfare unit found itself directly between two encampments of enemy tanks, briefly opened fire on them, and then slipped away, leaving them fiercely engaged -- with each other.
Let's do our best not to fall for that tactic of sowing confusion and discord. We need to concentrate our resources on the campaign to defeat the other tribe.
4
We have always lived in tribes. That is the great justification for Federalism, which allows each tribe/state a great deal of autonomy to do its tribal thing. Over the past 60 years the Supreme Court has increasingly limited state autonomy. The result is the rancor we see today.
7
No mention here of the sea change that the internet has brought to tribal communications today. Quickly usurping cable television's brief reign, the two way street of the web is the soap box nec plus ultra of our era and nothing (barring some future catastrophic civilization-wide implosion) will ever be the same.
Not the elephant in the room here but the room itself.
13
I think tribalism goes hand-in-hand with the problem of echo chambers. When people individualize their lifestyles and communities and don't see the point of venturing beyond their immediate comfort zone, then they don't care about the "best and brightest," but just the "easiest and most familiar." While California on the surface is very diverse, I find that its immigrants and transplants "stick to their own" to the point that many don't learn English or adapt to the regional culture. I find this refusal to use English on the part of many new immigrants a metaphor of their broader rejection of "other cultures." As a tutor, I encounter agencies that cater to specific ethnic groups: the Korean tutoring school; the Indian tutoring school; the Chinese tutoring school. These groups socialize almost entirely within their ethnic enclave.
16
Liberals are always perfectly fine with Koreans, Indians, Chinese etc being tribal, forming ethnically exclusive clubs and organizations. But somehow when if a Caucasian attempts to do the same thing, they are immediately attacked. Hypocrisy...
4
Maybe the problem is the American system is designed for obstruction which gives outsized power to people who like the status quo? We aren't that different here in Canada and yet there isn't an existential crisis of tribal conflict (despite engaging in some of the same polarizing discourse) because the majority party that comes to power can much more easily put legislation into effect and have their policies reversed after the next electoral cycle if they don't moderate what they're doing. There are people who don't like how parties here run to the center because of the first-past-the-post voting in contrast to recently discussed electoral reforms like proportional representation in which political minorities would get a more significant voice (it would reduce the possibility of majoritarian illiberal backsliding, more responsive to minority interests but also rise of coalitions forced to compromise with political extremes).
11
Exactly right. A parliamentary is designed to work, where is our system is designed largely to not work. The founders were suspicious of government in general, including parliaments. When government absolutely, positively had to work, the president would assume great power, constitutionally or otherwise. The best examples of this are Lincoln and FDR.
As for portional representation, good luck. People down here would find it confusing and suspicious.
2
Bravo! We haven't reached a point of no return where we're doomed to fight, we've just reached a point where more people are aware that we have more options to move people than voting and calm dialogue. And that, sometimes, we have to shake things up a little to get where we need to go.
We need to get to a world where being somehow different than the majority tribe doesn't get you shot, beat up, exploited, or discriminated against. Sometimes that means a calm conversation over tea, and sometimes that means struggle.
6
The tribalism of ideas can be talked out but the struggle for racial dominance is existential. references to “melting pot” and American uniqueness were happily uttered during white majority. History teaches us that diversity devolves into disunity and war. The Anglo world here, in W Europe, and Australia is approaching its boiling point. No, this will not be resolved amicably.
36
Yes, but diversity is the mantra of the left and those on the right are viewed as Neanderthals if they voice any opposition. In truth I believe that societies have always functioned best if they were relatively homogeneous. The far Northern countries of Europe have had the highest parameters of social welfare, happiness and other factors. These countries have been relatively homogeneous. Recent influxes of refugees has shaken them and I suspect will have far reaching consequences. Not PC to say this but I suspect it is indeed so.
4
Tiger Shark: " diversity devolves into disunity and war" is a well turned phrase. Joseph Goebbels would smile at the sophism of your witty comment.
I am however in complete agreement with your other belief that "this will not be resolved amicably".
We've reached a point of no return. Going forward, it will be a series of winner-take-all fights to the death. This is a contest between good and evil. By that I mean both sides see themselves as good, the other as evil. Compromising with evil is as evil as evil itself is. That's how both sides see it. America will go to the dogs. Today's dysfunctional, debilitating political partisanship will give way to societal collapse. Buckle up; Mad Max here we come!
46
The tribal affinities of the author are as evident in this article as everywhere else in the current political landscape.
25
They weren't that evident to me, actually. But even if they had been, doesn't he have a right to his own thoughts and feelings?
2
This is yet another attempt to find a generalization that floats above the fray, and in doing so creates the idea that there are two equivalent sides. There are not. One "side" is mendacious, unscrupulous, and has an ideology of government as the enemy; they just want power. See the article about McConnell printed today. It's in their interest to break government for most of us. The other "side," the Dems, tries to stick to "fairness" because they want government to seem to work. Dummies. Obama, who was the "deporter in chief" to placate the right, was, like B. Clinton, playing a loser's game. Only real progressives have a chance, and only if they fight for power and out-fox their lying counterparts. The solution to the sleazy ad-hominem attack against Dean, for example, should have been for him to rally his like-minded folks the exact same way, but he couldn't do it. Obama let McConnell tell him not to reveal the Russian collusion scandal, so now here we are. Dems are patsies. Let's see if they learn. If not, they don't deserve power.
66
A phrase I heard at my first precinct caucus 38 years ago. If it’s wrong when someone you oppose does it, it’s wrong when someone you support does. If someone you support has a good idea, it’s still good when your opponent embraces it.
79
if only this was how we acted. power corrupts
I completely agree and in fact the major dividing line between the groups is the ability to critically think or not. Many doubt that you can teach critical thinking abilities and so the divide is basically unbridgeable. It's interesting to know that California's budget surplus this year is 9 billion dollars... larger than the state budgets of most red states. The problem is that I don't really see how someone who cannot critically think can deal with constructively the challenges and opportunities of the Information Age.
40
Critical thinking can certainly be taught! (How on earth do you suppose we have the sciences?!). Our modern public school curriculum fails in this regard because children are taught for standardized tests. The same could be said for those who put more stock in faith than fact as well, but critical thinking is certainly something that can be nurtured and developed in anyone.
30
No, I would say that the major dividing line between the groups has to do with cultural values and lifestyle choices. Liberals' refusal to "get" this costs them elections.
2
I'm looking into the rule (?) that requires some of my tax dollars going to Alabama all these years.
16
Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose. We've always been in a "My brother and I against our cousin, my cousin and I against our neighbor…" mode.
As human population continues to explode (1 Billion in 1800, 7.5 Billion today, 12-14 Billion by 2100), we'll see increasingly wide-spread, violent battles for the remaining wealth.
The fact that we're willing to accept the continuing transfer of that wealth to the Needy and Greedy .1%'ers exacerbates the problem.
Rats in a cage, folks, we're rats in a cage…
81
This is an excellent rejoinder to a subject that is so frequently misunderstood in the mainstream media. The reason we have become increasingly culturally divided is as a tool of manipulation used by both parties to disguise their increasingly identical policy agenda. That's how you end up with people mindlessly defending a hater like Joy Reid, when they share a greater hatred of some other cultural tribe. Luckily, the neoliberal era is ending, social democratic policy will be returning, and greater cultural unity is likely.
14
We used to watch the violence of tribalism in other parts of the world and think that a better economy and democracy could solve their problems and reduce the tribal conflicts. Now we face those same conflicts in spite of our good economy and our well founded democracy. This is not a symmetrical problem of left and right politics, confirmation bias, and team competition. The Republicans have moved into a new expression of malignant tribalism that seeks only power and dominance without regard to reason or dialogue, the essence of democracy. This malignant tribalism led by a malignant narcissist is taking our political and cultural society down a "rabbit hole" from which there is no return. We seem to be creeping towards a conflict that we cannot avoid.
46
Why is tribalism "malignant" when the GOP supposedly exploits it, but perfectly fine when the Dems do exactly the same thing? Calling working class whites "deplorable" is not exploiting tribalism? Saying black lives matter more than any others is not tribal?
3
Tribalism was always there. This country has had a persistent streak of nativism, racism, and bigotry ever since the Puritans arrived. These elements have been in constant conflict with our stated constitutional ideals. The relentless advance of modernism, manifested in science, culture, and political realism have threatened many people. The civil rights movement, feminism, Clinton, and Obama were perceived as Increasing provocations. Modern mass and social media have empowered and stimulated tribalism even further.
Are there alternatives to surrender? One alternative is for one side to physically overpower the other. This was attempted but not completed during the Civil War and Reconstruction. Today it is not feasible, and probably immoral. In any case, at least one side does not have the stomach for this, even if the other side does.
Another choice is for one side to economically and socially neutralize the other. This is happening to some degree to the right wingers, while the coastals thrive. The righties are in fact doing much of this to themselves, through bad choices in lifestyles and politicians. This is, however, a very slow and unselective strategy, hurting people on both sides.
The most viable alternative is for one side to simply outnumber the other. The left has the best chance at this, although it will take time and be resisted, thanks to gerrymandering and right wing court appointees. Stop fighting over ideological purity and get out and vote. Or surrender.
51
"This country has had a persistent streak of nativism, racism, and bigotry ever since the Puritans arrived". Just like every other country and society in the world.
19
Unfortunately, they are settling in the wrong places. Democrats need to move to swing states in large numbers to really affect change. Otherwise, you just have the coasts doing well economically with surging economic inequality despite liberal policies. Also, the coasts took a terrible hit during the recession (millionaires disappeared overnight) and of the stagnates, this will continue.
4
Jeremy,
Right. But our nation, based on ideals rather than religion, soil, or blood is uniquely susceptible to those things. Like a Diesel engine, powerful but breaks down with the slightest amount of drift that a gas engine would abide.
This is far from the whole story.
It isn't as if this tribalism is an exogenous drive that just happened to spring to life. It has been deliberately kindled and cultivated starting with Nixon's "Southern strategy".
Today the right wing channel that is the sole source of information for many in this country is host to enraged commentators that fan the prejudices and rage of their audience. With a relative that is a devotee of the channel I occasionally end up seeing it and the "news" is farthest from that. They shout red-faced about Democrats that "hate this country" and "want to see us fail".
43
I say we fight. And NOT in the usual fair, polite, Democratic fashion. Just how well has that been working ??? The Supreme Court is tethering on the edge of Fascism. Do your part or be ashamed, for a very long time.
67
Dems have been taking a knife to the GOP gunfight for years.
25
Where are the activists?
The Vietnam War didn't stop because of lots of angry comments in letters to the editors.
People got out and demonstrated, and kept on demonstrating. It's said a lot of the activists were youth who were particularly motivated by the prospect of being drafted, but it was much more than that and it went on for years.
Meanwhile, the prospect of losing reproductive rights, civil rights for the LGBTQ community, migrants and minorities - not to mention our republic not that far down the road - simply doesn't seem to be having the same effect yet.
Yet the stakes are even higher today.
Not just the above, but independence of Congress and the Judiciary, protecting a special prosecutor looking into the largest political scandal in a century, preventing the shredding of the framework of the world's democratic alliances, and the litany is still much longer.
We're mostly siloed into our affinity activities, the least civically educated generation in memory, while the Democrats seem supine and passive.
Does democracy end with a whimper?
I'm a firm believer that resistance has to be accomplished with the nonviolent methods of Gandhi and MLK, Jr, but I'm more convinced that if people don't get out in the streets and stay there until these amoral usurpers are at least pushed back, it won't be too long before we pass the point of no return.
"There's something happening here. What it is is all too clear..."
8
Be very careful what you wish for. Would the violent deaths of your friends and family really be worth it?
You in America have been blessed with so much abundance and so much opportunity. Even your poor can generally afford a phone, computer and television. This is not the case for the poor in most of the rest of the world.
Pause and consider what you have today, and what you believe you'd be gaining by choosing to fight.
You will ultimately gain nothing but the needless deaths of millions.
Slow down and take inventory of your life... is it really so bad that you're ready to kill others just to prove a political point?
4
This is a good opinion piece in part because it dares suggest something that makes many people uncomfortable: the United States has often not been very united (and but for the luck of geography and size might have split up long ago). Indeed, the civil war has never really ended, it has just been fought in other, sometimes less violent ways. And, let's not kid ourselves: Jim Crow, gutting welfare , massive incarceration and extraordinarily punitive criminal sentencing, the opposition to the social safety net and the already tepid Affordable Care Act, the promotion of alleged Second Amendment rights for profit, the use of troops to protect corporate interests overseas, the recurrent attacks on groups of immigrants for the last 150 years, the mindless deference to police and soldiers no matter what they do, claims that this is a Christian nation, the hatred of government and taxs etc are all part of this ongoing war. Finally, there is nothing permanet about any country or empire, especially one that has really been built on the love of money.
109
Agree in part, but doubt that there ever was a country or empire that was not, at its core, built around the love of money. Claimed contempt of wealth accumulation exists essentially amongst those who likely never have managed to acquire any. Hand them a winning lottery ticket and watch their attitude change!
16
Tribalism has always existed but all tribes love one thing: money.
Contribute to the riches of a tribe and it will tolerate another other on cultural issues until they have a chance of getting back into power.
Take away the riches, produce inequality of opportunity or income and they fall back on cultural issues.
21
Why did tribalism suddenly increase in the 1990s, you ask?
End of the Cold War, elimination of 'The Other' from which to distinguish an 'Us'. I recall reading an article by Samuel Huntington back in the 90's where he predicted the end of the cold war would mean a rise in hyphenated Americans. It came true!
And to add my two cents in two words: Information Bubbles! The Cold War ended right where the internet and wide-scale cable and 24hour international news began (raise your hand if you still watch the nightly local news on a regular basis). No longer do we have a national voice, we have programming and other content to cater to the Xs and the Ys, and never the twain shall meet.
47
Democrat Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., in his book, "The Disuniting of America-Reflections on a Multicultural Society" (1991); and Democrat Samuel Huntington, in his book, "Who Are We? The Challenges to America's National Identity" (2004) both predicted this moment.
Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. saw the rise of the cult of political correctness and identity politics on college campuses and feared for the future of America. Keep in mind Schlesinger was not some Nixonian "Southern Strategist" but a Democrats Democrat, a devoted New Dealer and advisor to President Kennedy and Bobby Kennedy. He cared deeply about advancing the interests of the Democratic Party and the issues they supported. He was prescient in his critique & sounding a warning, although his conclusion was unfortunately perhaps too optimistic that more rational and moderate voices would prevail.
Writing a little more than a decade later, Democrat Huntington expanded on Schlesinger's concerns. The issues identified by Schlesinger had further migrated to the greater culture, with the predictable result of increased splintering and division of America.
Rereading these books, in light of where the culture, media and politics have gone over the last 4 to 5 years, is both fascinating and disturbing. Both men did not live to see the election of Trump; and both men would surely never have voted for him; but one cannot think they would not have been surprised at all by his election.
1
You did not mention the end of the Fairness Doctrine, which used to require that every news source give equal coverage to all sides of issues. The end of the Fairness Doctrine in the 1980's gave us our information bubbles in the form of right wing radio, Fox News, Breitbart, MSNBC, NPR, and this newspaper, none of which even give lip service to objective reporting or diversity of opinion. Young people have grown up obsessed with diversity of race and gender, but diversity of ideas is a dangerous and unacceptable threat to our current requisite intellectual conformity.
"Why did tribalism suddenly increase in the 1990s?"
You say the end of the Cold War. I say Fox News. Rush Limbaugh and AM talk radio take off in 88-89. Fox News launches in 1996. That's what did it.
I am not sure how this all shakes out in part because Trump's departure from politics remains in doubt. What is observable concerns his retreat to immigration designed from the outset to be an election issue. He continues to opine it is a winner for the GOP.
It is somewhat instructive to look at how politicians view election issues. Primarily incumbents run on accomplishments and goals for next year in tandem. Despite his claims about not getting credit for his huge accomplishments the tax cut heavily favoring the wealthy and corporations has not worked out as planned. Gorsuch and tax cuts primary accomplishments.
No health care, infrastructure or immigration plan means he cannot campaign on goals or accomplishments other than tax cuts. Trade appears off the table as a favorable issue.
Trump retreats to MS-13 and immigrants as threats to safety and preservation of our culture of whiteness. Perhaps the last act of a desperate man running a divisive campaign in hopes of driving his followers to the polls. He wants this wedge issue alive so bad he told Congress to give up on immigration reform until after the midterms.
One thing seems certain, a defeat producing a Democratic majority in the House, deals a blow to tribalism. By default Democrats positions on health care, tax equity, sane immigration, responsible climate policy and consumer protection go largely unanswered. Discussing policies that matter versus exploiting differences is the goal.
9
Issues get settled. Only one of your examples, slavery, was settled by extreme violence. The others were settled by continual pressure and the political process, though sometimes in the face of violence (as in the civil rights struggle). Just because one side wins does not mean there has to be violence.
7
I wonder, though, if we're fast approaching a point where only violence will settle this new round of tribalism. This time it's religion and science-based reality. You'd think this could get easily settled since science-based reality is provable and religion is not. But religion is deeply programmed into the root level of some humans and its loss, without the corresponding education needed to navigate the transition, is so destabilizing to those who think they need it that they'd literally go to war to preserve the fantasy. History is replete with war after war over religion.
Humanity is at the beginning of the evolution out of a mythology-based existence. There are many in this country who are attempting to stop the rest of us on our journey to the future. The anxiety and rage hurled at us is stunning in its intensity and vitriol and it seems to be only increasing. Of course, race is wrapped up in this too but I think the baseline issue is religion. I can't help but think that violence is the next step to break the impasse.
The issue of choice and abortion is a good example. It's so foundational to the free existence of women like me but also key to religious control over me. It really feels like we're fast approaching the point where they so think I'm a murderer who must be forceably stopped and I'd seriously resort to violence if I and my kind were forced to carry pregnancies we don't want. What then? What compromise? How?
95
Still Undeclared: a new type or kind of civil war is already underway containing some geography and demography
4
Sorry, but you lost me when you said that violence might "settle" this. Remember the wars in Yugoslavia, when Serbs seriously said that they were still largely motivated by battles or massacres which had occurred 700 years earlier? The big things that we in the US have going for us are (relative) democracy, the *peaceful* transfer of power, and, generally, the rule of law. If politically-motivated violence becomes the most reasonable path, it's really time to move to Canada.
1
Who owns reality and truth? It is the question of our time; actually it has been the central question for humans ever since they became human.
Culture is any deep, shared, persistent pattern of beliefs about what exists and what has value. People are devices, it's true, and our hardware is no small part of the mix of what is possible and likely. But the whipsawing alterations in our lived social and intellectual realities in the modern age cannot possibly be accounted for by physical changes alone.
It's culture. Freedom is an idea. Status is an idea. Humanity is itself an invention, an idea. When someone manages to shift the nature of those ideas, that is to tell a more powerful story, reality itself shifts for that part of humanity who enters into the story.
As Carl Jung said, "People don't have ideas. Ideas have people."
But ultimately, does it matter which ideas, which story predominates?
Yes. Simply speaking, some ideas are more true than others, (and I'm definitely NOT referring to a tribal truth test). For ex:
Diseases, and other physical phenomena are not caused by magical forces as rewards or punishments.
Character (virtue, creativity, industriousness) is not inborn, nor is it tied to any external markers.
Human sexuality is far more than aerobic exercise (or baby-making), at least as we have reinvented it.
Nothing good and enduring can be built on anything except what is true, regardless of how convenient to any group. We must seek truth, not advantage.
31
"Reality" is only shared illusion.
4
Culture is generally not your friend. It's institutions control you for the benefit of those in power. They do not care whether you live or die, and they do not know your name.
We must seek inclusive universal ideas that benefit all. When everyone is shouting duty, honor, country we need to think twice and see through the programming, otherwise we become willing slaves.
7
What is reality? A 5-4 Supreme Court decision.