• [The Atlantic] The Threat of Tribalism
    29 replies, posted
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/10/the-threat-of-tribalism/568342/
Yeah it's pretty dumb how US politics has turned into Red versus Blue
lol turned?
It's been like this for a long time, it's only now just getting more polarized and more people are just getting interested into it because it's sensational and all the media really talks about. It's bad because people are getting dug into their party and not willing to really see reason when it comes to switch, but I guess at-least it looks like voter turnouts are getting higher and more people are beginning to care about it.
Yet, it's still always just been red vs blue. Now there's just a bigger difference.
I'm not convinced the rise of "tribalism" as a concept in US politics isn't just a smear to shame the people who are rightfully angry at the increasingly off-the-rails crazy American right-wing into silence.
that doesn't exactly convey the change in ideology. the democrats haven't really gone all that left, ignoring what the gop says, they've always been about expanding healthcare and individual rights. The gop of today however has gone so far to the right on everything from immigration to national defense to tax cuts the gop's party platform is a straight up fascist state. to say that the left should be closer to the right for the sake of having a middle ground isn't going to be possible. the gop wants no government healthcare protections or regulations, they wanted to tear up the aca and medicare in their repeal bill. the democrats want some form of public option and drug price controls, where's the middle there? the gop wants all illegal imigrants removed from this country including those that were brought here as children and know no other language or country, and massively curtail the immigration and refugee quotas to almost nobody getting in the democrats want to reform the system so it doesn't take decades to get in and offer a path to citizenship for dreamers. there's no middleground here. the gop is anti climate change, they do not believe in it as a party and they will tear up any regulations on the environment they can, there's no middle ground here.
I think it would be ignorant to think that right-wing ideology exists in a vacuum and suddenly people became angered to stray further to their extremes.
"right wing ideology" as in what? A rich guy supporting right wing ideology is looking after their own interests. A poor person supporting right wing ideology is either optimistic about their future or they're being deluded
Well when you have a massive right wing news source that is spouting conspiracy stories as gospel and blaming dems for literally everything and anything. Its easy to see how people turn into extremists. If anything, dems just slightly moved left while repubs have veered off course ro the right, after all dems in the us are considered lightly conservative to the rest of the western civilizations.
it'd be interesting to know how many people on medicare/medicaid and social security vote republican given how the conservative ideology is categorically opposed to these programs and the gop is getting increasingly brazen at harming those programs. My family member that's been recently laid off and is on medicaid sees no issue at all with the state putting work requirements on medicaid even though he would almost certainly loose his coverage. He thinks that since he will get a job soon it won't happen to him.
Yeah, fox news pushed them in that direction. if you repeat the mantra of "both sides are at fault" often enough, it doesn't necessarily become true.
Did you only just discover that tribalism is bad, Atlantic? Boy, I am proud of you.
IMO neoliberalism in general has pushed people further right. Economically further right with the supply side economics bs Socially further right because people get raw ass fucked by the system and are left destitute/jobless/unsure of their position and minorities are an easy scapegoat.
the funny thing is that supply side economics was derided back during the reagan admin, and yet 20+ years later its worshiped as the natural order of the universe.
The blaming of Neoliberalism is such a common refrain of people who either don't understand what Neoliberalism is or don't care, because it encompasses a hell of a lot more than "Just cut everything, austerity lol"
Removing protective trade tariffs, easing trade abroad, meaning people here lose jobs to china and india. (not as big of a job loss as automation but it's still there and when a worker loses their job and can't retrain it affects more than just the worker) Lowering taxes on big businesses, slashing social programs. This isn't just community activities, it's schools, it's STI screenings, it's roads, it's police, it's support for veterans. Compensation have stagnated (in real terms) since the 70s despite productivity growing from automation - common people aren't seeing the benefits of progress. Removing regulations making things worse for workers and the environment. Automation is taking more jobs than it's replacing and making people easier to replace driving down wages and removing job security - not an issue caused by neoliberalism but the "lower taxes, less regulation, supply side, companies know best" attitude does nothing to address the problem. The "less regulations" ideology has done nothing to curb sub prime debt packaging by the banks (the thing which cased the 2008 crash). It's just a matter of time till the next bubble bursts and countries aren't prepared for it (interest rates are still at rock bottom) Power is increasingly shifting from governments to corporations and private entities. Either by corruption/bribes/unchecked donations or by privatisation or by the government stepping out and letting companies do what they will (example of this would be the proposed TTIP ruling allowing private companies to sue governments for potential loss of profit - eg suing a government for putting warnings on cigarettes.) This movement of power is a conflict of interests - common people are having power taken from us and it is being given to those with money. That's a break down in democracy, it alienates us as citizens. The USA is increasingly using private military contractors in their wars. That's less accountability (bad for the people being invaded with their markets getting shot up by unstable assholes then being able to do nothing about it) that's also bad for the soldiers, private companies scrimp, sending guys in undersupported or under equipped with no retirement plan. Sure its cheaper but its not better and again it blurs the lines between elected officials (shit tho some may be) and unelected rich guys. I think my criticisms have merit, hopefully these points will convince you of that.
You drink the koolaid like it's going out of style dude. The right has gone more to the right, than the left has, to the left. The right is further extreme in it's extremes than the left has ever been in it's extremes. The right holds ALL OF THE GOVERNMENT. Yet people like you can't stop going "Oh it's you stupid fucking liberals who caused this" But I think it would be ignorant to act like left wing ideology exists in a vacuum, and that the right wing wasn't incensed to this degree by media diets of pure misinformation. The desire to dismiss our reality and substitute your own tall tales to tell the story you want is a good indicator of how fucked we are. And likely problem is? You won't even realize you're telling half truths and lies, and you'll be genuinely offended that I'm telling you you're just playing a game of Chinese Whispers and double down. I'm pretty sure we're fucked because there's no way to communicate simple reality to each other anymore.
I think the issue here is that Neoliberalism means fundamentally different things to you and I, far more than just supply side economics being king. Neoliberal ideology comprises a wide range of policies, ideas, and framework that is overall focused on improving social mobility, decreasing poverty, raising the standard of living, and ensuring international stability and cooperation. A reverance for tax cuts and deregulation is by no means universal, and I don't understand why neoliberalism needs to be defined solely by the excesses of Reagan republicans (Th man himself raised taxes when necessary, I might add) rather than the successes it's produced. Free trade has been one of the most important factors not only in building bridges across the international community, but in lowering prices of domestic goods, creating other job opportunities, and overall increasing prosperity around the globe. Whatever jobs have been lost are generally offset by more jobs being created elsewhere, and past a certain point, the fault begins to lie on those who adamantly refuse to retrain or relocate in favor of clinging to a fantasy that they can just go back to the way things were. We did not entertain the delusions of luddite craftsmen who raged against mass production, and i see nor reason why we have to entertain the fantasies of the people who echo them. This may also be a difference of perspective. I believe the third way policies of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama yielded more positive results for America than Blairism did for the UK, so suspicion of neoliberalism isn't unwarranted in that regard.
Replying by mobile so I'll have to keep it brief The social and political parts can be achieved with other systems imo. I'm pointing out what doesn't work with neoliberalism as a criticism of neoliberalism, just because it's got great international relations policies (does it??) doesn't mean anything if its economically flawed. Free trade works great between equal or similar nations ie the EU but between nations with very different standards of living and very different political systems (eg EU and say India or even EU and USA) it becomes a race to the bottom where one country is forced to shed its regulations, lower its standards of living and wages in order to compete. This is why we need protective tariffs in trade between very different places. Bad for the workers. Furthermore the free trade ideology only works if you entertain movement of people to "let the market self regulate". We wont have this world wide free movement so we shouldn't forget that whilst discussing free trade. It's incorrect to say free trade balances stuff when we're missing a core part responsible for that balance. Also I disagree with the claim that when jobs are lost more are created elsewhere. That is only the case when the Labour costs less in which case you pay in other ways, sure you can have a buncha slaves in china but there are non monetary costs to consider: terrible conditions for the Chinese workers. And you can't trust corporations (motivated by money primarily) to pick the moral choice, you can't trust consumers to be informed or empathetic to "vOtE wItH ThEiR WaLlEtS". Most of the time companies set up shop elsewhere to save on labour costs or avoid regulations (or dodge taxes but the ideal neolib world wouldn't have that problem). I dont want my country to lower living conditions and regulations (which we as common peeps have fought for) just to compete with India or China. If I wanted to have to work 18 hours, in a sweat shop wearing a nappy I'd move to China. If I wanted to eat dirty ass chlorine chicken I'd move to America. I don't wanna see the UK only rely on finance and service industry because everything else cheaper done elsewhere, we need to diversify, even if it means running sub optimally, even if it means the government subsiding an industry which would better be done by slaves in China. Formatting on phone is hard hopefully you can see which each paragraph is meant to be replying to Also atop all that has peace really been achieved? Brexit and Trump are a direct consequence of the issues I listed in my previous post. That's not peaceful or stable. Dark times are coming and they're coming because neoliberalism doesn't have an answer to the problems it creates and politicians are too dogmatic in trying to pursue it, not paying any heed toward people's needs. Above.all that if you gut regulations how will we tackle the climate change and pollution issues? "free hand of the market"?
Yeah, I'm not a fan of this opinion piece. Apologies for the long post They tended to identify far more strongly as Virginians or New Yorkers than as Americans, complicating any effort to bind the new nation together with common beliefs. The author is describing a historical process but I can't help but think about the huge amount of contempt some Republicans have outright admitted to holding for the "coastal elite" that consistently vote Democrat. Remember Ted Cruz's "New York values"? Just something that came to mind when reading an article about tribalism. Only after the cataclysm of the Civil War was the Constitution amended to establish that America’s national identity was as neutral racially and ethnically as it was religiously. With the postwar amendments, the Constitution abolished slavery, established birthright citizenship, guaranteed equal protection under the law, and barred racial discrimination in voting. The Republicans oppose three of these four concepts but lets not mention that because it would undercut our point that tribalism is the problem with politics in the US. The significance of birthright citizenship cannot be overstated. We forget how rare it is: No European or Asian country grants this right. I'd say less rare, more uncommon. Fully a quarter of countries around the world have birthright citizenship. They completely ignore South America, where most of the continent has it. It's also only somewhat true that "No european or asian country grants this right"; a handful of countries between both continents have a restricted form of it, like Germany. When we think of tribalism, we tend to focus on the primal pull of race, religion, or ethnicity. But partisan political loyalties can become tribal too. When they do, they can be as destructive as any other allegiance. I really don't agree with this and their only citation of this claim is opinions written by John Adams and George Washington. I think at this point it can be said with relative certainty that there is no practical way to have a representative democracy and not have power blocs form. In this instance, tribalism is inevitable. They were right to be apprehensive, as is all too clear when you look at the current state of America’s political institutions, which are breaking down under the strain of partisan divisions. And here we go. It's not the fault of one party becoming unreasonably tribalist and the other doing their best to respond, it's a problem with the institutions themselves. I'm just going to link this video which does a much better job than I can to explain why this isn't an issue to be blamed on two parties. The causes of America’s resurgent tribalism are many. They include seismic demographic change, which has led to predictions that whites will lose their majority status within a few decades; declining social mobility and a growing class divide; and media that reward expressions of outrage. Now you really have to think here: Why are white Americans afraid of becoming not a majority? Who has done the most to cause the lack of social mobility, or the growing decline? Regarding the media, I'm loathe to blame them for such sweeping things as "political tribalism" but it's definitely true that they reward outrage; look at the disproportionate airtime Trump gets to spill his nativist dogma. All of this has contributed to a climate in which every group in America—minorities and whites; conservatives and liberals; the working class and elites—feels under attack, pitted against the others not just for jobs and spoils, but for the right to define the nation’s identity. Will no one think of the rich white people ? In these conditions, democracy devolves into a zero-sum competition, one in which parties succeed by stoking voters’ fears and appealing to their ugliest us-versus-them instincts. They are so close Americans on both the left and the right now view their political opponents not as fellow Americans with differing views, but as enemies to be vanquished. I'd ask for a citation but I know the real data would undercut their own point so I can see why they just said it as if its a fact. [some stuff about BLM and the Constitution]Many progressives, particularly young ones, have turned against what were once sacrosanct American principles. Freedom of speech is an instrument of the dehumanization of women and minorities. Religious liberty is an engine of discrimination. Property rights are a shield for structural injustice and white supremacy. In a recent poll, two-thirds of college-age Democrats said that “a diverse and inclusive society” is more important than “protecting free speech rights.” I think this is a fair point to bring up, but I also feel like that poll question seems a bit loaded. I can't find the actual question or the poll in general because it wasn't cited but I'm not sure if prioritizing a diverse and inclusive society over free speech rights mean that they have completely abandoned and in fact rail against free speech. I know some people see it as a binary, but personally I see it as a spectrum. Only 30 percent of Americans born in the 1980s believe that living in a democracy is “essential,” compared with 72 percent of Americans born in the 1930s. Kind of a weird thing to cite when talking specifically about Democrats. Is the implication here that anyone born in the 80's is automatically a democrat? Further, maybe we should consider why so many Americans take a less favorable view of Democracy than they did 80 years ago instead of using such data as a cudgel to blame millenials for why things are so bad now. At Yale Law School, where we teach, students working in our clinics have won important courtroom victories vindicating constitutional rights. But a significant generational shift appears to be in progress. One of our students told us: “I don’t know any lefty people my age who aren’t seriously questioning whether the First Amendment is still on balance a good thing.” Again, we have somehow tracked from bashing Democrats to bashing millenials. I'll respond to this anecdote by saying that I can't name a single lefty I know that thinks the First Amendment is anything but good. With Trump in office I'm flabbergasted that anyone could even convince themselves this is the case. On the right, open hostility to the Constitution is less common; most mainstream conservatives see themselves as proud defenders of the document. But majorities on the right today are nonetheless beginning to reject core constitutional principles. "open hostility", "today". Oh you sweet summer child President Donald Trump routinely calls the media “the enemy of the American people,” and his view seems to have currency in his party. In a 2017 survey by the Pew Research Center, less than half of Republicans said that the freedom of the press “to criticize politicians” was “very important” to maintaining a strong democracy in the United States. In other 2017 surveys, more than half of Trump supporters said the president “should be able to overturn decisions by judges that he disagrees with,” and more than half of Republicans said they would support postponing the 2020 presidential election if Trump proposed delaying it “until the country can make sure that only eligible American citizens can vote.” If these views became reality, that would be the end of constitutional democracy as we know it. I'm quoting this entire paragraph because it is the reason I decided on breaking down this article point by point to attack the parts I disagree with. This section seems to be comparing Democrats and Republicans to show why both are at fault for the problem mentioned in the initial claim; that tribalism has broken our political institutions. This comparison is heavily undercut in my view by the fact that they took fringe Democratic belief and are comparing it to what appears to be mainstream Republican viewpoints. That they honestly want to equivocate what some BLM dude in one college with the fact that more than half of Republicans would support postponing elections if Trump wants to is nothing short of laughable and were it not for the fact that I knew the people writing this editorial were quite intelligent, I'd call it outright cognitive bias. You simply can't say tribalism is the problem when you clearly have one party that is far more radical than the other. The problem runs deeper still. Since the 2004 publication of Samuel P. Huntington’s Who Are We?—which argued that America’s “Anglo-Protestant” identity and culture are threatened by large-scale Hispanic immigration—there have been calls on the mainstream right to define America’s national identity in racial, ethnic, or religious terms, whether as white, European, or Judeo-Christian. According to a 2016 survey commissioned by the bipartisan Democracy Fund, 30 percent of Trump voters think European ancestry is “important” to “being American”; 56 percent of Republicans and a full 63 percent of Trump supporters said the same of being Christian. This trend runs counter to the Constitution’s foundational ideal: an America where citizens are citizens, regardless of race or religion; an America whose national identity belongs to no one tribe. Earlier it was said that "the American left has become more and more influenced by identity politics" but I guess apparently this isn't identity politics because it's not the left doing it. Alone among the world powers, America has succeeded in forging a strong group-transcending national identity without requiring its citizens to shed or suppress their subgroup identities. In the United States, you can be Irish American, Syrian American, or Japanese American, and be intensely patriotic at the same time. Okay sure but in this case one party in the US believes this and the other party in the US believes this only insofar as you support them and their guy. Try telling a group of Trump supporters that a Muslim American critical of Trump's Muslim ban is a patriot. America is not an ethnic nation. Its citizens don’t have to choose between a national identity and multiculturalism. Americans can have both. But the key is constitutional patriotism. We have to remain united by and through the Constitution, regardless of our ideological disagreements. Again, we are so close to realizing that the problem isn't tribalism, it's a tribe. In the above comparison we clearly pointed out that a wide swathe of Republican believe that you you absolutely must choose between national identity and multiculturalism. This is using data they cited. There are lessons here for both the left and the right. Is the lesson here that the left should fall into the same sort of radical tribalism that the Republicans have after the election of Obama broke them in 2008, because you people are going to compare them to the GOP regardless? The right needs to recognize that making good on the Constitution’s promises requires much more than flag-waving. If millions of people believe that, because of their skin color or religion, they are not treated equally, how can they be expected to see the Constitution’s resounding principles as anything but hollow? A good start would be to not electing people who clearly don't give a shit about the Constitution and hold nothing but contempt for it's separation of powers. For its part, the left needs to rethink its scorched-earth approach to American history and ideals. Exposing injustice, past and present, is important, but there’s a world of difference between saying that America has repeatedly failed to live up to its constitutional principles and saying that those principles are lies or smoke screens for oppression. Washington and Jefferson were slave owners. They were also political visionaries who helped give birth to what would become the most inclusive form of governance in world history. "scorched earth approach to American history and ideals". What utter sophistry. Can't think of a better way to end this than to underplay the right's hypocrisy on the Constitution then over-emphasize the parts of the American left who despise "constitutional principles"
Our own refusal to see when things are actually black or white is definately one of the worst elements of our political discourse
Were the allies being tribalistic when they were opposing the Axis? This is not to accuse the Republicans of being Nazis or whatever but I think it's incredibly shortsighted to think that when one group acts in opposition to another, it is always for tribalistic reasons.
The US was being tribalistic when they saw what was happening in Europe and Asia and decided "Not my circus".
Didn't one of the founding fathers look at the tribal politics of Europeans and say "don't be like that"?
That was Washington.
I don't know if you can really avoid parties, people who have similar goals will always group together. Basically George Washington was the Garry of his time.
You also have to remember that he also set up the professional standards of being a President, by...not being a president. Like if you look at the sort of standards laid out by Washington, literally every president should never speak, act or respond to anything ever. Also I never understood how they didn't immediately see the faction-making that occurred during the Articles of Confederation and the subsequent Constitutional Party that maybe they should've designed a better system.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.