[jedrider]

The New Tribalism and the Decline of the Nation State
http://robertreich.org/post/80522686347

We are witnessing a reversion to tribalism around the world, away from nation states. The the same pattern can be seen even in America – especially in American politics.

Shouldn't this deserve it's own thread separate from 'Healing the Partisan Divide' or 'SCOTUS'?

This article is from 2014, which seems like a good kickoff for a discussion.

What does it mean? Can it be healed? Where is this heading for us?

The phenomenon is global, but the USA is a good place to focus on. The Middle East is already a disaster, but I think the differences are less religiously based in the USA, but I could be wrong on that, though

[Tanada]

I think people are mixing apples and oranges. Yes 'tribalism' is on the rise, but so is Nationalism vs Globalism.

From 1980-2018 the large governments of the world have tried to shove Globalism down the throats of everyone living on the planet. The problem is for Joe6P Globalism doesn't mean all the things we were promised, like a superior standard of living. It turns out Globalism actually means the richest get richer while the poorest get poorer and everyone in the middle gets drown in low quality consumer junk that often doesn't last six months from date of manufacture before needing replacement. Even worse to manufacture all this disposable junk cheaply enough to convince consumers to buy it means third world wage slaves at nearly no pay are substituted for laborers in first world countries who 50 years ago could support a large extended family on a single income. This drives first world wages for labor down into the basement disrupting the entire society by discounting the value of labor and craftsmanship.

Well despite the proclimation of how good it is for him/her Joe6P/Jane6P is not blind, deaf, dumb and stupid. Therefore they resent being talked down to and having their lives destroyed and that brings forth a kind of tribalism. If the 'leaders' are working against your interests you have no obligation to blindly follow them like whipped dogs.

On the other hand a few leader types around the world look out and see the seething anger of Joe6P/Jane6P just below the surface and realize they can rise to more powerful positions in society by offering to end the Globalism disaster and replace it with old fashioned Nationalism. In places like western countries where a sense of Nationalism existed before Globalism became the goal of the elites this strikes a chord and results in elections that baffle the elites, who are certain they are smarter, wiser, and more deserving than the rest of us.

[jedrider]

Tanada,
I don't see that, actually. Yes, there is that tension of globalism versus nationalism, but the tribal divide goes WAY beyond that. Just, way beyond, to a whole other dimension of contorting the facts and reading into documents, such as the constitution as if it is the ten commandments and whether to believe in science or a 2000 year old book, or whether the market is always right (as if capitalism was a religion). It's almost as if there are two sides to one's brain that comprehend the world in totally different modalities, but these two sides are the very same two tribes.

[Cog]

Because for our purposes, the US Constitution IS the Ten Commandments on how our government was designed to function and the limitations imposed on it. Says so right in the text:

Article VI

All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

[Plantagenet]

If you go back and read Reich's article on tribalism in jedrider's first post in this thread, it does't make much sense. Reich doesn't even know what a tribe is.

First of all, the author Robert Reich begins by applauding the historic growth of nation states and decrying the recent rise of "tribalism in Europe. The examples he picks? He decries the fall of the USSR and the troubles of the EU.

But that has nothing to with tribalism. Both had to do with a reversion to NATIONALISM, i.e. the conquered nations of eastern Europe and the USSR didn't want to be controlled and run from Moscow. They wanted to be independent nation states again. And Britain and Italy and Hungary other countries in the EU don't want to be controlled or run from Brussels....they want to retain their independence as well. The UK and Italy and Hungary aren't tribes....they are nation states.

The issues with Brexit and other EU problems isn't due to tribalism-----Its due to NATIONALISM.

Similarly, Reich is confused when he talks about the US. He decries the fact the Ds and the Rs have different political views and don't like each very much. But thats not tribalism----thats POLITICAL PARTISANSHIP.

As someone who doesn't belong to either major political parties, I don't see the Rs and the Ds as tribes. I see them as political parties. IMHO neither the R nor the D party has a monopoly on wisdom or virtue. And neither the R nor the D party is a homogenous tribe. Both are actually assemblages and coalitions of quite disparate political factions in the US. For instance the Ds incorporate poor inner city blacks and the ultra-wealthy Hollywood elite. Those two groups are definitely not in the same "tribe"....but they support the same political party. Rs include factory workers and oilfield workers....and small business owners. Again not in the same tribe...but in the same PARTY.

In order to understand things you have to know what they are. And that means using the right names and describing things accurately. Describing the current political divides in the Russia or the EU or the US as due to a rise of "tribalism" really misses the point. In particular our current political divides in the US are due to an excess of partisanship.....tribalism has nothing to do with it.

Cheers!

[jedrider]

I don't know what exactly a 'tribe' is, either, in the American context (and there are multiple tribes, obviously).

Can America Survive Tribalism?
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/05/amu-chua-tribalism/561662/

In Chua’s mind, all is not lost. She argues that moving away from more tribalistic impulses starts with embracing the idea that America is a “super-group.” A super-group, per Chua, allows subgroups—Japanese Americans, for example—to maintain distinct identities. At the same time, it bonds them through some sort of “connective tissue”: in America’s case, the ideals put forth by the Constitution.

But whatever it is, I don't see it healing anytime soon. Some great event will either unite us, or drive us further apart (IMO, the latter).

[Plantagenet]

I don't know what exactly a 'tribe' is, either, in the American context (and there are multiple tribes, obviously).

Ms. Chua seems to identify tribes in the US with ethnic groups and their role in US politics. And while its true that some ethnic groups (US Blacks for instance) vote at rates of 90% and more for one party, most other ethnic groups tend to split their votes. Equating tribal politics with ethnic politics is wrong. The US doesn't work that way.

Can America Survive Tribalism?
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/05/amu-chua-tribalism/561662/

In Chua’s mind, all is not lost. She argues that moving away from more tribalistic impulses starts with embracing the idea that America is a “super-group.” A super-group, per Chua, allows subgroups—Japanese Americans, for example—to maintain distinct identities. At the same time, it bonds them through some sort of “connective tissue”: in America’s case, the ideals put forth by the Constitution.

Ms. Chua is full of crap.

America is not a "super-group." America is a nation.

Where does this compulsion to coin new terms come from? Calling America a "super-group" instead of calling it a nation is just silly muzzy thinking. I suspect this reflects a fear on the left of even saying words like "nation" and "nationalism" lest they somehow find themselves in agreement with Trump on this subject.

The more I read, the more it seems like the word "tribalism" is a dog whistle on the left for denigrating the opinions of working class white Americans who voted for Trump. Really this is nothing more then classism and elitism. Working class white people are just as entitled to their own political views as any other class or ethnic based voting block in the US. IMHO its wrong to dismiss their political views as "tribalism." Working class whites had real reasons to be concerned about the economic and poltiical direction the country was going in under Obama, and if they chose to vote for Trump instead of Hillary it wasn't because of tribalism---it was because they were still looking for the "change" and "hope" that Obama promised in 2008 but didn't deliver, and Trump was the candidate promising Change and Hope in 2016.

Cheers!

[Cog]

Creating hyphenated Americans and celebrating the term is a problem in and of itself. You are an American no hyphen without reservation or you owe your allegiance to some other group or ethnic origin.

I've long been of the opinion that the question of race or ethnic origin should be stricken from every single form and document that the government is involved in. You are either an American, with all the full legal rights and responsibilities that goes along with that, or you are not.

[asg70]

Bullshit as usual from Plant. Political polarization is occuring in equal measures on both sides. The demonization of the other side really began in the right-wing with the rise of right-wing talk and Fox News. Trump is the apex of that way of thinking, amplified by the internet. But there's plenty of reason to accuse the left of overstepping itself as well so pointing to who started it doesn't really accomplish anything. We've got what we've got.

Neither side really wants truly mature statesmanship. They only want selective mudslinging. Crying foul over the other guy's tactic as Plant does is part and parcel of polarization. It simply doesn't fly to ask one side to fight fair when you're not willing to do the same. So everything continues to spiral down the cesspool towards civil war.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/02/opin ... rt-ii.html

If you want to know how TEOTWAWKI happens in the US, this is it. It won't be empty store-shelves that does it, it will be a sort of ideological and id-politics-based balkanization which is pretty well established now. #MeToo is showing that it's even splitting people apart on the most fundamental level of gender.

[jedrider]

I started this thread because I've starting seeing the term pop up here and there and so wanted to get a handle on what they mean by it.

A tribe delineates 'us' from 'them'. The 'super-groups' of Chua, I think, is a cope out. Tribes usually fight over the intersecting areas of interest. We seem to have lots to fight over now, internally. Republicans and Democrats, Liberals and Conservatives, however you divide them, seem to have less in common and a lot more areas of friction. There were great time spans of intersection between the groups, however you group them. That appears to be coming to an end now.

Of course, liberals forced their policies on conservatives, and conservatives resented that. Conservatives have taken to excising liberalism from their world view. The two sides no longer speak the same language and cannot understand each other. That makes for this extreme degree of tribalism we now see.

[Newfie]

Sebastian Junger wrote a book, supposedly his last, called TRIBE.

It’s an interesting read about how folks who belong to small but intensely personal groups survive trauma much better.

tribe
trīb/Submit
noun
1.
a social division in a traditional society consisting of families or communities linked by social, economic, religious, or blood ties, with a common culture and dialect, typically having a recognized leader.

By this definition most countries are split by tribes. UK has brits, Scott’s, welsh, Irish, Cornish whatever. The US has many, many potential “tribes” with all kinds of splits.

I think what you see in the two political parties are a group of tribes. Various caucus with a bent to this or that.

My take on the movement is that folks “the herd” are sensing unease, that things may get worse, and are pulling back into more traditional enclaves. Doing that for self protection. But it’s not clear which tribes will be successful and that makes for a lot of confusion.

The D’s are trying to make a coalition of tribes, an Uber Tribe if you will, but that’s not working so well because soccer moms don’t have a lot in common with the transgender crowd, and visa versa.

It’s part of why I foresee a fair bit of urban discord eventually.

[Cog]

The Dems, who rule the urban centers, view the rest of the country as rubes, deplorables, and as those people incapable and unfit to have a voice in running the nation's affairs.

Hunger games anyone?

[jedrider]

The Dems, who rule the urban centers, view the rest of the country as rubes, deplorables, and as those people incapable and unfit to have a voice in running the nation's affairs.

Hunger games anyone?

Deplorables are the 'White Nationalists' and that is all that Hillary was referring to. I don't care to bring up the urban/country divide because the predominant weight is in the suburbs and they are split very evenly and a large portion of the population, especially urban, is not even political (and that's where media has it's greatest effect).

Cog has fantasies of hunger games and lives in a suburban area! So, are you a closet white nationalist?

The SPLIT is in the language used. There is no meeting point, no common ground there. Next door neighbors cannot even discuss weather anymore because it is too close to 'climate change'.

[Newfie]

The Dems, who rule the urban centers, view the rest of the country as rubes, deplorables, and as those people incapable and unfit to have a voice in running the nation's affairs.

Hunger games anyone?

And the Rs view the D’s how?

Collecting injustices.

[jedrider]

Just saying:

Ex-Republican Reveals How He Finally Realized that Racism and Extremism Are Behind the GOP's Success
https://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/dark-underside-conservatism-ex-republican-reveals-how-he-finally-realized-racism

Extremists must invent their only language or lingo: MAGA

[Cog]

It couldn't possibly be that people have rejected democratic socialism and the current wave of left wing violence sweeping the country. Naw it has to be those racist republicans at work again.

The left still hasn't figured out why their message of class and racial division continues to get rejected by the voters.

[Cog]

The Dems, who rule the urban centers, view the rest of the country as rubes, deplorables, and as those people incapable and unfit to have a voice in running the nation's affairs.

Hunger games anyone?

And the Rs view the D’s how?

Collecting injustices.

Mostly as communists that we haven't got permission yet to throw out of helicopters.

[Newfie]

OK, posters are not going to talk about throwing people out of helicopters or similar actions. Posts will be deleted and the poster given a holiday.

Cog, you’ve been in a bender to arouse folks, you are trolling. It’s not helpful to civil discourse. It is the mode of someone who has lost any useful means to contribute.

[Cog]

You asked me how the R's viewed the D's. I told you exactly what the R's think about them. I always tell you exactly what is on my mind and those of like thinking. You should appreciate the honesty of it. Just like I appreciate the honesty of those who want to kill off 95% of the population so we can have a sustainable human population.

Socialism or communism, here in America, will be confronted with force. That is the inevitable conclusion between those who want to destroy the Constitution and the Republic and replace it with Marxist mob justice.

Hillary just said we can not be civil with Republicans until Democrats take back power. What conclusion do you draw from that statement?

Uncivil means violence. No way to otherwise spin that way of thinking."Get in their face, push back on them, kick them when they are down", are all statements made by leading party Democrats in the last few months. You want to disagree that doesn't lead to violence? Ask Scalise what he thinks about where that rhetoric leads.

[KaiserJeep]

Hillary Clinton Is Dangerous
October 11, 2018, 12:05 am
by DAVID CATRON
Neither she nor her party can be trusted with power anymore.

Many Americans have been wondering when the Democrats are finally going to calm down and accept the will of the voters as expressed in the 2016 election. Hillary Clinton provided the answer Tuesday afternoon — never. She clearly believes that Republican control of Congress or the Presidency is, by definition, illegitimate and must be resisted by any means necessary. During an interview with CNN’s Christiane Amanpour she said, “[Y]ou cannot be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for.” She went on to say that “civility can start again” when the Democrats regain control of the government.

Remainder is at: https://spectator.org/hillary-clinton-is-dangerous/