By Dr. Earl R. Smith II
Chief@ComeOnSense.com
www.ComeOnSense.com
There are Republicans and Democrats who will tolerate and even pass on lies – no matter how egregious, obviously false and slanderous – so long as they are targeted against the other side. There are those on both sides who consider it not only their privilege but obligation to create and promulgate distortions against the ‘opposing candidate’. In the bad old days of Watergate, the activities of the ‘plumbers’ scarred the reputations of good men and women for political gain. But their ability to magnify the effects of their lies and distortions was limited by the technology of their time and a significantly less co-opted media. This brave new world of the internet, blogging domesticated media has made such a-moral undertakings much more effective – and incredibly more insidious.
Consider for a moment the dynamics of the situation. An attack on the opponent is generally justified without reference to its truth or relevance. But, should the same attack be returned in kind, a cry of ‘foul’ fills the air. How many times in the current election cycle have we seen charges such as ‘sexist’, ‘racist’, ‘elitest’ or ‘self-serving’ deployed against a candidate and then, perhaps a month or more later, seen the same charge leveled in the reverse direction. What happens? Well, the receiving side rises up in righteous indignation – as if politicians have any right to righteousness or indignation – and decries as unfair the very tactic which they have previously used.
If the stakes weren’t so very high it would be funny. But we can no longer afford to treat this as some kind of comic opera or sporting event. The country itself is on the line and, if we don’t step in and save it, it may be lost – along with the much vaunted American Dream.
It is easy to get involved in a shallow-water analysis of why this lipstick smeared pig of a political process has been allowed to parade as some sort of serious political dialogue. But the real source of this charade of a parade is something which Americans need to carefully think about – because Americans themselves have been the facilitators of this madness. Let’s take a quick history lesson.
The United States was built on the idea of pluralism. Remember this was the middle 1700’s. There was no internet – no blogging – few printing presses – no radio or television. At the time pluralism was seen as a radical idea and considered an unreliable foundation for a society. The central premise of pluralism flew directly in the face of nationalism – then the ‘gold standard’ when it came to nation building. The central idea behind pluralism was that, once citizens accepted a few basic ideas – sometimes called neo-liberalism, they were considered and would act as Americans – without reference to their ethnic background, religious views or station in life. The idea turned out to be one of the most potent that the founding fathers espoused. Pluralism was America’s great gift to the world – a world which had regularly seen people slaughtering each other over differences which made little difference in the colonies. Pluralism was the precursor of the global community which is now spreading across the face of the planet – it anticipated and was magnified by advances in technology – pluralism naturally moves us to the consideration of every being on the planet as belonging to one community.
The antithesis of pluralism is tribalism. Where pluralism is inclusive, less concerned with differences and more with similarities, focused on a few central allegiances and controlled (if that can be a term applied) by the general tendencies of the population, tribalism is inherently exclusionary, heavily focused on distinctions, reactive and antagonistic towards differences, solidly focused on the enforcement of standards of behavior and belief and controlled by a central hierarchy. The two models couldn’t be farther apart -and they result in very different societies.
All tribalism is inherently provincial and reactive. Membership requires an allegiance to the received orthodoxy as interpreted by the ‘priesthood’.[1] Tribalism draws a sharp distinction between the members of the tribe – the ‘chosen’ – and the rest of humanity. Either an individual or a society cleaves to the received orthodoxy or they are considered an adversary.
Tribal orthodoxy is often strictly enforced and, should a member of the tribe stray off the reservation, retribution is swift and brutal. No longer considered part of the body, these ‘heretics’ are driven out and punished for their transgressions – often for questioning the orthodoxy itself. There are many good examples of tribal societies – particularly in the insect world. Ants for example, tend to be intensely tribal.[2] Tribal society is highly hierarchical. There is a small ruling class – with differentiation of roles and social status being strictly enforced – and an overarching orthodoxy which puts the welfare of the colony before all else.
In human tribes, the priesthood regularly polices the ‘faithful’ – focusing on those who stray from the ‘true path’. The media regularly uncovers evidence of these policing actions – whistle blowers are routinely condemned and ostracized[3] – laws are ignored[4] – rights are restricted[5] – and all in the name of preserving and advancing the position of the tribe and its senior members. When the majority of Americans come to the decision that their primary allegiance is to their tribe – that fraction of society to which they see themselves as primarily belonging – then the pluralistic vision of the founders will have been lost and the American experiment will have descended into the tribalism which has dominated human culture for centuries.
The essence of tribalism is the defense of the received orthodoxy over any other – as, for example, when a group of American citizens see themselves as either Republicans or Democrats first and American citizens second.
“I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.” Barry Goldwater
Vice and virtue have no place in the political dialogue of a representative republic – they are matters for morality and philosophy. Those who would insert them into such a dialogue generally do so in order to enforce their own definitions of liberty and justice. If you want to see the insidious nature of tribalism you only have to look to those parts of the globe where it is at its extreme. Provincial definitions of vice and virtue are the basis of all tribal orthodoxies. When taken to extremes, virtue (read complete compliance with the tribal orthodoxy) is praised and vice (read heretics) are destroyed.
“I conceive that the great part of the miseries of mankind are brought upon them by false estimates they have made of the value of things.” Benjamin Franklin
I believe that Franklin was correct and that his proscription applies to ideals as easily as it applies to material things. If any tribe comes to believe that their own received orthodoxy is above the social contract among all Americans, then they are conflicted in a way which makes it difficult to refer to them as Americans at all. The central idea behind our form of government is that all Americans subscribe to its basic principals without reservation and subordinate their tribal preferences to them – that is the essence of the Republic and representative government. We all agree to be bound by the Constitution and the laws and to consider ourselves Americans first and members of a faction second. Further we all agree to consider everyone else who is a citizen and who also subscribes to these ideal as Americans as well – on our same level and with the same standing and prerogatives.
But tribalism posits divisions within the nation – red States and blue States – and declares that people who are not subscribers to the tribal orthodoxy are enemies of the tribe. Republicans so define Democrats and Democrats return the favor – and both stain the flag and Constitution in doing so. The media – simple minded and shallow as it is – picks up the battle cry and magnifies it until all serious political discussion is drowned out. Serious people interested in addressing serious problems are marginalized because they refuse to put party above the welfare of the nation.[6] The great battle of ideas which the founders envisioned – the give and take among concerned and informed citizens – has been replaced by tribalism – with legions of ‘shoe salesmen’ barfing out the latest talking points as the two parties struggle for control over the media spotlight and the wounded body of the Republic.
Tribalism was the great civilizing force for much of human history. It brought people together under common banners and extended the idea of government and allegiance to that government. But tribalism is an idea whose time has come and gone. The alternative which the founders put forth in the late 1700’s was as revolutionary then as it is unavoidable now. The failure to understand that we as human beings are not just more closely connected but ‘in it together’ is a fundamental flaw in the tribal perspective. Humans are facing problems which can only be addressed by concerted and coordinated global action. A nostalgic vision of the Wild West and the cowboy might be entertaining but it is highly corrosive. The impact of humanity on the planet is a good example. This challenge cannot be met by a portion of humanity. One major society can continue the planet and its environment towards a tipping point which will doom all inhabitants. If we reach such a point will it really matter which tribe was ascendant when the earth decided that it has had enough abuse?
An essential part of the ability of tribes to thrive and conduct these adolescent ‘war games’ against each other is the inaction of those serious people. The founders depended on their willingness to stand in opposition to such inanity.
“On some positions, Cowardice asks the question, “Is it safe?” Expediency asks the question, “Is it politic?” And Vanity comes along and asks the question, “Is it popular?” But Conscience asks the question “Is it right?” And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but he must do it because Conscience tells him it is right.” Martin Luther King
King castigated the ‘good people’ for their silence in the face of bigotry. I would do the same here. We can no longer afford to have these tribal battles dominate our political discourse. It is time for serious people to push these partisans off the stage and come together to work on the problems which are threatening humanity and the planet. It is time to decide that the entire idea of red and blue States in a effrontery to the very ideals which once made this country mankind’s last and greatest hope.
Dr. Smith is a social and political theorist who lives in Washington, DC
©Dr. Earl R. Smith II
[1] I use the term purposefully as all religions are inherently tribal.
[2] Although there now seems to be a kind of ant which will accept wandering members of other tribes – even if those members have been transported across oceans. From what I hear, this ant society is now the fastest growing it the world. Perhaps even ants will become pluralistic before humans come to see the true sense in it.
[3] A class example of this was the disclosure that Deputy Director of the FBI William Mark Felt, Sr. was Bob Woodward’s Deep Throat – the individual who more than anyone else contributed to the exposure of corruption and law-breaking in the Nixon administration. Many Republicans rose up to condemn Felt as a traitor – a turn-coat. In their minds he was a turn-coat to the Republican Party and Richard Nixon. The fact that he contributed to unmasking a corrupt administration which had set itself above the law was only a secondary consideration. Tribalism leads its minions to forget the basic principals of our Constitution – to dismiss their allegiances to its ideals – in favor of a defense of the tribe.
[4] The current President’s frequent statements make it clear that in him mind the Bible trumps the Constitution – an interesting attitude from a public official who swore to uphold that very Constitution.
[5] Restrictions of habeas corpus and the assault on the 4th Amendment to the Constitution are examples. The ability of the executive branch to commit the country to a war without a formal declaration of war is another.
[6] Pardon me if I put no credence to the formulation that ‘what is good for (fill in your party preference) is good for the country. Such formulations would be comical if they were not so disgustingly insulting.
Entries (RSS)