
The primeval tribalism of American politics - tosh
https://www.economist.com/united-states/2018/05/26/the-primeval-tribalism-of-american-politics
======
Barrin92
I think one problem that the Economist is unable to face because they are very
much part of the problem is that the depoliticisation of politics is coming to
an end.

Just like diplomacy is war by other means, politics was supposed to genuinely
reflect the conflict between different interest groups. What the Economist
calls primaeval was the original function of political action, namely genuine
confrontation.

We are slowly coming to the end of a period of centre-technocratic governance
where moderation is the mother of all virtues and we are all supposed to be
best served by ignoring political conflict altogether, while slick corporate
executives and managerial administrators solve all our problems, smooth like
clockwork.

~~~
ajmurmann
It would be nice if you were right. I think we are instead seeing is that
politics is being turned into something that's more similar to rooting for a
sports team or reality TV. I say that because we have very little discussion
about what policies would be good and why but instead are talking about this
like it's a us vs them battle. most political events aren't targeted anymore
to convince people who believe differently but to people who are already on
the same page. It's a tragedy.

------
klondike_
If we were to reform the terrible two party system this would be much less of
an issue. Currently, moderate parties aren't able to capture enough voters to
become relevant, so the two dominant parties are pushed further and further
apart.

It seems that countries with more parties don't hold this sort of animosity
towards each other because party issues overlap more than in the polarizing
two party system.

~~~
remarkEon
>If we were to reform the terrible two party system this would be much less of
an issue.

I'm struggling to understand why people think this is true, especially given
what's going on in Europe right now where fringe elements are becoming quite
mainstream across the continent. Wouldn't adding more political parties to an
already fragile system cause _more_ tribalism, not less?

~~~
imsofuture
The problem is that the two parties capture huge swaths of people based on
issues that are important to that person, not to the party. There is no real
unified platform from either of the two major parties, just look at this
(rough, off the cuff) list of things they care about enough to capture:

guns OR god OR small government OR military expansion OR anti-abortion OR
anti-immigration

VS

anti-guns OR (a)religious tolerance OR social service OR globalism via economy
OR pro-choice OR pro-immigration

Both of those 'platforms' are internally inconsistent (i.e. how can you have a
small government that also has a giant military and regulates trivial stuff
like what happens in your bedroom) and are simply designed to cleave off
people that give huge amounts of fucks about a single issue. What if you're
pro-gun and pro-social services? Well, pick which one you care about more and
vote for that party...

~~~
dahdum
The platforms aren't internally inconsistent, one person could genuinely hold
all the views of either with logical consistency, based on core principles[1].
You're right they are meant to pick off single issue voters.

I don't know how we'll move back to the center, but as the article mentions I
fear it will just be another war.

[1] For instance I prefer smaller government in general, but strongly support
single payer healthcare (a compromise of govt size against equal opportunity).

~~~
imsofuture
They literally are inconsistent though. How do you have a small government
that militarily intervenes across the world?

I don't disagree that it's a balancing act, but the platforms are utterly
built around single issue zingers. Pro this, anti that, that's it.

~~~
supreme_sublime
By arguing what the role of government should be. If the role of government is
to protect property rights, it needs to be able to defend the country from
foreign invasion. Typically people in favor of "small government" mean small
in scope. It is only meant for (and efficient at) solving a narrow scope of
problems. So while it may be good as a means of upholding property rights, it
isn't great at manufacturing cars, for instance.

------
elicash
One thing that people ignore is how corrupt machine politics and the ability
to dole out jobs for supporters had the benefit of tying people to a party
that was divorced from their politics - not that I'd advocate going back.

I'm not sure that I buy that geographic identities were less dangerous than
current party identities. The only thing that worries me is when people's
multiple identities (race, religion, party, ideology, geography) start overlap
more than they have in the past. Or if the extent people were to ever STOP
identifying as Americans before party or citizens of their state (looking at
you, Texas!).

~~~
hodlbtc
Speaking just from personal experience — a lot of young progressives look
fairly negatively upon the label of American and American identity in general,
but identify strongly with the Democratic Party. So, maybe you should be a
little worried.

~~~
elicash
I think there's something to that first half.

On the second half, young people I've heard from seem more open-minded to
third parties than older generations. But that's also just personal
experience.

------
plankers
"Alternatively—and more likely—Americans must wait for another of the
political realignments that ended previous spells of intense partisanship,
including the antebellum rivalry that stirred Abraham Lincoln’s appeal to “the
better angels of our nature”. The civil war, which led to one such
rearrangement, started the following month."

Is it just me or has war fever begun to seep its tendrils into our more
reputable and even-headed publications? It doesn't seem to be a thing that
people are willing to talk about directly. Not that I blame them, war is
scary.

~~~
rectang
Is it fair to say that both sides see the primary issue as demographic change?
(Right: illegal immigration. Left: transition to majority-minority society.)

If that analysis is correct, then tensions can't be resolved unless
demographics resolve. While I can imagine the US becoming a more closed
society, it's hard to imagine ethnic cleansing of the citizenry.

This is a hard topic to discuss within the constraints of the HN guidelines.

~~~
zapita
> _Is it fair to say that both sides see the primary issue as demographic
> change? (Right: illegal immigration. Left: transition to majority-minority
> society.)_

What is a "majority-minority society", and what makes it the primary issue for
the left?

~~~
rectang
"Majority-minority" means a population where no one group is more than 50%.
Alternately, a population where two minorities combine to form more than 50%
(which is a mathematically equivalent formulation).

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majority_minority](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majority_minority)

The progressive narrative holds that inevitable demographic change in the
wider US will eventually yield electoral and policy victory, similar to what
has happened in California.

~~~
tropo
They are not mathematically equivalent. Counterexample: 10 groups, each with
10% of the population, qualifies under your first definition but not under
your second definition.

~~~
rectang
You're right, I was imprecise. Here's the Wikipedia definition:

 _a jurisdiction where one or more racial and /or ethnic minorities (relative
to the whole country's population) make up a majority of the local population_

------
jdoliner
Non paywalled for those who need it:
[http://archive.is/6N6gU](http://archive.is/6N6gU)

------
jdoliner
Another article that purports to passively observe a phenomenon while, in my
opinion, actually playing a role itself.

> A RUDE but incoherent comment by President Donald Trump last week revealed
> the damage partisanship has done to America’s body politic.

Everything Trump says is carefully stripped of context and misunderstood in
every possible way before it's taken to press to maximize its partisan impact.
That's not to say that what Trump said in this case was "right." However, many
publications have since printed retractions on this. [0] Clarifying that
"animals" referred specifically to MS-13 gang members. But, of course, the
retraction never travels as far as the thing it's retracting. Look at the
original tweet:

> Trump referred to those crossing the US border illegally as "animals" and
> slammed California state laws as "deadly."

Only 2 words are actual quotes.

> Republicans heard Mr Trump’s comment as tough talk on a bunch of killers,
> while Democrats heard it as a dehumanising slur against migrant parents and
> their children.

Of course they did, they read/watched/heard two very different stories from
two very different media constructed realities. This article is also from one
of those two realities. (I sincerely hope you know which.)

> The problem is structural: the root of tribalism is human nature, and the
> current state of American democracy is distinctly primeval.

Tribalism is natural, in a competitive context. American Democracy is that
context though. So that's really the root of the tribalism. But again, the
press claims to be passively observing something it's stoking. This article is
basically a call to arms. Look at the closing sentences:

> Americans must wait for another of the political realignments that ended
> previous spells of intense partisanship, including the antebellum rivalry
> that stirred Abraham Lincoln’s appeal to “the better angels of our nature”.
> The civil war, which led to one such rearrangement, started the following
> month.

[0]
[https://twitter.com/AP/status/997138543817449472](https://twitter.com/AP/status/997138543817449472)

~~~
elicash
> Of course they did, they read/watched/heard two very different stories from
> two very different media constructed realities.

The reason I heard the FULL remarks differently than you is because I'm
operating under a different set of assumptions about the type of person that
Donald Trump is. This isn't to say I'm right and you're wrong. It's to say
that everyone uses assumptions in every single interaction in their lives -
they can be useful - and based on mine I interpret a fuzzy statement about
immigrants differently than you do.

The media has nothing to do with it.

~~~
jdoliner
If you listened to the full remarks I certainly don't fault you for applying
any assumptions you have in interpreting them. Assumptions are absolutely
necessary. I'm just saying don't let the media's assumptions be your
assumptions. Try to get to the source, which, it seems like in this case you
did.

