
Duty, Democracy and the Threat of Tribalism - danmendes
https://www.wsj.com/articles/jim-mattis-duty-democracy-and-the-threat-of-tribalism-11566984601?mod=rsswn
======
DanielBMarkham
This was a good essay: well-written, cogent, and thought-provoking.

I know there are a lot of folks that want to take this essay and bash it into
some political points. I think that's probably part of the problem Mattis is
describing; our desire to make social media hay out of whatever we're given.

He does have a point about current politics in there. It's hidden quite a bit.
His larger point, though, is about how instant communication is changing the
nature of how governments work. Presumably that's what he gets paid for:
understanding and projecting current trends through a historical lens.

I don't know what the solution is. A big part of the problem is that nobody
much wants to talk about the generic situation. There's no clicks in it.
Instead it's pitching rhetorical softballs to people who are already on your
side. Congrats to Mattis for being able to walk through this mess and still
come out looking okay. He's doing better than most.

~~~
flixic
> I don't know what the solution is.

Neither do I but I see tribalism as one of the most destructive forces of the
last decade, responsible for almost all big changes (and lack of change) in
the world. Politics spill out to other areas. It is not difficult to connect
the dots between rapid clicks-and-likes driven social media to the burning of
Amazon forests.

I don't know what the solution is but this is the meta problem. Solving it is
likely to start fixing other areas of life.

~~~
johnisgood
> It is not difficult to connect the dots between rapid clicks-and-likes
> driven social media to the burning of Amazon forests.

Would you please elaborate on how "rapid clicks-and-likes driven social media"
leads to the burning of Amazon forests?

I would also like to add these two related paragraphs:

> According to various reports on the subject (Greenpeace, FAO), livestock
> farming, including soya production, is responsible for about 70 to 80% of
> deforestation in the Amazon region. The development of intensive livestock
> production, combined with the increasing consumption of meat in developed
> countries, is thus the main cause of Amazonian deforestation.

> According to the WWF, It’s estimated that deforestation caused by livestock
> is responsible for the discharge of 3.4% of current global emissions of
> carbon to the atmosphere every year. That’s why the late 2018 IPCC report
> stood out that reducing meat consumption by 90% is the single biggest way to
> reduce global warming. Some studies also show that without meat and dairy
> consumption, global farmland use could be reduced by over 75%. _In this way,
> reducing your meat consumption is also a big step to stop not only
> deforestation but also global warming on a larger scale._

Source: [https://e-csr.net/definitions/what-is-definition-
deforestati...](https://e-csr.net/definitions/what-is-definition-
deforestation-causes-effects/)

~~~
rayiner
So we could reduce something that accounts for just 3.4% of global emissions
by 75%?

~~~
vekker
I'm pretty sure that's wrong or the wrong data point. Livestock is the largest
source of methane emissions and methane plays a larger role in climate change.

Not to mention that eating less meat is just karmically/ethically way more
optimal, regardless of what the data says.

~~~
johnisgood
Note that there is a difference between methane and carbon. My quote only
mentioned carbon.

> The most important greenhouse gases from animal agriculture are methane and
> nitrous oxide. Methane, mainly produced by enteric fermentation and manure
> storage, is a gas which has an effect on global warming 28 times higher than
> carbon dioxide. Nitrous oxide, arising from manure storage and the use of
> organic/inorganic fertilizers, is a molecule with a global warming potential
> 265 times higher than carbon dioxide.

Additionally, he missed the fact that deforestation has other negative impacts
besides contributing to climate change.

All things considered, meat consumption is pretty much the main reason for the
destruction of Amazonian rainforest, using up incredible amounts of land,
food, and water, as well as producing a statistically significant amount of
pollution. Then there is desertification, MDR pathogens, and so forth.

If you want the total percentages per sector:
[https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-
emiss...](https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-
data)

Some more reading (website is currently down for me but it was available a
couple of minutes ago):
[https://www.fao.org/gleam/results/en/](https://www.fao.org/gleam/results/en/)

------
frankbreetz
From the article: "Nations with allies thrive, and those without them wither.
Alone, America cannot protect our people and our economy. At this time, we can
see storm clouds gathering. A polemicist’s role is not sufficient for a
leader."

This is a true statement, I just hope the damage done can be undone. We are
stronger together than we are alone.

~~~
rayiner
Is that empirically true? The USA was the largest economy in the world by
1890, despite pursing a policy of isolationism for the entire century before
that. By the time we entered the First World War, we accounted for a quarter
of the world economy, about as much as all of Western Europe put together.

~~~
dragonwriter
> The USA was the largest economy in the world by 1890, despite pursing a
> policy of isolationism for the entire century before that.

The US was never isolationist unless you ignore the existence of Native
American Nations; it was brutally expansionist from day one. From the time of
the Monroe Doctrine, US imperialism expanded even further, leaving the US
“isolationist” in most of the 19th Century mainly only in regard to what
happened outside the Western Hemisphere, and not even always there.

~~~
rayiner
"Isolationism" when discussing U.S. history, and as relevant here, generally
refers to our reluctance to our avoidance of alliances with European
countries. (Or, really, anyone. In this context, "isolationism" isn't
inconsistent with "expansionist." It's more about unilateral versus multi-
lateral.)

------
padobson
This was thoughtful, measured, wise, well-written, and completely ineffectual.

There's no "threat of tribalism". We're living in tribalism. This piece could
only be effective in another climate.

Ham-fisted, on-the-nose, bluntness is the only way to get your message across
to a political audience in 2019.

~~~
luckylion
> There's no "threat of tribalism". We're living in tribalism.

I understand the point to be "tribalism is great, but we should be one tribe
dominating all (or most, with our allies, as long as they are aligned with us)
the other tribes". I didn't see any general call against tribalism. "Defending
our way of life" is pretty much that: "the tribe's way of life".

~~~
scottlocklin
> I didn't see any general call against tribalism.

"We are dividing into hostile tribes cheering against each other, fueled by
emotion and a mutual disdain that jeopardizes our future, instead of
rediscovering our common ground and finding solutions."

The phrase "defending our way of life" isn't in the article.

~~~
dondawest
>"We are dividing into hostile tribes cheering against each other, fueled by
emotion and a mutual disdain that jeopardizes our future, instead of
rediscovering our common ground and finding solutions."

This describes the entirety of human history. And CERTAINLY the history of
America.

------
mothsonasloth
It's not directly related to General Mattis, but I would recommend reading
Evan Wright's book "Generation Kill". Which recounts his time being embedded
with the 1st Recon Battalion, which was under the command of Mattis (Callsign
Chaos) during Operation Iraqi Freedom.

The book even goes briefly into a famous moment in the invasion of Iraq were
General Mattis fires one of his commanders during a siege of a city.

[https://www.wearethemighty.com/articles/that-time-mattis-
fir...](https://www.wearethemighty.com/articles/that-time-mattis-fired-a-
commander-in-the-middle-of-combat)

HBO did a miniseries on the book too which is great.

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

~~~
mabbo
Amazing fact about that book and show: Sergeant Rodolfo "Rudy" Reyes ('Fruity'
Rudy) finished his term with the military and decided to move to Hollywood and
become an actor. A few years later, casting began for the miniseries based on
the book, based on his tour. He tried out.

Rudy is played by himself.

------
marktangotango
As others have said, this is an excerpt promoting a forthcoming book, not a
declaration to run against the current president.

Also interesting to note Mattis is call sign "Chaos" who was a major offscreen
character and frequently mentioned on the HBO mini series "Generation Kill".

------
amoorthy
American foreign policy has been inconsistent and often deadly to many
civilians worldwide. Americans sometimes go in with the best of intentions,
but not always, as we know from the Iraq war, CIA overthrow of Iranian
government, and many other debacles.

For Mathis to disregard this and put the military and intelligence apparatus
above politics is disingenuous, or at least ignorant of reality. He may be
non-partisan but his department has a hand in why our current tribalism
exists, and always has.

If American military and intelligence organizations had a truly non-
interventionist approach and one which works with our allies then there are
politicians on both sides to support them - Tulsi Gabbard, Ron Paul, for
example.

Finally, Mathis admits our defense spending exceeds all but 20 countries' GDP.
In an era where our enemies are often digital, or terrorist organizations,
more so than nation states, is our military spending oversized for what we
need? Would any secretary of defense admit to this and redirect funds to more
pressing causes at home or abroad? Such a leader would be a truly remarkable
and laudable.

~~~
jacobush
_" In an era where our enemies are often digital, or terrorist organizations,
more so than nation states, is our military spending oversized for what we
need?"_

Hawks will only hear, "we need to spend more of the military budget on cyber
threats".

~~~
dagw
More likely "We need a larger budget so we can spent more on cyber threats"

------
gnusty_gnurc
General Mattis and others like him from the administrative, technocratic state
have to do so much more to try to convince us that they're qualified. His
appeals to decency and fitness of leadership ring supremely hollow after 20
years in the Middle East absolutely screwing up at every turn. We're in the
current mess, largely defined by lack of trust in government, precisely
because of "respectable" heads of state like Mattis.

~~~
creaghpatr
Not to mention spending years on Theranos' board, I guess he gets a free pass
for letting Elizabeth Holmes play him like a fiddle.

[https://www.axios.com/mattis-
theranos-1521137535-f08d8b9b-78...](https://www.axios.com/mattis-
theranos-1521137535-f08d8b9b-78f7-4e31-b2b5-4fade3d52a91.html)

------
coupdetaco
Drumpf is finished

~~~
dang
Would you please stop posting unsubstantive comments to HN? You've done it a
lot and we ban accounts that do that.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

~~~
coupdetaco
HN is turning into reddit

~~~
dang
Would you please read
[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)
all the way to the end? and please stop posting unsubstantive comments to
Hacker News.

