Tribalism in America

[Lucifer_Carroll]

What do you think of the tribalization of America where our right and left are seemingly two separate tribes both of which highly turned on by the idea of escaping their "immoral" or "scary" breathern or otherwise making war on them? By the fact that these two groups hold goals that are not merely oppossing but seem to originate in two separate universes and hold two very distinct utopias in mind? By the fact that it seems the totality of the value systems of both, the impression of reality of both, and indeed the loyalties of both are all highly distinct to the point of pure separation? Also considering the fact that hatreds are being bonded out of stronger things than steel which call for hatred merely by alliance, we must act ourselves a distinct question.


Are our differences becomes so set in stone that civil war is as inevitable as the civil war in the Balkans or is this merely the situation of the times which has exasperated existing party tensions and that assuming a re-freeing of the media will resolve itself peacefully?

I ask because it seems that in our two-party system we have begun to form loyalties to the party that exceed not only our fealty to the country or the Constitution thereof but also exceeds the beliefs we thought we had. While the unfortunately partisan example of the loyalties of die-hard Republicans in post-9/11 where they found themselves having to defend torture, treason, and the removal of habeus corpus as the cost of their alleigance is apt, it seems like this party alleigance grows to be universal and indeed our very societies have grown two very distinct worlds where not only the beliefs clash, but the information does as well. A credit to the disinformation campaigns and spotty memories of the Republic. Indeed, we seem to be on an edge wherein the past crimes of the administration may in fact be held to heel and perhaps the whole issue can be resolved in a minor orgy of "mass wakeup". But given the information that couldn't help be revealed and the even current state of the divisions where the mere applications of the labels of liberal or conservative can't help but elucidate emotional responses and blind value judgements, we may have already gone too far to be saved.



So, is the tribalism to the divisive point where civil war is an inevitable action that will occur some time in the future when the grievances become uncontainable?

Or is it not as bad as it seems?


What d'y'all think?

 

[Guest]

damn, i read tribadism

 

[Misty_Morning]

damn, i read tribadism

*snicker*

Me, too.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

You may see this as evidence of your thesis, but what scares me is not so much people getting heated about public policy disagreements. Those are the same old, same old, and ultimately are healthy. No, what scares me are the philospophies of post-modernism and moral relativism, which I believe are nihilistic and ultimately destructive to a society in which they become the predominant way of thinking. When most people don't believe that truth exists or matters, or that their civiliation has anything positive to recommend it, I don's see how that society can survive.

The political polarization is partly due to that, but is also largely a function of the gerrymandering of congressional (and legislative) so that they are all solidly R or D. This means the only voters who really count in those districts are R or D primary voters, who tend to be further from the center than the polulation at large. But again, the public policy disputes are not as dangerous as thephilosophical divide, in my view.

Let's talk about tribadism now.

 

[Misty_Morning]

Let's talk about tribadism now.

Amen!

 

[rgraham666]

I've been working on a history of the Second American Civil War. And it is won by the same people who won the Yugoslavian Civil War. No one.

The former U.S. ends up being ruled by warlords who generally rule as far as their men can march in a day. Not enough infrastructure to support modern vehicles.

I don't regard civil war in the States as an inevitability, but I do give it a high probability of occurrence. For the reasons Luc mentioned. Many Americans don't regard other Americans as Americans, or even human in extreme cases.

 

[angela146]

...what scares me are the philospophies of post-modernism and moral relativism, which I believe are nihilistic and ultimately destructive to a society in which they become the predominant way of thinking.

The problem with non-relativistic morality is knowing when to apply it, i.e. at what point is it appropriate to impose the moral view of one group onto another group.

Who gets to decide that their morality is superior to the other guys' morality.

Do we take a vote and impose the moral will of the majority onto the minority? Well, yes, sometimes we do. Slavery was a big enough offense to morality that it was appropriate to impose the abolition of slavery onto the South. (I'll explain why I feel that way in a moment).

The problem is that many non-relativists want to impose *all* of their moral codes onto everyone else. The modern day extreme conservatives want to tell us how to worship, whom to have sex with, what to read, what card games we can play, and what we can do with our bodies.

The modern day liberals, at the other extreme, want to take "excess" money away from those who have it and give it to those who don't.

In my view, we must accept a base level of moral relativism - in the form of moral pluralism - in order to preserve liberty.

Individuals must have the right to obey their own moral codes so long as they do not infringe on the rights of others. Otherwise we devolve into a state of power-based moralism: the morals of the strong are imposed onto the morals of the weak.

Slavery is unacceptable - IMHO - not because slavery is wrong per-se but because slavery infringes on the rights of those who are enslaved. Most of us would agree that slavery is wrong *but* I would argue that we should not interfere with slavery *if* the slave has the right to opt-out. (Which is why BDSM-style slavery is OK by me).

Now, someone is going to argue that slavery with an opt-out isn't really slavery. Please take that argument to another thread.

In fact, liberty itself takes such a high relative moral value *only* in societies that choose to value it that way.

There are plenty of societies that value obedience to God much higher than liberty. In my view, we must accept those societies' individual moralities *as long as* the individuals within them have and opt-out.

In other words, if Saudi Arabia wants to impose Islam on all its citizens, that's OK as long as individual citizens have the right (and the economic ability) to leave and go somewhere else.

Why do I feel this way? Because in my own personal moral code, I value self-determination more than I value most other moral precepts - including liberty. So long as there are good places to live where liberty is enshrined and valued, I'm OK with there being places where liberty is not enshrined. Again, as long as we all get to choose.

I suppose you could call me a free-market moralist.

So, applying this logic, does that mean that the Fundamentalist Christians have the right to live in a society that imposes Christianity on all its citizens? Yes. In fact, I would be willing to give them the state of Texas and let them have at it, so long as the non-christian Texans can get the hell out of Dodge whenever they want.

 

[angela146]

Separate thread for Tribadism here

 

[cheerful_deviant]

Separate thread for Tribadism here

 

[JamesSD]

I think at this present point in time both parties in the US are being controlled by some of their more extreme members. In 2006, one of the key trends that emerged was the Democratic party being willing to loosen its stances on certain previously "litmus test" issues (like abortion) for the sake of votes (Senate races in Penn, Tenn).

It seems that as a party gains power, it shifts further towards its extreme, alienating its more fringe members in an attempt to appease its core. Eventually its support erodes, it loses power, and is forced to move more towards the center again.

I think the lesson of 2006 is America is a lot more "purple" than it sometimes seems. There are a lot of independants, and a lot of half-hearted party members (i.e. "I don't love my party, but they're the lesser of two evils")

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

The problem with non-relativistic morality is knowing when to apply it, i.e. at what point is it appropriate to impose the moral view of one group onto another group.

Who gets to decide that their morality is superior to the other guys' morality.

Do we take a vote and impose the moral will of the majority onto the minority? Well, yes, sometimes we do. Slavery was a big enough offense to morality that it was appropriate to impose the abolition of slavery onto the South. (I'll explain why I feel that way in a moment).

The problem is that many non-relativists want to impose *all* of their moral codes onto everyone else. The modern day extreme conservatives want to tell us how to worship, whom to have sex with, what to read, what card games we can play, and what we can do with our bodies.

The modern day liberals, at the other extreme, want to take "excess" money away from those who have it and give it to those who don't.

In my view, we must accept a base level of moral relativism - in the form of moral pluralism - in order to preserve liberty.

Individuals must have the right to obey their own moral codes so long as they do not infringe on the rights of others. Otherwise we devolve into a state of power-based moralism: the morals of the strong are imposed onto the morals of the weak.

Slavery is unacceptable - IMHO - not because slavery is wrong per-se but because slavery infringes on the rights of those who are enslaved. Most of us would agree that slavery is wrong *but* I would argue that we should not interfere with slavery *if* the slave has the right to opt-out. (Which is why BDSM-style slavery is OK by me).

Now, someone is going to argue that slavery with an opt-out isn't really slavery. Please take that argument to another thread.

In fact, liberty itself takes such a high relative moral value *only* in societies that choose to value it that way.

There are plenty of societies that value obedience to God much higher than liberty. In my view, we must accept those societies' individual moralities *as long as* the individuals within them have and opt-out.

In other words, if Saudi Arabia wants to impose Islam on all its citizens, that's OK as long as individual citizens have the right (and the economic ability) to leave and go somewhere else.

Why do I feel this way? Because in my own personal moral code, I value self-determination more than I value most other moral precepts - including liberty. So long as there are good places to live where liberty is enshrined and valued, I'm OK with there being places where liberty is not enshrined. Again, as long as we all get to choose.

I suppose you could call me a free-market moralist.

So, applying this logic, does that mean that the Fundamentalist Christians have the right to live in a society that imposes Christianity on all its citizens? Yes. In fact, I would be willing to give them the state of Texas and let them have at it, so long as the non-christian Texans can get the hell out of Dodge whenever they want.

Angela, I mostly agree with you. Some here won't be surprised by my big obection: You cite Saudi Arabia. Women there and in most other Islamic nations to a greater or lesser extent do not have the choice or the means to go where they are not made second class citizens and the victims of great injustice. When I say this here people always accuse me of wanting to invade or something stupid, and when I say that individuals should have the courage to assert that what is done to women in those societies is immoral and they should stop doing it, people tell me that just making the assertion is meaningless. I don't want to hijack this thread, but that seems to me an example of where a thing is not moral because it does rob an entire class of human rights and dignity, and yet the moral relativists are unable or unwilling to condemn it.

 

[angela146]

Angela, I mostly agree with you. Some here won't be surprised by my big obection: You cite Saudi Arabia. Women there and in most other Islamic nations to a greater or lesser extent do not have the choice or the means to go where they are not made second class citizens and the victims of great injustice. When I say this here people always accuse me of wanting to invade or something stupid, and when I say that individuals should have the courage to assert that what is done to women in those societies is immoral and they should stop doing it, people tell me that just making the assertion is meaningless. I don't want to hijack this thread, but that seems to me an example of where a thing is not moral because it does rob an entire class of human rights and dignity, and yet the moral relativists are unable or unwilling to condemn it.

Let's move this to another thread...

 

[Liar]

You may see this as evidence of your thesis, but what scares me is not so much people getting heated about public policy disagreements. Those are the same old, same old, and ultimately are healthy. No, what scares me are the philospophies of post-modernism and moral relativism, which I believe are nihilistic and ultimately destructive to a society in which they become the predominant way of thinking. When most people don't believe that truth exists or matters, or that their civiliation has anything positive to recommend it, I don's see how that society can survive.

I beg to differ. in any society, the most dangerous person is the one that a) believe that truth exists and matters and b) is certain that they know it. Those are the people that become hell-bent on dictating what the truth is, what the moral right is, and what good and evil is, for the rest of us. They believe as they have The Truth that this is their right. There's a word for those people - fanatics. You and Angela brought up Saudia Arabia. A prime example of moral absolutism taken all the way to fanatism.

There's nothing wrong with believing that truth exists and matters. Quite frankly, I do that too. I'm just not so full of myself that I think I know what the truth is. And I think that's the position of the vast majority of the "relativist" you dread.

 

[rgraham666]

Thank you, Liar.

That sums up my belief quite nicely.

 

[Pure]

i think there are a number of 'tribes' in the US. for example the Southern Baptists. then there is the larger grouping of evangelical Xtians.

some states' citizens are virtual tribes, e.g., for Texas.

of course effete tweedy East coast liberals like Kerry are also tribe members.

 

[Pure]

note to liar and rg.

i agree. the assertion "there is objective truth" might indeed be embraced by some of us of the NON right.

indeed it might be further affirmed that human efforts can approach it (so far as we can tell).

the real hitch is the Randians' claim "we know the objective truth." which of course mirrors the Pope's and the ayatollah's claims.

 

[rgraham666]

In the words of Bran Tse-Mallory, "If I knew everything I'd be God. And then I certainly wouldn't be hanging around this silly planet now, would I?"

 

[cantdog]

In answer to Lucifer's post, I don't think we have to engage in the fighting if we don't want to. Certainly most of us are sitting it out. Just because there are two groups screaming about an issue? I don't think that means I have to join up with one side or the other. Particularly to the point of schism.

 

[elsol]

Why do you people take this Red & Blue crap so far?!?

20 % of us are independents... (I would say probably closer to 25%)

So at least one of fifth of the country is White (If we're going by Red, White and Blue of the Flag).

Next:

Each party has their elements

Conservative, Moderate, and Liberal... Yes, there are actually Liberal Republicans... it's called being Fiscally Conservative-Socially liberal

Do I need to point out that there are Pro-Gun, Anti-Abortion, Pro-God, Pro-Kill-All-The-Brown-People Democrats?

Let's take the Republican Conservatives... Do you think that Amicus (who is in that realm in my opinion) has a whole-hell-of-a-lot in common with an Evangelical Republican Conservative? I as an independent have more in common with the Evangelical conservatives... in fact, if they win I'm going to be one of the people watching Amicus to make sure he faces the Vatican and prays 3 times a day.

And oh yeah... doesn't like only 60% of the country vote.

The more likely civil war is everyone in the middle taking baseball bats to the people on the end just to get them to shut the fuck up.

 

[cantdog]

Yay. Good goin, ElSol.

If half the rhetoric in the Red/Blue thing was sincere, we would indeed be on the battlefield. But it ain't sincere, and the stark antipathy which concerns Luc is really just the baying of ideologues at the pack.

I define "ideologue" as Liar has defined "fanatic." Ideologues are believers in absolutes. You can let them speak, but you have to be sure to keep them out of positions of responsibility, lest you have Auschwitzes in every county.

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y90/sysladobsis/civil-liberties.jpg

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y90/sysladobsis/election512.gif

 

[Liar]

The more likely civil war is everyone in the middle taking baseball bats to the people on the end just to get them to shut the fuck up.

Good point.

I fail to see the red/blue dichotomy. Mostt times a "tribe" in that sense of the world will be much smaller. It's most often not a "this side versus that equally big side" issue when someone attatch a tribal identity to themselves, it's more of a "me and the few who think exactly like me versus the world". And for the sake of convenience (unless you're the fanatic I mentioned earlier), you tolerate those who think kindof like you.