Next is Ben Shapiro on “The Revenge of Tribalism” (2016).
His irascible posturing has long annoyed me, for he often seems like an arch-tribalist
intent on tribalizing others. I usually changed the TV channel after a few
minutes of his demonizing. However, his tone and stance changed a bit after he
resigned from his position at Breitbart News, following criticisms he directed
at Donald Trump and Stephen Bannon.
Against that background, he turns in this article to
identify tribalism on both sides as a problem and explanation for our current political
divisiveness. Yet, his analysis of tribalism itself amounts to a spirited (but
for me, dispiriting) act of tribalism. For he can't stop demonizing the
Democrats, Obama, and Clinton.
He blames Obama above all, claiming that "President
Obama’s tribal politics have crippled America." And that Obama used
"tribalism to grow his own power” by playing on racial and ethnic politics.
Thus, "Trump is the counter-reaction. He, like Obama,
is tribal." But it's a different kind of tribalism, for his is "the tribalism
of Patrick Buchanan."
Shapiro's background analysis is about how "The
Founders were scholars of both Thomas Hobbes and John Locke", and how
American society has devolved from Lockean into Hobbesian conditions in recent
decades. Thus Americans are reverting to tribal politics, and may next succumb
to a "strongman" who wants to construct a Hobbesian Leviathan state.
Aargh. His remarks about the Founders, Locke, and Hobbes
seem reasonable; they're even a bit TIMN-ish. But his take on the growth of tribalism
in America is faulty and misleading.
Here are three reasons why, based on my efforts to watch for
tribal behavior among both conservatives and liberals / progressives over the
past 5 to 10 years:
First, tribalism among conservatives, especially conservatives
outside the Republican fold, started years, in some ways decades ago — long
before Obama became president. Shapiro's mention of Pat Buchanan indicates he
should know this. Key elements of their tribalism — narrative lines, media
strategies, funding priorities, legislative maneuvers, etc. — were in place
when Obama took office. Much as conservatives would go on to decry
"political correctness" on the Left, they were already deep into
installing a kind of "tribal correctness" of their own. And they
immediately aimed it at Obama, not to mention Clinton.
Second, the tribalism of the conservative Right is
structurally different from the tribalism on the liberal / progressive Left.
The tribalism on the Right is built around a common narrative, plus principles
and strategies, that pretty much spans the conservative movement. A media
infrastructure of AM talk radio, FOX News, and CPAC conventions has worked to
cultivate and assure this. Sometimes nowadays, when I am in a mean mood, I
wonder whether tribalists of the Right have, in some sense, been Pavlov'ed and
Potemkin'ed together.
In contrast, tribalism on the Left is quite chopped up. Each
group, especially each ethnic and racial group, has it's own agents and
episodes of tribalism. From what I've seen, there's no cohesive, all-spanning
narrative or other strategy. And the media infrastructures that may work to
tribalize on the Left are not as impressive or effective as those on the Right.
Sure, conservatives often point to particular individuals and movements as
evidence of tribalism on the Left — but my sense continues to be that there's
not nearly as much that is systematic on the Left.
Third, Obama really wasn't (and isn't) much of a tribalist.
I've seen him talk like a bit of a tribalist on a few occasions, mostly
involving racial matters — but nothing like Trump. However, I've also seen what
I thought might be efforts by conservatives to goad Obama into acting like a
tribalist — for example, if I recall correctly, after a racial incident, when someone
on FOX News may criticize Obama for not doing much about the incident, then
when he does something, turning to accuse him of playing the race card.
Tribalists seem to be comfortable with duplicitous hypocrisy.
This post has grown too long, so I'm stopping now, even
though the above three points beg for further clarification.
Here's an excerpt from Shapiro's article:
"They’re both right. Obama,
like it or not, leads a coalition of tribes. Trump, like it or not, leads a
competing coalition of tribes. The Founders weep in their graves. …
"But the Founders still feared
tribalism. They called it “faction” in The Federalist Papers, and were truly
worried about the seizure of the mechanism of government in order to benefit
one group over another. They may have agreed with Locke over Hobbes about the
proper extent of government power, but they never believed that tribalism had
disappeared. That is why they attempted to create a government pitting faction
against faction, cutting the Gordian knot of tyranny and tribalism with checks
and balances. …
"It was a brilliant solution
to an intractable problem — so long as it worked.
"It no longer does. Tribalism
has had its revenge. …
"And so we may have reached
the end of the era of small government. As tribalism rises, Americans look
again to the strongman. We begin the cycle anew. But first, we feel the rage of
riots in San Jose and Ferguson, and the spiteful glee of the white-nationalist
alt-right. We watch contests between tribal figures like Hillary Clinton and
Donald Trump. We wonder which tribe will win, even as America disintegrates
before us."
To read for yourself, go here:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/436312/donald-trump-barack-obama-tribalism-hobbesian-politics
[I posted an earlier write-up of this reading on my Facebook
page, on March 30.]
No comments:
Post a Comment