There's been a question rattling around my brain for a while now: Where have the Second Amendment champions been the last few years? Those in favor of liberal gun ownership laws usually speak about it in abstract terms, most commonly harmony with the land and guarantees of liberty. The first argument hasn't been seriously challenged, but what are their thoughts these days about checks against a tyrannical government? Shouldn't the burgeoning surveillance state be anathema to them? Isn't this the kind of issue they should be up in arms (har) about? I would have thought the massive increases in spying and indiscriminate data sweeps would be an unsupportable infringement of their liberty.
The least charitable explanation is that they don't really believe all the high-flown language they spout - they really just like making big noises and blowing stuff up. I don't buy it, though. There are people like that in the world but not enough to sustain a movement. It could be they don't really bother unless a physical intrusion is imminent. If ATF agents are rolling towards your house it's time to man the barricades, but if the FBI is quietly vacuuming up every email and phone call it isn't such a big deal. That seems possible, but I suspect if they are concerned enough to consider gun control an intolerable intrusion by the government they are also emphatically opposed to anything else that smacks of it. Maybe they figure they've got their hands full with firearms rights and can't spare the effort elsewhere. But that just leaves me with the nagging feeling that they know something really bad is happening and on balance are OK with it. What causes a group to assent to a situation that goes against its core beliefs? The only explanation that adds up is tribal loyalty.
It may be officially neutral on politics but firearms groups like the NRA have been largely associated with Republicans and the right wing for a long time (I know there are exceptions - I wrote "largely" not "entirely"). Political affiliation is a tribal membership, and those ties create a sense of identification that resides at a very basic level. We typically think of tribal conflict as something that only happens in remote and undeveloped areas, but believing that blinds us to the fundamental ways we align with different groups. And for the record I do not consider myself immune to it. I think it explains a great deal of the contemporary political landscape. In the case above it explains why a group might generally ignore a development that strikes at the very heart of one of its central concerns. Loyalty to the tribe dictates a decorous silence until the presidency goes to a more palatable opponent. We tend to dismiss such light treatment of ideals as hardball politics, but more accurately it's loyalty to the tribe.
M.J. Rosenberg wrote of Charles Krauthammer this week "[h]e believes that Israel must triumph in every situation because it is innately right while the Arabs are innately wrong", which is as nice a summary of tribal thinking as you will find. James Carville compares Bill Richardson to Judas, Merrill McPeak compares Bill Clinton to Joseph McCarthy - these are coming from people in "camps" with clearly drawn boundaries, and they glare suspiciously out from them. I don't think it's enough to say politics ain't beanbag and this is how the game is played. It isn't just semantics - describing it as, say, overheated rhetoric instead of tribalism is extremely significant. For one, it tends to minimize the intent of it and disguise the motivation behind it. More importantly it keeps us from confronting how it drives our own actions, or from acknowledging when it prompts us to dismiss principles we claim to cherish.
Maybe I have been oblivious to it all my life, but it seems that the razor-thin and contested election in 2000 and terrorist attack the following year either created or revealed tribal identities that had gone unnoticed for a long time. Many retreated into territories defined by politics and religion. In this historic primary season it has happened again, now along racial and gender lines. It isn't absolute by any means, just much more clearly marked. All of it is driven by group identification, and in that sense it comes from a level too low to be reached by persuasion. It may be dressed up in formal clothes, sober tones, a big vocabulary and impressive rationalizations, but much of the time what passes for dialog seems to come from some of our most primitive instincts.
- danps's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Front page
Comments
Guns kill people
Guns have exactly one use, and one use alone.
Tasers kill too, just less frequently and with less mess. That's another old argument around here.
That's why a big chunk of the progressive movement doesn't want either of them.
The tribal identities in America have always been here. They always will be. They're in any country, any city, and an inevitable part of human nature. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to live beyond them.
It's much healthier to live beyond your gene pool.
No Hell below us
Above us, only sky
No Hell below us
Above us, only sky
I agree, Kelley
And living beyond them can mean sticking by principles when the rest of the group is putting more emphasis on loyalty. That can put you in a pretty lonely place.
hasn't it always tho? we are all tribal, and
the GOP has used that in a very smart but divisive way to get votes and power--these kinds of group/belonging/us v. them/identity things have great power to sway voters.
On our side it's derided as "identity politics" but they actually do it more and do it better--they've gotten millions to vote against their interests and against their own well-being.
this kind of thing is gonna come back to kill us if
Obama's the nominee, and is directly related to group id stuff--
http://www.rawstory.com/news/mochila/Oba...
-- Obama Says His Foreign Policy Would Be Like That of President Bush's Father, JFK, Reagan
It blurs the group id thing enormously which has been a misguided goal of his all along, when they should be strengthening the party's id instead.
Strengthening the policies and stances that make us unlike the GOP should always be the primary goal.
but what are their thoughts
As far as the civilian class in this country goes, politics is a team sport. It's Yankees vs Red Sox every day for these people. Supporting your team trumps everything, even your most ostensibly cherished principles.
I've never met a gun-loving libertarian who was actually politically neutral when it came to the 2 parties. Every single one is hardcore Republican. I don't even know why they keep a special name for themselves. They are as solidly Republican as the fundamentalist christians are.
And being so solidly ensconced in one of two political tribes, their principles become quite flexible. What used to be fear of government spying is now support of government spying to keep America safe from brown people. What used to be government agents hassling people at airports is now "shut the fuck up and take it like a man you effeminate liberal pussy"
No, you won't see the "libertarians" care about their principles until the next Democratic administration. You've already heard them go dead silent for 7 years on subjects like torture, the elimination of habeus corpus, etc.
Give the NRA some credit
That association does not compromise its issue. It does not give a pass to Republican legislators who want to pander to the opposition on a particular vote. And the NRA will stand with Democrats who stand with them.
True, a lot of the NRA is made up of government hating Libertarians. However, the Libertarian agenda is not the NRA's agenda.
What's going on now is everyone is holding their breath for the decision in
District of Columbia v. Heller which is expected in June.
If the gun rights crowd loses this one, after all those Republican appointments to the Supreme Court, you will see Republicans repudiate the Roberts Court or you will see a dramatic shift by the NRA away from its support of the Republican Party. If the decision goes against the NRA, its members will demand that Sen. McCain swear that any of his nominees to serve on the federal bench will have to pass their litmus test on second amendment issues. NRA members will not tolerate any finessing on the judgeship issue if Heller goes against them.
Re: Heller
That's a fantastic point Mike. I knew SCOTUS had taken Heller up but didn't think about the implications.
I've seen lots of snide remarks about blog commenters but the folks who say that stuff must not actually read them. Sure there are flame wars, but some of the best points are also made there. Thanks for providing yet another example.
Amberglow - voting against their interests
Hi amberglow - I agree the GOP has used it effectively and managed to give it a negative connotation when the left does it. I think the "vote against their interests" (aka the What's the Matter With Kansas effect) is different and not an example of tribalism in the following respect:
A lower-middle class evangelical who votes for a pro-life Republican is voting after prioritizing principles. S/he may think, I wish the candidate didn't advocate a regressive income tax rate but I feel so strongly about abortion I'll vote against my economic self-interest. My morals come first.
This leaves aside the obvious other issue, including what I consider the indisputable fact that Republicans are functionally pro-choice. (If they were really pro-life, abortion would have been made illegal when Ford was still in office. The majority favors at least some kind of legal abortion and they know if Roe v. Wade were overturned it would be a disaster for them. For almost two generations they've been able to claim the mantle of "values" without having to do anything about it.) The point is, people who think like that are acting consistent with stated principles. I was trying to get at the phenomenon of people acting against stated principles. I feel like I can engage in good faith with the former; with the latter I don't even know where to begin.
danps, yeah--but doesn't it come down to the same thing?
If you've internalized the longstanding GOP messages (govt is never the answer for regular people, it's your money, not DC's, it's your fault if your job goes away or you don't have health ins or you lose your house, etc)-- and also prioritized so that the things that government can help everyone with aren't your top priorities (also a longstanding GOP focus--to rile people up with hot-button social issues and wedge things, instead of things that deeply affect their lives), don't you always end up voting against your interests even if you see abortion as your main interest?
Like--people's stated interests and reasons for voting are very much shaped by outside forces and are often distractions--and their real practical needs are truly their interests no matter what--even if they don't vote on them. They vote against their interests even when they're voting for specific causes and stuff, bec those things are almost always not at all as important as economic things and govt as responsive to people's lives and needs and health.
To me, no. Here's why:
If you identify with a political movement and defend its principles even when "your" party is going against, you're acting out of belief - higher order thinking that can be reasoned with and persuaded. If you identify with a movement and defend the movement even when it goes against its stated principles, you're being tribal and trying to reason/persuade is useless.
shared interests are what make up tribalism, no?
I think i'm not explaining it well, but if i identify as a Democrat, it's because i have goals, priorities, and interests that a specific party is better on, so i go with the one that's closest whether they achieve them or not.
The community/belonging/tribal part is overall immensely stronger than any one interest or issue for everyone, but they all feedback into each other and our views get prioritized simply due to membership in that tribe alone, whether we have one big issue or not, no?
i'm missing something, dan--
"If you identify with a political movement and defend its principles even when “your” party is going against, you’re acting out of belief - higher order thinking that can be reasoned with and persuaded. If you identify with a movement and defend the movement even when it goes against its stated principles, you’re being tribal and trying to reason/persuade is useless."
reasoned belief and tribal id/loyalty ---
let's take Pro-life and other socially conservative Dems: They don't become Repubs even tho anti-abortion is very important to them. Are they acting out of reasoned belief? Are they being tribal? They're very loyal lifetime Dems for the most part even tho the party is explicitly pro-choice.
Shared interests
I agree on your "shared interests" point. You throw in with one of the parties and you get a "bundle" of issues, some of which you presumably won't like. My point is, what do you do about the ones you don't like? For example, I'm big on executive power. McCain has explicitly said he won't issue signing statements. Obama and Clinton have hedged. So even though I'm a liberal on most issues I have to credit McCain and ding the other two on that issue. To me that's an example of principle. If I ignored it or tried to rationalize their position even though it went against my principles that would be tribal. I won't stop being a liberal but it may create some tension with other liberals.
but isn't the result that you are ignoring it after all?
that's kinda my point--we of necessity ignore things we care deeply about if we don't change our vote because of it, no?
the tribal is winning out or the package of identity things and issues is winning out over the one important thing.
Re: socially conservative Dems
It depends on the individual's mindset (which is why it's best to figure out if we are acting tribally instead of accusing others of it). If abortion isn't a big issue then no problem. If it's a big issu but the other ones collectively outweigh it then it's a judgment call in favor of being a Dem. If it's a belief that both parties are pro-choice but only the Dems are open about it then it's no issue at all. BUT - if you're a pro-life Dem and you defend its position on abortion you're being tribal. I think pro-life Dems should be engaged on the issue with fellow Dems and look to find common areas of agreement to turn into policy. They shouldn't feel excluded from the party or feel like they are being told to sit down and shut up. Of course, I think that's true on any issue. We should have ongoing debate/dialog.
We don't ignore them
We keep agitating and trying to push the party in a new direction.
AFK
Back later...
i guess....
thanks!