This is where "party" becomes a trap. I've written before about my attendance at party conventions and the disparate views espoused by attendees. The fact is, a "party" is beneficial for a short time, when a single issue or maybe two unite a group of people for political purpose. However, when party remains longer, and grows beyond such simplicity, it becomes a self-perpetuating power proxy that does not generally represent those who cling to the party's label. The old saying, "you can please some of the people some of the time, but you can't please all the people all the time," comes into play here. A party cannot, by nature, represent everyone who claims to be a member, unless that party is limited to one or two political points, Beyond that, adherents will disagree.
As you rightly note, tribalism then comes into play. This is what Washington foresaw and foretold in his farewell address. When party becomes the focus, you end up with two major parties (as we have) between whom power goes back and forth. Inevitably, those enamored with power climb to the top and use the "party" for their own purposes, regardless of alleged policy positions. Party just becomes a hammer with which to bludgeon others into voting for you (or, in reality, against "them" - the "other" party). Most people have been so hammered into this tribal political pandering that to vote for someone other than the party candidate, no matter how bad or how much you disagree with policy, will result in ostracism and claims that, "you're throwing away your vote," or "you're voting for the 'other' party."
It is a sad state, and the country would be far better were we to do away with parties and let candidates run on their own platforms and merits. But tribalism is easier - it requires little thought, much less involvement.
That's also why the founders didn't seek to eliminate parties - they knew it was human nature (as you again pointed out). They sought to try to mitigate the negative effects of party. But in this they failed, and that was obvious even as soon as the early 1800s.
Reminds me of “flashcard thinking” I had to deal with recently. Management sure greater foot print makes a more expensive building. But if you wind up with a lot of structural steel holding up equipment that would have bolted to grade level concrete? And the building is more than double height in a grade 5 hurricane zone? And the operators have to go up 30’ of stairs to check on heart of process?
Yeah, you have less sq ft but you didn’t save any money and you’ve made it worse operationally.
In my youth, just pre-Reagan, some folks were describing themselves as "Reagan Republicans." I was just begining to form my political identity, and I conflated both conservatism and Republicanism. The draw of tribalism is strong, so I was well into my thirties when I realized that the two differed greatly, and were not always in the same package. In fact could be on opposite sides. I since have realized that I can only vote my core values, those that I will not bend on. Sadly, many elections hold no candidates that match my views politically or morally. In those cases you must vote for the the closest person or the one who will do the least damage. In very rare cases I leave a line on a ballot blank. George Washington was opposed to political parties for these reasons, and believed the "spirit of party" agitates the community with false alarms and creates malicious animosity between citizens. Does it ever. The first president also understood that political parties do not focus their repspective public policy on the common good and national unity, but rather "on the narrow victories of specific factions." Thus we see the Biden administration overturning nearly every Trump policy on day one, and vice versa. Only when large majorities of citizens vote for candidates who mirror their core values rather than their party affiliation will we move closer to good governance as intended by the founders and in the Constitution.
This is where "party" becomes a trap. I've written before about my attendance at party conventions and the disparate views espoused by attendees. The fact is, a "party" is beneficial for a short time, when a single issue or maybe two unite a group of people for political purpose. However, when party remains longer, and grows beyond such simplicity, it becomes a self-perpetuating power proxy that does not generally represent those who cling to the party's label. The old saying, "you can please some of the people some of the time, but you can't please all the people all the time," comes into play here. A party cannot, by nature, represent everyone who claims to be a member, unless that party is limited to one or two political points, Beyond that, adherents will disagree.
As you rightly note, tribalism then comes into play. This is what Washington foresaw and foretold in his farewell address. When party becomes the focus, you end up with two major parties (as we have) between whom power goes back and forth. Inevitably, those enamored with power climb to the top and use the "party" for their own purposes, regardless of alleged policy positions. Party just becomes a hammer with which to bludgeon others into voting for you (or, in reality, against "them" - the "other" party). Most people have been so hammered into this tribal political pandering that to vote for someone other than the party candidate, no matter how bad or how much you disagree with policy, will result in ostracism and claims that, "you're throwing away your vote," or "you're voting for the 'other' party."
It is a sad state, and the country would be far better were we to do away with parties and let candidates run on their own platforms and merits. But tribalism is easier - it requires little thought, much less involvement.
That's also why the founders didn't seek to eliminate parties - they knew it was human nature (as you again pointed out). They sought to try to mitigate the negative effects of party. But in this they failed, and that was obvious even as soon as the early 1800s.
Reminds me of “flashcard thinking” I had to deal with recently. Management sure greater foot print makes a more expensive building. But if you wind up with a lot of structural steel holding up equipment that would have bolted to grade level concrete? And the building is more than double height in a grade 5 hurricane zone? And the operators have to go up 30’ of stairs to check on heart of process?
Yeah, you have less sq ft but you didn’t save any money and you’ve made it worse operationally.
Before I comment I'd like to acknowledge the Pangean Dinosaurs who were the rightful owners of this land...
Well played.
In my youth, just pre-Reagan, some folks were describing themselves as "Reagan Republicans." I was just begining to form my political identity, and I conflated both conservatism and Republicanism. The draw of tribalism is strong, so I was well into my thirties when I realized that the two differed greatly, and were not always in the same package. In fact could be on opposite sides. I since have realized that I can only vote my core values, those that I will not bend on. Sadly, many elections hold no candidates that match my views politically or morally. In those cases you must vote for the the closest person or the one who will do the least damage. In very rare cases I leave a line on a ballot blank. George Washington was opposed to political parties for these reasons, and believed the "spirit of party" agitates the community with false alarms and creates malicious animosity between citizens. Does it ever. The first president also understood that political parties do not focus their repspective public policy on the common good and national unity, but rather "on the narrow victories of specific factions." Thus we see the Biden administration overturning nearly every Trump policy on day one, and vice versa. Only when large majorities of citizens vote for candidates who mirror their core values rather than their party affiliation will we move closer to good governance as intended by the founders and in the Constitution.