Tribal Exclusivity
A couple anecdotes from the political sandbox suggest an addendum to the collection of theories on modern political interaction.
First, ahead of Biden's State of the Union speech, I bore witness to some pro-oil-drilling conservatives hoping Biden would not change course on domestic drilling, Keystone XL, oil and gas leases on public land, or importing Russian oil. That trickled through to the post-Ukraine-invasion response.
Why? So that they'd not lose a reason to hate him.
Second, a good friend related to me a familial encounter (he is libertarian, they lean left) wherein he pointed out that he's been well ahead of the curve on criticizing over-policing. This deprived them of an opportunity to chastise an 'incorrect' viewpoint, and therefore to demand repentance, self-flagellation, and atonement. So, they ignored it, and continued to flog him for his wrongthink.
Both these speak of a desire that the 'other' be proven wrong overriding the desire to have a good answer shared across tribal lines.
It's a zero-sum way of thinking born of the devolution of political discourse to binary absolutes and win/loss sport. The (emotional) divide between Left and Right today is starker than I can recall across my political life. Elections are now akin to the Super Bowl, where the mere act of winning is elevated above the policies that are sought via victory. There is no measure of the nation's temperature as evinced by the last election that even remotely supports the hard-left turn that Biden and the Democrats have taken this past year plus. Biden won a close election that could easily have gone the other way, but for the personal failings and antics of Donald Trump. The Democrats lost seats in the House, and only won the Senate because a certain Untethered Orange Id ran nutter-logorrheic ahead of a runoff election. This should have been a very clear message: Govern from the middle. Instead, we get "we won, now piss off while we do things that will outrage even our own."
In this cesspit of rancor, it's hard to imagine a uniter or conciliator getting past the primaries, where the most rabid partisans hold the greatest sway, demand the in-your-face style, and have asa primary desire stomping the other team into the ground.
The solution, as always, boils down to each of us. Be happy if someone from the other team says or does something you do. Don't say "I told you so" if someone changes his mind to your viewpoint. Conversely, do allow for the possibility that you're not right about everything. Be open to reasoned, factually supported persuasion, no matter the source. Even if you don't "go over," you might improve your own position.
Yes, there are those with whom you have so little in common there's no hope for a meeting of the minds. If you're a fan of this blog and even somewhat aligned with the politics of liberty, I'll posit that those intransigents on the "other side" are relatively few in number, despite their outsize influence on mainstream politics. Take heart in that, and welcome all those from "that side" who aren't wholly of a mind with the anti-liberty fanatics.
If you enjoy The Roots of Liberty, please subscribe (if you have already, thank you!), and please recommend the blog to your friends! While I share it as much as I can on social media, subscribing ensures you won't miss a post.
If you really like The Roots of Liberty and want to help keep it rolling, please consider becoming a paying subscriber here at Substack, or at a lighter level as contributor to the blog via Patreon.
Thank you for your support!
Yours in liberty,
Peter.