TRIBE: “A social division in a
traditional society consisting of families or communities linked by
social, economic, religious, or blood ties, and among whom leadership
is typically neither formalized nor permanent.”
The hoped for reform movements in the
“Arab Spring” nations have exposed the underlying weakness of
these societies with respect to democratic structures and processes.
That weakness is tribalism. It is an ancient and entrenched basis
for social organization which now unfettered by authoritarian
suppression, is dividing the respective nations into hostile, even
violent groups competing for political power.
The current federal election campaigns
in the United States provide a sharp contrast to the seemingly
intractable social, and thus political, divisions in these countries
as they struggle to create representative governments. But while the
U.S. manages to avoid election violence and citizens generally accept
the legitimacy of election outcomes, the nation's political
environment is taking on more and more of the characteristics of a
tribal society. These include divisions and group identity based on
race, ethnicity, religion, and region.
Certainly there is no complete
homogeneity with respect to political views in these groups but there
is historic consistency in voting patterns with respect to majorities
within the groups. The problem is that political operatives promote
and exploit the identification of individuals as an electoral
strategy while self appointed “leaders” and politicians demagogue
the groups for personal gain. The result of years of this appeal to
differences is the further division of American society into
competing, aggrieved groups. This breeds further intolerance and a
tribal like mutual hostility which has on occasion deteriorated into
open hostility. The Congress recognizes and abets these divisions by
including in its organizational structure sub-groups or caucuses
which are driven by the perceived need to address group identities
and agendas. Thus the Congress has, among many others, the
Congressional Black Caucus; the Congressional Hispanic Caucus; and
the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus.
Now, in an election year, pursuit of
electoral support in the groups quickly becomes pandering on narrow
topics. While all Americans are, or should be, concerned primarily
with economic well being and opportunity for their children, personal
and national security and quality and affordable health care, the
caucuses, non-governmental organizations and periodically, political
campaigns, emphasize grievances. For black Americans, the campaigns
offer affirmative action, government financial assistance and the
seemingly permanent claim of institutional racism. The campaign
issue for Hispanics is immigration reform which is short hand for
more liberal entry and amnesty for illegals currently in the country.
Asians represent only 4.8 percent of the population but have followed
the lead of the other aggrieved groups and their “leaders” are
quick to condemn any public remark or joke referencing Asian
stereotypes as well as seeking “representation” on
non-representative executive branch bodies and bureaucracies.
These racial/ethnic divisions are
reenforced in the public school systems and institutions of higher
education by the misguided celebration of “multiculturalism” and
“diversity”. This is based on the notion that individual foreign
cultures which are simplistically represented by individual American
students with different family ancestries, when grouped together,
foster mutual respect. In reality, the effort diminishes respect for
American's common cultural heritage, political history and sense of
national identity as well as discouraging new immigrants from making
efforts to assimilate.
The media insists on promoting simple
differences in ethnic background of natural born Americans by
describing hyphenated “firsts”: the “first Hispanic-American
Supreme Court Justice (Sonia Sotomayor); the “first” female
Hispanic-American governor (Susana Martinez); the “first”
Chinese-American play in the NBA (Jeremy Lin).
There are no religious based American
“tribes” as such because even though most Americans self identify
with some organized religion, the major political issues in general
cut across the major religious groups. There are however, sub-groups
or what might be the political equivalent of “clans” within the
major groups which are bound together in support of one or two
specific issues at the expense of the larger issues. Thus, as seen
in the Republican presidential primaries, self identified
Evangelicals focused on the issues of abortion and gay rights as
their primary qualification for support.
The recent controversy among
religiously conservative Roman Catholics concerning the federal
government's (Obamacare) requirement that religious based
organizations provide health insurance coverage for birth control has
been a major call to arms by Catholic bishops who are attempting to
use the election as leverage for their position.
The political efforts by Evangelical
preachers and the Catholic bishops is not unlike the claims of the
religious (Islamic) political parties in recent elections in Tunisia
and Egypt who demand strict adherence to their interpretation of
Koranic principles.
Region also presents a significant and
semi-permanent divide as described by “red”, “blue” and
“purple” states. The red states are in the South and non-coastal
West, the blue are on both coasts and the upper mid-west, with the
purple being a few states undergoing demographic changes i.e.
Colorado, New Mexico, Florida. In a country as vast as the United
States, cultural differences are to be expected in different regions.
The troubling aspect of this in terms of national politics is the
divisive demagoguery that has resulted. Liberal leaning California,
Oregon and Washington are disparaged as the “Left Coast”, the
western and mid-western states are referred to dismissively as
unimportant “fly over states” while the socially conservative
southern states are still vilified by self described intellectual
superiors in the urban centers further north, as the home of
backward, dentally challenged “red necks”.
The United States is indeed a diverse
nation and people by nature tend to aggregate in neighborhoods and
social organizations with others most like themselves. It is
unfortunate that the political efforts of parties, national media
and self serving group “leaders” seek to create political
advantage by creating political divisions among these social groups.
Political analysts and “strategists” will be measuring the
success of these dividers by keeping track of the “women's(feminist)
vote, the Hispanic vote, the Evangelical vote, the black vote (in
this case, turnout), blue collar union vote, Jewish vote, and Islamic
vote.
Because the parties and group leaders
will characterize the campaigns for the president and Congress in
terms of “victims” and “perpetrators” the post election
political environment will be even more hostile than it is currently,
and further the creation of a permanent and entrenched opposition no
matter which party wins.
Addendum: The 2008 presidential
election
% of total vote: % Obama: % McCain:
Men 47 49 48
Women 53 56 43
White 74 43 55
Black 13 95 4
Hispanic 9 67 31
Asian 2 62 35
Protestant 45 54
Catholic 54 45
Jews 78 21
Evangelicals 24 74
Union Homes 21 59 39
East 21 59 40
Midwest 24 54 44
South 32 45 54
West 23 57 40
No comments:
Post a Comment