The Problem of Tribalism in Politics

Tribalism on Both Sides
Introduction
On both sides of the political aisle, the problem of tribalism has emerged. Tribalism is a kind of loyalty to one’s own tribe or group, based not so much on ideas and issues as it is on the feeling that the opposition must be united against—i.e., it is my-team-vs.-their-team mentality. Rather than being able to argue logically and unemotionally, tribalism in politics occurs when one side feels it can and should do anything to promote its side over the other. A case in point is the recent hearing of Brett Kavanaugh for the Supreme Court. The Democrats displayed tribalism from the very beginning, promising to do whatever it took to oppose the nomination. Republicans for the most part struck back, vowing to do oppose the opposition of the Democrats. As Ornstein (2014) notes, the problem in Washington is, clearly and simply, tribalism. It is what prevents true bipartisanship and what prevents any real progress from actually taking place. This paper will show that the causes of tribalism in politics are rooted in a) identity politics, b) scorn for those who do not agree with one’s own view, c) a lack of a leadership, and d) fragmentation of society.
Causes
Identity politics, as Betz (2003) indicates, is one of the main drivers of tribalism: by focusing issues on national or cultural or communal identity, groups on both sides of the aisle end up engaging in tribalism—a type of thinking that demonstrates an eagerness to put everything into its own special box with its own label. They want to label everyone and everything, even if the label is only superficially appropriate. It leads to prejudice and fosters fear. It creates an atmosphere of antagonism and extreme competition. Out of this atmosphere the feeling of needing to stick to one’s own tribe arises, as one begins to fear that all other groups and labels are out to get them.
Tribalism, however, would still not be possible were it not for the way in which people nurse a feeling of scorn for anyone who is different or who holds opinions that are different from one’s own. This has been seen on both the right and the left sides of the political aisle: bullies approaching Trump supporters in a restaurant; members of the far-right holding rallies that promote hatred and violence. The scorn that emanates from such groups for anything that is different or distinct from their own ways of thinking helps to create the atmosphere needed for tribalism, too. So it starts with identity politics, but scorn helps to get the motor revving.
A lack of leadership is another factor that enables tribalism to occur. Real leaders do not necessarily seek to divide communities and drive people apart. Martin Luther King, Jr., for example, stood up for the black community but he also invited both whites and blacks to come together and live in a community of respect. Malcolm X initially resisted all things related to the white culture: he viewed all whites as oppressors of the black community. However, as he grew in his own thinking he began to revisit some of his own earlier tribalistic thoughts and began to move away from the idea of blaming all whites for all the ills of oppression. He saw that his label was inappropriately applied. Leaders have to take responsibility and recognize that their actions have effects. They cannot give bad examples of how to judge others and stoke the flames of resentment. They have to be willing to listen and be less of in a rush to condemn.
Finally, the problem of the fragmentation of society has helped create an atmosphere perfect for tribalism. With the loss of a cultural and national identity, partly effected by the rise of globalism, commercialism, materialism, and a departure from traditional values, the nation has become divided and broken up. Communities have fragmented as families have stepped away from one another and even come undone in their own ways. Divorce rates are high, indicating that families themselves are fragmenting. And when the home is fragmented, one can expect that society will be as well. To fill the gap, families turn to the myriad options available to them: the Internet has helped in the Digital Age, but it also aids further in the fragmentation as there are limitless options for entertainment, virtual social hang-outs, and creation of new identity groups. Instead of society having a homogenous outlook on the world, families are splintered as more and more worldviews come into being to give so many fragmented families a sense of identity and stability. In the community and in the nation, however, it helps to foster a spirit of tribalism—especially when the other elements noted above are in play.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the problem of tribalism in the U.S. is caused the fostering of identity politics, scorn for those who do not agree with one’s own point of view, a lack of a leadership on both sides of the political aisle, and the fragmentation of society which aids in the disintegration of a homogenous worldview that the entire nation can get behind. As families break up, leadership in the home can be lost. To find stability, people look for groups that share their own ideas. The identify themselves with these groups and to make this process easier, they identify others as well and define themselves by contrast to what others think and do. They label others and often come to fear and resent them, viewing them as a threat to their stability. This all leads to animosity and an atmosphere of tribalism in the nation.


References
Betz, H. G. (2003). Xenophobia, identity politics and exclusionary populism in Western
Europe. Socialist Register, 39(39).
Ornstein, N. (2014). What's Wrong with W ashington? Tribalism. Governance, 27(2),
179-183.