There is, of course, nothing new to an analysis of the current partisan divide in U.S. politics and, ever moreso, U.S. culture more broadly, that relies on the concept of “tribalism.”
But, in his piece Wednesday morning, New York Times columnist (and Minnesota native) Thomas Friedman digs a little more deeply into that metaphor for purposes of understanding how the worst features of political partisanship and the increasing power of one’s partisan preference over one’s identity present a growing challenge to the American experiment in democratic self-government.
Here’s a taste:
More than a few democratically elected leaders around the world now find it much easier to build support with tribal appeals focused on identity than do the hard work of coalition-building and compromise in pluralistic societies at a complex time.
When that happens, everything gets turned into a tribal identity marker — mask-wearing in the pandemic, Covid-19 vaccinations, gender pronouns, climate change. Your position on each point doubles as a challenge to others: Are you in my tribe or not? So there is less focus on the common good, and ultimately no common ground to pivot off to do big hard things. We once put a man on the moon together. Today, we can barely agree on fixing broken bridges.
He mentions Trumpism only twice, and he broadens his argument to tribal-seeming developments in the politics of many other nations. But it strikes me that the enormous power of Trumpism (and, perhaps, anti-Trumpism) in the current state of U.S. politics is the essence of what’s driving his column.
Here’s an excerpt that reveals how he makes the leap from religious tribalism in the Mideast (his original area of expertise) to recent U.S. political history:
Middle Easterners may call their big tribes “Shiites” and “Sunnis” and Americans may call theirs ‘Democrats’ and ‘Republicans,’ but they each seem to operate increasingly with a conformist, us-vs.-them mind-set, albeit at different intensity levels. Extreme Republican tribalism vastly accelerated as the G.O.P. tribe became dominated by a base of largely white Christians, who feared that their long-held primacy in America’s power structure was being eroded by rapidly changing social norms, expanded immigration and globalization, leaving them feeling no longer “at home” in their own country.
To signal that, they latched on to Donald Trump, who enthusiastically gave voice to their darkest fears and raw tribal muscle that escalated the right’s pursuit of minority rule. That is, not just pushing the usual gerrymandering but also propagating conspiracy theories about the 2020 election, passing ever-harsher voter suppression laws and replacing neutral state voting regulators with tribal hacks ready to break the rules. And because this Trump faction came to dominate the base, even once-principled Republicans mostly went along for the ride, embracing the core philosophy that dominates tribal politics in Afghanistan and the Arab world: The ‘other’ is the enemy, not a fellow citizen, and the only two choices are ‘rule or die.’ Either we rule or we delegitimize the results.
I trust you get the idea, nor is the idea of partisanship and tribalism all that new. But Friedman uses the analogy to do a good job describing the current moment in U.S. politics and the role of what he calls the “virus of tribalism.” Friedman concludes:
We need to find the antidote to this tribalism fast — otherwise the future is grim for democracies everywhere.
The whole Friedman column can be accessed on the New York Times website here.
I have always though of myself as a yellow dog Democrat, which I believe is a form of tribalism. I pretty much vote for my guy, the DFL guy, no matter what. There have been times in my life when I have not been very proud of my vote, both at the time I cast it, and in retrospect. I am pretty sure if you add up the numbers, George Bush senior, was a better person than Bill Clinton. But Bill was the leader of my tribe back then, and I voted for him then, and given the same choice, I would vote for him today. I am a member of my tribe because I think, broadly speaking, it’s policies are better. I don’t take politics or politiicans personally.
I do not envy the members of the other tribe, the Republican tribe. I believe that at some point along the line, things over there have gone seriously wrong, both for them, and as a result for the country. They committed the ultimate sin, perhaps the unforgivable sin. They chose for president and put before the American people a candidate who was unfit for the office, and I think they did that knowingly. I have to say, that raised serious questions about my own tribalism. What if my tribe nominated a bad guy for office? What if the guy was bad enough that I could no longer ignore his personal qualities confident in the knowledge that I was voting for policy, not politics? Thankfully, as aggravating as Clinton could be, his many and grievous faults were personal and not professional. Voting for him raised no issue of conscience. But what would I do if I were faced with the choice Republicans had to make in the last two elections? I just don’t know.
Bill would be run out of the New Dem party with his triangulation.
Much as Reagan would nor fit the TOP
Slick Willie didn’t stand for triangularion; he stood for whatever it took to get elected. He needed the crazy texan to siphon off enough of the libertarian leaning right that some ‘new dem’ triangulation could box GHWB into a corner, defending his breaking of the “read my lips” pledge.
Please stop with the Republican lies. All of the polling showed that Perot drew roughly equally from both Bush and Clinton, and that Clinton would have beaten Bush by a similar margin in a two-way race. Even though this lie has been debunked over and over, right-wingers keep saying it. It ties in to all the election fraud claims – the idea that Democrats can’t win elections.
Didn’t know that was a Republican lie. Full disclosure: I voted for Perot twice. Could tell slick willie was a shyster from the get-go; the way things turned out I think I nailed that assessment.
My larger point that may have been unclear: Clinton’s “triangulation” approach was an adaptation to the political environment at the time, not some deep seated ideology of moderation.
Hiram, your political Party isn’t a “tribe” of any kind. This is simply a form of self deprecation that externalizes your pathology by blaming another culture for your own dysfunctional politics. The practice of packaging up toxic and irresponsible Party loyalty and calling it “tribal” behavior is intellectually daft and culturally hostile.
Political Parties in Western political systems, and the two Party system in the US did not emerge from any tribal traditions found anywhere else in the world… they are purely manifestations of a uniquely Western political system ( i.e. liberal democracies). If that system has faults and problems, those faults and problems our own designs, not those belonging to other cultures or social/political systems.
This narrative that tribal behavior contaminates and ruins our otherwise perfect political system is a flat out racists narrative that shifts the blame and responsibility onto someone else’s culture. Everything’s great until we stop acting like white people eh? We start acting like tribal people and our great system turns to crap?
Leave tribes out of this and take responsibility for your own garbage. The origin of this political dysfunction emerges from the Age of Enlightenment, the ancient Greeks, a bunch of white guys and their written Constitutions… not the Seven Grandfather Teachings of Anishinaabe or any other tribal culture.
I don’t want to take the time to read the article, but if anyone does, could you mention if Friedman calls for the creation of a new, centrist third-party? I don’t see this topic as lending itself to observations from a cabdriver in Mumbai, so the third-party seems like the most probable Friedmanism.
I don’t know if “tribalism” is the correct term here, but the Republican Party has created a culture of strong discipline. There are no more gradations of Republicans: those who do not hew to the Party’s orthodoxy are branded as RINOs, and cast into the outer darkness. A Republican who still believed in their party’s former commitment to environmental protection and civil rights would go nowhere.
Once upon a time, there were Republicans whom I felt good about voting for. Those days are gone. If I vote for a Republican legislative candidate, I am voting for someone who will support the current leadership, and who will be unable to stand up to the religious conservatives whose culture war issues take precedence. If I vote for a Republican for Congress, I am voting for someone who will support Kevin McCarthy as Speaker, and who will probably vote against any real investigation of January 6.
No, thanks.
I agree, I can’t vote for my tribe. They have gone off the rails. But nor can I join the Dem tribe. I can’t believe I am the only one, but it sure feels lonely
Kevin McCarthy is not the only reason to not vote for any GOP candidates, although his is a pretty good reason by himself.
If the GOP has the majority in the US House or US Senate, or holds a triple crown in any swing state after the elections in 2022 and 2024, there is no reason to doubt that they will not hesitate in the least to overturn the will of the voters and seat the GOP presidential nominee in the White House. We have every reason to believe that the Democratic nominee will, for the 8th time in the past 9 elections, win the national vote, while the electoral vote will be very close once more.
American patriots need to gird themselves to take to the streets in peaceful protest should that be necessary in January of 2025.
For what it’s worth, I too, bypass anything from Friedman. After his comments in support of invading Iraq, I have to time for him.
Democrats ARE the “centrist”… still. Centrism is NOT the solution, Centrism got us into this crises in the first place by failing to recognize and resolve a whole host of serious national and international crises.
You reminded me that I happily voted for Jim Ramstad for my Rep. and more than one GOP candidate for state office…back in the 90’s. And I’m not, nor ever have been a Republican. There’s a very long list one could make of Republicans from 15, 20 years ago that sadly wouldn’t even consider filing as a candidate today, let alone run.
I’m not a particular fan of Tom Friedman, but I think he’s on to something in this case, and this story ties in nicely (at least in my own mind) with Peter Callaghan’s MinnPost piece on the upcoming Republican state convention, wherein convention delegates are alleged (correctly, I think) to be more important to candidates than the far larger number of voters who support their party. People who go to the trouble of attending a state party convention (whether DFL or GOP) are typically far more enthused about their particular candidate and the policy position(s) that candidate espouses than those of their in-party political opponents, much less opponents in the “other” political party. My own experience is that this works at the local level, as well, where attendees at precinct-level caucuses are far more likely to be, if not outright extremists, then significantly more dedicated to a specific candidate or policy position than many of the caucus attendees, and far more than ordinary voters.
In that context, and as the political universe is increasingly reduced to “either-or” questions about which there can be no compromise or moderation, Friedman is merely pointing out something thoughtful citizens/voters should understand and be aware of.
Along those lines, I think it not totally off-base to think of at least the majority of convention attendees as zealots in support of a specific candidate or policy position, or both. Perhaps that’s what’s necessary to get people to do the hard work of organizing a campaign, raising funds, etc.
Nonetheless, what I used to tell my students was: “Be skeptical of zealots,” and what I should have added was, “…including the ones you agree with.”
“We need to find the antidote to this tribalism fast — otherwise the future is grim for democracies everywhere.”
The antidote is an honest press. And that’s not happening anytime soon as they have taken sides and no longer see themselves as reporters of events, but as party activists working for the cause, with Friedman being Exhibit A.
An honest press will sometimes report things you don’t want to hear.
Just out of curiosity: does your disdain for a press that has “taken sides” have you walking the walk? Have you given up on Fox News, OAN, WorldNet Daily, et al.?
No, Mr Tester. Friedman is not a reporter of the news, he’s a commentator, which is different. Friedman is trying to think carefully through the news, acknowledging all aspects of a problem to try to come to not just a conclusion but to solutions. That’s what Democrats usually do–think stuff through to find ways to help the people.
When today’s Republicans do that kind of thing, let us know!
Thank you. I could not say it any better.
Dividing us by race, gender, religion or national origin has a long history of success in the United States. It also is less threatening to people with money than dividing us up by class. This might be the biggest fear of the people who pay for elections because they’re vastly outnumbered by the people who don’t fund elections.
Uniting people based on civic ideals (equal opportunity, rule of law, majority rule with support of minority rights, limited government, representative government, government without corruption, etc) is the utopian ideal but many people don’t understand (or openly disagree with) the ideals that America is supposedly based upon.
The only thing that seems to really unite Americans is a war. Of course a war is just tribalism on a different level.
The more history I read, the more I understand what you say is true, sad but true. Frances Perkins, the Woman Behind the New Deal, is a fascinating story that echoes in our time. The venom and lies that were used to discredit those who wanted to end the Great Depression and help the poor and middle classes sounds very similar to what we hear today.
I have heard it said that the founders were opposed to political parties, and in some respects, that is reflected in our constitution. The result is that we do have political parties, but then becuae of our constitutional system, they just don’t work effectively.
In a parliamentary system, and it’s variations, I just don’t know what the alternative is to triabalism, which is in that context, a party system. To get majorities, people must work together which inevitably entering into coalitions of people with diverse interests. In no legislative system in any country that I know of does this not happen. I have been following this English history course recently, and one of the things that happened is that as soon as the English parliamentary system came into it’s own as the source of political power in Britain, after the revolution of 1688, parties also emerged. One seemed to imply and even require the existence of the other.
Much of the commentary on this issue, including Friedman’s, is carefully both-siderish. Yet I notice that most examples illustrate tribalism of the right wing.
Another St Louis Park kid, Norm Ornstein, was among the first to point out that tribalism is not a both-sides phenomenon. The Democratic Party is the confused agglomeration of conflicting interest groups it always was. The Republicans, however, are largely reduced to the white hot core of craziness that even Barry Goldwater would not recognize. Marching in lock step and swearing alliance to the tribe is second nature.
How about if our political commentary more overtly recognizes this?
Oh, how I wish. The both-sidesism doesn’t make them thoughtful, it just makes them look like they’re pandering to a group of people who will never take them seriously, while also disengaging those who might have otherwise been listening.
Both-siderism is cowardice. It’s the hiding place of a writer who doesn’t want to be called out as “biased.”
Did you know that Tom Friedman and David Brooks are the same person?
Nah, he’s David Brooks after some tequila shots, when he’s feeling more fighty.
I like that even better.
I know I’m always the odd guy out on this but I’ve rarely seen Friedman write anything truly insightful or impressively intelligent, and this garbage meets my expectation.
Aside from offering mundane observations that would have been insightful in the 90’s, we have this “Tribal” trope rearing it racist head once again.
Not to belabor the point but real tribes, tribal societies, and tribal people actually exist in the world, and they have nothing to do with Fascism, nor the toxic social and political garbage Freidman is trying to talk about here. All Friedman is doing here is collecting political, social, and cultural garbage that are actually unique features of white European culture and dumping it on someone else’s culture.
Whatever Friedman is trying to talk about here… white European culture owns it… it doesn’t belong to any tribe. Using someone tribal culture as a dumping ground for our own garbage is just a extension of racists settler colonialism. Trump and his followers are not followers of any tribal traditions or cultural values… Trump is a PURE expression of white-European-US-Capitalist-Fascism that is unique to settler colonial society and culture. If Friedman really wanted to be clever he would find an appropriate word or concept to describe his own culture, rather than package the worse aspects of our culture and re-brand them as someone else’s culture.
Another point on which Paul and I agree!
Friedman is a terrible writer. Just a gasbag.
Boy howdy! if we all agree on how worthless Friedman is, that’s really saying something.
This tribalism problem is not one-sided. HRC & BHO both contributed to the problem with inartful comments like “basket of deplorables” and “clinging to their guns and religion.”
Also curious to me is that in the 2016 primaries, Sanders had a lot of popularity within some of the same demographic groups that went on to side with Trump in the general election. Sanders tried to build a tribe of the 99%, while Trump chose to stoke racial animosity.
As a general rule I like to encourage curiosity, but for it be productive it needs to be reality based.
The central feature common among Trump, HRC, and Sanders, is not any affiliations to any separate “tribes”, but rather the same white European colonial US heritage. They all come from New York City for one thing, (At least HRC eventually came from NY City). And no, New York City isn’t a tribe.
“Also curious to me is that in the 2016 primaries, Sanders had a lot of popularity within some of the same demographic groups that went on to side with Trump in the general election. Sanders tried to build a tribe of the 99%, while Trump chose to stoke racial animosity.”
This would be curious indeed if were actually true. In fact something like 90% of Sanders’s supporters as well as Sanders himself went on to vote for HRC. Most of those who didn’t vote for HRC voted Green so the idea that Sander’s supporters went on to vote for Trump is simply Daft.
Now, a lot of Republicans who didn’t want to vote for Trump or HRC reported that they would have voted for Sanders if he’d been on the ballot, this is why some of us think that Sander’s would have defeated Trump. But none of this can possibly break down along any tribal categories.
In my view, the appeal that both Sanders & Trump held for some voters is that both promised to disrupt the system. Of course, for Trump it wasn’t about making the lives of ordinary people better; it was about making life for him better.
In the context of tribalism, white rural america feels like their tribe is getting screwed. Sanders expanded that & tried to sell the idea that the poor, working & middle classes are all getting screwed. Both statements, in my opinion, are true. Rural white america is getting screwed, but they’re not the only ones & aren’t even getting the worst deal.
Well, tribalism is an absurd context so you can’t really make a coherent observation from that perspective.
I agree, both Trump and Sanders did appeal to disaffected voters, but that groups isn’t a tribe of any kinds, it is however probably the largest group in the US.
Whoo boy, everything old is new again. 2017 called, it wants it’s talking points back.
“while Trump chose to stoke racial animosity.”
Nonsense. Trump received more votes from Black people and Hispanics than any republican presidential candidate in history because he convinced them that his agenda of bringing jobs back from Europe and limiting illegal immigrants at the Southern border would benefit their job prospects. To this day, there are more Black republican voters than ever, thanks entirely to Trump.
Ninety percent of African American voters voted for Biden in 2020. Biden’s share of the Latino vote was just shy of 70%.
Hmm, lots of jobs lost to Europe, huh?
What nonsense. Trump’s economic record was terrible. He was a failure as president just like he was a failure in business in squandering his inheritance. He’s been a racist his whole life, from housing discrimination in the 70s to the innocent Central Park 5 in the 90s to his racist rhetoric as a candidate and president.
Failure and racism have always been what Trump is all about.
Sanders was the worst of the tribalists. He was really the mirror image of Trump.
And the Sanders voters who went for Trump were always voting for Trump.
You can complain about a handful of Sanders’s supporters who voted for Trump if you want, but it was the Obama voters who refused to vote for HRC that handed Trump the election.
By the way, this blind devotion to HRC is just blind devotion to HRC… it’s not “tribal”.
I’m talking about which voters those candidates appealed to; not assigning blame for the election outcome.
That I pin on HRC for an abysmal campaign. Some people like to blame the voters. That makes no sense. The politicians need to convince the voters – it’s not the voters that have an obligation to politicians, or parties. I imagine a lot of BHO voters now regret not turning out for HRC. But the blame lies squarely on HRC for failing to make the case.
Obligatory reminder:
More people voted for Clinton than for Trump.
The problem was our uniquely screwy Electoral College. None of the countries which copied our Constitution included that feature.
Precisely. Part of the HRC failure was in not identifying the risk the electoral college posed to her success.
Well, actually HRC’s major flaw was assuming that there was a “blue wall” ensuring her electoral college success. Neither HRC or her supporters ever really considered the possibility that she could lose… Trump was annoying but not a real threat. I admit, I didn’t think Trump was a real threat at first, but then I saw HRC’s campaign and multiple consecutive fumbles and and failures and as the summer wore on I became increasingly worried. I didn’t expect she would have a great campaign, but I didn’t think it could be THAT bad.
HRC definitely ran a bad campaign. I won’t dispute that.
Its the idea that Sanders was going to win over all these Trump voters that is nonsense. When they did exit polling in the West Virgina primary, over half or Sanders’s supporters were voting for Sanders no matter who got the Dem nomination.
In the actual election 90% of Sanders voters voted for HRC. The rest voted for the green candidate. Sanders didn’t run on the promise of stealing Trump votes, we just note the fact that a significant number of Trump voters said they would have voted for Sanders if he’d been on the ballot instead of HRC. Combined with Sanders’s general popularity might have defeated Trump. We KNOW HRC lost.
As always, what happened to “We the people of the United States in order to form a more perfect union” When will the so called reporters ask the politicians how there actions, legislation etc. support the goal!
I heard George Will say this a few days ago: “Do you remember the 2020 Republican platform? ‘He’ll tell us what we want.’ ”
The GQP isn’t a tribe. It’s a cult.
As soon as I saw the photo of Friedman, I knew insight was afoot.
What stupidity. I wear a mask and limit my carbon footprint as a “tribal identity marker”!? I do these things because they are the right thing to do, as a human being and a citizen. It is only in the context of Republican “vice signaling” that behaving like a decent person becomes a “tribal” act intended to provoke those on the “other” side.
When I turn to an opinion piece and see U.S. society broadly characterized as “tribal,” or “polarized,” or “partisan,” I know I’m encountering an intellectually lazy author who has nothing useful to say. These terms assume a symmetry among the polity that has no conceptual or empirical basis.
The Republican base, a third of us, is “tribal” (sorry, Paul) and partisan, because the Republican party has spent 50 years intentionally training it up to be fearful of a collection of imagined “others.” By this time, the party self-selects for those who, by constitution or circumstance, are terrified by existential freedom and susceptible to the authoritarian appeal. The very core of this worldview is that of the clan and the enemy – those around the fire and those in the lurking darkness beyond.
The remaining two-thirds of the polity, with a very few outliers, occupy the traditional spectrum from middle-left to middle-right. We have the basic civic goal of working toward a society that affords everyone the opportunity to live a reasonable life. We don’t view those in the Republican base as the enemy, apart from the troublesome fact that they are trying to cause us and our families harm, deliver our society over to autocrats, and render our planet unlivable. We don’t vote for Democratic candidates at every opportunity because we are “tribal,” we do it because it is the only option available to try to limit the harm the Republican party is able to cause. We have plenty to criticize about the Democratic party and the policies it pursues. It just happens that such criticisms are beside the point at the moment.
By refusing to name the threat to this country, and thereby disabling us from attending to it, the Both Siderism of Tom Friedman, and of all the mainstream media and punditry, is as damaging to our society as the cult media on the Right.
You nailed it, Charles.
It’s all about race, kids — one of the country’s two Achilles heels (guns are the other).
The white racists aren’t going quietly. Tribalism, schmibalism. Democracy’s being attacked electorally, culturally, medically and (soon) militarily by white racists in armed forces and law enforcement who would turn on their own institutions in a second. You’ll notice that Trump went right for the firehouse on the 9/11 anniversary, to get his applause. And we know why.
Baby steps, though, right? With any global march of fascism? (This is our second.) First order of business, any threatened Capitol cop should use his or her gun this weekend, for the “J6” celebration, and use it accurately, and repeatedly, and with conviction. No more of this getting stabbed with pro-police flagpoles.
Exactly Bob, let’s blame “tribalism” rather than Fascism for our crises… it’s so much more… balanced and moderate eh? If we bend over backwards to avoid the truth maybe things will work out… the problem is tribes… not reactionary extremists who are trying to tear up our democracy.
I don’t know what Friedman is talking about. This is the result of every policy he has ever supported, if the point is neoliberal globalization, turning America’s productive economy into a service/gig/share economy, impoverishing the working class and increasingly middle class, at the expense of the billionaire, millionaire and politically influential professional/managerial class.
Tribalism is working out GREAT, from the point of the kleptocrat turning America into a rentier state, turning the vast majority of citizens into debt serfs; we are quite literally in the midst of the greatest transfer of wealth in the history of the world, up the social pyramid, too busy being tribal/identarian to notice apparently. Not that Friedman would ever notice. Want to do something about tribalism? Then quit giving every advantage to a few and treating the many like we are expendable/deplorable.
Well, no, he can’t do that. He will, however, ruminate and sound thoughtful.