These seem to be worth a read, though I typically find people are resistant to admit they are part of the "tribes". Thoughts? Minnpost Tribalism New Yorker Tribalism
Personally I liked this quote from the New Yorker.
Personally I liked this quote from the New Yorker.
"One of the great attractions of tribalism is that you don’t actually have to think very much. All you need to know on any given subject is which side you’re on. You pick up signals from everyone around you, you slowly winnow your acquaintances to those who will reinforce your worldview, a tribal leader calls the shots, and everything slips into place. After a while, your immersion in tribal loyalty makes the activities of another tribe not just alien but close to incomprehensible.
It has been noticed, for example, that primitive tribes can sometimes call their members simply “people” while describing others as some kind of alien. So the word Inuit means people, but a rival indigenous people, the Ojibwe, call them Eskimos, which, according to lore, means “eaters of raw meat.”"
22 comments:
Here is my first longer comment over there.
"Elsewhere I recently expressed my deepest frustration with both tribes and I am not sure if our children can afford much more of the cooperation we have seen over the past 40 years. :-(
Tribe A: Wants lower taxes and a little more spending.
Tribe B: Wants significantly more spending and taxes.
And neither tribe seems concerned that our national debt to GDP ratio is almost as high as after WWII or that the trust funds for our primary welfare programs (SS, SSD & Medicare) will become insolvent in about 15 years.
They both seem obsessed with hunting and gathering for their tribes, no matter the burden it will place on our kids and grand kids. It is interesting what folks will sacrifice for their tribes."
Speaking as a member of a tribe, I think a lot about this stuff. My sense is that those who aren't a member of a tribe are that way just because they haven't given it much thought, or lack an understanding of how things work.
--Hiram
The question Krugman is posing this morning in the Times is whether Republicans who pursued austerity policies when we were struggling that they reject now that we can afford and quite possibly need them, deliberately tried to sabotage the economy during President Obama's administration. Is that what tribalism does?
--Hiram
I guess I am with the NY Magazine author... People are in tribes because they haven't given it much thought, or lack an understanding of how things work.
People are so busy just trying to live their lives and care for their families, why would they want to think about the long term consequences of all these topics. It is much easier to go with their gut, trust their tribe leaders, and blame the other tribe(s).
And the answer to your question is. That is exactly what tribe mentality may do.
Just as the DEMs shutdown the government over illegal residents of our country.
I think people join political tribes because they understand that in a democracy, that's the only way one can work effectively. Lone voices crying out in the wilderness just don't have much of an impact on policy.
I talk with a lot of people about politics. Most of them don't know all that much about it, and so they rely on others, and there is nothing particular surprising about that. Medical doctors operate on the same model. They went to medical school so you don't have to.
--Hiram
However we delegate the decisions to the Doctor / Expert.
Should we delegate our vote to the Tribal Leaders who may or may not be experts?
I can use the Tribe of Trump as a good example...
The Tribe of Bernie may have been similar but different...
I don't delegate decisions to doctor experts. It's been my experience that they advise, but that's all.
Most people I talk to about politics have only the most general understanding of what's going on. Most people don't know the basics of government, who their elected representatives are for example.
Trump supporters often have very specific reasons for supporting him, reasons that I don't necessarily agree with but are certainly logical and rational from their perspective. A large portion of Trump's supporters are single issue, pro life voters. To those voters, nothing else about Trump matters. He literally could be a Russian agent, and as long as he was pro life, they would support him without question. For others, taxes is the decisive issue. They understand that Trump will lower their taxes, and while that isn't necessarily all that matters, it is of crucial importance to them. Again, this is a logical, rational, and informed choice.
--Hiram
I am thinking when the surgeon is working on you... And you are sedated... You have pretty thoroughly delegated the Doctor Expert role.
Does the same concept apply to voters on the other side?
- Pro Life
- Pro LGBTQ Rights
- Pro Immigrant Pardons
- Pro Welfare
- Pro Regulation
Would they support very questionable candidate who could move these issues forward?
You know my view since they voted for Hillary... :-)
Hillary is the most qualified person to run for president in a long time.
here is the krugman column about the gop and deficits.
Fraudulence of the Fiscal Hawks
if Hillary had won the electoral college along with the popular vote we would not be blowing up the deficit like this.
Laurie,
Being "qualified" in no way means she would have been effective.
You are probably correct that she would have been better for the deficit as long as the GOP kept controlling the Congress.
I am assuming she would have created different problems....
I almost agreed with Krugman until he started to blame only the GOP and it's voters for our national disaster... It is a bit like watching 2 trains speeding towards each other...
Republicans worked very hard to make Obama ineffective. It was their campaign theme in 2012, that if you don't vote Republican, we will prevent anything getting done. Some newspapers endorsed Romney on that basis. And it is something that is hard to ignore. The fact is, even if we say we don't, we do negotiate with hostage takers, and Republicans are perfectly willing to take all of us hostage.
--Hiram
It has seemed the DEMs have learned from them.
Some comments from MP:
"Government spending is part of a feedback loop.
The money goes to people and corporations, who in turn spend it, and so on ....
One might argue that military spending is more wasteful because it is spent on products that don't themselves contribute to the economy. So the real question is what the government (that is,l us) spends the money on.
Also note that your source is a private (and conservative) individual who appears to be well regarded, but doesn't always make the sources of his data clear." Paul B.
"Yes, government and private spending are both components of our economy.
The Liberal tribe wants to delegate more of their personal / family finance decisions to politicians and bureaucrats.
The Conservative tribe wants to maintain more personal / family control over their personal finance decisions.
As my source shows, the Liberal tribe has been pulling our society their way for 100+ years for better or worse. The Conservative tribe says they want to pull it back somewhat. However they seem to cave to our current citizens who want lower taxes and higher benefits, no matter the mess it leaves our kids.
As for military spending, it is at historical lows relative to our GDP. Not sure what the consequences of that will be. Also, please remember that most of that funding goes to pay American citizens and develop technologies. so it also is part of that feedback loop.
Not to mention that a stable world is good for trade, which is excellent for American citizens." G2A
The federal government spends money on three things. Health care, Social Security and the military. I am not sure how a feedback loop factors into that, but in order to reduce spending that's where you have to make cuts.
Concerning health care, Republicans want to turn health care over to patients. I am all for that too. So how do we go about it? One thing Trump is firmly in favor of is using the market power of the federal government to force drug companies to reduce prices. So where is his bill?
--Hiram
"It has seemed the DEMs have learned from them."
How, exactly? You always say this. They have no practical power nor the will to do what Republicans are willing to do.
"As for military spending, it is at historical lows relative to our GDP."
Measuring military spending as a percentage of GDP makes no sense because our military needs don't track with the size of our economy. Should we have cut military spending by 9% during the worst year of the Great Recession to maintain some sort of bogus ratio?
In the last month the DEMs shutdown government over a policy issue. And that same leverage helped them secure a big domestic spending increase.
The US economy is much more reliant on global peace, stability and trade than at probably anytime in our history. I am pretty sure it is easy to justify our defense budget.
Not to mention that Defense is actual a core role and responsibility of our national government, unlike many of these other expenditures that have been created over the past 100 years.
"In the last month the DEMs shutdown government over a policy issue. And that same leverage helped them secure a big domestic spending increase."
Yeah, and they promptly folded on the policy issue. Last time I checked, Merrick Garland ain't sitting on the Supreme Court, so don't tell me that the two parties are the same when it comes to obstruction.
"The US economy is much more reliant on global peace, stability and trade than at probably anytime in our history. I am pretty sure it is easy to justify our defense budget."
That's just hand-waving nonsense. We spend more on defense than the next seven largest defense budgets combined. I'm all in favor of a robust national defense, but linking it to GDP makes no sense. Economic booms or recessions have nothing to do with figuring out how much defense spending we need. Would you have stopped our WWII military buildup because we crossed your magical 33% GDP line?
Please remember that 33% is an average goal.
- It would likely be more in time of recession or war
- And less in times of economic boom
Ideally though it would average out to a balance no deficit budget. :-)
Yep, thereby showing it's fungible and not really having any real world validity.
So many words, so little time...
Definition of fungible: being something (such as money or a commodity) of such a nature that one part or quantity may be replaced by another equal part or quantity in paying a debt or settling an account ·Oil, wheat, and lumber are fungible commodities. ·fungible goods
I think that is correct... I am happy to let our government control where 33 or 34 out of 100 beads are spent to further the greater good of our country.
Now I am happy to see "beads" used for different things depending on what is needed at any specific time. And if we need to borrow some more from the citizens during times of trial, so be it. However they should then try to pay back those debts during the good times.
That means that on average people have 2/3rds of the beads to use for the good of their families.
Post a Comment