dagblog - Comments for "The Threat of Tribalism"

The expediency they were

moat — Sat, 13 Oct 2018 02:08:03 +0000

In reply to All that said, and it's very

The expediency they were making their decisions within does have the quality of "we gotta try something."
On the other hand, the Federalist Papers and the notes for the constitutional convention present to us a society well versed in the ideas of their time and a willingness to discuss them.
The reason I brought this up was to question the way the Atlantic article assumed that George was on board with their view of "tribalism." I don't have to prove George is a genius to observe that an opinion about division as we express it now may run into a spot of bother when projected upon the spirit of another time.

Put another way, the founders had their own Overton Window. They were confident about a lot of things. They were scared shitless of other things. Our window is different.

All that said, and it's very

artappraiser — Sat, 13 Oct 2018 00:47:09 +0000

In reply to Supporting the idea of

All that said, and it's very fine and thought-provoking, I feel the need to simplify and not give all these guys genius status. The 13 colonies were definitely 13 cultural tribes and the main thing I think they were thinking about is: how the heck can we unify into an entity that can protect itself without self-destructing? Let's try this:

AUTHOR:Benjamin Franklin (1706–90)

QUOTATION:“Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?”

“A Republic, if you can keep it.”

ATTRIBUTION:The response is attributed to BENJAMIN FRANKLIN—at the close of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, when queried as he left Independence Hall on the final day of deliberation—in the notes of Dr. James McHenry, one of Maryland’s delegates to the Convention.

McHenry’s notes were first published in The American Historical Review,vol. 11, 1906, and the anecdote on p. 618 reads: “A lady asked Dr. Franklin Well Doctor what have we got a republic or a monarchy. A republic replied the Doctor if you can keep it.” When McHenry’s notes were included in The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, ed. Max Farrand, vol. 3, appendix A, p. 85 (1911, reprinted 1934), a footnote stated that the date this anecdote was written is uncertain.

~ Bartleby.com

Supporting the idea of

moat — Fri, 12 Oct 2018 19:52:51 +0000

In reply to Chua's and Rubenfeld's

Supporting the idea of intoxication in the above interpretation is how the word "spirit" was used in the Eighteenth century . There is the obvious religious meaning of an invisible agent that lives in people that is used interchangeably with "ghost."
Montesquieu titled one of his books, The Spirit of the Laws . He argues that reason is this spirit and that it animates a social process. This approach is also an analysis of what is fundamental in such a process.

Both of those uses can be heard in Washington's warning. There is a ghost that wants to run things and there is a way that such a monster gets things done.

a deep thought as regards

artappraiser — Thu, 11 Oct 2018 19:45:00 +0000

In reply to The Threat of Tribalism

a deep thought as regards Constitutional "originalists":

If America is so fundamentally conservative why are conservatives so insistent that counter-majoritarian institutions and impediments to voting are good? https://t.co/Odmg32Z5tY
— Matthew Yglesias (@mattyglesias) October 11, 2018

Chua's and Rubenfeld's

moat — Thu, 11 Oct 2018 19:43:20 +0000

In reply to The Threat of Tribalism

Chua's and Rubenfeld's depiction of the "Left'" questioning the right of free speech leaves important elements unsaid. First of all, what that might mean in the context of opposing institutional racism is not the same thing as challenging the power of corporations to own speech and where it can be heard. In the case of Citizen's United, for instance, the opposition and dismay concerns free speech not being safe from moneyed interests. Gosh, when I say it that way, it doesn't sound like I am using the Bill of Rights to fire up my grill.

Tolerating free speech from voices deemed by some to be too awful can be a constitutional issue but is also bound up with mores and standards of acceptable behavior. When it becomes a matter of law, then it also becomes a matter of Equal Protection. While discussing the difference between procedures of representation and the substantive meaning as it applies to citizens, David AJ Richards said the following:

First, the very ground for our constitutional worries about representational unfairness, here and elsewhere, is itself guided by substantive considerations, often considerations of equal liberty itself. And second, the way in which equal respect for conscience and speech forbids content bias itself expresses a deeper procedural conception of the justice of constitutional democracy. Each point should be elaborated as a preface to any alternative interpretation of equal protection. Toleration and the Constitution. Chapter 10

Chua and Rubenfeld chastise simplistic impulses but they aren't making the issue complicated enough themselves.

While I am picking bones out of the stew, I would like to complain about this statement:

When we think of tribalism, we tend to focus on the primal pull of race, religion, or ethnicity. But partisan political loyalties can become tribal too. When they do, they can be as destructive as any other allegiance. The Founders understood this. In 1780, John Adams wrote that the “greatest political evil” to be feared under a democratic constitution was the emergence of “two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other.” George Washington, in his farewell address, described the “spirit of party” as democracy’s “worst enemy.” It “agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection.”

George is making a distinction between tribes and party that is critical to the message. Different communities and organization with different aspirations are not the enemy. While the Establishment of Religion clause is a decision as a nation to stop killing each for believing stuff, its primary function is to encourage people to differentiate themselves from others. It is a charter for not living a way of life that is against your will. Let there be as many tribes as needed to achieve this condition. The binary quality of party allegiance militates against this principle. The "spirit of party" is not another tribe or animal. It is an intoxication that leads a person away from the divisions and customs they would preserve if not under the influence.

George Washington is saying this in the context of building an alternative to the Divine Right of Kings but he is addressing the King Killer, Oliver Cromwell. The negative outcomes he fears has already shown itself.

oh hey, thanks for pointing

artappraiser — Thu, 11 Oct 2018 15:33:48 +0000

In reply to Am early into reading Appiah

oh hey thanks for your whole comment, but especially thanks for pointing out Chua's the Tiger Mom lady. Sheesh that book was so popular and controversial, I recall that it caused a great outpouring of #MeToo type, of people claiming dysfunction or worse from being raised by Tiger moms.

Am early into reading Appiah

AmericanDreamer — Thu, 11 Oct 2018 15:28:07 +0000

In reply to The Threat of Tribalism

Am early into reading Appiah's book The Lies That Bind and finding it well-written, intelligent, thoughtful, and stimulating. He attends to complexities some who talk about identity and identity politics ignore, give short shrift to, or may simply be ignorant of. I've read other stuff by him and appreciate him. This book so far is reading like an elaboration and perhaps further refinement of themes he's written on previously.

From Chua's earlier World on Fire, I learned a lot about how ethnic dynamics play out domestically in other countries she is well familiar with, and thought it was interesting. She is perhaps better known to more of the public for her writings on the Tiger Mom phenomenon.

Just finished Mistaken Identity, a short critique of identity politics from the left by Asad Haider. He is an interesting guy and I thought it had some good insights and information (I hadn't heard of Hubert Harrison before, and I was not familiar with the work of Theodore Allen, either), but that those could have been communicated more effectively in an article carrying less ideological freight.

A collection of alternative

artappraiser — Thu, 11 Oct 2018 15:02:21 +0000

In reply to The Threat of Tribalism

A collection of alternative creeds:

Teaching the Civil War? We prepared a selection of primary sources specifically on the causes of secession. https://t.co/SY3GCZwJEJ
— AHA (@AHAhistorians) October 10, 2018