On Stubborn Facts and Partisan Identification

Ooooh, now you’ve done it.

The ultimate heresy is to place reason above blind team loyalty.

A corollary to Ian’s point is to recognize that, if you are even marginally involved in partisan politics — especially if your involvement is marginal — you are the subject and target of active attempts to manipulate you. That is what “tribalism” is, in American politics, the trace of manipulation, to get you to share the views and evaluations of others in your “tribe”, as a way of getting you to march in step with others.

I am not saying it is a bad thing to voluntarily march in cooperation with others — that is the essence of political organization and is necessary to getting anything done on behalf of a broadly conceived public interest. But, there is a big difference between being part of a membership organization which is driven by the needs and interests of the members and being part of someone’s mailing list or letting yourself be riled up by shameless hucksters like Rachel Maddow.

Corbyn’s attractiveness is largely about what a good fit he is to a Labour Party defined by its non-politician, non-large-donor membership. Labour is today one of the largest membership political parties in the world. Historically, what distinguished Labour from the Liberals was the role of labor unions and cooperative societies in its base, so this is not entirely new.

Blair and Gordon Brown created a Parliamentary Labour Party on a different model, one that pursued certain sources of party funds from business interests and emphasized a structured career path thru staff work to becoming an MP and beyond that in some cases to private sector careers. It was quite elaborate and homogenized the PLP as well as made those pursuing such a career very interested in negotiating the built-in conflict of interest. It creates a politician dedicated to find ways to broker voter support for the projects of patrons or clients. It is, in many ways, akin to the way a magazine editor seeks to deliver content to readers that advertisers are willing to pay for; politicians in this model are seeking ways to deliver policy voters kinda like that donors are willing to pay for.

A similar fight is underway in the Democratic Party, where an extensive group dependent on a model of big donor financing and big media careers is resisting a politics of choosing policy that is good for voters at the expense of the donor class. It is a group that makes a living manipulating . . . you. Not leading anyone. Most certainly not making wise policy.

A partisan politics of being easily and enthusiastically manipulated for someone else’s gain is not healthy. If you find yourself trying to defend your guy’s bad behavior frequently, this might be an indication that you are not in a membership organization, you are in a demographic.

Apartheid is a good description. Heard that before from a Greek-Jew and a Palestinian bff team I worked with who’d met each other in Tel Aviv. It’s interesting watching the reactions of typical fundie wingnuts (the bad team people) when I call the Gaza what it is, a reservation ghetto.

‘If your tribal identification is running your determination of right or wrong, please check yourself out of politics until it isn’t…’

i’d say this’s the point at which one says goodbye to rationality. & i’ve been astonished to see just how many on the left, at this point, have been quite comfortable doing just this…

‘If your tribal identification is running your determination of right or wrong, please check yourself out of politics until it isn’t…’

Then everybody should check out of politics. We are all in multiple tribes simultaneously, and none of us can tell entirely which tribe or tribes are influencing our determinations of right and wrong. It is a cognitively impossible task.

It is better to simply ask which political tribe is more in-line with your currently perceived determinations of right and wrong, and vote for that tribe. At least then you have slightly better odds of voting for the greater good or the lesser evil as currently being played in your own cognitive morality drama.

A note on the Japanese internment: A must read on the subject is “Magic, the untold story…” by David O. Lowman.

There absolutely were Japanese espionage rings on the West Coast. Arresting them would have given away that we had broken several Japanese codes, diplomatic and military.

It’s an eye opening collection of the original, documented, decoded messages after translation.

It’s a “must read” to have an informed opinion on the matter, whatever your subsequent view.

@ V. Arnold

Would you rather discuss child prostitution in your new junta-ruled home?

Maybe you are just too distracted to take my meaning above.

@ Huckleberry

“That pretty much takes out 90% of humanity, bubs.”

That’s right, it does.

That is precisely why everything is so fucking fucked up. Good faith thinkers are going extinct.

Survival of the unfittest?

Darwin’s corpse trembles.

Curious. There is an argument which runs that we all belong to some tribe, we are therefore tribal, our tribalism determines our view of right and wrong, and thus Ian’s conclusion is wrong.

This argument contains numerous errors. First, it equates membership in any group as tribal. This ignores that we all belong to many groups. Which of these is then determinative? Second, it treats all tribes as the same and deficient in the same way. (However, the ability to make such a statement negates the overall argument since it shows a super- or meta- perspective on tribes is possible, validating Ian’s approach.) Third, it ignores higher order concepts. You can belong to a group or groups at one level but also be a member of a larger group, society, at another. Fourth, along these lines, it ignores history where various groups in society have subordinated the good of the group for the good of society as a whole.

Re Sanders, he and I agreed on several issues, but I never supported him because I was aware of his past record and knew he would fold. What we on the left or progressive circles, or whatever you want to call us, need are people who are both articulate and willing to fight. Re this, Schumer and Pelosi came out yesterday with their “Better Deal” which was supposed to be “bold and daring” and which even the usual liberal commentators admitted was neither. Tribalism and identity politics on both the left and the right are really all that remains in a political system dominated by two parties, both of which are intellectually and, as Ian notes, morally bankrupt. So yes, if you want meaningful change, then we are all going to have to look beyond any particular tribal loyalties we may have to the greater goods we have in common.

If we don’t stop bickering over whose imaginary dog has the bigger dick we may not survive at all. I would argue religion need be eliminated before tribalism. That’s the three legged stool that holds it all up: religion, tribalism and pornography.

And yes, I just put The Church in bed with porn, how many little boys have been butt-fucked by Men Of God? I chuckle that Colombus and his crew, having gang-raped eight and nine year old native girls, died of syphilis. Animals bow down to gods. Humans do not.

The problem, Ten Bears, is that you are just one more narrow minded, ignorant idiot among the billions inhabiting this world. You lack the imagination and experience to comprehend the need religion fills within the lives of those who happen to be religious. And then to attempt to link the religious with pedophilia identifies you as one of those partisans that Ian is ranting against. Of course, your final paragraph simply suggests you are a troll on a roll.

BTW, did you see that study of trolls which linked psychopathy with trolling? I would suggest help but apparently there is no cure for psychopathy.

I have found a living example of the partisanship being discussed on this blog . . . over at Naked Capitalism. It can be smelled to best effect in all the republished-tweets-part of the posted article.
Here is the link.
https://medium.com/athena-talks/go-back-to-school-little-girl-7782ca9d7c76

My plan is to shout “Liberal!” in crowded church houses, then stuffing as many fleeing evangies as possible into large sacks to be taken away for deprogramming. So far I have Ten Bears and a large penis dog on my team, …maybe. Anybody else?

Drink some more kool-aid jag, turn on the tv.

… attempt to link the religious with pedophilia …

Not necessary, that link is well established.

First, ya know, ya got Nature. Just everything, Being. Nature vomited a mutant who drew on cave walls and we got Culture. Becoming. Culture is the opposite of Nature yet still Nature and inside of Nature. Not long at all, Culture starts changing Nature so much that it gets harder to see Nature inside of subsuming Culture and thus the Tendency of the Rate of Profit to Fall.

The Rational is an internal subset of the non-Rational with no place or part of the Rational outside. The Rational will attempt to mystify the Irrational but will always fail, leaving a contradiction that refutes the whole.

You start with an Irrational commitment:Marxism, feminism, religion, justice, egoism, family, whatever. You look and find the contradictions between yourself, your commitment or body and the world seen through the affect. This is the Critique. It’s writing on cave walls. It’s all we got before we go. It’s enough.

Nature selected, and continues to produce, general percentages of indians and general percentages of chiefs. Nurture can sway things somewhat but the hardwired nature remains.

I’d love more objective information about what general percentage of the population reasons tribal-partisan vs reasoning moral-rational. I’m guessing 30 and 5 percent hard cores. And maybe double those percentages are more pliable softies. I’d love this information because successful politicians don’t leave home without it, and use it to fuel their “success”.

Hard to explain to lemmings why a cliff is not their friend.