I was asked to respond to this recent question posed on Quora: "What one thing must America improve to avoid serious trouble in the not too distant future?"
If we continue down our path of becoming a nation of mistrustful strangers—distrusting those we elect and the process by which we elect them, distrusting those who protect us and our communities, distrusting those who inform us through print, video, and electronic media, distrusting those institutions responsible for educating our children, and distrusting those from whom we buy the goods and services necessary to feed, clothe, house, and provide medicines and health care, we will only see the widening of the chasm dividing us at almost every level of communication and human interaction.
My point of view is informed by a real and deep-seated feeling that there is an evolutionary sea change in America’s — and Americans’— interpretation of the founders’ expression of unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, a vision that, even if flawed in the details, was admirable on its face. For the record, I embrace the philosophies of both John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau (with a touch of Hobbes)—I believe it is possible to be a romantic and a realist, a defender of naturally-endowed individual rights, the value of one’s own labor, and an advocate for a responsive government that mediates social and economic disparities.
Let us admit, without rancor, finger-pointing, and self-flagellation, that our republic is imperfect. Let us admit that our institutions of government, faith, consumerism, media, and security are inherently flawed structures created for and by inherently flawed people. I encourage such admission because the evidence of our failings is manifest beneath the broad arc of our history; we cannot escape the truth of our transgressions. A short list of what we have not done right may be appropriate:
- Yes, the founders were white, male, privileged, and often pompous.
- Yes there were founders who were slave owners.
- Yes there were deals cut on the back of slavery and the three-fifths compromise was an immoral expediency brokered to move the Constitution toward ratification.
- Yes, slavery continued to enrich white landowners and paved the path to Civil War on the bodies and souls of an enslaved and voiceless population.
- Yes, Lincoln was imperfect and overstepped his executive powers in the heat of war.
- Yes, reconstruction brought pain and corruption to a defeated South.
- Yes, the railroad barons took terrible advantage of cheap Asian and Irish labor in the rush to build the steel rail links between the East and West coasts.
- Yes, corruption and abuse of power ruled too many American cities, and local politics were rife with cheaters, scammers, thugs, and violent men whose intentions were vile and self-enriching.
- Yes, the rise of yellow journalism and its salacious editorializing threatened the dialogue of truthful news gathering.
- Yes, Jim Crow was a blight on our history.
- Yes, segregation was (and, in my opinion, remains) a blight on our history.
- Yes, we unconstitutionally imprisoned tens of thousands of our fellow Americans in internment camps during World War II.
- Yes, Vietnam was a mistake of devastating proportions.
- Yes women were the largest disenfranchised portion of our population until well into the 20th century, and they remain less-than-equal in too many respects.
- Yes, any form of police brutality and overreach of authority is wrong. Yes, human trafficking happens within our national, state, and local borders.
- Yes, drug abuse is on the rise.
- Yes, guns continue to take the lives of our children.
- Yes, we disproportionately imprison young black men.
- Yes, hate groups continue to defecate on the precious fabric of our society.
- Yes, every president in the 20th century (and, so far, into the 21st century) was/is imperfect and capable of great error of judgment and, in some cases, demonstrated their imperfections and hubris by word and deed, a true malfeasance in office.
The list of “but-we-are-capable-of-greatness-and-humanity” is even longer. The problem with writing out even a portion of a “greatness” list is that it will not be trusted by a segment of America that has become desensitized to counterpoint and debate, a portion of society that is unwilling to listen to and process a positive message because of an assumption that the messenger is biased or elitist or uninformed and represents a tribal point of view antithetical to other tribes’ points of view.
I recommend Jonah Goldberg’s new book, “Suicide of the West: How the Rebirth of Tribalism, Populism; Nationalism, and Identity Politics is Destroying American Democracy.” To many of my readers, the irony of this recommendation is that Goldberg and I do not often occupy the same political stage—his is a conservative voice, mine trends liberal, but we do see eye-to-eye on this issue of an America in dire jeopardy due to a loss of communication, a diversion of values, and a retrenchment of tribal habits unflattering to, and destructive of, our social-political-faith fabric.
I want to be very clear…I am in no way using the term “tribal” as a racial pejorative, lest my critics leap on this word in its most useless and inflammatory meaning. The rise of unbridled social media, coupled with a selfish or self-absorbed populace (individual or group), polarized news media and/or punditry, and paralyzed, election-centered representative government all contribute to tribal divisions—or the assumption of tribal divisions.
And therein lies the problem—tribalism engenders mistrust which in turn engenders silence among all parties, and that silence creates a vacuum which sucks all the potential objectivity out of social discourse. To be clear, we are not becoming a nation of untrustworthy people, but a nation of people unwilling to put our faith in once-trustworthy institutions and once-accepted norms and traditions which, in the past, provided sound footing for national progress. We are becoming separatists in too many senses of the word. We are separating ourselves from all forums of open, safe, and mutually-beneficial dialogue because we no longer trust that our points of view will be taken on their merits and discussed without subjective attack.
We have created, instead, social media forums that thrive on attack and uninformed subjectivity, forums that squander whatever “fair play” their creators touted, forums that, within two or three posts of a single thread, devolve into shouting matches filled with sound and fury and become meaningless or, worse, emotionally devastating. These tribally-fueled forums exist not just on social media—they exist in everyday discourse: in town hall meetings, on cable and network news, in editorials, and, I am sad to say, increasingly on college campuses. If we cannot trust our institutions of higher learning to be fields of non-judgmental exchanges of myriad ideas, what then is the future of epistemological examination of anything for the coming generations of students?
To return to the original question, Americans must overcome the decades-long destruction of institutional and personal trust that once characterized the interactions between the government and the governed, between people of differing opinions who retreat from discourse rather than engage in helpful, gracious, respectful discussions. If we cannot reclaim trust—the north star toward which our compass once pointed—we will continue to veer far from the course upon which we set the nation so long ago.
"Tribalism" gets slung around a lot by comfortable people who don't really want to take the shouting of those groups seriously enough to find their own lives changed by it in real and tangible ways.
ReplyDeleteI've been raped for real. I've been raped figuratively in decades of labor theft. I've been made a nonentity in the law, which makes it damned hard to protect your children. I've also spent decades playing parlor games with comfortably-off white men who like a little intellectual snazzle of an evening and would find it...piquant to have a new, nonthreatening view or two now and then.
I see no reason whatsoever why I ought to go on having "gracious, respectful" discussions. It obviously doesn't get me very far. It obviously helps to preserve the privileges of those who have it. And I don't see either that these founders you were waxing about up there bothered with any of that in the end, either.
A few months ago I had a conversation with my daughter's English teacher and a vice-principal. The English teacher was practically trailing in blood because the kids were on him, man. He's got some woke kids in there looking like the rainbow and he's very much a deep-midwest hipster dude of the 90s, and he wants them to understand that he's one of the good guys. But the stuff coming out of his mouth is not only thoughtlessly racist, misogynist, homophobic, bigoted however you please; when told by the children what he's doing, he's defensive and turns the class into his defense. It's just a long male ego trip. Over weeks and months, during which he's also demanding the girls stay after class so he can defend himself at them. All of which goes poorly enough that the atmosphere sounds toxic and heading into dangerous territory all the way from my house, so I go in to have a conversation.
One of the things I told him is that we are not in the *marketplace of ideas*, and he has to put. that. down. The marketplace of ideas is rigged in favor of the people already in charge, and the kids know that. They're not that stupid. They know it's not their job to convince him, in some way that leaves him feeling comfy-cozy, or to convince him at all, that he's got a fountain of bigotry coming out of his mouth. They'll try, mind. But if he won't listen, why, they'll just dispatch him. Which they can do.
It is not. a marketplace. of ideas.
He had real trouble with that idea. He was listening, because it was coming from me and his vice principal was there. But boy, he sure wanted to fight it. Didn't matter, though. No marketplace of ideas. That's not the game.
Does that mean there's chaos? No. It means you will actually have to pay attention to and genuinely respect the lived realities of other humans whether or not you find their takes reasonable. You don't get to decide, anymore, whether they're being reasonable. You're not the arbiter. And if you will not willingly respect their realities, if your mind won't move that fast, if you won't recognize change fast enough, they will teach you to respect them. Not too nicely, either.
It is not their job to persuade you.
It is not my job to persuade you.
The internet is full of stories. You can read them, you can ask questions of the people telling them, and that knowledge should be giving you real empathy. But it is your job, now, to extend and know what those stories are, find them, read them, hear them, understand them. It's not on them to wrestle your mind into submission in a contest.
That's really the change, Jim. If you listen to people -- you didn't do such a good job of it with me, a few months ago, but if you listen to people, and absorb and understand what they're saying, they will trust you. Make Mr. Rogers your model in that regard.