Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnR
Oh we are in for a helluva ride - probably what we deserve.
But had Hillary won, might not be all beer and skittles. In fact it would be depressing and crappy too. Here is some interesting Alternative History
On Earth 2:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/meanwh...rticle/2008805 |
The Weekly Standard article you cite presents us with the irresistible quandary created by an immovable human condition. He calls that condition tribalism. And he would like to "roll it back".
But the animating essence of political parties is the tribalism he wishes to roll back. To what condition do you roll back that which is tribalistic in nature? Does rolling back mean getting rid of political parties?
He presents party tribalism as a condition which makes no party better than any other. His "earth 2 test" shows the parties as mirror images in their view of each other--the us good/them bad syndrome. and the "only" reason some Republicans are trying to alibi the Trump Jr. emails is because of this tribalism. And so, by the flip of his earth 2 test, if President Hillary's daughter had such emails the Republicans would decry them like the Dems do re Trump's emails. And, by extending the test, the Democrats would alibi for Chelsea as the Republicans are doing for Trump Jr.
Political parties in this country have acted this tribalistic way from the beginning. There is no condition prior to that to which they can be rolled back.
So, if "us" is better than "them," and "better" is what each party views as its way of believing and doing, is there some way of objectively deciding which way of governing is better? Or does it simply come down to choosing which tribe suits you best?
The author hints at the solution for tribalism when he says "But the problem with that view is that there’s no limiting principle to it." And he hints at the reason we are in the tribal quandary with "Now we can argue about which side incubated this virus within the body politic." He says "(I’d make the case that it was the left.)"
But he, in my opinion, misspeaks when he says that tribalism is "a value set completely untethered from ideology, or reality, or community." Political tribalism is very tethered to its ideology (to the point that it would alibi for one of "us" in order to defeat the ideology of "them"). And that is the harsh reality of the unlimited power to impose ideology. I think that he would do better to stick to the problem being that there is no limiting principle to check party tribalism. And by extension, there is therefor no limiting principle to check the governing power of either "us" or "them."
So was he hinting, at least to some degree, that the lack of a limiting principle could be the lack of adherence to something like a Constitution. Something which prescribes the duties and limits of government power? And is he hinting, at least to some degree, that it was Progressives who, with their ideology of unlimited government, "incubated this virus within the body politic" when he says that he would make the case that it was the left that did it?
I think so. Or else, if we don't understand the need for a limiting principle, we are stuck with the irresistible quandary.