Perrygraphs – Tribal Divides

Let's learn something from the Arabs. Famously, it is said they only trust their immediate family and then their tribe. That's why Saddam surrounded himself with people from his hometown Tikrit, also from his tribe. His sons, five I think, each had a palace and responsibilities. They were all Sunnis, hated Shiites, Sufis, and Kurds.

Their nations, the Arabs don't trust so much. Westerners, like the Brits, divided up the Middle East with ignorance of the peoples, but knowledge of geography. Their wars over the years have been trying to straighten this out. Oh- throw in their two big political religions: Sunni and Shiites, plus some random ethnic groups here and their like the Kurds. Thomas Friedman in two earlier books on the ME, suggested one way to bring order to an Arab country was with a strong man. So we find Saddam, Assad, Erdogan, and the Saudi king and princes.

Tribes. Can America be tribal? My high school fight song was a faint modification of “Illinois Loyalty:” “We're loyal to you Neville High...” All our schools have their local pride and mascots. Years later, we still identify with our various alma maters, ever if we've not be back in years. Half the buildings are replaced, none of the faculty is the same, and the student body has turned over a dozen times, but we are still loyal to the schools whose names are at the top of our diplomas. In a similar way we may be loyal to our state, our town, or our church.

I wonder about this intense rivalry that we feel – even encourage in high school and college athletics. Can this be training us to strengthen our natural “us and them” division? A few – very few – communities join together and build one large stadium rather than several smaller ones. Instead of everyone playing on Friday nights, they could rotate playing on Thursday, Friday, and Saturday nights. How many nights in your community do two or three stadiums remain empty while each team plays half its schedule out of town? One cooperative stadium makes far more sense, even financially, but imagine the resistance if you try it.

Does this transfer to politics? In high school, the president of the student body is always a popularity contest. Most schools I've known have no requirements beyond his or her becoming a passing senior. Campaigning does make a difference, but because the kids know each other, especially in smaller schools, popularity usually wins.

When you run for civic office, the situation changes a bit. Whether there is a political party involved, most often there are local parties or blocks, who seek some agenda. Their partisans vote for the candidates they feel will most likely support that agenda. But the larger the city, the less the populace knows the individual politicians. Enter advertising. Enter money. Parties get more complicated: capital and labor, for example. Uptown and downtown. Suburbs and projects. EACH ONE OF THESE CRYPTO-PARTIES DEVELOPS AN IDENTITY AND A FOLLOWING. Over time, the same old school loyalty develops to that party.

To a degree, the party advertises what it stands for. But more and more they are looking for sound bites, slogans. “Make America Great Again.” Political speeches hammer at emotions, not logic. And platforms re-enforce these.

I personally hate platforms. The two main parties craft their platforms in large part to separate themselves from the other party. Republicans want less government, but not everything on their platform carries that out. What does anti-abortion have to do with that? Surely, there are many pro-abortion Republicans as there are certainly pro-life Democrats. Louisiana's present governor is a good example. The mere fact that we seek party loyalty and conformity to the platform insures the growth of hostility and legislative logjams.

Recently about 40 in Congress from both parties sat down to discuss how to fix health care for the people of the US, not for the parties nor the insurance companies. They also intended to put aside party lines and slogans. I personally love this idea. Why not a Common Sense Party? Why not a Congress and President aimed at tackling one problem after another, collecting experts in the areas affecting those problems, and crafting a way to improve the situation. Do this without needing to defend the choices, but simply trying them out, adjusting them where they don't work, until they find a way that does?

This would require a new way of thinking. The other fellow is not your enemy, but your collaborator. You don't set out either to get government out of the problem, nor to make sure government is the solution. Rather, the sky's the limit on solutions, with the understanding that all solutions are temporary and open to constant change and improvement.