Political Disagreement Or Tribalism?

One of the joys of the blogosphere, at least to me, is surfing around and seeing what others think and how others handle their blogs and getting a giggle or two from comical things. Yesterday I was cruising in the neighborhood of The Discerning Texan and noted he had a cartoon up. Got a chuckle, copied it and put it up on my blog too with a link to TDT and a tip of the old GM Chapeaux (that is hat for you non French speaking lefty types)(oh, wait, don't all lefty's speak, breath, eat, sleep, dream French? Or was that Just John Kerry?)

But I digress, getting up this morning bright and early around ohhhh, say O Dark FortyFive I logged on and found a 5:55 am comment from Jassalasca Jape who blogs at a blog of the same name. Still with me folks? I'm a-gittin-to-da point, shore am!

Now, JJ is a lib who has a "Devil's Dictionary" Type blog a'la Ambrose Bierce JJ's comment was thus:

What an amusing instance of cheerleading. Here are a few questions, for what it's worth. Has it ever occurred to the readers of this space that the United States might soon be forced to face up to crises for which there are no off the shelf solutions, and about which reasonable minds might differ? Will it be enough for you to say that it was someone else's fault? Is that the best that your nation can do? Is America really as tribal as it looks from the outside?

Well, those were good questions. So I responded. Here ya be:

Interesting comment. I'm not sure who is cheerleading for whom however. To the author of this space, the concept of "crisis" indicates that there is not an "off the shelf" solution. If there were, it would be a managable problem and not a crisis. Reasonable minds do in fact differ. From the comments on this blog, one can see a wide variety of differences, from radical lefty types to radical righty types and all types in between. In fact, that is one of the reasons my progressive friend Marc Cooper has my blog on his blogroll with the sobriquet "Reasoned discourse." Though sometimes the discourse is less than reasoned. ;-)

Fault is such a trendy word, lets use the term responsible instead. I was late to work many years ago and was involved in an accident when a drunk driver plowed into my car. I was not at fault in that accident, but I was responsible for being late, I was responsible for taking that route to work and I was responsible for being where I was when the accident occurred. Do you discern the difference.

If I anger you, and you punch me in the nose, that action is strictly and only your responsibility. I have some responsibility for what I said/did to anger you, but you and you alone are responsible for your actions.

The same is true with the actions of terrorists, regardless of what we do or do not do, they are totally and solely responsible for their acts of terror, for the death and destruction and for their choice of actions. To deny this is to fly in the face of reality.

Does America look "tribal" from the outside, or is that a misconception from the left. The fact of the matter is that most group interactions are somewhat tribal in nature. In strife or in competition, or in business, its is one side looking for an advantage over another. In most cases, both sides deal understanding that they can take or not take the deal. I don't have to pay one store $40.00 for a shirt if I can pay another store $35.00 for the same shirt.

Your "tribal" comment is a pejorative, but I don't accept that other than it's meaning as a group of people with a similar outlook. If your argument is that we look primitive instead, than you are grossly mistaken. Primitive is the concept of dihimitude, of burkas, of cutting off peoples heads for reasons of instilling fear and revulsion in others. It is the use of murder and calling it "honor killings." It is cutting the throat and shooting a film maker because you didn't like his film, it is declaring a fatwa against an author because he writes a book that is a less than glowing account mentioning Mohammad in a less than glowing light. Does that make me "judgmental?" You bet it does, but not one whit less judgmental than your description of our society as appearing "tribal."

Personally, I've never been fond of the political correctness thing (and that goes for both sides of America's monotonous political spectrum). The "tribal" epithet is sure enough pejorative, and was used deliberately, to lend force to the question.

With respect, I believe that your reasoning highlights the atrophy of political debate in American society. Responsibility is indeed the issue. A truer word was never said. But responsibility has two meanings, and you yourself use it in two senses here. To hold someone responsible for a battery, to hold businessmen to their contracts, to exercise consumer choice, these forms of responsibility assume the pervasive, all-surrounding presence of a legal system, which enforces rights and obligations and imposes restrictions on behavior.

Legal systems don't do a perfect job of fixing people with responsibility. We are taught the importance of following the rules, and we teach the same to our children. But no matter how streamlined you try to make it, any organized process costs money, and that means that some bad acts go unpunished, and some people are able to avoid their obligations. Perfect justice is impossible, and anyone who has had the misfortune to experience the legal system up close and friendly has felt the frustration of that fact.

We all have a sense of moral responsibility, as well. In large, the rules of the legal system track our moral sense (hacking a person's head off, for example, would violate the criminal law in any one of the fifty states, as would the act of killing a person and eating their flesh, or the act of killing someone through slow poisoning with a view to inheriting their assets). Where the law fails, whether because of imperfect enforcement, or because of a hole in the law that we think should not be there, we feel frustration. Everyone does.

Osama bin Laden and his little band of suicidal assassins changed nothing. We have always wanted perfect justice, and we have always had to make do with second best. If there are limits to justice inside a well-ordered society, there is going to be more slack in the world beyond its borders. Everyone with common sense, which I do believe includes present company, knows this.

What I do not understand is the point of this pronounced tendency among Americans today to actively flog this dilemma for emotional impact (with images such as "cutting the throat", for example). Nor do I understand why Americans pretend that because there is a set of "Democrat ideas" and "Republican ideas", that one of those baskets of wisdom must necessarily be right. I see lots of churning, and no dialog between the partisans of these so-called political parties. The thinking, if there is any, seems to be taking place elsewhere. Between the heads of the tribes.

JJ, May I call you that? Pending your answer I will because Jassalasca Jape is just to hard to type out each time. Besides, I think your blog and your name is kinda neat. But, what is Jassalasca?

I digress, JJ, you have called it "America's monotonous political spectrum." I'm not sure that I would disagree with you, there seems to be a decided lack of decorum on both sides at times, sometimes egged on by the other "side" and sometimes egged on by our side. But so what? Our society, and from your e-mail address I assume you live in Japan and perhaps are not an American (English perhaps or Australian?) or if you are, you are a "gone native" ex-pat (no, that is not intended as a pejorative); our society is built on competition, in our schools, our sports, business and of course politics as well as even the good old sibling rivalry - several times did I want to strangle my brothers or my sister (but I still love them).

You comment that my reasoning highlights the atrophy of political debate in American society. I disagree, equally respectively. While I do agree that the calumny has reached drastic proportions, it is the responsibilty of both party's to pull back. I believe that my comments are entirely within reason and do not overly castigate others. That is not my way. You can check with associates that I blog with and I'm positive that they would tell you the same thing. I admit to being an American Chauvinist, but I happen to believe that this Country is the ultimate hope of the world for freedom and for democracy. We have our problems, internally and externally but I would defend an American radical leftist with my life if he/she were threatened with an islamo-fascist.

You also commented that my use of responsibility was right on; for assault and for business, legal systems etc., leading to the term Justice. Howver, please note that my comments were directed towards the former. Justice, as a concept is imperfect at best, a goal to strive for, but one that can only sometimes be obtained fully. Our system is a system of laws, not of justice. Sometimes they can be the same thing, not usually however.

I would disagree that we all have a "sense of moral responsibility." That would seem to equate the morals of you or me or people we are intimate with and the morals of a terrorist. For they do have a "moral code." Not ours, and, if I need say it, one that is absolutely antithical to ours.

You comment that "Osama bin Laden and his little band of suicidal assassins changed nothing." Unfortunetly, so far you are correct but only to a point. The islamo-fascists have declared war on western civilization. Something that the left side of the aisle has yet to fully comprehend. Much is made in this country of the term "Neo-Con" usually meant as a former liberal turned by the events of September 11, 2001. Maybe so, but there have not been enough neo-cons formed if you will.

You seem to not understand that our two political parties are often seemingly at each others throats. It's called politics and it's the same the world over, whether between the Democrats and Republicans in the USA or between the Social Democrats and Christian Democrats in Germany or the Jiminto (Liberal democratic party) and the Minshuto (Democratic party) of Japan; the PRI (Institutional Revolutionary Party) and the PAN (National Action Party) of Mexico. JJ, that is human nature, to think that your ideas are better than the ideas of someone else. Chauvinistic? Sure. Again, but so what? We must come to grips with what our nature is, not roll around in the clover and wish for something different.

On the site that you seem to "hang out" at, you find a similar lack of rectitude that you accuse my side of... do you remember calling me a "a drums-of-war cheerleader with a blog..." was that meant to foster debate? Or when you posted a comment on my blog and then went to the blog you hang out on and saying (bragging?) that you posted a stealth comment and wondered how long it would take for me to "delete" it. Well, are you satisfied that I don't delete comments unless the language is pretty foul. One commenter called me the banned fellow "glasses" with no more evidence than I have a pair of glasses on my side bar that "can be used to increase or decrease print size." How tolerant or even intelligent is that? A commenter on the "other blog" said I "trafficked in abused children." This is not only a great calumny, but I have spent almost my entire professional life working with severely disturbed individuals, sometimes running up thousands of dollars of pro-bono work. Yet, this "liberal" who probably preaches "tolerance" has the gall to say something as nasty as that. Bernhard, the moderator(?) of the blog/forum doubted that I had ever been to Russia based on my stupid mistake of calling St. Petersburg Stalingrad rather than the correct Leningrad. Yet, please believe that I can absolutely prove that I was there. That is respect of others that you seem to be wanting those on the right to have? If so, please do some more work on your side of the aisle before asking me to change those on my side. One last point JJ; you wonder why we "flog this dilemma for emotional impact" and cite "with images such as "cutting the throat" for esample." JJ, we did not put that out on the internet, they did. We did not fly planes into two occupied civilian sky scrapers, they did, we did not blow up schools, shoot children, dress our children in suicide bomber outfits, or even plant bombs on trains, busses or subway's, they did. But, if we do not remember, we will have a repeat for that is their tactic. Remember that JJ, that is their tactic. I hope you never have to experience terrorism in Japan, but I'm afraid that you eventually will. Because that is their tactic and world domination by islam is their goal. Not all Muslims believe as do these islamo-fascists, but there are enough of them to scare the hell out of me, and they ought to scare the hell out of you too.