Tribalism Is Not The Cause Of Current Polarization - It's The Republican Party

There have been a myriad of stories lately that attempt to explain the partisan polarization in terms of tribalism. Party identification has come to mean more than what the actual party policies say or accomplish. And the concept of tribalism is used to explain why voters often vote against their own interests. Maybe I suffer from the same sort of tribalism and that makes me blind to other possibilities, but it seems that the tribalism largely explains the Republican party and that saying tribalism is responsible for the current political polarization is a kind of "both sides do it" analysis.

Take, for example, a recent NY Times article by Amanda Taub entitled, "Why Americans Vote ‘Against Their Interest’: Partisanship". In the article, Taub equates wealthy Americans who support tax increases on the rich, which leaves them with less money in their pocket, with working class voters who continue to support Trump and the GOP despite the fact that his health care plan would hurt them in disproportionate numbers. In Taub's analysis, both sets of voters are acting against their own interests. But that is an interesting nd rather dubious equivalence. For those rich Democrats who support higher taxes on the rich, their motivation is not monetary greed but a desire to improve the lives of their fellow citizens who are less fortunate. I admit that I do not understand the motivation of working class Republicans who seemingly do not want health care but I hardly think it is driven by a motivation to improve the lives of their fellow citizens. Rather, it seems more driven by a desire not to see those "others", whoever they may be, receive the benefit of healthcare. Somehow, that seems to be a more fundamental difference between the two parties and hardly seems an example of "tribalism" among Democrats.

In fact, it was Trump's direct appeal to GOP tribalism that increasingly looks responsible for his surprise election. As Lilliana Mason, a professor at the University of Maryland, says, "Older voters who scored high on racial resentment were much more likely to switch from Obama to Trump", and that his appeal to "white male identity politics" is what carried him to victory. Now I know that certain people will point to the solid bloc of African American voters as reflecting the flip side of the coin of white male identity politics. But the Republican party has specific policies designed to reduce black voting rights and has its own long history with overt racism since the LBJ threw the racists out of the Democratic party in the mid-1960s. I know that reverse racism is a popular meme on the right, but it simply does not exist in any degree when compared to traditional racism that African-Americans face in this country today. In fact, racism and sexism were far better predictors of a Trump voter than worries about economic anxiety. Misogyny, in particular, has been largely understated as a reason for Trump's victory.

Similarly, let's look at the way evangelicals lined up behind Trump, despite his clear moral and ethical lapses. According to Pew Research, over 80% of self-proclaimed evangelicals voted for Trump and over half those specifically said they were voting against Hillary Clinton, rather than for Trump. Incredibly, the study found that 40% felt that Trump was a good role model and two-thirds thought he was well qualified. It certainly takes some significant tribal blinders to think the thrice married, six time bankrupt businessman, and admitted sexual harasser was a good role model. Again, people will point to more progressive Democrats thinking that Hillary was a sell-out and a war hawk and yet they still voted for her. But let's get real. If you are a true Christian, there can be no comparison between Hillary Clinton's lifetime of work trying to improve the lives of women and children around the world in the fulfillment of the true Christian ideal and the actions of Donald Trump throughout his life.

Lastly, let's just take a look at the "tribalism" in the reaction to Trump's missile attack on Syria. As Kevin Drum points out, back in 2013, when Obama responded to Assad's chemical weapons attack, 38% of Democrats supported those strikes as compared with just 22% of Republicans. New polling in the wake of Trump's attack show that Democrats are consistent in their view, with only 37% supporting Trump's strike. Now, however, 86% of Republicans support the latest missile strike. Talk about tribalism.

Way back in 2012, Thomas Mann and Norm Orenstein identified the real cause of dysfunction and polarization in our political process in their book "It's Even Worse Than it Looks". In that book, they wrote, "The Republican Party has become an insurgent outlier -- ideologically extreme; contemptuous of the inherited social and economic policy regime; scornful of compromise; unpersuaded by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition." Yet, even today, after eight years of obstructing Obama and the theft of a seat on the Supreme Court, the punditocracy desperately wants to write the "both sides do it" story and tribalism is the latest theme for that meme. Yes, tribalism exists, but it is essentially a Republican party problem that has no real equivalence among Democrats. But I'm sure that's just my tribal outlook.