Political Tribes

I was asked why the U.S. can't have a "logical combination" of liberalism and conservatism rather than turning politics into only these two political ideology choices.

As in many countries where people have a say in their government, there’s a tendency for people in the U.S. to identify with a political “tribe.” To do that, they have to overlook some differences and focus more on commonalities. In fact, different people have different priorities; for example, they might seek out commonalities on fiscal policy and shut their eyes to social policies that don’t match their values.

I don’t think it matters whether there can be a logical combination because a lot of politics is driven by emotions. Perhaps we could think of that as “emotional logic.” Voters’ reasoning definitely doesn’t adhere to principles of analytic logic! At the very least, in analytic logic, self-contradiction is not allowed. In emotional logic, cognitive dissonance is common. You can actually hear or read people who say opposite things within the span of a few minutes or paragraphs. And there are other people who reason analytically after making some very emotional decisions, in other words, post-rationalization.

In countries where elections involve the formation of alliances among political parties, it can be pretty difficult to figure out what the “logical combination” is. There are behind-doors negotiations of the nature of I’ll-go-along-with-this-thing-that-you-want-if-you-go-along-with-this-other-thing-that-I-want. Negotiation used to be the way the U.S. Congress worked. I think you’re asking why it isn’t that way now.

In the U.S. I think it’s all about the tribe mentality. Humans are not bonobos. Tribes fight to keep their territory. Tribes work to distinguish their identity from that of other tribes, who can be seen as enemies. In 2010, it was tribal rhetoric that resulted in a fairly dramatic change in the way politics are conducted at the national level. There’s a tribe that has the power to give no quarter to the other tribes. In fact, there’s a splintering of tribes, with some tribal members now being “enemies.”

This splintering is evidence that U.S. politics is not binary. People argue over ownership of the terms “liberal” and “conservative.” Those to the left of what used to be the center of the U.S. political spectrum are now splintered into Moderate Liberals, Progressives, fiscal Liberals, social Liberals, etc. Those to the right of what used to be the center are now splintered into Moderate Conservatives, Tea Party Conservatives, the Freedom Caucus (very conservative representatives in the U.S. House), the Christian Right, White Nationalists, etc.

Therefore, the U.S. appears not to have reduced politics to a binary choice but rather to have created many splinter groups. Those further to the extremes of the political spectrum are more intransigent than those who are more moderate. And those groups, especially among more radical Conservatives, are very loud. If one only listens to them or their counterparts at the left end of the spectrum (beyond “Progressives”), you’d think that there is zero possibility of a “logical combination.” Practically speaking, that’s right. But not because there cannot be a balance between federalism and confederalism or between free college for all Americans vs. pay-or-don’t-go education “opportunities.”

Until the tribal leaders recognize that their war-at-all-costs is costing their tribe too much, they will not be amenable to negotiating a logical combination of political policies.