In the New York Times this morning was an Op-Ed by a Midwestern republican Talk Radio host, Charlie Sykes. In the article, Mr. Sykes supports his stance as a member of #nevertrump and tries to figure out how his party supported someone who he despises. To explain much of what he sees in his party, Mr. Sykes credits binary tribalism.

In this binary tribal world, where everything is at stake, everything is in play, there is no room for quibbles about character, or truth, or principles. If everything — the Supreme Court, the fate of Western civilization, the survival of the planet — depends on tribal victory, then neither individuals nor ideas can be determinative. I watched this play out in real time, as conservatives who fully understood the threat that Mr. Trump posed succumbed to the argument about the Supreme Court. As even Mr. Ryan discovered, neutrality was not acceptable; if you were not for Mr. Trump, then you were for Mrs. Clinton.

This is an interesting take, particularly from someone so partison. It does seem that we have lost our political way. We have become so entrenched in our own political ideas that we have stopped seeing people on the other side of the political divide as coherent. Instead, so many latch onto a group, thinking that only their own political party has reasonable solutions to the countries problems and any other solutions would spell certain doom. Our politics are no longer about the battle of ideas, they are instead about staying loyal to those in your tribe no matter the quality or merit of the parties approach to governing. Or even worse, no matter how much it might negatively effect you!

I commend Mr. Sykes for his critical take on his own party. However, one thing I think is missed in the article is why we have become so tribal. In this, you see an omission from Mr. Sykes’s Op-Ed. We should all shoulder the blame for climbing further into our political corners, but Mr. Sykes, other talk radio hosts, and partisan media in general need to admit their influential roles in pushing us there. Some tweets from Mr. Sykes to prove my point:

I find it odd, that a man would rebuke tribalism after publically publishing such statements. How can you call a liberal chancellor a “lefty” or tweet about “Anti-Christian Bigotry and Rank Political Posturing” without realizing that you are directly fueling our countries divide.

We need to move away from the all too common: “The left (or right) did it and its bad” to the more meaningful “this idea is bad and this is why” approach. This is not esclusivie to the right side of the political divide.

A few months back I was on a bike ride with a friend. During the ride, she exclaimed that she disliked religion because “religions were against abortion”. Even though I knew what she meant, it struck me. Religions are not against anything. This an important distinction. The people that make up a religion have a wide variety of opinions, even - most likely - about abortion. In grouping religious people and giving the group the opinion, you immediately attack a person twice. You attack them because of their supposed opinion and you attach the group that they are part of. In doing this you have created a situation where just calling yourself religious is bad because, in my friends mind, it implies that a person is against abortion. That may be the case for some, or even the majority, but it does not accurately describe the whole.

Similarly, Mr. Sykes attacks a the chancellor in his tweet above as a “lefty”. He has gotten away from what should matter, the decision that the Chancellor has made. Instead, Mr. Sykes groups the chancellor, attributing the bad decision that she was making, to the group. Those that read the tweet think that the Chancellor is bad not because of the decision she has made but because she is a “Lefty”. If Mr. Sykes has an issue with the what the chancellor is doing, he should say so and give a reason why. Instead though, he has chosen to group liberal people and bash them as such. This is very similar to what my friend has done with religious people. Abortion is the issue that she is worried about, not realigion.

starte here

In my experience it is almost impossible to discuss an issue, if someone feels that their group is being attacked. Fore example: “Why do republicans not like immigration reform?”. Contrarily if you address the issue exclusively, you may still get the same result as you did when addressing the group, but at least you are just getting a response to your issue.

Imagine

It will be hard to stop our tendency to group but we must do it. It is ruining our political discourse with each other.