Just talking about party affiliation doesn't work anymore, because anybody with any sense realizes the party system doesn't serve the American people anymore. The party system as it exists now is egregiously top heavy and dysfunctional. The current system is neither responsive nor effective; it's a joke. It's made our country ungovernable, and something else will have to emerge to replace it.
I see in the long run some kind of realignment into smaller parties which in turn will form coalitions on issues of mutual concern. Such a realignment will have more flexibility and be more responsive to people's bottom-up concerns. So I've been thinking about this inter-tribal coalition idea, and this a very preliminary attempt to map it out. I know this is amateurish sociology/anthropology–please, point me in the direction of anybody who has done it better. But I think it's an interesting exercise, and its goal for me is twofold:
The first to give us all some perspective. If we are serious about living in a pluralistic society that means that we have to learn to live with one another, and that we live in a tribe whether we realize it or not, and that our worldview is just one puzzle piece in a larger picture. If you are what I describe below as a Humanist, you may violently disagree with the ideas and values expressed by people in the other tribes, but assuming the "Other" isn't a fanatic, and most "Others" are not, you need to seek out the common ground, some place to begin a conversation.
The second goal is to understand how that common ground can lead to political coaliton building. The Libertarians, while culturally left on most issues, have less of a problem than Humanists in forming a coalition with the Religious Right, for instance, despite cultural or social values that it finds repugnant. Libertarians see that they need the religious right to achieve their larger political and economic objectives. There's more to their success than simply this partnership, but it would be a lot harder for them to have successfully pushed the moderate New Deal compromise to the far left while claiming for itself the center with a free-market buccaneering mentality that has brought disaster.
So if it's true that the two-party system is broken beyond repair, what should be the focus of organizing work going forward over the next decade or more? The question I'm posing, and I'm not sure of the answer, is whether cultural-left tribes can reach out to some of the more moderate cultural-right tribes to form a coalition on progressive economic issues, as well as other issues of mutual concern. Where are the most natural coalition partners, and how must the development of those partnerships be approached? What is the proper decorum, so to speak, in intertribal negotiations. You can't make a solid, long-term relationship work unless you understand those things–and know what you can talk about and what you can't.
So I realize that what follows below is something of a parlor game; nevertheless, I think it has some utility. I know there are all kinds of attempts to map voting patterns, but I'm more interested here in mapping tribal mindsets as primary and understanding their secondary effects in potential voting patterns as secondary. I'm particularly interested in understanding what motivates Americans who participate in these mindsets, and then thinking about how those motivations might be worked with by a broad-based, economically progressive, grassroots movement to take the country back from power elites.
These elites are doing what they have done from time immemorial: they are using government now to protect their prerogatives and feather their nests, and they will continue to do so until someone stops them, and the power to stop them will only come by the united efforts of Americans with different tribal affiliations who find a way to agree to disagree about other issues while joinging together to take the country back.
***
These tribal mindsets profiled below are not hermetically sealed categories, and clearly there's a lot of overlap among them, each one can comprise several sub-tribes, and people can move from one to another, and perhaps even live in more than one simultaneously. But the key is to understand the basic mindset that predominates in each tribe. While you participate in the mindset, you will have the attitudes and behaviors typical of people in that mindset: On Sunday, you're at church and thinking and behaving as you're expected to do in, for instance, the tribal context defined by mainstream Baptist Calvinism. The next day you might be working at Enron, where corporate Libertarianism defines the mindset–and thinking and behaving as you're expected to do there. These People who are relatively awake feel the tension between living in two conflicting mindsets, but most people don't. They just accept it as the shape of their life and muddle along as best they can without thinking about it too much.
But I'm not concerned here to understand the people so much as the mindsets that they put on whether consciously or unconsciously. As with all mentalities, some individuals exemplify purer strains of that mentality and others are more ambivalent and less captured by it. People are complex, conflicted, and ambivalent, but the tribal mentality is pretty clearly defined. But however complex the individual, when he or she is participating in a particular tribal activity, you can expect him or her to exhibit the attitudes and behaviors that are typical of that tribe.
Here they are–ten of them–in no particular order yet, although some ordering or clustering might emerge later. This is a work in progress–some of these tribal profiles are fleshed out better than others. I welcome any help from readers who might help me to refine or flesh out thes profiles, but one way or the other this essay will evolve over the next couple of weeks:
1. Libertarians. These are professionals and people with college degrees, who can be found in many of the places where Humanists (see below) are found–in the science and economic depts at universities and in the business and law schools), but this mindset plays a more dominant role in shaping the thinking and behavior of the corporate management class.
Educated Libertarians share the cosmopolitan rejection of traditional values with Humanists, but they are laissez-faire when it comes to economics. Like the Rotarians (see below), more as a matter of pragmatics than principle, they want minimal government control in both the economic and cultural spheres because they want to be left alone and they see big government as incompetent and unresponsive to real needs, especially when compared to the market. They tend to vote Republican because of the party's pro-corporate minimal-tax, minimal-regulation policies, but are uncomfortable in recent years with the GOP takeover by the Religious Right.
Current Party Affiliation: Mostly GOP, Independent
Exemplars/Spokespersons: George Will, Cato Institute, Reason Magazine, Gordon Gecko,
Cultural Politics: Liberal cosmopolitan
Economics Politics: Laissez-faire, but in a pragmatic rather than ideological sense. They will not oppose government largesse when it comes in the form of bailouts or big contracts.
Religion: not a factor, but Ayn Rand is their philosopher laureate
Kinship Groups: Teaparty Libertarians and Rotarians on small government; Humanists on cultural issues.
Sub-tribes: There are lots of varieties of Libertarians from Grover Norquist to Will Wilkinson.
Percentage of Electorate: ?
2. Teaparty Libertarians. You could argue that this is a subtribe of the broader Libertarian Tribe, and maybe eventually that's where it will land. Teaparty Libertarians, while some might be confused about it, are anti-corporate, and anti-Wall Street, but pro-free market. They want bad businesses to go belly up not get bailed out. They hate the cronyism they see between government and the big corporations. They are a purer strain of Libertarian, because Corporate Libertarians have no problems with cronyism, and Libertarianism is just window dressing for a political ideology that gives them the freedom to do as they please.
Teaparty Libertarians derive from an older strain of American radicalism that traces its ancestry to the mob mentality of the Boston radicals and the more rabid anti-federalists in the 1780s and 90s. These people are quasi-anarchists who hate governments and centralized authority in general. And they don't feel all that warmly toward big regimented corporations and the special privileges they get in dealing with the government. Their mentality is reflected in the New Hampshire license plate slogan, "Live free or die." This tribe is white Protestant, and many are nativists. Corporate Libertarians are really an offshoot of this older version of Teaparty Libertarians. Rick Santelli's rant might have ignited the Tea Party with his rant about government bailing out mortgage holders, but did he protest the bailouts of the banks?
Exemplars/Spokespersons: Rand Paul, Glenn Beck, Barry Goldwater, Cornelius Vanderbilt, Grover Norquist, (not Dick Armey)
Current Party Affiliation: GOP, Independent
Cultural Politics: In their heads, they say they're against the government legislating morality, but they are heirs of the nativist tradition, which means they are anti-pluralist and unconsciously, i.e., not flagrantly, racist.
Economics Politics: radically laissez-faire, anarchistic, big government means corrupt deals with crony capitalist, who are not really capitalists.
Religion: not a factor.
Kinship Groups: Southern Blue Collars, Religious Right
Subtribes: Militia members, Nativists, NRA members, Neo Confederates
Percentage of Electorate: ?
3. Rotarians: Classic Main Streeters who worry about making payroll. They own or manage the dry cleaners, the restaurants, the small retail shops, and other businesses with fewer than one hundred employees. But the key characteristic of the mindset of this tribe is their self-reliant work ethic, contempt for the the lazy and the dependent, their belief in capitalism, and their skepticism about government ever doing anything right. They are law-and-order types who support the troops. They are not big-picture people. They make political judgments based on what they think will most benefit their business, and they join associations like the Lions Club or Rotary to do social service and community strengthening work.
Current Party Affiliation: They have traditionally voted Republican, but more lately are trending toward independent status; they are not on the whole rigidly ideological.They resent taxes and government regulations, not as a matter of principle, but because of the way they complicate their lives and affect their bottom line.
Exemplars/Spokespersons: Joe the Plumber, local Chambers of Commerce
Cultural Politics: conventional, traditional, patriotic conservative, but not rigidly so.
Economics Politics: Moderates leaning toward low taxes, minimal government interference
Religion: not a factor
Kinship Groups: Educated Libertarians, Teaparty Libertarians
Subtribes: ?
Percentage of Electorate: ?
4. Religious Right. A fairly large group of anti-modernist fundamentalist and evangelical Calvinists, very conservative Catholics, Orthodox, & Lutherans, Pentecostals, orthodox Jews who are terribly upset by what they see as the deterioriation of traditional mores and the predominance of secularism in the public square. There is an element of religious fanaticism and irrationalism that characterizes those on the right extremes of this tribe, but this tribe also includes religious intellectuals with a sophisticated grasp of history and culture who believe that modernity was a big, terrible mistake.
Exemplars/Spokespersons: Mike Huckabee, Pat Buchanan, Sarah Palin, Bill Donahue, Ross Douthat, Richard John Neuhaus, James Dobson
Party Affiliation: GOP
Cultural Politics: Very conservative, anti-modernist, hard time embracing pluralism.
Economics Politics: ambiguous: some are Populist progressive, but most lean toward Teabag Libertarian
Religion: Mostly Calvinist, but some very conservative Catholics
Kinship Groups: Southern Blue Collars,
Subtribes: Dominated by Fundamentalist and Evangelical Calvinist Protestantism, but also embraces Conservative Catholics, Educated (non-fundamentalist) Evangelicals, some Paleo-cons and PoMoCons, like those at First Things.
5. Humanists: These are professionals and people with college degrees who mostly work in large organizations like mainstream cultural institutions–universities, progressive religious organizations, school districts, philanthropic institutions, in the graphic arts, theater, film, blue-state governments, and some in the coastal areas, corporate management class. They are cosmopolitan and pluralist in their cultural values and social democrats in their economic values. They are the cultural elites mostly despised and resented by Ethnic Blue Collars, Southern Blue Collars, and Teaparty Libertarians. From this group came the abolitionists and Progressives in the 1800s, and were the engineers of the New Deal in the 1930s. They care about women's rights, gay rights, the environment, and are predominantly anti-war.
Exemplars/Spokespersons: Obama, Olbermann, Maddow, Stewart
Party Affiliation: Democrat, Green
Cultural Politics: liberal/left, pluralist, cosmopolitan, pro-choice, pro gay rights
Economics Politics: left: pro-welfare, pro-single payer health care, pro-safety net.
Religion: secularist or Liberal Protestants, Catholics, and Jews
Kinship Groups: Blue-collar Catholics, Urban Hispanics, Black Church-goers
Subtribes: environmentalists, Entertainment/celebrity culture, women's groups, gay rights groups
Percentage of Electorate: ?
6. Church-going African Americans. Maybe there's a better name, but in my observation, the Black Church is what links subtribes among working, middle, and professional African-American men and women–and separates them from what I describe as the Hip Hop tribe. When educated professional African Americans leave the church behind, they fit better in the Humanist or Libertarian tribes. This, like the Ethnic Blue Collars below, is a major group of generally culturally conservative but economically progressive Americans. They have been since the sixties strongly affiliated with the Dems, but could perhaps be more influential as a separate party.
Exemplars/Spokespersons: Martin Luther King, Jesse Jackson, (Not Obama–he's a Humanist)
Party Affiliation: Dems
Cultural Politics: conservative
Economics Politics: progressive
Religion: Black Baptist, Pentecostal
Subtribes: Black Blue Collars, Black Professionals, BIll Cosbie Entertainers
Kinship Groups: Blue Collar Catholics, Educated Humanists, Urban Hispanics
Percentage of Electorate: ?
7. Southern Blue Collars: You could argue that this is a regional subtribe of the Religious Right, but my perception is they're Baptists the way Italians in the mafia are Catholic. That's how they were brought up, and how you were brought up is important, because you respect the tradition. But piety is not their strong suit. This is a group that has moved into the GOP camp, although many were staunch New Deal Democrats back in the day. The Dems lost them not just because of race but for many of the same reasons they lost the Ethnic Blue Collars–the party became dominated by the concerns of the educated elites who mostly fall into the Humanist tribe.
Exemplars/Spokespersons: Toby Keith, Huey Long, George Wallace
Party Affiliation: GOP since 80s
Cultural Politics: conservative
Economics Politics: populist, Teaparty Libertarian, anti-Wall Street
Religion: Baptist, Pentecostal
Subtribes:
Kinship Groups: Blue Collar Catholics, Humanists, Urban Hispanics
Percentage of Electorate: ?
8. Ethnic Blue-Collars. Irish, Italian, Polish Americans in the Northeast and Midwest who live in cities and suburbs. Their values are conservative traditional, but not rigidly so, and their economics are pragmatic progressive. The Dems have done almost everything they could do to drive them away. They are uncomfortable with the culturally left ethos of the Democrats, and have become disgusted with the blue-dog, DLC trend of the Dems since the 80s. Their union leadership might be strongly partisan Dem, but the rank and file are purple.
Exemplars/Spokespersons: Jock Yablonski
Party Affiliation: Purple Dems
Cultural Politics: conservative
Economics Politics: progressive
Religion: Catholic
Kinship Groups: Black Churchgoers, Educated Humanist
Percentage of Electorate: ?
9. Hip Hop. Teen and Twenty-something Blacks, Hispanics, and white imitators, who tend to celebrate a primitive instinctualism that frequently displays in gang violence. Heroes are athletes and celebrities, rap singers, and other very un-Middle Class types whose identies are largely shaped by transgressing mainstream traditional mores. behaviors. Anomic and politically disengaged, live for the moment and the thrill. Not a factor now, but could be mobilized in the future.
Exemplars/Spokespersons:
Party Affiliation: not a factor
Cultural Politics: hip hop, gangsta, hopeless, thrill seeking,
Economics Politics: not a factor
Religion: not a factor–although faith of Black churchgoing mother or grandmother might be an influencing factor in the background.
Kinship Groups: Unassimilated Hispanics
Subtribes: ?
Percentage of Electorate: ?
10. Unassimilated Hispanics: Third generation and later Hispanics who have assimilated probably fit better with the blue collar Catholics, Humanists, or Rotarians. George Lopez does not fit here. Feared by Teaparty Libertarians, Rotarians, and many Religious Righters who don't believe they will assimilate. First and second generation urban Hispanics have many of the characteristics of the Hip Hoppers, which perhaps they would be better fitted as a subtribe. They are generally politically disengaged, but have potential for being enlisted in a progressive economic politics if organized and motivated to do so.
Party Affiliation: Dem/disengaged
Cultural Politics: conservative/traditionalist
Economics Politics: pragamatic progressive
Religion: Catholic: storefront evangelical
Kinship Groups: Blue-collar Catholics
Subtribes: Cubans, Puerto Ricans
Percentage of Electorate: ?
Leave a Reply