Presidential politics and tribalism
In a recent post, I noted that the Democrats have not won a Presidential election with a Northern liberal as their candidate since FDR died, apart from JFK in 1960. With that sole exception, all the successful Democratic Presidential candidates since the death of FDR have been Southerners-Truman (Missouri) 1948, Johnson (Texas) 1964, Carter (Georgia) 1976, Clinton (Arkansas) 1992, 1996. Even Gore-who won a plurality of the popular vote in 2000 but lost the Electoral College-was from Tennessee.
Reading Jonathan Haidt’s discussions of why people vote Republican and the moral psychology of religion, it struck me that JFK was an Irish Catholic, so steeped in religious and ethnic tribalism. JFK, like the various Southerners, was raised in a “tribal”, “group identity” culture and so could “do” tribalism as a political language in a way which resonated sufficiently with the American electorate to win. It is a plausible hypothesis, building on Haidt’s work, that the various northern liberals “failed” political tribalism. That is, they failed to convey a sufficient sense of identification with binding identities and concerns to get enough votes to win. The moral realms that Haidt identifies as ingroup/loyalty (involving mechanisms that evolved during the long human history of tribalism), authority/respect (involving ancient primate mechanisms for managing social rank, tempered by the obligation of superiors to protect and provide for subordinates), and purity/sanctity (a relatively new part of the moral mind, related to the evolution of disgust, that makes us see carnality as degrading and renunciation as noble).
I am not as convinced as Haidt that secular liberals do not use those mechanisms (think of the claims of authority in climate science, the casuistical pedantry about “racist” language and attitudes, the various environmentalist taboos, the “conservatives are evil” “opinions are character” rhetoric, notions of the polluting touch of commerce and the purifying hands of government): it is rather that, to the extent they do, they separate themselves from the concerns of much of the electorate. In fact, they way they use those mechanisms (ingroup/loyalty, authority/respect, purity/sanctity) is typically very much about building a group identity as being superior-because-critical of such concerns. Separation is the point. The orgy of hostile rurmour-mongering about, and dismissive commentary against, Gov. Palin being a case in point. If a similar onslaught had been unleashed from conservatives/the Right about a Democratic/left woman politician, the very same people would have been screaming “misogyny!” at the top of their rhetorical lungs. (Not, surely, entirely without reason.) But watching Obama-supporters apparently attempt to annoy-by-implication as much of the American electorate as they can in their attacks on Gov. Palin has been quite a sight. (And be completely unaware that they might be doing that, or that there might be a problem with doing that if you want to win a popular election.) This is tribalism: but it is an alienating tribalism with most Americans on the wrong side of the Great Moral Divide.
All of which is quite a problem for the Obama campaign. McCain’s campaign has been persistently more nimble than Obama’s, McCain has already shown that he is quicker on his feet than Obama (who is Mr Magnificent Set Piece but not so good in free-flowing situations), and with better foreign policy judgment than Obama. If Gov. Palin makes McCain also look like an agent of change AND McCain does tribalism in a more broadly appealing way, then Obama is going to end up being yet another failed Northern liberal candidate. (Making the failure rate 8 out of 9 instead of the 7 out of 8 it currently is.)
Which means that Obama better have a closer look at JFK’s (narrow) success. Obama has youth, charisma and “The First” all in common (first African-American rather than first Catholic: and there are and were lots more Catholics than African-Americans) with JFK. Obama has not done the Party Unity thing in the same way Kennedy did, who appointed his main primary opponent (LBJ) as his running mate (a failure Obama may now be regretting). Which leaves us with the tribalism thing. Being US President IS being Tribal Leader, a role Reagan excelled at.
If Obama wants to do a Reagan-like realignment of American politics, he needs to make his application for the job of Tribal Leader much more powerful than it currently is.
Which means making his being First African-American work for him. This does not mean implying that Americans have to vote for him to be Good People. Implying that folk are not already Good People is not a way to endear yourself to voters. (Part of Rudd's success in defeating Howard is that he did not fall into that trap.) What it does mean is holding his own candidature to be a tribute to the greatness of America. (Which it is: how long off do we think a serious Muslim candidate for French President is, for example?) Triumphing over the problems of the past to build a better future is Very American. (See the campaigns of one R Reagan, for instance.) What one does is hold those failures to be a betrayal of the promise of America, not some Revelation Of Its Dark And Evil Nature. This racism-as-betrayal is, after all, precisely the approach Martin Luther King used.
Which makes foreign policy particularly important, since that is the area where group identity as Americans is both broadest and most salient. McCain’s approach of insisting on victory in Iraq is better broad American tribal politics, particularly as victory now seems increasingly possible (even achieved). Republicans have consistently outscored Democrats on national security/foreign policy since they have persistently seemed much more comfortable with American strength and self-confidence. Carter’s Presidency failed from a mixture of Carter being a poor Presidential manager (even worse than Dubya) and completely fumbling the foreign-challenge issue. If Obama can convince voters he will not throw away victory-and is confident in the value of American strength-he can help push the necessary tribal buttons. After all, in 1960 JFK ran as more of a Cold War warrior than VP Nixon.
In domestic politics, similar broad points apply. Obama's approach needs to be about building/rebuilding the greatness of the US, not redeeming the US.
Whether Obama has the sort of people around him that can help craft a consistent pushing of those buttons, or whether they (and he) are too much of the mould that America Needs Redeeming, is another question. Obama’s support networks may be his biggest problem. (They certainly have not been helping just recently.) We shall see.
Reading Jonathan Haidt’s discussions of why people vote Republican and the moral psychology of religion, it struck me that JFK was an Irish Catholic, so steeped in religious and ethnic tribalism. JFK, like the various Southerners, was raised in a “tribal”, “group identity” culture and so could “do” tribalism as a political language in a way which resonated sufficiently with the American electorate to win. It is a plausible hypothesis, building on Haidt’s work, that the various northern liberals “failed” political tribalism. That is, they failed to convey a sufficient sense of identification with binding identities and concerns to get enough votes to win. The moral realms that Haidt identifies as ingroup/loyalty (involving mechanisms that evolved during the long human history of tribalism), authority/respect (involving ancient primate mechanisms for managing social rank, tempered by the obligation of superiors to protect and provide for subordinates), and purity/sanctity (a relatively new part of the moral mind, related to the evolution of disgust, that makes us see carnality as degrading and renunciation as noble).
I am not as convinced as Haidt that secular liberals do not use those mechanisms (think of the claims of authority in climate science, the casuistical pedantry about “racist” language and attitudes, the various environmentalist taboos, the “conservatives are evil” “opinions are character” rhetoric, notions of the polluting touch of commerce and the purifying hands of government): it is rather that, to the extent they do, they separate themselves from the concerns of much of the electorate. In fact, they way they use those mechanisms (ingroup/loyalty, authority/respect, purity/sanctity) is typically very much about building a group identity as being superior-because-critical of such concerns. Separation is the point. The orgy of hostile rurmour-mongering about, and dismissive commentary against, Gov. Palin being a case in point. If a similar onslaught had been unleashed from conservatives/the Right about a Democratic/left woman politician, the very same people would have been screaming “misogyny!” at the top of their rhetorical lungs. (Not, surely, entirely without reason.) But watching Obama-supporters apparently attempt to annoy-by-implication as much of the American electorate as they can in their attacks on Gov. Palin has been quite a sight. (And be completely unaware that they might be doing that, or that there might be a problem with doing that if you want to win a popular election.) This is tribalism: but it is an alienating tribalism with most Americans on the wrong side of the Great Moral Divide.
All of which is quite a problem for the Obama campaign. McCain’s campaign has been persistently more nimble than Obama’s, McCain has already shown that he is quicker on his feet than Obama (who is Mr Magnificent Set Piece but not so good in free-flowing situations), and with better foreign policy judgment than Obama. If Gov. Palin makes McCain also look like an agent of change AND McCain does tribalism in a more broadly appealing way, then Obama is going to end up being yet another failed Northern liberal candidate. (Making the failure rate 8 out of 9 instead of the 7 out of 8 it currently is.)
Which means that Obama better have a closer look at JFK’s (narrow) success. Obama has youth, charisma and “The First” all in common (first African-American rather than first Catholic: and there are and were lots more Catholics than African-Americans) with JFK. Obama has not done the Party Unity thing in the same way Kennedy did, who appointed his main primary opponent (LBJ) as his running mate (a failure Obama may now be regretting). Which leaves us with the tribalism thing. Being US President IS being Tribal Leader, a role Reagan excelled at.
If Obama wants to do a Reagan-like realignment of American politics, he needs to make his application for the job of Tribal Leader much more powerful than it currently is.
Which means making his being First African-American work for him. This does not mean implying that Americans have to vote for him to be Good People. Implying that folk are not already Good People is not a way to endear yourself to voters. (Part of Rudd's success in defeating Howard is that he did not fall into that trap.) What it does mean is holding his own candidature to be a tribute to the greatness of America. (Which it is: how long off do we think a serious Muslim candidate for French President is, for example?) Triumphing over the problems of the past to build a better future is Very American. (See the campaigns of one R Reagan, for instance.) What one does is hold those failures to be a betrayal of the promise of America, not some Revelation Of Its Dark And Evil Nature. This racism-as-betrayal is, after all, precisely the approach Martin Luther King used.
Which makes foreign policy particularly important, since that is the area where group identity as Americans is both broadest and most salient. McCain’s approach of insisting on victory in Iraq is better broad American tribal politics, particularly as victory now seems increasingly possible (even achieved). Republicans have consistently outscored Democrats on national security/foreign policy since they have persistently seemed much more comfortable with American strength and self-confidence. Carter’s Presidency failed from a mixture of Carter being a poor Presidential manager (even worse than Dubya) and completely fumbling the foreign-challenge issue. If Obama can convince voters he will not throw away victory-and is confident in the value of American strength-he can help push the necessary tribal buttons. After all, in 1960 JFK ran as more of a Cold War warrior than VP Nixon.
In domestic politics, similar broad points apply. Obama's approach needs to be about building/rebuilding the greatness of the US, not redeeming the US.
Whether Obama has the sort of people around him that can help craft a consistent pushing of those buttons, or whether they (and he) are too much of the mould that America Needs Redeeming, is another question. Obama’s support networks may be his biggest problem. (They certainly have not been helping just recently.) We shall see.