Political Parties are Tribes
Tribalism occurs when a political party allows conflict with an opposition party to distract them away from their intended policy agenda. Stated differently, war against the opposing party becomes the dominant agenda. So why do political parties act in a tribal manner? There is an argument to be made that the tribalism phenomenon occurs in the subconscious mind of the party. That is, the most influential voices in a political body aren’t necessarily setting out to wage war against an opponent, but attempting to strengthen the community bonds of their own belief system. War is the optimal creator of disparate unity; there is no better way to unify a group of people–“us”–than by putting them in opposition against other people — “them.” The “us vs. them” strategy has served the rulers of civilization since the dawn of humankind. We must evolve beyond this.
A distinction must be made between constructive and unconstructive conflict. When elements of an idea, product, or policy are challenged, opposing disagreements and feedback can lead to refinement and help make the idea, product, or policy better and more resilient. In the current nation-state regime where tribalism dominates the political landscape, constructive conflict seldom occurs. Partisan warfare clogs the pipes of productive and efficient debate. Political conflict should yield a net positive result for the populace, but when the system is infected with tribalism the result is a net negative.
Objective, merit-focused, rules-based policy decision making is the optimal way for a political body to operate. Modern civilizations struggle to move forward through the tribal mud pits, and governments are not meeting their full potential due to the irrational and unproductive impacts of tribal effects. We must strive for a system where tribalism does not strangle effective administration. Merit must rule the future, not hatred.