Thursday, 22 August 2024

The tribalism of the new Right contrarians



"The new Right’s absurd positions [on Ukraine, on Putin, on Milei, on vaccines, on immigration, you name it] cannot be explained by their adherence to any coherent ideology, but only by their tribal view of the world.
    "To get a better grip on how these people think, we need to understand what the new Right is. By 'the new Right' I mean a loose network that emerged in the last decade and is active in the culture wars. It includes social and alternative media influencers (like Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens and Jack Posobiec) and politicians (like Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene and former presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy). And it includes their numerous followers and the segment of Donald Trump supporters who are fanatical. Uniting this loose network is their opposition to both the liberal-leftist ideology and what they see as establishment conservatism. The new Right should not be understood as a coherent political ideology, but as a political tribe.
    "There are two ways a tribalist makes up his mind on an issue. The first is by following the line of his group. This is, after all, the essence of tribalism: making sense of one’s self, of others, and of the world through the prism of the group. These days though, we can see another kind of tribalist who follows another guide: first he observes what the other group, the enemy tribe, stands for, and then he supports the opposite position. Whatever the enemy believes and supports, this is the bad; whatever they oppose, the good. Thus, the enemy, the other, becomes the standard of true and false, the yardstick of right and wrong. This mode of thinking is still tribalism: the standard of truth is still other people and opposition to what they believe. ...
    "[Why do m]any who think that the election of 2020 was rigged also tend to believe that the vaccines made young people 'drop like flies'? ... because they formed their views on those topics [by opposing the consensus of the liberals/progressives/globalists,” i.e. the 'current thing.' .... Why do new Right culture warriors oppose the struggle of a nation to maintain its freedom against an aggressor? Because Ukraine and Zelensky also became 'the current thing.' ...

I will call this subcategory of tribalism contrarianism. Interestingly, the contrarian thinks he is the opposite of a tribalist. He makes fun of the masses, calling them victims of groupthink or 'NPCs' (the Non-Player Characters of video games who lack agency). In the contrarian’s mind, he is above any such brainwashing and claims to do 'his own research.' Yet if he simply adjusts his thinking about all major topics by picking whatever is the opposite of the dominant opinion, he’s not really thinking. ...
    "Understanding the character of the new Right contrarians should give us insight into how to oppose their tribalism and nihilism. They are collectivists, in thought and in action. Their existential compass is the group. The opposite of collectivism is individualism, and the opposite of tribalism is independent thinking — taking the responsibility to make sense of the world on one’s own. Independent thinking is difficult, and in no way infallible. Yet, it is our only navigating instrument towards the truth. There is no substitute for the responsibility to think. ...

"That the tribalists of the new Right promise to make America great again is an outrageous farce. The people who made America great were the opposite of tribalists. They had the self-esteem to see the world through their own judgment and to put no tribal allegiance or dogma above it. It can only be independent thinkers that can appreciate and pursue the positive values that have made America a country worth loving and fighting for: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
    "To be an American patriot, one must first reject tribalism."
~ Nikos Sotirakopoulos, from his post 'Contrarians of the New Right'

10 comments:

Tom Hunter said...

The people who made America great were the opposite of tribalists. They had the self-esteem to see the world through their own judgment and to put no tribal allegiance or dogma above it.

I suggest he read up on early American history. Tribalism was up and running as early as the 1800 Presidential election, which fight between the supporters of Jefferson and Adams is still rated as one of the dirtiest in US history.

I suggest he also take a look at the fecklessness and uselessness of the Bush's, McCains, Romneys and so forth. Right-wingers simply got tired of voting for such people, hence Trump. Even in the case of Ukraine - whose fight I fully support - I don't see much difference between the New Right's opposition to US spending and support in the war and that of the New Left against Vietnam in the late 1960's.

Peter Cresswell said...

Be assured Mr Tracinski is fully informed on early, middle and recent American history.
America wasn't made great by the likes of fighting between the supporters of Jefferson and Adams. It was made great by the efforts of both men, despite such fecklessness, in pursuing, promoting and making possible the practice and philosophy of individualism — by making their world safe for life, individual liberty, and the pursuit of individual happiness.

Tom Hunter said...

... despite such fecklessness...
Well I prefer Trump's "fecklessness" to the totalitarian thug impulses of Harris, Walz and a good chunk of the Democrat Party, which shows all through their political and legal actions against their opponents, and not just Trump.

And although a lot of this harum scarum stuff about Trump sounded convincing in 2015/16 it doesn't in the wake of an actual Trump presidency that didn't see Hillary Clinton locked up (or even pursued by Trump's DOJ), saw the US in pretty good economic shape for three years at home with none of the predicted stock market crashes and with no wars abroad, let alone a nuclear war.

I'll take that every day of the week and twice on Sunday compared to Tracinski's Jan6 boogeyman fears.

MarkT said...

You're not getting it. It's not about whose "impulses" you trust the least. We should trust neither of the candidate's impulses. To the extent individualism has been protected in the USA over the centuries, it's because they have constitutional checks and balances in place that protect liberty regardless of a president's impulses. The person who's threatening to unseat those checks and balances the most is Trump, so every other negative of the opposing candidates should be of secondary consideration to that.

Anonymous said...

Tom Hunter reminds me of something I saw a few months ago, it went something like
"'Doing your own research' is the new euphemism for seeking out confirmation of your existing bias."

Martin English said...

Apologies, didn't realise my previous comment would default to Anonymous

Tom Hunter said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Tom Hunter said...

The person who's threatening to unseat those checks and balances the most is Trump

Given the actions I've seen taken by the Intelligence Community and the DOJ over the last four years plus the behaviour of the Democrat Party internally I think that's a complete inversion of the situation. Attempting to boot a candidate off the ballots? The bullshit lawfare of NYC and D.C. courts using a jury pool from a 92% Biden voting public in the latter case. That's all good with you on the checks and balances front? That doesn't represent a greater threat than Trump?

I 've made references to stuff in Peter's latest post (on Luttig) but I'll provide a different example here.

What Tracinski is effectively choosing is the side that has allowed a senile man to be in charge of the nuclear trigger, among other things, and continues to allow him to do so even though they concluded that he's too far gone to run for President. Clearly they're pushing the limits of the constitutional checks and balances to a far greater and more frightening degree than a sitting President bitching and moaning to subordinates about voting irregularities in the swing states or getting on the phone to the Governor of a state about the issue.

Ultimately Trump left office; he did not stay in the Oval Office with an armed guard. Biden by contrast is being allowed to stay President.

Or how about this one. For all of his bluster Trump obeyed every court order he lost during his presidency, including on some issues that he was very keen on. By contrast Biden was told by SCOTUS that he had no power to write off student loans but has continued to do so by every executive means possible and has publicly boasted about defying the Supreme Court and been fully supported in that by his party.

That is what Tracinski, Luttig and company are comfortable with and have chosen to support. Why it's as if they think the checks and balances will work with Harris and the Democrats but not Trump and the GOP.

MarkT said...

Martin English is right. Your response deserves no further comment.

Tom Hunter said...

Your response deserves no further comment.

Which is precisely why Objectivists have proved to be so utterly useless from their beginning and why I look forward to you being crushed by reality - the very thing you worship.

But tell me again about your superiority.