American Tribalism

“All Americans R granted rights 2 peaceful protests.
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable-JFK”

September 25^th tweet from 14-time NASCAR winning driver, Dale Earnhardt, Jr.

I watched Oprah Winfrey make her 60 Minutes debut on Sunday, September 24^th, underscoring her overall desire to find ways that American can unify from the most divisive time in our post-Civil War history. While the program was already recorded and ready to go before Donald Trump’s incendiary remarks at a September 22^nd Alabama political rally, it was telecast on a day when NFL players across the land stood – or kneeled – in defiance of Trump’s Friday statement: “Wouldn’t you love to see one of these NFL owners, when somebody disrespects our flag, to say, ‘Get that son of a bitch off the field right now. Out! He’s fired. He’s fired!’ … You know, some owner is going to do that. He’s going to say, ‘That guy that disrespects our flag, he’s fired.’ And that owner, they don’t know it [but] they’ll be the most popular person in this country.”

Needless to say, offered a chance to retract or modify his statements later, Trump just doubled down. Despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of NFL players are African-American, that the earlier protests from NFL players were all about a perception of racial inequity and despite his failure to call on employers to fire those white supremacists marching in Charlottesville, Trump stated that his position had nothing to do with race – wink, wink. It was classic Trump, finding a cultural issue that generates intense passion, taking one clear side that literally lambasts the “other side” as “unpatriotic,” and doubling down when challenged. It’s why his supporters love him and why he engenders so much hatred from those he attacks. It also served another Trump purpose: to distract the country from issues like Trump’s son-in-law’s Hillary-like using of a private email server for government communications (admittedly on a vastly smaller scale), the North Korean debacle edging us ever-closer to war, the absurdity of yet another Trump-fomented, ill-conceived attempt to repeal and replace the Affordable Car Act, the rather dramatic failure of any show of support or providing assistance to hurricane devastated Puerto Rico (a U.S. territory) and the embarrassing Manafort-Russia-connection information flowing into the press.

Reflecting a poll taken a year ago, where a vast majority of Americans voiced their indignation at quarterback Colin Kaepernick’s dropping to one knee during the playing of our national anthem, Trump played to his base and to those Americans who are deeply offended at what they believe is completely inappropriate disrespect for flag and country. Reacting to Trump, NFL team owners – including more than a few heavy contributors to Trump’s presidential campaign – joined arms with their players to offer overwhelming support for the right of players to express their beliefs, however controversial that expression might be. Indeed, the NFL, already facing controversy from concussion issues and flagging ratings, could feel some very serious economic consequences from a “middle-American” boycott.

From a realistic political perspective, kneeling-protests during the playing of the anthem shouldn’t be much more than a minor irritation to most of us who even care, unworthy of being raised to such national importance. Particularly when compared with protests in the 1980s where the U.S. flag was burned in direct contravention of a statute that criminalized such behavior. But even flag-burning was held to be “protected speech” under the 1989 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Texas vs Johnson.  Clearly, Trump-supporters cherish the Second Amendment and have serious issues with the First Amendment. But while the President has sworn to uphold the Constitution, I suspect he has the legal freedom to say how much he does not like it. Patriotic? There’s an obvious split of opinion on that… a split that The Donald was most definitely counting on.

There was, however, little in the way of denying that Trump’s words were divisive. But Donald Trump thrives on finding these divisive issues, making sure to raise them to the fore. After all, what he lacks in terms of being able to govern, he makes up for in spades at being able to campaign as a perpetual candidate. And American campaign politics is predicated on attacking… your opponent, the system (but isn’t Trump the system now?!) and those who oppose you…  to solidify and rally your adherents.  His pushing Americans to pick sides – literally embracing a new tribalism (me against you) – was playing to his strongest suit. As long as he tweets, rallies and continues to think of the presidency as a continuous campaign, expect a whole lot more in the way of divisive statements and behavior from the President.

So within this context, I watched the 14 gathered “ordinary voters” as they explained their respective positions. I was struck by the level of animosity within Ms. Winfrey’s Michigan panel, equally divided between Trump and anti-Trump voters. For a moment, I actually thought that they might come to blows. I wasn’t the only one sensing these emotional extremes, but the degree of embedded and entrenched positions led the participants to a pretty pessimistic view of near-term American politics: “One of the most intriguing parts of the segment was when Winfrey asked the group if they thought that people would find more common ground by the time of the next presidential election. A woman named Laura said that she felt the country will become more divided, and that she feared ‘civil war.’ Most of the group agreed with this sentiment… You can watch the full ‘60 Minutes’ segment on CBS' website.” BusinessInsider.com, September 25^th.

Those words – “civil war” – have been echoing in my mind ever since the 2016 presidential race. Every day showed a more polarized America, citizens unable to live with each other. It was not a simple blue vs red state divide anymore, not merely traditional rural values challenging a much more urbanized America… it was human beings unable to live with those with contrary views. The degree of mutual intolerance was growing louder, more violent. It was a world of “alternative facts,” denial of economic and scientific reality and a genuine sense of not remotely knowing how to cope with a vastly changed world that most certainly is not going back to simpler, more traditional times no matter what politicians might promise. And while we have seen the rise of the radical and xenophobic right in England, France and Germany in recent election battles, the fear of a genuine civil war in a bastion of democracy appears to be reserved for the United States alone, a country with more guns than people.

I am hoping that the heretofore less-politically active Y and Z generations come storming to the fore, rejecting their parent’s failed polarization, ready to deal with scientific reality and understanding that the biggest economic challenges are not born of globalization anymore… but of growing automation fueled by incomprehensible levels of accelerating artificial intelligence. If they do not raise their voices, stand for a unified vision of a prosperous yet diverse American future, I fear that civil war is moving from a “could be” to a “probably will be” all too quickly.

I’m Peter Dekom, and it is very frustrating that these “tempers flaring” tribes do not appreciate the highly probable consequence of unflinchingly digging in their heels against the passionate beliefs of major constituencies of “others.”