Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Recognizing our internal tribalism

Recognizing our internal tribalism
Getty Images

Molineaux is the former co-publisher of The Fulcrum and president/CEO of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.

As we watch the tragedies continue in war and conflict zones, we seem to have forgotten our shared humanity. The worst cruelties bring out our need to protect and be protected, which often means responding with cruelty or inhumane actions; we don't know what else to do to prevent more harm to those who need protection.


Protection is important but the use of cruelty sets up a downward spiral that moves us further from recognizing our shared humanity. Just as we cannot bomb our way to peace, we cannot allow our internal tribalism to rule our hearts. I use the term "tribalism" as defined by Dr. Justin James Kennedy, who identifies the neuroscience behind human group identity formation.

When we internalize and elevate our in-group as more important than any other group, our tribal identity becomes a weapon that can be used by authoritarians around the world.

Tribalism is attractive to politicians, because in many ways it is easier than democracy. It abolishes democracy’s inconvenient demand for accountability: failure to deliver real benefits to one’s community is forgivable so long as the other side is faring worse.

As we saw in Northern Ireland, awful consequences—up to and including killing, maiming, and economic collapse—don’t diminish the power of tribalism. They enhance it, because suffering deepens the sense of victimhood that fuels this kind of politics. Self-harm and self-pity form a feedback loop of endlessly renewable political energy. And this perpetual motion machine is also driven by revenge. If you hurt the other side, they will hurt you back, and when they do they prove themselves to be the incorrigible enemies you always knew they were.

Atrocities, even when they are committed by a tiny minority of people, cease to be individual crimes that should be punished by law and become sources either for collective outrage (if they did it to us) or for collective excuses (if we did it to them). Fintan O'Toole writes in the New York Review of Susan Nieman's Left is Not Woke. If you experience pleasure when the "the other" is harmed, you have internalized a tribal identity. Any form of glee, satisfaction, self-righteousness at hearing about or witnessing human suffering of another tribal identity weakens our resolve to self-govern in a democracy.

In Nieman's book, she writes, "What concerns me most here are the ways in which contemporary voices considered to be leftist have abandoned the philosophical ideas that are central to any left-wing standpoint: a commitment to universalism over tribalism, a firm distinction between justice and power, and a belief in the possibility of progress."

What are the universal values you hold? And do you hold these values for all people? Or just your tribe.

Compassion is not a sport. It's a life-giving skill that requires renewed commitment each moment. Commit wisely.

Read More

How To End Gerrymandering: Reformers Debate Retaliation, Representation, and Redistricting Reform

Given the profound implications for democratic integrity in the U.S., The Fulcrum is hosting a curated roundtable to explore the strategic, moral, and civic dimensions of partisan redistricting.

Getty Images, Israel Sebastian

How To End Gerrymandering: Reformers Debate Retaliation, Representation, and Redistricting Reform

tAcross the democracy reform movement, a growing debate has emerged over how, if at all, reformers should respond to the escalating gerrymandering battles unfolding in states like Texas, California, and beyond.

Last week, Fix.us convened a provocative discussion thread featuring academics and practitioners, surfacing a wide spectrum of views on this contentious issue.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Other America and Politics of Spectacle

America is two very different countries for its diverse population - one that thrives in abundance and another that stumbles from crisis to crisis.

Getty Images, Bloomberg Creative

The Other America and Politics of Spectacle

In 2024, Americans were promised a year of renewal. The election was meant to usher in stability after years of tumult, a chance to repair what had been so badly frayed. Instead, the campaign season laid bare a more uncomfortable truth: the United States is not simply divided by partisan politics. It is, in practice, two very different countries—one that thrives in abundance and another that stumbles from crisis to crisis, hoping not to slip further behind.

The numbers are stark. More than 40 million Americans lived in poverty last year. Nearly 14 million children went hungry. Homelessness surged to almost 772,000 people—an 18 percent rise, the sharpest increase ever recorded. Meanwhile, credit card debt soared past $1.14 trillion, with delinquency rates at their highest in a decade. For families who once defined the middle class, the American Dream now resembles an eviction notice.

Keep ReadingShow less
Who Asked for This? Trump’s Militarization of Cities Nobody Wanted
A U.S. military uniform close up.
Getty Images, roibu

Who Asked for This? Trump’s Militarization of Cities Nobody Wanted

Nobody asked for soldiers on their streets. Yet President Trump sent 2,000 National Guard troops into Washington, D.C.—and now he’s threatening the same in Chicago and New York. The problem isn’t whether crime is up or down (it’s down). The problem is that governors didn’t request it, mayors didn’t sign off, and residents certainly didn’t take to the streets begging for troops. Yet here we are, watching as the president becomes “mayor-in-chief,” turning American cities into props for his reality-TV spectacle of power, complete with all the theatrics that blur politics with entertainment.

Federal Power Without Local Consent

D.C. has always been uniquely vulnerable because of the Home Rule Act. The president can activate its National Guard without consulting the mayor. That’s troubling enough, but now Trump is floating deployments in Illinois and New York—states where he has no such authority. The principle at stake isn’t whether troops can reduce crime; it’s whether the federal government can unilaterally occupy a city whose leaders and citizens told it to stay away.

Keep ReadingShow less