Side-thought: American society is being torn apart by two forces:
1) a hypertrophied passion for individualism, driven by notions like survivalism ands sovereign citizens, etc.
2) a degree of tribalism probably not seen since the Neolithic
Individualism, a belief of the essential uniqueness of each person and his right to live that uniqueness without restraint (or consideration, cooperation, participation ...)
Tribalism, the sacrifice of all personality to the group and wholehearted embrace of the group, even unto preposterous beliefs e.g. Trump won the election,
They are. But I'm not seeing so much of the passion for individualism. I think, as well as good old fashioned political partisanship, the trend towards increasingly toxic identity politics (and the inevitable backlash) has driven those who would usually avoid identitarianism to form their own identitarian group.
It's the age old problem of knowing what you're against but not really knowing what you're for.
One fear I have is that the neo-progressives will stimulate a nasty counter reaction through it's heavy handed overreach.
I recall during George W's time in office, they were running roughshod over the process, and some wise observers said that their hubris and self-righteousness would blind them and cause them to make major mistakes which would bring them down. Now I see the left following that same path, and they are not being aware of what they are stirring up. Trump was surprise #1.
I do NOT want an authoritarian right to come to power, but neither do I want a totalitarian left to take over. Both tendencies reinforce each other, and I oppose both.
I've been a lifelong Democrat and have to date voted only for Democrats or Greens. I was relieved when Trump lost the presidency. But it's clear to me that the Democrats have the slimmest control of Congress, and did not win a mandate from the voters to undertake massive restructuring of the government and society. Biden won because he was not Trump; in the Democratic primaries he outpolled all of the more progressive candidate, because most Democrats wanted the healer and uniter he promises to be, a moderate who would get us back to more less polarized governance. Alas, he has not followed that role; neither those to the left of him nor those to the right of him want any reconciliation. And his administration is acting beyond his mandate, alienating a LOT of people. His poll numbers are remarkably bad (and Harris is doing worse).
I personally think that a second Trump term, or a Ted Cruz, would be terrible for the country. But the Democrats seem to be p*ssing enough independents off (and even Democrats) that they are setting up the stage for something like that.
Chris, I would agree that there is a serious increase in tribalism (division into competing tribal affiliastions as people's "identity" or primary sense of self).
However, I do not see survivalism and sovereign citizens type behaviors as a substantial factor in today's world. Yeah, there are a few oddballs that make the news, but I don't see any broad demographic trend which shows up on polling, for example.
There is a very broad conflict between a focus on the individual as the core unit of society (eg: defining fairness as treating each individual the same and striving for equal opportunity so each individual can maximize their potential if they wish) versus perceiving many overlapping population groups based on identity as the best unit of measure (eg: defining fairness as diverse statistical population groups achieving equal outcomes). This is often framed as equal opportunity vs equal outcome, but it's also individual focus versus aggregate focus.
An example would be reparations for slavery. The collective identity focus is to divide people based on skin color, and say that all those with one population group owe a debt to all those of another population group, based on what others in those population groups did or expereienced historically - a debt which is the same for everybody in each population group, without taking into account whether any given person is succeeding or failing.
By contrast the individual focus looks at each person's situation, and uses broad policies like support for the people living in poverty without dividing them into population groups; to the degree that historical wrongs have manifested in economic differences today, some groups will benefit more (ie: more individuals within that group will qualify for support). In this case you could say that at the collective level, a disadvantaged group will receive more benefits - but it's self leveling. As more or fewer individuals of some group fall under the poverty line over time, more or fewer people in that group receive benefits. And this can handle intersections - it adapts to all combinations of intersecting identities, by adapting to the net sum effect of all.
I disagree about a focus on individuals implies any lack of cooperation or participation. *Voluntary* cooperation and association can be huge parts of life for individuals - on sports teams, in churches, in families, in affinity groups, in civic groups. The kind of collective groups which would be less emphasized in a society emphasizing individua rights are those which are based on stereotypes and prescribed social roles - involuntary. Like - one is to be judged on the basis of overlapping social stereotypes about the population groups they are members of. Oh, you are Asian, and male, and homosexual and able bodied - so that tells me who you are, no need to delve further, I have you pegged once I know you intersecting identities. That approach highlights differences and conflicts between identity groups while downplaying any questions about how much an individual is typical or atypical of the groups, any differences between them individually and the stereotypes of the group. So the conflict of visions here is more about voluntary association and cooperation (for those focusing more on individual rights and responsibilities), versus externally forced segregation and stereotyping (for those seeing individuals as cogs in a social machine dominated by inter-group conflicts). It's the difference between "if you have the passion and can develop the skills, go for whatever feels like success to you personally" and "stay in your lane, keep others out of your lane, identify primarily with groups you are involuntarily a member of, don't stick out too much".
I am imagining that Steve QJ may at times feel these pressures - that he is supposed to conform to prescribed stereotypes and that being atypical of some involuntary population group is frowned upon.
Summing up, let us not characterize the extremely broad factors regarding focus on individuals vs groups, based on cherry picked extremes. Hundreds of millions of people value individual freedom and rights, and the portion of them who decide to live off the grid and grow their own food and isolate from cooperation is infinestimal, extreme, and atypical of the whole.
Side-thought: American society is being torn apart by two forces:
1) a hypertrophied passion for individualism, driven by notions like survivalism ands sovereign citizens, etc.
2) a degree of tribalism probably not seen since the Neolithic
Individualism, a belief of the essential uniqueness of each person and his right to live that uniqueness without restraint (or consideration, cooperation, participation ...)
Tribalism, the sacrifice of all personality to the group and wholehearted embrace of the group, even unto preposterous beliefs e.g. Trump won the election,
Aren't these ... opposites?
"Aren't these ... opposites?"
They are. But I'm not seeing so much of the passion for individualism. I think, as well as good old fashioned political partisanship, the trend towards increasingly toxic identity politics (and the inevitable backlash) has driven those who would usually avoid identitarianism to form their own identitarian group.
It's the age old problem of knowing what you're against but not really knowing what you're for.
Good observation, Steve.
One fear I have is that the neo-progressives will stimulate a nasty counter reaction through it's heavy handed overreach.
I recall during George W's time in office, they were running roughshod over the process, and some wise observers said that their hubris and self-righteousness would blind them and cause them to make major mistakes which would bring them down. Now I see the left following that same path, and they are not being aware of what they are stirring up. Trump was surprise #1.
I do NOT want an authoritarian right to come to power, but neither do I want a totalitarian left to take over. Both tendencies reinforce each other, and I oppose both.
I've been a lifelong Democrat and have to date voted only for Democrats or Greens. I was relieved when Trump lost the presidency. But it's clear to me that the Democrats have the slimmest control of Congress, and did not win a mandate from the voters to undertake massive restructuring of the government and society. Biden won because he was not Trump; in the Democratic primaries he outpolled all of the more progressive candidate, because most Democrats wanted the healer and uniter he promises to be, a moderate who would get us back to more less polarized governance. Alas, he has not followed that role; neither those to the left of him nor those to the right of him want any reconciliation. And his administration is acting beyond his mandate, alienating a LOT of people. His poll numbers are remarkably bad (and Harris is doing worse).
I personally think that a second Trump term, or a Ted Cruz, would be terrible for the country. But the Democrats seem to be p*ssing enough independents off (and even Democrats) that they are setting up the stage for something like that.
Chris, I would agree that there is a serious increase in tribalism (division into competing tribal affiliastions as people's "identity" or primary sense of self).
However, I do not see survivalism and sovereign citizens type behaviors as a substantial factor in today's world. Yeah, there are a few oddballs that make the news, but I don't see any broad demographic trend which shows up on polling, for example.
There is a very broad conflict between a focus on the individual as the core unit of society (eg: defining fairness as treating each individual the same and striving for equal opportunity so each individual can maximize their potential if they wish) versus perceiving many overlapping population groups based on identity as the best unit of measure (eg: defining fairness as diverse statistical population groups achieving equal outcomes). This is often framed as equal opportunity vs equal outcome, but it's also individual focus versus aggregate focus.
An example would be reparations for slavery. The collective identity focus is to divide people based on skin color, and say that all those with one population group owe a debt to all those of another population group, based on what others in those population groups did or expereienced historically - a debt which is the same for everybody in each population group, without taking into account whether any given person is succeeding or failing.
By contrast the individual focus looks at each person's situation, and uses broad policies like support for the people living in poverty without dividing them into population groups; to the degree that historical wrongs have manifested in economic differences today, some groups will benefit more (ie: more individuals within that group will qualify for support). In this case you could say that at the collective level, a disadvantaged group will receive more benefits - but it's self leveling. As more or fewer individuals of some group fall under the poverty line over time, more or fewer people in that group receive benefits. And this can handle intersections - it adapts to all combinations of intersecting identities, by adapting to the net sum effect of all.
I disagree about a focus on individuals implies any lack of cooperation or participation. *Voluntary* cooperation and association can be huge parts of life for individuals - on sports teams, in churches, in families, in affinity groups, in civic groups. The kind of collective groups which would be less emphasized in a society emphasizing individua rights are those which are based on stereotypes and prescribed social roles - involuntary. Like - one is to be judged on the basis of overlapping social stereotypes about the population groups they are members of. Oh, you are Asian, and male, and homosexual and able bodied - so that tells me who you are, no need to delve further, I have you pegged once I know you intersecting identities. That approach highlights differences and conflicts between identity groups while downplaying any questions about how much an individual is typical or atypical of the groups, any differences between them individually and the stereotypes of the group. So the conflict of visions here is more about voluntary association and cooperation (for those focusing more on individual rights and responsibilities), versus externally forced segregation and stereotyping (for those seeing individuals as cogs in a social machine dominated by inter-group conflicts). It's the difference between "if you have the passion and can develop the skills, go for whatever feels like success to you personally" and "stay in your lane, keep others out of your lane, identify primarily with groups you are involuntarily a member of, don't stick out too much".
I am imagining that Steve QJ may at times feel these pressures - that he is supposed to conform to prescribed stereotypes and that being atypical of some involuntary population group is frowned upon.
Summing up, let us not characterize the extremely broad factors regarding focus on individuals vs groups, based on cherry picked extremes. Hundreds of millions of people value individual freedom and rights, and the portion of them who decide to live off the grid and grow their own food and isolate from cooperation is infinestimal, extreme, and atypical of the whole.