Political Tribes - Book Summary

Embark on an enlightening expedition from Afghanistan to America, exploring the influences of tribalism.

We find ourselves amid a wave of populism, marked by furious crowds challenging the status quo. From the tumult of Chavez's Venezuela and the turbulence of Brexit-hit Britain to the fury in Trump's America, politics today seems riddled with ire and uproar.

Yet, there's more to this story. It's essential to remember that conflict always involves more than one party. Those opposing the populists can be just as vociferous and confrontational. For every staunch Trump supporter that denounces the coastal elites, there's an equally incensed liberal, criticizing the "hillbillies" who brought Trump into power.

So, what's at the heart of this turmoil?

Esteemed writer and law professor Amy Chua proposes a compelling perspective. If you wish to decipher the codes of the current political climate, there's no better starting point than tribalism. According to Chua, our propensity to segment ourselves into tribes is an inherent human instinct. It's our tribal identity that informs our actions, whether it's on a battlefield or a football field, in a courtroom, or a voting booth.

Considering its extensive influence, it's high time we address tribalism with the seriousness it warrants. Chua suggests that our inability to recognize its significance has led to some of the most disastrous foreign policy mistakes in recent history.

During our exploration, we'll dive into how tribalism directed the course of the Vietnam War. We'll uncover the common thread connecting tribalism and identity politics, and we'll learn why tribal conflicts pose such a formidable obstacle to the progression towards democracy.

We are inherently tribal beings, yet we often neglect the impact of this instinct.

Have you ever wondered what fuels the fervor for teams, clubs, and other groups? The answer lies in our innate tribal nature. We crave a sense of group identity, a shared sense of belonging with others who resemble us.

Tribes can be built around a multitude of aspects, but they don't merely bring people together. Interestingly, they're as much about exclusion as they are about inclusion.

So, how do tribes function?

Firstly, the unifying factor in any tribe is a shared bond. It could be related to ethnicity, religion, political beliefs, common interests, or any other similarity.

Secondly, tribes shape how their members perceive the world. It's not uncommon for individuals to intertwine their personal identities with that of their tribe, pushing them to make sacrifices for their tribe that they wouldn't otherwise make.

But here's where we falter — in the realm of foreign policy, the influence of tribalism often gets overlooked. This disregard is particularly misguided since understanding tribalism could unlock insights into international relations.

A significant factor influencing American foreign policy is the presumption that nations are homogenous entities, overlooking the presence of subgroups or tribes within these countries.

America's perception is influenced by its status as a "supergroup," a nation comprising various tribes unified by a shared national identity. This leads American policymakers to presume that a similar unifying bond overpowers tribal allegiances in other countries.

However, this is far from the truth. Tribal identities often hold sway over national allegiances.

As we will discover, neglecting the importance of tribalism when shaping foreign policies can lead to catastrophic long-term consequences.

The world over, power struggles between political tribes often underscore societal tension.

Ideally, tribes coexist harmoniously. However, this equilibrium is often disrupted by power imbalances — if one tribe dominates another, it might suppress the weaker group, stirring resentment.

A significant cause of tribal tensions in various nations is market-dominant minorities — tribes that, despite their minority status, control a substantial portion of a country's resources. Whether bound by religion, ethnicity, or another trait, the defining attribute of such a tribe is its disproportionate wealth.

The white Venezuelans of European descent provide an apt example of a market-dominant minority. However, their reign ended when Hugo Chávez, belonging to the country's darker-skinned majority, came into power.

Afghanistan offers another illustration of this situation. The Tajik minority, though small, held substantial wealth, but they were eventually overthrown by the Taliban. The latter's rise to power was supported by Afghanistan's Pashtun majority and external patrons.

Among the Taliban's external allies, the United States was significant, providing the group with weapons. The arms were funneled to the Islamist group by Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq, the anti-communist dictator of Pakistan.

However, Zia's motives were not what American policymakers believed. His primary objective was not to combat communism in Afghanistan, but to bolster fundamentalist Islam. This instance underscores America's failure to understand the true intentions of its supposed allies, instead incorrectly assuming they shared the same goals.

The conundrum of what should replace an ousted market-dominant minority is challenging. A common approach is to transition from an authoritarian regime to democratic institutions. But this can prove disastrous if tribal dynamics are not taken into account.

Transitioning is complicated. Naturally, the market-dominant minority is unwilling to forfeit its power. Although Western powers might believe they're rectifying an injustice by facilitating democratic elections, enabling the majority tribe to assume power, this often breeds new conflicts.

On one hand, the majority might seek retribution and begin suppressing the minority that once ruled over them. On the other hand, the minority might attempt to destabilize the new regime to reclaim power.

These complexities make it immensely challenging for foreign policymakers. In the following section, we will delve into instances of Western interference in tribal scenarios. As we'll find, such interventions can often exacerbate tensions between the market-dominant minorities and the impoverished majorities.

The neglect of political tribalism has resulted in grave foreign policy blunders by the United States.

The foreign policy of the United States is often lauded for being guided by noble intentions. The belief here is a desire to bestow upon others the values they treasure.

However, good intentions alone don't guarantee successful outcomes. Repeatedly, a lack of understanding of tribal politics has been a significant impediment. The cost of these American missteps has been considerable, impacting both the domestic sphere and the international community.

Consider Vietnam. When the United States observed this Southeast Asian nation, it perceived a tussle between communism and capitalism. But that was a surface-level understanding of the conflict.

In reality, part of the Vietnamese objectives was to free themselves from a market-dominant minority within the country. In the case of Vietnam, this minority was the Chinese. When Ho Chi Minh assumed power in North Vietnam, an exodus of hundreds of thousands of Chinese to the south occurred to evade potential persecution.

The United States chose to enter the fray, siding with what it perceived as its "capitalist" ally in South Vietnam, which inadvertently estranged their remaining Vietnamese supporters.

American involvement proved lucrative for the Chinese minority due to their control over significant segments of the import and trade sectors. However, the idea of empowering the Chinese further was anathema to the Vietnamese majority!

In effect, America undermined its war effort by disregarding the significance of tribalism in Vietnamese culture and history.

Had the United States recognized that the Vietnamese held stronger allegiance to their ethnic tribe than to capitalism, it might have adopted a different approach. By aligning with the majority, America could have garnered more substantial support.

As the Vietnam War ultimately demonstrated, the readiness of people to fight for their tribe's survival is a force that should not be underestimated.

When political tribalism is overlooked in foreign policy decisions, disastrous consequences can ensue, as exemplified by the Iraq War.

The outbreak of the Iraq War in 2003 sparked widespread concern about its potential fallout. Yet, even the direst predictions fell short of the disaster that eventually unfolded.

The first major miscalculation involved postwar planning. While Saddam Hussein's regime was swiftly dismantled, there was no contingency plan to fill the void it left behind. Consequently, the power vacuum was seized by factions that proved as malevolent, if not worse, than the previous regime.

Hussein's Baathist government had the staunch support of Iraq's market-dominant minority, the Sunni Muslims. The United States believed that once this repressive regime was ousted, democracy would thrive naturally. However, it gravely underestimated the furious retaliation of the minority tribe that had previously been at the helm.

Spurred by animosity towards Iraq's Shia Muslim majority and the West, key officials from Hussein's regime resorted to underground warfare. This eventually gave rise to ISIS. One factor that has made ISIS an enduring adversary is that its leadership comprises some of Iraq's most astute military strategists.

So, where did the United States falter?

For starters, it positioned the previously dominant group as completely subservient to the newly ruling majority. This added fuel to an already raging fire.

Such a decision extinguished any hope among the officials of the former regime that they could retain their social status, leaving them feeling powerless and humiliated. They ultimately resolved to regain power through force.

The United States was overly optimistic in its belief that those who had once wielded power would willingly surrender their privileges without a struggle. Had it paid closer attention to the intricate power dynamics between Iraq's tribal groups, it could have anticipated the retaliatory actions of the old-regime officials.

Political tribes often evolve into terrorist organizations, exploiting foreign policy missteps to their advantage.

Two globally potent terrorist entities – al-Qaeda and ISIS – owe their genesis to missteps in American foreign policy. Both were bred from America's disregard for political tribalism.

Influential individuals within tribal nations have honed the skill of exploiting tribalism to promote their personal agendas.

Consider the case of terrorist organizations. They're frequently commanded by affluent and educated tribal members whose power has been undermined in their home countries. These leaders are remarkably adept at harnessing the feelings of alienation and frustration within their tribes.

A case in point is Osama bin Laden of al-Qaeda, a master of political maneuvering. He attempted to unify various tribes into a broader Muslim collective, fashioning a new "us" that stood in defiance of the "them" — the malevolent Americans and their allies.

Conversely, ISIS sought to consolidate Sunni Muslims in a battle against Shiite Muslims — a group which included bin Laden's mother. This strategy enabled the organization to fortify its inter-member bonds while tapping into a larger narrative that portrayed the West as having "humiliated" Islam.

The sense of being sidelined fuels tribalism. Members of ethnic minority groups gravitate towards their kin. The morality of the group is of secondary concern; the focus is on the empowerment that springs from a sense of belonging.

In Western nations, the treatment of Muslims often leaves this minority feeling marginalized. As a result, many Muslims yearn for an environment where they experience respect and power.

This sets off a destructive cycle. Populist politicians tend to scapegoat entire Muslim communities in Western nations following terrorist attacks. This, in turn, intensifies feelings of estrangement among more young Muslims, making them susceptible to the appealing sense of inclusivity extended by terrorist organizations.

The current state of political discourse in the United States is shaped by the friction between its varied tribes.

The advent of political tribalism in the United States has instigated divisions that are unparalleled in the nation's history.

One of the major contributors to this dilemma is identity politics, which has led an increasing number of Americans to retreat into their tribal affiliations for solace.

The political landscape of the United States was significantly altered in the aftermath of the Soviet Union's collapse.

Economic concerns ceased to be the primary driving force of politics. Instead, the 'politics of recognition' took center stage — an approach that prioritizes race over class in understanding oppression. This eventually evolved into the identity politics we see today.

Consequently, the white Left now perceives its mission as advocating for the rights of minorities. While many laud this as a noble endeavor, it has inadvertently fueled resentment among certain societal sectors. Many white working-class citizens feel overlooked and forgotten in their own nation. This feeling of marginalization has birthed a new tribe rooted in ethnicity and social class.

The rise of Donald Trump to the presidency is arguably a byproduct of this transformation in American politics. He managed to garner support from a disenfranchised majority eager to dethrone a market-dominant minority.

The working-class majority that rallied behind Trump have found the American Dream slipping away from their grasp. However, they refuse to renounce the dream itself nor blame wealthier segments, such as corporate moguls.

They attribute their plight to a rival tribe — the so-called coastal elite. Given the long-standing reign of this elite, they have begun to resemble a market-dominant minority.

So, who are the members of this tribe? The core of the 'coastal elite' is composed of university-educated, cosmopolitan, middle-class Americans. While they are typically left-leaning, this tribe also includes Republicans accused of being out of touch with Middle America.

Yet, the animosity is not unidirectional. Coastal elites often ridicule their fellow Americans who adhere to conventional notions of American identity. Christians, too, are subjected to mockery, with religion frequently associated with regressive values like homophobia and racism.

This mutual antagonism has deepened the chasm in American political discourse, giving rise to two fiercely opposed tribes. This tribal division only fuels disdain and drives each tribe further into its self-affirming identity.

Building human connections across tribes holds the key to social harmony.

Tribal instinct drives members to view those outside their tribe with disdain. However, if we aspire to make the world a more harmonious place, we must resist such instinctive reactions.

In the United States, comprehension of the myriad tribes is crucial for progress in the political arena.

Therefore, branding Trump supporters as unsophisticated provincials is both unproductive and unjust. Such stereotyping denies millions of Americans their rightful worry about the shifting dynamics of their country.

There are ample reasons to feel concerned. For instance, consider life expectancy. If you're a less educated, poor white individual, you are now part of the sole demographic that is experiencing a drop in life expectancy.

But such understanding should not be selective. It should encompass all groups. Working-class whites may be concerned about the future, but African Americans live with an acute sense of fear. They fear that their children could be victims of police brutality or that apprehensive whites might resort to violence against minorities in a bid to "reclaim their country".

Religion forms another significant tribal affinity in contemporary America. The "prosperity gospel" unites many of the country's impoverished citizens across racial lines. Overlooked by a large number of the coastal elite, this religious movement threw its support behind the candidate who championed their cause — explaining why some Latino and Black American voters chose Trump.

The prosperity gospel professes that wealth brings you closer to God. This belief resonates with many working-class citizens who cling to the American Dream and have deep-rooted religious faith. It speaks to them in a way the Occupy movement failed to. To many, the Occupy movement seemed like an elite-driven endeavor exploiting the struggles of the working class to virtue signal.

The silver lining, however, is that since Trump's ascendance to the presidency, numerous Americans have begun reaching out to their compatriots, brushing aside tribal divides.

An inspiring example is that of a Bosnian Muslim and Unitarian Christian in New York who opted to watch the Super Bowl together, setting politics aside to understand each other as individuals.

This approach of embracing human connection over tribal divisions has proven successful, not just domestically, but internationally as well.

Summing it all up

The essential takeaway is this:

Tribalism significantly influences political outcomes. Neglecting to consider tribalism has resulted in numerous foreign-policy blunders with catastrophic ramifications. The impact of tribalism is not limited to remote nations like Afghanistan — it also defines political scenarios in the United States. However, to mitigate tribal tensions, we must first strive to comprehend the intricacies of tribal affiliations.