TRIBE-TRANSCENDING DEMOCRACY AND EQUALITY

 It seems my mind and David Brooks's are running along similar tracks this morning, although I think I'm a little more interested in reconciling 'tribal' wisdom with multiracial, multiethnic democracy.
Someone, somewhere has written this line: "Western Civilization was born in the creative tension between Athens and Jerusalem." I can see the truth in that; the tension is between the empirical observation of Athens and Jerusalem's loyalty to divine revelation. I think about another pair of opposites currently at loggerheads and wonder if one thing we need is a state of creative tension between them. These opposites are: on 'our' side, a universal law under which all life has equal justice and all humans have equal dignity and, on the other, ever more naked tribalism: everything for Me and Mine and crumbs, if even that, for all others.
You, Gentle Reader, might think the choice obvious. But, for many of us who are actually or, in our own minds, all for universal rule of law and democratic principles, we also still have what might be called tribal barnacles on us. That is to say, we all have our own partialities which tend to lean towards the ways and people who look like those with whom we grew up. There is nothing evil in having such biases.
The evil begins when, deliberately or unthinkingly, we treat 'our tribe' like royals: members of our tribe can do no wrong. My own inclination is to go the other way: were I on the bench and a case came before me in which a 'fellow' (fill in the blank) allegedly violated a law which I considered to be one of the treasures our common group gave the world, I would be hard put not to throw the book at the wo/man before me. I would be inwardly enraged and disgusted with that person. I might take a long look at the other judges in the same court, ask myself if one of them might better ensure justice done and wonder if I should recuse myself from the case at hand.
Many on my side of the political fence, including my wife (and, I suspect, my mother) like to think of themselves as 'global citizens'. I don't share that particular feeling except, maybe, as a catholic Christian. I do what a man can to put and keep my relationship with God foremost. Second, I love and care for my wife and our fur-babies. Then, I consider myself a U.S. citizen, a 'green' social democrat, an ethnic Anglo-Scots/Jewish hybrid and very much a product of Western Civilization. I suggest that loyalty to transnational ideas and ideals do not nullify tribal bonds. On the contrary; such ideas can take flight from their tribal origins throughout the world to the benefit of all life!
It must be stated and thoroughly understood, that a multiracial, multiethnic, multi-faith democracy is something quite new in human history. To those who rip and wish to tear down Western Civilization I ask, "And replace it with what? With naked tribalism? A new imperialism?"
One thing Athens and Jerusalem had, and have, in common is rigorous methods of self-criticism and self-correction. The West has this, too, in a way I cannot see any other civilization or culture to have. And it is one thing which has enabled the West to become what it is today.
At different times, two other cultures decided they didn't need to know anything more. Eight or so centuries ago, the Muslim world 'closed the doors of ijtihad' (meaning independent inquiry) and proceeded down the scale of scientific progress to the basement it occupies today. Six centuries ago, Ming China decided it needed to know no more about the outside world and that was the end of Zheng He's voyages across the Indian Ocean and even into the Red Sea. Had it been decided otherwise, China might have colonized at least eastern Africa long before Europeans did.
To be satisfied with 'enough' material goods and services is one thing and a commendable one. All the Abrahamian faiths enjoin us to share our surplus; we don't do nearly enough of that!
But to decide that 'we know enough' is arrogance of the worst kind. When we stop growing our minds and hearts, we start to die at a snowballing rate. The only thing worse is believing that no one can teach us anything but we have everything to teach to everyone else.
Allow me to point out to the haters of the West that allegiance to trans-tribal and transnational ideas and ideals didn't spring from somewhere fully grown. Within the West itself, such allegiances have had to (and still must, even today) climb up a long, steep hill. And there have been plenty of reverses, breakdowns, and tribal relapses along the way. We're staring such a relapse in the face, right now, e'en as I type these words!
Such relapses were, and are, characteristic of empires. The West is the only culture that has honored the best in itself by giving up those empires in a relatively short time and with relatively little bloodshed. And it is worth pointing out that capitalism run amok is probably one of, and quite probably the most, tribally oriented aspect of our own country: all for me and mine and crumbs, if that, for all others. Pretty tribal in the worst way, not so?
In order to grow, and make room for progressively more peoples, democracy must be both liberal and social. We must ensure a seriously level playing-field so that equal opportunity is--well, really real for everyone. We must build a solid floor and ceiling for our societies. This means that, among other things, no child goes to bed hungry and that everyone has clean water to drink and use. And that no individual, family or small group is powerful enough to defy a popularly elected government. We've been learning how much can be involved in that; we still are. Democracy is still unfinished; we're only beginning to give the natural world a voice--which, btw, we need to hear and work with!
It can even be argued that autocracy or oligarchy, in all its forms, is that society which says to its members: you needn't grow as people; indeed, we don't want you to. We know enough; we know all that can be known. We must now be static.
On the other hand, democracy knows there is always more to learn as long as we're here on this blue-and-green planet and, at least I hope and believe, beyond this life as well.
I also suggest that believing tribal/global is an either/or proposition might be a tribal remnant in and of itself; we need them to be both/and rather than either/or. We need to figure out how the two fit together and/or what creative tension between them feels and looks like. One thing is for certain: it can no longer look like 'empire', be that empire Chinese, Russian, Arab, Mongol, Ottoman, Aztec, Spanish, British or even....American. We've been trying to work out being a democratic republic and an empire simultaneously. I'm not sure we've really succeeded in that or if success in such an endeavor is possible. But exploration of that probably needs a whole 'nother post. Did I see some shudders in the gallery? No worries; not this time.
I think Our Mr. Brooks and I agree that the West, especially Anglophonia and perhaps Protestant Europe, need to reconfigure personal dignity with communal cohesion; it's never good for any society to have as many lonely people as we do. And, like Mr. Brooks, I approach these dilemmas with both humility and confidence: humility because we, too, have plenty yet to learn about forging a society as justly as possible and confidence because we, too, still have plenty to teach about that as well. Maybe we all need to remember a saying about how much more we learn from failures than from successes.
Also, David, I agree with you in that the West is at least not supposed to be 'an ethnic designation or an elitist country club'. Our troubles begin when those we choose to maintain our systems behave as if it is rooted in ethnicity and gives better deals to members of their country clubs than to others. We all need to watch out for this as this is something we may do quite unconsciously. We need to remember we have two ears and one mouth. I for one very much believe that the Creator meant to make a point with that proportion.
And I'll end with two quotes from Our Mr. Brooks with which I heartily concur:
"At the end of the day, only democracy and liberalism are based on respect for the dignity of each person." We must show this by making this a real universality by our actions!
And again. David, I couldn't agree with you more about this: The heroes of Ukraine are showing that at its best, it is a moral accomplishment, and unlike its rivals, it aspires to extend dignity, human rights and self-determination to all. That’s worth reforming and working on and defending and sharing in the decades ahead.
Amen and amen, sez I. How about you?