Yes he's pointing out a real phenomena but his analysis is pretty shallow, particularly when he gets to talking about Europe (where he references things that happened more than a decade ago).

He also does paint the American left and right as monolithic tribal entities tearing this country apart (he makes it clear that he favors the left tribe), but he doesn't look at what the implications of that are, and he doesn't really look at how each of those "tribes" is itself made up of warring tribes (look at the divisions right here on, say, Snowden or the ACA).

I think the key point pushing the new tribalism is self selecting media particularly on the internet, but increasingly on TV. If you want to avoid hearing people that disagree with you, it's easy to do so. And, like the ancient tribes, you only really get one side of every story; the other side is told by monsters who are irrelevant.

Bryant

They are strangely just the ones where circumstances and the pace of events have left our "tribe" not in full agreement. I think the ACA is largely positive, but obviously was not the best solution. I understand the difficulties in getting that passed but at the same time not everyone is an automatic winner -- so there will be hard feelings about the implementation.

But here is my tribalism showing: The term "Snowden" is actually more correctly "Dragnet Domestic Surveillance and the Surveillance State" Too much of the discussion has been about the messenger and digressions into his character and moral fiber as if the facts on the ground will go away if only you can show Snowden is a bad, bad person.

Anyway, in the context of tribalism I actually like tribe-splitting events. It is just some evidence that we are not completely settling into self-selection and echo chambers -- yet.

The only problem I see is what if someone were to set up a website called - "No Third Way Democratic Underground" and successfully market it, getting a split.

I don't think it's an issue so long as we are talking with and disagreeing with each other - that's healthy. I think it's an issue when we stop talking to people who disagree with us, and only talk to people who agree with us - the echo chamber.

I think it's also an issue, which you do see at DU sometimes, when you assume people who disagree with you are infiltrators or disruptors.

Bryant

Been around here for a while now though and even when Bush was in charge there were plenty of flamewars. There were no "good old days" other than a cumulative effect.

I also have seen plenty of disruptor accusations, been a target of some and (sad admission) may have hurled a few myself. I agree with you that sometimes you end up debating someone who gets your goat and you just KNOW they have to be wrong but can't articulate it. How else could they have a superior logic to their position unless they are somehow dishonest or cheating, right?

But, having been here long enough, I'm sure things will come around. When everybody agrees at the 80% level there are still plenty of things to get hissy about in the last 20%. Just remember your Will Rodgers!