Tribal Thinking Still Rules in the 21st Century

This takedown of Dennis Prager by Amanda Marcotte at Pandagon brings back to my mind a point that periodically confronts me as I observe events and people's reaction to them. Namely, that we're still very much tribal creatures.

Prager's an idjit, but from what I can tell, he stands on a position most people in this country would agree with -- we're good, they're not.

This is a tribal idea. It's the basic idea behind the Bible's ability to condemn and command killing almost in the same passage. It's also the idea behind arguments that, if our guys do bad things it's because they're bad individuals, but if their guys do bad things it's because everyone who belongs to that religion, political movement, country, etc., is bad. To paraphrase Joseph Campbell, the rules only apply to members of the in-group, everyone else is fair game.

As Amanda points out, like most supporters of the Iraq War, Prager simply assumes its morality. We started a war. We're the good guys. The war must be moral. Prager doesn't (like Amanda, I believe he can't) make a moral case in support of the deaths caused by President Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq. His writing makes it clear he believes Bush's moral superiority in relation to Zarqawi is unquestionable. Most Americans would probably agree.

But think about it. Michael Berg's statements (That Bush is more of a terrorist than Zarqawi. That Bush is responsible for his son's death. That he is not happy Zarqawi is dead.) are logically and morally defensible. Bush's decisions as Commander in Chief have led to the deaths of more innocents than Zarqawi could have ever hoped to cause. And Berg's refusal to celebrate the death of the man who killed his son is more in keeping with the spirit of Christian morality than anything that has ever been written in support of the war. To many Iraqis, Bush is undoubtably a terrorist. That Americans reject such an idea out of hand is more a result of Bush being our guy than it is a result of any objective consideration of the viewpoints of those who disagree, or for that matter, of the facts.

Prager also assumes the immorality of those with whom he disagrees. He does this, as many do when arguing against people outside their own group, by setting up a strawman argument. Pacifists, Prager says, care little for the "spread of evil" because they are so busy feeling "morally superior to those who believe that killing is sometimes morally necessary."

Prager's logic is faulty. First, one does not have to be a pacifist to agree with Berg. Second, it's possible to be a pacisifist and disagree with Berg. Third, not all pacifists believe killing is never morally necessary.

In any case, Amanda argues admirably against Prager's central points. I simply wanted to address how the column illustrates the tribal thinking that still rules majority 0pinion. It's what conventional wisdom (that old demon o' mine) pronounces good and right, and it's something we must overcome if we're ever to create a world where the majority of people know true peace, freedom and security.

And for the record -- as someone who explicitly rejects the primacy of Judeo-Christian morality, I'm not sorry Zarqawi is dead. And I believe President Bush's decisions have caused a great amount of evil. And finally, I agree with Michael Berg -- a truly enlightened society would never celebrate death, and I respect Berg greatly because of his ability to live that in regard to the man who murdered his son.