Stephen Smith is ESPN co-host of the popular “First Take” and host of an eponymous show where he provides commentary on sports. He is widely known for his willingness to engage in debate and offer sometimes unpopular perspectives. In a recent New Yorker article on Smith, he describes his thoughts about the news in our political moment:
Back in the day, you watched to learn the news. Now you can get the news in five minutes. Between your smartphones and everything else—you’ve always got the news. So you’re interested in watching different perspectives, hearing what people have to say, what their opinions are, and why. And sort of gauging whether or not they’re right or wrong. People think they know. They’re not interested in learning. They’re interested in hearing whether or not your perspective is aligned with theirs. If so, why, and if not, why not? That used to be just sports. Now it’s everywhere.
Sports tends toward the tribal. Whether the team is identified with our geographical location (Dallas Cowboys) or our college allegiance (The Ohio State University – we adore the pretentious use of the article) or our national identity (Go Iceland!), we tend to root for sports teams either because of place of origin, college affinity, our admiration of a certain player (Tom Brady anyone?), or some such factor or factors.
Passionately following the Cleveland Cavaliers because you’re from Cleveland or being a fan of the Golden State Warriors because you like Stephan Curry is just fine. You enjoy following your team and you likely have meaningful friendships among fans of your tribe and even some friendships gained around the repartee with fans of rival teams.
But Smith’s point is that what we all know and accept about the tribalism associated with sports has now crossed into the realm of politics. And he is correct. For some time such tribal attitudes have accrued in the US political system in the name of political party (with team colors to boot). Campaigns are less about ideals and ideas and real proposals for improving the common good than they are about slogans and invectives and, well, our team winning.
Some may say it’s always been like this, that partisanship is part and parcel of a democracy that involves a party system, particularly one where there are only two teams who ever win the big games. Whether or not it has always been this way, the tribalism of US politics has reached a breaking point. Perhaps the system will break, and Republicans and Democrats will go the way of Federalists and Whigs and Know-Nothings and transform into something else.
We have no allegiance to either Democrats or Republicans. We would like to see Trump and McConnell and Ryan return to their private lives, where they can do less harm and perhaps more good. We likewise have little use for Pelosi and Schumer and whichever of the uninspiring prospects whose names we hear may seek the Democratic nomination in 2020. We have no allegiance to a two-party system. (It’s not like it’s written into the Constitution.)
What we do care about are ideals and ideas and real proposals for improving the lives of people in our country. Political tribalism will never promote such an agenda, because it reduces “We the People” to rivals cheering on our respective “teams,” reveling when “we” win and when “they” lose. This is why Kelly Anne Conway continually defends the star of her team, Donald Trump, with an unquestioning fealty devoid of intellectual and moral integrity. We could cite numerous examples of this malady, but we need not. On air and online the point is perpetually evident.
Tribalism in sports is low-stakes because little really hinges on the outcome of a game. (Perhaps gamblers would quarrel, but you get the point.) Tribalism in politics in high-stakes because so much hinges on the outcome of elections and the conduct of politicians.
We vacillate between optimism and pessimism (mixed with cynicism) at the prospects of meaningful change in a system so poisoned by partisanship. We think the two-party system has become every bit as dangerous as some of our founders believed it would be. We would, at least, like to see a strong third party emerge on the national scene. Perhaps that will happen; likely it will not. Nevertheless, the current tribalism on the US scene is dangerous.
When politics are mainly partisan they cease to fulfill their good end, which is the good of the polis, the “city,” that is the people of our country. We are in that moment: our politics are not fulfilling their good end. We can quibble about when that moment began, but we do not think we are being too alarmist to say that the future of our nation is at stake. Right now, we’re all in danger of losing.
Passionately following the Cleveland Cavaliers because you’re from Cleveland or being a fan of the Golden State Warriors because you like Stephan Curry is just fine. You enjoy following your team and you likely have meaningful friendships among fans of your tribe and even some friendships gained around the repartee with fans of rival teams.
But Smith’s point is that what we all know and accept about the tribalism associated with sports has now crossed into the realm of politics. And he is correct. For some time such tribal attitudes have accrued in the US political system in the name of political party (with team colors to boot). Campaigns are less about ideals and ideas and real proposals for improving the common good than they are about slogans and invectives and, well, our team winning.
Some may say it’s always been like this, that partisanship is part and parcel of a democracy that involves a party system, particularly one where there are only two teams who ever win the big games. Whether or not it has always been this way, the tribalism of US politics has reached a breaking point. Perhaps the system will break, and Republicans and Democrats will go the way of Federalists and Whigs and Know-Nothings and transform into something else.
We have no allegiance to either Democrats or Republicans. We would like to see Trump and McConnell and Ryan return to their private lives, where they can do less harm and perhaps more good. We likewise have little use for Pelosi and Schumer and whichever of the uninspiring prospects whose names we hear may seek the Democratic nomination in 2020. We have no allegiance to a two-party system. (It’s not like it’s written into the Constitution.)
What we do care about are ideals and ideas and real proposals for improving the lives of people in our country. Political tribalism will never promote such an agenda, because it reduces “We the People” to rivals cheering on our respective “teams,” reveling when “we” win and when “they” lose. This is why Kelly Anne Conway continually defends the star of her team, Donald Trump, with an unquestioning fealty devoid of intellectual and moral integrity. We could cite numerous examples of this malady, but we need not. On air and online the point is perpetually evident.
Tribalism in sports is low-stakes because little really hinges on the outcome of a game. (Perhaps gamblers would quarrel, but you get the point.) Tribalism in politics in high-stakes because so much hinges on the outcome of elections and the conduct of politicians.
We vacillate between optimism and pessimism (mixed with cynicism) at the prospects of meaningful change in a system so poisoned by partisanship. We think the two-party system has become every bit as dangerous as some of our founders believed it would be. We would, at least, like to see a strong third party emerge on the national scene. Perhaps that will happen; likely it will not. Nevertheless, the current tribalism on the US scene is dangerous.
When politics are mainly partisan they cease to fulfill their good end, which is the good of the polis, the “city,” that is the people of our country. We are in that moment: our politics are not fulfilling their good end. We can quibble about when that moment began, but we do not think we are being too alarmist to say that the future of our nation is at stake. Right now, we’re all in danger of losing.