Post by vintagecomics on Oct 29, 2022 15:42:17 GMT -8
For example, one of the main advantages to having a party is shoring up support to get stuff done.
How would that work if each politician in every region was an independent?
It would be tough to actually implement things if each individual has their own set of values or agendas?
You are describing the Tribalism Conundrum. Tribalism has been bastardized in the modern world, to be a dividing (example: republican/democrat) tool.
The death of true Tribalism was slow and painful, and occurred in CONUS for the last time between 1650 and 1875. It was Comancheria.
People have evolved and are not Neanderthal in modern society in their need for survival, because of social interaction advancements-education, communication, ease of travel, common good, healthcare, etc. Awareness of the better mousetrap is instant, now. If my location knows the benefit of the other location's mousetrap is superior, my location is not going to insist and demand that we continue with the lesser quality of our mousetrap. We are going to improve, via discussion/cooperation/trade etc., because all will benefit. The People of my location will demand the improvement, and if not delivered, change will occur in the governance of my location, because to not do so is reverting to Neanderthal Tribalism, and Tribalism has never survived. Oh sure, there are pockets of Tribalism in the modern world today, and the average size is minimal... usually 100 or so, and is more a product of the Neanderthal society: genetic linkage and/or religious belief.
Consider the Amish and or Anabaptist or Mennonite societies, as a more applicable example. All have interaction with the rest of society, because it is beneficial to do so.
Anyway, I am just running at the mouth, and you would want to strangle me if I continued, so I will end with a simple answer to your thoughts:
OK. And?
I also agree that tribalism is a step backward, evolutionarily speaking. I've been anti-tribalism for a long time.
What I'm trying to understand is how effective implementation would be without some sort of a unified network. It seems like everything might move at a slower (snail) pace.
It's a very interesting concept....and one I believe in theoretically, just not sure how practical it would be.
I'll have to give it some thought.
A friend of mine who read this forum but doesn't post here sent me this text and a link:
(It's a great read for novices like me)
"Our Founding Fathers were brilliant and knew the political parties were like a virus. There is no way to stop them though. They will always come back under a new name."
The Founding Fathers Feared Political Factions Would Tear the Nation Apart
The Constitution's framers viewed political parties as a necessary evil.
Today, it may seem impossible to imagine the U.S. government without its two leading political parties, Democrats and Republicans. But in 1787, when delegates to the Constitutional Convention gathered in Philadelphia to hash out the foundations of their new government, they entirely omitted political parties from the new nation’s founding document.
This was no accident. The framers of the new Constitution desperately wanted to avoid the divisions that had ripped England apart in the bloody civil wars of the 17th century. Many of them saw parties—or “factions,” as they called them—as corrupt relics of the monarchical British system that they wanted to discard in favor of a truly democratic government.
“It was not that they didn’t think of parties,” says Willard Sterne Randall, professor emeritus of history at Champlain College and biographer of six of the Founding Fathers. “Just the idea of a party brought back bitter memories to some of them.”
George Washington’s family had fled England precisely to avoid the civil wars there, while Alexander Hamilton once called political parties “the most fatal disease” of popular governments. James Madison, who worked with Hamilton to defend the new Constitution to the public in the Federalist Papers, wrote in Federalist 10 that one of the functions of a “well-constructed Union” should be “its tendency to break and control the violence of faction.”
But Thomas Jefferson, who was serving a diplomatic post in France during the Constitutional Convention, believed it was a mistake not to provide for different political parties in the new government. “Men by their constitutions are naturally divided into two parties,’’ he would write in 1824.
In fact, when Washington ran unopposed to win the first presidential election in the nation’s history, in 1789, he chose Jefferson for his Cabinet so it would be inclusive of differing political viewpoints. “I think he had been warned if he didn't have Jefferson in it, then Jefferson might oppose his government,” Randall says.
