|
A liberal politician and a conservative politician can say exactly the same thing. If you know the politics of the speaker you make assumptions about the way they see the world and their ultimate motives. It follows then that if the guy on "your side' says something you disagree with, you imagine that perhaps he is somehow being forced into pragmatism - that deep down he must believe what you believe and would say as much "if he had the chance". Likewise, the "enemy" who says something you agree with must be just trying to manipulate people.
It's very tribal and seems like a very old way of doing things. People seek out unique social identites that are actually more homogenous than they'd like to admit. We're all ambivalent about the status quo because even though it's not bad, it's far from perfect. Making tribes or teams within the status quo is a way of flirting with the prospect of a revolutionary "change for the better" while changing very little in reality. Maybe we do this to create a mythology of human struggle for progress or improvement - because the actual technological and social advancement of humanity is too subtle and complex for us to easily comprehend. Always five steps forward, then four steps back.
I'm certain this whole "teams" business was much more marked with the dichotomy of the Cold War and now, with that over, we're feeling at a bit of a loose end; wondering whether arguing amongst ourselves is distracting us from the main game. Which is?.....
|