Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Compulsion to Conform
Millions of words have been written about the current state of the country. Those of us who write (and those who follow our work) have been analyzing how we got to this vicious and primitive time. One key point that has been overlooked is that we have given up our commitment to the individual and free speech, and are now pandering to a New Tribe. I’d like to suggest one idea that came out of my own pondering of our circumstances and see what you think. By the way, this applies to the greater society as well as specifically Congress.
* * * * *
Human beings formed into tribes as far back as we can go into human history. The nature of the tribes may have varied, but the one thing they probably had in common were rules for acceptable behavior and actions. The importance of those rules in each tribe might have varied, but most tribes probably rated certain rules as extremely important to the survival and protection of the tribe. Children were taught them at the time of their birth. And everyone knew that if specific critical rules were broken, the punishment was to be expelled from the tribe. Due to the seriousness of the punishment, people understood the importance of complying. Otherwise, ejection meant not only isolation, but more than likely certain death due to other enemy tribes or to wild animals. As a result, conforming to tribal law was not only a high priority, but was a matter of survival.
We have no way of knowing the degree to which conforming is in our genes or only in our culture. It probably doesn’t matter, because every one of us knows there are penalties for not conforming. Only 70 years ago, people were judged for having sex outside of marriage (although there were those who had sexual relationships quietly). Having children out of wedlock was definitely a reason for being ostracized; pornography was not acceptable; sex with children was banned; wearing clothes that were immodest was disapproved. But all those demands for conformity have disappeared, replaced with a call for tolerance and compassion. “Anything goes” was the call. Anything less than acceptance of all these formerly rejected actions and behaviors was judged as hateful and ugly.
* * * * *
The rules of conformity from 70 or so years ago have been reversed. Although the compulsion to conform has been emphasized in the universities and general culture for many years, it seems like the transformation to a new culture has happened overnight. Freedom has been replaced by compliance. Democracy is being replaced by Marxism and socialism. Free speech is being crippled by new gatekeepers who will excoriate people who don’t follow the new rules. Violence has been called an acceptable method of protest. People, institutions, and political parties are being banned from social media that speak outside the boundaries of these new fascist-like regulations. In many cases there aren’t even regulations; people learn they have violated mores after the fact, by having their comments removed and their accounts suspended or locked. The media participates in this sick conversion of society by ignoring or discounting any facts that compromise their efforts.
The question is, why are so many people prepared to accept these new demands and limitations on their freedom?
The answer, to me, is obvious. The compulsion to conform pulls people in, and ties them down.
People have reverted to tribal behavior. For at least the last 70 years, the new cultural rules and norms have been taught. Anything and anyone outside those norms have been demonized. Anything American, anything related to American values, is now the “enemy tribe.” America threatens the existence of the tribe that demands power. So, everyone in the New Tribe is being reminded of, called to practice, the New Rules (which are socialism and Marxism in disguise). The people’s innate compulsion to conform has been activated in a way that the United States has never seen. If they don’t comply, they will be rejected from the New Tribe.
And what happens if you are rejected from the New Tribe? You will lose friends and relationships with family. You may lose your job. When it comes to Covid-19, you will be rejected if you don’t wear masks; you must participate in spreading fear and misinformation. At some point if you catch the virus, you may have difficulty in finding someone to treat you, or finding a hospital that will admit you. In other words, your very survival might be at stake.
You must conform to the new dogma. Or die.
* * * * *
I mentioned Congress at the beginning of this post and how this situation applies to them. It’s called the Swamp. It’s entirely possible that most people who run for the House or Senate initially want to serve the country. It doesn’t take long for them to realize that there are “rules” that go far beyond the rules of the House and Senate. They learn very quickly that obedience to leadership is required. If they don’t comply, they will be ostracized; they won’t get key assignments or committee positions. They won’t get funding from their parties. They will be shut out of the very opportunities they hoped to earn by being elected. So their compulsion to conform is activated in due course.
And nothing changes.
* * * * *
You may think this analysis is preposterous. That it can’t possibly happen in America. I have news for you. It’s been emerging for a long while. And what can we do?
I don’t have a clear answer for the general population; I suspect we will need to find people who will take the same steps that our leaders must take: we must find people, who reject the compulsion to conform. They may feel the tug to go along, but they refuse to give in. They must be prepared to tolerate ridicule, rejection, and defamation. They must have a clear vision of where they are headed, and have a love of this country.
They must be like Donald Trump.
Published in Culture
After a quick scan of your post (I will read more carefully later), I so much want to say, “But true leaders would find a way.” But clearly the machine has grown too powerful.
I suspect the machine has perfected the control system over 435 people conveniently corralled into a very small space. If I were King for a day, I would attack this on both fronts. Spread congress back out to their districts (limiting the # of days allowed inside the beltway) and increase the number of Representative (x10). This would also severely degrade the effectiveness of the average lobbyist and his budget and also drive down the cost of each House seat.
Thanks, @philo. I love your suggestion. That would certainly be effective in degrading their power. I’ll look forward to your further comments when you have a chance.
I am very open to suggestions that will change the way Congress functions. We are essentially being held hostage to the way things are now run. Even if you are skeptical about whether your ideas would be considered, put them out there. We need to create some energy for changing the way business is done. Or we are lost.
Jonah Goldberg has been arguing for increasing the size of Congress for a pretty long time. The amount the increased salaries would cost pales beside what the lobbyists cost.
Could you clarify this, @randywebster. The government doesn’t pay for the lobbyists. Do we care what they cost?
Also it’s nice to think Jonah, as a Never Trumper, has something in common with the rest of us.
Lobbyists cost in twisted legislation. Think tax loopholes or subsidies.
The dairy compacts and FDR’s price controls are perfect examples.
I think I most appreciated the tribal idea. America has become two huge political tribes where symbols reign supreme. I read recently where some agency decided that the blue line flag was an anti-BLM symbol. It didn’t matter what the people displaying the flag intended, but only what those who took offense decided it meant. Like the outrage over the OK symbol. With people on a hair trigger to be outraged it won’t get any better.
So true, @tex929rr. It will stifle creativity, too, which is another way to shut people down. Who will want to take the chance of trying something new when they will be punished for it?
Reforming Congress would take a citizens’ committee a few years to accomplish because it would have to start with establishing goals for the reform project.
Some of the tribalism we see in politics is unavoidable given the nature of deal making and the compromises it entails.
I would much prefer to go another way: rouse the local and state governments to become more active and take back some of the work the U.S. Congress and executive branch (all those alphabet federal agencies) have assumed. The closer to home we keep our government and tax dollars, the more control we will have over both.
The size of the federal government never ceases to surprise me. During one of Trump’s rally speeches yesterday in Pennsylvania, Trump mentioned that Obama had left 142 federal judge positions unfilled when he left office. Paraphrasing, he asked, “Why would he do that? Just leave those for a Republican administration to take? Well, we filled those and 150 more. We have 300 federal judges now.” I loved hearing this, given the abuse of power I’ve seen occur that has been directed at Donald Trump and his family, friends, and remote acquaintances. However, why are the federal courts so active in the states? There are 870 federal judges. That’s crazy. Way more than the Constitution writers ever envisioned.
We need to revitalize local and state government and send the feds back to Washington.
As always, @marcin, several good points! I like this one in particular, although we would have to pay strong attention to those at the local and state levels. The Lefties have infiltrated all levels of government; as a reminder, George Soros has put Leftists Attorney Generals into state positions. As you say, however we do it, we need to plan carefully, making sure as much as possible that we consider the pluses and minuses of a plan. Thanks!
We also need to severely reduce the Administrative State. Hugely reduce. They are effectively running the government and that must stop!
This is a good point. I have always thought there is a built in incentive for state governor candidates when campaigning to use the ‘no tax increases’ to motivate their potential voters. They then do not resist the movement of what should be absolutely state functions to Washington. then when the states and cities go broke handing out gifts to their voters and supporting organizations, like unions and NEA, they turn to the federal government for the bailouts.
Sounds reasonable to me, Susan.
This issue really raises my dander, @bobthompson. Nancy Pelosi has been saying for weeks that the Republicans are refusing to pass her latest version of the relief package. They are, but they refuse to pass it because Nancy wants to include money to bail out the states who got themselves into financial straits–not even counting the coronavirus. We shouldn’t be bailing them out because of their mismanagement! It’s really disgusting.
Thanks, @kentforrester. I always get a little nervous when working out these issues. Will anybody understand me??
Well, that is exactly the result when states abandon taking on the responsibility but the costs then pile up. Much of what causes these deficits is high numbers of state and local employees to administer federally mandated requirements. The payroll and pensions create state financial burdens they can’t meet.
Yes, yes, and yes!
Humans desire both freedom and security (Maybe order is a better word, or perhaps control. I’ll go with order.). But few recognize that these are competing aspirations. The more you have of one, the less you have of the other. This is the fundamental polarization between our two political parties: Republicans tend toward freedom; Democrats tend toward order. Both are good impulses, but a tension between the two is vital to maintaining a healthy society. Too much freedom and the Alpha-Bullies take over; too much order and the Beta-Bullies take over. Total freedom breeds chaos; total order breeds tyranny. And the only thing that keeps us in the “sweet spot” is the constant tension between the two. (Checks and balances, as the Founders might recommend.)
Freedom has been yielding to Order for some time in America, to the point where the Beta-Bullies are openly conspiring to deny the other side the ability to apply tension. It’s hard to overstate the danger of what unopposed Leftism would do to America, or imagine a path back after it’s had its way with her.
Well said, @freeven. It’s an excellent way to describe it, given that those two are in conflict with each other. It is very difficult to maintain that tension in a way that is fair and balanced. Thanks!
Congress is both the cause of The Swamp, and the cure. The cure is simple: when Congress delegates authority to come up with regulations, it should be Congress who approves them after an amendment process.
There does definitely seem to be a reaction against individual freedom going on: as one indication, a recent YouGov survey showed that 43% of those who identify as Liberals favor firing an executive who *privately* donated money to Trump, and 22% of those who identify as Conservatives favor firing an executive who privately donated to Biden…the numbers are 50% and 36% for *strong* liberals and conservatives respectively.
Part of the issue, I think, stems from changes in child-raising and family structure. See my post and the discussion thread here: Is Free Speech Too Exhausting?
Susan: “For at least the last 70 years, the new cultural rules and norms have been taught. Anything and anyone outside those norms has been demonized.”
This is because the our Constitutional Rights have been allowed to be trampled since the 30’s by a rogue Supreme Court that has trashed them.
Trump by nominating the three new members to the Court has created the first working majority of conservative Justices in over 80 years which hopefully will bring back a return of our rights and the original intent of the Constitution.
One of the biggest issues and destroyer of our rights is the formation of what is called the Administrative State where the Supreme Court , in a direct repudiation of Section 1 Article 1 of the Constitution which gave only Congress the ability to legislature law, gave the power to Federal Agencies to not only make law, but to adjudicate it and enforce it. Then under what is called ” Chevron Deference” the Supreme Court deemed that the highest decision making authority over many issues other than the Court itself should be these same Administrative Agencies. Hopefully this new Court will strike down this abomination thereby forcing Congress to write all legislation and to not delegate the fine details of every act to the Federal Agencies as it does now. This alone will take away the power of thousands of unelected bureaucrats to run our lives and will shrink the size of the Federal bureaucracy to a fraction of what it is now.
As to the power of State and Local Governments, much of that power has been siphoned away from the People by the power of Public Employee Unions which through it’s overwhelming funding in millions ( in taxpayer’s dollars) of it’s chosen elected officials/ lackeys, they has determined the course of policy of the Blue States and Blue Cities for decades. The 1935 National Labor Relations Act banned these same Public Employee Unions ( actually collective bargaining with them) only to have them given life under an Executive Order by President Kennedy. Trump hopefully in his next term, now that he has a Court that will back him, will return the favor and ban these illegal unions under an Executive Order returning the issue to the rightful posture of the 1935 Act. I know that will cause tremendous turmoil -much, much greater than the BLM Riots- but it needs to be done to return Blue States and Cities to functioning democracy.
Randy: “Jonah Goldberg has been arguing for increasing the size of Congress for a pretty long time.”
The Founders wanted Congress to be “close to the People”. With each district now at 721,000 people give or take, that ain’t even close to being “close to the People”. How about, for a start, doubling the number of Congressman bringing that number to a more manageable 360,000 plus?
Works for me.
It would probably make each campaign a lot cheaper as well (though it might boost total dollars spent for the total of all congressional races combined). But more people could do it, each with less financial backing required.
Excellent comment, @unsk. I’ve heard that they are looking at tackling Chevron Deference; maybe the legislators will finally make law instead of handing if off to the bureaucrats.
This one would be hugely beneficial, particularly to the states. Fingers crossed!
Thanks!
I completely disagree with this. The Dems are the party of order? Are you kidding? The folks who won’t even stop deluded anarchist rioting, who want to release legions of convicted felons, who want to hobble enforcement of our immigration laws, are the party of order?
I could go on. I think you confuse conservatism with libertarianism. What do you think that you are conserving?
There must be rules, or we have chaos. The main issue is not liberty vs. order, nor is is some simplistic tribal conflict. The issue is what do you value.
We have been slowly losing for 60-70 years. Even many people who consider themselves conservative have adopted values that were fringe-radical ideas a mere 20 years ago.
I hear what you’re saying, Jerry. I think the conflict is between freedom and control, as he suggested. I would also agree that our values are in serious jeopardy as the Republican party is essentially conspiring with the Democrats in many ways, especially the NeverTrumpers. I think it’s entirely possible that for us to move forward as a democratic republic, we will need to transform the Republican party.
About the OP: the compulsion to conform is a good thing if the values and behaviors at issue are good. It is a terrible thing if the values and behaviors are bad.
A strange non-judgmentalism started to take hold among the young in about 1980. Allan Bloom documented this in the mid-1980s, in The Closing of the American Mind.
It wasn’t the kids. It was their parents and teachers, who taught a new value – non-discrimination. This didn’t mean avoiding racial discrimination. It meant avoiding making any moral judgments at all.
Of course, this approach is not consistent, because it savagely objects to anyone who holds to a consistent traditional morality.
Precisely. This might have been left over from the 60’s. It has done terrible damage to the fabric of our nation and guarantees conflict for the foreseeable future. We are going to have to fight for our rights because they want us to relinquish them. We say “no”!
Susan, I think that this is where we disagree. I don’t think that the fight is mainly over “rights.” I think that the fight is over values like faith, family, and individual responsibility.
Conceptualizing it as an issue of “rights” is usually a mistake. It fights on the enemy’s turf, as they claim a “right” to horrid things like infanticide, anal sodomy, and self-castration. They take these positions in the name of liberty, so if we make liberty our sole rallying cry, we lose.
It is important to uphold the rights to free speech and the right to bear arms, but I don’t think that these should be our focus.
We may actually agree, since I have the right to live out my values; I have the right to live out my faith. But perhaps you’re right about shifting my focus, although I don’t know that I can force my values on others; I am more concerned with what people do than what they believe. If my rights are secure, I should be able to live as I choose.