It was easy
to come to this conclusion -- the liberal tribe
contains most of the most highly educated people
around, high-ranking academics and such.
And some of them felt that anyone who questioned the
consensus of the liberal tribe, unless he was a
Nobel prize-winner (and sometimes even then), was
just an arrogant, poorly-informed jackass.
I think the liberal tribe had achieved a lot, and
had reached its position through its embrace of free
speech and the open marketplace of ideas.
But in the 20th century, particularly the late 20th
century, the rules of debate got changed.
It was observed that certain demographic groups were
getting the short end of the stick, and had been
getting it for centuries. The "social justice"
movement evolved to address this. There were a lot
of bad actors, known as "bigots", who wanted to
prolong the injustice. The bigots were
well-entrenched and powerful, and the liberal tribe
mounted a massive effort to take them on. "Bigots"
had to be sought out and purged from positions of
power by all means available.
"Bigots" were generally acting as individuals, and
would hide behind "individual rights", like "freedom
of speech". So individual rights had to be
subordinated to group rights. Groups occupied a
spectrum depending upon how privileged they were. No
one could criticize a group less privileged than
their own. And no one, from any group, could
criticize the social justice movement.
Given these rules of debate, it didn't take long for
social justice activists among the less privileged
demographics to disavow any
responsibility for their own actions and blame all
their problems on more privileged demographics, who
were forbidden to disagree.
Anyone who wanted much power, in a corporation, or
the academy, or the mainstream media, had to
maintain credentials as a member of the liberal
tribe. If they were from a privileged demographic,
this meant that they had to disown any
identification whatsoever with their demographic,
and not show the slightest sign of taking any
offense at all to the most wanton slander of it. Any
attempt to speak in defense of a privileged
demographic was a sure sign of being a "bigot", with
guaranteed swift career ruin as a consequence.
The consensus of the liberal tribe spun wildly out
of control. They would drag social justice into any
discussion of anything, and the
moment they did, the conversation would lose all
touch with reality.
As the liberal consensus drifted further and further
from reality, and mounted ever more aggressive
slander toward the most privileged demographics, who
included the biggest voting block in the country, it
created a backlash. After years and years of
taking ridiculous slander and abuse, with the threat
of personal career ruin if they answered back, the
biggest voting block in the country was going to
take advantage of the fact that our elections are
held by secret ballot to elect whoever gave the
biggest "Fuck You!"
to the liberal tribe. Trump had found his
The rules of debate among Trump supporters seem to
be that whatever he says is right. No one can
disagree with him or criticize him and be right. 70%
of what he says, like that it didn't rain on his
inauguration, is blatantly, provably false. But in
his camp, he is the sole arbiter of truth.
Which sounds a lot like fascism to me.
So we're stuck with two highly dysfunctional camps
on how we are to process information and come up
with an accurate view of reality. We're basically