I believe that the central challenge, politically, for our age can best be expressed in a single graph from the Economic Policy Institute.

Quite simply, in real dollar terms, wages have been effectively flat for 30 years. This effect has been masked by easy credit, and a real estate bubble, but the underlying core condition is a grave one.

What cannot go on will not go on, House prices cannot rise forever and a consumer driven economy cannot survive if the consumers do not posses the excess money to go out and consume.

I propose no solutions. I know of no magic wand that will reunite these tends but something will happen. Whichever political party or ideology that finds and implements a solution to this will reap tremendous benefits, those that stick their heads in the sand are likely, in the long run, to get their asses kicked.

I don’t mean arguments that intent or by accident become terribly humorous, but rather arguments that are expressed in terms of hysteria, usually by overt and terribly applied hyperbole.

I get a lot of political discussions with my friends and family. (Almost never with anyone else because it’s too volatile a subject to broach with people I don’t know well.) It doesn’t matter if it comes from the left or from the right, I am often treated to some wildly over the top hyperbole about the evils of the enemy.

Bush is a fascist.

Obama is a communist.

You know the drill. These arguments can really bug me because they show such an utter disregard for the truth and for the language. In the early 90’s Rush Limbaugh used to say quite a bit on his show that ‘words mean things.’ Oh that is something I can get behind very strongly. The first casualty  in any heated political argument seem to be the English language. (I assume it true for other languages, but as I speak and read no other, I’ll stick with English.)

Something else that has occurred to me recently is that the more hyperbole that is used, the more it strikes me that someone is panicking about their position. That this feels like the rearguard action of a collapsing front. It not only is unpersuasive it makes your argument feel weaker, no matter the truth that may lay under your position.

This little rant by myself won’t change a thing. No one I know uses the hyperbole as a conscious tactic, and as such they will continue to lob them like errant grenades, but I wanted to get my thoughts out there.

With the furor in the new and on the net over Arizona’s SB 1062, ‘Turn away the gay’ bill, there has been a lot of talk, discussion, argument, and name calling over the issue of people who run businesses and want to have those business conform to their personal moral standards. So, here I am wading into the minefield with my own idiosyncratic ideas.

First off, let’s take as a given that forcing someone to act in a manner directly opposed to their deeply held moral map is a touchy proposition and one that should be handled with deft care and an eye to personal freedom.  Few among us would consent if the government forced up to kill a puppy to get out tax returns.

That said I do think there is a qualitative difference between your personal actions and the actions of a business, even if it is a business that you own. Your business is not you. A business does not have a deeply held moral map, it is an artificial construction not a person.

So how would I cleave this knot?

Let’s look at businesses and their owners in terms of how the assets are different in terms of protection.

Subject A as a private person decides to host a free carnival for the neighborhood. There is a spill of a slick oily mess, and though warned about it, Subject A does nothing. When a person slips, falls, and breaks their neck from this danger, Subject A is in danger from a civil suit, a civil suit that take everything Subject A owns, cash, stocks, their home, in restitution for the damages to the person with the broken neck. Subject A and their assets are fully at risk for their action and fully responsible for their actions.

Subject B form a business, an LLC or some other artificial construction for the purpose of throwing their neighborhood carnival. They too have a slippery oily mess, they too are warned, and they too do nothing. The person falls, breaks their necks and the business is at rick of lawsuit. The lawsuit can take everything the business owns as part of a damages award, but the business owner has their personal assets protected, but the shield that is the artificial construct the ‘business.’

Any lawyers among you will see that this is a gross simplification by a layman, but the concept is clear, Subject A was operating entirely from the personal sphere, while Subject B was operating from the public one. Subject B utilized laws passed to protect and shield business owners, putting distance between their business and their personal property.

In my opinion, and what I think should be legal opinion as well, any business that utilizes the public sphere, LLC laws, incorporation, and so on are ineligible to claim personal moral codes and restrictions. They are not their owners and by taking advantage of public laws in their benefits they surrender any claim for discriminatory practices.

A Broadway, or perhaps off-Broadway I’m uncertain on that point, show was proclaim in verse that the internet is made for porn. That’s only partially true, it’s also made for flame wars. Among the most heated and viciously fought of these wars are the political ones, and it is there that you see the purest distillation of political tribalism.
It seems to me that tribalism must be in some ways very liberating. Freed from doubt, freed from choice, you always know exactly what is the right answer, who is the right candidate, and what is the right position. You trust your sources of information and all others are suspect, subject to your tribes vetting before their data can be evaluated.
Now, I am not talking about have convictions. I am not talking about having a philosophy. I am talking about having a team and the team’s position is always correct, even when it changes, it can only change from correct to correct. You have seen the tribes on the Internet. They are the people who never ever surprise you with their political posts. It doesn’t matter if they are sharing a meme, commenting on an article, posting a link, without even looking you know what the position is going to be, you know who is going to be attacked, who is going to be praised, and what is going to be reviled. That must be easy.
I have cast a few votes over my life. I have wrestled with the choices laid out before me. I can look left and I can look right and in both directions I can see things to admire, objectives worth striving for, and freedoms worth defending. What I do not see are enemies, and at it’s heart that is what tribalism always is about, the enemy.
It doesn’t matter if it comes from the left, or if it comes from the right, the tribe is about defining the enemy and drawing a circle that proclaims those on the outside are not like us, they are the enemy and they are not to be trusted.
Doubt is not allowed and doubt to me is essential. Anytime I feel absolutely certain about anything a nebulous as politics, I know I haven’t given the subject serious thought. Politic is culture and culture is big and messy, it is not given to absolutes answers, those are illusions obscuring our understanding.