Amy Chua, "Political Tribes" (w/ J.D. Vance)

Amy Chua, "Political Tribes" (w/ J.D. Vance)

23 thoughts on “Amy Chua, "Political Tribes" (w/ J.D. Vance)

  1. What she said about America being a "supergroup" is rather insulting to Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the UK, etc.

  2. I'm a fan of Small Is Beautiful ie secession. I think the country is far too large and that many bad effects stem from its size. If the US were reduced to at least regional [not necessarily Tribal] groups, I think such would be more rational, in some ways more efficient, more readily governed, but most importantly, less dangerous to the World. Of course this was a key issue during the Articles of Confederation from 1783 to 1789 and the Constitutional Convention in 1787…

  3. It seems to me that our country is being polarized by radical demographic and economic changes— globalization, including deregulated trade, deregulated banking and an immigration policy which looks increasingly like an open borders, deregulated labor market— bringing upon us massive population growth, job competition, and the out sourcing of many good paying jobs. Our rural communities have been especially hard hit. And none of these policies came from the American people– the American people never asked Congress for this phenomenal population change. We didn't think we were "too white" for our own good– we had to be indoctrinated in that idea. And we wouldnt think of telling Africans they're" too black" for their own good. That would be offensive.
    The globalist agenda was done to us, for our own good, by an educated elite– focused almost exclusively on one goal: grow the GDP at all costs. More workers, more consumers, caching! caching! And if we abuse cheap labor from foreign countries– ignore it , talk about celebrating diversity instead. It has a more positive tone. And if anybody dares to whisper that maybe multiculturalism has some unanticipated problems– than slam them with the charge of bigotry and white supremacism. That'll make em hush up—and then we just wait for them to die. Are we surprised they put a monkey wrench into the White House?

  4. Idiotic. This is about liberalism (Rawlsian and Millian) carried to its extreme. These are not tribes but demographics. Whites are not cohesive in terms of families, communities, religion, etc. but do get marketed to by our branded politics. The same goes for all forms of identity and consumption, especially of media. Very outdated analysis, like Fukuyama's.

  5. Shame on you! What you did to young girls for Kavanaugh. Didn't you think his needs outweighed the reality of the position? Did you really intentionally put young girls at risk for power and fame? Have you no common sense or shame?! But, maybe this is the reality of the world for women open your legs to get a raise and you're the Madame!

  6. I’m disturbed by their dismissal of the glaring racism and white supremacy that is spreading in our country. Not a great interview, I skipped the first 20 minutes because I didn’t care about their personal anecdotes. Bottom line, I’m not inspired to read her book. I wasn’t impressed with his

  7. Part of what Mr. Vance describes reaches deeper into our history than the popularly-acknowledged 'cultural divide' between Trump voters and 'progressives'. The nearly ancient hostility between the college boys and the good ole boys is socially profound, as stark as that between enlisted and officers in the Navy. Its rare to find both in a protestant church, whatever the denomination. High schools divide their children from each other in countless ways. Meanwhile, it's the brightest who discern the phenomenon and thereby earn the cool mistrust of the frat boys and their women. Tribalism is narcissistic, not just cultural.

  8. At the 24-minute mark, she turns toward the Enlightenment with praise, but the Enlightenment cannot be separated from the Nominalism that preceded it and the Secularism they combined to create by turning the masses away from objective truth and the sources of that truth.

  9. Jordan Peterson has explained the liberal/Marxist current thinking very well – the liberal is a postmodernist which means they don't believe in any truth – because they believe there are an infinite number of interpretations on just about anything. However, the liberals then create a contradiction because their interpretation of the world is always the 'oppressed vs the oppressor', instead of being open-minded like their postmodernist philosophy of an inordinate number of interpretations – they choose one interpretation and expect others to do the same. With the aforementioned oppressed vs oppressor theme which is ONLY about power, Neitzche noted that POWER is really their hidden motive disguised as compassion (because if power is all one talks about, what else should we think motivates them). Neitzche also noted that this thirst for power is fueled by resentment.

    This country isn't so much on a spectrum of right wing vs left wing as it is on the spectrum of tyranny vs anarchy – the founding fathers before 1776 knew that the real spectrum is anarchy (no government) vs tyranny (lots of government) – so now…the left wing is associated w/tyranny but the right wing is NOT associated w/anarchy, but rather fascism. Our country is in such bad shape, that Trump's fascism looks a lot better than liberal socialism/tyranny – remember 20-60 million people died of starvation in the Bolshevik Revolution.

  10. At 34 min in he references something written that high immigration causes segregation and that's what white supremacist should want. That way to rational for how racism really works. The way he puts it also sounds like another way to demonize the left for their immigration ideology.

  11. Amy, you are a sick person, Libya is not a failed state, it is a state that was destroyed by NATO, led by Qatar, France, & the U.S. Moamar Qaddafi was sodomized with a piece of rebar & murdered in the presence of Jordanian military. If he was some kind of criminal he should have been brought before The Hague just like the Nazis.

  12. I thought Tiger Mom was hilarious. She was so self-depreciating and owned up to mistakes and was just real about positives and negatives about her culture and American culture and second generation culture. I saw a bunch of moms just angry about her and this book which caused me to pick it up and I liked it. I thought, "I don't think one of them read it." This new book and hillbilly Elegy have been on my wish list for a while, I hadn't realized she wrote Tiger Mom.

  13. Thank you P&P for arranging this great event and also making it available to us who is not in D.C. at the time and still gets to enjoy the wisdom of book events held by P&P ! As far as the book is concerned, I do not think Amy Chua understands how those living in Youngstown , Ohio have been going through in the past decades. Second, it is about her previous book undermining her a credible authority on anything. She is a failure as a mom and I know lots of Chinese kids who are now in their late 20s and are severely traumatized, with one of them even resorting to hypnosis therapy, as a way to cope with their "Tiger-mom" childhood upbringing, which are exactly the same as Amy Chua chanted in her previous book. Amy Chua should be in arrested and in jail and prosecuted for physically abusing he Children instead of popping up everywhere on media earning her fame and money.

  14. I think that the view of the current political divides as stemming from tribal behavior is very useful, but an important question was not addressed: how is that these tribal affiliations, usually defined along ethnic lines have become (in the US case), defined along class and (partially) partisan lines. I feel that there is a big hole in the conversation (have not read the book) if the commodification of political discourse (as TV news-entertainment) and social relationships (as social networked data for sale) in this reconfiguration of tribal divides is left out.

  15. Ezra Klein, in a polite, non-combative interview subtly exposed Chua's over reliance on tone and civility as a solution to current partisan divisions.

    She basically just appoints herself as the arbiter of what tone "the left" should take. Then she weighs heavily on appeals to civility in rhetoric and notions of commonality as if the current divisions we face can be significantly resolved with that. But she under weighs how broader divisions often come from fundamental demographic shifts and simply can't be resolved with appeals to more civility.

    Also, frankly, it's annoying how she poses as a more down-to-earth, out of the "coastal elite liberal bubble" person just because she has some level of self-flagellating awareness about how she appears to so called, "regular Americans" e.g. white, working class men in middle America.

    Frankly, as someone who still lives in Podunk, USA, if you still lived among those folks you'd know how oppressive they can be in their small c and big C conservatism—culturally, politically, and so on. By comparison, I'd love to live in the "coastal elite liberal bubble" and self-flagellate about how out of touch I look like to Middle American in my nice apartment in Manhattan with salary.

  16. 1:03 why 'get along'.. at all…… when we are losing species necessary for the plants and animals in the food chain that feeds humans… not just the other animals… but food for the human animals…. and some folks insist they just don't 'get it'. science stuff. such as species extinction… and that's without even touching any of the carbon related tipping points???

  17. Personally, as this event was about Amy Chua's book, I think that J.D. Vance should have talked less and deferred to Amy Chua more.

  18. No. Both sides don't do it to nearly the same extent. Liberals still believe in truth, justice, and the American way. Conservatives believe in propaganda, injustice, aggrievement, irrationality, and the Republican, neoliberal, and/or fascist way.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *