You need to cultivate tribal ties that are real, concrete, and meaningful and to some degree exclusionary. In the United States, we venerate the Constitution. We have a pantheon that includes founding fathers, Neil Armstrong, MLK, etc. We teach our children their stories. We have shared rituals, such as being conspicuously patriotic on the Fourth of July. We have shared objects of derision, such as French “surrender monkeys.” We have a bottomless well of national pride, even when we don’t. The New York Times is ashamed of America in many instances, but will happily turn on a dime and condemn the French as racists and sexists for not conforming to American precepts of race and sex relations.

Until the mid-2010's the US's creedal flavor of "nationalism" was arguably the most principles-based in the world; something I take great pride in as a brown American son of immigrants. It was a paragon of what nationalism should look like.

Unfortunately, in 2021, we've lost that collective nationalism, and I'm not sure we're better off for it.

> You need to cultivate tribal ties that are real, concrete, and meaningful and to some degree exclusionary

A somewhat exclusionary tribe that extends across an entire diverse country? Not likely. The only thing more tribalism will do is strengthen the existing stark tribal groups we have (which are primarily racial, religious, and class).

> In the United States, we venerate the Constitution. We have a pantheon that includes founding fathers, Neil Armstrong, MLK, etc.

As important those famous figures are, you (correctly) describe it as a pantheon, AKA the idolization of these individuals more for their surface appearance than what they represent. The amount of lip service paid to MLK in particular is astounding, especially by politicians who actively undermine his movement for racial and economic justice.

I agree that having such a pantheon is part of a national identity, but at best it is set of symbols that matter only because of an underlying broadly shared sense of economic well being.

> We have shared objects of derision, such as French “surrender monkeys.”

I think this is the example you are presenting as "exclusionary", but I'm not sure what makes it redeeming as a basis of national identity, nor is it as widely shared an object derision as you suggest.

> he amount of lip service paid to MLK in particular is astounding, especially by politicians who actively undermine his movement for racial and economic justice.

I half agree with you, but I think it's the side of the aisle you're probably not talking about that's paying "lip service".

MLK's entire philosophy was peaceful civil disobedience as contrasted with Malcolm X's approach of radicalism ("So early in my life, I had learned that if you want something, you had better make some noise"). Today, I'm afraid that we've lost sight of MLK's philosophy and have decided to try Malcolm X's approach to solving our social problems. Time will tell if that was a wise choice.

It's also not clear if MLK ever believed in enforced equality of outcomes (as opposed to just equality of opportunities). In some circles today, not judging people "by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character" and not believing in strictly equal outcomes is insufficiently anti-racist.

> It's also not clear if MLK ever believed in enforced equality of outcomes (as opposed to just equality of opportunities).

"Equality of outcome" is a popular straw man for many who take the highly incredulous position that equality of opportunity exists today.

Simply ending the use of rhetorical racism would do little to remove structural racism that gives rise to the inequality of opportunity that persists.

> "Equality of outcome" is a popular straw man for many who take the highly incredulous position that equality of opportunity exists today.

I think this is itself a straw man, because it ascribes onto any criticism of “equality of outcome” approaches to problem-solving the underlying conception that “equality of opportunity” already exists in the most perfect form. The most good-faith argument against the current rhetoric around racial issues is the following: we have neither equality of outcomes nor equality of opportunities, but the solutions we’re uncompromisingly implementing are the wrong ones because they focus on attaining equality of outcomes rather than attaining equality of opportunities. That’s the steel-man, engage with that.

> Simply ending the use of rhetorical racism would do little to remove structural racism that gives rise to the inequality of opportunity that persists.

You’ll find that a lot of people agree that there exists structural racism (the extent is debatable). Where the disagreement lies is on what the solutions should be. Leaving aside whether this stuff is correct on the merits, when hyper-activists amplify a “my way or the highway” approach to solving these problems, they aren’t just drawing attention to the problems, they’re prescribing a particular solution.

Taking several steps back, we’ve found ourselves to be litigating yet again whether it was MLK or Malcolm X that had the right idea about how to combat the very real evils of racism. The point that I’m making is that the political side that’s allegedly the most devoted to rooting out racism has taken ironically the most racialized and segregationist approach to solving those problems — an approach that MLK steadfastly opposed. MLK is a part of the aforementioned American pantheon precisely because his rhetoric was the one that was not only effective, but also had the broadest support. We need more MLK’s today, but unfortunately we have too many Malcolm X’s.

> the solutions we’re uncompromisingly implementing are the wrong ones because they focus on attaining equality of outcomes

This argument, whenever it shows up, is usually a thinly veiled attack on affirmative action, which is aimed increasing the equality of opportunity - university education being far more an opportunity than an outcome.

The thrust of current civil rights efforts: ending disproportionate police violence against POC, bolstering public education in poor neighborhoods, healthcare as a right, these are all about the equality of opportunity.

> This argument, whenever it shows up, is usually a thinly veiled attack on affirmative action, which is aimed increasing the equality of opportunity - university education being far more an opportunity than an outcome.

First of all, I’m not sure it’s “thinly veiled”; being opposed to affirmative action is a legitimate position with its own set of arguments. The confidence with which you declare your opinion about affirmative action as though it is some settled fact makes discussing these issues extremely difficult. Ultimately, you’re entitled to your opinions, but they’re still opinions.

“University education being an opportunity than an outcome” is extremely debatable. Is your first job out of college also an opportunity rather than an outcome? Where we draw the line is something society needs to litigate, and it’s by no means a settled issue. For example, one might argue that while attending university is an opportunity that everyone ought to have, attending Harvard University (or other selective institutions) isn’t. The reality is that adolescents are rewarded for their academic achievements by being accepted to prestigious institutions (and yes “legacy admissions” are anathema to this); that can be considered an outcome rather than some random opportunity. In fact, you lose all of the nuances, edge cases, and asterisks associated with the messiness of reality when you make blithe declarations like “university education is an opportunity not an outcome”. It’s like lossy compression; we lose information and the discourse is worse off for it.

> The thrust of current civil rights efforts: ending disproportionate police violence against POC, bolstering public education in poor neighborhoods, healthcare as a right, these are all about the equality of opportunity.

Sure, and in any grab-bag of policy positions, you’re bound to find positions that most of society would agree fall under the “equality of opportunity” bucket. There are disagreements as to how best to achieve all of those things, but by and large most people agree that “everyone having access to better education” is the goal or “everyone having access to better and cheap healthcare” as a goal. If you’ll notice, I never said “public education” or “x is a right” because those declarations start to become more prescriptive as to what the solution should be — and I encourage you to try to understand the steel-man arguments against those specific prescriptions.

> This argument, whenever it shows up, is usually a thinly veiled attack on affirmative action, which is aimed increasing the equality of opportunity - university education being far more an opportunity than an outcome.

While most people support increasing equality of opportunity opportunity, it should be noted that decisive majorities oppose treating people differently based on race to do it. For example, the majority of people of every race oppose using race as even a “minor” factor in college admissions: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/02/25/most-americ... (73% of all adults, including 62% of Black adults, oppose using race as even a “minor factor in college admissions”).

As to the thrust of current civil rights efforts—it’s not just the end goals that matter, but also the means. (That has always been true and will always be true.)

Race-neutral interventions can remedy disparate outcomes. For example, baby bonds could halve the Black-white racial wealth gap even even if offered in a race-blind way. Policing, public education in poor neighborhoods, and healthcare are all areas where racial disparities can be remedied through race neutral approaches.

Even as to race-based interventions, they can be targeted and judicious. A significant fraction of the “equality of outcomes” camp wants to impose discrimination based on race in a pervasive way. Choosing who gets vaccinated based on race, choosing who gets to return to in-class instruction based on race, etc. Apart from being unconstitutional, judging. H the experience of other countries these approaches are likely to lead to massive social unrest if adopted at scale.

> A somewhat exclusionary tribe that extends across an entire diverse country? Not likely.

Worked fine for most of the US history.

The victims of slavery, Jim Crow, and other tribal institutions of American history might beg to differ.