I really don't understand in-group / out-group thought processes. In looking back, to a substantial extent I never did- I've never been wildly committed to a particular sports team, for example, and have always been a bit of a social chameleon. I think there might have been a while there that, owing largely to my father's influence, I was somewhat patriotic, but I can't even say that for sure.
I don't remember who it was, and, after a brief Google search, I think it's better that I don't spend the time digging through tripe in order to properly source it, but I've heard it opined by some right-wing commentator that liberalism and progressivism are mental disorders.
While I'm obviously disinclined to label it the same, I will admit that it really seems that my brain does function in a fundamentally different way from those of a lot of other people, and that differing attitude is predictive of political stance.
How much of that is inborn, and how much is a function of environment? I'm likewise unsure. I didn't grow up in particular excess, by any means, but by and large I didn't have to directly worry about survival issues. And while I have lived well below the poverty line for virtually all of the intervening years, I have by and large avoided the particularly terrible choices- I never turned- quite- to crime, never joined the military, and was only briefly homeless- and, even then, just lived in my car.
I don't necessarily buy the whole notion that conservatism is linked to hardship, though, so I don't really have a pat answer. Whatever the cause, though, the whole question does certainly baffle me.
Most recently, I listened this morning to a story on NPR about conveyor-belt style courts set up in US border (southern, naturally) states to try and convict illegal immigrants of immigration offenses before sending them packing. The notion is apparently to try to further deter illegal immigration as an option for people and thereby exercise greater control over the border.
...to which I say, simply, "why?"
From a selfish perspective, the economies in border states rely heavily on migrant labor- even the ultra-conservatives don't really contest this fact- and the costs associated with a program like this are relatively staggering. (I don't have figures in front of me, but if you figure that you're keeping multiple judges and a horde of lawyers plus support staff and LEOs employed full-time in this endeavor, that adds up very, very quickly.)
From a humanist perspective, though? You're not going to make someone less likely to take the only options afforded them to take care of themselves and their families; a nebulous "you're breaking the law, it will make it harder to come across the border legally!" is pretty toothless next to "you and your children are hungry" as far as scary realities go. And, in exchange, you are continuing to shove an accepted practice underground (thereby creating some horrific human rights problems), you are slapping people in a no-win situation with a misdemeanor record (thereby virtually ensuring that they continue to be unable to immigrate or support themselves legally), and you are tying up significant amounts of the judicial systems in these areas playing a game of xenophobic whack-a-mole.
And all of this- ALL of it- is in the interest of defending what is quite literally an imaginary line in the sand.
On that note, I have this notion for a political art project whereby I would go around the world and assemble a collection of images of the actual borderlands between different governmental entities. Some will be obvious- the Columbia river, for example, that divides Oregon and Washington. Or the heavily fortified no-man's land between the Koreas. Most, though, are really just unremarkable stretches of land. There is no line on the ground, no indication when you cross over from one territory to the next. It's dirt on both sides...
Of course, that may simply be an excuse to indulge the travel bug...
