Tuesday's Editon: The “I” and the “We” — How Identity Shapes American Politics
America's culture war
Yesterday, we established that America’s political conflicts stem from deeper cultural patterns, not disconnected policy disagreements. Today, we examine the most fundamental of these patterns: how people define identity itself.
And this is how it works:
An American student who decides to change her major does so. Sara is dissatisfied with her engineering major. So she made a list of what she wants to do, spent an hour researching job prospects, looked at her savings, calculated she could graduate on time, and told her parents that weekend. They asked if she was sure. She was. Decision made: by her for her.
In Korea, that scenario plays out much differently. Min-jun spent three weeks on the same decision. He called his parents four times because they had expectations for his career path. His success reflected on their parenting and status. He messaged his older brother daily because his brother’s standing in the family business depended partly on Min-jun’s professional success. He met with his grandfather, who is funding his education, and the grandfather’s reputation as family patriarch rested on wise investment in grandchildren’s futures. He consulted his uncle, who worked in technology, because the uncle’s judgment would shape how the extended family viewed the decision. He discussed it with three close friends from home because their assessment determined how his broader community would view him and his family. When he finally changed majors, he could explain how the decision affected his family’s plans, what it meant for his younger sister’s education timing, and how it aligned with his obligation to eventually support his aging parents. The decision was less his and more of the group’s.
Same decision. Different worlds.
Sara made her decision from an individualist perspective. She’s responsible for herself. Min-jun made his decision from a collectivist perspective. He’s responsible to others.
Neither perspective is superior, and each exists in every society. But in the United States, these two ways of understanding identity increasingly sort people into opposing political camps. And when that happens, every policy debate becomes an identity conflict.
The Pattern Shows Up Everywhere
During COVID-19, Tom decided he was low-risk and stopped wearing masks to the grocery store. When a clerk asked him to mask up, he walked out angry. His choice. His risk. His freedom.
Three blocks away, his neighbor, David, wore a mask outdoors even after vaccination. His parents lived in the neighborhood. He was healthy and low risk, but he knew not everyone in his neighborhood was. David saw every person in the neighborhood as connected. One person’s choice affected everyone’s safety.
Tom saw mandates as collective control, crushing individual autonomy. David saw refusing masks as self-centered ignorance that ignored collective welfare. Same virus. Different cultural perspectives on how people relate to each other.
This pattern repeats across American political conflict:
This individualist vs. collectivist divide shapes every major policy conflict.
On healthcare, individualists see insurance as personal responsibility, you pay for your choices. Collectivists see it as shared infrastructure, everyone pools risk because illness strikes unpredictably.
On environmental protection, individualists defend property rights against environmental restrictions. Collectivists protect everyone’s resources like water and air because one person’s actions affect the resources that everyone uses.
On education, individualists want funding to follow individual students and reward performance. Collectivists want equitable funding because the community rises or falls together.
On immigration, individualists emphasize merit-based entry and rule-following. Collectivists emphasize humanitarian obligation to vulnerable people seeking safety.
Same debates. Different foundations about whether people are primarily independent actors responsible for themselves, or group members responsible to each other.
Why The Conflict Feels Personal
When Republicans say “I shouldn’t pay for someone else’s healthcare,” they’re not being selfish. They are expressing a framework where personal responsibility makes people strong and free. When Democrats respond, “healthcare is a human right,” they’re not advocating dependency, they’re expressing a framework where collective responsibility makes society stable and humane.
Neither person is wrong about their cultural perspective. They have different foundational beliefs about what people are.
Republicans fear losing autonomy, being forced to conform, having their achievement redistributed, and being controlled by the collective. Democrats fear social breakdown, isolation, abandonment when vulnerable, and a society where people ignore collective welfare.
These fears are real. They shape how people evaluate every policy proposal.
What This Reveals
The individualist/collectivist divide doesn’t just explain political disagreements. It reveals why those disagreements feel impossible to resolve.
When Sara changed her major, no one questioned her right to do so. When Min-jun changed his, no one questioned his obligation to consult everyone affected. Both methods of coming to a decision were correct within their cultural perspectives.
American politics has no equivalent agreement. Republicans and Democrats don’t just disagree about healthcare policy or environmental regulation. They disagree about what people are. One side sees autonomous individuals who succeed or fail based on their choices. The other sees interdependent members whose outcomes reflect the group’s support or failure.
Republicans and Democrats cannot compromise between these perspectives. Republicans and Democrats cannot split the difference between “I am responsible for myself” and “I am responsible to others.” Every policy becomes a fight about identity itself.
This explains why American politics grows more hostile despite the fact that Americans largely agree on what they want. Most people want accessible healthcare, clean air and water, good schools, and economic security. But they cannot agree on whether these goods come from individual effort or collective obligation. The conflict is not about the outcome. It is about how we get there.
Tomorrow, we examine the second cultural pattern: how Americans disagree about whether society should preserve what works or continually reform toward improvement.
Join us for more cultural perspective on TikTok, Instagram, and YouTube
Tiktok failed to load.Enable 3rd party cookies or use another browser
