I don’t know if tribal is the right concept. Does tribal describe Stalin’s control of Russia or Hitler’s control of Germany? This is a very modern phenomena, most fully detailed in fiction by Orwell and in non-fiction by Solzhenitsyn. It’s much more powerful than tribal. The author is right, however, when saying “bias” doesn’t even begin to scratch the surface of what’s going on here. I just have a problem with the idea of “tribal” being a fit description.
To Greenfield's credit, while he seems to get it, he has a wider, more general audience which forces him to use metaphors as code words to describe the situation.
Not those of us freed from the shackles of correct thinking, however. No, we're free to properly and correctly call the social conflict CW II. Conjecture as to "tribes" isn't necessary, which allows a more concise summation of "tactics".
That is, in all war time planning and execution, there are goals, objectives, strategies and tactics. The enemy controls a key asset in the form of its militarized information wing. Division and discord are no different from bombing targets and occupation plans when considered in total. The idea of a vanguard group to shock, surprise and soften a target is a very old concept.
Once viewed in this context, surprise, outrage or dismay (oh, I can't believe this is happening in America!) are unnecessary emotions. It's just the war, and the enemy is just utilizing and deploying some of its core assets.
BFD - in the end game, they are no match for actual action, with the end result being occupation and barred participation. A 'reconstruction' if you will.
You are right, and I would add a couple of other ingredients.
But first, having been a student of anthropology for more years than I care to say, the author is right about the tribal tendency to name itself by the word which means “the People” in their language, and to name their enemies “the bug-eaters” or some other pejorative, and the tribal outlook as us vs the world, and the tendencies in warfare to chip away at territorial boundaries, and to humiliate the opponents’ warriors when they capture them (all very valid and observable in ethnological studies).
Your mention of Solzhenitsyn is very valid. His observations, and those of Pasternak, show from their eye-witness perspectives the cruelty and illogic that comes about when ideology (a term owing its very existence to the advent and inveighing of Marxism) prevails over genuine ideas and ideals.
And then I would go one further: the present ideological divide has more to do with spiritual dynamics than anything else I can think of. The author’s use of the term “scientism” holds up one side of the divide, while a dual-ideal of Judaeo-Christian values and the US Constitution hold up the other. The two are in a death-struggle at the present time. The former is of the devil, the latter is of God, simply stated.