Gospel: every city or house divided against itself will not stand

By BILL CHAISSON
You have probably heard people use the pronoun “they” in all kinds of contexts and perhaps not thought too much about it. In fact, it is a problematic word that represents the tip of a sociological iceberg, the tendency of people to divide the world up into “us” and “them.” This is an expression of the dark side of tribalism or clannishness (since people of European extraction don’t think of themselves as being from tribes, although most of them are). Tribalism has its upsides, a lot of which come down to the fact that you know someone generally has your back. But a civil society, a society of laws, was invented in order to shed light on the dark side and keep its worst impulses in check.

“They want us to …,” “They got this law that …,” “Now they’re saying that ….” Always the mysterious, faceless “they” who are preventing “us” from doing what we want to do. The obvious implication is that there is an entity out there that is entirely different from “us” with an entirely different agenda over which we have no control and “they” are making rules that are not in “our” interest and are at the very least cramping “our” style.

Perhaps because this is the “live free or die” state, but I think I am encountering this perspective a bit more often in New Hampshire. In a July 31 column I delved into the origin of the state motto and found that it was coined by Gen. John Stark, the hero of the Battle of Bennington. When you read the full letter from which the phrase is taken and find out more about Stark’s life, it strongly suggests that by “live free” Stark was telling his former soldiers to not follow leaders blindly. He wanted them to think for themselves rather than be unthinkingly loyal to a team. 

Although he was acknowledged as a great military leader, he was not really a military man. Military men follow orders issued by superiors, something Stark was famous for not doing. In the French and Indian War he fought in Rogers’ Rangers, essentially a guerrilla unit. After the Revolutionary War, he immediately resigned his commission and became a farmer and lumberman, unlike other Continental Army generals, who often became involved in politics.

In the military and in that symbolic military setting, sports, the us and them dynamic makes sense. On the battle field and on the playing field you obviously don’t want to help the other team. Nor do you want to understand them except insofar as the knowledge helps you to defeat “them.” This attitude has now very much infected all of the rest of society. Military and sports metaphors abound in discussions of virtually everything. Of course it has long been associated with politics, but for several decades it had been held in abeyance in actual governance. Now, however, you hear lamentations for a dim and distant past when there was civility among members of Congress. 

Now any sort of reasonable attempt at collegiality or acknowledgement of the merits of one of “them” is seen as weakness. This is true on both the left and right. When Barack Obama took office it was assumed that he would clear away all Bush appointees and put liberals in their places. He didn’t and was regarded as a betrayer by leftists, who turned their rhetoric on him almost immediately.

Since the 2016 election the battle lines have been drawn in every aspect of society and at every level of government. Civility is now universally regarded as old-fashioned and even as a form of dishonesty (“you don’t really agreed with them; you’re just going along”). There is now no code that compels you to try to see anything from someone else’s point of view. “They” are already wrong and have nothing to tell you. If “they” have power, they will most assuredly use it against “us.” because that’s how “they” are.

Journalists don’t join teams; we report on them. We are naturally suspicious of tribalism and mostly watch helplessly as it plays out around us. But the opinion page is a forum for speaking to issues and in this case simply making people aware of a dynamic. Like John Stark, I think people should make up their own minds. Stark himself rejoined the Revolutionary cause under his own conditions and history has shown we are lucky he did. He didn’t opt out (as many colonials did) or switch sides (as Benedict Arnold did), but instead compromised and did his part. He knew that liberty was what all Americans deserved and he was willing to fight alongside those he disagreed with in order to achieve it. Come to think of it, John Stark would have made a good journalist.

 

Bill Chaisson is editor of the Eagle Times and does not follow sports.