About I and we and us and them

Q: When you are employed by someone else, you accept the premise that management and employees work together to achieve the same goal. Working for the benefit of all is usually also a shared goal in the communities we live in. But the farther you travel, the harder it is to get all people on the same page. Why is this particularly true in America? 

A: It is only natural that we tend to define ourselves by what we do and what we believe in, i.e., how we differ from one another, rather than by what we share. It is natural, but since we grow up in families and live our lives with others who we are not even related to, an understanding and acceptance of 'we' also comes natural to most of us. 

Let's rephrase the question to how we balance I and we. It is not that one (I or us) or the other (we or them) cannot or should not coexist. They can and should and they have to, but if 'I' dominates 'we', one ends up living in a state of Ayn Rand's laissez-faire capitalism where billionaires rule, while 'us' without 'them' leads to communism or theocracy. 

In America, but not just there, the balance between I and we and us and them is clearly on the side of the economically powerful, i.e., I > we and we > them. 
In Western Europe there is at least a tacit understanding, albeit not always practiced, that all parties have a place at the table, in other words, I ~ we and also us ~ them. From a historical perspective Europeans have come to understand that they have already done enough harm to other peoples during their colonial power days. Thus, there is shared understanding and acceptance that employers and employed work together to resolve differences or disputes. In other words, 'we' is an accepted reality. 

In China, the party values the good of all over the good of the individual (we > I and us > them), but has the economic interest of the individual in mind. We > I and us > them was also the starting point during the Russian revolution, but since then the communist party, the economically powerful, and organized crime have aligned to maintain the status quo, which emphasizes we > them and us > I. 

From a geopolitical point of view, America would be in a great position to maintain thought in addition to economic leadership in the world if it were not for its inability to solve problems that most European countries solved decades ago and the unwillingness of America to play a constructive role in solving such global problems as climate change. But leadership means that you actually lead and how can America lead when there is no desire by our political parties to define 'we' and 'us' instead of spending all their time working on 'I' and 'them'. Although I believe hat the Republican Party is the main obstacle, it is up to the Democratic Party to convince the GOP that 'we' are inhabiting the same world. 

In other words, the real question is, when will 'we' stand up if 'they' don't? 

Next: Is the Constitution the political equivalent of the Bible or, to phrase it differently, can we rewrite the Constitution?