In the USA we had an election recently, and the subtext –the thing unsaid but underpinning it– of the whole event was “I or We?” In fact the same subtext seems to be unsaid but influential in England, Western / Central / Eastern Europe, South America, Australia, and probably in Asia as well but admittedly I don’t know much about Asia (and that’s on me; I should know more).

In the USA, partly because we’re nestled in-between two comfy oceans and, in the longitudinal, between two close allies (closer since the 1989 US-Canada Free Trade and subsequent 1994 NAFTA treaties but will be further apart once upcoming tariffs set in), we tend to forget there is a broader world out there. But in fact I believe the whole of the world is debating, right now, between “I” and “We.”

What am I talking about? Although I’m just an everyman, if it’s not a crime I would like to venture an opinion which is the following: with the onset of the Tech Revolution and the Global Village thing [and an enduring century of post-Modernist ideology (i.e. no absolutes and everything is subjective)], the level of complexity in our lives, worldwide, has become simply too great for any person to be in control of their own head; ordinary life has become so very confusing that even assuming a stance on the simplest human problems has become hopelessly convoluted.

“Are these the best of times or the worst of times? Is Global Warming a thing (like my senses tell me and like all the scientists say it is) or is it not a thing? Should the Internet be controlled, or, unregulated? Vax or no vax, mask or no mask, obligatory or voluntary? Are the borders okay or not? Trickle down economics are bullshit, right? Are genetically modified crops good or bad? Are farms too big? Are corporations too big? College is $80k a year (ditto for health care)?? My wages are stagnant and my town has dried up… who/what is to blame? Automatic weapons are protected in the Bill of Rights so we’re just going to have to deal with the periodic mass-shootings; or, are they not and we should not? Why are athletes with 37.4 trillion XY chromosomes competing in sports against athletes with 37.4 trillion XX chromosomes? and, what do we do for those whose chromosomes are XXY, or XYY? By the way who’s fault is it that there so much urban crime and what do we need to do to improve that? Should people be allowed to choose to die when they’re very old or very sick? What should we teach in public schools? Who cares if Putin invades Ukraine or Eastern Europe that’s not my problem over here?” And so on, and so forth, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year, 24 time-zones and across seven seas and seven continents….

So, in order to get our heads around the numberless and complex issues like these or so many others, we’re (again, worldwide) typically signing onto one of two –polar– ideologies in order to conceptually organize and make sense of each and every thing that happens to us or to the world around us, everyday. Then, when an event happens, we dial into (by TV, by Internet, by social media, by podcast, whatever) whichever ideology we’ve chosen in order to find out what is our stance on it. See? I or We? One single, easy choice; not a million.

The “I” camp is conceptually cleaner. “I” is more easily defined, and from that Cartesian rock things become straightforward enough to produce a cohesive thought: a, then b, then c. Whether or not that straight-line of thought is sufficient to answer the complex problems of the modern Earth is not precisely the issue; at least the line of argument is comprehensible and it can follow a simple logic. And, as Shakespeare’s Hamlet, Prince of Denmark never figured out in time, a clear, actionable approach definitely solves some of Life’s conundrums, perhaps many of them; but maybe not all of them, or maybe not the most existential ones, or perhaps not solving them from every perspective?

The other one, the “We” camp, has a different problem: who, pray tell, IS “We?” In particular issue “X,” “we” may represent groups a, b, and c; however in particular issue “Y,” it might better be represented by d, e, and f… or even more confusingly, by a, c, and f? And who by the way who decides if it’s “a, c, and f” and oh yeah, by what authority do they decide it and for how long do they get to keep that authority? And so on, and so forth. The “We” camp therefore has an inherently difficult problem: getting everyone organized and unified to the point of crafting effective responses and approaches to one of Life’s big problems. Then reorganizing and reunifying for the next one. It is indeed a tall hill to climb. But with human ingenuity and social skills it can and does work… even, very well! Sometimes at least. Even Donald Trump famously admitted that “Democrats do a better job of the economy.” But, truth be told, the Democrats nevertheless have a hard time selling that point! So, for example, from one perspective the “We’s” may bump up the economy, then they lose an election, the economy keeps doing well for a bit before it craps out, and the cycle continues.

In the USA, a few years after being Democrat for 8 years, Donald Trump took over the Republican party and since then, the through line that this writer has most prominently heard from that camp has been self-focused: me, me, me… in so many words. For instance, “Make America Great Again” translates into “Make it my demographic’s again” [which happens to be my own demographic, as well, not that it matters]. “America First” means exactly what it sounds like –to forget about NATO, forget about global partnerships, etc and be our own island. “Build a wall” is not just a metaphor. And the Don, personally, famously, neither old-school Republican nor old-school Democrat, is an army of one and, all about the Don. And, particularly for a voting demographic that was once in power and then has consistently lost share over a half century, that issue of “the complexity out there is impossible and I’ve only done worse with it, anyway,” is quite a valid and a resonant one.

In contrast to the conceptual clarity of “I,” the USA’s Democratic Party –the party of “We” in my scenario, and, as it happens but not that it matters the party I’ve always affiliated with– can get caught in a conceptual morass and trip over itself: Trying to organize; trying to include the excluded; trying to include everyone; trying to do the right thing –if it can define the right thing, and agree on that definition, and move forward with it– and to save the planet.

So that’s my conceptualization of the state we’re in. I’m personally convinced that we need both the I and the We to solve our various problems across the globe but the mix of how much of each and when and where is not so clean, not so easy… so I guess, by default, since it lacks the clarity of “I,” that’s a “We” kind of stance…

And it seems to me that while Homo sapiens is a conceptual creature meaning we think in pure, Platonic concepts like squares, or chairs, or love, we unfortunately or fortunately live in actual circumstances which are messy, are not black or white they are shades of grey (yes, I’m taking that phrase back because it’s useful and it belongs to everyone), they are imperfect. But the human problem is we don’t realize this about ourselves and then we constantly fight over the discrepancy between the conceptual and the actual, which is why “forgiveness” is the greatest human superpower ever, but I digress….

Then it seems to me, from my everyman –nay, solitary– perspective so obviously obvious that women should be respected and have full access to health care; that our police must be funded and well-trained and supported in their essential (and dangerous) work; that no sovereign nation can exist without a proper border policy; that NATO must get its act together and come unequivocally to Ukraine’s assistance / Putin cannot be allowed to take Eastern Europe (imagine the nightmare if he wins and then has Ukraine, its army, and the momentum? Europe will never be able to stop that); that the Internet cannot remain laissez-faire any longer it needs like the highways and railways and waterways and airways before it some corporate governance; that college is way too expensive; that middle class jobs need to come back; that white collar jobs need to be protected from AI so we all don’t become modern day serfs; that Global Warming must be effectively addressed right now… and so on… and so forth…

But it also seems so obvious as well that some of these conundrums require straightforward solutions from diverse coalitions, some need elegant solutions from a unique perspective, some straightforward from unique and some elegant from diverse… but… similar to Kurtz’s exclamation in The Heart of Darkness “the horror, the horror!” I ask you, dear reader, “the how, the how!” How are we going to do this?