This week the University of Texas Longhorns baseball team is in the college world series against LSU. I have had some interesting conversations with fans of Texas A&M who refuse to pull for the Longhorns despite the fact Texas A&M and UT are in the same conference. These Aggies argue that they are always “against” anything that has to do with UT.
I started to think more about this mentality that we are developing of “them” versus “us.” We seem to have a growing intolerance of those we consider not to be “us.” And it seems who we define as “us” is getting more narrow and more extreme.
Here is what I mean: in policymaking it used to be that Republicans and Democrats would debate, argue and reach some type of compromise. In business, firms would compete in many markets but would also co-operate with each other in other settings.
But we see this less and less now it seems. Democrats refuse to consult Republicans in the drafting of legislation. Republican talk show hosts wish for the collapse of the economy simply because the Democrats are in power. Management sees it as their responsibility to destroy the competition at every turn.
And the behavior doesn’t seem to end with these broad definitions. Within the Republican Party we see Rush Limbaugh and Dick Cheney seeking to kick people like Colin Powell out of the party because they see Powell as not a “true” Republican. It seems only the true-believers; those who don’t question the elite are welcome in the Republican Party today.
So too it seems with the Democrats. Anyone who dares to question the rising level of government debt is shunned into the intellectual corner as “not understanding” the current economic situation. Even the President claims there was “no disagreement” among economists that his stimulus package was needed.
Really?
So disagreeing with those you support or agreeing with and working with those on the other side is no longer “allowed?” That seems to be the accepted behavior.
So what happens is Conservative Christian Republicans only talk to other Conservative Christian Republicans. Progressive Well Educated Democrats only hang out with other Progressive Well Educated Democrats. As a result the Conservatives become more conservative and the Progressives become more liberal.
This is dangerous.
We learn from people who are different from us and think differently than us. By talking to those who think differently than we do we broaden our insight and sometimes we even change our minds.
Think about this: Ronald Reagan started off as a Democrat in the 1940s. He didn’t talk only to Truman Democrats of the time, and as a result his views evolved. That did not mean, however, he simply repeated everything other conservative Republicans said. Reagan and the great conservative intellectual William F. Buckley, Jr. had a nationally covered debate on the issue of the Panama Canal Treaty in 1978. Could you imagine the leaders of the (so-called) conservative movement debating and disagreeing with each other in public today? No, they aren’t that deep. We need another William F. Buckley.
Great leaders don’t tell us what to think, they teach us how to think. This is true in policymaking, in leading businesses and in raising & educating our young.
Maybe college sports really are a window into the rest of our society. What a pity.
All the best,
M. Brandl
Professor Michael Brandl, an economist at the McCombs School of Business at The University of Texas at Austin, discusses current economic issues with his former students and those who might be interested in partaking in the conversation. See his 
16 responses so far
We want to hear from you! To keep discussions on-topic and constructive, comments are moderated for relevance and for abusive or profane language. Please note that it may take some time for your comment to appear.
1 Mark // Jun 23, 2009 at 1:15 pm
What worries me is that each of us doesn’t have to listen to the other side’s point of view anymore let alone find common ground. With the internet as a mainstream source of news and conservative or liberal talk show hosts (O’Reilly, Olbermann) given prime time slots consumers for the first time no longer need to listen to anyone except those whom they completely agree with. This was painfully apparent during our latest economic crisis. Conservatives and Liberals each had their own versions of what caused the economic crisis which they spun for their own advantage. Unfortunately I fear that as a result many of us have completely erroneous and un-objective views on what caused the economic crisis. If so, then how can the public guide our leaders to advance the right economic policies to ensure the crisis never happens again?
2 Michael Brandl // Jun 23, 2009 at 1:43 pm
Mark has hit upon a very important point: where to go for objective analysis and thought? To that point, one of things I have been working on recently is a review of “economics-related” blogs and it has been very frustrating. They are so biased in one direction or the other…just as Mark points out with prime time talk shows.
Where are the Wall Street Week with Louis Rukeyser for the current generation? Or what about Buckley’s Firing Line type of show? Objective analysis of “the week that was” as Rukeyser would always say?
One would think there is a “market” for such a thing?
3 Brandl: The Danger of Us vs. Them // Jun 23, 2009 at 5:19 pm
[...] Updates blog, McCombs economist Michael Brandl writes about the dangers of taking on an “Us vs. Them” mentality, whether in sports, business or politics: We seem to have a growing intolerance of those [...]
4 Mike Greczyn // Jun 24, 2009 at 11:09 am
Time had a great article on Us vs Them in their mid-June issue. The focus is on religion and how in certain times throughout history, religious teachings have encouraged engagement and collaboration with people of other faiths and at other times, they adopt an Us vs Them mentality. I suggest that we are actually at a crossroads where the Us vs Them mentality is fading. Hopefully we will see more collaboration in coming months.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1902851,00.html
5 Brandl: The Danger of Us vs. Them // Jun 24, 2009 at 1:50 pm
[...] Updates blog, McCombs economist Michael Brandl writes about the dangers of taking on an “Us vs. Them” mentality, whether in sports, business or politics: We seem to have a growing intolerance of those [...]
6 Matt // Jun 24, 2009 at 2:15 pm
I don’t find any faults with those who state their opinion along with their position. Buckley and Reagan both wore their ideals with pride. My issue is with those that have ideals but hide their true motivations. Trust. That’s what’s missing.
7 Michael Brandl // Jun 24, 2009 at 3:52 pm
Mike G: I interested- WHY do you think this mentality is fading? I fear just the opposite: I see it growing. What can you point to as evidence that it is fading and what’s the logic as to why it’s happening?
Matt: how true…it seems today that the motivations of many “commentators” today is to win and gain power…then what?
Buckley and Reagan had deep understanding of a variety of issues (Reagan acted as though he didn’t and portrayed himself as someone who took his job lightly…but we now know from his writings this was not true).
Today’s pitiful debate on health care seems to be the Democrats want to please everyone (doctors, lawyers, employees, employers, the unemployed, etc.) and make everyone feel good, while the Republicans just stomp their feet, say NO and have seemingly nothing to offer as an alternative.
Leaders…that’s what we need.
8 DJ Dodson // Jun 24, 2009 at 3:59 pm
Unfortunately, too many characters in the media are paid millions of dollars for wreckless pandering and assault.
It saddens me how even the most intelligent politicians and respectable businesses will try to utilize & appease these self-serving cynics.
Dennis Diderot best described these (my adjectives) pork bellied-hate-mongering-gnostic based superiority-pontifs:
“Their thoughts are their whores.”
.. and their audiences, (my imagery) Pavlovian dogs waiting for:
“a bell & a biscuit.”
Yes Dr. Brandl, your broadcasts of web-posted-analyses are unfunded, but still,
YOU are called to be the swords of both “Louis Rukeyser” and “Neal Young” to so many.
My sincere thanks.
DJ Dodson__MBA-MA -’95__UT-Austin
9 Michael Brandl // Jun 25, 2009 at 9:52 am
Me: a combination of Louis Rukeyser and Neil Young? That may be one of the nicest compliments I have ever been given. Thanks DJ
10 Jason Suggs // Jun 25, 2009 at 12:06 pm
Dr. Brandl,
I, too, find this “us” vs. “them” trend both disturbing and troubling. Our representatives in Washington appear to spend most of their time promoting “their” side of the issue. For the party in the minority, they spend most of their time lampooning the ideas of the majority party while offering no real solutions of their own. The message is often the same, “we don’t know what to offer, but we know it is not that.” Once the tables are flipped and the minority becomes the majority, the new majority party spends their time both deconstructing as much of the previous majority put in place while blindly pushing forward “their” ideas with as little compromise for other views and vantage points as possible.
This is true for both major parties.
In your classes, you always reminded us to look at the incentives, and I believe it is no more prudent than here. The main motivation behind a representative is one thing: reelection. So, they do a little bit here and a little bit there to “help” their district and show a good faith effort. But for the real tough problems that require hard decisions, compromise, sacrifice, and working with others who may have opposing views, these representatives often retreat to the “base” of their particular party’s ideology for fear of betraying the ideals of the party. (We cannot upset the voters, less we lose our elected position!)
The media does a great deal to feed this polar behavior, as the poor excuse for televised “news” in the US has become more infotainment than informative. It saddens me that what gets pawned off as news is nothing more than noise created by two heads with diammetrically opposing views waiting to talk rather than objectively listening. The bell then dings and each participant retreats back to their respective corners, neither more the wiser.
Is America not supposed to be a “melting pot” of cultures, ideas, ideals, values, and beliefs? This trend toward homogeneity and the public bashing of others for having opposing ideas is dangerous. Give and take is healthy and promotes self-growth. The down side is that it is very hard, and people do not like to stray away from their comfort zone.
You are correct that we need true leaders. People who are willing to risk political and career suicide by making the really tough decisions to move the country forward. Unfortunately, what I am seeing currently is more of the same. While I am hopeful with the younger generations, based on some dialogues I see online and with my peers, I worry that we cannot wait that long for leadership.
I have heard before, though I am sure I will not recite it accurately, that there is an inherent difference between eastern and western cultural philosophy. If a generic person from the west sees a homeless person on the street, they think, “what is wrong with them?” A generic eastern person in that same situation says, “what is wrong with us?”
11 Michael Brandl // Jun 26, 2009 at 2:25 pm
Jason-very well said. But let us remain hopeful for the future. Talking about this is the first step in correcting it.
Let us also have the courage to point out this destructive “them” v. “us” when we see it. When we disagree with someone let us not just tell the person why they are wrong, but let’s offer up our own solution. It is easy to destroy someone’s idea, it is much more difficult to come up with our own alternative.
We see this going on right now with the “debate” over health care reform. It seems many people are willing to point out what is wrong, but few offer alternatives, especially alternatives that might be “unpopular.”
But, I believe if we shine the light on this dangerous behavior we will correct it. I am reminded of what an old friend from Pakistan once told me. He said “things here in US are very much like back home. People sit around and complain about how things are and how they work or don’t work. The difference is here in the US after you complain about, you actually go out and do something about it.”
I hope his view of our country is always true.
12 Mike Greczyn // Jul 11, 2009 at 12:30 am
The evidence I would point to is admittedly a bit tenuous at this point, but it lies in more in the political sphere. I can understand why it’s difficult to discern any move towards more collaborati0n and less divisiveness given the current national debates, but what makes me think that things are beginning to change is first and foremost the rejection by the American people of a prime mover of the Us Vs Them mentality: the Bush administration and the GOP status quo.
I think the Presidential election was a pretty clear sign that Americans are fed up with a divisive political landscape. We want our political leaders to work together to solve the very real problems we face, and Democrats ignore that at their peril, just as the GOP ignored it at their own peril and got trounced. If we assume that actual changes in the political class lag the changes demanded by the voting public, then I think there is a good possibility that the Democratic Congress is overshooting in their rush to pass legislation demanded by the left. We have to remember that America is at heart a moderate-right nation. We asked for collaboration, not a Democratic version of the Bush approach. Voters will (or they should) hold Congress’ feet to the fire in the midterm elections. If Democrats keep up the unilateral push, they will start loosing seats. Of course, Republicans also have to come up with something other then “no”.
13 Paul // Jul 12, 2009 at 10:39 am
Having had dinner with the late Mr. Buckley, I doubt he would have agreed with many of these comments–particularly in this era where many of our cherished freedoms rest delicately on a precipice. (Sure, Buckley might have talked to a liberal, but he would not compromise his principles to make policy with Colin Powell or any other liberal.)
It would be hard for a Democrat of today and a Buckley Republican to agree on almost anything, especially since today’s Democrats have become ultimate statists (another Buckley phrase that has been co-opted by a leading author of today).
Buckley loved the United States but more importantly he loved FREEDOM.
A free loving man cannot support the statist’s goals of controlling every element of our lives–whether it is how we throw away our trash (the local statists in San Francisco just created garbage Police last month), what type of light bulb we can use, how many miles per gallon our car must get, or how much money we are allowed to keep from the fruits of our labor. Moreover, Buckley would NEVER have supported the US government controlling major segments of the insurance, banking, housing, and auto industries.
In the end, the current economic crisis will prove the Keynesian school was wrong. No matter how much money we pour into the housing market rat hole, General Motors, AIG, Freddie/Fannie, or how much money the current government allocates on various make work projects it simply won’t matter. However, rest assured the continued adoption of Keynesian economic policies over any prolonged period of time WILL cost us elements of our freedom.
In fact, in many ways we have already become indentured servants to the state via the high levels of confiscatory taxation we already face.
Think about it—in the not too distant future, it is quite conceivable a small business owner could soon face total income tax rates of between 60% and 70%. (39.6% federal tax once tax rates revert back to their Clinton era levels after 2010 + 4% health care surcharge tax if Charlie Rangel gets his way + 2.9% unlimited Medicare tax (already in place) + 12.4% unlimited cap social security tax if Obama gets his way.) By my calculation that adds up to 58.9%, plus state and local income taxes that easily add up to another 8% to 11% particularly if one is domiciled in California, New York, Connecticut, or Massachusetts. And this calculation does not even included sales taxes, property taxes, licensing fees, or other taxes.
Every man is granted only so many days in his life—a fact that is indisputable. Given that our number of days are limited, so are the number of hours man is able to work. Because the ability of man to generate fruit is limited by the available time of his labor, such tax policies by their nature are an anathema to freedom and cannot be supported by any man who loves freedom. (And this is why Buckley always opposed the progressive income tax system.)
Free men should not compromise their freedom to make deals with either Democrats or Republicans—or one day they will wake up and realize they are no longer free.
We would all be better off to re-read F.A. Hayek’s Road to Serfdom or Ludwig von Mises Human Nature or Planning for Freedom.
Brandl might think it is dangerous to limit who we speak to, but I assure you it is MUCH more dangerous to surrender our liberty. Because once our liberty is gone, we won’t have the luxury of determining what we speak about let alone with whom we speak.
14 Vaibhav Goyal // Aug 8, 2009 at 9:17 am
I read this just now. I am so glad I finally got a chance to read it.
Truly excellent article. We as a society have become very narrow minded and we are doing this at our own peril.
15 Charles KN // Aug 9, 2009 at 6:58 pm
Are leaders a reflection of society, or is society a reflection of its leaders?
An unlikely effect of globalization has been the similarity of politicians in different parts of the world. The posturing going on in Washington is similar to what is happening in many other countries. It’s all about the next election.
Unfortunately this behavior is also repeated outside the political realm, which raises the question of whether it is the ‘leaders’ or the society which reflects the other.
It is safe to assume that this blog is frequented by people affiliated with McCombs business school. We all know that while markets may not be perfect, products and services cannot last long without a market for them.
Is is that there is a market for the unilateral behavior being practiced in Washington?
Or is it simply a function of imperfect information?
If it’s the latter, we can hope that with time enough voters will realize what’s going on and use their vote to express their displeasure. Otherwise, we all need to start being more tolerant of opposing views as individuals, and go from there.
16 Navin K // Sep 19, 2009 at 8:24 pm
I believe this is being exacerbated by the media not just in the US but everywhere in the world. Nowadays, it is easy for people to migrate to media channels which agree and espouse their view point.
Leave a Comment