“If you are not with us, you are against us,” said President George W. Bush following the 9/11 attacks. Was that the beginning of our world’s extreme polarization? But this saying goes back to Biblical times. Check out Matthew 12:30 for similar wording, or Luke 11:23 for “He who is not with Me is against Me.” Why is such an enlightened man of peace, Jesus Christ, attributed with the original of this statement? Did he mean to sow discord rather than peace?
You could argue that the constant wars we have had since time immemorial—until the nuclear destruction of WWII scared us into a half-century pause—were caused by that inflammatory statement that placed humanity on opposing ends with a protagonist and an antagonist.
The atom bomb, despite its destructive ability, brought about that “half-century pause” in the form of an awareness: pursuing a zero-sum game against the other guy who is “not with us” will ultimately lead to no one being around to enjoy the gifts of the planet. Instead of more destruction, it brought about detente. Conquest, or annexation, was outlawed. On the heels of this peace, human rights enablement and rules-based institutions flourished. “Live and let live” advanced, not seen since the Pax Romana of the 1st – 2nd centuries and the Pax Mongolica of the 14th – 15th centuries. Colonial empires unravelled with former colonies receiving independence. International trade expanded under the Most Favoured Nation principle, and barriers like the Berlin Wall and the Soviet Union fell.
During this “Long Peace” period, citizens, especially in liberated and enlightened nations, could reside on opposite sides of the political, religious, or cultural spectra and agree to disagree with each other. Ironically, disagreement and debate were now encouraged, like in Ancient Greece; they demonstrated the signs of a healthy nation. However, in such disagreements, respect for the Other was expected and offered. Nascent communications technology partly helped us here (only Internet 1.0—i.e. websites—was available around 9/11, and social media was a mere gleam in the eye of a teenager who couldn’t get a date at the time) because we did not know how badly the other half felt about us, neither did we have the means to reach out and stick it to our opponent; and this inability was bliss, we thought.
But all the while, two monsters were coming of age. The first, the Corporation, gradually gathering rights over the last two centuries, parachuted into the spotlight with the Supreme Court in the USA’s 5-4 First Amendment decision in 2010 that extended to corporations full rights to spend money as they wished in political candidate elections — federal, state, and local. Other countries quickly followed Big Brother’s example. Greed swung into full gear, and politicians helped their business “sponsors” rake it in, causing huge disparities in wealth. We were back to the conditions of yore that led to wars, and the “Long Peace” was over. Social media had also come of age by then, and dissatisfaction and frustration, even of the vitriolic kind, could be hurled in the faces of the Other from the safety of one’s computer or smartphone. Decorum went out the window, the Attack Ad reigned supreme, and Politics became Entertainment.
The second monster was the Autocrat, who fed on the shortcomings of the Long Peace, who exploited the uneven distribution of spoils brought about by the mighty Corporation, and who used the reach of increasingly invasive social media to subvert the minds of the gullible masses.
And when the dysfunction of this new period was manifested in all its facets in the most powerful ruler in the world, the world lost its anchor, and those with an established sense of morality were cast adrift. The “city on the hill” we all aspired to morphed into a gong show, and its cast-iron Constitution became “flexible.” The rules-based order collapsed, we were back to dog-eat-dog trading based on “Might is Right,” and all this was taking place against an increasingly militarizing world where the power blocks splintered from two to five (or are there more, depending on whoever has a nuke?), with those stuck in the middle having to align themselves with one or more of the dominant players.
Nothing has blown up yet on the nuclear front, but we are pretty damn close, because those holding access to the Red Button are no more enlightened than Nero of Rome. And “If you are not with us, you are against us” has now returned to its pre-1945 implications of mass destruction, albeit with better and deadlier arms technology.
Can we dial this back by erasing this inflammatory statement recorded in the Gospels that started it all, and which is being echoed by political leaders whenever they are in a tight spot and need to rouse the rabble? Or could we neutralize its meaning by contextualizing it? Is the new Pope, with his strong message of World Peace (“No more wars!”), elected for just that purpose? Perhaps Leo XIV too sees the damning consequences of what could happen when we take biblical texts literally or use them for unintended purposes.
Perhaps someone needs to clarify that the statement meant: “Neutrality is not an option in times of crisis, that active participation and commitment are required to steer everyone in the same direction to a safe and peaceful shore. Rowing in the opposite direction at this juncture will only keep us rooted to the same spot, even send us backwards, by countervailing force.”
