There’s a lot of talk about the use of preferred pronouns and the need to use them to better represent our personal identity or rather redefine the idea of a personal pronoun as an ego projection in language. There is a lot to write about there. But this article is not about the grammatical distortion of personal pronouns to preferred pronouns, rather this article examines the pronouns that can be used to describe the concept of “people” and understand that there is just one real pronoun for the People. But let’s begin with a simple observation:
- The use of the word “people” requires the use of a plural pronoun: we, you or they.
Understanding these plural pronouns as the preferred placeholders for “people” can reveal a great deal about a political ideology or political system and even reveal one’s own predisposition to humility or arrogance. In some way, all systems that claim legitimacy in the name of the people and ostensibly use democratic aspirations must be analyzed under the choice of pronouns used to refer to the People. But often what is intended in politics is hidden. To unhide the ulterior motives of government there are a couple of important observations here as well:
- The preferred pronoun a government intends to use when referring to the people defines its institutional self-perception (let’s assume such a thing exists) and is a correlate of the individual ego. So, ego is to person as government is to people.
- Similarly, the above also expresses the relation between subject and object: people and government. In this case, the object will tend to transcend the subject.
Let’s examine what is meant by institutionalism and subject-object relation by examining the three pronouns that may refer to the people.
We the People
Let’s start off with the we that we, the People all know. The We the People of our own American heritage. It is distinct and uniquely focused on the We. To be honest, that We moment may really have been short-lived or rather lasted as long as we could take up and move away from the unwanted projections of government. This institutionalization debate or discussion on government projection culminated in the Constitutional Convention of 1787. There was much concern regarding the institutional character of the American central government and that the debate gave us our Bill of Rights. A way to assure that the We of that Constitution’s Preamble was sufficiently protected. Incidentally, this article is published with reference to the birthday of our Constitution: Sept. 17.
There’s an awful lot that flows from this grammatical notion of the preferred pronoun for the people. But being anchored in a solid understanding of the We to which our nation is tied to helps us understand our own identity and pronoun.
In really preserving the We of We the People, the representatives of government have to remain really tied to an immoveable identity to a geographically bound constituency. The representative must somehow mix the un-institutional We with the institution of government that it wants to project. There’s a natural humility and apology necessary for any representative that presumes the ability to represent the electorate. Subjectivity and Objectivity are closely aligned and freedom preserved in the aspiration to safeguard community in the most subsidiary sense. Freedom emanates in a real fashion from this We. But the “me” of the elected representative of We the People tends to corruption and the entire experiment of limited government becomes a convoluted system to prevent the loss of the We in government with some kind of neo-royal We. presumed by a ruling class
You, the People
In American history, the We the People rather quickly gave way to the notion that there was an object-subject relationship between the people and the government. There were two entities at the negotiating table and each referring to each other a you without the royal we. The relationship is more contractual. If we had to have a government, then it would be bound and defined by rules that would define its projection or objectivity. The pronouns you began synchronously with the We. In a sense, most democracies really reside here. We elect the officials to negotiate with the you in Washington, D.C. understanding the pragmatism that this objective relation to the government of the people requires and so there is an unintended transcendence of the institutions that are meant to represent We the people. with the You (looking at each other) despite the tendency of government to become haughty in its reference to you the people.
They, the People
This is a fully institutionalized and antagonistic reference and a pronoun which separates the people fully from government. This division between the governed and the government in terms of preferred pronouns is a predicament. If it becomes organic, meaning that a plurality of the agencies and branches of government are imbued with this elitist notion of “they the people” are somehow inferior to “we the government”, then we are no longer sitting at the negotiating table but are being dictated to by an entity that presumes a transcendent purpose to govern or at least retain the blessing of governance to themselves. These different representations of the pronouns used to refer to the governed is not a linear and evolutionary reality, but it is circular. These come and go with time and there is a rotational paradox in that revolutions that topple always do so in the name of the people; more sins have been committed against the people in the name of the people. But there is the American exception. We earnestly are trying to keep the we in government. Or we’d like that. Power is the fuel for this political transcendence of the they and all governing institutions are fueled by this desire to refer to the people in their most subjective state. They hate all other pronouns. Or perhaps there is yet another stage to consider that will yield the ultimate objectification of government.
It The Planet
To understand how we progress from We the People to it the planet, as the ultimate representation of the division between subject and object, I refer to the conceptual diagram published in Klaus Schwab’s publication of the World Economic Forum Stakeholder Capitalism.
See: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/01/klaus-schwab-on-what-is-stakeholder-capitalism-history-relevance/
Like all conceptual diagrams, they seem harmless and even appealing. If you know people that thrive on conceptual diagrams and are masters at producing them on PowerPoint, more practical people dismiss them because the conceptual diagram can never really contain the concept. But as ambiguous as they can be they are, they are useful. This particular one should be examined because not only is it rather weak and insidious but it gives an indication of where a global governing Constitution may understand We the People.
Central to this concept which may be inherent in global governance are two ideas: Planet and People. They are placed together at the subjective center of all inviting the question: Is the planet for the People or are the people for the Planet. It’s very hard to try to reconcile what is meant here. Because at the periphery of the core is a concept of “Civil Society”. Civil Society or ostensibly a democratic ruse that promises representation solely through personal interest or identity institutions of civil society essentially imprison the idea of People from the center of Schwab’s diagram and places them in a peripheral prison. The people no longer exist except as represented by some group in civil society, presumably a non-government organization fully coopted by the government. So, the People are sacrificed and subsumed into civil society and all that really remains is planet. And if planet is at the core of this model of Stakeholder Capitalism, then recall the first observation: the preferred pronoun for the People must be plural. But it we substitute the pronoun “planet” for people, it is singular. The “they” of government have succeeded in making the people an “it”; a fully subjected entity that can be governed fully by an entity in the name of the planet. Now this is lebensraum* taken to its furthest extent. The planet exists for the government institutions to govern.
Our relationship with the planet is not neutral. The pronouns shift in this vision of the people, a paradigm shift. It is impossible to conceive that the planet and the People are in perfect equilibrium as the conceptual model nicely displays. These pronouns experience grave grammatical stress. If we understand here that planet is actually the preferred pronoun replacing the People for the globalist, then we understand the ideological goals for which they strive: saving the planet at the expense of the people. This is not hyperbole. It is referenced and real. You see it in the Green New Deal; in the Paris Agreement of 2015; in the UN Climate Conferences; in the WEF. The planet is not for the people. The people are a malleable entity given a charter in civil society. Their rights are granted by the government under their benevolent watch in order to assure the good of the planet; rock. The flesh heart is replaced by the stony heart.
Listen and Learn:
Our system must adhere and never waiver from the We of our original intent. If we are firmly rooted in the soil to which we belong, then the earth becomes our sovereign right; freedom becomes something inherent in our common constituency at the subsidiary level. We are sovereign upon the earth and the planet is ours. The earth, the mud and soil and all it produces is ours as is its beauty. The planet passes under our feet. I propose an alternative to Mr. Klaus’ diagram. Let all Constitutional loving Americans celebrate the Constitution this Constitution Day, now 235 years old, and understand that globalism represents a tyranny that is not tenable. Let us propose rather the diagram below as more true.
It is important to understand the dichotomy of the two conceptual models and the table below illustrates that dichotomy and why they are vital to combat the dangers of globalism. There is not just one model of stakeholder capitalism. We must always remember there is no reason to accept that there is one course where we are all inevitably going. This is a Marxist notion of dialectics or rather the manifest of a history they have a compulsion to write (rather than letting the Author of history write it which He will). There should always be a reasonable plurality of choices. Or at least, we should aspire to systems that allow for such a plurality of choices to be available. The conceptual model above allows additional and necessary interstitial motion (wiggle room in the matrix) that free societies must assure even at the expense of central power and the narrative of the planet and climate change. There is no need to fear if you adhere to the alternative model.
| Schwab’s Model | Tavern Model | Explanation |
| Planet | Property | The notion of planet is too ambivalent and is open to political narratives. Property personalizes the part of the planet that we all have a right to. own Owning a piece of the planet makes us real stakeholders in the literal sense of planting stakes into the soil. Private property is an absolute requisite. |
| Companies | Free-enterprise | The use of the term companies is quite odd. Companies never have the best interest of the person and in fact often conspire to remove individual identity and property from the equation. Companies tend toward monopolies. Free enterprise assures that the individuals’ talents are paramount and even in the context of a company, free-enterprise means individual initiative and innovation. |
| Countries and states | Free markets | Distribution of wealth or prosperity cannot and should never be a purpose of the state. Assuring equal and free access to markets and assuring that the economic solutions are provided by the market guarantees a basis for redistribution without the political narrative and the basis of commerce and exchange. In a sense it is where people meet and deal and nit just in terms of trade but also ideas. |
| International community | Natural Law | International communities are also rather vague and there are some that are more important. Conceding such a prevalent role to international communities would mean a loss of sovereignty at the expense of national identity. The international community must recognize an objective set of principles based on nature and nature’s God and peace will obviously follow without imposition or loss of sovereignty but with a natural disposition toward the inherent logic of natural law.; the characteristic marvel of the Creator’s reason. |
| Civil Society | Religion (Church) | Civil Society cannot provide purpose. Rather, in the Schwabian model civil society provides a controlling purpose to the state. To assure that purpose is inherent in the individual, a religious disposition to truth, value (Judeo Christian) and family should be promoted. |
We added a quadrant label in Schwab’s diagram to define an additional missing conceptual layer. A dynamic component in the relationship between the quadrants. Without these agents, the model is static. Those 4 unifying principle are as follows:
| Personal | Compassion Prosperity and Purpose | It is incumbent on the individual and informed by religious values, to approach the free market with compassion and understanding for the poor. States cannot regulate this individual responsibility. Rather if the state finds itself involved in defining the relation between the market and religion, then it has extended its political purpose and likely for the sake of power. Compassion is an individual virtue that helps assure equitable prosperity and purpose. |
| Personal | Morality Purpose and Profits | Morality also is an intermediary between religion and free enterprise. There are some economic activities and some innovations or initiatives that simply should not in good conscience be undertaken. Morality can assist in providing a balance and mitigate the desire for profits by providing a fundamental guidance to behavior that rests in religion (and natural law). |
| Institutional | Habitat Profits and Natural Law | The left-hand side of the model or rather morality and compassion are exercised largely by the person. The right-hand side are external concepts and proper to institutional identity. The idea of habitat or perhaps domain is the physical extension of personal property as state and a public good. It includes the environment but includes a concept of dominion over the created order. The understanding that the world where we exercise our economic activities requires understanding of habitat and elevates our conscience. It is a natural result of proper formation to esteem profits and understand their extensive impact on the dominion and utilitarian but retrained.. . |
| Institutional | Culture Natural Law and prosperity | Culture is an externality that results when ideas flourish and are allowed commerce . It is the great cross-pollination of things that when ordered to nature and natural law provide an aesthetic domain. A positive culture expresses prosperity and an extensive common good that attracts all: from large to small. It is the core national identity and promoted by free agents in the domain. |
*Note: Lebensraum was a termed used in Nazi Germany to define the living space that inhered to the Germans. It meant the countries neighboring Germany and the logic extended to imply the world (Deutschland uber alles). The climate change activists seek the same control of the planet and its arguments albeit not nationalistic but progressivist seek the same extension of power to control a lebensraum defined by ecological ideology.