The Tyranny of “We” (2026 Update)

(This is an update of the original by the same title, published Feb. 3, 2022.)

From the 1985 hit, “We are the World, We are the Children,” to Martin Luther King’s famous “we as a people will get to the promised land,” the history of “we” is rich with hyperbole and hope. While an invocation of “we” is mostly a positive rhetorical call to action, the truth about “we” in the context of climate change is quite the opposite.

What is true is that “we” can be a divisive word, harmful in ways that work in direct opposition to what the use of “we” suggests. The late Michael Dowd referred to this usage of the word “we” as invoking “The Almighty We.” It’s the “we” of “us and them.” It’s the “we” of “you’re either with us or against us.” It’s the “we” of othering, of diminishing the humanity of a group.

To understand how “we” can be tyrannical, notice that there are five elements working together whenever the almighty “we” is invoked. These are as follows.

• First, there is a cause, issue, goal or objective for which two or more points of view are possible. Many of the typical issues raised today are centered around civil rights, gay rights, abortion, vaccinations, social justice and climate change. In other eras or cultures, slavery, genocide, sexual mutilation and pedophilia might fill the same role.
• Second, there is “we,” who are defined to be the group who are, or should be in the opinion of the writer, like-minded in pursuit of the cause or issue. “We” is the umbrella under which is formed the army that is called to action. “We” are the good guys, the one whose cause is moral and just, the ones who are fighting the good fight.
• Third, there are the others, or “them.” “They” are the enemy, the ones who stand in the way, creating obstacles. They are the conspirators, liars and crooks hiding the truth behind motives like power and greed. They are the lazy idiots and the assholes. They deserve what they get.
• Fourth, a properly rhetorical use of “we” implies a “tactic” or specific proposal on what “we” should do to move towards the objective in the face of the opposition “they” present.
• Fifth and last, there is an assumption that there will be a better world if the tactic is accomplished and the objective is reached. In other words, “we” implies an assurance that there is a promised land.

By using “we” the author has identified a contentious issue, has divided the world into good guys and bad guys, has identified themselves as one of the good guys, has called their army into action and has told them what action to take against the bad guys. Using “we” in this way can be both aggressive and forceful, showing a quest for domination. “We” is a tyrannical group imposing their will on those they seek to subjugate.

First, as a tragically transparent example, consider the following statement made by Donald Trump at his inaugural speech in 2017. The five elements have become self-evident in the face of MAGA’s assault on immigrants and other minority groups.

We must protect our borders from the ravages of other countries making our products, stealing our companies, and destroying our jobs. Protection will lead to great prosperity and strength.

The cause is a better country, free of people who eat their pets, work 14 hour days in the fields, love someone they shouldn’t, or pray to a god other than their own baby Jesus. It’s “we” (white Christian nationalists) against them. The tactic is ICE, masked thugs who are kidnapping “them.” The “better world” is the U.S. without “them.” It’s hard to write this paragraph, but it is the clearest example in the present moment of the tyranny of the almighty “we.”

One other note here. “We” also implies that a future is possible. In Trump’s world, that future is a white Christian nation. In the climate context, that future is a world in which the planet sustains our human legacy, one in which civilization continues to grow, one that doesn’t become increasingly uninhabitable. “We” are engaging the tactic for our children, our grandchildren and generations beyond.

Consider this quote made by Senator Bernie Sanders (see this video),

If we don’t act boldly, then the world we are going to leave our children and our grandchildren will be increasingly unhealthy and uninhabitable. We have a moral responsibility to make sure that does not happen.

In this quote, the “issue” is climate change and the importance of limiting its impacts. “We” are those in his populist political base as well as certain climate activists, politicians and environmentalists. “They” are fossil fuel companies, greedy billionaires, lobbyists and the political machinery that keeps oil money flowing. The tactic is to “act boldly” with “moral responsibility” (whatever that means). The promised land? It is a better world for our children and grandchildren, or at the very least, a survivable planet with the legacy of human civilization left intact. Sander’s ecotopia is his hope porn.

It turns out that Sander’s model is typical for climate change activists.

“We” are the visionaries, the eco-modernists, the sustainable transition advocates, the alternative energy specialists, the green socialists, the techno-optimists and the people who believe that all we need to do is learn how to communicate the issues better.

“They” are the corporations, the politicans, the billionaires, the industries, the climate deniers. They are those who are not vegans, or don’t recycle, or do use AI, or don’t have rooftop solar with battery backup, or don’t own an EV, or wear leather, or use plastic bags, or eat fast food, or have gas appliances. And for many climate communicators, including Michael Mann, Katharine Hayhoe and Genevieve Guenther they are also those who practice “doomism.”

The “better world” is a world with humans still in it, preferably with global industrial civilization surviving in some form, where the moral arc of the universe has finally bent far enough so that the roads are filled with EVs, the air is clean, plastic no longer pervades every living organism, we aren’t farming animals for slaughter, people can love whomever they want, and the sixth great extinction never happened.

And the tactic? Honestly, I have no idea. Tactics might work for individual problems, but predicaments only have outcomes.

As you read posts, essays or books, or as you listen or watch climate change conversations on social media or elsewhere, start watching for the almighty “we.” It has become a ubiquitous rhetorical tool.

Here are some of the creatures in the “We Zoo” to look out for. If you see any of these from any author, then beware! Warning! Watch out! There’s tyranny ahead!

• we have to
• we need to
• we must
• until we
• unless we
• if we don’t

I leave you with these to ponder:

We must stop competing with each other. We need to start cooperating and sharing the remaining resources of this planet in a fair way. —Ayana Elizabeth Johnson, All We Can Save, (2020)

We have to replace the old ways of doing things – there are alternatives. This is possible and we have to do it, because science tells us we can’t continue business as usual. —Dr. James Edward Hansen, The Guardian, (2021)

We need to accomplish something gigantic we have never done before, much faster than we have ever done anything similar. —Bill Gates, How to Avoid A Climate Disaster, (2021)

We can’t change the world by ourselves. We have to do it together, and that requires us to connect. Talk about why climate change matters, in ways that resonate with what we each care about most. —Katharine Hayhoe, Saving Us, (2021)

We all need to do our bit – but it is only if the really big emitters make quick changes that things will start to turn around. —Bill McGuire, Hothouse Earth, (2022)

If we are going to meet the greenhouse gas targets we so urgently need to hit, we must set clear, near-term dates by which certain things simply cannot be done anymore. —Zeke Hausfather, The Climate Book (2022)

The time for debating is over. We need to move past it to the question of what we’re going to do about it. —Hannah Ritchie, Not the End of the World, (2024)

We have now finished this essay.