FREE NEWSLETTER
THERE ARE CERTAIN expressions I’ve heard during my lifetime which, for one reason or another, have stayed with me. In a previous article, I related how a coworker encouraged me to “keep on keeping on” when confronted with a challenge, and how Napoleon Hill’s expression “burning desire” struck me as a great way to describe a goal worth seeking.
Here’s another expression I’ve never forgotten: “The other side sucks.”
I’ve been a race car fan ever since my older brother introduced me to automobile racing in my youth. I especially enjoy Formula One racing. These international racing events gather the best of the best—mechanics, engineers, drivers and the sponsors who pay for it all.
One of the Formula One race tracks I’ve visited is in Watkins Glen, New York. In the 1960s, Watkins Glen was the only race track that hosted a Formula One race in America. There were others in the years that followed but, at the time, Watkins Glen was the only one.
The racing community that sponsored the event, along with the owners of the racing teams, were sophisticated. The same couldn’t be said of the fans at Watkins Glen, who weren’t necessarily from society’s upper crust.
One area of the Watkins Glen track was known as “the bog.” It was a valley within the racing grounds that would become muddy following rain storms. This area became a gathering place for fans, who took great joy in directing late arrivals to this muddy area, especially after it was dark. Upon entering the bog, many cars would get stuck. Amid the resulting melee, cars would often be damaged. This led to Formula One’s sanctioning body to stop holding races at “the Glen.”
On one particular night at the bog, two separate and distinct groups formed on each side of the valley. One side began to chant, “The other side sucks.” That, in turn, caused the other side to repeat the chant, which was both funny and meaningless, since both sides were a muddy mess and neither group could truly evaluate the other side.
Since that time, I’ve become aware of other groups who have become organized in one fashion or another into two separate groups. Each side will decide the other side is deficient, wrong, stupid or missing some key piece of information.
These groups could be based on politics (Democrats/Republicans), religion (Christians/Jews/Muslims/Hindus), skin color (black/white), economic status (rich/poor), labor (union/management), sports (Yankees/Red Sox) and even investment strategy (indexing/active management).
To me, the funny thing is that, if we’re so inclined, we can set up walls to divide us from any group we choose. But why bother? What difference does it make? We’re all human. We’re all made about the same. We all have differences, but we also all have similarities. Why do our differences overpower our similarities?
The other side will always suck—if that’s what we choose to believe. But we don’t have to.
Ah, The BOG at the Glen. That brought back great memories. Would camp for F1 races there in the late 70s. Remember a tour bus getting stuck there and never used again ….
In some respects, Us vs. Them comes down to tribes and trust. All across America, in my view, our tribal affiliation is strengthening and out trust in institutions is falling. It’s one thing if you are shouting across a fence, but if you are making important health decisions aiming to be consistent with your tribe, for all the reasons that makes you feel good, you may be making a huge mistake. I grew up in Oregon but now live and went through the pandemic in Alabama where taking the jab wasn’t real popular to say the least. Recently, I did some back of the envelope math to see the cost paid by many Alabamians for not trusting their public health officials. About 72% of Oregonians got both jabs in 2021, vs about 52% of Alabamians (third worst of the states). The death rate from Covid was less than half in Oregon vs. Alabama. I calculated, and these are approximate numbers, that Alabama experienced at least 5,000 unnecessary/excess deaths from Covid compared to Oregon if only the great state of Alabama could have matched Oregon’s vaccination rate. In a world awash in misinformation, our need to think critically is more important than ever.
There are too many confounding variables, such as the relative average age and health status of the two states’ populations, for your “back of the envelope math” to be meaningful.
Not to argue your point, but how do you know deaths were from COVID? In Virginia, every death was either caused by Covid or was a contributing factor due to increased funds given by the Government. We even had a case where a person who had Covid was hit by a car and Covid was a contributing factor!
I’m in no way downplaying Covid, but have a hard time with the numbers of deaths related to it. When the Government incentivizes the reporting, they usually get what they paid for.
Out of all of these, sports are far and away the most important, of course. Anyone who is a fan on the other side of my favorite NFL, MLB, or college team truly does suck!
I think most voters on the left and on the right have more in common with each other than they do with politicians and pundits. Most of the divisive and angry rhetoric comes from the fringes. I used to say that I’m a “60-40 guy”, meaning that when casting my vote, I could see pros and cons with each choice. (The numbers which resemble a familiar asset allocation ratio, are arbitrary.) This made it easier for me to accept the results. While I can understand why many feel strongly that someone should not be president, it is presumptuous and inaccurate to declare that all those who voted for him are flawed, or worse. All choices involve tradeoffs, and good people can weigh those tradeoffs differently. I agree with your conclusion David.
yes, the attitude of “the other side sucks” has became prevalent for the last few years now. i don’t know whatever happens to that jeffersonian-madisonian compromise that I have learnt. will we ever get back to that ?
In general, that’s a great attitude, but there are cases in which the other side truly does suck and pretending otherwise can lead to disaster.
Right on Dave. Last year I read a biography of one of my favorite presidents. I really enjoyed it and decided to read more presidential bios. Starting with Obama and going backwards I just finished Reagan. This has helped me with my other side sucks problem as I’ve not only been able to find admirable traits in the presidents but have also been able to better understand their thought processes. Further, as a union guy and a business owner I understand just how much both sides need each other. Two major problems today are bias confirmation and the endless (political) campaign; perhaps good subjects for future HD essays.
My first reading goal upon retirement was to read an (auto)biography of all the presidents. Since I was not sure I would stick with it decided I would read about each of the presidents during my lifetime so started with Obama and read reverse chronologically.
Did something unusual I suspect though. Skipped Ford to read Nixon first so I could read how Ford handled post resignation period, and skipped Johnson handled post assassination period. Then read Washington and continued chronologically.
Don’t forget to read Hamilton as he significantly affected all the founding fathers.
Reading the biographies is a great way to relearn our country’s history especially since you reread it with each successive president.
I don’t like politicians per se, but politics, as it is essentially the interaction of personalities and peoples’ opinions on what is best for the country.
Re: Johnson’s biography – Caro is 87 or 88 years old and still hasn’t finished the final volume that he’s been working on since his forth volume in 2012! He is thorough, but 11 years of writing dealing with Johnson’s last 11 years of life is ridiculous.