In 1939, a 15-year-old Jewish Berliner, Peter Fröhlich, and his family fled their homeland, fearing the virulent anti-Semitism taking over their country. After a brief stay in Cuba, he arrived safely in the United States in 1941. After becoming an American citizen and changing his name, Peter Gay dedicated his life to understanding the violent aggression that forced him from his home.

In his magisterial work, Cultivating hatredGay writes about how harmless Victorian cultural activities such as German tradition are measure (competitive grimace), normalize violence by creating “alibis” that divert “pugilistic impulses free-floating into socially profitable energies.”

One such alibi is “Convenient Other”. As “an extremely useful alibi for aggression,” the Convenient Other grants “permission to think angry thoughts and commit hostile acts.” These seemingly innocuous alibis, Gay argues, systematized the bellicosity that inspired World Wars I and II. He continues:

The animus was always the same: whether nation, province or city, religion, class or culture – the more one loved his own, the more he was justified in hating the Other.

As it did in 20th century Europe, this lethal combination of diametrically opposed emotions – love for US and hatred towards them— fuels today’s culture war.

As I wrote recentopportunistic politicians often abuse plural pronouns for political purposes. But while some politicians abuse the first person plural pronoun (us and US) to disingenuously construct a collective identity, others use their third-person counterparts (them and them) to divide and conquer.

Few political trends use this love for US and hatred towards them more than populism.

populist They/They

Populism is, at best, a loosely defined term – more impulsive than principled. Its practitioners find solace in both the political left (Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez) and the right (Donald Trump). For better or worse, populism is on the rise internationally, succeeding significant electoral success in dozens of countries.

Populism thrives on an us-versus-them dichotomy. The US it is usually “the people”—the everyday, disempowered people with whom the populist seeks solidarity.

However, the antecedent to them it’s not always clear – and this ambiguity is a feature, not a bug.

A vague third person is a convenient straw man for deceivers. In The secret life of pronounsJames Pennebaker shares findings from a study comparing court transcripts of convicted criminals and those later exonerated of their crimes. Exonerated used multiple first person singular pronouns (I and I). Meanwhile, the “really guilty,” notes Pennebaker, used third-person pronouns (them, them, he, itetc.) more than the exonerated, “trying to shift the blame from themselves to others.”

The imprecision of the populist them/them it allows for flexibility, making it malleable and applicable to an ever-changing range of targets. Researchers at Germany’s Friedrich Schiller University in Jena up close EXAMINATION the use of pronouns in populist rhetoric. According to their study, populists prefer impersonal pronouns such as themto avoid specificity, absolve responsibility and reduce complexity.

Traditionally, this reductionist worldview is pitted against a rich and powerful “elite”—greedy corporations exploiting the poor on the left and a globalist cabal undermining cultural homogeneity and national sovereignty on the right.

However, populism also has its sights set on other groups – and few are better at hitting these moving targets than Donald Trump.

“They’ll Never Make America Great Again”

On June 16, 2015, Trump iconically descended the escalators of his tower to announce his presidential ambitions. For nearly an hour, then-candidate Trump did what he does best: scapegoat. With armed nostalgia, he lamented that we were once a great nation, but now “The American Dream is dead.”

Who Killed the American Dream? As always, Trump had some doubters.

According to Trump, foreigners, especially those from Mexico, were likely to blame (emphasis added):

When Mexico sends its people, they are I don’t send the best. They are I’m not sending you. They are I’m not sending you. They are sending people who have many problems and they are bringing those problems with us. They are bringing drugs. They are bringing the crime. They are the rapists. And some, I suppose, are good people.

“They he will never make America great again,” Trump concluded.

During this 45-minute address, Trump used the word them 158 times. Comparatively, Trump’s next most used pronouns were you (73 times), it (57) and I (55).

Trump’s repeated tirades against immigrants infamously resurfaced during the most recent debate. Citing the now debunked story of Haitian immigrants eating pets in Ohio, Trump shouted:

They are eating dogs The people who entered they are eating cats They are eating pets.

Trump’s bold claim about Haitians eating pets was demonstrably false, but that hasn’t stopped him from fanning the flames of moral outrage against other marginalized groups.

Trump’s campaign threw millions away attack ads with not so subtle transphobia. One ad proclaimed, “Kamala’s agenda is them/themnot you” – an obvious wagging of his moralistic finger at the transgender and nonbinary communities.

In the final days of the election, Trump leaned into this divisive rhetoric, setting his sights on another amorphous target: the “deep state.” “These are bad people,” the former president said said when referring to his political opponents. “We you have many bad people…They they are, for me, the enemy from within”.

Trump is ambiguous they/them it can scapegoat and dehumanize multiple targets—the “deep state,” the LGBTQ community, immigrants, etc. Despite this ambiguity, Trump sends a clear message: They they are the ones who are destroying our country and us it has to stop them at any cost. Trump’s use of pronouns is at best an electoral tactic and at worst a virulent dog whistle.

But Trump didn’t invent this us-versus-them mentality. (Although, given the opportunity, he would probably take credit for it.) Instead, populist pronouns tap into humanity’s worst tribal impulses and nativist instincts.

They i am Us

If populism is so dangerous, why is it so appealing? This question does not have an easy answer. However, research suggests that human beings arrive at the us-versus-them dichotomy quite naturally.

The us vs. her view once served a vital evolutionary purpose. Skepticism towards the unknown is a natural defense mechanism. If pre-modern humans had continually stopped and considered whether that thing over there that gave them the stink eye was a predator, humanity would have been extinct a long time ago.

Our body’s natural chemistry also forces this binary thinking. Oxytocin – also known as the “love hormone” – is a natural human hormone that simulates uterine contractions during childbirth, enhancing our feelings of human connection. However, oxytocin intensifies us the suspicions of others. This hormonal cocktail of antithetical emotions — again, love for US and hatred towards them— literally run through our veins.

Moreover, the human brain also rewards this contradictory behavior. Researchers at Virginia Commonwealth University studied the brain activity of students competing with other students from rival schools. They found that students demonstrating aggression against their rivals showed significant activity in the nucleus accumbens and ventromedial prefrontal cortex, the brain’s central reward circuit. This research suggests that this neural pathway – which anticipates, seeks and evaluates stimuli – plays a “significant role in motivating aggression” towards out-group members.

Although social animals, humans are tragically hardwired for the antisocial binaries that propel today’s toxic political culture.

So before you condemn a convenient whipping boy (neither Haitian nor Trump), a little self-reflection will go a long way. Understanding the driving forces behind the us-and-them paradox—whether it’s manipulative pronouns or human biology—starts with looking in the mirror to find the real enemy within.

Although Adolf Hitler led his family to flee Germany, Peter Gay also recognized that an aggressive population—or, in the words of Daniel Goldhagen, “Hitler’s willing executioners“—allowed and empowered the tyrant. “Hysteria defied self-control,” writes Gay. “Obsessional neurosis imitated it.”

In this us-versus-them world, we have met the enemy—and them i am US.