by Paul Klemperer

There's an old quote from Walt Kelly's Pogo comic strip: "We have met the enemy and they is us." That truism comes to mind more often the longer I live on this planet, and particularly here in the ol' U.S. of A. In many ways we are a nation built on the "Us vs. Them" mindset. Perhaps that is an inevitable part of social change; people divide along the faultline of change, some looking forward, some looking back. It is also the result of power struggles over land in a nation built on colonialism. Them that has the land want to keep it from them that wants to take it.

Over the centuries, Us vs. Them attitudes have become deeply ingrained in our daily habits. At times it seems only reasonable. When I open a utility bill or stop to put gas in my car, I am part of the Us group of struggling working shmoes being haplessly gang-raped by Them burly corporate gorillas. When I am almost killed driving a mile to the grocery store by some emotionally unstable yuppie in an oversized SUV, I am part of the Us group of laid-back Austinites dodging Them selfish money-grubbing fast-trackers that have bloated our population over the last decade.

So, the Us vs. Them perspective is often accurate and can be useful in organizing an interest group to fight for a beneficial goal. The fight to preserve Austin's green spaces and water quality is one example. The fight to recognize the role of music and the arts in Austin's economy is another example. Both of these examples distinguish an Us group trying to conserve the land and culture from a Them whose developmental agenda will arguably benefit only a small portion of the overall population.

But the Us vs. Them perspective can also be reactionary and short-sighted. This is where Pogo's aphorism becomes important. If we always react to problems and new situations as Us vs. Them, we soon find irritants and enemies everywhere. And, as the psychoanalytic crowd is fond of reminding us, we tend to dislike in others the things we refuse to acknowledge in ourselves.

Take road rage, for example. I think of myself as a basically considerate, friendly driver. Certainly I am not as dangerous as the majority of numbskulls out there on Austin's increasingly clogged roadways. But I have been getting angrier and more impatient along with everyone else as the traffic congestion grows worse. I recently realized that I still clung to the idea that you could drive in this town the same way as you could 10 years ago, and that just isn't true. Nowadays it really is dangerous to drive here, and it takes twice as long to get where you're going. You can blame it on the idiot in front of you, but that person is really more a victim than a perpetrator. I'm not sure what the real solution is, but applying the Us vs. Them attitude and giving in to the subsequent road rage doesn't make the roads safer -- or your blood pressure lower.

Another example, and one which ties in to this month's magazine's theme, is the growth plan and changes in land use for East Austin. The development legacy we have inherited divides East and West with I-35 as the demarcation line. More affluent white Austin insulated itself long ago from lower income black Austin. Historically, the money was hoarded on the West side, entailing a host of Us vs. Them situations. In the 1980s, the University of Texas became a Them when it seemed to want to gobble up residential East Austin for its own ends. Then there were slumlords based in West Austin who showed little interest in increasing the property values on the East Side. City planners and moneyed developers rarely included East Austin in their grand schemes, except as a site for industrial storage and/or dumping.

But in the 1990s the population boom made land in East Austin highly desirable for its proximity to the downtown area. Historically, a low-income area that rises in value has meant gentrification. Poor folks are squeezed out as property values go up. This certainly could be the case again, entailing a number of Us vs. Them scenarios. Will it be white vs. non-white, rich vs. poor, as in the past? Or have we learned enough from past mistakes to begin to break down these divisions?

One positive sign is the increase in small businesses, arts collectives and community-oriented organizations which are basing themselves in East Austin. Traditionally these projects utilize labor, creativity and dedication more than large capital investment. Can they play a significant role in revitalizing East Austin, and will the rest of the city embrace these changes? Will it be a case of the "Us" of community involvement vs. the "Them" of capital-intensive technology, or can Austin break through the divisive Us & Them mentality that plagues so many larger cities? If we can create a new model of cooperative development, it could be an example for other cities across this divided nation.

Meanwhile, would the numbskull in that obese SUV please learn to drive?