Although it has only two letters, “WE” is a very big word. In our presently polarizing political situation, how in the world can WE even be defined?

The first precedent (and prospective template) that comes to mind is the classic one that seems to have set the compass for our modern political identities:

“We the People of ______________ , in order form a more perfect __________, establish Justice, insure global Tranquility, provide for universal Safety, promote the general Welfare, and secure the ?Blessings? of Liberty (or Equality?, or Environmental Sustainability?)to ourselves and to future generations, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United Countries of Earth.”

This approach has been attempted twice before in the League of Nations and then the United Nations. How’s that working out for us?

Also, let us ask how this prospective model compares to other historical offerings, such as, I don’t know. . . the Communist Manifesto?

Being an American, I am biased toward our Constitutional prototype. While the historical product of that covenant is admittedly stained with many abuses and maladies, it carries, I submit, a better human rights protection record than the other previously mentioned gulag-weighted prototype.

To sum up: Who is “WE”?