We Have Met the Enemy. . .

. . .and they are. . .essential to our existence.

Yes, I have repurposed a famous quote from the “Hero of Lake Erie,” a War of 1812 naval commander, Commodore Oliver Hazard Perry (“We have met the enemy and they are ours. . .”), which had been previously coopted by cartoonist Walt Kelly, in his Pogo comic strip (“We have met the enemy and he is us.”), in a satirical poke at the role humans play in pollution, in order to posit the theory that enemies are a critical element of everyday life; without them, people, and businesses and countries lack a reason to attempt to succeed.

Before we engage in this academic exercise, however, can we turn our attention to the “elephant in the room?” I’m referring, of course, to Perry’s middle name, “Hazard” - that is about the best middle name ever, perhaps just behind, “Milhous.” As far as I know, Matt Groening hasn’t branded one of The Simpsons characters “Hazard,” as he did “Milhous,” but he should.

I’ve been bingeing a podcast lately, by the name of Business Wars. The podcast, which typically features six or seven, roughly thirty-minute episodes for each installment, has recounted historical business battles between such well-known combatants as: “Netflix vs. Blockbuster,” “Coke vs. Pepsi” and “Hearst vs. Pulitzer.” Also featured have been series highlighting “WWF vs. WCW” (a natural topic for a podcast focused on battles between business competitors, given the pugilistic nature of each company’s offerings), “Hasbro vs. Mattel” (an apparent unfair fight pitting G.I. Joe against Barbie - you know Barbie would clean G.I. Joe’s clock every single time) and “Red Bull vs. Monster” (fueled by energy drinks, that battle is likely to continue forever).

This series caused me to consider the nature of business success strategies, and, more broadly, the key factors involved in driving both organizational and individual achievement. And, you know what I believe? I think each of us, individually and collectively, needs someone or something to despise, someone wearing a black hat, on the other side of the line, in order to energize us to succeed (we’re the guy wearing the white hat in this scenario, in case I wasn’t clear).

Those of you who are old enough to remember Mad magazine, which enjoyed its heyday in the early 1970’s, will recall a recurring feature, entitled, “Spy vs. Spy,” a wordless comic strip, in which long-beaked characters (one all white, the other all black) duked it out in the quest for world domination. Each spy needs the other to maintain focus on winning.

Although the graphic atop this column reflects a more elegant chess set than the ones you and I have probably utilized, most of them feature a white set of chess pieces, and a corresponding black set. The goal of the game of chess is to annihilate all of the opposing team’s chess pieces, and to end the game with, at minimum, one’s king left standing. Checkers is a whole different animal, whose pieces are typically black and red - the goal is to obliterate the opponent’s entire squad, however, so perhaps it’s not all that different.

Speaking of games, think about classic board games you’ve played. Some of these games include: “Monopoly,” “Scrabble,” “Sorry,” “Trouble,” “Trivial Pursuit,” “Clue,” “Candy Land,” “Risk,” “Battleship,” “Life,” “Pictionary,” “Operation,” and “Mouse Trap.” What’s the goal of each and every one of these games? That’s right, beating the other guy. You may properly point out that playing a card game of “Solitaire” doesn’t involve quashing the competition - winning involves only you. The other anomaly I can surface is “Twister” - the game rules indicate that if a player’s knee or elbow lands on the mat, or if a player falls over, that player is out of the game, but, let’s be honest, Twister was created to smash people together in compromising positions (one competitor, when it was introduced, called it, “sex in a box”), much like the craze of attempting to scrunch as many people as possible into a Volkswagen Beetle. What can I say, it was the ‘60’s, man!

And of course, there is the card game, “War” - the goal of that game is pretty much summed up in its name.

Actual war, of course, requires enemies as well. Commodore Oliver Hazard Perry could not have become known as the “Hero of Lake Erie” without having had a foe to vanquish. That foe was Great Britain, in the event you were sick that day when the War of 1812 was discussed in school. The British have been punishing us ever since, inflicting upon us such scourges as: warm beer, roundabouts and Prince Harry.

Old Westerns, crafted in the 1930’s, 1940’s and 1950’s, also usually featured protagonists and antagonists (although, in fairness, I’m finding it difficult to picture John Wayne calling out a bad guy with, “Alright, antagonist, reach for the sky!”) sporting black and white hats (mostly because television and movies were still largely produced in black and white, so, if they were wearing different-colored hats, who would know?); confronting one’s enemy, who was flying the other team’s colors (you know, black or white), would make them see red (although the film or TV show was unable to capture that dynamic at that point in time), and their adrenaline would shoot skyward, and propel them into action.

Even close family members are positioned, in some instances, as enemies. Think about the Civil War, in which brothers were literally pitted against each other on a battlefield. And, the phrase, “sibling rivalry” is a real thing; I love my brothers and my sister deeply, but, the gloves came off when we played Monopoly. The recently-deceased Tom Smothers, of Smothers Brothers fame, always chided his brother, Dick, with, “Mom always liked you best.” Even in a household, enemies are necessary to fuel daily efforts.

What instances can we envision in which competitors might be unwilling to attack their enemies? Perhaps Mahatma Gandhi, or Mr. Rogers or Albert Schweitzer would be inclined to seek success without directly engaging their enemies. Although, it sure would be entertaining to witness a wrestling cage match between Gandhi and Mr. Rogers, no?

And, don’t believe for a moment that Rule of Three is immune to this enemy-driven energy. We’re gunning for you, Good Humor, Dry Humor Me and Situation Normal, and the thousands of other humor columns hosted on Substack; having enemies to battle keeps us focused and energized.

So, our advice to you is to identify an enemy, and develop strategies to beat that enemy to a pulp (we’re speaking figuratively here; Rule of Three does not condone violence, primarily because we’re not equipped to do a stretch in the federal penitentiary).

I’m not sure if you’re able to subscribe to Rule of Three while ensconced in the federal penitentiary, so, just to be on the safe side, subscribe now - also, it's free, man!