Politics is now a religion. Are you a believer or a heretic?

Fun Facts: Fake News actually dates from the late 19th century, when it was used by newspapers and magazines to boast about their own journalistic standards and attack those of their rivals. The term ‘post-truth politics’ was first coined in 1992.

To add some context, George H. W. Bush was US President. John Major was UK Prime Minister. Twitter was still 14 years away from Foundation. Mark Zuckerberg would have been in elementary school. In fact, what was to become the internet was still embryonic. It was only a few months earlier on 6 August 1991, that Tim Berners-Lee posted a short summary of the World Wide Web project inviting collaborators.

Fake News has been with us since before US President William McKinley was assassinated and the UK Prime Minister, the 3rd Marquess of Salisbury was briefing Queen Victoria.

The reason I share these fun facts with you is that the pandemic and associated lockdown saw me return to social media after a gap of about seven years. It amazed me that social media considered both post truth politics and fake news as new phenomenon. Politicians have been playing to our emotions for as long as I can remember. I have always considered that newspapers using emotional language in headlines to sell newspapers was to be expected.

Though the biggest surprise is how social media users have settled into large groups that act as echo chambers for their own beliefs. These echo chambers are full of emotional outrage, and, where politics is concerned, delight in pointing out fake news, moral turpitude [Note 1], perceived corruption and double standards. When you follow politics on Twitter, you certainly see that emotion in bucket loads; people with unfailing belief that what they say is right and, sadly a paucity of facts. Not that this makes it any less fun. I have to confess to joining in with gusto. After too much coffee and a couple of extra dried frog pills it really helps fill those lockdown hours.

It also throws up some interesting and random reading matter. One that caught my eye was a short piece in the New European saying that the Leave Campaign for the Brexit Referendum turned Brexit into a religion. The research paper is currently embargoed, so I cannot give you the hard work behind the paper, sorry. However, it did resonate. Returning to social media, the behaviours of some when talking politics did seem to replicate a religious zeal in their political belief.

I don’t have many followers on social media and I limit the number I follow, but I do try to follow some that I don’t necessarily agree with politically. It wasn’t long before I found myself asking ‘How can they believe that?’ I quickly found that pointing out facts and supporting statistics to things that I felt were incorrect didn’t change minds, just led to emotional responses and even wilder claims and conspiracies.

That is post truth politics in real life [Note 2]. Post-Truth politics is defined as relating to a situation in which people are more likely to accept an argument based on their emotions and beliefs, rather than one based on facts. This got the old synapses sparking and flying off in their usual tangents and I had to try to answer the tricky question, “why do people believe that?”.

It turns out it was easier to answer than I thought [Note 3]. People accept lies and half-truths as long as they align with their beliefs. An explanation can be found in this Psychology Today article .  It blends nicely with the principles that Steve Tesich used when he coined the phrase post-truth politics in his 1992 essay. We are more likely to believe something if it plays to our pre-existing beliefs and bias.

In my corner of my particular echo-chamber on social media, it is amazing how emotional people become when you point out that something they believe and supports their bias is not supported by facts or peer reviewed research. How they refuse to accept the facts that run counter to their belief. Their unshakeable confidence brought about by their faith in their view. Psychologists have a name for this, Confirmation Bias [Note 4]. I have failed miserably to sway minds and change views, perhaps because of the reasons put forward by Christopher Dwyer, again in Psychology Today.  We all love to be right and hate to be wrong, but we must use critical thinking to decide what we believe and what to do.

Dear reader, I am about to take a synaptic tangent. The more observant amongst you and those who are able to follow my rambling and often wordy writing style might have noticed that the words emotion and belief figure highly in this piece. Belief and emotion also figure in why people are religious as again explained in Psychology Today [Note 5].

Reading social media, it seems easy to gain the perception that decent folk have disappeared from political life. That critical thinking is no longer part of the political process and decision making. It is easy to look at Donald Trump and Boris Johnson and believe that there is no critical thinking behind how they behave. They are continually fact checked and are shown to be economical with the truth and perpetuating misinformation. Yet people believe them. If you look at the opinion polls, voters trust them. They are successful by which I mean that they get more votes than the other guy which is what they are there to do. [Note 6]

Then I looked closer at the way that they present themselves and their messages. They make their supporters out to be unique and special. They imply that those who do not support them are somehow unpatriotic or enemies. Their goals are the will of the people. Rallies and photo opportunities are full of symbolism, evangelical fervour and that sense that the audience was there to worship rather than have values challenged.

This can only be deliberate.

We are witnessing politics as a religion. Our choice of political party grants us a right, while those of another party are heretics. Your party of choice governs your mantras. It comes with its own commandments. The confirmation bias for truth is nailed on.

The culture war is no accident either. Culture represents our current values and intellectual achievement. It is supposed to make use look inward and challenge our values. To apply critical thinking to try and overcome confirmation bias. If your political message and career is built on playing to that confirmation bias, the last thing you need is those supporters applying critical thinking to your message.

So, how do you break the hold of a political party that is using the techniques of religion to gain and then hold on to power? That is a question that I cannot yet answer. It will involve getting people to challenge their own values and improving critical thinking, but just how this is done requires many pots of coffee and an extra supply of dried frog pills.

A solution must be found. History gives us insight into what happens when a country becomes divided between competing religions. After Henry VIII broke with the church of Rome in 1533, religious persecution became a tool of the state. It would be nearly 300 years before the Roman Catholic Relief Act of 1829.

NOTE 1: Turpitude is such a good word, don’t you think? It has that gift of hinting at the meaning in a sinister way as if it is wearing a top hat and twisting its moustache. BTW it means depraved or wicked behaviour or character.

NOTE 2: Yes, I do realise that social media is not real life. You can throw all sorts of examples at me of the evils of social media and those who run it, but you are missing the point. This stuff has been going on for years before social media. Social media is a tool that shines the spotlight on it. Censoring social media or even banning it won’t stop it happening.

NOTE 3: I am aware of the irony of this statement. Yes, I went to the internet, found an article that supported my view of the world and accepted it. Maybe I am guilty of confirmation bias. Read the article, question it, look for evidence if you think I am wrong and challenge me on it. I like to think I am big enough and ugly enough to examine my own values and beliefs.

NOTE 4: Sadly, I have not found any linkage between this psychological theory and sex. On social media, every psychological study or idea appears to have something to do with sex, especially when it gets reported in newspapers. I’m sure that it hasn’t got anything to do with the fact that sex sells.

NOTE 5: If you are not religious, or prefer to practice your faith as an independent traveller, fear not. This isn’t an attempt to convert you. It is an important point that needs to be made as I meander my way to a conclusion and search out other ways to add additional footnotes.

NOTE 6: It is convenient to pick Trump & Johnson as examples as they illustrate the point that contemporary politics is pushing the buttons as if it is a religion. You could also find parallels in the cult of Jeremy Corbyn in the UK Labour Party or Bernie Saunders in the US. Trump & Johnson are the best examples because they have turned it into a slick, professional art form supported by a well-funded political machine.

Following up on Democracy with my MP

Three weeks ago, I wrote to my MP to ask for his commitment to democracy.

As yet, he has not replied. There could be no end of reasons for this in these unusual, Covid times. I need to stay calm and remember that stuff happens. That when things go wrong, it is far more likely to be a cockup rather than a conspiracy.

So, rather than go off down some rabbit hole of conspiracy invention, I will simply take a deep breath, a swig of strong coffee and try again.

Now, it would not be appropriate to simply re-send the last letter. Although it is only 3 weeks since it was sent, events have moved on.

Robert Jenrick, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, has been in the headlines again after his illegal intervention support of a Tory donor, he now has conspired with his junior minister to do a spot of gerrymandering to ensure that funds are routed to his and the junior minister’s constituencies.

Oliver Dowden, Culture Secretary, has floated an idea that would further undermine public services broadcasting in this country by privatising Channel 4.

The UK has had its credit rating downgraded by Moody’s. Not a totally unexpected event given the Covid situation & Brexit. However, one factor in the downgrade was the erosion of democratic institutions.

There may be other events I should have noticed and worthy of inclusion. Sadly, the general standard of this government has highlighted so many examples of incompetence, corruption and general disregard for the health and wellbeing of this nation and its democracy it is like trying to follow an individual starling in a murmuration.

Therefore, I took my original letter and revamped it before sharing it with my MP. As always, I will keep you updated with any progress.

The letter is below for your delectation and delight.

Dear Mr Pursglove,

I wrote to you on the 28th September to highlight my concerns over the direction of travel of this government with regard to maintaining the safety of the British Democracy and its institutions. Having not yet had any response, I am writing again as I fear that the original may have been misplaced.

Since that original letter, other events have occurred that serve to increase my disquiet over just how safe democracy in this country in the hands of the current government. The questions have therefore been updated to take these events into account.

Do you as an MP commit to the continuing democracy of the United Kingdom? By this, I mean more than ensuring that the people are able to vote. This includes ensuring the supporting institutions and democratic principles are robust; adequately funded and ensuring adequate scrutiny is applied to Government actions?

Do you also commit to ensuring the government is subject to full scrutiny to ensure that it follows the rule of law?

As you hold a Politics degree, I am sure you will be disturbed that one of your constituents would ever feel the need to ask their MP to commit to British democracy. As you are a passionate campaigner to regain sovereignty from the EU, I am sure that you would be aghast if having regained our sovereignty, it became tainted by corruption, unelected advisors, contempt for the rule of law and an erosion of our British freedoms.

To assist, below is a summary of why I feel current government actions threaten the future of our precious and fragile democracy and some supplemental questions.

1.            The Civil Service is supposed to be provide independent & impartial advice and support in the implementation of government policy. Since this government has come to power, they have systematically replaced senior Civil Servants with their own, seemingly political appointments. Do you believe this supports good governance and ensures adequate scrutiny is applied to the details of government actions?

2.            The government has signalled it is intent to limit access to Judicial Review of government. Do you believe this supports good governance and ensures adequate scrutiny is applied to the details of government actions?

3.            The judicial system has been subject to a series of cuts and budget constraints over the last decade that has resulted in ever growing backlog of cases. This backlog has only been made worse by the current Covid crisis. Do you commit to ensuring that the funding of our legal system to address the backlog and ensure that our justice system is functioning effectively?

4.            The Russian Report was published by the ISC on 21/07/2020. This showed some unsettling interventions in the UK political system. Subsequent revelations in the US has shown that these interventions have been widespread and deliberately designed to subvert the democratic process. Do you commit to pushing the government to holding an independent enquiry into the impacts of the foreign interventions into the UK democratic process and putting forward recommendations to prevent this in future?

5.            Government ministers appear to be avoiding scrutiny and taking actions that appear to be corrupting the democratic process. An example being the allocation of the Town Fund which appears to have been done in a way that ignores the advice of officials and benefits Conservative targeted marginal seats. It also appears that Robert Jenrick has manipulated process to ensure funding for his and a junior minister’s constituency in what some may describe as gerrymandering. Do you commit to ensuring that the decision is reviewed and that funds are allocated according to need rather than political gain?

6.            The government appears to be denuding the Public Service Broadcasting, BBC and the free press in the country of funding while placing political friends in positions of authority that can influence the impartiality and freedom of the press. Do you commit to ensuring that the BBC is adequately funded and maintains full editorial independence? Do you also commit to ensuring that adequate scrutiny is put upon the plan to privatise Channel 4 so that the public service aspect of its output & editorial independence is maintained?

7.            Michael Gove has signalled a willingness to amend the UK Human Rights Act ‘to make it easier’ for the government to enact ministers’ executive orders. Do you commit to protecting the UK Human Rights Act, that you will ensure that no changes will be made to the act without full and proper consultation and that when any actions come to be voted upon, they will be a matter of the MP conscience rather than a three-line whip?

May I also draw your attention to the recent downgrade of the UK Credit rating to AAA3 by Moody’s. In what is a highly unusual step, one factor in the downgrade is the erosion of democratic institutions with the Internal Market Bill cited as an example.

I should remind you of why your government finds itself having to breach international law and are struggling to find convincing arguments to justify this shameful action. You supported the Withdrawal Agreement. You voted to reduce the time to scrutinise the agreement, even though at the time concerns were raised over the impacts on the NI peace accord. You then fought and won an election based on the flawed Withdrawal Agreement. That may not have been an issue, but you then voted on an Agriculture Bill that removed food & animal welfare standard provisions sparking the fear that food produced to the woeful US standards would find its way into the EU via Northern Ireland.

The mess of the Internal Markets Bill is of your own making and by showing such disregard to International Law, has destroyed any moral authority the UK may have had when dealing with China on Hong Kong. It now has an adverse impact on the cost of government borrowing.

 

I look forward to your response on the many questions raised in this letter.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

 

Simon Holder

Big Brother is Watching me and Beaming Subliminal Messages into my Brain

That title, eh? Makes it look like retirement (or economic inactivity) has turned me into a conspiracy theorist convinced that I am being manipulated by dark forces to their bidding.

What was it Kurt Cobain said? Something like “Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't after you.”

I know, all this talk of grand conspiracy theories to grab power and hold the populace is all total twaddle and comes from the paranoia of the ignorant. Then I watched Channel4 News. Of all of the UK news outlets, Channel4 News has become the one I believe is the most fearless, although a touch left of centre on social issues. Well last night, they ran a story about how data gathered through social media had been used to supress voting in the US 2016 election.

I suppose it is my progressive, liberal upbringing, but I was shocked. My first reaction was denial, it could never happen here in the UK. Then synaptic tangents started to kick in.

Those strange seemingly random posts that crossed my timeline on Facebook in the run up to the Brexit referendum; the rather outrageous claims from apparent strangers on Twitter; emails highlighting political issues or politicians. They could all just be coincidence of course.

When you start joining imaginary dots to some of the news stories you see, you do start to wonder. Is Dominic Cummings employing black magic data mining techniques to subvert democracy? Are the Russians targeting our elections? Just what was the result of the meddling highlighted in the Russia Report?

I could be slowly turning into a keyboard warrior driven by paranoia over conspiracy theories. There again, maybe the political parties and pressure groups may know more about me than I give them credit.

There is only one thing to do and that is find out. One of the better regulations to come out of the EU is the data privacy laws. The link, if you followed it, takes you to the ICO who are charged with ensuring compliance in the UK. The law also gives you certain rights as to how organisations use your data and allows you to get a record of what data they store.

I came up with a cunning plan to find out what the political parties store about me and what they think they know.

So, I am going to write to the various political parties and organisations and ask them:

What data do you hold on me?

How do you use the data you hold on me?

Who do you share my data with?

To be honest, I don’t hold out a lot of hope on that last point, but if I do find out, I shall be writing to those third parties as well.

Grab your tinfoil hat, up the dosage on those dried frog pills and watch this space. Let’s see what happens!

UPDATE 12:15 29/09/2020

An automated response was received from the Labour Party telling me that in order to process my request, I had to provide photo ID. I guess this kind of adds a layer of security to the process. Anyway, this has been supplied and I await developments.

UPDATE 11:30 02/10/2020

LeaveEU has responded asking me to fill in a form and send it back to them snail mail. I might also send it back email, just to free my inner rebel. Nothing yet from the Conservatives or LibDems.

UPDATE 14:00 05/10/2020

The Conservatives have requested proof of ID before they will process my request. This has been provided.

UPDATE 11:00 06/10/2020

The LibDems have now responded. They too want proof of ID which has been provided.

UPDATE 09:30 19/10/2020

LeaveEU have emailed me a reminder to send in the information they need to process my request. This has already been done, but I sent the info again via email.

Asking my MP to act for UK Democracy

I am writing to my MP again.

This is not big news; I quite often fire off letters to my MP.  To be fair to him, he always replies, but as yet not in a conclusive and fully supportive manner.

Being an MP, I’m sure that he gets a lot of correspondence and there will be letters from other constituents that take an opposing view to mine.

However, this letter is different. This letter is about the future of British democracy. So, I should expect a full and committed endorsement of the need to maintain the democracy of this country and the institutions that ensure its scrutiny, right?

Just feeling the need to question that statement suggests to me that I am losing faith in the commitment of this government to the basic principles of our democracy. That is incredibly sad. I have grown up believing that the British democracy is a great and noble example that the world should follow; That the British system is so good, nobody ever felt the need to write it down and call it a constitution; That our elected officials treasure the system as much as I do and would never act counter to the spirit of freedom and democracy.

Yet now we have an elected government that appears to be determined to undermine the very fabric of our democracy and are making it appear incredibly fragile.

At this point I could go off on a long and detailed list of the indiscretions of the UK Government. Give examples of how little value they place in truth, honesty and integrity. Go off on a long and impassioned rant over the ignoring of the Nolan Principles of Public Life. Wind myself up over cronyism, favours for their mates, perceptions of corruption and gerrymandering.

I am not sure that I have the stomach for that right now. Instead I will just post my letter to my MP. I will revisit this when I have a reply.

-Letter follows-

Dear Mr Pursglove,

Many thanks for your letter dated 18th September where you responded at length about the Internal Markets Bill. I fear some confusion must have been generated by the way I presented my query as this was only part of my concern that I raised as a supporting point & a symptom to highlight why I was uncomfortable with the direction of travel of the current government.

I will therefore attempt to ensure clarity as I repeat my query.

Do you commit to the continuing democracy of the United Kingdom and ensuring that the supporting institutions and democratic principles are robust and adequately funded to ensure that adequate scrutiny is applied to Government actions? Do you also commit to ensuring the government is subject to full scrutiny to ensure that it follows the rule of law?

As you hold a Politics degree, I am sure you will be disturbed that one of your constituents would ever feel the need to ask their MP to commit to British democracy. As you are a passionate campaigner to regain sovereignty from the EU, I am sure that you would be aghast if having regained our sovereignty, it became tainted by corruption, unelected advisors, contempt for the rule of law and an erosion of our British freedoms.

To assist, below is a summary of why I feel current government actions threaten the future of our precious and fragile democracy and some supplemental questions.

• 1       The Civil Service is supposed to be provide independent & impartial advice and support in the implementation of government policy. Since this government has come to power, they have systematically replaced senior Civil Servants with their own, seemingly political appointments. Do you believe this supports good governance and ensures adequate scrutiny is applied to the details of government actions?
• 2.       The government has signalled it is intent to limit access to Judicial Review of government. Do you believe this supports good governance and ensures adequate scrutiny is applied to the details of government actions?
• 3.       The judicial system has been subject to a series of cuts and budget constraints over the last decade that has resulted in ever growing backlog of cases. This backlog has only been made worse by the current Covid crisis. Do you commit to ensuring that the funding of our legal system to address the backlog and ensure that our justice system is functioning effectively?
• 4.       The Russian Report was published by the ISC on 21/07/2020. This showed some unsettling interventions in the UK political system. Do you commit to pushing the government to holding an independent enquiry into the impacts of the foreign interventions into the UK democratic process and putting forward recommendations to prevent this in future?
• 5.       Government ministers appear to be avoiding scrutiny and taking actions that appear to be corrupting the democratic process. An example being the allocation of the Town Fund which appears to have been done in a way that ignores the advice of officials and benefits Conservative targeted marginal seats. Do you commit to ensuring that the decision is reviewed and that funds are allocated according to need rather than political gain?
• 6.       The government appears to be denuding the BBC and the free press in the country of funding while placing political friends in positions of authority that can influence the impartiality and freedom of the press. Do you commit to ensuring that the BBC is adequately funded and maintains full editorial independence?
• 7.       Michael Gove has signalled a willingness to amend the UK Human Rights Act ‘to make it easier’ for the government to enact ministers’ executive orders. Do you commit to protecting the UK Human Rights Act, that you will ensure that no changes will be made to the act without full and proper consultation and that when any actions come to be voted upon, they will be a matter of the MP conscience rather than a three-line whip?

At this point, I wish to briefly return to your letter on the Internal Market Bill. It appears to be a standard letter that a number of MP have sent to constituents and I am sure you have already been made aware of the inaccuracies and incorrect assumptions made within it – not least the selective and totally incorrect citing of the Miller Case.

I should remind you of why your government finds itself having to breach international law and are struggling to find convincing arguments to justify this shameful action. You supported the Withdrawal Agreement. You voted to reduce the time to scrutinise the agreement, even though at the time concerns were raised over the impacts on the NI peace accord. You then fought and won an election based on the flawed Withdrawal Agreement. That may not have been an issue, but you then voted on an Agriculture Bill that removed food & animal welfare standard provisions sparking the fear that food produced to the woeful US standards would find its way into the EU via Northern Ireland.

The mess of the Internal Markets Bill is of your own making and by showing such disregard to International Law, has destroyed any moral authority the UK may have had when dealing with China on Hong Kong.

 

I look forward to your response on the many questions raised in this letter.

UPDATE: It is now three weeks since I sent the letter. As yet, no response. A follow up is needed.

Primeval Swamp of politics again

If Twitter was the primeval rain forest and I were the time traveler doing the tourist thing to gawp at dinosaurs, my footprint would pose no threat to the delicate butterfly. I know that I cannot exert influence on the great and good on Twitter any more than I can travel in time.

Yet occasionally I find myself on the periphery of a debate that I feel is so important, the 140 character limit cannot hope to convey my thoughts, let alone change minds. So it has proved with the horrible violence and rioting we see in the US at the moment. The synaptic tangents it set off highlighted uncomfortable parallels in what we are seeing here in the UK when it comes to democracy, Covid response and Brexit.

What set this off was my rather innocent suggestion that if Americans insist on calling these ‘race riots’ akin to those in 1968, then they are actually reducing the chances of bringing about real, meaningful change.

Leaping back 300 years or so ago, a little spat took place in one of the British colonies. Wealthy landowners took offense at being asked to pay their taxes and so rose up in violent insurrection. They took on the mighty British and won. Having won, they were then faced with the rather tricky task of defining how they wanted to be governed.

It was a turbulent time and I will take a simplistic view of the philosophy behind the discussion. Somewhere in this meandering morass of a blog there is a discussion about the competing theories of Thomas Hobbes and john Locke.

When Thomas Jefferson came to draw up the US Constitution, just having fought the British he didn't buy into the ideaof the Hobbes assertion that human beings are incapable of ruling themselves so need to be kept in their place by a dictator. So, the US Constitution was written from the Locke viewpoint that government authority is gained through the consent of the people.

Just in case, dear reader, you have any doubt, I must state for the record I abhor racism. It is a cancer of society that if it cannot be stamped out, must never be condoned or encouraged. I hate the use of any stereotyping that is used to suggest that another human being either through their choices or accident of birth can be considered as being inferior to another, they are just different. Diversity brings new and potentially interesting views into our lives; embellishes our culture; broadens our outlook and ultimately makes us stronger and better.

Now back to the matter in hand. The US Constitution was therefore drawn up based on the Locke principles of government by consent.

While the riots in the US ignited by the spark of Derek Chauvin, a white police officer, killing an unarmed black man, George Floyd. The anger that erupted seemed to stem from accusations of racism.

Yet, the root cause is not racism, that was just the flint that provided the spark. The problem in my eyes at least is that it was another example of what happens when you cease to police by consent. The founder of the British Police, Sir Robert Peel wanted to ensure policing by consent and set out principles of transparency, integrity and accountability to achieve legitimacy in the police.  

However, it isn’t just policing by consent that is the issue here, we appear to have lost focus on the need to govern by consent as well. Despite the Locke principles that are enshrined in the constitution, the need for government by consent appears forgotten. Instead we have a leader who appears to be operating straight out of a handbook written by Hobbes.

This is why we need to be careful about describing this as a race riot. It has a lot more to do with how the current art of politics is about encouraging tribalism. Elections in the US and the UK are being won and lost on it.

This is why describing the cause as racism is not only wrong but ultimately counterproductive. Racism only plays on the tribal images of us and them. It is how lazy (and ultimately dangerous) politicians get elected by using this tribalism and the language of populism. They make it all sound so easy and are quite happy to espouse policies that marginalize minorities if it gets them the majority the crave. 

Social liberals (of which I hope I am one), have been getting it all wrong for this very reason. We are outraged by racism and howl at the moon. What we should be calling out is the eroding of government by consent and the way that those in charge are playing the system to their own advantage.

I would love to say that this is a US problem. It is not. The UK has suffered from it as well. At the last election we had the Tory tribal call of get Brexit Done while Labour were evoking a class war. The Liberal Democrats, who should have been highlighting how they were the guardians of government by consent were politely trying to fight a battle that was already lost and remained puzzlingly silent on the need for consent.   

Now if you ever wonder just how dangerous this new Hobbes politics is, consider Covid. Lockdowns have been the cornerstone of attempts to battle the virus until there is a vaccine. Maintaining lockdown of a country is hard and relies on behavioral science to bring all of the population – not just some of the tribal elements together so that everyone obeys the rules. The US, UK, Brazil and Russia have not been able to hold the lockdown together for various reasons and it is no surprise that in terms of deaths they are among the world leaders.

What is worse, it is election year in the US. If everyone allows this tribalism to continue and not highlight the need of government by consent, we risk further erosion of any government and policing by consent.