The builder's parable

Let me tell you a story. A long time ago a family had moved from the country to the city and decided they would build a house. They called in a builder, who came out with a bunch of workmen and built a house for the family. It was a really great house! The family's children could play all day and the mum and dad felt pride inviting all the other neighbours to come be entertained at their house. After a few years the family thought they'd quite like to add a new room to the house. Knowing how good a job the builder did they called him back and sure enough he built a new room. As the builder knew the family had asked for him by name he followed the same process when building on the new room as he did all those years ago on the house. The trouble was, the bricks he used were slightly less rectangular than the original brick and lots of builders were saying new homes should be wooden instead. Nevertheless he built the room which once again the family were so happy with, not knowing the bricks were not as great as before. They once again invited all their friends over to show them how beautiful their new house was. The whole family shone with pride. But then one winter a storm came, like many winters before. This time though the new room built with bad bricks couldn't stand up to the storm and began to crumble. Because they had been joined with steel rods to the old house when the new bricks crumbled they tore the whole house down with them. The family were shocked and saddened that their beautiful dream house, their sanctuary had been so badly destroyed. The emergency crew told them that the original house would have been fine if they hadn't been silly enough to build the extension with the those damn bricks. Once the insurance money came in the family were ready to rebuild. They spoke to all their friends, some of whom said they should bring in the same builder. After all the original house was so grand and had made them so happy. He obviously did a good job and just made a mistake with the additions, but that he couldn't have foreseen the storm. One of their friend's, however, told them it was foolish to rehire the same builder because he was lazy and not willing to learn from his mistakes or change his building techniques to match the latest technology. Had he used wood, they said, rather than sticking so firmly to withering bricks just because he'd used them before the house might still be standing. Why, they said, would you get the builder whose arrogance destroyed your beautiful house to fix it? Instead, they said, you should employ John. John was a relatively new builder but he knew all the most up to date building techniques and wanted to build houses that would be safe when the next storm came along. The family were sceptical but in the end employed John. He rebuilt their torn down house with new reinforced bricks with steel rods inside and when the next storm came the house got a little beaten down but was still standing. Now, substitute 'house' for 'economy' and 'family' for 'citizens'. The original builder are the politicians and financiers who have been around since pre-2008, the architects of great success and advancement but whose arrogance created disaster. The new builder, are the younger generation of political minds, who want to rebuild the system with the newest thinking or 'reinforced bricks'. My question to you is, why keep employing the builder who made a beautiful house only to let his arrogance create weakness that destroyed it? We need a political refresh, we need younger, newer blood in politics and the youth need to vote and run for office. If that doesn't happen we will continue to be battered by the storm in a broken house because the builders are so obsessed with keeping their practices as the standard. Get new builders, build a better house. You can't guarantee another storm won't come but when it does you might just be saved from having your house collapse and instead only have to replace a few windows.

Political earthquake lifting a bridge to a united Ireland

The significance of Northern Ireland’s election at home and beyond cannot be underestimated. For the first time the two main nationalist parties (Sinn Féin and the SDLP) now have more seats than the two main unionist parties (the DUP and the UUP). With predicted demographic changes running towards us like a freight train, the prospect of a nationalist majority (and a border poll) are now more a realistic prediction than a political pipe-dream. Changing votes and changing demographics The DUP may still have the most seats, but its share of the first preference vote has slipped for the third election in a row, now down to 28.1%. Sinn Fein’s vote, meanwhile, has risen to its highest ever share of 27.9% - that’s a little over 1,000 vote gap. Couple this with demographic changes happening and still to happen, and you have a new stew cooking in Northern Ireland. In December 2012, The Protestant population in Northern Ireland fell below 50 per cent. Now, there’s just a 3 point gap between Protestants and Catholics. To say this fact on its own is a sign of growing nationalist power is naïve – pro and anti-Unionists are not merely divided along religious lines, and religion is just a part of a complex set of self-identifiers in the North. Add in the rise of immigration and the lines get a bit blurred. However, what is true is the last census showed that 38 per cent of Northern Ireland identify as British, 25 per cent as Irish and 20 per cent as Northern Irish. That’s more people identifying as non-British than those who identify as British – an important distinction in this new post-Brexit world. Brexit and beyond Discussions about independence and pronouncements of the death of the Union have gathered pace following the vote to leave the EU. Northern Ireland voted 56-44 remain. You could therefore make the call that the DUP overwhelmingly supported Brexit and were punished. It is difficult to pick apart how much of an effect Brexit had, how much of it was the RHI scandal and how much of it was the DUP’s continuing disconnect on social issues like marriage equality and the Irish language. What it does mean is nationalists are on a roll, emboldened and ready to twist each event into a web that leads to a border poll and possible reunification (inside the EU). Yes, a poll in September showed of over 1,500 showed 57.6% of people don’t support a border poll but Brexit has simmered away over the last few months and Northern Ireland’s population are realising how damaging it is – which may explain Sinn Fein’s effectiveness in turning out their vote. Northern Ireland’s farmers stand to lose around £250 million in EU subsidies, something their counterparts in the Republic will keep. Additionally, Sinn Fein might receive its biggest PR gift in decades when an inevitable hard border separates the North and the South. Sinn Fein are well prepared for that fight too, Gerry Adams’ move to the Republic of Ireland politics gives his party a foothold in both North and South. In last year’s Irish general election Sinn Fein picked up 9 seats making them the third biggest party in the Republic with more than 240,000 voters in their pocket. They are getting themselves into a great position to leverage parties in the Republic to come on board the reunification bus. Should the hardest Brexit ensue, and Scotland is granted an independence vote, a similar vote on the emerald Isle might ensue. There’s a lot of work to go until then but Sinn Fein are playing smart. The Good Friday Agreement says Northern Ireland would remain part of the United Kingdom until a majority both of the people of Northern Ireland and of the Republic of Ireland wished otherwise. A road-map to self-governance? The winds are starting to change and the world will be watching. The Troubles were considered one of the most intractable ethnic conflicts of the twentieth-century – more than 3,500 people lost their lives. Along with Palestine and South Africa, the campaign by Northern Irish republicans are the most famous of freedom struggles. South Africa has had 5 peaceful elections since 1994 and, with the ANC losing popularity to the DA, might be moving beyond conflict politics. Palestine remains gridlocked but they should be reading from the Sinn Fein playbook. Northern Ireland is not perfect but Republican strategies could lay out the best road map to self-governance for those still pining for freedom. Co-operate, compromise, extend the hand of friendship and play the long, smart game. Attach yourself to broad issues around freedom, and expose your opponents as intolerant and unco-operative. So far, so good for Republicans and if, come 2018 or 2020, a border poll is called for (and won) Gerry Adams will have proved himself just as smart as Nelson Mandela in his quest for liberation. The wisdom of a softly spoken man Until then Sinn Fein needs to continue to show itself the bigger man, the Government in waiting, the co-operator, the internationalist, and the post-tribalist. They are living Theodore Roosevelt’s ‘speak softly and carry a big stick’ philosophy, having largely left the stick behind in 1998, and it’s working. By speaking softly, and speaking broadly, they are growing their support, winning minds not just hearts and their goal is in sight. Conclusion This raises the question of circumstances of the freedom fighter. Is it a waiting game? Do you just need the stars to align for your goal to be realised? It requires a unique combination of clever tactics and circumstances. It requires unique leaders, forgiveness and forethought. And it requires patience at times when it seems so far away, as Nelson Mandela said “it always seems impossible until it is done”.

Civics answers the apathy question

It seems for the past decade political scientists, journalists and alike have been discussing the problem of voter apathy. Less people exercising their right to vote, and less people engaged on a daily basis. The last few months have been a sort of worst-case scenario of what that leads to.

Whilst we can’t all take responsibility for the rise in extremist regimes or viewpoints (by democratic standards) because we didn’t all vote for those parties or candidates – most of us willingly stopped paying attention. We dropped the ball.

Recent events seem to be a symposium on “what happens when good men do nothing” experiment, and the results are not good. The new American administration has shown a stunning disregard for diplomacy, legal precedent, people management, or basic human decency and an utter rejection of informed advice. Yet they are continuing their unending assault on journalists and truth - to the joy of their supporters and the horror of everyone else.

The administration is either by not knowing any better or, more likely, not caring throwing the manual out of the window and running the most powerful country in the world like children playing pretend with dinosaurs. The fact they were allowed to do this, to even be in the position to do this, shows how uniformed the general population is on how a country is run.

And you may say it won't happen in your country but don't be so sure. Trump was allowed to happen because of disengagement, and misconceptions about civic society. It's not just an American problem, the voting public across the Western world are not just apathetic they are uniformed. For years we haven't cared to pick up a newspaper or read a book, we have let fiction and infotainment occupy spaces of our brains, which should (and would otherwise) be dedicated to being knowledgeable about events at home and abroad. "I don't vote cause politicians are all the same", "it doesn't really affect me", "They're all corrupt", "I couldn't really be bother", "I don't read the news it's too depressing" - sound familiar? We have turned off our ears, our eyes, and our brains.

This knowledge deficiency has seen economic viability of newspapers eroded and the general populous disengage with any meaningful arguments. Children are taught maths, science and physical education but aren't taught the basic tenants of financial management or civics. We have created learners not citizens. As a result young adults don't vote and many older people are susceptible to the kind of campaign Trump and Brexit were founded on. Campaigns that spread misinformation, innuendo and fear.

Not to fear-monger, but we are at the cliff-edge now, if the Trump and Brexit warnings can't shake us out of our apathy nothing will. On a positive note we’re hanging on just look at the pick up in NY Times subscriptions – so there does seem to be some awareness brewing. And, unlikely as it seems now, Trump might not be that bad, other Western countries might not elect extreme governments, race wars may not erupt but that leaves too much to chance. A refined version of Trump could use apathy to completely destroy a democratic country and plunge the world into darkness and anger the likes of which we haven't seen for a half a century.

Politicians, schools, teachers, and parents should take note: kids need to be taught civics. Children need to understand not only their system of government but their rights and obligations as citizens. Basic tenants of voting, paying taxes, and being informed should be at the forefront of every child’s mind. That’s how we tackle the problems the world currently faces. Politicians should be held to account, engaged with, and challenged on every thing they say. News should be consumed daily, widely and eagerly. A thriving fourth estate comes from having a willing consumer of news. A willing consumer of news comes from a citizen who is taught the value of engagement. That’s when political institutions and society as a whole thrive.

It’s not easy. Being engaged is draining, it can be traumatizing. Those of us who are engaged often consume such a flood of depressing news it is difficult to maintain a grip on the ledge of caring. Apathy is waiting with open arms to envelope us, and why not? We have spent so long in its warm embrace but we must avoid it now because it's the only way out.

But we must resist and we must push for deeper engagement. For Evil only triumphs when good men do nothing, and the majority of us are good men. We have just stopped listening. We are uninformed and we are prime to become intellectual prey. It's time apathy died before it does some killing of its own. We need to take back the political arena as a place of debate, a network of information transfer – that’s when our government will thrive and regimes that peddle fear do so on the fringes of the conversation.

Adherence to dogma will destroy the Left

The twenty-first century has seen the rise of a new kind of government typified by John Key in New Zealand and David Cameron in the United Kingdom. Compassionate Conservatism might not have its origins in the 2000s but when we look back that period will be where it truly made its mark.

Following his surprise resignation last year many commentators posited about what made Key so popular. Some argued, in an almost sneering tone, that the Key-led Government had no principles, that they stood for nothing other than getting elected. Of course when trying to determine how a Government has been able to keep such manic levels of popularity far into its third term it's easy to say the public has been hoodwinked. What the left might not have realised yet is that Key’s, and Cameron’s, social reforms were both based on helping the vulnerable. That’s something you couldn’t say about previous Tory Governments.

The National-led Government’s social investment approach will not be fully understood or appreciated until its term comes to an end but already we can say one thing: it is triumph of results over dogma. Rather than focus on traditional neo-liberal, centre-right reforms the Governments sought to mould the public service into something that both paid its way and delivered results. A kind of left-right hybrid that may prove to be the groundbreaking idea that changes the way Government’s view these kinds of programmes. Meanwhile Donald Trump has won an unlikely victory through an anti-free trade and pro-little guy campaign that would’ve made Andrew Little wet himself.      

And the Left has been left to bewildered and, let’s face it, angry because it felt the centre-right was stealing its policies (which might be true) and taking credit. But to claim ownership of policies and ideas as ‘centre-left’ or ‘centre-right’ proves the opposition in NZ and the UK are still playing partisan politics in a post-dogma world. We have largely finished arguments on the big issues (the Americans being the exception): universal healthcare? Check. State education? Check. And now looking after vulnerable. Check. Ideology just doesn’t really matter anymore. 

Now we’re entering election year commentators will undoubtedly focus intently on whether the Left is a ‘Government in waiting’ and what different ideas it can offer. The problem is that they can’t be different without being extremist. They can’t spend three years attacking a Government that is basically building the same houses but with clever new tools. If the Left goes this route they’re in for a hiding. The majority of the public has already decide the kind of  Government it wants and that’s the Government it’s got – frugal but caring. We largely don’t care about a argument of ideas. It’s over, we know what’s best now. So how does a political aisle so wedded to its principles move beyond them?

We’re at a crossroads now where traditional left-right battles lead us on the ring road back to the past. It’s time for the left to take pride in its hard won gains for workers, and socially liberal policies and move on with the times. If they don’t and instead go back to the little red book they’ll destroy themselves completely and the centre-right and far-right will begin the take over the title fight.

Journalism: once it’s gone you can’t get it back

Even before taking office the next President of the US is already ratchetting up his machine gun criticism of the American press. Trump, whose presidential campaign brought the phrase ‘fake news’ into the wider public’s consciousness took aim at the media’s reporting of his potential links to Russia in a bizarre, barely-coherent press conference that was less conference and more mad lecture. Trump’s continued assault on the media should scare us all because arguments are rarely one by the person with the best facts but rather the person who shouts the loudest, and Mr Trump now has the megaphone of office behind him. News organisations are already facing the fight of their lives to be economically sustainable at a time where no one will pay for their services. They can scarcely afford to fight for the legitimacy of their product too. Studies show that trust in politicians directly correlates to voter turn-out. Consequently, as our trust in politicians drops the number of us who are voting has decreased to the point where most Western democracies are facing the lowest rates of voter turn-out ever. If Trump succeeds in eroding trust in journalists the way trust in politicians has been eroded the masses will stop consuming news, leading to uninformed masses prone to manipulation by demagogues like Trump. In short, the damage of a Trump presidency may be irreparable. Remove ‘proper’ journalists and history would look very different. Without investigative journalists the public would never have learned about: the My-Lai Massacre and cover-up; the Watergate break-in (dramatised in All the President’s Men); NSA surveillance; the Catholic Church’s abuse cover up (dramatised in Oscar-winning Spotlight). It’s no wonder Trump, a controversial businessman with a litany of alleged misdemeanours in his wake, sees benefit in discrediting journalists. His life is easier if no one believes the body charged with keeping tabs on his activities. In one term Trump will have the air-time and the means to bankrupt the fourth-estate’s social capital to the point where post-truth becomes the new political norm. That’s the fork in the road we are now faced with and by focusing on how the offensiveness of Trump’s attacks on various minority groups we are taking his fade whilst he lands numerous body shots on the institutions opposed to him. With those institutions bloody and bruised Trump’s domestic and foreign agenda will go unchecked. Witness the fact his press conference outstripped news of the hearings underway for Trump cabinet nominees. American society either needs to choose to get behind its fourth estate over the next four years or reconcile itself that it will get pummelled by the Trump machine and never recover. It will be too late to weep about it then. Once it’s gone you can’t get it back.

Cash-for-Ash is so much more than that

Northern Ireland is once again in political turmoil following Martin McGuinness’ resignation over First Minister, Arlene Foster’s ‘cash for ash’ scandal. It’s the first steps in what will undoubtedly by an ugly, divisive, nasty election as a decade of tensions and bitter compromise on everything from policing to paramilitaries finally burst to the surface.

Uneven peace

Ultimately the scandal shows that, eighteen years after the Good Friday Agreement ended decades of civil conflict, the power dynamics between Unionists and Nationalists remain starkly uneven. It is not far-fetched to wonder if Sinn Fein has had enough of being in the dog house on every issue that still plagues Northern Irish society whilst the DUP runs around on the moral high ground out of the reach of consequence.

‘Cash-for-Ash’ is not the cause, it’s the spark. It brings the DUP and Unionists down off their high horse and may finally force that community and the British establishment to acknowledge its historic and continued privilege and the wrong it has done with that privilege. One need only look at Sinn Fein’s list of grievances to find the real nugget of truth:   additional rights for Irish speakers and inquiries into deaths in the "Troubles". Issues around parades also loom large as symbols of continued conflict amongst the communities in Northern Ireland. Co-operations is paper-thing and beneath it boils a lot of discontent.

These aren’t new grievances but rather ones which have characterised social and political unrest in the North for over a century. If Sinn Fein convinces its voter base that their woes are not a function of Sinn Fein’s ineptness but of continued, vagrant flouting of Good Friday Agreement principles and a solid agenda to lock Republicans out of actual decision making, then all bets are off. 

Architects absent when foundations rocked

Martin McGuinness’ resignation and rumoured health problems could prove hugely significant. The absence of McGuinness means the two key architects of peace in Northern Ireland are absent at a time where its foundations are under the most strain. Along with Dr Ian Paisley, McGuinness staked huge personal and political capital on establishing a power-sharing arrangement which, however tenuous, has largely kept the peace post-1998. Now Northern Ireland must face its biggest fight for its future without the stalwarts in their corner.

Former IRA man, Sean O’Callaghan said Sinn Féin had wanted to make the institutions work and that desire was spearheaded by Mr McGuinness, the only person capable of encouraging Republicans to make it work, and the only one who could hold Republicans together in that goal. Without him Republicanism could fall into the hands of the disenfranchised, dissatisfied and emotional who want out more than anything.

London pre-occupied and in denial

And that’s a challenge Westminster is unequipped to meet at the moment. This year Theresa May’s Government will have their bumbling hands full with negotiation documents on the UK’s divorce from Europe. But they are also fighting Brexit battles on the homefront with Scotland wanting out of the UK and into Europe. For the Tories to say the Union is secure shows they are in denial on the levels of dissatisfaction up North and across the Irish Sea.

If the Republic of Ireland is keen on supporting Sinn Fein in achieving its long-term goal of a united Ireland now is the time to strike. Negotiating both a Brexit and a dissolution of the Union must be Theresa May’s worst nightmare but the Good Friday Agreement provides tool to make that nightmare a reality.

Population trends change power dynamics

The Good Friday Agreement binds both the British and Irish Governments to a united Ireland should a majority of people in the North and a majority in the South agree to it. It’s an interesting point because population changes may soon provide a test for how serious that is.

In 2023 Catholics will likely become the majority in the North. That gives Sinn Fein six years to play its cards right and show Catholics and Republicans are still second class citizens in the North, to show Unionists as bigoted, dictatorial and divisive, and to show the Republican/Catholic community it is far better served as part of the Republic of Ireland. If it can do that voters may deliver the Holy Grail of a United Ireland.

As the DUP makes murmurs of power-sharing being under threat they face challenges of their own.  As a dwindling majority of Northern Ireland’s population Unionists may want to soften their language or else face the prospect of heading into the 2020s as the demonic minority, fringe group in Northern Ireland intent on keeping the majority down (look at South Africa for how well that turns out).

And even more of a long-game for the Unionists is what happens to their community in a united Ireland. Why would they need a say in a Catholic-run, Republican Ireland if they were not willing to play that game in a Protestant majority Northern Ireland.

This scandal is so much more than ‘Cash for Ash’. It’s future defining stuff. It’s crunch time and making the right moves now will determine who sits where when Endgame in Ireland comes.

2016 Part II: one more political earthquake?

Make no mistake, this is a turning point for both Unionists and Republicans – how they play this could determine the long-term future of Northern Ireland. In a post-Brexit, post-Trump world nothing is secure, especially the status quo. If the cards are dealt right, we could have one more political earthquake in sight.  

“I’m offended” - the theme of 2016

Political correctness has destroyed politics in the West, and record low engagement is a cause not a symptom of the social problems of 2016. Donald Trump and Nigel Farage took advantage by appealing to a previously disinterested and disengaged faction of society and, although much of what they said was despicable, to label them a hundred per cent deplorable is to wipe our hands of responsibility for their movements.

Millennials are often blamed for being ‘soft’ but it’s more nuanced than that. Growing up in a society so hell-bent on inclusion means you are primed to be offended rather than challenged in any interaction you have. Mention that you don’t believe in extension of marriage rights, and you’re labelled a homophobe. If you don’t believe in positive discrimination, you’re a racist. Tell anyone from the age of 2 what to do and you’re infringing on their human rights. Merry Christmas is now Happy Holidays so as not to offend the Atheists, Chairman is now Chairperson so as not to offend liberals and ‘partner’ is accepted relationship term so as not to offend the unmarried.

With so many eggshells to walk on outside no wonder the body politic chooses to stay at home. When you tell 50 per cent of people their opinions are despicable, shameful or not in line with current societal views you essentially destroy debate and narrow the topics up for debate. If you ask someone to engage in a debate and then impose a plethora of boundaries on what is appropriate you no longer have a debate just as if you play rugby without tackling, pushing, barging or contact you no longer are playing rugby.

The great political minds who fought all forms of oppression did not win by telling the oppressor they couldn’t argue their view. They won by demonstrating in an intellectual conversation their thinking was superior.  It was Nelson Mandela who said “if you want to make peace with your enemy, you have to work with your enemy. Then he becomes your partner.”

Engagement, not dismissal, is how you build society. By belittling people who have lived in a world longer than you or with different challenges than you, is just as deplorable as the views you purport to be opposed to. We have learnt that worlds do not change by force but by encouragement, not by guns but by words. An argument won is much stronger than a law imposed. After all, as Mandela understood, education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world

You can’t win hearts and minds if you are always waiting to be offended by those you are speaking to. Living in an ever-changing world where jobs are under threat, livelihoods are being wiped out and communities are rapidly evolving is scary for a lot of people. Like most mammals humans attack when threatened and make no mistake working and middle-class people across the West are under threat. They have also lost the comfort and security of their old institutions and traditions – religion is a dirty word in most Western society now often associated with inferior intelligence, intolerance and pig-headedness, and other ways of life which were previously normalised are equally under threat.

At the same time we are educating our children not to think critically but to think broadly, no answer is wrong unless it is offensive to one sub-group or another. Every child is told he or she (or non-gendered term) is special and individual but no discriminatory (see identifying) terminology is allowed. A child can’t be gendered until they have chosen to be, no one’s cultural identifiers are appropriate, and we’re moving towards a society where a permission slip will need to be signed before doing anything.

I’m not saying removing discrimination based on race or religion or gender is acceptable I’m saying identification by such is not necessarily discrimination. Saying it is removes difference from society and the next step is removing the difference of thought.

Once you can’t think differently, or act differently, for fear of offending person x or y the basic tenant of societal advancement, conflict, is not possible. And before you are outraged at the idea of me promoting war, I mean conflict in its generic term (i.e. to be incompatible or at variance). Celebrating difference is pointless when everyone is forced to think the same. It doesn’t matter if houses are built in all shapes and sizes if they all include 3 bedrooms, a kitchen and no swimming pool.

2016 has been a rough year but let’s not chalk it down to the rise of deplorables and walk away in a huff. Instead let’s remember that when you’re losing an argument, read more, bring out new facts, change up your language and come back tomorrow because the debate is never over. That’s the real way to keep society moving forward. 

Gerry Adams’ public perception problem

When has your credit with voters ended? Is it time to go? These are questions that come to characterise every public figure at one point or another, no matter how successful, how meaningful, how loved or hated.

Almost twenty-years after he delivered peace to Northern Ireland, Gerry Adams might be facing a last saloon in his political career. If he really wants to achieve the ultimate goal of reunification he may need to sacrifice himself in the process. After all, it’s increasingly looking like he has a major public perception problem and, like any fungus voter hate is contagious. Now Sinn Fein, and other credible Republicans, find themselves too close to patient zero and may need to lance the boil to avoid catching the bug.

It is ironic that a man who piloted the ‘armalite and ballot box’ is now seeing his involvement with the former harming progress on the latter.  As the Irish Times said earlier this week about Sinn Fein ‘there is an awareness that numerous and recurring controversies (around Adams) are halting the party’s growth’.

As when Nelson Mandela retired, the problem Sinn Fein faces is how to bank on the personal credit Adams has as the architect of peace when he is no longer there. Revolutionaries can’t all be Mandela-type figures and for most of them credit runs dry. Before taking the bullet to Adams however Sinn Fein need to have a secure succession plan in place because, even if Adams has been serving in the Dáil for the past five years, he is still the dominant force of mainstream Republicanism.

The obvious candidate to take the reign is Martin McGuiness but he has been open about his paramilitary involvement but that taints him with a large chunk of the electorate. In that vein it would come as no surprise to find out Gerry’s previous refusal to admit such involvement was about maintaining political capital post-conflict. That’s now slowly eroding as a number of controversies pile up, including the murder of Jean McConville.

Of course whilst Adams comes under scrutiny we must ask: is it ever excusable to be involved in murder? The IRA would consider it business as usual for a conflict situation (indeed, McConville was considered a grass) but Adams’ refusal to acknowledge involvement leaves him foul of both his friends and his enemies.

The solution once again would be a truth and reconciliation type event, where senior political republicans could fess up and seek forgiveness rather than be dogged by allegations and mudslinging. It would be hugely beneficial for Northern Irish society but to be fully effective it would need wide buy-in. That means all parties: Republicans, Loyalists and, yes, the British Government to fess up, show to the world the blood on their hands, and move on.

It’s no secret the UK has demons a plenty from The Troubles and, already fighting on the Brexit front, there’ll be little will to air their dirty laundry in a public hearing. The Tories would be far better to let Gerry fester in the quagmire of this news than promote a mass mea culpa. That would just bring another PR fight to their doorstep and they just can’t afford to divide their time.

If Northern Ireland ever does get to have a proper truth and reconciliation event the central question will always be whether violence and murder is ever acceptable. The answer might be the difference between lasting peace or continued controversy.

Papal popularity could power Irish reunification push

An historical Papal visit to Northern Ireland is a good opportunity to test how far communities have come since the end of the Troubles. Pope Francis is on track to visit Northern Ireland in 2018, twenty years after the Good Friday Agreement was signed.

Already it is looking like a balancing exercise as Unionist First Minister Arlene Foster has attached ‘in his capacity as head of state’ as the rider to her meeting Francis. There are many wounds to heal in a country where significant numbers of the population still view the head of the Roman Catholic Church as the ‘anti-Christ’, a thoroughly outdated 17th century concept.

The changing demographics of Northern Ireland, with Catholics closing in on being the majority of the population, will add some extra spice to the visit. Francis has demonstrated a desire to reach out and heal divides which his predecessor might not have done but regardless his words will be scrutinised closely. Don’t be surprised if the visit signals a rise of Catholic nationalism and, with the uncertainty of Brexit still likely to be hanging over the place, the stars might be aligning for reunification in ways they haven’t for a very long time.

Republicans have already called for a new border poll. A July poll of 7,500 people by the Belfast Telegraph showed 73 per cent supported a poll with 70 per cent saying they would vote for a united Ireland. The Taoiseach has played down the chances of a reunification poll but, as we know too well, politicians don’t call for polls until the moment they know they would win – 2018 could be that moment.

Sinn Fein has adapted its argument following the Brexit decision appealing to economics rather than just culture and history. It says Irish reunification would see benefit o £35bn by 2025. Gerry Adams has evolved his tactics and arguments before to great effect and this is another sign Sinn Fein’s ultimate goal of reunification remains forefront of the Party’s agenda. Another consideration is the wave of populist politics that is sweeping the Western world. It has already claimed a foothold in America, and Britain and is threatening to do the same in France, the Netherlands and Austria. Should this trend continue over the coming decade one can certainly imagine Irish nationalism being swept up along the way and what better way to ignite that flame than with the visit of a relatable, populist Pope.

Francis’ personality is so strong and engaging he will have no trouble filling the personality vacuum that former Unionist firebrand Ian Paisley occupied. Paisley was a giant among men and his theatrical sermons were a necessary counterweight to the tomes of freedom and minority rights Republicans could call upon. Without him Francis’ warmth and everyman persona will drown out any Unionist disquiet and anything like an attack will be seen as widely inappropriate given how popular the Pontiff is. That will be worrying for Unionist crystal-ball gazers who must surely be seeing a shadowy tricolour fluttering just behind the clouds of time.

Of course Francis’ visit is just as much a relationship repairing exercise after Ireland’s historically inseparable relationship with Rome was torn apart by the abuse scandal that engulfed the church there. The shock, horror and growth in secularisation in the wake of the scandal has left a somewhat beleaguered Catholic community in Ireland but his Holiness has done a lot to repair the Church’s image and his visit will be welcomed by the Irish people.

Journalists, politicians and political scientists will follow events closely over the coming years and maybe this time won’t be shocked if another political earthquake erupts, this time from the Emerald Isle.

War room: spin doctors are the gods of war

This week the Equality and Human Rights Commission wrote a letter to British political parties asking them to tone down divisive rhetoric. Are they right? Is it time we ask ourselves whether the army of spin doctors being employed by politicians are there to effectively communicate a political message or has the concept of a ‘political war room’ been taken too literally.

The political age’s Gods of War typified by Alastair Campbell and his fictional counterpart Malcolm Tucker have succeeded in turning politics from a battle of ideas to a mud-slinging match where the only way you win is by turning your opponents into losers. As a result young people are running away from polling booths in their droves and the centre is being shouted over by rhetoric meant to belittle, dismiss and villainise opponents.  

As Jonathan Haidt said in a recent TedTalk society has come up with ingenious ways to satisfy our insatiable need for conflict that used to be fed with war. One is sport, the other is politics. Largely the democratic world has done this in a thoroughly non-violent manner, even if we weren’t originally trusted to do so (I have been told the House of Commons separates the Government and Opposition benches by only enough to be too far to stab the opposition with a sword!).

Yet in the wake of nasty and divisive political events like Brexit and the US Presidential election, where some truly horrible accusations were thrown around, one has to wonder whether the language of war so common in politics may one day go one step too far. In Europe the warmongering is often blamed on the extreme right, especially around immigration, but everyone has been dragged into this mess (remember Clinton’s ‘basket of deplorables’ comment?).

And behind it all is an army of political operatives, press secretaries, communications pros, and political consultants using their skills with language to demean, demonise, discredit and destabilise people they have never personally met but who deign to believe something different. This company of politics nerds are often lifers or young adults whose job opportunities have been narrowed so that political life is the only place left with romantic allure. With debate settled on most issues of importance they are reduced from making a meaningful difference or formulating proper arguments to tweaking around the edges and doing anything to maintain grip on the corridors of power.

These people operate in back-alleys, and sinister corners of the internet where echo chambers of social media would be made to look like cornucopias of opinions. They live with each other, date each other, drink with each other, and play sport with each other. You would call it cultish if they weren’t being paid well in both money and access.

With that kind of social set up it’s no surprise they can so easily demonise the opposition in fact it’s a perfectly normal extension of their psychology. Political scientist, Ole Holsti’s ‘inherent bad faith model’ posits a state (or opponent) is presumed to be implacably hostile, and contra-indicators of this are ignored, and dismissed as propaganda ploys or signs of weakness. In such a world political operatives can be easily geared up to view opponents negatively and allow contempt to grow within their ranks, making it easier to produce biting criticism and attack communications. When you never meet them or socialise with them that becomes a cake walk.

The scary thing is the power of these operatives is only growing in the face of shrinking margins at newspapers, and deadlines. Journalists are so reliant on ready-made information spun like the weekly washing the vitriol is unlikely to dissipate anytime soon. With bite-size spin for news the electorate is less informed and more susceptible to the dark arts of spin. They are much easier to mould and manipulate into whatever the political class of the day want them to be.

In the long run this can only lead to chaos and disaster. And when Athens, or London, or Canberra, or Washington, burns it will be spin-doctors - like the Greeks Gods of old - standing on top of Mount Olympus watching the flames engulf their mortal playthings. Whilst there is pride, satisfaction and challenge in spin there is no true morality. After all as Euripides said “when one with honeyed words but evil mind persuades the mob, great woes befall the state.”

The myth of American Exceptionalism and why it will end us all

In 1863 in a cemetery in Pennsylvania Abraham Lincoln gave one of the most iconic speeches in history.  It’s a great speech by a great man but it can also be seen as the crystallisation of a concept which would come to dominate the 20th century and bring pain, and misery upon so many in the world.

The idea that America is the greatest country on earth, where everything is bigger and better, where freedom reigns and where government is beholden to its people is the biggest lie the world has told itself. Does a country which is governed for the people allow a Government to shut down 13 times in the last thirty years? Well, you may say, sometimes it’s unavoidable and circumstances are difficult and we're still exceptional. Sure, like when you don’t want to fund healthcare for your own people, or when you play around with a crime package to try and get a water package passed. Wow, exceptional.

With all that exceptionalism floating around it was only fair Americans shared it with the rest of the world, like a grandma wanting you to eat her broccoli bake. Since 1990, as the only superpower left, America has “intervened” (see invaded) in more than twenty-conflicts. The list of their great achievements include Somalia, Iraq, Sudan, Libya, Pakistan, Iraq and, oh, Iraq. Prior to 1990 you could argue that the Cold War gave America licence for its involvement but not an excuse for some of its more calamitous sojourns (see Vietnam) Even a conflict where America did the most good – World War Two – was mainly cause they only got involved so late on. It’s hard not to argue that far from being exceptional America more often than not leaves a place far worse than it found it.  

The jet setting arrogance by which it trots around the world was cruelly cut by a horrendous attack on New York in 2001 but if the world hoped for humility in the wake of that attack from a giant with a bloody nose this did not happen. So here we sit, fifteen years later, in the most perilous global situation since the Cold War, waiting for the so called exceptional superpower to finally deliver on a hundred and fifty year old promise. We’ll be waiting a while cause, surprise, America is not exceptional. Don’t believe me? I have one word – Syria.  

And now the world’s self-appointed sheriff will be led by a short-tempered, Fanta coloured, egomaniac whose rise to power on the back of ‘making America great again’ is American Exceptionalism returning to the scene of the crime. The question now is having destroyed half of the developing world, will this cocky country take itself down too? Somehow I doubt it, stumbling giants always destroy cities but never stub their own toe.

The gig is up though. The trap is set by men far cleverer than Donald Duck and Vlad must be licking his lips with the idea of bringing America to the brink of destruction. Sure the States has had its hard times before but this time is different. This time other nations wait in the wings, China chief among them, to take the crown from America. Having learnt how to be a superpower from America I’m sure China will be nice and quiet, mind it's own business and live in peace and harmony (ha). And because the Yanks can be baited easier than a twelve year old going through puberty they will most certainly be dragged down the rabbit hole of global conflict  the world screaming in its backpack of alliances.

Rather than American Pie I suggest they start baking a bit of Humble otherwise the myth of American Exceptionalism will end in typical Hollywood fashion with a cartoonish explosion and post-apocalyptic wastelands.  

Christian Democracy: an answer to new left-right divide

In the wake of Donald Trump’s shockingly comfortable (at least in the electoral college) election win questions about the Democrats election strategy and how they lost the working people having raged. Why might this have happened? During a recent TedTalk, Social psychologist Jonathan Haidt said we have always been and remain tribal but the sense of tribe and sense of other can expand and shrink from time to time. He argues that we are in an era where the new left-right distinction will divide between people who are parochial and those who are anti-parochial (I.e. Drawbridge up people from people who want more global governance and less borders).

Trump’s close the borders, reclaim jobs, limit immigration message appealed to the more parochial amongst us especially in working-class states hardest affected by a new world order. The same thing happened with Brexit where fear of the outsider saw people reach for a more parochial set up.

With elections due in New Zealand in 2017, mid-terms in the US in 2018 and Australian elections in 2019 it will be interesting to see how the West continues to react. Each of these nations now has a populist group who are appealing to those scared of growing a community too far beyond their own borders.  

These problems will no doubt be discussed at length especially by the Democrats but ultimately by most who count themselves amongst the left in these countries. In a world where the left has been criticised for allowing itself to be hijacked by special interest groups what is the new way forward to appeal to a wider group of distrustful working class people. Option 1 is to wait for these people to change their philosophies (unlikely in the short term and somewhat arrogant) or option 2 is to adapt your philosophy to be more appealing to a wider group.

The best way to accomplish that is to bisect the left-right divide with a new version of a rather old political philosophy: Christian Democracy. Christian Democrats occupy parts of both the traditional left and the traditional right. Just like liberals they emphasise human rights, social justice, a welfare state and market regulation. Meanwhile, they share Conservatives focus on traditional moral values, law and order and the evolution rather than revolution of society.

Embracing Christian Democratic principles would provide the left with a new lease on life in a post-industrialisation age. It addresses the current central problem on the left namely the focus on special interest groups rather than the silent (or not so silent anymore) majority. This could easily be termed compassionate conservatism but holds more store in issues the left is passionate about. I believe promoting six core polices based on this philosophy would lead the Democrats back to power and provide a push to other left leaning parties.

First, family policy. The argument that economic, social and cultural framework conditions should allow families to thrive. Crucially remembering that Christian Democracy holds that the state is not the sole provider of family services, Instead a range of stakeholders including  the government, church and independent private-actors should take responsiblity. That would mean less reliance on pure hand-out policy but more engagement with community groups and social service providers. Less Government but more services.

Second, social policy. This is the tools to safeguard a basic income and decent living in case of illness or incapacity. It is the central tenant of welfare and includes social housing and protection of youth. When combined with point one there is a way to be caring but not overbearing (crucial in America).

Third, is a classic centre-right policy but one which makes sense in context. That’s the protection of individual freedom. Each person has the right to free development and expression. That includes fair competition and the promotion of entrepreneurial initiatives but could also be stretched to acknowledgement of minority rights (people expressing who they are) without it being a pandering.

Fourth, the most controversial tenant but the one with the most potential: the preservation of creation. Some might take this to be an argument on abortion rights but it is actually the mission statement for Christian democratic environmental policy. The policy argues we are responsible for nature and the environment and should develop policy which ensures our natural resources are looked after so we and future generations have an unspoilt environment and liveable home. Preserving the environment opens up our future prospects and creates solidarity between generations.

Finally, the main foreign policy goal of Christian Democrats is to secure peace and freedom of the world. That means looking after those who have common values and tackling pressing global issues. Together, these five tenants create a new way of thinking about policy. The key is people no longer want to be told what to do but they want to have safety and security. We need to lose the smugness of the left and the coldness of the right. On a basic level help out your neighbour  

These are teachings the current Pope has worked hard to put forward. The new way of the Catholic Church is to strip back the pomp and circumstance and get down to helping out the people. Politicians should do the same. Liberals should stop preaching, Tories should stop ignoring and everyone should start serving. It’s a good model to follow in the US where increasing amounts of Hispanic voters (largely Catholic) will turn out over the next few elections and both Republicans and Democrats can grab that vote by following this path. It’s a path much like the compassionate Conservatism of David Cameron or John Key.  

The Democrats and other centre-left who believe in a globalist world need to readapt their philosophy to serve their new base of constituents. Recognising legitimate fears and reinforce the importance of family, of local communities and looking after those who work hard but may need a bit of a leg up. Allow me to play pretend for a minute and fast-forward to 2020. Democrats have nominated Julian Castro (former Housing Secretary) and Tom Wolf (Governor of Pennsylvania) as their presidential ticket. Castro is a Southern, Hispanic, Catholic and Wolf a rust-belt Governor from a state Trump won. They only need a few policies: we care about your family just like you do, we want you to be able to have pride in providing for them and we want you to have dignity in the way you live. Work hard and we’ll be there for you. 

Instead of fearing the new age of politics we should embrace it. Serve the people when they need it and they’ll be great all on their own.

I’m talking about my generation

I was born in 1989. That makes me Gen Y, the son of baby boomers and a member of the most vocal yet apathetic group in a political system on fire. We boo rather than vote, rant rather than change. In the last six months my American and British peers have been dragged kicking and screaming into the arms of an orange, sexist, xenophobic reality star and out of a multicultural, if wholly broken, Europe. I am a South African who grew up in a post-Apartheid age, a Catholic living in a post-religion age, and a man who lives in a post-sexism age (or at least I thought I was!). What I’m not is a member of the ruling class. These leaders, thinkers, builders and bankers are all baby boomers. They are rich in knowledge, and have an abundance of skills to offer but increasingly they are the source of social media outrage and the unnamed targets of the ‘not in my name’ brigade. My generation has largely accepted outcomes to arguments that still define our political system: immigration, healthcare, gun laws, trade. Ask the under-thirties and 90 percent will accept each of these as no-longer up for debate. Yet in a world that is evolving so rapidly people are getting left behind. Terrified and lost in the wilderness of change they’ve done the thing any scared human would do. They ran to their ‘mummy’, the warmth and comfort of the familiar, where societies were homogenous, men were men and communities were local not global. Yet peering from their caves into the brightness they remain conductors of a train that don’t want to be a passenger on. So what do we do? Yesterday I found myself proclaiming putting age limits on politicians. “Well, two 70 year olds ran to be president – no wonder the youth didn’t vote,” I said. This was met with some disagreement. For the record I still think I’m right but only part right. I still advocate installing a taxpayer = voter law: retirement from work means retirement from voting. I also think it’s perfectly acceptable to say that if you’re too old to drill stuff, manage stuff, or produce stuff then you are too old to lead a nation. You should not be allowed to run for office if your term would end after you turn 65 or if you would pass the retirement age before your term is over. That’s because you are changing the direction of a train when you’re getting off at the very next stop: maybe I don’t want to go on the Independent line just so you can get off a Station Status Quo. “Hang on, what about Bernie Sanders?” you might say: the darling of liberal college students everywhere. “Wouldn’t he have been a good driver?” Sure, he was popular amongst liberal youth in carriage C, but I don’t think he could have won the middle carriages. Barack Obama won because he was new America, college campus America, Hollywood America but non-glamorous America: a charismatic, young, intellectual with the cool factor of Bernie and the intellect of Hilary. He won because more people saw themselves in him than they saw in the other guys. “He’s like a successful version of me” was a phrase more people could say about him than anyone else so they voted for him. Despite all this, let’s not forget that Clinton won the popular vote in America: 250,000 more people voted for Hillary than Donald. But she didn’t win by enough, she didn’t win in places it mattered, and she didn’t inspire. In short, people didn’t see themselves in her. You can define yourself by what you are or by what you’re not. Trump’s campaign did the latter and he did it well so he won. Fear won and we can’t be surprised that it did. More people who felt backed into a corner chose to fight against the world that no longer mirrored their lives than those who chose to fight for it. The only way to fix it is to be active, don’t just say but do. Don’t preach, practice. And as Barack says “don’t boo. Vote”. It’s time to start building your own tracks to the destination, our trains are flasher, they’re warmer, and they more colourful. The thing with ‘othering’ is that 10 villages are bigger than one. Come on Gen Y build the village you tweet about, make it colourful and joyous and let it thrive. It may be 2016 but yes we still can.

Letting Go: the Boston Tapes saga and reconciliation

Former South African Justice Minister, Dullah Omar said the country’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission was “a necessary exercise to enable South Africans to come to terms with their past on a morally accepted basis and to advance the cause of reconciliation."

Advance the cause of reconciliation. Forgiveness is a huge part of African culture, in a way it’s what makes Africa and Africans so special. No matter how bad it was, what you did, and who you hurt, forgiveness liberates you and your victim. Nelson Mandela said “courageous people do not fear forgiving for the sake of peace”. Now South African society is broken in many ways: rampant crime, and unseemly levels of corruption have bred dissatisfaction with the ruling ANC. But you cannot deny the way the nation dealt with healing a decades old racial divide should be lauded the world over. The TRC received 7,112 applications for amnesty granting 849 – so you can’t say it was about avoiding justice. What it did do was allow victims to confront perpetrators in an organised space, to air the grievances, to get the facts and to choose to forgive if not forget.  The society liberated itself from the chains of its past to establish a truly rainbow nation. Bar a couple of minor setbacks, you can say that has been an overwhelming success.

Apartheid ended in 1994 and by the time the Good Friday Agreement was signed in 1998 Northern Ireland had plenty of opportunity to follow South Africa’s example by setting up its own TRC and allowing victims and perpetrators alike to come face to face, rather than merely releasing fighters from jail. That’s a political forgiveness not a societal one.

Fast forward to 2011 and police in Northern Ireland began a legal bid to gain access to interviews that were held by Boston College and were conducted with former Republican and Loyalist Paramilitaries. The interviews were part of the ‘Belfast Project’, an oral history of The Troubles. Recordings kept at Boston College became known as the ‘Boston Tapes’. The deal established with interviewees kept their recording and transcripts secret until their death.

Then, in February 2008, former IRA member Brendan Hughes died and his interviews were made public including comments on Sinn Fein leader Gerry Adams’ activities during the Troubles. The central case now revolves around one of the disappeared Jean McConville and the role Adams’ may have played in her disappearance. The Tapes have been subject to a number of legal bids by both Boston College and the PSNI. Who knows what else is on the tapes, say some, what unsolved disappearances, murders or other crimes may be able to be solved. Justice must be served some argue. It’s a sign that reconciliation in Northern Ireland is a failure. Walls and institutions separate societies that may no longer bomb and shoot each other but still harbour hate. Institutions are set up in some form of pseudo-democracy, and cultural events serve as flashpoints every year.

Approaching twenty-years since the Good Friday Agreement how does Northern Ireland compare to South Africa in 2014, twenty-years after its own transition. Short answer: it doesn’t. Forgiveness liberated South African society in a way that those behind Belfast’s walls or marching in parades will never be. In 2014 a Belfast mother went on trial for painting her child’s face with KAT, a reference to killing Catholics. New generations might be less political, but older generations still harbour anger. Let’s not mistake, tiredness for forgiveness.

It’s an unfortunate example of a problem Northern Irish society has not confronted. The better response to the Belfast Tapes revelation would have been to examine why these people had to give evidence in secret, why could Northern Ireland not establish a safe space where these stories could be told. It can’t be that they think it’s a let off, remember South Africa granted just over 10 per cent of people amnesty.

Instead of seeking to battle it out in court, and to punish former paramilitaries this is the chance to establish a commission of inquiry with clearly stated aims of reconciliation and see if that makes any difference to the ongoing hangovers from the Troubles. If it doesn’t, so be it, but the current practice doesn’t seem to be working. For whilst there have been many achievements post-1998, twenty years on they are lagging behind the big boys in the race to reconciliation.

Sorkin, Trump and Brexit: the end of intellectualism?

In Aaron Sorkin’s short-lived but powerful series Newsroom, Newsnight anchor Will McAvoy chooses to apologise to the American people for failing to inform and educate the electorate in the wake of 9/11 and the mass hysteria it led to. McAvoy states “I'm a leader in an industry that miscalled election results, hyped up terror scares, ginned up controversy, and failed to report on tectonic shifts in our country”. He talks about Congress’ allowing “fledgling networks free use of taxpayer-owned airwaves in exchange for one public service. That public service would be one hour of air time set aside every night for informational broadcasting, or what we now call the evening news”.

He then speaks of what his new News broadcast would look like before closing his segment with “Who are we to make these decisions? We're the media elite”. It’s a sappy, idealistic, Sorkin-esque monologue but it raises a good point and one which is more relevant now than ever before. One wonders what might Will McAvoy say of today’s media circus which revolved around Donald Trump and Brexit.

Trump has been able to get within one controversy of ruling the free world through hyperbole, xenophobia and rampant anti-intellectualism. You may say he’s anti-establishment but he’s not. Here’s why.

When Trump lashed out against satirical sketches on SNL he spoke of a “hit job” and a “sick media” which was rigging the election against him. He’s branded any comment about him he doesn’t like as a conspiracy or a lie, whilst spouting incomplete sentences, and half-baked theories as ‘fact’. He has whipped a group of people who have been left behind by globalisation and are no longer experiencing the privilege they have previously come to rely on into a frenzy of hate, and mistrust of reality.

This group of people are not unique to America, they are largely the same group who led Britain’s exit from the EU where immigration and xenophobia led to a wave of nostalgia for a nation they thought didn’t exist. ‘Make Britain Great Again’ if you will. In this decision academics, economists, media commentators, and other academics were not just ignored they were vilified. They were put in a box with bankers, hedge fund managers, and long-time politicians as the parents of toddlers who were sick of being told what to do. For every graph, statistic, or piece of analysis there was a story of a shop owned by a Pole or an Indian.

The sad truth is I kind of understand where they’re coming from. If you grow up on media feeding you gossip, celebrity news and stories about cats which are often only real in the writer’s imagination you will start to distrust the media. So that’s where I return to Will McAvoy and his story about the start of cable news. It’s time we moved away from news as a business and moved towards considering news as a public good – a commodity or service that is provided without profit to all members of a society, either by the government or by a private individual or organization. That would go some way to removing the idea of special interests controlling information like a perverse 1984.

It would hopefully rebuild trust in these institutions as a bastion of truth and restore awe in the well-educated commentators who inhabit them. A journalist should be held up with doctors as the most trusted member of society. Taking it out of the hands of billionaires and putting it into the hands of the people is one way to do this. And like free healthcare, we should get free news in newspaper form not just in TV form. Governments shouldn’t fear journalists digging into their policies, deconstructing their statements and actually providing quality commentary to inform the electorate. And people should embrace experts as the hand up in society not the glass ceiling.

Let’s reclaim intellectualism as something to be loved not feared. Let’s view journalists through Aaron Sorkin’s eyes because they are the elite and that should be revered not feared.