WILL IMPLICIT GENDER BIAS AGAIN IMPACT ELECTION RESULTS?

On June 3 of this year Mexico elected Mexico City's Mayor Claudia Sheinbaum Pardo its first female president. By doing so it joined dozens of other countries that have been led by a female executive at some point in their history. Nevertheless, there still are a significant number of nations that have never had a woman at their helm. Gender bias continues to reign in multiple places. More than 100 countries, including the United States, have never been led by a woman. Sri Lanka became the first country in modern times to elect a female prime minister, backing Sirimavo Bandaranaike in the country's 1960 election. Throughout the 1960s, Indira Gandhi of India and Golda Meir of Israel rose to leadership positions in their respective countries. Dozens of others would follow throughout the succeeding decades. In 2016, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton became the first woman to be a major party's presidential nominee in the U.S.. In 2020, Kamala Harris became the first woman to become Vice President of our country. Both women cracked the "glass ceiling," but, thus far, neither managed to shatter it. With current President Joe Biden bowing out of the race for president this year, and after the ascension of Vice President Harris, who is slated to become the candidate of the Democratic Party and who is competing in a tight contest with former President Donald Trump, the question already being raised is: Are we ready this time to elect a female president, who, by the way, also happens to be a member of an ethnic minority? In 2015, in a survey conducted one month after Hillary Clinton declared her candidacy, 63% of respondents declared to be ready for gender change at the top. Sheryl Sandberg, former C.O.O. of Facebook, went on record a few years later, declaring that "some great progress" had been made during subsequent years. However, after President Biden dropped out of the race, a poll designed to assess the electorate's beliefs surrounding "gender bias," and Vice President Harris' chances in November, concluded that the sentiment expressed in 2015 had actually dropped by 9%. Respondents agreed that both Harris and Trump were equally qualified to do the job, but 30% said they were not ready to vote for a woman, and 41% assumed that more than half of their fellow countrymen would not be willing to vote for a woman over a man even if the two candidates were equally qualified. Respondents to a survey conducted by the PEW Research Center, in July of 2023, were asked to compare their opinion about the relative leadership qualities of men vs, women. While considering leadership characteristics, on the majority of evaluated traits - 53-60% of participants indicated that gender did not matter. Interestingly, while expressing their opinions about a fairly significant number of attributes, contributors expressed the opinion that, when considering some leadership characteristics, like: working out compromises, maintaining a respectful tone in politics, being honest and ethical, standing up for what he or she believed in and working well under pressure, women would actually do better than men. Even though the outcome generated by this polling sample appears rational, it does not translate into national acceptance. Our country has struggled to overcome gender bias in electoral politics. The condition generally stems from an unconscious or implicit bias. Some of us unconsciously assign certain attributes and stereotypes to candidates based on preconceived assumptions or prejudices about gender rather than facts, competence and performance. For many this reflects a psychological disorder which, over time, we seem to have culturally normalized and generally accepted. Although several nations unquestionably demean the role and status of women, throughout history multiple societies and cultures have been able to bypass, or perhaps never had, concerns about placing women in executive positions. Witness for instance: Catherine the Great of Russia (1729-1796), Egyptian Pharaoh Hatshepsut (1507-1458 BC), or Queen Liliuokalani - the last monarch of Hawaii. More recently we experienced quality leadership from Angela Merkel in Germany, Margaret Thatcher in Great Britain, Jacinda Ardern in New Zealand, and now Mexico's newly elected President Claudia Sheinbaum, who is joining the ranks of active female leaders of state and prime ministers around the world - eight in Europe alone. We should be less concerned about our cognitive biases and preconceptions, and be more focused on substance and competence. We should at least allow history to take its course and permit our glass ceiling to be shattered if a candidate is deemed qualified. Theo Wierdsma

PROJECT 2025

Our political landscape continues to be in flux. We are currently still preoccupied with the aftermath of the attempted assassination of former president Donald Trump at a campaign rally in Butler, Pennsylvania on Saturday, July 13. However, we tend to have a short attention span. Now that the Republican convention has run its course, banning other unfortunate interruptions, we are bound to refocus on prominent campaign issues. Our nation has survived multiple instances of assault on prominent politicians throughout our history. President Lincoln was assassinated; so was Garfield and McKinley. Theodore Roosevelt was shot in 1912; Franklin Roosevelt survived an assassination attempt; so did Harry Truman. John Kennedy and Bobby Kennedy were assassinated. Governor and candidate George Wallace was assaulted in 1972. Gerald Ford faced two attempts within weeks in 1975. Ronald Reagan survived being shot in 1981. And the list goes on. Our proclivity for political violence seldom subsides. A recent Brookings Institution poll summarized that nearly one in four Americans currently believe that political violence is justified to "save" the U.S. Leaving this and the current history behind, we are about to refocus on strategic political campaign strategies, less violent, but still intense. While blueprints designed to entirely reconstruct our political environment may principally not appear violent, they could become so when a new administration attempts to install their components. A major such blueprint, and a controversial post election strategy is the "2025 Presidential Transition Project," a.k.a. "Project 2025." Project 2025 was designed to be a detailed blueprint for the next Republican president to usher in a sweeping overhaul of the executive branch of our government. The project was spearheaded by the Heritage Foundation, specifically its president Kevin Roberts, assisted by 34 authors, 277 contributors, a 54 member advisory board and more tan 100 conservative organizations. Even though former president Donald Trump denied any connection to the project, it is very much a Trump-driven operation. Many of its authors used to have significant roles in the previous Trump Administration. The project promotes a collection of conservative and right-wing policy proposals designed to reshape the U.S. federal government and consolidate executive power should the Republican candidate win the 2024 election. Its aims are to restore the family as the centerpiece of American life; dismantling the administrative state; defending the nation's sovereignty and border; and securing God-given individual rights to live freely. The project proposes a presidential transition composed of "four pillars:" - A Policy guide for the next presidential administration - a "mandate for leadership." - A linked-in style data base of personnel which could serve in the next administration, composed of loyal conservatives from all walks of life. - Training for that pool of candidates - dubbed the "Presidential Administration Academy." Training is made up of work shops, seminars, videos and mentorship. - And, finally, a playbook of actions to be taken during the first 180 days of the administration to "bring quick relief to Americans suffering from the Left's devastating policies." It is essentially a blueprint for what a second Trump administration could look like, dreamed up by his allies and former aides. "The centerpiece of the entire proposal is a 900-page plan that calls for extreme policies on nearly every aspect of Americans' lives, from mass deportations to politicizing the federal government in a way that would give a president Trump control over the Justice Department, to getting rid of entire federal agencies." (Washington Post, July 12, 2024). A few examples are: Move the Justice Department and all of its law enforcement arms directly under presidential control. Make reproductive care, especially abortion pills, next to impossible to get. Reconstruct the Border Patrol and Immigration Agency - complete Trump's wall. build detention camps and send the military out to deport millions of people already in the country - including DACA dreamers. Entirely eliminate the Education Department among others. In essence, it seeks to place the entire federal government's executive branch under direct presidential control. It proposes that all Department of State employees in leadership roles should be dismissed by the end of January 2025, and be replaced by State Department leaders in "acting" roles, not requiring Senate confirmation.The project also aims to reclassify tens of thousands of federal civil service employees as political appointees in order to replace them with Trump loyalists. The list is exhaustive and runs the gamut from expanding our nuclear capacity ("the ultimate guarantor of freedom and prosperity") to ending same-sex marriage. Ultimately it proposes to make Christian Nationalism a core value of domestic policy and doing away with the separation of church and state. Democracy experts, political scholars and other commentators have described the project as dangerous and a precursor to authoritarianism. It serves us to remember that on April 7, 1933, the German government under Hitler issued the "Law for the restoration of the professional civil service," which removed Jews and anyone disloyal to the Nazi oligarchy from government jobs. Heritage Foundation president Kevin Roberts was recently quoted as saying that: "We are in the process of the second American revolution, which will remain bloodless if the Left allows it to be." Perhaps these newly self-appointed revolutionaries should endeavor to lower the temperature. Theo Wierdsma

THE GLOBALIZATION OF INDIFFERENCE

Even while serving as an altar boy in The Netherlands for more than a decade, I seldom really listened carefully to Papal communications emanating from the Vatican. It was not until I recently became aware of Pope Francis' plea to resist the world's temptation to descend into a state of globalized indifference that I paid attention to what he had to say. During a speech on the Italian island of Lampedusa, off the coast of Tunisia, on July 8 of 2013, the pontiff claimed solidarity with the many African migrants who had sought refuge there and remembered those who lost their lives in the attempts. He lamented that we had fallen into a global state of indifference. "We are now accustomed to the suffering of others , but it does not concern us - it is none of our business." This speech was given 11 years ago. Since then international migration has grown exponentially. The estimated number of international migrants has steadily increased over the past five decades. Estimates are that by 2020 281 million migrants - about 3.6% of the global population - were on the move, seeking freedom from war and conflict, to escape hunger and poverty, to find new economic opportunities and employment, or to flee from religious intolerance or political repression. On September 2 of 2015 the world was exposed to and shocked by a photograph of the body of a 2 year old Syrian refugee who drowned in the Mediterranean Sea during his family's attempt to reach Europe from Turkey. We even know his name - Alan Kurdi. Readers were aghast. Many expressed concerns about the mortal dangers confronting refugees traveling in that part of the world. Since then almost 30,000 deaths have been recorded. And between 2014 and 2018 another 12,000 people who died were never found. In 2023 alone, 8,565 refugees died on migration routes. In the U.S., between 1998 and 2020, 8,050 people died crossing the U.S. - Mexican border. And no, we did not know their names. The sheer numbers are overwhelming. However, empathy for the well being of migrants has generally been converted to populist and nativist anxiety about polluting traditional cultures or taking jobs and other resources away from domestic populations. The conversation has changed compassion into the logistics of managing the onslaught and the political calculations behind any kind of response. President Biden only recently issued a set of policies catering to both ends of the political spectrum during this election year. On one hand he announced new protections for undocumented spouses of American citizens, which affected about 500,000 people. On the other hand he installed restrictions on the flow of asylum seekers at the border. His likely adversary in this year's election, former President Donald Trump, has used border control as centerpiece of his campaign, designed to cement his political base. His significant promise has been that, if elected, he will use the power of his presidency to deport as many as 20 million undocumented people from the United States. He also laid out plans to build "vast holding facilities that would function as staging centers" for immigrants, essentially internment camps. His mantra is that immigrants are "poisoning the blood of our country." Periodic mass migrations of people have taken place throughout history. We are aware of the Barbarian invasions of the Roman Empire, the great migration from England of the 1630s, and the estimated 14 million Hindus, Sikhs, and Muslims that were displaced during the partition of India in 1947 at the beginning of the dissolution of the British Empire, just to mention a few. For as long as immigration has existed, it has generated anti-immigrant sentiment. However, this time around the vast numbers of migrants paired with the effects of climate change, the pandemic and influenced by the political calculations of a growing nativist electorate have turned compassion into indifference. In the words of Pope Francis: "[Migrants] seek to leave difficult situations in order to find a little serenity and peace. They seek a better place for themselves and their families. How many times do those who seek this do not find understanding, do not find welcome, do not find solidarity? Instead of a better place, sometimes they found death." "We have lost the sense of fraternal responsibility. We are accustomed to the suffering of others, but it does not concern us. It's none of our business. We have forgotten the experience of weeping. We seem to have lost our capacity for empathy." Theo Wierdsma

TRUMP CONVICTION GENERATES DIVERSE REACTIONS AT HOME AND ABROAD

Donald Trump, our 45th president, was convicted of all 34 felony charges of falsifying business records to conceal a hush payment to an adult porn star in a New York State court a few days ago. His conviction generated a barrage of responses, not only at home, but across the globe. Predictably, domestic responses followed party lines. House Speaker Mike Johnson called the verdict a “shameful day in American history.” Ohio Senator J.D. Vance referred to it as a “disgrace to the judicial system.” The operative words have been “historic” and “unprecedented.” As a result, Republicans in Congress have been quick to enlist themselves to Mr. Trump’s campaign of vengeance and political retribution. Non Trump supporters like John Bolton and former Republican Maryland Governor Larry Hogan, who suggested we respect the verdict and the legal process, were instantly bullied by Trump’s enforcers and told to “leave the party.” Former Republican Congressman Adam Kinzinger summarized that: “The GOP is about to have a front runner or a nominee, who can’t vote for himself, who would be immediately discharged from the military in less than honorable conditions, [and] who can’t own a firearm.” However, what happens in the U.S. is consequential for what happens to the rest of the planet. Trump’s felony convictions in the middle of a closely contested election has become front-page news in many countries across the lobe. Foreign observers have already begun wondering if Mr. Trump, already a volatile force, would become even less likely to stay within the guardrails of normal politics and diplomacy if he wins the presidency again in November. As president, Trump often angered, flummoxed, or frightened national leaders around the world with sudden policy changes or unexpected announcements. But his brand of nationalist politics has won supporters on the global stage - particularly in parts of Europe on the political right. Right-wing anti-immigrant, nationalist politicians were quick to come to his defense. Viktor Orban - Prime Minister of Hungary - called him a “man of honor.” Matteo Salvini - Italy’s Deputy Prime Minister - expressed “solidarity and full support.” Nigel Farrage - pro brexit Trump supporter in the U.K. - suggested on social media that “Trump will now win big.” Vladimir Putin’s spokesman Dmitri Peskov elaborated that it was now clear to the entire world that U.S. authorities were trying to eliminate political rivals “by all possible legal and illegal means.” Most European and Asian countries appeared to hold off expressing strong opinions. Many in Europe reacted cautiously, remaining anxious about a possible Trump victory in November and remembering his unpredictability and undermining of existing alliances. The news did dominate newspaper coverage across Europe. Many giving the conviction front-page, above the fold, treatment. Most focused on how the guilty verdict would galvanize Trump supporters rather than discussing the historic nature of the conviction itself. Dear Spiegel - (Germany) - headlined “guilty!” Repeated 34 times. Build - a German tabloid - - asked: “Victory for justice, or dark days for America?” The U.K. Daily Star proclaimed: “Orange Manbaby is guilty on all counts.” The Economist remained very sober with a headline: “Guilty as charged: the Disgrace of a Former American President.” Many of us consider the historically significant importance of this judicial event, not having had a U.S. president convicted in a court of law. However, depending on how we look at this, it is not entirely unusual. All of our Founding Fathers who signed off on the Declaration of Independence were essentially convicted felons, accused of high treason and sedition by the British crown and sentenced to death. Besides, Mr. Trump is not alone among political leaders who face legal trouble and who are convicted by the judicial systems in their own country: Former French President Nicolas Sarkozy was convicted of illegal campaign financing and given a one year sentence. Silvio Berlusconi, who served Italy multiple times as Prime Minister was convicted repeatedly for tax evasion and sex crimes in Italian courts. And Brazilian President Luis Ignacio Lula da Silva, who presided from 2003 to 2011, was convicted of bribery and spent 580 days in prison. He was re-elected to the presidency in 2022. Friend or foe - American voters will announce their verdict in November. Theo Wierdsma

WHEN INSULTS HAD CLASS

We all need a respite from the intense national and international political, military and economic environment we have become familiar with. I recently came across a series of annotated insults from a time when adversaries were more sophisticated publishing their opinions about each other, rather than reverting to our currently adopted habit of simply calling each other out using four letter epithets. Taking a break from the multitude of potential topics, I decided to take advantage of research done by multiple historical chroniclers and copy a number of these. Please enjoy: - "He had delusions of adequacy." - Walter Kerr - "He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire." - Winston Churchill - "I have never killed a man, but I have read many obituaries with great pleasure." - Clarence Darrow - "He has never been known to use a word that might send a reader to the dictionary." - William Faulkner about Ernest Hemingway - "Poor Faulkner. Does he really think big emotions come from big words?" - Ernest Hemingway about William Faulkner) - "Thank you for sending me a copy of your book; I'll waste no time reading it." - Moses Hadas - "I didn't attend the funeral, but I sent a nice letter saying I approved of it." - Mark Twain - "Suppose you were an idiot, and suppose you were a member of Congress; but I repeat myself." - Mark Twain - "To create man was a fine and original idea; but to add the sheep was a tautology." - Mark Twain - " God created war so that Americans would learn geography." - Mark Twain - "He has no enemies, but is intensely disliked by his friends." - Oscar Wilde - "I am enclosing two tickets to the first night of my new play; bring a friend, if you have one." - George Bernard Shaw to Winston Churchill - "Cannot possibly attend first night. Will attend second ...if there is one." -Winston Churchill, in response - "I feel so miserable without you; it is almost like having you here." -Stephen Bishop - "He is a self-made man and worships his creator." - John Bright - "I've just learned about his illness. Let's hope it's nothing trivial." - Irvin S. Cobb - "He is not only dull himself; he is the cause of dullness in others." - Samuel Johnson - "He is simply a shiver looking for a spine to run up." - Paul Keating - "He loves nature in spite of what it did to him." - Forrest Tucker - "He had just about enough intelligence to open his mouth when he wanted to eat, but certainly no more." - P.G. Woodhouse - "His mother should have thrown him away and kept the stork." - Mae West - "Some cause happiness wherever they go, others whenever they go." - Oscar Wilde - "He has Van Gogh's ear for music." - Billy Wilder - "If you were my husband I'd give you poison in your coffee." - Lady Astor to Winston Churchill - "If you were my wife, I'd drink it." - Churchill's response - "I may be drunk, miss, but in the morning I will be sober and you will still be ugly." - Churchill to Lady Astor or Bessie Braddock. -"A modest little person with much to be modest about." Winston Churchill - "He can compress the most words into the smallest idea of any man I know." - Abraham Lincoln - "There is nothing wrong with you that reincarnation won't cure." - Jack E. Leonard - "They never open their mouths without subtracting from the sum of human knowledge." - Thomas Brackett Reed - "You are a classic example of the inverse ratio between the size of the mouth and the size of the brain." - The doctor, (Doctor Who) - "He may look like an idiot and talk like an idiot but don't let that full you. He really is an idiot." - Groucho Marx_ - "He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lampposts for support rather than illumination." - Andrew Lang - "I do desire we may be better strangers." - William Shakespeare - As You Like It - "Well, at least he has found his true love" - what a pity he can't marry himself." Frank Sinatra about Robert Redford - "She got her good looks from her father, he's a plastic surgeon." - Groucho Marx about Elizabeth Taylor - "That woman speaks eighteen languages, and can't say "No" in any of them." - Dorothy Parker - "Thank you for your very amusing review. After reading it ... I laughed all the way to the bank." Michael Douglas to a critic who gave him a bad review My bank won't really care. I do hope you enjoyed these and endeavor to couch your criticisms in more sophisticated terms. Theo Wierdsma

ON THE BRINK - AGAIN

On April 1, Israel bombed an Iranian diplomatic compound in Damascus, Syria, ostensibly targeting a meeting between Iranian intelligence officials and Palestinian militants. The strike killed a senior commander in Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps, six Guard Corps soldiers, five Iran backed militants, one Hezbollah fighter, one Iranian advisor, and two civilians. What was unusual of this attack was not that it was executed within the volatile middle eastern war zone. What was unusual was that, while previous Israeli operations inside Iran had been covert, this one was openly admitted to by the Israeli government. Besides, while previous strikes within Iranian territory would have been communicated with U.S. counterparts prior to execution, this one remained secret until Israeli planes were already airborne. Moreover, while virtually all covert attacks in the past were well out of its territory, this attack was well within the country's diplomatic premises, which, according to article 22 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, adopted in 1961, was accepted as inviolable. This meant that an attack on an embassy or consulate is considered an attack on the country it represents. So, given the situation on the ground, it would not seem unreasonable to anticipate impending responses to an openly admitted fatal attack. Iran's massive response, firing 170 weaponized drones and 150 cruise and ballistic missiles, may not appear to have been proportionate. However, it also appeared calibrated, measured, and was communicated in advance. Given the 620 miles separating the two adversaries multiple more aggressive strategies could have been employed. Its response was not meant to do much harm to civilians or significant damage to infrastructure. A well prepared, collaborative effort at preventing potentially significant casualties and damage successfully kept things calm. The question remained, why did we go through this at all? As a cynic - not a fan of Bibi Netanyahu, nor Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s theocratic government, the answer is not militarily, it is political. Both adversaries are extremely familiar with their respective military strength. However, each one should also be aware of domestic political dynamics. Let’s face it, it does not take a genius to calculate prospective responses to an admitted fatal attack. So, what were they thinking? Mr. Netanyahu seemed to have calculated that the U.S., even if not informed in advance, would support Israel no matter what the response from Iran would be. Given that only 15% of Israelis want him to keep his job following the war with Hamas, its continuation was essential for the prime minister’s political survival. Simultaneously, more than 60% of the Iranian population has polled to be opposed to the current regime. With elections to be completed on May 2, domestic imperatives were dominant when deciding on effective retaliatory responses. In both cases domestic political considerations may have featured in considering aggressive actions. Mr. Netanyahu has a history of exploiting national security belligerence to stay in power. During the run-up to the 2019 elections the “Washington Institute” observed that “to win reelection, Bibi Netanyahu is waging “wars” at home and abroad, launching air strikes against multiple middle eastern countries” With greatly diminishing popular support, and in need of shifting some of the international focus from the carnage in Gaza, it is not surprising that he continues to flaunt national security prowess to shore up his political acumen. His critics describe him as either a master strategist in complete control, or a hysterical politician in the twilight of his reign, doing everything he is able to to maintain his grip on power. Similarly in Iran, having been aggressively, fatally and openly accosted, the Ayatollah regime could not sit back and absorb Israeli aggression without losing significant support at home. But, having demonstrated its resolve and capability, the Iranian government notified the world that it is not seeking a further escalation with Israel after its retaliatory attack. At this writing, Israel’s war cabinet is still considering its options. Allies urge restraint. President Biden made it clear that the U.S. will not offer support for any retaliatory action by Israel. The Israeli Defense Force vows to retaliate. Israel Katz, the country’s foreign minister is busily posting on social media leading a diplomatic attack. House Speaker Mike Johnson outlined a plan to pass aid for Israel through Congress, separating it from support for Ukraine and Taiwan. The rest of us will keep our fingers crossed in anticipation of politicians deciding which way to move forward. Theo Wierdsma

FROM VISIONARIES TO FUNCTIONARIES - LACKING INSPIRING LEADERSHIP, THE E.U. COMES UNDER INCREASING PRESSURE

War, migration, post pandemic recessions and farmers furious at climate change measures have turbo charged an accelerating populist advance in many of the 27 member European Union. What was once a committed supranational organization led by inspired and inspiring leadership is gradually losing political power under assault by nativist forces. Between June 6 and 9 its member states will select more than 700 representatives to the E.U. Parliament, an election which outcome could prove to be of vital importance to the efficacy of the union. As a supranational union, an international organization which is empowered to directly exercise some of the power and functions otherwise reserved to states, the European Union, in contrast to previous attempts at unification, has been remarkably successful. However, its successful transformation into an organization predominantly maintained by functionaries executing decisions and decrees emanating from compromises reached in the parliament and the European Council may also be its gradual political undoing. Prior to the post World War II period, virtually all attempts at unifying Europe were driven by hereditary authorities or military forces led by a political elite with pretentious visions. Examples include the Roman Empire essentially launched by Julius Caesar's adopted son Augustus in 27 BCE; the Holy Roman Empire, introduced by Charlemagne, king of the Franks, which lasted from 962 to 1806; and Napoleon's custom's union, essentially initiated to embargo the import of British goods. Following a series of annihilating European wars, a number of visionary leaders began seriously discussing the need to change Europe's landscape. During the 30 year war (1618 to 1648) 20% of the European population had perished. During the first World War an estimated 10 million European casualties were recorded. And the total number of military and civilian victims resulting from World War II was estimated at 20 million in Europe alone. From resistance fighters to lawyers and parliamentarians, the E.U. pioneers consisted of a diverse group of people who shared the same ideal: create a peaceful, united and prosperous Europe. The objective was to make war not only unthinkable but materially impossible, in contrast with the destructive nationalism of the 19th and 20th centuries that began in glorious patriotism and ended in war. Outstanding leaders of this group included: Alcide de Gasperi, prime minister of Italy who mediated between Germany and France; German chancellor Helmut Kohl and French president Francois Mitterrand; Konrad Adenauer, Winston Churchill, French politician Jean Monnet and others. These were inspired professionals delivering an inspirational message. Although they did not necessarily conform to the traditional image of charismatic leaders, they were able to convince much of the electorate in prospective member countries that this was the way out of the doldrums of perpetual war. They were preaching to the choir while the devastation of war was still omnipresent. Their vision quickly took shape. The European Coal and Steel Community was initiated in 1951; the Treaty of Rome, which launched the European Economic Community was signed in 1957; the European Parliament came into being the following year, and further developments followed in rapid succession. Currently the bloc covers 27 nations, 450 million people and accounts for one-sixth of the global economy. It features deep political, economic and social integration, and includes a common market, joined border control, a common currency for most, a Supreme Court and regular popular elections. While its early successful growth spurt borders on being revolutionary, recent political developments in multiple member states threaten to diminish the bloc's continued political power. Countries like Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Italy, Belgium and The Netherlands all elected right-wing populist or nativist leaning governments. The core issue for these is migration. This also happens to be a major challenge for the European Council, the Council of Ministers, which represents the individual members' governments and defines the E.U.'s overall political direction and priorities. The Council's attempt at forging an agreement on redistributing asylum seekers within the bloc is substantially opposed by these political movements which fear a further dilution of conventional traditions and cultures in their home countries. Since policy positions about sensitive issues require unanimity on the Council, its progress has effectively come to a halt. This issue illustrates the quandary the bloc's supranational decision making powers is facing. In 2014, 28% of representatives elected to its parliament were counted among those identified as Eurosceptic, opposed to increasing the powers of the E.U. and intent on reforming the union from within. This already considerable faction is predicted to grow significantly as a result of the upcoming elections. Consequently, the European Union's ability to construct foreign policy choices may well become diminished going forward, which, in turn, could affect its association with traditional political partners across the globe. The Union's charismatic underpinning has shifted from visionary idealists during the formative period to lackluster political support championed by charismatic native leaders who want to restructure the union or break it up from inside and ultimately reduce it back to simply become a common market again. Theo Wierdsma