DEMOCRATS HAVE A MESSAGING PROBLEM

Special Counsel Robert Hur released a long anticipated report concluding his 15 - month investigation of President Biden's possession of classified documents when serving as vice president. While he opted against bringing criminal charges against the president, he did manage to ignite a political firestorm when he described the president as "a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory." Prior to being appointed special counsel by Attorney General Merrick Garland, Hur served as U.S. Attorney for the District of Maryland during most of the Trump administration. Unsurprisingly, the president's supporters attacked the characterization of President Biden as a political hack job. Vice President Kamala Harris slammed the report, calling it "politically motivated" and "gratuitous," more of a political assault than an unbiased legal document. During a hastily scheduled news conference following its publication, President Biden dismissed criticism of memory lapses and diminished mental acuity. Under the circumstances his need to respond may well have been the right approach. However, he did not do himself any favors by his less than forceful stage presence and by feeding concerns about cognitive decline when, during an interchange with assembled reporters he identified Egyptian President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi as the president of Mexico. For Democrat operatives struggling to distinguish the substantive differences between their candidate and the presumptive nominee of the Republican party, the message ought to be clear. A recent NBC - News poll indicates that 59% of voters expressed major concerns about the current president not having the necessary mental and physical health to be president for another term. This compares to 34% of voters who had major concerns about former president Trump, who, by the way, is only three years the president's junior. Multiple backers of President Biden have pointedly suggested that Trump's gaffes significantly exceeded those accredited to Biden. Conservative attorney George Conway, during an interview with Anderson Cooper, claimed that he could easily produce a "five hour clip" or "weekend special" of "absurd, embarrassing and inaccurate statements" uttered by candidate Trump. He, for instance, confused Nikki Haley with former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi; he claimed that Biden could plunge the world into World War II; he confused Biden with President Barack Obama - stating that he was leading Obama at election polls; and he incorrectly identified Hungary's prime minister Viktor Orban as prime minister of Turkey. The difference is not the content of the message, it is the messaging and the messenger. President Biden has a plethora of substantial accomplishments to flaunt. Donald Trump has nothing but bombast and empty rhetoric. Yet, his base supports whatever he produces. Years ago, during the run-up to the 2016 election battle between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, I published a column discussing the power of charisma. My point of reference was sociologist Max Weber's work on charismatic authority. He identified three forms of charismatic leadership: traditional, charismatic and rational. Then, as well as today, traditional charismatic leadership, which focuses on patriarchy and hereditary leadership, like the monarchy, is irrelevant for our discussion. Charismatic authority, in Weber's analysis is based on the perceived, extraordinary characteristics of an individual fed by charm and personality. Perception being the operative concept. Leadership based on rational charisma is derived from significant hands-on experience developed during extensive bureaucratic and political involvement. This equates to competence. During that election Clinton clearly filled the "rational" category. She was the most competent candidate for the job. However, whatever other strategic decisions she has been accused of, her campaign suffered from what Time Magazine at the time coined "boredom." She came across as canned, unauthentic. programmed and robotic - a technocrat. Donald Trump, without a public record of policy and legislative competence, flaunted a more magnetic personality, enhanced by choreographed imagery and supported by, what has been called a grandiose narcissism, was able to have his followers "drink the Kool-Aid." As predicted, his charisma, even devoid of competence, won the election The message ought to be clear. While some dynamics have clearly changed during the past seven years, for the Democrats to have a chance at winning the upcoming election, referring subtly to the major accomplishments of the Biden administration won't do it. People not only need to know, they need to believe wholeheartedly. Biden supporters can't hide behind esoteric media reports that won't even stand the scrutiny of less inquisitive voters. Most of us want personality and ability. Historically, though, charismatic candidates survive lack of scrutiny and win elections. Charisma trumps competence during the selection process, while experience and ability become desirable in the candidate we ultimately choose. We have many months to go to the next election. However, for some involved in this process, there is no time to waste. Theo Wierdsma

TIME TO CONSIDER PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION

Fifty-six years ago, when I entered this country and when I first encountered U.S. politics, I remember thinking that our system of electing representatives to Congress did not seem very democratic. Granted, I was naive and I did not appreciate the intricacies of the "winner take all" system we used to select many of our political leaders. A few years later I struggled to explain this system to an international audience when I covered the 1972 electoral contest for a Dutch newspaper. This was the same year when Richard Nixon and George McGovern battled each other for the presidency. To an audience that grew up with "proportional representation," our system appeared archaic, unrepresentative and not terribly inclusive. Fast forward to the present, to partisan gridlock, popular exhaustion and even anger at the state of our political union. Polls are beginning to indicate that the majority of those participating appear ready for a change. A new national poll conducted by"Citizen Data" on behalf of "Project Democracy" finds that two-thirds of respondents wish that they had more political parties to choose from. Less than half feel closely represented by their congress person, and two-thirds don't feel represented by Congress at all. Our method of selecting representatives to Congress employs single member districts. Each state carves up its territory into the same number of districts as it is constitutionally allocated. After an election, in each district the candidate with the most votes wins and is elected to represent the entire district. This system has been the norm since 1842, and its use became law when the Uniform Congressional District Act was adopted in 1967. However, its implementation is not a constitutional requirement. While our Constitution specifies that each state will be apportioned a number of representatives proportional to its population, it does not specify how those representatives should be elected. More than 100 countries use a form of proportional representation as their method of allocating delegates to their governmental institutions. This system aims to ensure that the number of seats won by each party is proportional to the number of votes it receives in an election. While there are different variations of this system, they all work by dividing the country into multi-member constituencies and apportioning seats to parties based on their share of the vote. In this system citizens vote for a party, which typically publishes a list of individuals that are elected in rank order based on the number of seats the party wins as a result of the outcome of the election. Both of these systems emerged from its own political history. Their relative selection at some point depended on the objective each country's political elite pursued. They each have their pros and cons. Our system of selecting representatives benefits from its simplicity. It usually gives a clear, quick election result, which traditionally allowed for stable government. Its disadvantage is that minority political viewpoints are shut out or have a reduced role. These outcomes result in a large number of "wasted" votes - one winner, but many, frequently frustrated and disgruntled losers. Proportional representation systems tend to produce greater participation by the electorate. Minor parties, or out of mainstream ideas, have a better chance of being represented. These systems are systemically more resistant to gerrymandering and other forms of manipulation. And, especially in developing democracies, inclusion of minorities in the legislature can be essential to establish social stability and to consolidate the democratic process. With the exception of electoral thresholds - the minimum percent of the vote any party needs to procure to gain representation, usually 3-5% - virtually all votes convert to seats in government. This results in far fewer wasted votes, and provides an outlet for minority viewpoints. A principle objection to P.R. systems is that they almost always result in coalition governments. This can give extreme parties a foothold in Parliament. Very small parties can act as "king makers" holding larger parties ransom during coalition discussions. However, supporters see coalitions as an advantage, forcing compromise between parties and cement agreements at the center of the political spectrum. This process tends to produce greater continuity and stability, fewer wasted votes and more democratic outcomes. Given that many of us have become frustrated by the inability of our current system to accomplish cooperative results, we ought to consider the advantages of a viable alternative. Theo Wierdsma

REFLECTION, ANTICIPATION AND TRANSITION

Traditionally, when one year transitions into the next, we are enticed to reflect on the past 12 months and attempt to project what might be in the offing going forward. We know what happened last year. However, since we live in a uniquely volatile period in history, predicting what we should anticipate during the next dozen months may prove to be challenging. It seems appropriate to begin by citing a few statistics which we are not excited about. Countrywide, last year, our homeless population surged to 653,000. This amounted to a 12% increase over previous years - the highest recorded increase in history. (Wall Street Journal). The number of gun related deaths exceeded 40,000 in 2023. All of these were carried out with weapons nobody envisioned when the Second Amendment was ratified in December of 1791. This was the tenth year in a row that the number of gun related deaths exceeded 39,000. Nobody expects this horrific statistic to change much this coming year. On the bright side, we escaped the recession many analysts predicted, even as the inflation rate dropped more than 50%, to 3.14% against 7.11% last year. In fact, during the final months of 2023 most economic indicators registered significant improvements. The stock market ended up at an all time high. The Consumer Confidence Report, a measure of how Americans feel about business conditions and the job market, rose to 110.7 - up from 101.0 in November - the largest one month jump since July. Overall, 71% of consumers polled said they felt positive about 2024, up from 64% a year earlier. Real GDP - a measure of the value added created through the production of goods and services - rose by 2.8%, better than expected. And consumer spending during the 2023 holiday season increased by 3.1%, the most significant change in years and in line with pre-pandemic spending levels. All this while, by historical standards, unemployment remained low. For most of us these latest statistics should be comforting, if not exciting. However, for those who view our socio-economic development within a political framework, this economic upturn may throw a monkey wrench into already well established electoral campaigns that are infused with a deep-rooted "negativity bias." Our highly charged political actors routinely tend to reject positive data which their perceived opposition is likely to flaunt. Resolution of significant geopolitical issues during the coming months will prove complicated and, while desirable, are not immediately expected. Tensions around the world can lead to trade disruptions, political instability and supply chain disruptions. All of these have the potential to erase some of the economic plusses of the past several months. The war between Israel and Hamas in Gaza continues unabated. The Gaza strip is devastated. Nearly 70% of the housing units have been destroyed or damaged. More than 22,000 Palestinians, more than half women and children, have been killed in the aftermath of the murderous rampage experienced by Israel on October 7, which killed around 1,200. Israel's Prime Minister Netanyahu, who is fighting for his political survival, promises that the war could continue for several more years. Attacks by Iran backed, Yemen based, Houthi rebels on international shipping in the Red Sea further destabilizes the situation in the region, and threaten to expand the conflict beyond the current combatants. These have already affected supply chain issues. The war between Ukraine and Russia will soon enter its third year, while support for Ukraine appears to be dwindling among its Western supporters. No end in sight, while Putin is again running for president in Russia's mid-March election. Domestically we are confronting challenges on multiple fronts. Our Southern border continues to encounter what amounts to the greatest mass invasion of migrants since the Italian Diaspora in the late 19th and early 20th century. During 2023 alone, U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents encountered nearly 2.3 million migrants. Most come from Central America, Cuba, Venezuela and Haiti, attempting to escape conflict, persecution, or large-scale human rights violations. Politicians point fingers, but they seem unable to agree on measures to stem the flow. Our political stalemate about these and other issues conveniently segues into the potential implications of the culmination of the current election year. A majority - 75% - of U.S. adults believe that democracy as we know it could be endangered. Although most disagree which one of our candidates poses the greatest risk. Almost 84% of Democrats foresee ominous consequences of the threat from a reemergence of a Donald Trump presidency, while 55% of Republicans believe democracy is already broken. More haunting is that 23% of those surveyed expressed the believe that "American patriots may have to resort to violence to save the country." (33% of Republicans, 22% of Independents and 13% of Democrats). (Brooking Institute, Oct. 2023). Over half of the world's population, some 4 billion people in 64 countries and the European Union, will hold national elections. This is the biggest global election year in history. For many these will prove consequential. Far-right, functionally anti-democratic, parties are predicted to gain significant support. In at least eight European countries extreme right populists are already either the dominant or second most popular political party in their respective country. Anti-immigrant, anti-Semitic and anti-Muslim platforms makes you wonder if we are about to come full circle since the Fascist years of the mid-20th century. Democracy is on the ballot almost everywhere. Maria Ressa, an investigative journalist from the Philippines who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2021, was very blunt when she suggested that "We will know whether democracy lives or dies by the end of 2024." Happy New Year - may the force be with us. Theo Wierdsma

BIBI NETANYAHU'S WATERLOO

On October 7 the world woke up to videos of horrendous slaughter in Israel, executed by Hamas, the Palestinian Sunni Islamist political and military organization governing the Gaza Strip of the Israeli occupied Palestinian territories. While branding Hamas a terrorist organization, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin (Bibi) Netanyahu proclaimed that the country was now engaged in a full scale war, not only to retaliate for the brutal murder of 1,200 of its citizens and the capture of more than 240 hostages, but, in essence, for the country's survival. What he neglected to tell his listeners was that, in a real sense, Mr. Netanyahu is now also engaged in a battle for his personal political survival. Even though Bibi Netanyahu is the longest serving Israeli prime minister in the country's history, his survival as the dominant political figure does not necessarily reflect his popularity. He has been adept at adjusting to changing domestic political realities over time. Moreover, he has been more than willing to callously manipulate skirmishes with mostly Palestinian opponents into life or death situations for the Jewish state. In the process he managed to continually reinvent himself as the savior of the only democratic country in the Middle East. Well before the October 7 attacks, Netanyahu's popularity had already plummeted across the political spectrum. The Israeli press excoriated him, and former security officials and activists opposed to his judicial reform agenda called for him to step down. The outbreak of war has led to increased dislike for the prime minister and his government because of the general belief that it failed to follow up on security and intelligence indicators that could have prevented the massacre. Recent polling indicated that 86% of respondents hold the country's leadership responsible for the security failures that led to the surprise attack, and 56% of Israelis believe that the prime minister should resign. Netanyahu has been under indictment for breach of trust, bribery and fraud since 2019. If convicted, he could face up to 10 years in prison for bribery and a maximum of 3 years for fraud and breach of trust. Politically, his right wing government has attempted to pass judicial reform intended to weaken the Israeli Supreme Court and to make it more difficult to remove him from power. These attempts have sparked some of the largest public demonstrations in Israel's history. Given the theoretical possibility that he could be forced out of office if his popularity continues to drop, his political crisis raises the question of whether he could view prolonged military intervention as a way to cling to political survival. Since Israel is relatively isolated in the conflict with Hamas, it would stand to reason that its government would pay heed to suggestions from a diminishing number of unwavering international partners. These not so subtle recommendations issued by major players like President Joe Biden, who visited the country arguably at his own political peril, have largely been ignored. It may be an overstatement to suggest that the Israeli government should pay attention to our advice. Israel is, after all, an independent country. However, we may be less inclined to protect it if its government remains unresponsive. The argument can be made that its survival won't just be dependent on the outcome of this war. The U.S. has been its dominant supporter since its inception. Between 1951 and 2022 we have provided $225.2 billion in aid - more than to any other country since World War II. We have also used our U.N. Security Council veto power 42 times against resolutions condemning Israel. This is out of 83 times we used our veto. Nevertheless, Mr. Netanyahu has consistently refused to consider the advice of our most seasoned political operatives. He pointedly opposed the Iran nuclear deal pursued and agreed to under President Obama. The prime minister ran a multi-pronged sustained public campaign against it - not just in the international sphere, but inside the U.S. as well. (He managed to get President Trump to withdraw from it.) Our support for the establishment of a Palestinian state was also nixed. Netanyahu wanted a demilitarized Palestinian state and further expansion of Jewish settlements in the West Bank. President Biden's proposal to "pause" the unrestricted cataclysmic attack on Gaza is also being ignore. For decades, U.S. Secretaries of State, peace envoys and politicians of all stripes have expressed their belief that Mr. Netanyahu never had an interest in pursuing peace. In fact, he actively runs campaigns inside our country, manipulating our electorate for his personal political benefit. Many stakeholders in Israel and the U.S. are finally getting tired of Bibi's narcissistic indifference to well intended advice. Influential voices from across the political spectrum, uttered from multiple, well developed, platforms, are beginning to characterize Bibi Netanyahu as the "worst leader in [Israel's] history." (e.g. Friedman et al). Several have suggested that "the sooner Israel replaces Netanyahu and his far-right allies with a true center-left/ center-right national unity government, the better chance that Biden will not have hitched his credibility and ours to a Netanyahu Israel that will never be able to fully help us to help it." In the mean time Netanyahu will continue to pursue a war of devastation in Gaza, nominally to eradicate Hamas, but actually slaughtering tens of thousands of Palestinians who have nowhere to hide or go. He will likely continue this unscrupulous battle as long as he believes that the outcome may benefit him politically. The world is waiting for conscientious Israeli leaders to put a stop to this and to him. Like Napoleon a little more than two centuries ago, Israel's perennial prime minister might actually be fighting the battle that will ultimately end his imperial power. Theo Wierdsma

HATE SPEECH AND POLITICAL VIOLENCE

Many of us probably remember the old adage: "Sticks and stones will break my bones, but words will never harm me." At a personal level, among kids growing up, there might be some truth to that. On a national level, however, evidence indicates that words, when inserted into inflammatory speech patterns can be dangerous and have historically preceded horrific genocides. We all had the unfortunate experience of suffering through the occasional uncontrolled rants from former President Donald Trump. For a while, after he left office, Mr. Trump's erratic behavior was masked, numbed and normalized by the political fatigue permeating the media and the public. But ever since he was issued multiple indictments, and since he decided to become the primary candidate for his party's nomination in next year's presidential contest, things changed. His words took a violent turn - like calling for former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Mark Milley to be executed, mocking a potentially fatal assault on a congressional spouse and urging police to shoot shoplifters - suggest a line has been crossed. For the bulk of the time after he was elevated to national political prominence, Donald Trump openly expressed his disdain for migrants at our Southern border. He referred to them as rapists and criminals, suggested they were not people, but animals from shit hole countries, infesting our country like rats, and he actually suggested that border patrol agents should shoot migrants who attempted to illegally cross the border. More recently, during an interview for "The National Pulse," he claimed that undocumented immigrants were "poisoning the blood of our country." This statement comes straight from Adolph Hitler's "Mein Kampf," which led to a Nazi rallying cry that translates to "Blood and Soil," replicated by Neo-Nazis and white nationalists during the "Unite the Right" rally in Charlottesville, Virginia in 2017. His incendiary rants against judges adjudicating his multiple indictments in Georgia, Florida, New York and Washington have become daily occurrences. Mr. Trump routinely refers to prosecutors as "a team of thugs." He called one potential witness "a gutless pig," and accused African American judges of "racism." Apologists for the former president point to his First Amendment rights. However, "Freedom of Speech" is not unlimited. In "Brandenburg v. Ohio" the Supreme Court, in 1969, concluded that a call for violence or mob action could be punished if it "is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." It seems reasonable to believe that many of Mr. Trump's utterances have crossed that line. Moreover, given his prominent position in our current political climate and the presence of his dedicated following, many of his public statements are outright dangerous. To quote well-known conservative attorney George Conway, husband of Kellyanne Conway, who worked for Trump from 2016 to 2020: "Donald Trump is profoundly psychopathic in the way he expresses himself, and he is getting worse!" Let's revisit some historical cases. The Holocaust did not start with the gas chambers, but with hate speech against a minority. Before Jews were driven out of their schools, their jobs, their homes; before the synagogues, shops and businesses were destroyed; and before there were ghettos and camps, words were used to stoke the fires of hate. Words were ultimately used as incitement to genocide. Six million perished. The Cambodian genocide was preceded by hateful discourse, systematically dubbing intellectuals, city dwellers, political opponents as well as ethnic and religious minorities as the enemy of the people. The Khmer Rouge under Pol Pot killed 1.5 to 2 million Cambodians during the time he was in power, from 1975 to 1979. The 1994 genocide instigated by the majority Hutus in Rwanda took place after decades of hate speech, exacerbated ethnic tensions by spreading unfounded rumors, and dehumanizing the minority Tutsis. More than one million were killed in less than three months. The Srebrenica genocide in Bosnia and Herzegovina was facilitated by constant nationalist propaganda demonizing the Bosnian Muslim population. Approximately 8,000 targeted Muslim men and boys were killed during a war which eventually ended up killing 100,000. The question often asked is: "Can it happen here?" People familiar with the historic backdrop to these and other genocides will most likely respond: "Unfortunately, yes, it can!" Verbal attacks on the judiciary have already resulted in a 400% increase in threats to federal judges - 4,000 reported incidences in 2020 alone. According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, the toxic combination of political polarization, anti-immigrant sentiment and the growth of technologies that help spread propaganda on line have grown the number of recognized hate groups to a historic high of 1020, a 30% increase over 2014. Some of us are still haunted by the Charlottesville rally during which torch bearing Neo-Nazis, white nationalists and members of the Ku Klux Klan were chanting: "Jews will not replace us." To which then President Trump responded: "There were fine people on both sides." You can't have it both ways. Respect for human dignity should not require a choice. Theo Wierdsma

DISCORD, DISCOMFORT AND POLITICAL HYPOCRISY

President Biden's recent change of heart about continuing the extension of the wall along the U.S./Mexican border raised a lot of eyebrows. During his presidential campaign three years ago, then candidate Joe Biden made it "perfectly clear" that during his administration not a single foot of wall would be built. A few weeks ago, he announced the release of funds to build up to 20 more miles of this controversial medieval barrier, claiming he had no choice but to release the money allocated during the Trump administration. When questioned about that decision, the president appeared openly uncomfortable. He confessed that he still believed that walls didn't work. Members of both political parties were quick to denounce his decision as hypocritical and politically expedient. However, social psychologists would refer to his reaction as a clear case of "cognitive dissonance," a mental conflict that occurs when beliefs don't reflect actions. The president displayed significant discomfort as he grappled with contradictory values, attitudes and perspectives about border control. As we move into next year's election cycle, many of us may experience similar uncomfortable episodes. Uncomfortable sensations which we will be motivated to reduce or explain away. To be clear, everyone experiences cognitive dissonance in their life. It happens when you hold two conflicting thoughts at the same time. You may crave hamburgers, even though you love cattle. You want to be healthy, but you don't exercise or eat a nutritious diet. You recognize that smoking or drinking too much is harmful to your health, but you do it anyway. You know you should drink eight glasses of water every day, but you drink coke instead, since it consists predominantly of water, and it tastes better. The link to politics seems obvious. We essentially have a two party system. Not every point of view is represented in isolation, like, for instance, in a proportional representation system used predominantly in Europe. Many of us will vote along straight party lines, holding our nose, not necessarily agreeing with everything contained in our party's platform or proclaimed by its candidate. We find ways to reduce our discomfort by yielding to social pressure, by trivializing the importance of discordant opinions, by denying responsibility or by other means that help us feel better about our decisions. A pertinent current example is the dissonance experienced by observers who are asked to state a position on Israel's response to the slaughter carried out by Hamas terrorists inside their country on October 7. Many will agree that Israel has a perfect right, or even a responsibility to go after the assassins with lethal force where ever they maintain their base of operations inside the Gaza Strip. However, most will also acknowledge that these militants reside among 2.3 million Palestinians, 52.3% of which are children under 18, who are wedged in tight living quarters with nowhere to hide or go. Hamas callously and openly employs this population as human shields. A military incursion will likely kill many of them. Anyone unconcerned by this prospect lacks compassion. We should all feel extremely uncomfortable contemplating the outcome of this festering conflict. While this may be an extreme example of a situation creating incompatible thoughts about outcomes in search of morally and politically acceptable solutions, the upcoming election year promises to be filled with discordant thoughts. Politicians tend to specialize in identifying what makes us feel uncomfortable, and suggesting dissonance reduction solutions that involve their personal records, opinions or prescriptions. American social psychologist Leon Festinger originated the theory of cognitive dissonance around the middle of the twentieth century. His work has been the focus of over 60 years of research, which can offer insights into the growing divide between what many politicians say and what they later say or do. Whether resultant discrepancies amount to political hypocrisy, expedience or situational change depends on our comfort level with the messenger. Theo Wierdsma

ECO ANXIETY CUTS MULTIPLE WAYS

A recent well researched article, written by Jason Horowitz and published in the New York Times, identifies a condition increasingly detectable among a growing segment of the world's younger population. Identified as an emotional disorder, this condition is described by members of the Ecology Psychiatry and Mental Health division of the World Psychiatry Association as "Eco-Anxiety" - a chronic fear of environmental doom. While the United States and Canada experienced some of the worst wildfires on record, for instance killing close to 100 in Maui, Europe is a continent on the verge of a nervous breakdown. In Greece, out of control blazes burned 310 square miles, the largest conflagration in the E.U. since 2000. If that was not enough, the fires gave way to flooding that submerged villages, washed away cars and left bodies floating in the streets. The same storm hitting Greece gained strength over the Mediterranean and pummeled Libya with flooding that killed up to 20,000 people. Add to those statistics the memory of almost 62,000 heat related deaths during the summer of 2022; the 51,000 deaths incurred during the earthquake in Turkey; and more than 3,000 fatalities from the earthquake in Morocco. With extreme heatwaves proliferating, and the incidence of hurricanes and typhoons increasing in numbers and intensity, the affects of climate change appear irreversible. It is understandable why many have become frustrated, powerless, overwhelmed or helpless, anxiously waiting for the next shoe to drop, a sentiment reminiscent of the anxiety felt by many who grew up during the 1950s and 1960s who worried about the potential of the "cold war" developing into a nuclear holocaust. Anxiety has understandably led to ever increasing pressure on governments to get behind strategies designed to mitigate the proliferation of the climate crisis. The response from the European Union to these recurring catastrophes has generally been more far reaching than that in our own country. Under its Climate Law, E.U member states are now required to cut greenhouse emissions by at least 55% by 2030, and be climate neutral by 2050. While these are lofty targets, execution by national governments have consistently come under attack. Eco-Anxiety is not a one way street. Economic interests on the receiving end of some of these strategies, while perhaps sympathetic to the motivation behind them, are often seriously concerned about their own survival. A case in point was highlighted by what I observed during a recent trip to the Netherlands. From the time I landed at Schiphol Airport we were confronted by repetitive signs declaring: "No Farms No Food!" It became evident that the Dutch government had agreed to attack the country's methane and nitrogen dioxide pollution, which is many times greater than that in all other E.U. countries. After carbon dioxide, methane is the 2nd largest contributor to climate change. It is responsible for around 30% of the current rise in global temperatures. It has more than 80 times the warming power of carbon dioxide. And 37% of methane emissions from human activity are a direct result of livestock and agricultural practices. The Dutch produce 34% more greenhouse gasses per capita than the average European. Scientists and policy makers have increasingly begun to recognize that methane reduction was crucial. So, for Dutch policy makers, this appeared to be a logical starting point. Among a number of measures to target a significant reduction of methane emissions, the government decided that it needed to achieve a 30% reduction in overall livestock numbers. This year it published a list of 3,000 of the most polluting farms, and threatens to close them forcibly. The E.U. assisted by approving a 1.47 billion Euro fund to be used to buy out Dutch farms located near nature reserves that committed to close shop voluntarily. Predictably, none of this sits well with the farmers that are affected. Many complain that the government wants to get rid of farmers all together. Strikes, demonstrations, and political opposition have been intense and unrelenting. Ultimately opponents of government policy succeeded in developing a new political party, known as the "BoerBurgerBeweging" (Farmer-Citizen Movement), also known as BBB, which, after provincial elections in March of this year, managed to become the largest party in the upper chamber of parliament. The affected farmers now have a seat at the table, potentially preventing the imposition of overly simplified government strategies that could drastically disturb their livelihood. This example illustrates that Eco-Anxiety cuts multiple ways. Extreme weather patterns have become the new normal. People are dying. Developing strategies and instilling habits to forestall Armageddon are essential. However, the process won't be as straightforward and free of resistance as many would like. Theo Wierdsma