I'm taking political surveys online for my government class.

Survey #1 says I’m a Communitarian… I’ve never heard of this before so I don’t have much to say.

Survey #2 says I’m a Disaffected. Makes me sound like I’m immune to a disease. But This had more info than the other survey. I’m apparently critical of gov’t and buisness (my dad owns a buisness… huh.) and i’m stressed with my finance. Also, 23% of us disaffecteds watch NASCAR racing. They got me right on that at least.

Survey #3 says I’m a Republican, but barely. I was one point away from being in the middle. But finally, a survey where Undecided is a choice.

Survey #4 says I’m an Independant.

So…. I guess I’m a political mutt? 

While my tumblr is a representation of who I am and what I believe, I don’t think I have truly explained myself to my followers. I have in brief posts about my life and my hobbies, however, the very core being of who I am, what I want to do, and how I want to do it have remained a mystery. Lately, I have been more vocal about my beliefs on tumblr; albeit they are brief glimpses of my beliefs jumbled within my pictures of attractive men, tattoos, food, music, etc. But I am much more than other people’s pictures and reblogs. I am a person who deeply feels committed to connecting myself to a core mission and seeing that mission carried out. Now, what do I mean by that? I am glad you asked.

First and foremost, my goals lie within the realm of the environment. Slowly, over time, I have developed a strong passion for the environment. I love not only spending time in the environment, but learning and understanding the environment and ways in which humans can coexist with nature. I was born into a world that has little time and effort for understanding every aspect of life’s connection and impact on the environment. And what began as an understanding of Environmental Ethic developed into a desire to understand the science and politics surrounding the environment. In order to establish an ethic, I first had to understand the value of the environment in a personal way.

In my senior year of high school almost four years ago, I became immersed in the world of electoral politics. While electoral politics is not my passion, the work I did on President Obama’s 2008 campaign led to an alteration in my worldview and brought out what was truly in my heart: a passion to change the world. That was a very tall order. My initial goals of going into music production were placed on the back burner as I immersed myself in classes on international and national politics. I transferred colleges to pursue Political Communications and fell in love with organized movements, particularly grassroots organizing.

Slowly, my study of politics shaped my understanding of science, art, literature, food, language, economics, and all other aspects of life. My life was and is constantly immersed in politics and grassroots organizing. My goals and ambitions were and are to understand my beliefs and apply them to my life. My beliefs dominantly are shaped by my study of history, philosophy, political science, communications, grassroots organizing, science, and the environment and my understanding of society. I have dedicated my life to not only something that I love but something that I understand and have a natural talent for.

But what are my beliefs? I do very rarely share something so personal on my tumblr. While I am an amalgamation of different ideas of what the world should be, I do not wish to pigeonhole myself to one set ideology. I consider myself to be dominantly a Communitarian. What is Communitarianism? Communitarianism is an understanding that until we place emphasis on the value of individuals living within a community and their value within a community, we cannot value each other. When we live within communities of peoples who bring different skills to the community, thus causing it to thrive where it otherwise would flounder, we value them for their skills. These skills lead to the success of the community and ultimately the individual. These communities could be family units, but frequently they are individuals who have connected through personal interaction, shared history, or shared geography. Regardless of how the community came to be, what is most important is a sense of connection between these people and a sense of commitment to self and community success.

These ideas fuel my understanding of education, housing, health care, jobs and the economy and their relevance to communities and their governments. My communitarian ethic fuels my ideas surrounding humanitarianism, equality, positive rights, and social capital. My goals and ambitions are driven by the understanding that communities that work together to shape the landscape politically, socially, and economically, will build communities that fit the individual community’s needs. Communitarianism is neither a right nor left belief, but rather their leanings are dictated by the communities themselves. All of this is fueled by my understanding of the environment and how we need to care for it and my belief that grassroots organizing can change the political, social, and economic landscape of this world.

Ultimately, all of this is derived from my sense of purpose. Where this sense comes from, I have no idea. But I do not need to know where this sense comes from, merely that I feel this way. I have never felt so strongly about something in my entire life. At my very core is where all of these beliefs lay. This is who I am as a person, this is how I view the world, this is what leads me to act the way I do. The environment is my heart and politics are my hands.

Aiwha Ong critiques the barrier between the "liberal" West with the "illiberal" East:

I know it’s super long, but it’s really good. I would type up the whole chapter if I could. If politics and anthropology interest you, definitely have a read. Also, it highlights the age-old anthropological debate “does complete objectiveness ever actually exist?” Many of the ideas we hold will always influence our perspective in seeing the “Other.”

“On a visit to South-East Asia, Huntington calls Asian democracies like Singapore, Malaysia, and so on ‘illiberal systems,’ contrasting them with American democracy. He claims that 'free, fair and competitive elections are only possible of there is some measure of freedom of speech, assembly, and press, and if opposition candidates and parties are able to criticize incumbents without fear of retaliation. Democracy is thus not only a means of constituting authority, it is also a means of limiting authority.’ While Huntington recognizes that Malaysia and Singapore are parliamentary democracies, he is critical of their political culture that puts limits on the capacity of citizens to express their views without fear of state retaliation. 

Huntington’s concern is part of his overall clash-of-civilizations thesis, which is a global version of the liberalism-communitarian debate about fundamental Western and non-Western cultural differences. In the West, the debate assesses the pros and cons of the eighteenth-centruy view that citizens’ allegiance could be grounded on enlightened self-interest, versus the republican ideal of community grounded on citizens’ alliance to pursue common action for the common good. The ideals of the unencumbered self (individualism) and of the situated self (communalism) are linked and form the dynamic tension in democratic societies. The liberalism-communitarian debate seeks to weigh how the democratic government should respond to the range of citizens’ demands for individual rights and for the good of collectiviities. Charles Taylor notes that the body of liberal theory dominant in the Anglophone world sees the goal of society as to help citizens realize their life-plans 'as much as possible and following some principle of equality.’

But when the debate expands to include Asian nations, the tendency is to lump them under the communitarian camp, since non-Western societies are viewed as giving the highest priority to community life, often at the expense of individual freedom. For Western political theorists, the paradox presented by most Asian democracies is that the growth of market economies has not led to the growth of civil society, in particular the cherished Western ideals of full-fledged individual rights, and the freedom to check state power. Instead it seems to theorists like Huntington that economic growth has enabled Asian states to strengthen their ability to subordinate individual rights to the collective good. This underdeveloped nature of civil society in Asian countries has led Western observers to conclude that they lack political accountability to individuals to society. Huntington’s 'explanation for this paradox - representative democracy and capitalist economy coexisting with an authoritarian state (minus civil society) - lies in enduring Asian values, which have survived Western colonialism and become dominant in the post-colonial formations.’

But instead of resorting to cultural essentialism, it might be interesting to investigate the symbiosis between economic liberalism and political conservatism as characteristic of a different form of liberalism. After all, the most successful forms of Asian liberal economies - the so-called Asian tigers of Hong Kong, Singapore, and Malaysia - were colonies of Great Britain and inherited many institutions of government, law, and education associated with the Enlightenment values Huntington claims are missing in Asia. I discern that what appears particularly illiberal to Western observers is the fact that the Asian tiger state defines for the citizenry what is the public good. This flies in the face of Western assumptions that liberalism is fundamentally about rights rather than a particular vision of the good society; 'the principle of equality or nondiscrimination would be breached if society itself espoused one or another conception of the good life.’ Second, Asian tigers have a different conception of political accountability which is not immediately apparent to Western observers focused on the protection of individual rights according to principle of absolute equality. For these middle-range economies, political accountability tends to be measured in terms of the state ability to sustain economic growth for society as a whole. 

Thus, if one considers liberalism not as political philosophy, but as an 'art of government,’ it may be possible to discover that the particular features of Asian political culture are rooted not in some timeless cultural values but in the logic of late-developing liberal economy.”

Aiwha Ong. Clash of Civilizations of Asian Liberalism? An Anthropology of the State and Citizenship.

A trinitarian view of being human that corrects our either/or approaches

Beyond the either/or

I was reading an excellent article, nodding all the way, until I got to the point where the author made a distinction between two types of people and then sided with one of them. From that point on, the article fell apart for me.

Setting aide the rest of the article, here is the writer’s central distinction: “Americans fall into two basic camps. Those with a more ‘egalitarian’ and ‘communitarian’…

View On WordPress

Communitarian Perspective of Citizenship

Wk 6-B: Blog Activity 1                                                                                                              Topic 1 - Perspectives of Citizenship

          Communitarianism is a philosophy that emphasizes the connection between the individual and the community. While the ‘community’ may be a family unit, it is usually understood in the wider sense of interactions between a community of people in a geographical location, or who have a shared history or interest. Communitarian philosophy is derived from the assumption that individuality is a product of community relationships rather than only individual traits.

          If I will no longer have all limitations/obstacles to fulfilling my rights and responsibilities, I will go for communitarian perspective. I choose communitarian view because no matter what happens, we are a part of a community. It will either be a community of people in a geographical location, or people whom you have shared history or interest as said earlier. As this implies, communitarian thought centres on the notion of the socially-embedded citizen and on community belonging.” (Smith, 1998)

          What I like about communitarian view is that, it isn’t just about doing well, but it is all about doing your responsibilities at the same time, respecting the rights of each and every individual in the community. It’s not just about yourself, your own interest and being an independent citizen, just like the liberals thought. For me, good relationship with others in the community matters most.

          Knowing not only my rights, but also my responsibilities as a citizen can be very helpful for me being a part of a community. While respecting other’s rights and being an active citizen in our community may be beneficial. Personally, I’d like to help or participate on activities with my fellow citizens rather than spending my time for myself. Being an individual, I always wanted to be a part of activities with a great purpose. Why not be a part of it if it is good for everyone’s sake.

          Being young and with limited resources, I’d like to cooperate with others for good purposes-considering everyone in the community-in helping the community. And as a student, I’ll study well to help my parents, first of all, and pursue my dreams to be able to help not only my surrounding community but also my nation.

Watch on


This is an entire new creshendo of idiocy. The queen of the damned has shown her face and tyhe name to match is 

You are going to meet people who will tell you that this form of architecture is about optimism for the future. But I can tell you that in Palestine, for me, this cannot be the case. When I see rebar coming from the roofs of the buildings, I see a violent fear of the future. A fear that comes from not knowing what is being passed down from one generation to the next. Previously, we had the olive fields, and there was a rootedness to the land. But what was once a communitarian, horizontal mentality is now individualistic and vertical. No matter how hard people work, no matter how far they extend their efforts, they just go higher and higher, never touching, never making contact with those around them.
—  Friend of Joseph Redwood-Martinez, “A Necessary Incompleteness," Ramallah, Palestine, 2014
Social security

While I know it is a contested subject, the system needs to change. The prefunded system is a responsible way to go, however the attitude needs to be adjusted in the way we think of supporting our elderly community. There are no simple solutions. Prefunded is flawed in the sense that you are still allowing a 3rd party to invest your retirement savings for you, in a system that is incredibly flawed. There is no sense in allowing your future to be speculated on, by allowing a 3rd party to invest your money (i.e. the stock market i.e. a system that is akin to playing with monopoly money) you are removing the control from you to someone else. There is no place for personal responsibility. It should still, I merely suggest, be a governmental system whereas you work and have a percentage of your wages collect in an account (earning interest) that your employer also contibutes to (on a percentage basis which would adjust for length of time employed - this would be the same for your personal contribution as this would encourage job longevity) so that upon retirement (and not at any time before, except in cases of diability where you are never going to be able to work again) you would collect monthly allotments. This also gives the individual the ability to choose when they retire and not anyone else. (I should add that at any point in time you would be able to add to your retirement balance out of pocket)

So the question that comes into play is how would we adjust for the deficiet resutling from the change over? This is more specifically where the attitude adjustment comes into play (and while this is a communitarian view, it is still valid). Our population needs to realize that the elderly (or retired, disabled) are still vital and important parts of our communities. We need to realize that it is everyones responsiblity to care for each other - we need to abandon our insular and atomistic concepts of ‘individual’ and realign ourselves with morals and compassion. By being willing to accept a higher tax for a period of 30 years that would help fund those who would otherwise be cheated, yes I said cheated (because you helping them should not be viewed as you personally being cheated but being a caring member of society, one of those 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you’ moments), we can eliminate the 'buldge’ and move forward into a sustainable pattern of treating everyone with equal respect.

Granted, this isn’t perfect… but I am still evolving in my political education and learning to schuck the liberal ideology that has pervaded my life as a United States citizen.

A Statement on Abolition Today by Jeannie Alexander

At No Exceptions Prison Collective (NEPC) we believe that abolition is the natural result of a system of transformative justice. Thus abolition is not only about abolishing all systems designed to break the human mind and spirit, but ultimately about the creation of a post-carceral communitarian landscape. Abolition is the beginning of a culture committed to true accountability which seeks the healing and transformation of brokenness and injury. Abolition results when we recognize that hurt people hurt people; and that physical violence is most often a symptom of economic deprivation, racism, prior abuse, and learned hopelessness. Abolition seeks to create communities without walls and borders; communities that recognize that no humans are illegal or irredeemable; communities that do not confuse accountability with permanent exile and warehousing.

We are abolitionists because we oppose and abhor all forms of human slavery and trafficking. We understand that the values of unregulated capitalism are not commensurate with the values of the commons and that our particular economic system has led not to greater freedom in the service of the common good, but rather to the commodification of human flesh and the confinement of millions. Indeed, the Thirteenth Amendment did not abolish slavery, rather, it carved out an exception for its continued existence. Today mass incarceration through the prison industrial complex (PIC) is the embodiment of neo-slavery, and to the end of the elimination of mass incarceration and the PIC, we are neo-abolitionists.

To be clear, we recognize that when harm occurs in a community it may be necessary to separate those whose immediate physical actions have resulted in harm to another. Social separation has its place.  However, successful social separation should be as brief as possible and should result in the restoration of the individual to his or her community and the restoration of victims and their families. A retributive system of criminal justice is contrary to the creation of healthy communities and intact families; such a system ensures the continued existence of racism and poverty and values incarceration over education. In light of the examples of other countries that have chosen to implement superior models of restorative justice, the logical and damning conclusion is that the United States intentionally maintains a system of slavery in the interest of profit and the disenfranchisement of minorities and the poor. The policies and procedures of state and federal prison systems are intentionally obscure and contradictory and once inside the system individuals have almost no public voice and little to no control over their lives. Families of prisoners also have minimal control over the often arbitrary and retributive decisions visited upon the mind and body of a loved one. Like chattel slavery of the past, families are destroyed and decisions to ship slaves are made with no consideration given to the broader and long-term impact to the community, much less to the slave. When humans are warehoused with no chance for restoration to their community, and are of more economic value locked down than free, that is slavery.

The only moral response to slavery is abolition.

–Jeannie Alexander, Director NEPC

[Image from No Exceptions]

[This post is part of a series of “Abolition Statements” from members of the Abolition Journal Collective and Editorial Review Board. See here for a brief introduction to these posts.]

honestly even beyond the fact that the focus on gay marriage has long precluded work on a range of other, more important queer issues, I really hate that marriage is regarded as such an important institution in general because it’s basically institutionalizing the idea that you have to have a romantic partnership to be successful and happy in life. also it’s used as a way to undermine communitarian thinking and promote individualism as well as to deny legal and tax benefits to people who aren’t married for whatever reason and honestly it shouldn’t be a legal thing at all because there’s no reason that people in a specific kind of partnership should arbitrarily get benefits for having partners that’s really silly? those benefits should be open to everyone who wants to designate someone to share taxes with them, visit them in the hospital, w/e, just like you designate a next of kin or emergency contact. and if you want to celebrate a romantic partnership, that’s great, have a party and buy a ring and w/e and don’t bring legal documents or different rights into it

on the plus side, now that gay marriage is legal, hopefully people can focus on other queer issues (or people are going to say that gay rights are all done just like womens rights and civil rights are all done bc women and poc can vote. but i’m hoping it’s the first option)

[W]e have to rethink the materiality of the human through amalgamations and reassemblages of the animate and inanimate, human and non-human, animal and human animal, life and death. Being invariably in communities with other forms of life, in social realms of co-implicated and differently embodied bodies, serves in the first place as an unsettling of the fantasy of a self-sufficient human subject; it also offers a necessary means for comprehending being-in-common, beyond communitarianism and anthopomorphism, as a condition of new possibilities for politics.
—  Athena Athanasiou, Dispossession: The Performative in the Political (37)



          Amitai Etzioni is the founding father and leading voice of contemporary communitarianism. His goal is to catalyze a national moral revitalization and preserve civil society. Consequently, he barely discusses communitarianism within its…

View On WordPress

Stupid question

One problem I see with the Archipelago is that many people might belong in multiple mutually orthogonal or even conflicting patches. Do people in the intersections just belong in all of these patches? Or do they belong in a patch specifically for the intersection (which might be too small)?




 倫理学ではどうか? 倫理学と倫理(道徳)の関係は?


cf.「一次理論」(佐藤俊樹)、「民間心理学folk psychology」(認知科学)

 規則とは何か? と言うのがまだ大問題だが、とりあえず一種の命令、それも誰に対してもその拘束力を発揮するような(そしてその命令の主体も誰でもあり得る、というか誰でもない、というか社会全体であるような)特殊な命令のこと、ととりあえずしておこう。

1 積極的強制「しなきゃいけない」
2 積極的奨励「したほうがいい」
3 否定的強制(禁止)「してはいけない」
4 否定的奨励「しないほうがいい

 しかし法律の場合は大いに異なる。民法や刑法は、3、禁止を基本としている。(ちなみに公法は1と3が中心であるように思われる。)これはなぜか? もちろんそれには理由がある。しかしその理由を考慮に入れずに道徳を法律モデルで考えると、重大な見落としをしてしまうことは明らかだろう。

◇道徳の目的論モデル(1) 功利主義



 しかしそのような神様ないしそれの代わりをする何かがないところではどうしたらよいか? たくさんの個人の目的から、いかにして社会全体の共通のひとつの目的を導き出すのか? 

 カント的な法律モデルの倫理学と並び、近代倫理学のいまひとつの主流たる功利主義Utilitarianismは、神の退位後の目的論倫理学を目指したものであった。人間は幸福を目指す存在である、との前提のもと、社会にとっての善はその構成員たる人々の幸福を最大にすること、となされた。ここでの難問は、いかにして個々人の幸福を集計して社会全体の幸福を導き出すか? であった。
 まずそもそも、異なる個人間の幸福は比較可能か? 比較可能だとしても、足し合わせることはできるか? 足し合わせたとして、その結果が個人たちの集まりとしての社会にとっての幸福だといえるか? といった一連の疑問が次々に浮上する。
例1)一人ひとりはあまり幸福でないが人口の多い社会における幸福の総量が、一人ひとりはかなり幸福だが人口の少ない社会における幸福の総量を上回ったとする。どっちがよい社会か? 前者、というのはあまりにも我々の直観に反する。






◇道徳の目的論モデル(2) 徳倫理学

 しかし日常的な道徳的言語行為において我々は、ごく普通に「いい人」「悪い人」という風に「人」の性質、そして「人格」自体を道徳的評価の対象としている。これは何を意味するか? 考えられる可能性として;







 公正としての正義においては平等の原初状態が、伝統的な社会契約理論における自然状態に対応する。もちろん原初状態は歴史的に実在した物事の状態として、いわんや文化の原始的な状態として考えられているわけではない。それは正義のある一つの概念化に到るように特徴づけられた、純粋に仮説的な状況として理解されている。この状況の本質的な特徴の一つは、誰も社会における彼の場所、彼の階級的位置ないしは社会的地位を知らないし、また誰も自然的資産や能力の分配における彼の運不運、彼の知性、強さ、といったものについて知らない、ということである。私は更に、当の人々は自分たちの善についての理解も、自分たちの特有の心理的性質についても知らない、とまで仮定しよう。正義の諸原理は無知のヴェールの背後で選択される。このことは、諸原理を選択するに際して、誰も、自然な偶然による帰結や社会的状況上の偶発性によって、利益も不利益も被ることはない、ということを保証する。全員が同じような状況におかれ、誰も諸原理を自分の特有の条件にとって都合のいいようにデザインすることはできないのだから、正義の諸原理は公正な合意ないし取引の所産である。なぜなら、原初状態、すべての人々の、お互いに対する関係の対称性という条件のもとでは、この初期状況は道徳的人格としての、すなわち、固有の目的を、更に私の仮定によれば、正義の感覚をも備えた合理的存在としての個人たちの間で公正であるのだから。いわば、原初状態とは適切な初期の「維持さるべき現状status quo」なのであり、それゆえそこにおいて達成された根本的合意は公正なのである。このことが、「公正としての正義」という名称のゆえんを説明する。すなわちそれは、正義の諸原理はそれ自体公正な初期状況のもとで、それへと合意される、というアイディアを担っている。この名称は、正義の概念と構成の概念とが等しいということを意味しはしない。それは、「メタファーとしての詩」という章句が、詩の概念とメタファーの概念が等しい、ということを意味しないのと同様である。」(Rawls, A Theory of Justice, Harvard University Press, 1971, sec.3, pp.12-13.)

 すなわち、当の人々はある種の特定の事実を知らない、と仮定される。何よりも、誰も社会の中での自分の位置、自分の階級的位置ないし社会的地位を知らない。誰も自然的資産と能力、知性や強さ、といったものの分配における己の運不運を知らない。更に、誰も自分の善についての理解、自分の生についての特定の合理的なプラン、あるいは自分がリスク回避性向とか楽観主義的あるいは悲観主義的傾向といった自分の心理的な特徴さえも知らない。これに加えて、私は当の人々は彼ら自身の社会の固有の状況さえも知らない、と仮定する。すなわち、彼らはその経済的ないし政治的状況、あるいはそれが達成することのできた文明と文化の水準さえも知らない。原初状態における人々は、自分たちがどの世代に属するのかについても何の情報も持たない。こうした、知識に関する広範な制約は、一面では、社会正義の問題は、世代内でと同様世代間においても、例えば適切な資本貯蓄率とか、天然資源と自然環境の保全といった問題として発生する、という理由ゆえに適切なものである。更には、少なくとも理論的には、理に適った優生政策という問題もある。原初状態のアイディアを突き詰めるならば、これらのケースにおいてもまた、当の人々は彼らがおかれている偶発的条件について知っていてはならない。彼らは自分たちがどの世代に属していようとそれと共に生きる用意のあるような帰結をもたらす諸原理を選択しなければならない。」(ibd., sec.24, pp.139-137.)


 第二:社会的、ならびに経済的不平等は、(a)すべての人の利益となることが理に適った形で期待され、かつ(b)すべての人に対して開かれた地位と職務に付随するように設定されるべきである。」(ibd.,sec.11, p.60.)


 (b)公正な機会の平等のもとで、すべての人に対して開かれた地位と職務に付随する。」(ibd., sec.46, p.302.)








「古典的・アリストテレス的な伝統内部での道徳論証――そのギリシア的形態のであれ中世の形態のであれ――は、少なくとも一つの主要な機能概念を含んでいる。すなわち、本質的なあり方(an essential nature)そして本質的な目的(purpose)あるいは機能を有するものとして理解された人間(man)という概念である。[中略]つまり古典的伝統の内部では、「腕時計」と「農夫」が「よい腕時計」と「よい農夫」に対するように、「人間」は「善い人間」に対しているのである。」73頁上~下




「愛がその目録に含まれたことで、〈人間にとっての善〉という概念は根源的な仕方で変えられたのである。というのは、その善が達成される場である共同体は、和解の共同体(commnity of reconciliation)でなければならないからである。」213頁下
「「諸徳についての特定の関係はどれも、人生のもつ物語的(諸)構造についての何らかの特定の観念に結びついている」と一般化しよう。中世盛期の枠組においては、物語の中心的類型は探究(quest)や旅(journey)の物語である。人間は本質的に途上に(in via)ある。彼が求めている目的とは、もし獲得されたならば、その時点までの彼の人生における間違いのすべてを贖うことができるような何かである。」214頁上
「アリストテレスの立場では、一方で善い人になり損ねていること(failure to be good)と他方で積極的な悪(positive evil)を区別することはきわめて困難である。[中略]悪のもつこの次元は、聖アウグスティヌスがアリストテレスのしなかった仕方で直面せざるをえなかったものであった。アウグスティヌスは、全ての悪を欠如として理解した点で新プラトン主義の伝統に従ったが、それでも人間本性のもつ悪を、意志が悪に与える同意の中に見ている。」214頁下~215頁上

「人間の生の統一性は、物語的な探求(narrative quest)の統一性である。」268頁下

Tribalism: Understanding Europe And The Greek Crisis

I have been a Europhile all my life. Consequently I have favored most initiatives to deepen and/or expand the European Union. I am not completely naïve and recognize that Europe has many failings, not least of which has been the poor quality of its leadership for the last three decades, whether at the level of EU institutions or individual European governments. As a Frenchman and a European I cringe at the very thought of “my” uninspiring mediocre leaders François Hollande and Jean-Claude Juncker. Blaming leadership, however, is easy. The truth is that we get the leaders we deserve. The disease in Europe is not European leadership but the prevailing non-communitarian feelings of the European people. Or, to put it another way, endemic and rampant Euro-tribalism hampers the creation of a viable European Union. There are many tribes in the EU, but there is no such thing as a European tribe. Thus, while India is composed of numerous tribes, they do come together as one Indian tribe under certain circumstances - eg a cricket match!