Where Have All The Leaders Gone? - Stephen Pincus

“Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;

Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,

The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere

The ceremony of innocence is drowned;

The best lack all conviction, while the worst

Are full of passionate intensity.”

- William Butler Yeats

Déjà vu

I recently spent a magical week at Habonim camp in South Africa – the first time I had slept there since 1980.   

What has changed? Flushing toilets have replaced the “long drops”, the showers have hot water, the youngest campers sleep in cabins.   Barbed wire fencing encircles the perimeter which is patrolled by a plethora of community security guards.   

The daily schedule is much the same, though digital media now plays a big role.  And the ubiquitous iPhone has reduced (but not eliminated) the camp’s insulation from the outside world (thankfully phones aren’t permitted at meals or activities). 

Numbers are a fraction of those in our day - not surprising in a much smaller community and after the lost years of the pandemic. And of course there are some different norms, vocabulary and other trappings.  

Yet so much felt familiar.  The energy, the passion, the spirit, and most of all, the leadership.

Among countless déjà vu moments was a presentation about the decline of movies, led by a madrich called Zach.  As I listened to him, I was transported back over half a century to a session in that very space by one of my madrichim called Aubrey.   We had been asked to select a series of sessions from a list of topics. My friends and I chose “Summerhill” though we had no idea what it was, simply because Aubrey was leading that series.   

Aubrey was at medical school and to us 15-year-olds, he seemed brilliant, charismatic, articulate, with a sharp intellect and dry sense of humour – the epitome of cool.  As he opened our minds to A.S. Neil’s subversive ideas about the “self-regulated” child, it became clear that like other madrichim we looked up to, Aubrey was an idealist with a strong moral sensibility.  Zach (who is now working as a project manager for Kaleidoscope) and other current Habonim leaders are similar in many ways. 

Still, I’m deeply concerned about the lack of good leadership role models available to young people today, especially at a global level.

What makes a good leader?

There have long been different views on whether good leaders are born or made. 

Carlyle’s “great man” theory of leadership was discredited in the mid-20th century by broader views of leadership effectiveness but has recently been revived in more nuanced form: experts now generally agree that personality traits are important, alongside current events, culture, mission and other determinants.[1]

Which qualities are most relevant may depend on circumstance: courage and decisiveness in wartime; insight and imagination in a financial crisis. Certain qualities tend to be ranked ahead of others based on the ideologies, temperaments and other biases of the rankers.

But there are certain key qualities that have been widely associated with good and bad leadership over time.  Aristotle’s three modes of persuasion [2] - logos, pathos, and ethos - are helpful in organizing my proposed lists below: 

Good leaders

Bad leaders

LOGOS (thought): idealism intelligence intellectual breadth and depth research, insight, analysis creativity, imagination strategic, thoughtfulness wisdom, expertise focus competence, adroitness, efficiency	cynicism dullness, stupidity illiteracy, intellectual laziness ignorance, irrationality artlessness, narrowmindedness impulsive, dismissive, limited vision shallowness, ineptitude confusion ineptitude, ineffectuality, disorder
PATHOS (feeling): passion, motivation, initiative stability, consistency, responsibility composure  persistence, endurance diligence, thoroughness self-confidence alertness emotional intelligence charisma eloquence, persuasiveness, inspiration humor, self-deprecation	apathy, egocentricity, reactivity instability, inconsistency, impulsiveness volatility, aggression indifference, disruption indolence, carelessness thin-skinned brashness, inattentiveness pugnacity, tactlessness repugnance incoherence, inarticulateness, sterile  smugness, self-importance
ETHOS (character): principle honesty, integrity tolerance forgiveness admitting error kindness, empathy, empowerment  openness, flexibility, adaptability unifying, consensus-building dignity, refinement, taste consideration, respect humility, modesty, courage selflessness	hypocrisy, corruption dishonesty, deceitfulness intolerance, dogmatism grudging, recrimination defensiveness, paranoia callousness, spitefulness, blame closed-mindedness, rigidity divisiveness, authoritarian, despotic coarseness, kitsch ungraciousness, disparaging vanity, arrogance bullying, cowardice narcissism, selfishness, greed, exploitation

In short, good leaders bring out the best in people and bring them together; bad leaders play to people’s worst fears and instincts and drive them apart.

Leadership at a low point

There have always been good and bad leaders. Some leaders start out well and become bad.  Think of Robert Mugabe.  Others who were controversial in their day come to be widely favoured over time. Think of Martin Luther King Jr. 

No leader has all the good or bad qualities listed above, but the table can help us assess a leader based on which clusters of their qualities tend to predominate.

Despite our tendency to mythologize great leaders, even Lincoln, Churchill, FDR, Ghandi, and Mandela weren’t perfect, and there are varying views on widely respected leaders like Pearson, Ben Gurion, Adenauer, Kennedy, Nyerere, Reagan, Thatcher, Peres, Clinton, Blair, Obama, and Merkel.

But political leadership seems currently at a uniquely low point in modern history. 

Cynical, corrupt, narcissistic autocrats abound.  Gangsters and thugs, driven by insatiable appetites for power and entrenchment, rule by division, impulse, victimization and fear. Most lay claim to power through an electoral process but ruthlessly suppress opposition by undermining democratic norms and institutions.[3]

Their typical first targets are universities, media, and courts, as they seek to control thought, speech, and action. They prey on the vulnerable. It is not surprising that they often embrace antisemites or antisemitism.

They come from both left and right.  Putin, Orban, Vučić, Erdoğan, Bolsonaro, Modi, Kim Jong Un, Maduro, Ortega, Díaz-Canel.  And sadly, Netanyahu.[4]

The world has survived worse leaders, like Hitler and Stalin (at horrendous cost).  But then the world had Churchill and FDR. Now the leader of the free world is Trump.

Within weeks of its inception, the Trump regime has eviscerated a wide range of key government services, pardoned hundreds of dangerous criminals, fired thousands of workers including senior non-partisan professionals with critical professional expertise, cancelled foreign aid relied upon by millions of people, and torn down multiple fundamental legal and constitutional guardrails.   

Cranks and crackpots without expertise or experience have been appointed to highly sensitive cabinet positions.[5]

Purporting to be in favour of free speech, the regime has banned independent journalists from press-conferences, outlawed diversity and inclusion language and programs, and returned America to the darkest days of McCarthyism by demanding that government employees name names.[6] And then there are tariff wars which even conservative economists believe portend economic disaster.[7]

The staggering audacity of this project is overshadowed by its sheer insanity.  Much of its execution is spearheaded by the unelected Elon Musk whose enormous personal wealth increases with each hopelessly conflicted act of his blatant state capture.   Along with Trump, Musk is also meddling on six continents to promote the far right, most notably calling on Germans to “move beyond” Holocaust guilt and support the neo-Nazi Alternative for Germany (AfD) party.[8]

And in a brazenly Orwellian act of betrayal, Trump has embraced the genocidal Putin and humiliated Ukraine’s heroic Jewish President, Volodymyr Zelensky - elected with a 75% majority – whom he accuses of being a dictator who started the war with Russia! [9]

As the generally measured, centre-right Canadian journalist Andrew Coyne has recently put it:

The world has never before been faced with such a threat. The United States has handed the nuclear codes to a madman, a criminal, a would-be dictator and a moron, all in the same person.[10]

It’s difficulty to envisage a better example of a bad leader.

The Trump approach was perfected by far-right political consultant Arthur Finkelstein, whose mantra was: “Negative, negative, negative, ’cause you can’t possibly win otherwise.”[11]

It’s interesting that Finkelstein, Jewish and gay, helped the rabidly antisemitic and homophobic Orban entrench his power by framing George Soros - the liberal Jewish philanthropist who paid for Orban’s education - as the enemy of the Hungarian people.   It is interesting too that classic antisemitic motifs are cornerstones of “Finkel-Think” and Netanyahu’s and Trump’s populist propaganda.[12]

With divisive leaders like these it’s small wonder that people find it increasingly difficult to have rational, respectful, reflective, or rewarding conversations.  But even more disturbing than this polarization, is the insidious influence of these bad leaders – conscious and unconscious – on attitudes and behaviours, especially for young people who have not seen better.  A cynical, callous, dishonest American President encourages cynics, bullies, and liars everywhere.

How did we get here?

Another good example of a bad leader is former British PM Boris Johnson. If Trump is a caricature of Orban, then Johnson is a caricature of a Trump.[13] Rory Stewart, a Johnson cabinet minister, contrasts his former boss with conservative British PM Harold Macmillan, who famously said on entering office: “I embrace left and right, and I will want them on my left hand and my right hand, and we'll march forward together.” Johnson entered office spitting fury against “the elite” and expelling 21 members of Parliament from his own party. [14]

Stewart traces the Western world’s downward spiral into populism after a golden age of liberal democracy. 

For 15 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, the number of democracies in the world doubled and hundreds of millions of people were dragged out of extreme poverty.  Then the rational global consensus started to unravel with:

• the development of social media, causing social fragmentation into hostile echo chambers,

• the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks and subsequent Western humiliations in Iraq and Afghanistan,

• the 2008 financial crisis, rise of China, the Arab Spring, and so on,

all leading to the rise of the Law and Justice Party in Poland, Brexit and Boris Johnson in Britain, Bolsonaro in Brazil, and Trump.  

Stewart draws on Aristotle’s three modes of rhetoric that I used in my table above, suggesting the problem with the “unbelievably boring” liberal democratic consensus was that “it was all about the rationality of logos and lacked the other two ingredients of healthy politics: pathos and ethos.  Populism is pure pathos - emotion. 

Stewart says populists have “a much coarser and more extreme Machiavellian world view in which the end clearly justifies the means and most of the moral qualms … get shifted aside. In fact, many of the populist leaders portray themselves as unashamed rogues. They're able to create these very curious coalitions where they can get religious voters voting for them despite being flamboyantly adulterous, mendacious, and the rest.”

But don’t elected populist leaders reflect the will of the people?  Yuval Noah Harari explains the “curious political alchemy” in which “populists manage to base a totalitarian pursuit of unlimited power on a seemingly impeccable democratic principle.”[15]  Populists start by warning us that human elites are driven by a dangerous hunger for power, but typically end up by entrusting all power to a single leader.[16]   

Populist leaders claim that they alone represent the people and that anyone who disagrees with them — even the majority of voters— either suffer from false consciousness or aren’t really part of the people, so the leader can eliminate their rights – or them!  When they lose elections, they tend to claim the elections were stolen or the people were deceived to vote against them. 

Diversity and inclusivity are intrinsic to democracy. As Harari points out, democracy is based on the understanding that the people is never a unitary entity and therefore cannot possess a single will. No group, including the majority group, is entitled to exclude other groups - holding a conversation presupposes the existence of several legitimate voices. If the people has only one legitimate voice, there can be no conversation. This is why populism poses a deadly threat to democracy.[17]

If society were a human brain, then the polarization of its hemispheres would make it dysfunctional; populism would be the tumor that would make it diseased.

What’s at stake? 

As dangerous as populist leaders were in the past, the stakes are exponentially higher in the age of artificial intelligence (AI).

First, an AI algorithm can compound the impact of a bad actor, turning divisive rhetoric into ethnic cleansing.  Harari cites the example of Myanmar. In 2016, some Rohingya extremists in Myanmar attacked some non-Muslim civilians in an attempt to establish a separatist Muslim state.  Extremist Buddhist leaders posted videos of the attacks with inflammatory comments online. Facebook algorithms, designed to maximize attention, found that the most effective way to achieve this is by fostering outrage. 

Facebook not only prioritized and recommended the most vitriolic postings, but repeatedly auto played the most incendiary videos. The result was the destruction of hundreds of Rohingya villages, the rape and murder of tens of thousands of unarmed civilians, and the expulsion of 730,000 Rohingya from Myanmar.[18]

Common sense would suggest that Facebook needs better guardrails – instead, in a classic example of one bad leader submitting to another, on Trump’s ascension Facebook removed the guardrails completely! [19]

This is the heart of Musk’s project, not only for enormous personal enrichment, but for unprecedented personal power.  Dismantling government bureaucracy in the name of efficiency may appear prosaic and even praiseworthy, but what is often called his ‘technofascist’ vision can have terrifying implications.[20]

Consider this catastrophic opportunity for unregulated AI:

"The AI could synthesize a new pathogen, order it from commercial laboratories or print it in biological 3-D printers, and devise the best strategy to spread it around the world, via airports or food supply chains. What if the AI synthesizes a virus that is as deadly as Ebola, as contagious as COVID-19, and as slow acting as AIDS? By the time the first victims begin to die, and the world is alerted to the danger, most people on earth might have already been infected."[21]

Yet AI raises the stakes in a second way:  it creates the conditions for bad actors to succeed through the debasement of discourse. The problem was foreshadowed by George Orwell in his novel Nineteen Eighty-Four. The totalitarian society famously indoctrinated its citizens that “War Is Peace, Freedom Is Slavery, and Ignorance Is Strength”.[22]

Stephen Clingman recently compared this “doublethink” - which depends on the inversion of meanings – with the rhetoric of populist leaders like Trump who attack the foundations of meaning itself: “In the Trumpian age the internet … acts as a dark multiplier, thinning out meaning through its distortions and profusion.”  Clingman offers suggestions on how to reconstruct a sense of accountability in meaning.[23]

While cunning manipulators have been twisting words to prey on sloppy thinkers since language was first created, social media tend to gut communication of nuance and reflection.

It suits populist leaders to “flood the zone” [24] in a medium which favors speed and superficiality.   Social media spreads vitriol to vast networks.  The loudest, most extreme voices drive the discourse downwards, intensifying emotions and pushing participants to polarities which become further and further apart.   Ultimately everyone retreats to echo-chambers where reinforcing messages validate their instinctive reactions.[25]

What can be done?

There are six general responses to bad populist leaders:

• The true believers: driven by hurt, hate, and fear, they are the bad leader’s rabid “base”.

• The enablers: driven by cynicism, greed, and fantasy, they give the bad leader political, legal, economic, journalistic, and even academic cover.   

• The deniers: driven by ignorance and complacency, they are sure that “all will be OK” – until it’s not.

• The ignorers: they tune out to preserve their mental health.[26] 

• The observers: they watch each new horror with incredulity and outrage and complain behind closed doors.

• The dissenters: they register their protest and are verbally or physically attacked, or await “the knock on the door.”

Many in the first three of these groups contrive excuses for bad leaders.  Coyne discusses a common example:

"The idea that Trump is essentially ‘transactional’… not guided by the usual principles of statecraft, let alone any of the higher ideals, but … at least intelligible in purely ‘what’s in it for me’ terms… attribute[es] to him a kind of grubby rationality, as if he were merely a debased version of ourselves…Except there’s no evidence that that’s how he actually thinks. He is not rational and does not think far enough ahead to connect cause and effect in the usual ways. He is a narcissistic psychopath…. His primary motive is not self-interest… but self-aggrandizement, the constant nourishing and enlargement of his vision of himself, which in his case can only be achieved by destroying everything else. In every situation, then, he will do, not merely the wrong thing, but the worst possible thing; the worse it is, and the more damage it causes, the more the people he despises object, and the greater his feeling of triumph.”[27]

So, what can the last three groups do about populism?

An article in the previous edition of this magazine suggested four ways to counter populism: strengthening institutions, addressing root causes, bridging societal division, and promoting civic engagement to educate citizens about democratic values and encourage critical thinking.[28]

We do need to protect the independence and enhance the quality of our media, courts and other institutions. This is the work of journalism, law, and policy. We do need to address poverty, inequality, and hopelessness. This is the work of economics, politics, and psychology. 

We do need to bridge divisions through inclusive narratives and cross-cultural dialogue. This is the work of art, literature, and social action.

But regardless of how much money we throw at these problems, or how thoughtfully we balance competing interests, or how elegantly we structure laws and policies, or how sensitively we manage fears and frustrations, or how sexily we spice up our culture, we cannot avoid the risk that self-interested bad actors will use populist tools to grab power and tear down all this good work. 

They will start with stories that appeal to fears, frustrations and fantasies. That may be enough to achieve absolute authority; but generally, force is either required or just too tempting.

Populists prey on fear and ignorance. They depend on division. They mock knowledge, truth, and virtue in order to marginalize experts, thinkers, and idealists.

They also weaponize the state to sideline all opposition. Two leading scholars recently pointed out that:

This process of self-sidelining may not attract much public attention, but it can be highly consequential. Facing looming investigations, promising politicians… leave public life. CEOs… stop contributing to Democratic candidates, funding civil rights or democracy initiatives, and investing in independent media. News outlets whose owners worry about lawsuits or government harassment rein in their investigative teams, and their most aggressive reporters. Editors engage in self-censorship, softening headlines, and opting not to run stories critical of the government. And university leaders …crack down on campus protest, remove or demote outspoken professors, and remain silent in the face of growing authoritarianism. [29]

How do we measure the impact on the young? “…the young lawyers who decide not to run for office; the aspiring young writers who decide not to become journalists; the potential whistleblowers who decide not to speak out; the countless citizens who decide not to join a protest of volunteer for a campaign.” [30]

So, the only sustainable antidote to populism is education that develops resilient opposition to bad leaders.  Not a purely cerebral education.  Not a fragmented education of specialisms. What we need is education that integrates intellect, passion and morality, and that balances left- and right-brain thought and action. 

Educating for Leadership

The psychiatrist, literary scholar, philosopher and neuroscientist Iain McGilchrist has written extensively on the problems caused by the dominance of left- over right-brain thinking in dysfunctional societies like our own.[31]

He contrasts the right brain’s “attention to the Other” with the “self-contained” left brain, and suggests that a left-brain dominant society lacks insight, responsibility, tolerance, and flexibility, and promotes exploitation, paranoia, and absolute control.[32]

McGilchrist’s response to redress the imbalance is education - not teaching the “right answers” but cultivating the capacity to question and doubt, and to argue points of view opposite to those we most strongly believe in. He recommends a broad cultural education, integrating sciences with humanities, especially poetry and language.[33] This is educating for tolerance and openness to the Other. 

But must a pluralistic democratic society be open to all viewpoints?   Here we need to be careful of a trap laid by three basic problems: 

• the paradox of tolerance: the intolerant may destroy the tolerant,

• the paradox of democracy: the majority can elect a tyrant, and 

• the paradox of freedom: the unrestrained bully will enslave the meek. [34]

Complete openness and inclusivity present a Trojan horse: bad leaders will insist that “to be consistent with your principles, you must allow me in, even though I intend to destroy you.” So, open societies need boundaries to preserve their openness.  Tolerance does not necessarily extend to the intolerant.  Democracy requires minority protections.  Freedom entails restraints.

This does not mean we must exclude or suppress all intolerant, tyrannical bullies. As the leading philosopher of the Open Society, Karl Popper, put it:

so long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them, if necessary, even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal.[35]

We need an open form of education, with boundaries to protect against evisceration by bad actors.  “Big tent” education.  It’s hard work.  It takes time.  It doesn’t have mass appeal. It’s not easily measured in simple metrics or real time.

But its impact can be deep and broad where it fosters resilience to the conscious and unconscious influences of bad leaders, and participants become potential leadership role models for others.

The purpose of this education is not only to develop future generations of good leaders, but also to remind ourselves what good leaders are. Leaders that are idealistic, insightful, imaginative, inspiring; charismatic, consistent, composed; honest, humble, and more.

Leaders like those of Habonim. 

by Stephen Pincus

---

[1] Katie Shonk, “The Trait Theory of Leadership,” Harvard Law School Program on Negotiation, January 22, 2025,

and Carl Lindberg, “The Trait Theory of Leadership Explained with Examples, Pros, and Cons,” April 19, 2023.

[2] Reeve, C.D.C., Aristotle, Rhetoric, Hackett Publishing, 2018.

[3] See for example Steven Levitsky, “The New Authoritarianism”  The Atlantic, February 10, 2025.

[4] Benny Morris, “Benjamin Netanyahu, Would-Be Authoritarian” Quilette, November 27, 2024, On the paradox of Netanyahu’s embrace of anti-semites, see for example “A New Low: Israel's Prime Minister Netanyahu Is the Antisemites’ Cheerleader” Haaretz Editorial, September 18, 2023.

[5]  For example, see David Frum on Trump’s picks for the heads of key healthcare agencies in “Why the COVID Deniers Won,” The Atlantic, March 2025.

[6] Maureen Dowd, “The State of Himself”, The New York Times, March 5, 2025.

[7]  For example, see Joshua Kirby, “Tariff War Risks Sinking World Into New Great Depression, International Chamber of Commerce Warns: The world economy could face a crash similar to the Great Depression of the 1930s” Wall Street Journal, March 4, 2025.

[8] See David Ingram and Bruna Horvath, “How Elon Musk is boosting far-right politics across the globe” NBC News February 16, 2025, Haley Ott, “Elon Musk tells German far-right crowd the nation should move beyond ‘past guilt’ ahead of Holocaust Remembrance Day,” CBS News, January 28, 2025, and Jeet Heer, “Elon Musk Pushes for Global Neo-Nazi Regime Change. “The World Is Fighting Back,” The Nation, February 24, 2025.

[9] Marsha Lederman, “We are living through an age of betrayal” Globe & Mail, February 20, 2025.

[10] Andrew Coyne, “Brace yourselves: whatever crazy, awful things Trump may have done to date, it’s only going to get worse,” Globe & Mail Opinion, February 28, 2025.

[11] Carol Off, At a Loss For Words: Conversation in an Age of Rage, Random House Canada, 2024, p. 174ff.

[12] See Hannes Grassegger, “The Unbelievable Story Of The Plot Against George Soros: How two Jewish American political consultants helped create the world’s largest anti-Semitic conspiracy theory”, BuzzFeed, January 20, 2019, and Hagay Hacohen, “Netanyahu's son sparks outrage after posting antisemitic-themed meme” Jerusalem Post, September 9, 2017.

[13] David Smith, ‘In a real sense, US democracy has died’: how Trump is emulating Hungary’s Orbán,” The Guardian, February 7, 2025.

[14] Rory Stewart, “Populism, Aristotle and Hope,”  Gresham College, June 8, 2023.

[15] Yuval Noah Harari, Nexus: A Brief History of Information Networks from the Stone Age to AI, Random House, 2024, p.129.

[16] Harari, above, Prologue.

[17] Harari, above, p.131.

[18] Harari, above, p. 195ff.

[19] See David Bauder, “No more fact-checking for Meta. How will this change media — and the pursuit of truth?” The Associated Press, January 9, 2025.

[20] See Kyle Chayka, “Elon Musk’s A.I.-Fuelled War on Human Agency”, The New Yorker, February 12, 2025.

[21] Harari, above, p. 362.

[22] George Orwell (aka Eric Arthur Blair), Nineteen Eighty-Four, 1949.  In his seminal essay "Politics and the English Language," 1946, Orwell suggests six remedies for the "contagion" of debased language.  

[23]  Stephen Clingman, “Trump the Antisemantic, and the Boundaries of Populism” in Cultures of Populism, Routledge, 2022.

[24] See Luke Broadwater, “Trump’s ‘Flood the Zone’ Strategy Leaves Opponents Gasping in Outrage,” The New York Times, January 28, 2025.

[25] See Carol Off, At a Loss for Words: Conversation in an Age of Rage, Random House Canada, 2024.  Off unpacks six key words that “have been hijacked, weaponized or semantically bleached”– triggering extreme polarization: ‘freedom,’ ‘democracy,’ ‘truth,’ ‘woke,’ ‘choice’ and ‘taxes.’  

[26] See “You have permission to tune Donald Trump out,” by Ira Wells, The Globe and Mail, February 21, 2025.

[27]  Andrew Coyne,  “This is how Canada should deal with Donald Trump, irrational actor,” Globe & Mail Opinion, November 28, 2024.

[28] Sara Dobner, “Populism: Testing The Resilience Of Two Great Democracies,” Kaleidoscope, December 2024.

[29] Steven Levitsky and Lucan A. Way, “The Path to American Authoritarianism – What Comes After Democratic Breakdown,” Foreign Affairs, March/April 2025, p.50.

[30] Levitsky and Way, above, pp.50-51.

[31] See Iain McGilchrist, The Master and His Emissary: The Divided Brain and the Making of the Western World, Yale University Press, 2009.

[32] Iain McGilchrist, Ways of Attending, Routledge, 2019, p.29ff.

[33] Iain McGilchrist, “On Education, the Humanities and Universities”, YouTube, Mar 7, 2021.

[34] See Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies, Princeton University Press, 1945, 2020 edition p.117 and p.581.

[35] Popper, above, p.581.