Bridge Alliance introduces Politics and Psyche, a series of meaningful conversations on how knowledge of the human mind and behavior can help create peaceful and effective solutions to America's most pressing social and political issues. Every month, join Bridge Alliance Deputy Chief of Staff, Shakira Mills, Psychologist Linda Ellinor and Psychotherapist Katy Byrne for a journey to discover the root of our conflicts and how to truly heal from them.
Chinese President Xi Jinping (L) and U.S. President Donald Trump followed by Chinese first lady Peng Liyuan and U.S. first lady Melania Trump arrive for a state dinner in the East Room of the White House on September 24, 2026 in Washington, DC.
When Chinese President Xi Jinping arrived at the White House on 24 September, the U.S. welcomed him with an elaborate display of ceremony. The Army Herald Trumpets sounded a fanfare, the Chinese and American national anthems were played, and the Old Guard Fife and Drum Corps performed. A military review was followed by a flyover involving a B-2 bomber and four F-22 fighter jets, according to the White House. It was an extraordinary production for two countries that still disagree on some of the most important issues in international politics.
Talks between President Donald Trump and Xi touched on trade, artificial intelligence and Taiwan. The visit was marked by warm words and some signs of cooperation, but it did not erase the fundamental competition between the United States and China. So why was all this ceremony staged? It is tempting to dismiss political pomp as mere window dressing: an expensive historical relic surrounding the serious business taking place behind closed doors. As a music historian, however, I think this misunderstands what ceremony does. Ceremony can become particularly valuable when words alone are not enough.
Long before governments could issue statements instantly, political authority communicated through sound and movement. Trumpets announced arrivals and bells marked public events. Processions established hierarchies, while anthems and military bands allowed states to demonstrate their relationships even before anyone issued a communiqué.
Today, a president can address millions of people in seconds, while citizens can follow diplomatic negotiations almost in real time. And yet, when another head of state arrives, we still raise flags, invite musicians and perform carefully rehearsed rituals. The purpose of ceremony is not necessarily to demonstrate agreement. Sometimes its purpose is to make disagreement manageable.
Music is especially useful here because it can express recognition without requiring ideological consensus. Performing another country's national anthem does not imply approval of its government or policies. It signifies recognition of the state and the people represented by its leader. The same is true of many diplomatic rituals. A handshake does not resolve a trade dispute, and a state dinner does not ease tensions over Taiwan. These gestures instead create a temporary framework within which disagreements can take place.
Much of our public political culture is designed to highlight differences. Diplomacy sometimes has to do something more complex: acknowledge deep disagreements while preserving a relationship capable of weathering them. Ceremony offers a language that makes this possible. Of course, there is another side to political spectacle. Ritual can glorify power. Military ceremony deliberately demonstrates strength, and the B-2 bomber that flew over the White House was hardly a neutral prop.
Nor should carefully orchestrated hospitality be confused with diplomatic success. Governments can stage grand ceremonies while achieving very little, and pomp can divert attention from difficult political realities. Ceremony cannot replace successful diplomacy. But it does not lose its meaning simply because it does not lead to the signing of a treaty.
Consider the mixture of signals contained in the White House welcome. The Chinese national anthem was played alongside the American one. Xi was received with the honours accorded to a visiting head of state. At the same time, the ceremony demonstrated U.S. military might with extraordinary clarity. Hospitality and power were not contradictory messages. They were conveyed simultaneously.
This is something ritual does exceptionally well. Music historians encounter this throughout history: music has accompanied coronations, funerals and diplomatic events because it can communicate meaning without requiring everyone present to interpret that meaning in precisely the same way.
Relations between states, like relations between people, depend on more than the transmission of information. They also depend on recognition. A ceremony says: you have arrived; we recognise the significance of this meeting; for the duration of this encounter, we have agreed to occupy the same political space. None of this requires friendship.
In fact, ceremony may be most revealing precisely when friendship is absent. If two governments already agree, ritual reinforces an existing relationship. When they are deeply divided, the ritual itself can become part of the mechanism that allows them to remain in the same room.
Outside the ceremonial framework of the Trump-Xi meeting lay unresolved questions about trade, artificial intelligence and Taiwan. Inside it were trumpets, flags and carefully rehearsed movements. One did not preclude the other. The ceremony created a temporary language through which two rival powers could acknowledge one another without pretending that their differences had disappeared.
In an era when compromise is often seen as weakness and disagreement as a reason to stop listening, there may be something worth noting in this old diplomatic tradition. Sometimes the first achievement isn't agreement. It’s the fact that dialogue remains possible.
Stacy Jarvis is a Manchester-based music historian, culture writer and violinist. She writes about classical music, cultural history and the intersections between music, politics and society, with work appearing in The Washington Post, The Philadelphia Inquirer, The Conversation and other UK and international publications. She is also a radio contributor and is completing a PhD in Musicology at the University of Birmingham.
Americans Voting in an Election
Despite the consistent determinations that US elections are secure across the country and there is virtually no evidence of non-citizens voting, in reports released as recently as September 2026; President Trump has doubled down on his claims that voter fraud is a major problem in America and on October 20th, he announced a new $25 Million Fraud Whistleblower program to be administered by the Department of Justice.
This announcement achieves a variety of the president’s goals: (i) It intentionally perpetuates the misinformation, that voter fraud is a serious problem in the United States; (ii) it undermines the trust in the voting systems, as well as in the states administering the elections; (iii) it fosters distrust amongst neighbors, who are more likely to suspect people of color and report them for a reward. This has the concomitant benefit of (iv) intimidating people who are in fear of going to the polls and (v) It gives the illusion that the federal government is prepared to give away more free money (along with the Tariff rebate checks, the Trump Accounts, the DOGE dividend, the direct payments for healthcare and the $5,000 for supporting GOP midterm candidates.)
The President’s efforts to sow confusion surrounding the election, are consistent with the GOP’s decisions to close more than 1,688 different polling sites across 13 states between the 2013 Shelby County v. Holder decision by the U.S. Supreme Court and 2018. After Shelby, the states were no longer required to notify voters of changes of polling place relocations.
In addition, since 2024, according to the Brennan Center for Justice, 22 states have enacted 38 restrictive voting laws which are in effect at the midterms, 12 states have enacted stricter voter ID laws or invalidated previously acceptable IDs for voting.
When one considers the impact of the gerrymandering wars, it is a wonder that anyone who is not a dedicated follower or a political devotee, will know where to cast their ballot and in advance of seeing their ballot, who they will be voting for.
The President in March, issued a sweeping executive order intended to federalize the administration of U.S. Elections. It would require people to prove their citizenship at registration, change the certification standards of voting machines, prohibit the counting of ballots postmarked before the election day but received thereafter. It would have also put DOGE and the Department of Homeland Security, in charge of monitoring the voter rolls and other available records. The courts blocked or suspended most of the president’s election initiatives, but this combined with the January 6th 2021violent assault on the Congress seeking to overturn the 2020 election, provide grim reminders of the extent to which the president will go to achieve his goal of retaining power.
In addition to his other efforts, Reuters reports as recently as October 14th, that it is highly probable that the President could:
These concerns are amplified, when combined with fact, that the GOP’s largest donors this election cycle, who have contributed $9.8 billion the through the 25th of September, (we note that the numbers have gotten fuzzier since the secret super PACs and Crypto contributors) have also been provided ample opportunities to evade election commission oversight.
So, what can you do.
Many people believe that this election is extremely important. That issue is for each individual to decide. What most of us can agree upon is, that if you are a citizen you are entitled to vote. In our democracy it is imperative that you exercise that privilege.
Walter H. White, Jr. is a member of the Board of Lawyers Defending American Democracy, a founding director and past chair of the ABA Center for Human Rights and has served as an election observer in the former Soviet Union on behalf of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.
Political Polarization and Extremism
On November 3 Americans vote in the midterm elections, and the most important question may be whether the losers accept the result. A Pew survey this summer found that just 55 percent of Americans are confident the midterms will be run fairly and accurately, down from 64 percent in 2022. The partisan detail is more revealing. Since 2024, Republican confidence has risen and Democratic confidence has fallen from 77 percent to 58 percent. Trust in the referee now depends on who holds power.
Democracy rests on a kind of sportsmanship agreement. The theologian Reinhold Niebuhr put it well: man’s capacity for justice makes democracy possible, but his inclination to injustice makes it necessary. B. R. Ambedkar, the chief architect of India’s constitution, called democracy a method of bringing revolutionary change without bloodshed. Both understood that the system works only if the losing side agrees to try again next time instead of burning down the field. Americans in both parties are forgetting how to do that.
Attacking the Referee
The Supreme Court is democracy’s referee, and this year both sides went after it. When the Court ruled 6-3 in February that a 1977 emergency-powers law gave the president no authority to impose his sweeping global tariffs, President Trump called the justices who ruled against him a “disgrace.” When the same Court narrowed the Voting Rights Act in April, House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries denounced “this illegitimate Supreme Court majority.” Different targets, same reflex. Every justice was nominated by an elected president and confirmed by an elected Senate. Calling the Court illegitimate whenever it rules against you rejects the voters who built it.
Rewriting the Rules Mid-Game
The second failure is refusing to accept the score, and now, changing the rules before the game is even played. Al Gore conceded in 2000 after a recount that split the country. In 2017, dozens of House Democrats boycotted Donald Trump’s inauguration; four years later, Trump refused to accept his own defeat, and January 6 followed. Each side nurses a real grievance: Democrats remember a Supreme Court seat held open for most of 2016, and Republicans remember a Russia investigation that shadowed a presidency and ended without a conspiracy charge. Since the summer of 2025, seven Republican-led states have redrawn their congressional maps in the middle of the decade, beginning with Texas at the White House’s urging. California voters answered with a partisan map of their own, and Virginia Democrats tried the same until their state’s Supreme Court struck down the new map. After the Voting Rights Act ruling, Jeffries said “all options are on the table.” Each side calls its move self-defense. Each move becomes the other side’s excuse, like a team that moves the goalposts at halftime and then complains when the other team does the same.
Paralysis follows. Last fall’s 43-day shutdown was the longest full shutdown in American history, and this spring the Department of Homeland Security went unfunded for a record 76 days while airport screeners missed paychecks. In April, Gallup found that just 10 percent of Americans approve of Congress.
Building the Guardrails
It was not always this way. In 1983, with Social Security months from running dry, Ronald Reagan and Tip O’Neill, who disagreed loudly and often, backed a bipartisan commission and shared the political risk of fixing it. Neither man pretended to like the other. That kind of restraint can no longer be assumed, so it has to be built in.
Four reforms would help. The Senate should guarantee every Supreme Court nominee a hearing and a floor vote within 90 days, whichever party holds the gavel. Congress should create a bipartisan commission to settle candidate-eligibility disputes before ballots are printed, a job the Supreme Court said in Trump v. Anderson belongs to Congress. It should also build on the bipartisan Electoral Count Reform Act of 2022 with an independent, staggered-term body to oversee certification, and it should ban mid-decade redistricting outright. And states should adopt open primaries paired with ranked-choice general elections, the system Alaska’s voters narrowly chose to keep in 2024, so candidates must win support beyond their loudest faction.
None of this requires a constitutional amendment, and none of it favors either party. Democracies rarely collapse in a single dramatic moment. They wear down one broken norm at a time. On November 3, one side will lose. The country will be better off if it still remembers how.
Meda Parameswara Reddy, Ph.D., is the Director of the Reddy Center for Critical and Integrated Thinking. A former R&D executive holding 30 U.S. patents, he has published 87 articles, appearing in Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. (PNAS), RealClear Markets, Science and Defense platforms; Washington Examiner, SpaceNews, The Fulcrum, The Humanist, American Thinker, and South Asia Monitor (on the editorial board, and also hosts the show “SAM Dialogues with Dr. M. P. Reddy.”) Website: mpreddyinsights.com | Contact: mpreddy54@yahoo.com, https://lnkd.in/gn2zQJbs
Voters in Brazil, Serbia, and Hungary have beaten back authoritarian pressure at the ballot box. An opinion piece on what Americans can learn before Nov. 3.
As Election Day looms, voter intimidation tactics abound. On Monday, Trump offered $1 million for voter fraud tips that lead to an arrest and conviction. Last week, 92 undelivered ballots turned up in a Seattle dumpster; election officials voided every one, mailed replacements, and called it mail theft. In Alaska, Trump’s Justice Department already sued to block certification of the Senate race–but only if the Republican senator loses (Trump boasted that he’s the one who told them to do it). So the system is rigged, but only if Republicans lose. These are incoherent arguments about election integrity that reveal the desperation of people afraid to lose their grip on power. Luckily, the world keeps offering hopeful examples of what happens to those people.
In Brazil’s election on Sunday, democracy prevailed. After losing the 2022 election, Jair Bolsonaro pushed false claims that the election was rigged. Then, in a January 6th–like episode, his supporters stormed Brazil’s Congress, Supreme Court, and presidential palace. Brazil’s electoral court banned Bolsonaro from office until 2030 for his attacks on the voting system, and its Supreme Court later sentenced him to 27 years for plotting a coup. Trump called him a “good man,” slapped a 50% tariff on the entire country in protest, and Bolsonaro’s son ran in his place, against President and Workers’ Party candidate Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva.
The algorithm picked a side. There were more than 1,100 reports of largely pro-Lula accounts being removed or throttled on Meta’s platforms, and Lula’s own ad account getting briefly suspended. Brazil’s electoral court had to give Meta 24 hours to prove it wasn’t playing favorites. Meta denied any favoritism, but few were convinced; hundreds protested outside Meta’s São Paulo headquarters. Americans have reason for doubt, too. During this month’s No Kings rallies, Meta disabled the No Kings Instagram account for more than four hours, blaming a bot-detection glitch.
With the algorithm working against him, after the first round, Lula was trailing his opponent by more than 2.2 million votes. But then the people organized. They found ways to navigate around shadowbans and technological interference, taking to the streets and to innovative digital organizing. Lula’s posts ended up drawing close to 111 million interactions compared to Bolsonaro’s 31 million. On Sunday, Lula won the runoff–by nearly 4.4 million votes.
The same day, Serbia flipped. After the concrete canopy of a newly renovated train station in Novi Sad collapsed in 2024, killing 16 people, students took to the streets…and never really left. The youth lobby doesn’t have deep pockets, but it has something money can’t buy: energy. Thanks to the highest voter turnout since Serbian independence, their youth-led party Student List won a majority. Aleksandar Vučić’s camp conceded. I’ve written before about why so many young people sit out elections, but Serbia just proved what happens when they don’t.
Earlier this year, community power won in Hungary, too. Viktor Orbán spent 16 years building a propaganda machine and empire, JD Vance flew in to campaign for him, and Trump promised American “economic might” only if Orbán’s party won, but grassroots politics prevailed. Orbán’s opponent, Péter Magyar, went town to town, village to village, for two years, including in Orbán’s rural base. Then, in April, Hungarians turned out in record numbers, winning Magyar’s party a two-thirds majority. Orbán conceded.
As we celebrate democratic resilience in Brazil, Serbia, and Hungary, we cannot overlook what is unfolding around the world. In Ecuador, for instance, the people face an erosion of democratic accountability under President Daniel Noboa, an American-born leader whose administration has increasingly embraced militarization. From allegations of grave human rights abuses committed during military operations to the expansion of executive authority and renewed openness to foreign military involvement, Noboa’s policies threaten the sovereignty and constitutional protections Ecuadorians have fought to secure for generations. The enforced disappearance and killing of four Afro-Ecuadorian children from Las Malvinas in December 2024, for which soldiers have since been sentenced, should haunt the conscience of every government that claims public security justifies extraordinary state power. Security without accountability does not make anyone safer. The world must keep watching, even outside of election season.
Defending democracy cannot be a matter of geography or political convenience. We have an obligation to recognize authoritarian tendencies wherever they emerge, including among governments that enjoy Washington’s favor. And democracy requires more than defeating authoritarianism at the ballot box. It demands an informed, organized, and vigilant public willing to defend civil liberties, human dignity, and national self-determination long after the votes are counted. Our solidarity must also cross borders because the threats to democracy already do.
The first step is to vote. Election Day is November 3. Make a plan, and if you have a few hours, volunteer to protect the vote. Countries around the world continue to show up for democracy. Now it’s our turn.
Julie Roland was a Naval Officer for ten years, deploying to both the South China Sea and the Persian Gulf as a helicopter pilot before separating in June 2025 as a Lieutenant Commander. She has a law degree from the University of San Diego, a Master of Laws from Columbia University, and is a member of the Truman National Security Project.
Marcelo "Marco" Ramirez is a Democratic political strategist, former UFCW organizer, and University of Washington graduate specializing in Latin American affairs and human rights. The son of Ecuadorian immigrants, he currently leads communications & community engagement for San Diego County Democrats.
