![]() |
| Image Prompted by Human Ideas & Generated by AI |
The title of this piece made me ponder the present state of our country and the world at large. It makes me want to emphasize “cooperation" among individuals of differing thought and ideology, and nations at large, rather than the “obstinate lack of open mindedness”.
“Birds of a feather flock together” is one of those sayings that feels almost too obvious to question. Of course like-minded people gather. Of course nations align with those who share their interests. And yet, in today’s political climate—both domestic and global—the proverb feels less like a harmless observation and more like a warning.
Across the United States, political identity has hardened into something closer to social identity. Where people live, what news they consume, even whom they trust—all increasingly track along partisan lines. Americans are not just disagreeing; they are sorting themselves into distinct flocks, each with its own worldview. The result is a kind of political gravity: the closer one gets to a group, the harder it becomes to leave its orbit.
This same pattern is playing out on the world stage. Alliances are tightening, but not always along the clean ideological lines that defined the Cold War. Democracies continue to coordinate on defense and trade, yet even within these coalitions, fractures emerge over economics, migration, and national priorities. Meanwhile, countries with very different political systems find common ground in shared strategic interests—whether in energy, technology, or resistance to Western influence. Today’s “flocking” is less about shared values and more about shared calculations.
At first glance, this instinct to cluster seems stabilizing. Groups that think alike can act decisively. Alliances can deter conflict. But there is a downside: flocks that become too cohesive often stop listening to anything beyond their own internal signals. In politics, this manifests as echo chambers—environments where beliefs are reinforced rather than challenged. Over time, these chambers don’t just reflect reality; they reshape it, producing parallel narratives that rarely intersect.
Technology has accelerated this dynamic. Social media platforms, driven by engagement, naturally sort users into like-minded communities. Algorithms do not force division, but they reward it, feeding people content that aligns with their existing views. The same global event—a war, an election, a treaty—can generate entirely different interpretations depending on where and how one encounters it. In effect, the digital world has created millions of micro-flocks, each convinced it sees the full sky.
The danger is not simply disagreement; it is disconnection. When flocks no longer interact, cooperation becomes harder, even when it is urgently needed. Climate change does not respect ideological boundaries. Pandemics do not pause for geopolitical rivalries. Economic systems are too intertwined for any nation to operate in isolation. And yet, the instinct to cluster—to trust only those who look and think alike—pulls in the opposite direction.
This raises a deeper question: is the proverb incomplete? “Birds of a feather flock together” describes a natural tendency, but it says nothing about what happens next. In nature, flocks do not exist in total isolation; they share ecosystems, migrate across overlapping paths, and respond to common threats. Survival depends not just on cohesion within the group, but on interaction between groups.
Politics, too, requires this balance. Cohesion can provide identity and purpose, but without bridges between groups, it hardens into division. The challenge for modern societies—and for the international system—is not to eliminate flocks, but to ensure they remain connected. Dialogue across differences is not a sign of weakness; it is a condition for resilience.
In the end, the question is not whether birds of a feather will flock together—they always will. The question is whether those flocks will recognize that they share the same sky.

Terry love you article on “Birds of a feather”. Very well written and thought provoking and timely.
ReplyDeleteOne can ask the question: why is the USA now looking inwards and destroying alliances that have served the world for the last 100 years since World War 2. In my view this all points to the Orange Menace at the head of the world’s hedgemon USA. Being big and powerful creates a sense of authority like a bully and with the wrong person at its head bad things can happen. History teaches us that Empires collapse when they get too big and powerful. Examples are the Chinese Ming Dynasty, Ottomans, Romans and more recently the British. It is clear to me that we are at the start of the end of the American Empire.
Our Prime Minister Mark Carney is the catalyst of the movement to replace the American Empire. The modus operandi is essentially to let the middle powers collaborate to counter the American hedgemony. As Carney puts it “If you are not at the table, you are on the menu”. Carney is becoming the pseudo leader of this uprising and I must say he has the chops to put the Orange Menace in his place. I hope he succeeds
So true, Frank . Thank you for your feedback and insight. We have great regard for your PM. Canada is blessed to have such a wise and intelligent leader! He'll succeed I think
DeleteAnonymous: A "wake-up" of your article is possibly wishful thinking, however the EU has made a good start and perhaps those countries-Australia New Zealand SE Asia decide to join and make the feathers dry but not fly.
Delete