Reins, not reigns
The sense I'm getting in the articles coming through my newsfeed are an assumption of malice in a conservative choice, the resulting behavior based on that assumption, and the fallout of the exposure of deliberate misinformation that drove the assumptions that spur the current need to assuage the embarrassment of the assembly.
If one obtains a book deal out of being a mouthpiece for issues such as this, it must be acceptable to prioritize appearances over the constituents these policies affect. If the numbers in this article are accurate, there's less concern from one side than another regarding the priorities (to clarify, in interpersonal ties) of their ideological opponents. (By that I mean the handkerchiefs here are as dry as the cheeks of any silver screener with a firearm.) Also, if a dead lapsed-Catholic comedian whose views were deliberately anti-conservative during his lifetime sounds more conservative than those in his industry today, I question this writer's assessment (in the second article linked above) of which side is moving further off center.
I'll add this article for consideration as well as the second and third links in the section above; it uses a theoretical model from this university and a study on asymmetric polarization whose sources include material from (look familiar?) this publication (surprised me when I found it) to examine the ties that fray. These are people who agree with each other, assuring each other and themselves that they are not to blame. (What was the term? Echo chamber?)
Equine appeal continues to decline.
Keeping an eye on this issue because the bridge builder that the article brings to mind has been more complicit than otherwise in the reason behind the need for that common multinational policy.
Ending with this because I wonder why I remember the words "eye exam" in connection with this bit of -nomy.