From this point of view, of course, we are all ignorant !, but we are much less when we recognize ourselves as donkeys, we try to remedy it even a little every day.
That's why loyalty to our leaders forces us to think about things like, why are we loyal to him? What has been the agreement not signed with them where we share common things? Because of the rest, that feeling that "compels" us would not be loyalty, but rather fear, blind obedience; fear of the club, the whip, canine fidelity. One is loyal to principles and to those who share those principles with one, which means that when those comrades or comrades stop obeying our shared principles, nothing compels them to be loyal to them as persons; At the most, we can respect them, feel affection from afar, nostalgia, but not loyalty: we must continue forward and stay on the road.
That blind loyalty to the leader does not see the mistakes. In the lie, he sees good intentions, in bravado, in cowardice, humility, promises, prophecies; he does not walk with balls. For those of us who have ideals and principles to take care of, we know that strong, extreme criticism is part of that care; Those who accompany us in our struggles must be protected from arrogance as we are from vain pride. Criticism is an act of love, so the syntax of these two words united in a single meaning makes noise to many: love and strong criticism is strong.
The loyal individual must never forget that it is due to principles, and that only by principles we respect the friendship or the life of our fellow human beings. But many of our current political opponents were or are our friends, former comrades of struggle, and that is not why we owe loyalty to them, because they are on the other side of our struggle.
If the politicians were all brave and showed themselves as the genuine representatives of their principles, everyone would be much healthier, perhaps more violent, but healthier, more diaphanous, less reactive. But it's not like that.