I would add Chatham House as one of the institutions on that list. I've only skimmed it so far, and owe you a better response after I read it again and think a bit about it, but ...
The author's assumption seems to that people should sit passively while watching their culture dismantled by those same politicians, parliaments and institutions, all of whom cheerfully explain that the culture was irredeemably evil. Those who aren't passive about it are "extremists."
As the saying goes "Well, there's yer problem."
(This one jumped out: "... groups like the defence leagues have essentially outflanked mainstream elites, developing successful narratives around a perceived ‘threat’ that is not being addressed, namely Islam ..." That the author thinks this extremism can be explained, even partially, in terms of dueling narratives is an example of what's causing that "shrinking credibility.")
Bookmarks