Search Results

Williamson in Iowa, Photo by Gage Skidmore via Flickr, August 18th, 2019 You may have heard the common saying that “all press is good press”, and that may be true for the reality TV hopefuls among us, but for a presidential candidate, the same hardly applies. Press is power. The voter is busy, with work, college, their fourth rerun of Downton Abbey (Just me then?) Their exposure to political candidates, unless they are heavily vested in the process, is confined to forty five second Tik-Tok videos or viral CNN/Fox news clips. Case in point: more people recall candidate Vivek Ramaswamy copying an Obama quote than any of his actual policy stances. Successful campaigns hinge on the ability of a candidate to define themselves before media narratives do. Enter Marianne Williamson, popularly known as Oprah’s spiritual advisor, but also a 2024 Democratic candidate for President of the United States. She was the first Democrat to announce a bid, beating even Joe Biden to the punch. But with an incumbent campaign coming from Joe Biden, the odds are slim for Williamson, especially given that only one sitting president (Franklin Pierce) has ever been denied a party nomination. But this is not the only problem Williamson faces. Other than perhaps the far right, Williamson’s greatest foe is American media, who have labeled her a self-righteous contrarian trap, crystal lady shrew, and a quirky, kooky joke. Take your pick which you think is the worst. Though, many political analysts voice that Democrats should look into Williamson’s appeal to younger voters, and try and replicate that with someone a bit more orthodox. On the note of orthodoxy, Marianne Williamson is among the most unorthodox political candidates this election cycle. She is the author of fifteen books since 1992, most of which discuss themes of spirituality and wellness, and she got her career started as a spiritual advisor and leader of the Church of Today. She says our economic systems have lost their soul, and that a moral alignment is imperative for moving forward. This language is very different from what most voters and the media are used to. So given this background and its lack of political experience, she is hit with constant claims of being too out there and totally unqualified to run for public office. This is not the first time she has tried to run, however, in 2014 she ran as an independent to represent California’s 33rd congressional district, and in 2020 she ran for president for the first time, and as a Democrat. In 2020, Williamson faced much of the same backlash and “crystal lady” depictions from the media she is facing now, only then she was dismissed too quickly to be critiqued as concretely as she is now. The main point of disdain among Williamson and her supporters this time around is the DNC’s refusal to hold a primary debate. She voiced this in a televised interview with Sean Hannity where after discussing her stance on an array of policies, he quotes a series of tweets she posted in 2011 and 2012, and then he asks her very bluntly “what the hell does that mean?” to thunderous laughter from the audience. She explains she is surprised to hear him say that, considering that she views them as very traditional religious values, but with quotes like “Your body is merely your space station from whence you beam your love to the universe. Don't just relate to the station; relate to the beams” it is no wonder that they are being characterized as something crazy and unbecoming of a presidential candidate. The lack of credibility has reached even the White House which has fed into the characterizations of Williamson as a spiritual guru, or a hippie. When White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre was asked on her opinions regarding the then announced Williamson challenge to the Biden campaign, she responded saying she was not tracking the Williamson campaign, and went on to say perhaps she might be doing so, if only she had a crystal ball, or could “feel her aura”. Most recently, on September 13th, Marianne Williamson posted directly to her Instagram page a recently published poll from FiveThirtyEight that highlighted the national polling data of “major candidates”. A poll that Williamson was not featured on. She voices great anger of this, stating that she deserves to be mentioned considering her monthly average of 6.3% in relation to major Republican candidates like Vivek Ramaswamy (7%), Mike Pence (5.1%), and Nikki Haley (5.9%). An article from 2019 featured in The Student Life discusses Williamson’s (a former Sagehen herself) visit to the Pomona campus, and demonstrates how even in 2019 she was fighting off claims of being a “wacko crystal lady”. The odds for a victory against Biden, an incumbent president, within his own party are astronomically low. But Williamson's journey sheds light on the selective credibility American media affords. I am reminded of the treatment of Bernie Sanders in 2016 and again in 2020. Sanders, a radical leftist by American standards, was consistently left out of media coverage in favor of the more moderate Democratic candidate, Hillary Clinton. In January of 2020, Sanders was even the highest polling Democratic candidate, yet the media portrayed a Sanders victory as impossible, and asserted he was underperforming. For Republican outsiders however, Fox News is ready to welcome them with open arms. But Neither CNN or MSNBC have had the same attitude towards Democratic outsiders. It poses many questions that are uncomfortable to confront. What are the necessary ideological conditions to be seen as a part of the establishment or taken seriously by our media? With regards to Williamson, someone evidently outside of that establishment, the conclusion is clear. She won’t be placing her right hand on the Bible and faithfully swearing to execute anything come 2024, but her message seems to resonate with younger generations, and so it is plausible that future Democratic contenders may embrace her ethos, albeit in a more conventional package.

CMC senior Bertha Tobias was just named a 2024 Rhodes Scholar Elect. As a Namibian candidate, Bertha was one of 8 finalists from South Africa, Botswana, Lesotho, Namibia, Malawi, and eSwatini, all of whom competed for one Rhodes Scholarship. She interviewed in Johannesburg, South Africa, this past weekend and learned of her election on October 1. This marks the fourth Rhodes Scholarship in both CMC and Namibian history. Bertha studies international relations and leadership studies, and she has a keen interest in natural resource management in developing countries. Her Rhodes Scholarship will fund her MSc degree in Sustainability, Enterprise, and the Environment. According to Bertha, the program scrutinizes the environment “through the lens of power, place, and politics,” delving into “how historical relationships between nations shape energy policy.” Bertha’s passion for energy policy emerged in college. “I initially perceived environmental literature as a ‘white people concern,’” she shared, stating that the way we discuss decarbonization does not account for people who would lose access to electricity if we were to decarbonize immediately. After taking environmental classes at CMC, Bertha says she “fell in love with the realization that decarbonization will look different in different countries.” At Oxford, she wants to understand how to implement an equitable energy transition. In addition to her academic passions, Bertha has a knack for media entrepreneurship. Bertha utilized funding from CMC’s Sponsored Internship and Experience program to launch her own television show, “Spotlight.” She organized a production crew and interviewed Namibian entrepreneurs, sharing their success stories on Namibia’s largest broadcaster, NBC Namibia. At Oxford, she plans to collaborate with BBC Ideas, an Oxford-BBC partnership where scholars create short films about their research. “Opportunities like that are exciting,” Bertha says, because they allow her to “stay playful with media pursuits while making the most of an Oxford education.” Studying in the United Kingdom will be a new experience for Bertha, but she is by no means new to cross-cultural learning experiences. Bertha grew up in Namibia, but she completed high school at United World College Changshu China before moving to the United States to pursue her bachelor’s degree. Bertha says she studies outside of her home country because she wants to understand how great institutions are built. “The United States, China, and the United Kingdom are all superpowers,” she says. “My biggest curiosity has been ‘What do they do right? Do they know something that we don’t about how to build systems and economies that last?’” Giving back to Namibia is at the root of many of Bertha’s pursuits. Having spent so much time abroad, she believes there’s nothing fundamentally better about “superpower” countries compared to African countries. She emphasizes that hard work can be applied to any nation to achieve success, and she hopes to be a part of Namibia’s growth to global competitiveness. Brian Davidson, CMC’s Director of Fellowships Advising, describes Bertha as “a force of nature with potential to be a truly transformative leader in Namibia and Southern Africa.” Brian believes Bertha is the embodiment of using one’s talents to the full, a core tenant of the Rhodes Scholarship. Reflecting on her resilience and ambition, Brian is sure the Rhodes Trust’s investment in her will pay off. After securing the most distinguished scholarship in the world, Bertha feels immense gratitude. She calls the scholarship a “collective win,” crediting the continuous support of CMC, family, and friends. She extends special thanks to Ipawa Haimbodi, Vision Tobias, Professor Jennifer Taw, Professor Peter Uvin, Professor Michael Fortner, Brian Davidson, Freya Jennison, Justin Ongchin, Maureen Tchatchoua, Steve Wang, Ursula Diamond, and Michael Yu.

In 1958, French democracy nearly collapsed. The brutal war against movements for Algerian independence almost saw a military-led coup take over the country as civil unrest hit an all-time high. Recent setbacks in Indochina, Vietnam, and the Suez Crisis had conservative and military factions in France concerned about national honor and international prestige. With vocal groups contending that French power could not degrade any further, there was a sense that the country could not endure another international setback. General opposition to France's colonial ambitions, economic disparities, and the active presence of socialist and conservative political groups triggered mass unrest. As protests intensified, the military's dissatisfaction with the government grew. In response, military chiefs overthrew the French administration in Algeria, concerned that Paris would concede Algeria to liberation movements. Mere days later, French paratroopers took control of Corsica. Fears of a socialist takeover surged, leading troops to prepare for a march on Paris, with a clear message: unless De Gaulle was made Prime Minister, they would force the issue. Upon his ascension, De Gaulle established a new republic, emphasizing the need for a stable government with robust executive authority. Notably, he introduced Article 49.3, which allowed the Executive to bypass the National Assembly to enact certain laws. This, however, gave the National Assembly the option to move for no-confidence votes. With a newly centralized government structure and strengthened executive authority under the Fifth Republic's 1958 constitution, De Gaullists believed their reforms would prevent further crises, even if it meant potential civil unrest. The contemporary French Republic owes its stability since 1958 to De Gaulle’s adjustments, yet in 2023, France faces challenges that mirror the past. French foreign policy, especially concerning Africa, is under scrutiny. The withdrawal of their 1,500 troops from Niger, in the wake of a coup that saw democratically elected president Mohamed Bazoum taken captive, is a significant blow. Similar coups in Mali and Burkina Faso, leading to further withdrawals, force France to confront a new reality. The nation must act fast to retain international influence. France dedicated its forces in their former colonies to fighting Islamic extremists, and upon their departure, Russian troops replaced them, often the Wagner Group. Extremism and violence in the region are only growing under the current circumstances, yet many Africans living under these military governments view France as the problem, not a solution. Macron battles opposition at home, challenging the move as another step under his administration toward France losing global status. Beyond Africa, military influence in Europe has been lackluster until recent months. In 2022, Macron hemmed and hawed, offering to enter diplomatic talks with Vladimir Putin and insisting the Russians should not “be humiliated” over a historic mistake. The approach does not bear fruit. This summer, a rapid about-face aligns with a realization that for France to be a global player, they must spend and act. A long-term plan to supply aid to Ukraine and motions to expand NATO and the EU might solidify France’s position as a European leader. Macron must strike an impressive balancing act on the international stage and at home since, as of last year, only 47% of citizens support financial and military aid. A number that could decrease as economic ails continue to plague the nation. Domestically, unrest has marred the last year of French political life. Macron’s invocation of the infamous Article 49.3 has led to workers organizing protests against Macron’s initiative to raise the retirement age from 62 to 64. The reform was unavoidable as 14% of the French GDP goes to supporting pensioners, making France one of the largest global spenders in the field. Still, the program’s contributions to the deficit made it untenable. Macron’s government will continue to see the consequences of the unpopular action. As gas prices experience worrying increases, the government’s inaction leaves French citizens discontent, as 70% blame the state for the issue and prefer a tax decrease at the pumps. The cap of €1.99 a liter for the foreseeable future could be sufficient to keep French citizens at bay. Gas taxes and prices once triggered the Yellow Vest protests in 2018, and the movement still appears during political unrest. To maintain order, controlling these prices will be a chief priority. How, then, does France navigate through this situation unscathed? Domestically, the key will be budgetary fortitude. Increases in military spending, injections of money into social safety nets, and bearing the cost of gasoline price caps make cutting budget deficits to sufficient levels an incredibly challenging task. If they do not control government spending, they could see a macro-level failure of government bonds, leading to an economic crisis. Injecting money into consumers’ pockets and artificially keeping gas prices down could lead to demand-side inflation, causing civil unrest, as the French often see when faced with economic issues. The government bases the 2024 budget outlook on optimistic growth outlooks. Their projected 4.6% budget deficit in 2024 needs to decrease the 3% of GDP level the EU requires by 2027, or France risks current inflation becoming a crisis. The current budget may prove enough to balance these challenges, but time will tell. Internationally, the French must stay focused. Their main priorities are supporting Ukraine, uniting and expanding the EU, and strengthening NATO. African reform came too late, but rallying coalitions in the EU and the UN to build peace, security, and democracy in the nations left in the state’s realm of influence could let them take on a significant role beyond military assistance. Any action in this area inevitably puts them on a collision course with China and Russia, but they must not let that deter them. Flexibility will be a great ally in these chaotic times. Now more than ever the West needs France, and if Macron maintains order and focuses on strategic targets, then history will not repeat itself.

In early April, even playing in the National Championship was not an option for the Claremont Foxes Rugby team, but somehow, by the end of the month, they were champions. It all began a month prior with a brutal match against San Diego State where seemingly everything went wrong. The Foxes walked away with their first loss of the season, and with that, any possibility of advancing to the regional or national tournament. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the regional tournament would only take the #1 seed from the DII Pacific Desert Rugby League, which San Diego State had won that night. The Foxes quickly accepted their loss and completely shifted their focus toward their Rugby 7s season. They were chosen to showcase their talents in the D1 pool at the College Rugby 7s Championship in New Orleans after UCLA had nominated the Foxes to go in their place. In a rapid change of events, just a week from the date of the National Championship game, Coach Evan Wollen received a call. One of the teams nominated for the Final 4 could not make it, and the Foxes were given the open bid. With just a few days and only a couple practices to prepare, the Fox leadership team worked to book flights for players and coaches, while the team had less than a week to reorient themselves back to 15s rugby. Suddenly, the Foxes had another shot at the National Championship in Houston. Despite being colleges that officially compete at the Division III level, the Claremont Foxes have a history of being successful on the pitch, consistently winning against bigger schools like USC, UCSB, and UCLA. In Houston, the Foxes had something to prove. They played their first match against the Tribe from William and Mary University. An immense team effort led to a dominant win of 55-15, reminding themselves and everyone watching why they belonged in the National Championship finals. Injust 24 hours, the Foxes would be meeting their newly formed rivals San Diego State to compete for it all. On April 30th, the Aveva Stadium was set for a revenge match like no other. Houston was hot and humid, and all the players on the pitch were tired from their match the day before; but regardless, the Foxes were hungry for a win. Hungry to prove to themselves and their teammates that they could do it, hungry for revenge. The first half was a slow battle until, with only 3 minutes left to spare, Senior Lock Eden Mahdavi (SCR ’22) punched through the line and scored. The Foxes had the momentum, and they continued their dominant performance in the second half. Leaving blood, sweat, and tears on the pitch, the Foxes secured the 2022 Division II 15s Spring National Championship against San Diego State with a score of 22-7. Madz Masser-Frye (HMC ’23), Caroline Bullock (CMC ’24), and MVP of the Match Robyn Collins (SCR ’23) each contributed a try. The Foxes have become Claremont Colleges' own little David and Goliath story. The summer after they won, they traveled to New Orleans for a 7s tournament and notably beat Michigan, Clemson, and Iowa. Nearly a year after winning the Championship, on Tuesday, April 11th, The Claremont Foxes were officially recognized by the Mayor of Claremont and the City Council for their outstanding achievement. With representatives from each of the 5Cs in attendance, notably President Chodosh of Claremont McKenna College and President Starr of Pomona College, the Foxes received an official certificate that will be on display alongside their National Championship trophy at Pomona College’s ​​Center for Athletics, Recreation and Wellness. Looking at the 2023 season, the Foxes have been crowned the League Champions, and will be heading to Stanford to compete in the West Spring Regionals tournament on April 21st and 22nd. “We look forward to continuing to represent the City of Claremont and the Claremont Colleges in the upcoming weeks at Stanford and then hopefully in May in Houston and on the National stage vying for another National Championship,” current co-captain Caroline Bullock said in the City Hall meeting. If the Foxes win both their games at Stanford, they will travel to Houston to compete once again in the National Championship. The Claremont Foxes is a Club Rugby team composed of students from all five Claremont Colleges. The majority of its players had no prior experience with the sport, and they pride themselves on their diversity and inclusivity, inviting anyone who wants to join the team. The Foxes are lucky to have a phenomenal all-volunteer coaching staff who are instrumental to their continued success. The secret to the Foxes' success? It can be attributed to the incredible work of the leadership team and their coaches, the support they receive from our schools’ administration, and the amazing people at CMS and PP Recreation. It is undeniable that the Claremont Foxes have created an incredible community of strong athletes, dedicated to the game and each other, creating lifelong memories along the way.

Amid the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, global actors are recalibrating their grand strategy, and Russia is among them. The Russian government’s impartial stance on the current conflict is much more than its conventional approach to Israeli-Palestinian affairs. Behind the curtains, The Kremlin hopes to benefit from the unexpectedly flamed tension in Palestine. Since Russia’s offensive in Ukraine began, Vladimir Putin has embodied a strategy of “Running out the clock.” The strategy assumes that the united Western support behind Ukraine will crumble if the war comes to a dead end and Ukraine fails to deliver a conclusive victory rapidly. Putin’s strategy resembles Alexander I’s tactic against Napoleon Bonaparte during the French invasion of Russia. Like Putin, the Czar believed that the time was at their side and dragged Bonaparte into the Russian hinterland by ordering his forces to retreat until that famous winter arrived. However, has the contemporary Czar’s strategy worked out as it did for Alexander? So far, no. In the first stages of the war, Russian officials expected that a cold winter in Europe without a Russian natural gas supply would cause an energy crisis that would eventually force European governments to reconsider their Ukraine strategy; yet, that winter had not arrived. On the contrary, Europe had one of the mildest Winters it ever had. Similarly, the Russian government hoped that internal disputes within NATO, such as Turkey’s approach to Sweden and Finland’s membership bid for the organization, could break the united front against Russia but that did not happen. However, the recent increased Republican opposition in the U.S Congress against foreign aid for Ukraine implies that Vladimir Putin’s strategy is not dead and that the ongoing conflict in Palestine can help the Kremlin. There are at least 100 House Republicans who could be considered 'Ukraine skeptics.' If Iran’s involvement in the conflict gains momentum, an exacerbated energy crisis is inevitable since in that case, the United States would have to impose harsher sanctions on the Iranian economy. This would benefit the Russian Federation as the United States might be forced to reconsider its strategy toward Russia. It is worth noting that in the first stages of the Ukrainian war, the United States had to reformulate its approach to Venezuela and Iran – two important oil producers – because of the imposed sanctions on the Russian economy. Additionally, a new battlefront in the Middle East would force the United States to reallocate its capabilities in a world order where the conflict is not concentrated but dispersed. Time is on the side of Vladimir Putin and his bet can still pay off.

If you’ve been watching Fox News lately, you probably have noticed a few trends: the ‘two-tier justice system,’ ‘Biden impeachment,’ 'Hunter,' among other typical talking points. But there’s something else on Fox News pretty often these days, or rather someone. No I’m not talking about Vivek Ramaswamy or Robert Kennedy Jr. I’m talking about the Democratic Governor of California, Gavin Newsom. As far as major Democratic figures go, Newsom is really the only one consistently engaging with the Right. Last year in June, he was the most prominent Democrat to join Trump’s Truth Social Platform at a time when his peers refused to give it credibility. When he isn’t on there “on calling out MAGA lies,” you can catch him in interviews with Sean Hannity, calling out hypocrites on the right, discussing his political philosophies and their impacts on Californian legislation, or consistently voicing his support for incumbent Joe Biden, calling him a “man of decency and character.” In a polarized time such as our own, a lot of Newsom's actions seem to contradict each other. They don’t fit into the division we’ve grown accustomed to. Very few Democrats are actively working to engage in discourse with anyone on the Right, but that is a new top priority for the California Governor. Newsom, a historically popular Governor in California’s history, was challenged by political commentator Larry Elder in an attempted recall in 2021. However, Newsom retained his position with about the same amount of the votes by which he won it. He is the second Governor in California history to face a recall, and the first to survive one. Though it was certainly not a narrow defeat for Newsom, and most polls predicted he would persevere, he was left intent to never underestimate the power of conservative media again. He has, since that day, become increasingly vested in understanding the landscape of conservative media. An article from Semafor reports of Newsom tuning in to The Ben Shapiro Show and The Faulkner Focus on a daily basis. On September 28th this year, Fox News posted another interview between Sean Hannity and Gavin Newsom, filmed live in the Reagan Library spin room following the second Republican debate. The two start off the interview in a light-hearted, joking manner, with Hannity even stating Newsom told him off-air that Newsom “loves doing [Hannity’s] show the most”. At first, Hannity is keenly interested in asserting that the Governor, deep down, is eager to run for President and challenge the “cognitive mess” Joe Biden. Though Newsom continued to voice his support for the incumbent, expressing admiration for Biden’s extraordinary political record. “I couldn’t be more proud,” said Newsom. It is clear Gavin Newsom is putting in effort to justify the work he has done as Governor, and staunchly defend the leader of his party. Across every important point of contention (and perhaps a potential future agenda), Newsom asserts that the progressive solutions of his party work, and that he will continue to support them in every way. He knows exactly who’s watching, and he knows a lot of them strongly dislike those solutions. But many on the left and right dislike Joe Biden even more. Newsom’s familiarity with conservative talking points makes him much better equipped then most of his contemporaries to handle a Hannity interview, and appear to many conservatives not as a crazy radical whom they should fear, but rather a respectable, albeit misguided, figure. If the goal is to convince moderates or people on the opposite side of the spectrum to support you, the contemporary media strategy of staying within echo chambers, media bubbles, and friendly podcasts seems a very ineffective mode for doing so. Many of Newsom’s appearances on right-wing media have incited positive reactions from the left and even a few on the right. His interviews with Sean Hannity seem to be doing the trick for many Democrats, especially at a time of declining Democratic support of Joe Biden. Despite his accomplishments, Biden is not the spokesperson he once was; he isn’t motivating or inspiring Democrats. What Newsom is doing fundamentally boils down to building credibility, on both sides. Time will tell if Newsom's strategy is working, but his second term as Governor ends in early 2027, leaving enough time to organize a substantial effort for a bid in 2028. Stay tuned, this is only the beginning for Gavin Newsom’s new strategy. Fox News announced a 90 minute televised interview between Gavin Newsom and Ron DeSantis to take place on Sean Hannity’s show on November 30th. Assuming Biden stays healthy, Gavin Newsom isn’t trying to get your vote in 2024, but four years from now, he will be. The current work he’s doing may be in the hope that come 2028, you’ll think of him as someone who kept fighting when others gave up.

Stanford Classics and Politics Professor Josiah Ober thinks about the Roman Empire five times a week — but for good reason. The frequent musings form the basis of his latest book, The Civic Bargain: How Democracy Survives, which posits that the bedrock of democracy is mutual negotiation, a concept that has largely slipped from contemporary discourse. At its core, Ober's argument is simultaneously simple and profound: democracy depends on a "bargain" – a consensus among individuals with differing opinions. The only way democracy can thrive is if these individuals can reach an agreement, recognizing that all parties involved are better off within this shared understanding than outside of it. This inherently means that democracy will never reach a state of perfection, as the essence of a bargain requires compromise. Ober told us to think of it as “haggling over a used car;” neither party can leave with everything they initially wanted. Ober visited CMC to present his book at the Athenaeum and attend an American constitutionalism conference hosted by the Salvatori Center. He is the author of numerous books, including Mass and Elite in Democratic Athens (1989), Political Dissent in Democratic Athens (2008), and Democracy and Knowledge (2008). When I collected Ober for our interview, the juxtaposition was cinematic: a towering academic in his 60s, exuding gravitas yet crowned with a playful newsboy cap and smile, struggling to fold his way into the confines of my compact passenger seat. He eventually squeezed in, launching into thoughtful responses even before my questions fully left my lips. So how does a society reach this critical juncture, the civic bargain? Ober tells us that history provides valuable insights, with Athens, Rome, the UK, and the US as illustrative examples. In each instance, the fundamental agreement that delineates how the people coexist democratically is preceded by a series of political bargains. These can be among the elite or between the elite and the masses. The journey towards democracy, defined as self-governance by the people who determine their own citizenry, is never instantaneous. Often, a central figure or authority is the precursor, steering the society towards the eventual ideal of self-rule. For any democratic system to be resilient, it must have the flexibility to evolve. Ober uses the US Constitution as an example, as it began imperfectly, it possessed the intrinsic ability to be amended, ensuring its relevance across changing times. The civic bargain, then, doesn't promise perfection from the outset. Instead, it creates conditions that allow a society to edge ever closer to an improved version of itself. Ober also spoke of the importance of scaling up in democracies. In a world with multiple superpowers, with contrasting ideologies and governance systems, democracies must scale to withstand autocratic rivals. Autocracies can scale more efficiently due to their hierarchical structure. For democracies to counteract this, they must properly maintain their civic bargain. The issue of scale in Rome became a significant challenge. By the end of the Roman Republic, the sense of citizenship became so diluted that it no longer resonated deeply with the people. Why engage in complex negotiations when following Caesar seemed more profitable? In the early evolution of democracy, separating it from religious ideologies was a radical yet crucial step. In places like the United Kingdom, religion had led to significant societal upheavals and violence. Addressing religious conflicts and ensuring basic security and welfare were paramount for democracy to take root. Ancient societies like Athens and Rome integrated public religion into their political system differently, but they all ensured that religion didn't equate to an unchallenged rule. A democratic society seeks to curb extreme passions, focusing on rationality and mutual benefit. The ultimate aim is to prevent politics from becoming a zero-sum game, where one side's gain is another's loss. Unfortunately, the zero-sum game defines most 21st century political issues. There's a tendency to view the national-level impasses as issues that will simply shift to state governments. Such bypassing impacts national security; Ober draws historical parallels with the failure of the Articles of Confederation. While the federal system can delegate various responsibilities to the local communities, it's essential that some crucial matters remain within the national purview. This feeling of being "stuck" isn't new to the United States. Both the House and Senate have been bitterly divided for the better part of the last three decades. There have not been consecutive Presidents from the same party since H.W. Bush was elected in 1988. The last several Presidential elections have also been decided by razor thin margins. Deep-rooted systemic power imbalances, voter suppression, and issues like gerrymandering have been persistent challenges as well. With the advent of technological advancements, these issues have become more sophisticated and often less conspicuous. In the face of increasing division, Ober proposes reviving what Aristotle termed as 'Civic friendship.' This doesn't imply an actual camaraderie but rather an understanding and acknowledgment of being part of a collective enterprise. To rebuild this civic friendship, Ober points to civic education. This isn't just about academic education; it's about equipping each citizen with the tools to engage, communicate, and sometimes, compromise with others – even those they may disagree with. A society's fabric is woven from conversations, from talking to people, understanding perspectives, and not necessarily agreeing but finding a common ground. It's about delineating boundaries on some issues while leaving room for negotiations on others. Ober emphasized the importance of fostering "civic friendship" through civic education, where citizens help educate their fellow citizens. However, a fundamental concern arises when individual interpretations of civic understanding start diverging extensively. Throughout history, such divisions have led to devastating outcomes like civil wars. To avoid reaching such extremes, Ober says there's a pressing need for historically accurate information and a diversity of perspectives. Ober tells us that the US doesn't need to overhaul its constitution or introduce a slew of amendments. Instead, institutions and individuals can champion civic education right now. A call to action could be as simple as approaching professors or educators to emphasize the importance of courses that unpack what it means to be a modern-day citizen, dealing with racial inequality, technology, constitutional tenets, political theory, and history. Ober proudly noted a new course at Stanford designed with this intent that has already seen ⅔ enrollment for the freshman class (75 sections — 1 syllabus). Ober knows change won’t happen inside the halls of Stanford, but if he has one message, it’s to pass it on.

In his 1946 essay "Politics and the English Language," George Orwell examined what he saw as a decline in writing, arguing that it was intertwined with a deteriorating political discourse. To him, bad prose wasn’t just an aesthetic problem. It signified foggy thinking and the avoidance of honest debate. Orwell criticized political jargon for its ability to make "lies sound truthful and murder respectable," pointing to the misuse of language as a tool to defend the indefensible. This analysis was not confined to political rhetoric. Orwell also dissected the hollow prose of journalists and academics, highlighting their reliance on clichés and "humbug." For Orwell, the misuse and degradation of language was both a symptom and a cause of a more profound decay in critical thinking. Fast-forward from post-war Britain to contemporary America, and Orwell's concerns remain salient. In a political age dominated not by radio and slogans, but instead by social media memes and soundbites, evasive language continues to corrupt thought, even as sloppy thought continues to corrupt language. While this pattern exists on all sides of the political spectrum, the language problems are most evident in relation to the politics of gender, race, and political economy. As a student at the 5Cs, or any elite colleges for that matter, you are likely to encounter this type of muddy language everyday. Many, for fear of retribution, avoid asking questions or clarifying. One pattern is the attempt to evolve familiar terms in favor of more inclusive alternatives: Latinx for Latino, LGBTQIA+ for an array of sexualities and gender identities, and “womxn” for women. Like most neologisms, “womxn” starts from a place of good intentions: to create a more inclusive gender category that includes trans women. But in its obscurity and un-pronounceability, the term sends a message of exclusion more than inclusion. Get the fast-evolving political jargon right, it tells the uninitiated, or find yourself unwelcome in the conversation. The very use of these terms glosses over debates that proponents of the words aren’t interested in having. If you use "BIPOC" as a consolidated descriptor for Black, Indigenous, and People of Color, you are folding in any argument about the shared outlook and interests of marginalized people, while skirting the question of who qualifies as a person of color, and what different communities do and don’t have in common. Jargon often originates on the Left before being co-opted – and further corrupted – by the Right. This fate has befallen terms including “politically correct,” “fake news,” "woke," “critical race theory,” the investment term ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance), and “DEI” (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion). Woke, which once signaled an awareness of social injustices, has been contorted, politicized, and is now used almost exclusively as a hammer to bash progressives (itself a term Orwell deplored in the 1940s). "Critical Race Theory," a theory with academic roots taught primarily in law schools, often finds itself misused as a blanket term for any discussion of race in schools. "DEI" too has primarily become an easy, bureaucratic-sounding target for those hostile to greater racial diversity. We then come to the category of more abstract political ideas. There’s no better example than “neoliberalism,” a term so vague and imprecise that it’s used to describe political leaders ranging from Ronald Reagan to Barack Obama. Historically, this term referred to an extreme vision of unregulated, free-market capitalism -– the worldview of Milton Friedman. Now, its contours have been broadened and blurred to such an extent that it tends to mean, “anyone more fiscally conservative than I am.” It has become a catch-all used attribute blame and bypass discussion. Words like “colonialism,” “stolen-land,” “genocide,” “apartheid,” and even “violence” are all at risk of a similar fate. If you want an illustration, have a look at the horrifying recent statement on the attacks in Israel from Claremont Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP): “This uprising is part of continued decolonial struggle and an affirmation of Palestinians’ unwavering fight for liberation.” SJP assumes Hamas represents most Palestinians despite not holding an election since 2006, obscuring actual questions about justice and democracy in Palestine. The italicized words are meant to preempt natural revulsion at the massacre and kidnapping of civilians, including children. They make savage “murder sound respectable,” by piling radical cliché upon cliché. “The invasion of one’s mind by ready-made phrases…can only be prevented if one is constantly on guard against them, and every such phrase anaesthetizes a portion of one’s brain,” Orwell wrote. Meaningless words abound, intentionally or inadvertently suffocating genuine debate and discussion. Those who aspire to think more critically must attend to their terminology.

In a recent article for The Forum, Henry Long argues that CMC’s pre-professional focus stands at odds with its liberal arts mission. While articulated forcefully, a close analysis reveals his argument’s surprising lack of merit. CMC’s pre-professional focus not only does not detract from its liberal arts orientation—it serves to enhance it. In his article, Henry begins by distinguishing liberal arts from the servile arts, positing that liberal arts ought to be concerned with intrinsically valuable knowledge. He cites an observation made by Professor David Corey: “Only at a great liberal arts college do we find people engaged in history, science, physics, music, and art as ends in themselves, not as a prelude to a job or a stepping stone to ‘success.’” Yet, I would argue, that is exactly what is found at CMC. By virtue of the GE system, Literature majors learn to take derivatives and Math majors learn to read poetry. Both may drag their feet when confronted with such realities, but it is a reality at CMC nonetheless. All in the same day, you can find Data Science majors debating politics, IR majors enjoying literary theory courses, Physics majors playing music in Marks Hall’s basement, and future investment bankers listening to an Athenaeum talk. There is no evidence that CMC’s offerings geared toward professional success detract from the vibrant culture of learning on campus. Henry’s next claim is that a liberal arts education ought to transcend a deliberation of means to achieve a goal and include a deliberation of ends and values. While I do not disagree with his premise, Henry’s further analysis suffers from the notable disadvantage of being an inaccurate representation of student life at CMC. For example, in the College’s PPE (Philosophy, Politics, and Economics) program, students engage in interdisciplinary studies to not only evaluate what policies best achieve a goal but also whether or not that goal is politically feasible or even valuable. Rather than an outlier, this method of inquiry is found in every corner of campus, from the classroom to career coaching. The principal dividing line between those who pursue intrinsically valuable knowledge and those who do not is not the level of engagement in pre-professional activities, but rather the level of value one places on intrinsically valuable knowledge. The addition of a pre-professional focus, then, serves not as a detriment to the liberal arts, but as one more facet of excellence that the Renaissance student can pursue. Lastly, let us turn to Henry’s claim that CMC’s motto — crescit cum commercio civitas — runs contrary to its liberal arts mission because it constitutes an institutional stance on a political issue. Specifically, Henry writes: “The motto makes debatable claims about the nature of civilizational flourishing and the value of commerce” and that it is “an affront to the liberal arts for a college to assert it dogmatically.” What his statement achieves in hyperbole, however, it lacks in ratiocination. To begin with, I hardly think a claim as apodictic and empirically verifiable as CMC’s motto constitutes a political expression of a debatable viewpoint. But even if it does, a liberal arts college can simultaneously teach students how to think while also expressing what it thinks, just as a liberal government can simultaneously promise freedom of expression while also espousing its own view. Henry not only concedes this point— he wrote a whole essay articulating it. At the core of Henry’s argument is a profound skepticism of the compatibility of a liberal arts label with learning that is useful for external purposes. Yet “learning for the sake of doing” need not preclude “learning for the sake of learning.” In fact, it is often a prerequisite for it. College students will always be concerned about the professional world they will soon enter, regardless of their studies. Unfortunately, as documented by the Economist, liberal arts students are consistently outcompeted in the professional world by those who study economics or math at top universities. That trend forces students, especially those from underprivileged backgrounds, to abandon liberal arts altogether. CMC’s unique value proposition lies in offering pathways to lucrative professionals while maintaining a liberal arts posture. The College focuses on professional success precisely so that its students do not have to choose between financial success, making an impact, and pursuing purely intellectual ends. Henry and I often spend our free time sparring over issues ranging from free speech absolutism to the utility of Rawls’s Theory of Justice. In a completely different sphere, we also both took advantage of CMC’s pre-professional resources to secure internships in the management consulting field. The two spheres have not conflicted with each other, and any suggestion that our professional pursuits detracted from our liberal arts endeavors or discussions of fundamental values is patently false. If anything, the security that stems from building a strong professional future frees up time and energy for more intellectual pursuits. This healthy duality need not be viewed as a jarring juxtaposition of two irreconcilable missions—rather, it should be celebrated as one of the features that make our college so special.

“As a society, you were unwilling to reflect on the shared pain that united you with those who attacked you. You retreated into myths of your own difference, assumptions of your own superiority. And you acted out these beliefs on the stage of the world, so that the entire world was rocked,” a Pakistani man remarks to an American colleague in the aftermath of 9/11 in Mohsin Hamid’s The Reluctant Fundamentalist. As violence in Israel and Palestine escalates, people from all sides beg for human rights to come before political agendas. But no one actually knows what that looks like in an arena where human rights themselves are politicized. On October 7th, the Palestinian militant group Hamas launched an attack from Gaza. They fired rockets towards nearby Israeli towns. They blasted through the iron wall that separates Gaza and Israel, using a mix of drones, grenades, and assault weapons to attack nearby military bases, population centers, and a music festival. They killed over a thousand Israeli civilians and soldiers and took over 200 people hostage. While many details of the attack remain shrouded in controversial uncertainty, it is undeniable that Hamas’ offensive was incredibly brutal. In response to Hamas’ attack, Israel declared war, targeting what they claim are Hamas hotspots with airstrikes. Targeting Hamas in Gaza, where over 2 million people are packed into less than 150 square miles, has translated to targeting the most populated areas, including refugee camps, schools, and hospitals. Although civilians are given extremely limited evacuation notice, there is often nowhere to go. Israel has also stopped all entry of goods into Gaza, including food, water, medicine and fuel. Israel has recently also commenced deadly ground operations. Both sides have already committed actions that constitute war crimes, including indiscriminate violence against civilians and civilian infrastructure, use of chemical weapons, and humanitarian blockades. Palestinian civilian casualties are significantly higher than Israeli civilian casualties. The world responded loudly on all media platforms. Initially, the outcry was this is Israel’s 9/11. Hamas is a terrorist organization. They’re barbarians beheading babies and raping women. Then came the opposing camp: Israel must examine their own culpability. They’ve oppressed Palestinians for decades. Resistance is violent. Soon after came those that tried to bridge the initial polarization with their middle ground advocacy for ‘humanity.’ Hamas is not Palestinian liberation and Israeli citizens are not Netanyahu’s government. If you care about Palestinian lives, you should care about Israeli lives too. It’s immoral to try to justify violence. To this, the pro-Palestine contingent responded: Israel has been doing the same thing to Palestinians and the world has been silent. As the conflict has escalated, discourse once again has shifted. Allegations of intended and attempted genocide have been levied by both sides. Both sides also continue to claim moral high ground – Palestine was rightfully fighting for freedom. Israel has the right to protect themselves. On face value, the ‘human rights’ camp seems the most reasonable. But the influx of posts that encourage everyone to adopt an apolitical human rights perspective and simply condemn all violence are frustratingly devoid of critical thinking. We wouldn’t have an escalating civil conflict if it was possible to perceive all violence as wrong, independent of its justification. For those that have personal investment in Palestine or Israel, that ask is near impossible. That’s because the violent events unfolding today cannot be analyzed in a vacuum. Most attempts to do so clearly have a political agenda, despite often hiding behind the facade of wanting to depoliticize the conversation. Violence has been present in the region for centuries, and it has always been inherently political. As such, victimhood is also inherently political. The presence of discourse itself when certain populations experience violence (or the lack thereof) is entrenched in necropolitics. In the early 20th century, Britain pledged in the Balfour Declaration to establish a national home for the Jewish people in British-controlled Palestine. The unfathomable horrors faced by the Jewish people of Europe during World War II created an urgent need for a safe haven for the Jewish nation. The issue is that Palestine had become a home to other people in the many, many years since biblical Israel: Arabs who fought back against what they considered a European colonial movement. Arab resistance to British control and mass Jewish immigration led to the first waves of violence in the 1930s. In 1948, Britain handed over the issue of Palestine to the UN, who called for the partition of Palestine into separate Arab and Jewish states. The Palestinians refused to accept the proposed partition, as it did not grant them territory proportional to their larger population. This worried Zionist leaders, who conceived “Plan Dalet” in response, in order to reorganize Palestine into an assured Jewish-dominated state before the British Mandate ended. The plan provided a blueprint for the destruction of hundreds of Palestinian towns and cities and the displacement or massacre of their residents. The Haganah –the Zionist paramilitary– commenced what Palestinians refer to as the “Nakba,” the destruction of more than 500 Palestinian villages, towns and cities and the systematic massacre or displacement of their residents, violence that forced 700,000 Palestinians to flee Palestine. On May 15, 1948, Israel formally declared independence, catalyzing the Israeli-Arab War, with five Arab states fighting against the creation of Israel. Israel, backed by Western nations, ultimately won. Modern-day Israel would look very different if not for the initial systemic removal of Palestinians from the Holy Lands. The Zionist movement’s drastic actions during the mid 20th century permanently entrenched the narrative that the existence of a strong, populous Palestinian nation inherently threatens the survival of Israel. To this day, the 7 million descendants of the 20th century Palestinian diaspora have not been granted the right to return to Palestine. Since the 1950s, Israel has (explicitly and de facto) ruled the occupied Palestinian territories (OPT) by severe military rule. They have also increasingly facilitated the construction of Israeli settlements within the OPT, continuing to marginalize Palestinian territorial claims and sovereignty. The Human Rights Watch, along with numerous other international human rights organizations, continues to condemn Israel for creating a textbook definition apartheid state through their numerous policies that ensure Israeli domination and Palestinian subjugation. The Gaza Strip – coined ‘the largest prison on Earth’– has been closed off from the rest of the world since 2007, with Israel controlling all movement of people and goods in and out of the territory. Gaza lacks needed imports, is not able to establish trade with other regions, has one of the highest unemployment rates in the world, and grapples with constant electricity cuts and dire shortages of clean water. More than half of its population is impoverished, and only 20% of its population does not heavily rely on humanitarian assistance. Israel’s oppression has rendered stable governance and economic development impossible within Gaza. Almost all scholarship on the root causes of extremism suggest that structural denial of economic opportunity and power vacuums are the conditions that enable militant groups like Hamas to thrive. Hamas arose after the first Intifada –first Palestinian uprising– seeking to take back all of historic Palestine through violence and replace the Israeli state with an Islamic society. In 2006, they defeated the Fatah party and gained authority over Gaza. They are the closest thing to a government that Gaza has, although their mission certainly does not represent the median Palestinians viewpoint. And Israel has certainly supported them as a “government” to counterbalance PLO influence in the West Bank when it was convenient for them. The past few years have been characterized by unprecedented increased violence between Israel and Palestine, especially in the West Bank where Israeli settlements have been ramping up. Israel launched Operation Breaking the Wave in early 2022, conducting army raids in response to attacks by individual Palestinians on Israeli settlers. Israeli settlers themselves are also taking revenge into their own hands and violently attacking Palestinian communities, often with relative impunity. This Times of Israel article describes the aftermath of the court proceedings of an Israeli extremist on trial for burning a Palestinian toddler (Ali Saad Dawabshe) and his parents alive in their home. As members of the Dawabshe family walked out of the courthouse, extremists chanted “Ali’s on the grill.” Extremist groups that call for the ruthless killing of the other exist in both Palestine and Israel (including within the Israeli Defence Forces). While there is a history of mutual violence, there is also a clear dominant force (hint, it’s the only state). The image of a Palestinian youth throwing a rock starkly contrasts with an IDF soldier wielding the advanced military technology. Prior major examples of Palestinian uprisings –the two Intifadas– both ultimately resulted in significantly heavier Palestinian casualties by nature of the immense power imbalance. As such, those that are critiquing Israel right now are not just critiquing Netanyahu’s government. They are criticizing the decades long systemic oppression of the Palestinian people under a securitized order where Palestinian subjugation is seen as imperative to upholding Zionism. When it comes to democracies, it is not possible to separate critiquing a government from somewhat critiquing its people, as the line between government will and popular will is inherently blurred. That’s why many see the Israeli people as partially responsible for the actions of their government over time, and not just as innocent passive actors. Given the above context, to say that Hamas’ attack on Israel was unprovoked, unexpected, or unpredictable is weaponized ignorance. To say that Hamas’ attack is a terrorist attack entirely independent from the Palestinian liberation movement is weaponized ignorance. To say that the war has just started is weaponized ignorance. These acknowledgements are critical because the way that we frame discourse about the violence carried out by terrorists is fundamentally different from how we describe the violence carried out by parties during war; violent acts of resistance (especially in response to settler-colonialism); and violence pursued in the name of security and self-defense. For example, Native Americans carried out brutal campaigns against white settlers in colonial America. In the modern day, we don’t see the colonists as victims, even if they were objectively victims of individual violence. The question of whether or not Hamas is a terrorist group depends on how one defines “terrorist.” While Hamas is an extremist group that employs terror tactics, they are also explicitly a landed resistance movement created in response to Israeli oppression. The perhaps more critical question to ask is this: why is it strategic for Israel to paint Hamas as a terrorist group rather than a violent resistance/separatist movement? (Note: there is an important distinction between the textbook definitions of terrorism and its modern loaded connotation). Reducing Hamas to a terrorist organization enables Israel to deny an active role in catalyzing Hamas’ violence. It also weaponizes the West’s islamophobia against Hamas, as the more we see an organization as falling into the “barbaric brown fundamentalist” trope, the less we see them as rational actors. Violence is always a tragedy. However, our decision to focus on the impact of the violence versus the intent behind the violence is shaped by our conception of its justifiability. To criticize people for “trying to justify violence” on either side of this conflict is to ignore how discourse about violence functions in all political spheres. Seeing violence as ‘justified’ does not by any means necessarily indicate enjoyment of brutality or lack of care for certain loss of life. Most states in the world –including Israel– consistently attempt to justify violence. The nature of state power dictates that those with authority get to define what is ‘violence’ and what is ‘security.’ The only true difference between ‘violence’ and ‘security’ is that ‘security’ claims ethical high ground. To criticize third parties for looking to the root cause of violence is also dangerously unproductive. The best way to prevent future violence is to look to what caused it. With all of that in mind, it is also incredibly important to be empathetic to the Israeli “we are innocent victims of a brutal terrorist attack” outcry, even if that is seemingly at odds with productive discourse. Michel Foucault’s Society Must Be Defended and Achille Mbembe’s Necropolitics are particularly helpful reading to better understand the deep complexity at hand for all parties involved. Foucault argues that modern genocidal colonization is born from state power becoming intertwined with modern racism, which “appeal[s] to the principle that the death of others makes one biologically stronger” (Harcourt, referencing Foucault p. 258). This logic enables the elimination of entire populations “in the protection and survival of a nation, a people and/or a class” (Pele). This is how the Nazis justified the genocide of more than 6 million Jewish people. But this argument also underpins how Zionists justify the subjugation of Palestine: a strong Palestine is seen as an inherent security threat to the survival of Israel. “The most accomplished form of necropower is the contemporary colonial occupation of Palestine,” Mbembe affirms in Necropolitics. The colonial state –Israel– legitimizes their sovereignty from their history of oppression and diasporic identity. They believe they have a divine right to that territory, which is fundamentally incompatible with a Palestinian territorial right (p. 27). Both actors in this conflict have a history of facing structural oppression and ethnic cleansing in the name of the survival of the state authority in power. Histories of oppression complicate how nations perceive violence – any violence is a lot more likely to implicate as a precursor to genocide, which also means that adversaries are seen as existential threats. Balanced co-existence is not possible if you believe the other side will eradicate you if given the chance. Thus, it makes complete sense that Hamas’ attack was a new level of terrifying to Jewish people, even if intuitively Israelis wield significant power over Palestine in the status quo. Israel’s systematic subjugation of the Palestinian people is also thus explainable, although no less morally abhorrent. When examining the events of the status quo, Israelis are clearly victims of individual violence: they or their loved ones were brutally attacked, killed, raped, taken hostage. But much of the world really struggled to see the state of Israel as a victim and voiced as such in the days following Hamas’ initial attack. Unsurprisingly, that discourse was not well received. When you are in a state of panic and shock and grief, it is an incredibly difficult task to critically examine one’s role as an oppressor in a system of structural oppression. That ask feels like it is robbing you of your right to individual victimhood. When one’s children are taken hostage, it is incredibly human to want to see the aggressors as monsters, not rational actors. The world asked Israelis to think at a structural level before they had time to grieve individual losses, to grieve the sudden bursting of their security bubble. But what the pro-Palestine contingent did not (generally) do was care about only certain loss of life, contrary to claims about hypocrisy made by many of those that support Israel. Rather, the contingent sees violent resistance to violent colonialism as justified. Both sides propagated information to uphold a narrative that supported their particular political agenda. The vast majority of Israelis and members of the Jewish diaspora who have spoken out profusely over the past week do not speak out almost ever about the loss of Palestinian lives that results from Israeli violence. That’s not because they don’t care about the loss of human life. It is because they accept the tragedy of loss of life as a necessary evil to uphold the socio-political order that benefits them. There are almost no viewpoints that can claim the ethical high ground of being apolitical and purely humanitarian in intent when the right to life itself has become politicized. The fight to oversimplify Israel and Palestine’s civil conflict into black and white bad-guy-good-guy narratives is a competition that will be won by no one. If we want discourse to be productive, we need to acknowledge political agendas, not fight to prove that our side is ‘putting them aside.’ When keeping one population safe requires oppressing another, it is unquestionable that we need radical political change.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States enjoyed near-total dominance on the global stage as the preeminent military, economic, and cultural power. Communism was discredited, and liberal democracy appeared triumphant. That unipolar moment—and the 'peace dividend' that accompanied it—is now decisively over. A hostile axis of rogue states—Russia, North Korea, and Iran—flout international law with impunity. Russia's war against Ukraine is turning into a bitter stalemate, as Putin cracks down on dissent at home; North Korea continues to lob missiles into the Sea of Japan; and from Gaza to Sudan, Iran is arming proxies to achieve its foreign policy aims. China's economic prowess despite its ruthless authoritarian practices should give pause. Indeed, authoritarianism is alive and thriving; the Economist Intelligence Unit's 2023 report found that the global average democracy score dropped to its lowest level since they began collecting data in 2006. Faced with these challenges in a turbulent world, the United States is playing the wrong game: retreating from the world order it created, turning inward, and abandoning its moral obligations. It is ignoring the recipe which won it the Cold War—one that was not predicated solely upon military might, but necessarily included economic influence and tremendous soft power. Identity Crisis The U.S. need not apologize for its strength. Fareed Zakaria, in a recent essay for Foreign Affairs, notes that measures of economic prowess, technological innovation, energy production, and demography all point to a healthy and strong United States, especially when compared with other advanced economies. But the U.S. doesn't see what the world sees: it is acting with uncharacteristic uncertainty, self-doubt, and hesitation. U.S. tariffs on imported goods are at their highest rate since the 1930s. Congress is delaying aid packages to Ukraine and Israel. Washington is struggling to exert leverage over traditional allies, like Saudi Arabia and Israel, let alone over adversaries. A confluence of factors is responsible for the American crisis of identity and praxis, but they all point to a failure to adapt to the post-Cold War world. William Overholt of Harvard's Kennedy School argues: “Having won the Cold War, we allowed the Bretton Woods institutions and aid systems to atrophy. After the 1994 costless Mexican bailout, Congress banned such bailouts, making it impossible to rescue allies like Thailand during the Asian Crisis of 1997-98. A stingy Congress refused to increase the capital of the World Bank and IMF … Short-sighted leaders gutted the State Department budget, eliminated the U.S. Information Agency, and truncated our aid and institution-building development programs.” The State Department's position in the total federal budget was cut in half from 1993-1998. The elimination of the U.S. Information Agency meant that hundreds of American Spaces across the world shut down. And from 1991 to 2021, the ratio of U.S. military spending to foreign aid grew from 9:1 to 14:1. Simultaneously, the United States leveraged unrivaled hard power to intervene in Iraq and Afghanistan, wasting trillions and jeopardizing its moral authority on the world stage. It also failed to act forcefully in other moments when it should have, like in Rwanda (1994) and Scarborough Shoal (2012). To make matters worse, misplaced fear of globalization's impact on American industry has prompted an agenda of protectionism that hurts America's image. Beyond tariffs, Former President Donald Trump repeatedly assailed NATO, the World Trade Organization, and the World Health Organization. These repeated missteps, coupled with the 2008 financial crisis and the rise of right-wing populism in the West, have shaken the world's faith in the Western liberal order that seemed so triumphant in 1991. The world is doubting America, and now America has begun to doubt itself. Rise of Chinese Soft Power The situation is complicated by China's rise. After a 'century of humiliation,' and nearly three decades of disastrous turmoil under Mao Zedong, China began to reform itself under Deng Xiaoping into the economic superpower it is today. Despite the assumption that such growth would liberalize China, it continued to aggressively crack down on dissent and expanded its surveillance drastically after the 1989 Tiananmen Square protest. Even with its recent economic struggles and impending demography problems, China has pursued a bold strategy to reshape geopolitical dynamics to benefit itself. In 2013, Chinese President Xi Jinping introduced the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), a trillion-dollar global infrastructure project. Its introduction, partially a response to the American 'Pivot to Asia,' has occurred concurrently with major developments in China's foreign policy: Xi's call for a 'New Type of Great-Power Relations,' the establishment of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AAIB) and the BRICS Bank, and efforts to transform the Renminbi into an international currency. What the BRI achieves in ambition, it often lacks in terms of financial viability and efficacy. Nevertheless, as David Sacks writes for the Council on Foreign Relations, “China has had a fair amount of success in redrawing trade maps around the world, in ways that put China at the center and not the U.S. or Europe.” According to Sacks, BRI countries now comprise “two-thirds of global population and 40 percent of global GDP.” That is no insignificant feat. While the United States often characterizes the BRI as 'debt-trap diplomacy' and 'exploitation,' empirical evidence reveals that these criticisms have fallen on deaf ears in the Global South. Despite U.S. claims, asset seizures are exceptionally rare—practically non-existent. Meanwhile, BRI projects provide developing countries with much-needed infrastructure and energy projects. Maria Repkinova, writing for Foreign Affairs, describes how BRI projects often enhance perceptions of China in recipient countries: “For the broader public in places such as Ethiopia, Chinese soft power tends to become visible through infrastructure projects, such as railways, bridges, and highways. Many of these projects… elevate China's standing. In Addis Ababa, ubiquitous construction sites funded by Chinese investment are covered with posters advertising Chinese companies. When I asked Ethiopians about the critiques from U.S. officials who warn of China's malign influence…, the response I often heard was, 'And where are the Americans?'” While developing countries are frustrated with International Monetary Fund conditionality, China offers them loans with 'no-strings-attached.' And while countries wait over two years, on average, for World Bank project approval, they wait just seven months for the AAIB. The result is the United States waning its influence in the developing world. 2023 Pew Research Center data shows that, while the United States continues to receive far better favorability ratings than China in North America, Europe, and Asia, China is perceived more favorably in Latin American and African countries. Likewise, a 2022 Centre for the Future of Democracy survey found that for the first time, China enjoyed higher favorability ratings than the United States in the developing world. The United States has responded to conflict, tension, and shifting geopolitical power with uncertainty. It has begun to turn inward and abandon the liberal order it created, leaving opportunities for China and others to expand their influence and fill the vacuum. We can hardly blame developing countries then, for turning away from the United States. Normative claims about democracy, liberty, and a world order that imbues those values may convince Western audiences, but they are often ineffective elsewhere, coming across as hypocritical, sententious, and unsympathetic to the material needs of the developing world. To adapt to an uncertain world, the United States can choose instead to act with certainty, boldness, and compassion: it can recognize its still-powerful position and not shy away from leadership on crucial issues, like climate change and artificial intelligence governance. It can recognize immigration as a source of strength, rather than instability. It can compete with China for influence in Africa—not with special forces, but with material aid. Rather than lambast its allies, the United States can stand solidly behind NATO; rather than abandon the Bretton Woods institutions, the United States can reinvigorate them. It took nearly a century of unprecedented carnage for the liberal order to come to fruition. Now, in its hour of greatest need, it is up to America to defend the order it made.

On March 31, Turkish people headed to the polls for a highly anticipated municipal election, traditionally seen as a vote of confidence for the ruling parties. The unexpected defeat of President Erdoğan’s AK Party (Justice and Development Party) and the significant victory of the main opposition, the CHP (Republican People’s Party), suggest potential shifts in Turkish political dynamics. Erdoğan’s Future: Having dominated Turkish politics for over two decades, President Erdoğan’s tenure is full of personal and party victories, establishing him as one of the most influential figures in modern Turkey. However, after a narrowly won general election in 2023 and his party’s defeat against the CHP in the recent municipal election, it's evident Erdoğan’s influence is waning, signaling a period of uncertainty for Turkey’s political landscape. Amidst economic turmoil and hyperinflation, Erdoğan faces one of the toughest challenges of his political career. Once seen as the architect of Turkey’s remarkable economic development in the early 2000s, Erdoğan now finds himself grappling with widespread discontent and skepticism regarding his leadership abilities and the direction of the country's economy. Particularly, his traditional support base of lower and middle-income voters is disillusioned by rampant AK Party corruption and the severe impact of hyperinflation. These voters played an important role in the outcome of the recent election and tilted the favors toward the main opposition party, CHP. Yet, it's crucial to not overemphasize the election results as solely a repudiation of Erdoğan’s policies. Because Municipal elections often reflect the electorate’s immediate concerns rather than a comprehensive political shift, the outcome could serve more as a call for increased accountability and economic reform from Erdoğan’s administration. Furthermore, Erdoğan’s enduring connection with his supporters may mitigate current dissatisfaction, especially if he addresses their economic grievances effectively. New Welfare Party: Another surprising development was the resurgence of the Yeniden Refah Party (New Welfare Party) in the ballots, which secured over 6% of the vote share. As The third-highest vote-receiving party, Yeniden Refah emerged as a significant player alongside the CHP. Established by Fatih Erbakan – the son of Turkey’s first Islamist Prime Minister — Yeniden Refah is an Islamist political party with a more right-leaning ideology compared to Erdoğan’s AK Party. Throughout the election campaigns, Yeniden Refah staunchly criticized President Erdoğan for his mismanagement of the economy and accused him of hypocrisy for not taking sufficient action against Israel’s atrocities in Gaza. Aware of Yeniden Refah’s growing momentum during the election campaign, Erdoğan exerted pressure on Fatih Erbakan to suspend his party’s campaigns in critical cities such as Istanbul, Ankara, and Şanlıurfa. However, Erbakan refused to comply unless Turkey cut all of its economic activities with Israel and shut down US military bases operating in Southeast Turkey. Following the elections, it seems  that conservative voters disillusioned with Erdoğan’s AK Party and their handling of the Gaza crisis found refuge withYeniden Refah. The party’s relative success makes Fatih Erbakan look like a potentially key figure in the upcoming general elections. CHP Triumph The CHP’s historic election victory came after a recent leadership reshuffle in the party. In his first election test as CHP’s new leader, Özgür Özel delivered much more than was expected of him. In key cities such as Istanbul and Ankara, CHP candidates won the elections by a landslide, boosting hope among CHP voters ahead of the general elections in 2028. Nonetheless, rifts are going to continue within the CHP ranks as CHP-affiliated mayors of Istanbul and Ankara – Ekrem İmamoğlu and Mansur Yavaş, respectively – will continue to contest Özel to become the party’s presidential candidate in the upcoming general election. The fate of the CHP depends on who will emerge victorious in these intra-party power struggles.