When Diplomacy Joins Sports: An Overview of Sports Events Turned an IR Feast

Does it even make sense to discuss these two concepts together? Sports exist to test our physical and mental boundaries, a chance to engage in some friendly teamwork and entertain or challenge others, and diplomacy is all about fancy suites and long conversation-heavy gatherings that do not necessarily reflect the thrill and musicality of a good baseball game. The UN Assembly meetings and the Super Bowl or World Cup do not necessarily have much in common at first glance - in fact, they are as opposite as things can get. You see my point, we do not often think of sports and international relations as things that go hand in hand, and we cannot so easily envision an ambassador and a famous basketball star sipping coffee at the same table. They are just one of those pairings that simply do not exist, like the opposite of yin and yang. This explains why we seldom discuss sporting events at international relations courses, and why the Super Bowl does not necessarily revise the UN Declaration of Human Rights at halftime. 

However, are they really that different? To what extent are the goals and outcomes of sporting and diplomatic events related? As someone who had the honor to find herself in Buenos Aires for that historic World Cup final on December 18th, 2022, I can testify that watching this final in one of the central parks in Palermo and hearing the public accompany the national team in the singing of the national anthem with jumps and cries was one of the most zealous and evident portrayals of national unity and participation. Witnessing this, as someone deeply curious about the way nationalism emerges and manifests itself, and someone who during my study abroad in Buenos Aires continuously passed by posters and graffiti expressing critique about the way the public only comes together for World Cup and is not equally united in the country’s stance against the ongoing inflation and a myriad of economic and socio-political issues, I found myself thinking of the power of sporting events and their relationship to a country’s or a region’s politics and sense of self. This article is meant to provide an overview of moments in which sporting events and major diplomatic statements and action converged to create powerful messages and results. 

Sports and Diplomacy Through World Regions

Asia

Beginning with the largest, most populous region, that also happens to be the first one to face the morning sun, it is important to reflect on how regional organizations here happened to recognize and center sporting events as cornerstone of multilateral and intercultural cooperation. ASEAN, a main Asian regional body composed of 10 Southeast Asian members and in charge of facilitating political, economic, and cultural interaction and regional integration. ASEAN is also interesting due to its particular emphasis on sports. As such regional bodies are a newer, modern trend, it is enlightening to see the emphasis ASEAN has placed on sports as part of its mission towards fulfilling its pillars of integration and supporting amicable relations. ASEAN specifically recognizes the ancient roots of the practice of sports and sporting events and tournaments across the region, with an understanding of the intersection of sports and race, gender, religion, age, ethnicity, and nationality and ways that these identities manifest and interact through sports, as well as the sports’ ability to instill and promote the values of “respect, inclusion, fairness, and duty” as a way to contribute to a sense and prosperity of the ASEAN Community. ASEAN has come to facilitate football (soccer) and chess regional associations as part of its role as a regional body, which is unique and not observed to the same extent in other regions. 

Sports have also played a key role in breaking up tension between warring countries or countries in dispute. The case of a ping pong tournament organized in 1971 as a way to allow for lessening of tension and first official interactions in Cold War between China and the US serves as a great example, to the point that this initiative known sometimes as ping pong diplomacy, was also featured in popular culture masterpieces such as Forrest Gump. More recently, however, we were able to bear witness to a historic merger of North and South Korea at 2018 Winter Olympics following days of talks between the two countries. While the degree to which interactions and exchanges occurred was limited in time and scope, fans from both sides of the 38th parallel could join in the celebrations and cheering together, and athletes marched side by side at the opening ceremony, with some additional future collaboration being planned and later materializing to a degree, such as a unified Korean women’s hockey team for that season. While the Olympics also feature some well-known and continuous tensions such as disputes over Taiwan’s name and flag, and more recent controversy over national attire, national dishes, and their promotion, these cases still show the impact of sports on the regional and international  psyche and their contribution to our meaning making and positionality of modern nation states. 

On the other side of the continent, Turkey and Armenia, still at crossroads due to Ottoman colonial heritage and subsequent disputes over acknowledgement of genocide against the Armenian people, managed to get their presidents to sit together and see visa regulations relaxed thanks to the 2008 World Cup qualifying match. This event even contributed to kickstarting additional diplomatic channels and, albeit arguably for only a very limited window of time, the two countries saw a potential to make amends and deepen their diplomatic interactions. 

Australia and Oceania 

The Australian Government has an entire 2030 Sports Diplomacy Strategy, with its goals being to affirm and deepen the ideals of sports diplomacy “to bring people together, generate goodwill and cultivate partnerships for Australia across the world.” The Plan also recognizes and lists the exact economic contribution of sports to Australia annually and outlines the competencies of Australian industries in competition and participation as much as in hosting, opening additional facilities, and being engaged in sports-related innovation. This attitude centers investment in sports and allows Australia to explicitly rely on sports in its diplomatic efforts.

Over in New Zealand, a unique node to Native culture has been expressed precisely through the haka dances, a traditional Māori ceremonial dance, performance of which went viral during the 2014 Basketball World Cup game against the baffled US. While the internet and modern culture led to the popularity of the New Zealand basketball team, it is important to note that the practice actually dates back to the New Zealand Native football team of the 1880s and has continued on through rugby and basketball associations for over a century. While this is celebrated as a way to honor the ways of the Native people of New Zealand, the practice has also been seen as controversial when performed erroneously by non-Native members of New Zealand’s society. New Zealanders with Māori origins historically and presently greatly contribute to the country’s sports culture, but it is crucial to ensure these sporting tributes to them and their culture are not purely performative and that they are accompanied by a proper way to honor and contribute to the communities these cultural practices come from in order to ensure the dance’s intended purpose of unifying the country and celebrating Native culture. 

Oceania famously joins New Zealand in its focus on rugby as a national sport, although there are increasingly many efforts to honor traditional sports and associated ceremonies unique to this part of the world. Still, the focus remains particularly strongly on sports such as rugby, football, cricket, and basketball. It is the Olympics that are at play once again here as the Tongan sports sensation Pita Taufatofua represented his country three times so far and has famously done so with his shirtless walks in various traditional outfits, both as the country’s first taekwondo player and also even in the Winter Olympics where he was a sole representative of his country, having qualified for the cross-country skiing category. A fellow regional representative rower Rillio Rio Rii of Vanuatu joined in the showcase of traditional outfits. While critique can be placed here as well due to global gaze and objectification of these athletes that ensued, these all represent important potentials, when done and observed properly, to celebrate world traditions but also amplify knowledge about these countries living in a particularly unique and increasingly vulnerable part of the world. 

Africa

Africa, the birthplace of humanity and forever a hub of great sportsmanship, both through talent and sports virtue, continues to impress the world with its many top-notch athletes, who defiantly win against all odds following centuries of colonial oppression and continued global inequality in earnings, which is of course also dangerously and tragically reflected in sports. The Olympic Games have bestowed a number of medals going to African athletes, with South Africa, Nigeria, and more recently Botswana reaching for the stars. However, it is also important to note that, while records have been broken and consistent medals received in longer distance running, with brilliant anecdotes about winning under excruciating circumstances such as Kenyan Kip Keino winning a 1500-meter race, while hurt and even after running for 2 miles in order to arrive on time for the competition when his bus was caught in traffic in Mexico City. In spite of this, the lack of proper investment, infrastructure, and necessary preparation and equipment that requires continuous funding and lifestyle that African athletes cannot always afford back home often prevents these exceptional athletes from reaching their full potential - and this is best manifested in the fact that African short distance sprinters are less likely to break records, with short distance running being a discipline where consistent prior preparation and very specific infrastructure is required. These complexities show how sports results may be impacted by inequalities of the global setting, albeit sports and athletes still often find ways to overcome neo capitalist competition and allow raw talent and hard work to shine. 

Sports, however, can also be used to not only push our limits and always reach for a higher, faster, and stronger achievement, but also break the social mold and help us move beyond stereotypes. Movies such as the Egyptian Maye Zayed’s documentary Lift Like a Girl can help break the stereotypes and showcase true potential that sports have to offer for everyone, including girls and women that are often cut off from investment and support of male counterparts in the sporting world. 

When it comes to brilliant results by African athletes, one cannot overlook the incredible advancement of African football (soccer) showcased throughout team games as well as in the World Cup, with the most recent World Cup featuring Morocco at the forefront of action and reaching 4th place thus breaking African records, and countries like Cameron and Ghana boasting incredible strategy, power, and true love of the game, not to mention the strength of the fans themselves and their dance moves and sportsmanship. While this helps position Africa as a force to be reckoned with in world football (soccer), it is important to note that this attention that African players receive on such big events also invited the corporations’ gaze and has facilitated the buying and selling of African players, which erodes development of local clubs as players are invited elsewhere, though this practice still brings fame and recognition to Africans and can help diversify the world of football (soccer). However, looking further into the outcomes of commercialization of sports, it should be noted that this phenomena also provides platform for a lucrative business of clandestine trafficking of young African talent where young athletes, especially boys, are promised jobs as players in Europe only to be left at mediocre clubs or made to essentially engage in forced labor as poverty and lack of protections at home are being exploited to trick young talents with false promises of success. Thus, the sporting world remains intricately connected with the globalized world and finds itself in constant interaction with the global development policies and current disparity. 

Europe 

Making our way westward, Europe comes with some important examples from recent history, showing just how powerful and influential sporting events can be. The event that is a more widely known case but that cannot be left out of any analysis of this type is the uncomfortable decision to allow the 1936 Summer Olympics to be organized by Hitler’s Third Reich. Having won the bid in 1931 to organize the Games in 1936, Berlin proudly assumed the role of an internationally-savvy host. Hitler and his Cabinet worked hard to outmaneuver records of the previous Olympic Games hosted in Los Angeles, ensuring larger track fields, bigger stadiums, and more gymnasiums, all the while sprinkling, and usually not at all subtly, the now painfully known elements of Nazi propaganda. Visitors were welcomed by the Nazi eagle and insignia, and, after the US and its allies came out of heated debates agreeing to not boycott the Games but rather send their representation and compete, the 1936 Games came to showcase almost 4000 athletes and 49 teams competing in 129 events. 

While this event dangerously contributed to glorification of Hitler’s regime and deepened the influence of contemporary Nazi propaganda, painting the image of the Third Reich as a tolerant and peaceful nation, some events that were impossible for Hitler to predict went down in history as some of the biggest challenges to the Nazi ideology. Most notably, the biggest star of the games was Jesse Owens, an African American who captured four gold medals and was constantly on the podium. In fact, African Americans tended to dominate the popular track and field events and were welcomed with cheers by the German audience, demonstrating the ability of sports to uniquely bring people together and break the societal molds. The censorship prevented offensive remarks for the duration of the game, but it became obvious that Nazi publishers and thinkers were struggling to process the event, and this certainly threatened to shake up the dubious ideology of the Third Reich. Obviously, this sadly could not prevent the bloodshed that was to ensue with the onset of WWII, as Jewish athletes and citizens had already been prosecuted and excluded by this time. A great irony also comes from the fact that Jesse Owens and his compatriots had to return to a deeply segregated society that rejected them and never properly compensated for their successes despite calling itself a free country and supposedly being a perfect foil to Nazi Germany. While the sporting world cannot function as a peace treaty in its own right, the events of these Olympic Games allow us to see the ability of sports to showcase socio-political irony and once again help us to think critically and beyond stereotypes, although it cannot be ignored that the influence of sports has been used in this case to promote the opposite - a dictatorial regime with grotesque, horrifying policies looking to justify itself through sports. 

Since we inevitably reach the topics of the two World Wars when talking about Europe, it is also important to note that, although sports are sometimes seen as a “war minus the shooting”, it is sports that often assisted in normalization of relations and at least brief truces, as well as means to support the troops’ sanity during the toughest of times. It is on European soil stained by blood and tragedy during the horrendous conflicts of the 20th century that some of the most curious truces have been established, with sports events used as an excuse for ceasefire and brief moments of joy and camaraderie. In fact, while the threat of an air attack made it impossible to do so in WWII, the Football Association (FA) allowed football (soccer) matches to continue as normal in WWI, boosting the morale of everyone involved, and this served as continuous recreation throughout the war. In WWII, the armed forces still retained the rights from FA to organize matches, and women working in munition factories formed their own teams, which shows the reach and inclusionary potential of sports in spite of societal challenges. While sports can be used to motivate competitive spirit not dissimilar to that which leads to conflict and war, sports also allow us to conceive a world in which we all come together to play and treat each other fairly and respectfully, showing the potential of sports towards in fact ending the conflict when appropriately organized and facilitated.  

The Americas 

Last but not least are the Americas. People say that football (soccer) is the world’s favorite pastime, and as someone who has had the utmost pleasure of witnessing a World Cup while in Latin America, I would be lying if I said that this statement can be truer anywhere else. The sport has fascinated the region ever since its first arrival with European fans in the Southern Cone. It has spread from the port of Buenos Aires, a city which today holds America’s record for the greatest concentration of football (soccer) stadiums per capita, and today it encompasses a large part of regional identity of Latin America, to the point where countries such as Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, and Colombia, to name just a few regional representatives, use this sport essentially as part of the nation-building processes.

It is important to note that here too we see some less-than-ideal conditions that sports are exposed to. Football (soccer) in particular is often associated with the hooligan culture, also known as the barra bravas in many countries of the region. These groups are not always the same as traditional street gangs and their cliques, and they oftentimes in fact find themselves in conflict with other violent groups/gangs. However, in many parts of Latin America and Europe, they are also known to consistently engage in violence both inside the stadiums and on the streets, often themselves participate in the selling and distribution of drugs and other illicit deals as a way to attract and organize youth and attain more earning for their activities, and have more recently been observed performing the function of paid protestors and rioters that catalyze corrupt political aims, once again revealing the power and socio-political reach of sports. The groups started with the supposed intent to support the club, and the fervor for the club is still there through impressive percussion and energy they always bring to the stadiums, but in some cases, and this happens all too often, these groups’ behavior goes out of hand and this becomes detrimental to other fans’ presence at the stadium, leading to some clubs and entire countries, as is the case with Argentina, to ban stadiums from hosting both competing teams’ fans just to avoid clashes of the barra bravas at the expense of sportsmanship-loving fans’ ability to follow their club to each game.  

However, the relationship that clubs retain with their supporters and neighborhoods is impressive. I saw that some of the clubs I had the honor of interacting with in Central America and the Southern Cone function essentially as non-profits where all, or a significant portion, of additional profits are used to finance the building of sporting infrastructure for the youth of the neighborhood, and they also provide educational opportunities in their own facilities or through educational programs or school supplies they help finance. This is just one example of how football (soccer) remains the sport of the people and is able to retain its neighborhood spirit and local appeal as much as it has also presently become a lucrative business investment and a part of the system of multinational corporations. It is also, as previously mentioned, crucially used for the process of nation-building and a form of symbol for national identity, hope, persistence, and unity. Uruguay is a great example as it is the glorious host of the very first World Cup, an event that also coincided with the celebration of the centennial anniversary of the country’s first constitution and led to construction of Uruguay’s national stadium. It was a great struggle and honor to receive the title of host for the inaugural competition, and Uruguay is now working with partners from across the region to bring the World Cup back to its initial hosts for the World Cup 2030 bicentennial celebration of Uruguayan first constitution and centennial anniversary of the World Cup itself. Later renditions of the World Cup in the Americas have both been praised for infrastructure projects they brought in and a focus on increased security and social cohesion, but also critiqued as a distraction from national issues ranging from debt to dictatorial governance, again revealing the complexity of the world of sports and its influence on political matters, willingly or not, stretching all the way to present-day World Cup history.

It is again revealed that corrupt and power-hungry gangsters, officials, and even political leaders manage to successfully manipulate the world of sports, with football (soccer) in particular even having been used as a supposed prelude and an instrument to support wartime efforts in the infamous example of the 1969 conflict between Honduras and El Salvador, with the war even being referred to as “The Soccer War” as much as root causes of exactly zero examples of international warfare in the world are actually due to any sporting event. Better understanding the impact that sports and the rhetoric and feelings surrounding sports is necessary for policy makers to delegate the world of sports appropriate thought and protections, keeping in mind that sports are also a means of supporting one’s patriotic pride as well as a way to nurture the spirit of sportsmanship, fair play, and proper treatment of rivals, and facilitate infrastructure projects and community development efforts. Sports thus become a key issue of governance and the people’s trust in sports must be carefully cultivated and protected through proper policymaking. 

Conclusion

Sports are inevitably connected to issues ranging from nation-building, global trade, and development to issues of governance, peacebuilding, and transnational crime, and, with their power having been recognized by those in leadership positions, sports have been used to meet both noble and corrupt goals in each world region. For the world of sports to not be corrupted and exploited but rather retain its significance as an honest, productive, and unifying pastime and fulfilling activity for people of all walks of life, it is necessary to ensure proper policymaking is applied. Sport disciplines and athletes, across gender, age, nationality, and bodily ability divisions, should be properly celebrated and rewarded. Issues such as inequity and impact of global inequality on the world of sports and trade in athletes should be examined. Comments made by FIFA higher-ups claiming that “less democracy is sometimes better for organizing a World Cup” should not be taken lightly so that fans around the world, myself included, and hopeful hosts do not have to suffer through the controversies that continue to surround the World Cup. Finally, sports should be seen as a way to celebrate humanity’s competitive spirit and need for teamwork and group association, but in a purely constructive manner that cherishes the spirit of cooperation and respect for rivals. One way to begin addressing these issues is to revive the UN Office on Sport for Development and Peace (UNOSDP) with a greater emphasis on monitoring mechanisms, possibly through sustained cooperation with the International Olympic Committee which currently completely overtook UNOSDP’s mandate as a cost-saving measure. This is all just the beginning and apparently a lot to ask, but if those in positions of leadership in the international political scene do not recognize and always keep the impact of sports in the back of their minds and at the forefront of some of the policymaking, we can amplify the positive impact of sports, which in one way or another reach and impact every human being on this planet. This article serves to be the catalyst of change.

Social Media in the Middle East: A Double-Edged Sword

In late March 2023, three YouTubers received prison sentences ranging from three months to six years for content deemed inappropriate by the Houthi government in Yemen. A court in Sanaa, the capital city of Yemen, found that the YouTubers were guilty of “inciting chaos, disrupting public peace and insulting the Houthis,” according to their lawyer. One of the YouTubers, Ahmed Hajar, posted a video on December 22, 2022, that alleged corruption and oppression by the Iran-backed Houthi regime. Hajar was violently detained by armed rebels the same day the video was uploaded; the other two YouTubers involved in the case were subjected to similarly terrifying and unjust detainments. The recent crackdown on YouTubers is emblematic of the Houthi government’s continuing crusade against free speech. Since its takeover of Sanaa in 2014, the Houthi rebel group has clamped down hard on both the free press and political dissent on social media. “Sanaa has become the heart of a republic of fear,” writes exiled Yemeni journalist Afrah Nasser. Problems around social media and free speech are not unique to Yemen, though. Social media has become an increasingly important tool for activists and youth across the Middle East, but those using it face challenges like the rampant spread of misinformation and propaganda, as well as the ongoing threat of government repression. This article will examine the complex role of social media in the Middle East—both as a platform for connectivity and change and as a battleground for geopolitical conflicts.

Social Media Trends in the Middle East

The people of the Middle East region are some of the most avid social media users in the world. According to the New Media Academy, the average social media user in the Middle East spends over 3.5 hours on social networks per day, which is significantly higher than the global average of approximately 2.5 hours per day. Users in the Middle East also have an average of 8.4 social media accounts each, with those in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) having 10.5 accounts. This is “the highest number of social media accounts per person globally,” according to Forbes. The most popular apps in the region are Whatsapp, YouTube, Facebook, and Instagram, with TikTok and Snapchat seeing explosive growth in recent years. Twitter is the only app that has seen a recent decline in usage as social media users move to newer platforms and the platform’s functionality declines. 

The benefits of social media in the Middle East are readily apparent: the region has seen massive growth in e-commerce, and social media platforms like Snapchat were useful tools for facilitating the dissemination of essential public health information during the COVID-19 pandemic. But while the ubiquity of social media in the Middle East has positive implications for connectivity and commerce, it has also facilitated the spread of dangerous misinformation in recent years. In 2020, Facebook removed two networks of fake accounts linked to digital marketing firms in Egypt and India because they were pushing false narratives that pitted the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Egypt against Qatar. Twitter has similarly removed hundreds of fake accounts of so-called “experts” that were actually fake personas pushing propaganda. 

Although the problem of misinformation is not unique to social media platforms in the Middle East, it can pose a heightened threat when it is weaponized to tip the delicate balance of one of the many ongoing conflicts in the region. For instance, journalists in the United Kingdom found that the Iraqi terrorist group Kata'ib Hezbollah has established a large social media network and paid vast sums of money to Facebook to boost engagement with its fake news posts. According to the nonprofit Journalismfund Europe, “failure to clamp down on these networks is hugely damaging to efforts to stabilise Iraq and negatively impacts the lives of millions of Iraqis.” While many governments in the Middle East have made legitimate attempts to crack down on misinformation from groups like Kata'ib Hezbollah, some states have merely used misinformation as an excuse to crack down on free speech by citizens, as was seen in the case of the Yemeni YouTubers. The following section will examine the ways that these governments have used social media to advance their interests—often harming their own people along the way.

A New Kind of State-Sponsored Militia

Saudi Arabia has spent the last several years building a bot army—a coordinated network of fake social media accounts used to spread pro-state information. This army has seen action on multiple occasions. For instance, after the arrest of seven prominent women’s rights defenders in May 2015, concerned Saudi citizens started an Arabic hashtag “Where are the activists?” on Twitter to raise awareness about the detainments. Almost immediately after this hashtag began to trend, hashtags labeling the activists as “Agents of the Embassies” and “traitors” were circulated by state-backed news organizations and countless additional Twitter accounts. These hashtags were “pushed” in a highly coordinated way, according to John Kelly, CEO of social media intelligence firm Graphika. Researcher Marc Owen Jones of Exeter University says tactics like this amount to “digital authoritarianism,” a fad that is spreading rapidly in the authoritarian regimes in the Middle East. Other nations, like Bahrain, have been experimenting with bot armies for more than a decade. An Institute for the Future report found that government-backed Twitter accounts were engaged in “mass identity-revealing and doxing” of critics during the 2011 uprising against the Bahrain monarchy.

Bot armies are not confined to a nation’s borders, though, and they are not the only tactic used by Middle Eastern governments. Some nations have mounted much more complex disinformation campaigns to influence public opinion on global conflicts. Iran, for example, barrages both its neighbors and its own population with propaganda on multiple fronts. A report by ClearSky Cyber Security found that Iran created many fake websites in multiple languages to impersonate legitimate news organizations in surrounding nations. Examples of these include the phony “Yemen Press News Agency” and “Tel Aviv Times”. Iran also steals propaganda from other authoritarian governments, such as Russia, to promote on its pro-state social media accounts and websites. In 2018, an Iranian news source that targets American and European audiences published an article titled "Idlib to become Syria’s final battle with terrorists… if the West stays out of it,” an article that was first published on a website that is a known source of Russian propaganda. 

While tactics like these are incredibly frightening, there is still some good news. “Fortunately,” writes Brookings’ Daniel L. Byman, “Middle Eastern regimes are not at the level of Russia when it comes to disinformation” (hence their need to plagiarize Russian propaganda). Middle Eastern regimes’ efforts to spread misinformation are often “hasty in execution” and easy to spot, especially in unstable nations like Iran. Another piece of good news is that there is already an incredibly strong safeguard in place against authoritarian misinformation campaigns: the youth of the Middle East.

Young Voices of Resistance

The young people of the Middle East are extremely engaged with social media, and many of them use it as a tool for political mobilization. For instance, in the aftermath of the 2020 Beirut explosion, Lebanese activists and youth used social media to share the aftermath of the disaster and appeal to the international community for aid. They later used it to hold their government accountable after it was discovered that it was the government’s failures that had caused the blast. These efforts were successful—millions of dollars of aid poured into Lebanon and multiple government officials resigned in recognition of their role in the tragedy. Youth in Lebanon and across the Middle East are aware of the failures of their governments and remain a consistent driving force for change. 

When it comes to social media misinformation campaigns by their governments, young people in the Middle East remain incredibly vigilant. Although their heavy reliance on social media for news puts them at risk—some 79% of Arab youth say they get their news from social media—81% of teens are aware of the prevalence of internet hoaxes. Many young activists use their platforms to bravely call out government misinformation, despite the risk of punishment from their authoritarian regimes. But the burden of taking on authoritarian regimes on social media cannot fall solely on youth. As Daniel L. Byman writes, “The United States and other democratic governments must improve their technical capacity and, with it, their ability to detect these [misinformation] campaigns.” Social media platforms must also improve their ability to both protect the accounts of activists and to take down accounts spreading false information. Further, these platforms should increase the availability of their data so that independent researchers can study and monitor potentially dangerous activities. Social media has taken on a complex role in the Middle East, and the entire international community must unite to ensure that it remains a largely positive one.

Meloni's English Ban: An analysis into Italian Prime Minister, Giorgia Meloni's proposed legislation to fine foreign languages

In March of 2023 the party of Italian Prime Minister, Girogia Meloni, proposed introducing a new piece of legislation that would seek to address the growing issue of the dominance of the English language across Italy and the issue of Anglomania (the obsession with English customs), all in hopes of countering growing fears over the loss of Italian language and culture. The legislation proposes fines of up to 100,000 euros on public and private entities using foreign vocabulary in their official communications and requiring all company job titles to be spelled out in the official local language. 

Meloni’s new legislation seeks to address what her party sees as key cultural issues affecting Italian society. On the surface level, the legislation is an attack against EU integrationist policy and an attempt to promote Italian cultural power. Although this legislation may seem both amusing and bizarre from an outside lens, its implications, both politically and socially, could be tremendous. Only through placing this language ban in the context of Meloni’s immigration policies can we understand the greater intent; Meloni’s legislation is a direct threat towards Italy’s growing immigrant population, who often lack Italian language skills and can often only hope to communicate with Italian government officials in a shared second language, English. 

Italy’s changing image 

At its core, Meloni’s legislation reveals a growing fear and frustration brought on by fear over losing Italian cultural identity and frustration with the English language's dominance across all sectors. 

Like their fellow EU neighbors, Italy has struggled in recent decades to come to terms with its new multi-cultural identity, brought on by increases in immigration and participation in international communities and systems. Italy’s recent immigrant population is largely dominated by migrants and refugees from Eastern Europe and Northern Africa. Non-white Italians report a level of discrimination and isolation despite spending decades in the country. Michelle Ngonmo, a Black Italian fashion designer stated that “there is a real struggle between the people-of-color Italians and [white] Italian society. Asian Italians, Black Italians are really struggling to be accepted as Italians.”

The changing demographics of Italy reflect a country grappling with its newfound cultural identity. While many have embraced the tide of immigration as both a benefit and reality of globalization, Meloni’s political party has deliberately ignited anti-immigrant spirit. 

The Brother’s of Italy

Meloni leads the Brother’s of Italy party (Fratelli d'Italia), a nationalist and conservative far-right party that has its roots in neofascism. After co-founding the party in 2012, she led the party through a series of political victories, eventually emerging as the preeminent far-right party in Italy. 

Similar to other far-right parties across the continent, such as the National Rally in France or the UKIP party of the UK, the Brother’s of Italy embodies many populist values and policies, including anti-globalization efforts, xenophobia, and an emphasis on national unity and heritage. However, the Brother’s of Italy has deeper roots in historical notions of facism, tracing back to the first postwar Italian neo fascist party known as the Italian Social Movement (Movimento Sociale Italiano or MSI, which existed from 1946 to 1995) as well as the Salò Republic which was known for its Nazi-origins. The predecessors behind the Brother’s of Italy party reveal a political party that is steeped in decades of fascist theory. Meloni was a member of the MSI youth party in the early 90s that became known for its far-right magazine, Fare Fronte and adoption of French far-right ideals. Political upheaval and turmoil caused by political corruption scandals across Italian politics led to the end of the MSI in 1995, but elements of the party continued.

Meloni’s rise to power

The well known youth party transformed into Azione Giovani (Young Action) which was at this point associated with the Alleanza Nazionale (National Alliance party or AN) the successor of the MSI. Meloni held a position on the youth leadership committee which led her into politics. At age 19 she was filmed praising fascist dictator, Benito Mussolini, as an example of strong leadership in Italian politics. 

 She was elected as Councilor for the Province of Rome in 1998 which she held for four years. She continued to develop her political career by becoming the youngest Vice President to the Chamber of Deputies in 2006. Her experience in far-right youth organizations led her to become the Minister of Youth under the fourth Berlusconi government. Then in 2012, she founded the Brother’s of Italy party alongside fellow politicians, Ignazio La Russa and Guido Crosetto. Throughout Italy’s rocky political climate of the 90s and 2000s, Meloni positioned herself as a politician loyal to far-right causes, but also able to adapt to contemporary political climates. 

In a speech from 2021, Meloni identified her far-right values, saying, “Yes to the natural family, no to the LGBT lobby, yes to sexual identity, no to gender ideology... no to Islamist violence, yes to secure borders, no to mass migration... no to big international finance... no to the bureaucrats of Brussels!”

Meloni has routinely denied that her party has any connection with fascism; she has denounced Mussolini and his reign of fascist terror in speeches, citing Mussolini’s racial laws as one of the darkest points in Italian history. However, her latest proposed legislation to restrict the use of English and promote Italian reveals Meloni’s nationalistic approach to uniting the Italian people as well as a denial of Italy’s multiculturalism. 

Contemporary fascism

Meloni’s political career has flirted with fascism from the beginning. We can witness it in her blatant statements of support for Mussolini as a young youth leader, but also in the inherent nature of her political positioning in parties rooted in fascism. Meloni’s critics are quick to call her a fascist or “fascist-adjacent” for her political remarks, her friendship with Hungary’s authoritarian leader, Viktor Orbán, and her ultraconservative values. Although these points are all valid and true, they do not actually threaten Meloni’s political standing or reputation, but instead allow her to counter the remarks and paint her opponents and critics as irrational left-wing radicals. Meloni simply has to deny her associations with fascism, something she has done on numerous occasions, such as during her pro-EU speech following her inauguration in which she also spoke out against Italy’s fascist past. International attention on Meloni’s fascist roots has shifted attention away from the real danger of her ultra-conservative politics, which intend to restore traditional Italian values and relies on tactics of alienation and discrimination.  

Anglomania 

Meloni has stated that her proposed legislation is an attempt to protect Italian national identity, which she sees as weakened by the dominance of English as the international language of business and politics. It is true that English has become the lingua franca of the world, dominating arenas such as international institutions, cultural interests, and educational institutions. However the bill does not only call for the ban of English but words from all foreign languages in businesses. The legislation also called for university classes that are “not specifically aimed at teaching a foreign language” should only be taught in Italian, thus preventing the likelihood of English-speaking classes taking precedence. Yet Meloni’s legislation makes it clear that her desire to protect Italy’s cultural heritage is rooted in populist and far-right xenophobia.

Foreign residents make up around 9% of Italy's population. Italy is also home to the third largest migrant population in Europe, following the migrant crisis of the past decade. The change in population has brought varying forms of anti-immigration sentiment. Meloni has been at the forefront of the movement during her political campaign and time in office. Her first act of anti-immigration legislation in November of 2022 attempted to prevent adult male asylum seekers from entering the country. Italy’s interior minister, Matteo Piantedosi, claimed that the reason behind this policy was that these people are “residual cargo,” unworthy of being rescued and Meloni referred to recent immigrants to Italy as “ethnic substitution,” implying that ethnic Italians are in danger simply from their population’s change in ethnic and racial diversity. 

Meloni’s proposed language ban must be understood in the context of her prior legislation and political  viewpoints; this is more than a critique of the dominance of the English language and the promotion of Italian culture. Meloni’s ban is a threat to all immigrants and foreign-born Italians as a sign of Italy’s growing preference for an homogenous ethnic population and anti-immigration policies.

Demystifying the Iron Lady and Her Legacy

Margaret Thatcher remains one of the most influential figures in modern international politics; a hardline conservative, a groundbreaking woman, and an inspiration to the many world leaders who have followed in her footsteps. What factors led to her enduring impact? Historically, opportunities for women in political leadership have been limited due to the domination of male gender bias in society. For the majority of human history, women have been denied the keys to power; even in the most democratic societies – from the birthplace of democracy, Athens, to our shining city on a hill, America – women were, as a matter of course, forced to the sidelines of political affairs. Though most women in the 21st century, in democratic countries, now have the right to vote, entrenched biases against women have only recently started to crumble. Perspectives on Thatcher’s rule have fluctuated over the decades, with some seeing Thatcher as a reactionary, others as a status-quo politician, and for some still as a pre-Reagan Reaganite. But for a woman to attain a position of such high relative importance in global affairs signifies something special. How did she manage to overcome negative biases against women in a time when those biases reigned supreme? How have female leaders since Thatcher adopted her strategies? 

In the second half of the 20th century, female leaders were few and far between, and it was still a rather foreign concept for a woman to be the head of a world power. Margaret Thatcher recognized this bias and adjusted her persona accordingly. She knew that the simple fact of her gender could close political doors before she could so much as try to knock. This meant that appearing friendly might as well have been the lowest of her priorities. Her fight to implement  “Britain First” policies eventually led to her infamous designation as the "Iron Lady.” (It is worthwhile to note that this nickname was originally intended as a derogatory slur by the Soviet press.) By the end of her tenure, Thatcher was often thought of as being tougher than most men.    

Over 30 years since Thatcher’s time in office, how much has the stigma around being a female Head of State changed? In the present day, there are, of course, more female leaders than when Thatcher was serving as prime minister; as of September 2022, there are 28 female Heads of State. Has Thatcher’s legacy shaped how women in power act today? Do women in leadership positions feel the same need to correct for their femininity today? 

      In the summer of 1979, Margaret Thatcher was appointed Britain's first female prime minister by the Conservative Party. Growing up through World War II and attending college as the Cold War began in earnest, Thatcher carried through her 11 years of leadership a deep-rooted opposition to communism and a desire to correct the policies she believed were crippling English society. 

Thatcher was a staunch capitalist who believed in the principles of classical liberalism, decrying the interventionist economic policies that she felt had led to Britain’s stagflation in the 70s. With rising inflation, constant energy shortages, frequent labor strikes, and expensive oil prices, this wasn’t hard to believe. Throughout her time in office, she worked to limit the power of trade unions and tighten what she saw as the state’s overly generous welfare programs. All of Thatcher’s actions in office were in furtherance of her goal of restoring England’s former economic status as a major player in Europe and internationally. By privatizing state-controlled and public goods industries, she also cut the amount of government subsidies to underperforming businesses, further increasing the country’s rising unemployment rate. These high unemployment rates significantly reduced the power of the trade unions and, some economists argue, successfully cut down on inflation. As her policies caused unemployment to skyrocket, Thatcher’s popularity declined equally precipitously. All the same, Thatcher is often cited as a pioneer for bringing Britain out of economic decline, and her legacy shaped policies of the Conservative and Labour parties for decades to come. Since Thatcher, there have been a small number of women in a position as powerful as hers, an even smaller number with the influence and political capital to shape their countries around their political ideologies. 

      Perhaps the closest analogue to Thatcher in recent years would be the first female chancellor of Germany, Angela Merkel, at least in terms of international stature. Merkel served as Germany’s head of government for over 16 years, from 2005 until 2021. Of course, the similarities between Thatcher and Merkel are apparent but rather limited. Similar to Thatcher, Merkel inherited a country during a time where the economy wasn’t as strong as it could have been. She was able to systematically balance the prioritization of safeguarding and promoting German economic interests with protecting her own popularity as a leader. This was always challenging for Thatcher, who was almost single-mindedly focused on economic protection. Merkel’s legacy shaped her as someone just as influential as Thatcher, but who is seen in a very different light. Merkel was given the endearing term “Mutti” (or “mother”) by the German people. In 2021, she was the leader who scored the highest approval rating of any world leader in a survey of six countries for her work in strengthening the German economy and the European Union (EU) as a whole. So how did she learn from Thatcher’s mistakes? By finding the delicate balance between seeking the public’s trust and fighting for her policy goals.

While Thatcher fought for a dramatic reduction in the English welfare state, Merkel’s tenure was characterized by support for expanded social programs. Merkel was widely considered to be a defender of liberal democracy, prioritizing national social welfare programs and helping to lead Europe’s response to faltering international economies. Merkel didn’t seek to command the center stage of EU politics, but her decisive actions had a tendency to put her there anyway. Merkel’s balanced decisiveness echoes Thatcher’s leadership style, but through a completely different tone. Merkel’s leadership personality was “understated but achieving,” vouching for herself as a servant to the German people. This was something Thatcher couldn’t relate to; during her career, she was famously quoted saying “society does not exist.” Considered an underdog by her own party, as the only woman, Protestant, or East German to become chancellor, Merkel was accustomed to fighting for the “little guy” in her pursuit of policies. She advocated for debt relief during the aftermath of the financial instability in the years following 2008 and loosened the country’s immigration laws when other European countries were turning refugees away. 

Her cool handling of a crisis became her trademark, as Merkel’s leadership spanned across multiple issues of foreign and domestic upheaval. Merkel, perhaps, learned from Thatcher’s legacy and understood that being a true “Iron Lady” didn’t mean she necessarily had to lead with abrasiveness and what was interpreted as a lack of compassion towards the people of her country to accomplish political goals. The takeaway from her legacy comes down to one characteristic: Merkel’s balance of her maternal nature coming into how she enacted policy and led the country. This was one of the biggest traits that Thatcher lacked, and it appears to have worked wonders for Merkel’s political legacy.     

Of course, it is important to note that Merkel was not without her own criticism. Merkel faced strong opposition for supporting continued robust trade with Russia following its occupation of Crimea – an economically-advantageous move –  rather than taking a more hardline position. Critics argue that this policy not only helped Russia protect its advantages over Europe, but also that Merkel’s lack of a reaction was taken as a sign that further incursion into Ukrainian territory would not be treated harshly by Germany.   

In 2017, Jacinda Ardern was elected as New Zealand’s third female prime minister by the Labour Party. She is also the country’s youngest prime minister in over one hundred years to hold office. The similarities between the leadership of Thatcher and Ardern are antitheses of each other. Ardern’s leadership can be understood in a few words: compassion, honesty, and strength through unity. Ardern’s charisma, her ability to come across as a person rather than a politician, sets her apart from Thatcher and most other political leaders. This core strength is something that helped Ardern gain favor with the people of New Zealand, winning election and a subsequent reelection by a landslide majority. Her policies focused around enacting government subsidies for impoverished citizens and families as well as climate change legislation. Unlike Thatcher, the world saw Ardern’s policies having dual priorities of both social and economic reform. Recently, Ardern spoke to the press, announcing her decision to resign from the role of Prime Minister, which she had held for five and a half years. When asked about how she wanted people to remember her legacy, she responded by saying, “As someone who always tried to be kind.” 

The last statement Ardern left the public with was one of honesty and grace: “I hope in return, I leave behind a belief that you can be kind but strong, empathetic but decisive, optimistic but focused, that you can be your own kind of leader.” Jacinda Ardern’s leadership style is trailblazing in the face of modern politics where the narrative has been centralized around maintaining power by any means necessary. This also means not appearing weak and therefore, incapable of leading. The power struggle of politics leaves little room for the appreciation of empathy and kindness. Ardern’s leadership approach is a sharp contrast to Thatcher’s as a result. 

Her tenure, too, was not without its own controversies. Ardern was praised for her swift and effective policies on controlling the COVID-19 outbreak in New Zealand; a major policy critique of Ardern’s administration, however, was its reported failure to fairly distribute vaccines among indigenous populations in the country. By the end of 2021, 49% of Māori were fully vaccinated compared with 72% of the entire eligible population. 

While Thatcher, Merkel, and Ardern are all widely considered to be successful politicians and changemakers, their legacies can teach new generations of female leaders and politicians that policy is important, but nothing is more vital than personality of a leader, because this is the backbone of their policy decisions. Since Thatcher, there have been leaders such as Merkel and Ardern who have shown that a politician doesn’t have to be a forceful, unrelenting, and manly person to be followed and respected; their empathetic effectiveness and popularity have convinced us that this should not be the grand narrative of politics. Thatcher might have assimilated into this role to become the “Iron Lady” because she felt the burden of her gender and needed a way to gain respect in a masculine world. The widespread popularity of Merkel and Ardern’s policies and personalities is something that world leaders, both men and women, would do well to remember when faced with difficult leadership decisions. Rising female leaders might find it helpful to consider that aggression is not the only way to demonstrate strength.

National Pride and a National Healthcare System: The Strikes Defining the UK’s Future

In December of 2022, months of separate public service worker protests spiraled into the largest national health service strikes ever witnessed in British history.. Now, more than three months on since their start, Britain’s National Health Service workers show no signs of stopping as the stakes have only strengthened. At the core of these strikes are key demands by employees that have been routinely denied by the British government. The workers are asking for pay raises due to historic levels of inflation and greater overall funding for the NHS. 

This marks the NHS’ largest strike, and yet the government is still refusing to meet union demands. The government is refusing to meet the pay raises of NHS workers because they claim to be unable to afford it and for fear of increased pay leading to higher prices, thus worsening inflation and raising interest rates and mortgage payments. 

The UK has undergone a ‘cost of living crisis’ since late 2021 which has led to an decrease in British disposable incomes thanks to inflation. Although the government has attempted to aid in this crisis through support packages, such as capping household energy prices, many NHS workers say that this is still not sufficient support. Over 120 NHS trusts are expected to strike, including nurses in cancer wards, A&E departments and intensive care units.

The strikers are adamant that the public understand their need to protest. David Hendy, a 34 year old nurse, revealed his thoughts on the issue: “This job is slowly killing nurses. The nursing workforce in the last 10 years has been through hell and back. We've got through COVID, I've got colleagues who died from COVID. I myself have had it three times…morale is rock bottom.” Hendy is not alone in his experience, after decades of poor pay and the trauma of the COVID-19 pandemic, nurses are fed up. Despite being publicly supported for their heroism throughout the pandemic, many NHS workers feel unappreciated and ignored. Victoria Banerjee, a nurse for over two decades, stated that "The workload is phenomenal now and our patients are sicker than they’ve ever been.” 

Many nurses feel unable to keep up with the pressing demands placed upon them. There is a resource and staffing crisis within the NHS, magnified by over 25,000 nurses leaving the profession in the last year alone. The staff shortage means that many nurses are forced to double up on shifts and patients, performing unprecedented levels of care. Nurses have expressed their fear at endangering patients simply because they cannot adequately attend to each and every one. Pediatric nurse, Jessie Collins, revealed that “During one of my worst shifts I was the only nurse to 28 unwell children … it’s not safe and we cannot deliver the care that these children need at times.” Nurses on the picket lines have described their working conditions as dangerous and scary and their testaments reveal not just anger, but blatant fear for themselves and their patients. 

A Department of Health and Social Care spokesperson stated in an interview that “Ministers have had constructive talks with unions, including the RCN and Unison,” however these talks have not led to any sufficient action. The RCN (Royal College of Nursing) have rejected pay deals that do not properly address the impact of inflation. The core argument of the government is one of financial prudence. They refuse to increase salaries given the increase it will lead to in regards to the national budget and its potential to only worsen inflation. 

The National Health Service has played an influential role in the national fabric for decades, ever since its creation in 1948. It is regarded as a source of pride and unity for all citizens, which adds to the intensity of the recent strikes. 

History of the NHS

In 1948, following the devastation of World War II, a recently established Labour Party prime minister, Clement Attlee, set about establishing a radical new system for the British people. Atlee’s government implemented the economic reforms advocated by famed economist, John Keynes, that prioritized nationalizing industries, improving national infrastructure, and developing a welfare state designed to actively take care of three vulnerable groups in society: the young, the old, and the working class. Perhaps the most pivotal creation brought about by the new welfare state was the National Health Service, founded in 1948. 

The NHS did not provide new forms of medicine or care, but it radically transformed the average British individual’s relationship to healthcare. No longer did people pay for healthcare service on an individual basis, instead they paid collectively as taxpayers. The NHS redistributed and equalized the healthcare process, allowing everyone access to care for the first time in British history. British citizens no longer had to worry about affording care or going into debt due to high medical bills. Aneurin Bevan served as Minister of Health under Atlee’s government and was directly responsible for the creation of the NHS. The son of a coal miner, he spent his political career advocating for the working class. His foundational philosophy of the NHS can best be understood through his poignant statement that “Illness is neither an indulgence for which people have to pay, nor an offence for which they should be penalised, but a misfortune the cost of which should be shared by the community.”

The NHS continued to grow all throughout the latter of the 20th century despite major economic crises, such as the Winter of Discontent in 1978 and the rise of mass striking and inflation. Developments in healthy living and improved national knowledge surrounding daily health habits brought about lower mortality rates and changes in fatal diseases. The NHS sought to expand their care process and better understand how more external factors, such as diet, exercise, geography, and economic class were playing a role in the health of British citizens. Changes in daily habits and medical breakthroughs transformed people's understanding of the modern medicine and the NHS was capable of. 

The Politicization of Healthcare 

By the end of the 20th century, the NHS was widely beloved and respected for its life-changing impact on the British public; but it was also becoming an increasingly controversial institution in politics, with both Labour and Conservative using the NHS as a campaign and voting strategy. The demand of the NHS seemed endless and the services continued to grow in number, but this constant growth fueled by media and political attention only created a gap in which “what was possible and what was provided seemed to be widening.”

As the NHS continued to grow, so did the political debates surrounding it. Both Labour and Conservative argued over funding and regulation. In particular, many of the debates focused on the distribution of the financial burden to taxpayers and overall distribution of the national budget. Increases in immigration and national health crises became key factors in helping to politicize this institution. 

The British government has been defined by Conservative, Tory rule and a large variety of prime ministers for the past decade. As a result, the changes made to the NHS are rooted in Conservative policies. The recent downfall of the NHS is rooted in over a decade of underfunding from a Conservative government. 

A lack of staff and available resources destroyed the NHS. Waitlists for appointments are now a factor of daily life, forcing many citizens to wait months to receive basic care. This shortage has a death toll; in November of 2022, at least “1,488 patients are estimated to have died in Scotland as a result of waiting too long in emergency departments.” British citizens are dying in emergency rooms because nurses and doctors cannot tend to them with the urgency required but they are also slowly dying at home as they wait for an appointment. Delayed appointments are affecting overall well being according to a survey in which 25% of individuals said the wait for treatment has a “serious impact on their mental health” as over 7.2 million people are currently waiting for treatment. The inability of the NHS to properly support its citizens reveals a profound failure in matters of funding and organization. 

Identity Lost

Viewing the NHS strikes solely as a salary issue does not accurately portray the true issue at large. NHS employees are striking because the system is failing and the UK government is unwilling to help. The inability of the NHS to effectively provide for its patients reveals a far darker issue that goes beyond low salaries and inflation: The United Kingdom can no longer afford to take care of itself. 

The NHS is a tremendous source of pride for individuals all across the United Kingdom. In a recent study by Engage Britain, over 77% of British citizens polled stated that the NHS makes them feel proud to be British. However 20% of those surveyed also revealed that they had been forced to turn to private sector care due to limited appointments and resources. Private healthcare companies are growing rapidly as the “market for private health care in the United Kingdom has doubled since before the pandemic.” The growing influence of private healthcare across the UK demonstrates the dire nature of the situation. 

Perhaps that is why these strikes feel more intense than any other historically, and not just due to record turnout. The strikers are asking for more than a living wage; they are asking for a sense of dignity and pride that they can collectively unite behind, and above all they are asking for a sense of hope. The NHS strikes show a healthcare system that is clearly in shambles, but they also show a nation destroyed and without a unifying identity to rally behind. Even if the strikers and the government can come to an agreement based on each of their demands, it is unlikely that the true underlying issues of the strike will be solved anytime soon.

The Implications of Türkiye and Brazil on Global Democracy

Fears of global democratic backsliding have become all but ubiquitous among international relations scholars, as complications emerge from fracturing in established democracies, such as the United States, and the rise of authoritarian powerhouses like China that offer an alternative political system for countries to consider. Are such fears warranted? Is democracy in retreat worldwide? To expand upon this discussion, this article will focus on two specific case studies of countries that could help forecast the future directions of democracy: Türkiye and Brazil.

This article will take a retrospective look at the political atmosphere in Brazil in the aftermath of Bolsonaro’s tumultuous 4 years in office, and a prospective look at the democratic outlook in Türkiye in the wake of the earthquakes and the forthcoming 2023 elections. In doing so, it will analyze what the domestic politics in these countries can tell us about what’s in store for global democracy.

Türkiye

Türkiye is in a crucial transition point, wherein the intersection of earthquakes, the general election, and the war in Ukraine could prove to have a ripple effect on democracy in Eastern Europe and beyond. Türkiye is facing a dire humanitarian crisis, with tens of thousands of casualties, billions of dollars in property damage, and millions of people being displaced, because of earthquakes in the region. The sheer scale of these earthquakes and the disruption of life that has ensued for large swathes of the Turkish population makes it pertinent for the AKP to address the immediate damage and mitigate the long-term effects to avoid adding insult to injury for Türkiye’s already struggling economy. With Türkiye’s elections mere months away, there’s little room for error, as resentment from a lackluster long-term response on Erdoğan’s part could jeopardize his bid for re-election. In that regard, the decision to call for elections a month earlier could backfire if the aftermath from the earthquakes isn’t addressed properly and lingers in the minds of voters when they’re casting their ballots.

The world is watching Erdoğan’s response intently, as it could prove to be a decisive moment for Western democracy and NATO unity. Another 5 years could embolden Erdoğan to consolidate more power, further endangering the already fragile system of checks and balances in place and eroding democratic institutions. Domestically, an emboldened Erdoğan could take past efforts to restrict the information available to the public one step further, through cracking down on dissent and curtailing the freedom of press, endangering a lifeline of any functioning democracy. Internationally, a successful re-election bid would provide Erdoğan with a concrete victory for him to tout as proof of the popularity of his policy, which he could use to justify further distancing from the West. Erdoğan’s intent and willingness to stall NATO operations is present and clear, it’s just restrained so he can gauge whether his base is receptive to it or not. Erdoğan’s refusal to let Sweden and Finland join NATO until he extracted concessions from alliance members was a clear example of this, and it could only be light work compared to what could happen if he wins re-election. A re-election would serve as validation for his foreign policy that promotes Türkiye’s self-interest above all else, including its NATO allies. The war in Ukraine is a test of Western resolve, and more pushback from Türkiye in NATO operations would only undermine the narrative of a cohesive unit that is committed to upholding international norms, and with it, Eastern European security.

Conversely, if Erdoğan’s election efforts are unsuccessful, a more democratic Türkiye could help NATO present a more unified front against Russia and put more pressure on countries such as Hungary and Poland to fall in line and undertake reforms to reinvigorate their democracies. If NATO’s greatest spoiler were to suddenly embrace cooperation with its fellow alliance members, it would send a clear signal to Putin that NATO is stronger than ever. Any desire Putin may have had to see whether NATO is bluffing about Article V commitments in the event of an invasion of the Baltics would be extinguished, effectively deterring further expansion in the region.

Furthermore, if Türkiye is on board with NATO operations, focus would be redirected towards two other members of the alliance that are struggling with democracy: Hungary and Poland. Without Türkiye to hide behind, Hungary and Poland would either fall in line with NATO initiatives, or risk being condemned by alliance members now that they’re in the spotlight. Hungary and Poland need not completely reform their democracies to be an asset for the alliance, nor should we expect them to, so long as they don’t stall NATO initiatives. Once Hungary and Poland are pressured into cooperation, NATO could reap the benefits of a more cohesive alliance, which would allow it to be more effective at accomplishing objectives across the board, but also would put autocracies on the defensive. In the absence of hurdles, NATO could pursue large initiatives that would make them more integrated than ever before. Further interdependence would strengthen NATO even more and allow it to take additional steps to promote democracy and condemn autocracy worldwide.

Brazil

Jair Bolsonaro ran on a platform that stoked nationalism among the populace by scapegoating globalization, gender minorities, and environmentalist efforts to protect the Amazon for the economic problems that the country was facing. By diving headfirst into the culture war, Bolsonaro was able to draw upon and weaponize the resentment brewing among the Brazilian public for his own political gain, a tactic that’s being increasingly used by politicians around the world.  Populists like Bolsonaro are able to tie people’s economic qualms to social issues, such as climate change and equality for members of the LGBTQIA+ community, areas which they may be underinformed or misinformed about, and use that confusion to steer them towards them. They identify that there is a problem that is causing dissatisfaction among the general public, pin the problem on something, and then argue that their policies can remedy the fabricated “cause” of the problem. By exploiting the ability to spread information quickly and the willingness of some to take this news at face value and without skepticism, Bolsonaro was able to win the Brazilian Presidential Election in October 2018.

Bolsonaro’s tenure was marked by repeated attempts to undermine democratic institutions, restrict the freedom of press, weaken the checks and balances in place, and was capped off with the promotion of unwarranted claims of electoral fraud. The installation of military officials into high-ranking government positions and efforts to close Congress and the Supreme Court sparked concerns of a return to Brazil’s military dictatorship. Then, in last October, Bolsonaro was unseated by former President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva in a run-off election, putting an end to his four years in office. Bolsonaro’s war on democracy was far from over, however, and was carried out by his supporters, who stormed the capital, calling for Bolsonaro to be reinstated as president, in an event that quickly drew comparisons to the January 6th insurrection. A cynic may look at these events over the past five years and be pessimistic about for the future of Brazilian democracy; however, Brazilian democracy’s perseverance through all of this offers reason for optimism, as it shows the resiliency of robust institutions in the wake of right-wing challenges.

Among the reasons to be sanguine about the outlook of Brazilian democracy is the durability of institutions. Brazil was only able to survive four years of constant attacks on democracy and an extravagant grand finale at the capital because of its durable institutions, which have been quick to adapt and respond to the attempts at unraveling the system. The Supreme Court’s consistent blocking of Bolsonaro’s undemocratic attempts to expand his power were complemented by Congress’ refusal to pass bills that condoned such behavior. The future looks bright for these institutions as Brazilians have elected a president who has shown a strong commitment to maintaining the integrity of them and working with them to achieve his efforts. Furthermore, the rejection of Bolsonaro’s particular brand of far-right populism by the masses is an indication of the strength of the movement against autocratic governance. The fact that Bolsonaro’s blatant disregard for the liberal international order and his anti-globalization, anti-environmental, and anti-immigrant stances were ultimately dissuasive to the Brazilian public is a win for liberalism and can inspire people worldwide to pushback against far-right populists. While skeptics might point to the recent election of far-right populists in other parts of the world, such as Giorgia Meloni in Italy, as a reason to be cautiously optimistic, or even pessimistic, about the future of global democracy, they underestimate the effect that experiencing a far-right populist presidency has on the strength of the resistance movement. In the United States, for example, a major reason that Joe Biden got 15 million more votes in the 2020 presidential election than Hillary Clinton got in 2016 was because of the resentment people had for the Trump administration—resentment that was only amplified by the administration’s incompetent response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Similarly, after experiencing 4 years of Bolsonaro’s abrasive style of politics, Brazilians reached the same conclusion, and there’s fair reason to believe that Italians will too, and that Italian democracy will emerge stronger than ever.

Closing Thoughts

This article sought to expand the conversation on democratic backsliding by examining the democracies of two powerful international players: Türkiye and Brazil. Turkish democracy is at a crossroads, and it’s likely that the road it embarks upon will depend on the Erdoğan administration’s response to the earthquakes. If the response is successful and receives public praise, it could allow Erdoğan to secure another term, which could spell the end of Turkish democracy. If the response is lackluster and receives continued scrutiny, then a challenger could unseat Erdoğan and revitalize Turkish democracy through pursuing domestic reforms to strengthen the institutions and increase cooperation with its NATO allies, bolstering European democracy in the process. Similarly, Brazil’s democratic resilience offers a case for optimism about the ability of democracy to persevere against right-wing power grabs. Brazil’s ability to withstand several massive shocks to the system indicates remarkable democratic resilience, and not only does Lula’s victory offer a beacon of hope for protestors around the world who are fighting to reverse democratic backsliding in their country, it provides optimism for democratic prospects in other countries, such as Italy. Ultimately, it’s time to look closely at Turkish politics and see if their democracy shares the same resilience as Brazil’s.

Iraq at an Impasse

On August 29th, Muqtada al-Sadr, an influential Iraqi politician, tweeted “I hereby announce my final withdrawal” from politics. Several hours later, his followers had stormed the Green Zone (home to foreign embassies and many government facilities in Baghdad), resulting in a confrontation that led to the deaths of almost 20 people. The violence only ended at the demand of Sadr himself, who publicly rebuked his followers for their actions. 

This outbreak of violence was not random - it had been brewing for months as Iraq descended into political chaos in response to failed negotiations aimed at forming a government based on the national election of October 2021. The political scene in post-ISIS Iraq has largely been dominated by Iranian-backed militias and their affiliated political wings. These militias, known as the Popular Mobilization Forces, have organized themselves into an electoral alliance known as Fatah. In the leadup to the 2021 elections they were the second largest party - after Sadr’s - and many analysts expected them to retain their strong position. 

In a surprising turn of events, Muqtada al-Sadr’s party won the most seats, with Fatah falling dramatically to become only the fifth largest party. The election was marked by low turnout, with many parties - including Sadr’s at one point - announcing a boycott. These elections are particularly notable as they were originally scheduled to occur sometime in 2022, however in response to widespread protests, Prime Minister Mustafa al-Kadhimi called for early elections in June of 2021, before ultimately holding them in October. 

Sadr and Fatah both largely compete for the votes of Shia Arabs. However, Fatah represents those often religiously conservative Iraqis who prefer closer ties with

neighboring Shia Iran. That is not to say that Sadr is Western aligned or secular. In fact, Sadr comes from a long and influential family of Shia clerics. What sets Sadr apart is his deep commitment to Iraqi nationalism that places a heavy emphasis on removing all foreign influence from Iraqi politics. Part of his notoriety comes from the fact that he led the ‘Mahdi Army,’ a Shiite insurgent group that targeted American soldiers during their occupation of Iraq. Many feel that he has given voice to the many Iraqis who resent the growing influence of Iran in Iraq. While many Iraqis welcomed Iranian aid against ISIS, they are uncomfortable with the continued presence and influence of Iranian militias. While Sadr and his followers had won the most seats in the October elections, forming a functioning government was by no means a guarantee. 

Iraq is a parliamentary republic with a president as head of state and a prime minister as head of the government. Sadr, while taking the most votes and seats, needed to form a coalition to enter government. A simple parliamentary majority is required for the appointment of a prime minister. Filling the post of President is a much more complicated task that requires ethnic consideration. In the post-invasion era the president of Iraq has always been a Kurd, an ethnic group that inhabits the northern part of the country and makes up between 15-20% of the population. The Kurds have their own autonomous region with their own local government and political parties. 

In order to form his coalition, Sadr first reached out to the Kurdistan Democratic Party, the largest of the Kurdish parties. After reaching a tentative agreement with the KDP, Sadr then worked out a similar deal with influential Sunni Arabs as well. This multiethnic alliance theoretically should have secured Sadr a majority, and a functioning government.

But his opponents, Fatah chief among them, were desperate to stymie his efforts. They delayed votes and appointments by months, usually through byzantine legal processes, but occasionally by force as well. 

After months of failure, Sadr abruptly instructed the MPs aligned with him to resign from the parliament. 73 lawmakers suddenly resigned, making it almost impossible for any coalition to reach the numbers needed to form a government. Sadr had hoped to spark a mass resignation beyond his bloc, triggering another set of elections. Sadr and his followers were further enraged when instead of dissolving in order to facilitate early elections, the Iraqi Parliament swore in new members. Iraqi electoral law requires that if a member resigns, they are to be replaced by the candidate with the second most votes in their district. In effect, the resignation of the Sadrist bloc resulted in the swelling of Fatah (and their allies) to a majority of 122 seats. 

The final straw came in August of 2022, when Sadr’s mentor, Ayatollah Kadhim al-Haeri, publicly announced his retirement from what is usually a lifetime religious position and asked his followers to look to Iran’s Ayatollah Ali Khamenei for guidance. This was tantamount to a significant and unexpected rebuke of Sadr that in turn led to his resignation from politics and in turn pushed thousands of his supporters to riot in the heavily protected streets of Baghdad, even going so far as to storm the parliament building itself. 

After ten months of deadlock that had failed to result in a government and riots that led to more than twenty deaths and hundreds injured, Iraq finds itself still without a government and in uncertain territory. The one thing that is for certain though is that this

is not a sustainable state of affairs. The Iraqi people have suffered without a reliable government to provide services, and are rapidly losing faith in their country's leadership. Experts are divided on what a post-Sadr Iraq will look like - on whether it will open a vacuum for Iran and its proxies, if a new movement will replace the Sadrists, or if Muqtada al-Sadr is even being honest on his intention to retire. Regardless, the precedent of armed parties influencing the formation and process of government does not bode well for the future of Iraq. While the elites and foreign powers fight each other, the Iraqi people will continue to pay the price. 

Iraq deserves a better future after decades of suffering under dictatorial rule, warfare, and sectarian violence. It deserves a better class of politicians - better than Sadr or his opponents - it deserves non-sectarian public servants dedicated to improving their country. The status quo of the last few years, and the last few months especially, is unsustainable for the Iraqi people, and either the system changes - and soon - or it will break.

Make way for the King: Saudi Arabia’s Destructive Modernization

A European tourist visits Jeddah, Saudi Arabia to see the setting sun on the Red Sea and the city’s unending amenities. Driving along the highway is a blur of luxury. Wide, smooth paved roads pass by palm trees, street lights, and pedestrian pathways. Bold steel buildings jut toward the sky demonstrating the excellence of modern Arab architecture. In a square below, men and women congregate separately for the start of a music show. The city feels like it’s from the future, everything is planned. Walking along the streets, the tourist feels the pulse of Jeddah. Men wear the traditional ankle-length robe thawb with gold Rolexes and women wear the abaya in delicate silk that cover their bodies while showcasing their wealth. Modesty and exorbitance live alongside each other here. This is Crown Prince Muhammed bin Salman (MBS)’s vision for Jeddah and for Saudi Arabia.

Tourists typically do not venture past the sterile limestone boulevards near the sea, but past the luxury and modernity, al-Kandarah sat. Once with the hope of becoming the next posh district of Jeddah, by 2017 garbage accumulated, water pipes broke, and buildings were abandoned. Today, al-Kandarah is rubble. This is the same story for much of the old towns of Jeddah. Among the goals of MBS’s Vision 2030 is his hope to diversify the Saudi oil-based economy to include tourism. He believes that the cracked stone façade buildings belong in the city’s past. Authorities say that the demolition of these neighborhoods is to create new areas which have proper infrastructure, amenities, and are not criminal hotspots. This reasoning follows the Kingdom’s promotion of a unique family-friendly tourism style. These residential neighborhoods, such as al-Kandarah, will be replaced by flashy art-deco apartments and retail spaces, green parks, and entertainment venues. With the fantastic modernity of MBS, what in Jeddah is lost?

In February 2022, a Twitter video circulated of a young Saudi woman walking around al-Saghr, her soon-to-be demolished neighborhood. For forty-five seconds she waves “goodbye” to the homes of her family and friends. The video ends with her message to al-Saghr: Farewell Al-Saghr, for what it contains of hope, loved ones, and neighbors. Farewell to those who taught me belonging, love, and adoration. Goodbye to the past buried among the rubble of dust.” The woman dares not show her face in the video. Her hand waves in defiance against a vision for her city which excludes her. 

The demolitions which started in October 2021 affect 60 neighborhoods and 558,000 residents, reported Amnesty International (AI). “A Jeddah Municipality document shows that project plans were finalized almost three years ago, yet the Saudi authorities failed to engage in a process of genuine consultation with residents” said Diana Semaan, AI’s MENA Acting Deputy Director. Some residents were only given 24 hours to leave after red spray paint on their doors told them to EVACUATE. Without providing proper time to residents, Saudis have become “refugees in their own country” as a Twitter user put it, posting a video of Jeddah’s newly homeless sheltered under a bridge with their surviving belongings. A displaced Saudi doctor, who wished to remain unnamed for fear of government retaliation, said that it is still unclear when or if he will receive compensation for his property’s destruction. The same went for a businessman who had invested in residential and commercial properties in Jeddah for them to be torn down only two months later.

Due to a history of repressive government control, finding residents willing to speak honestly about the demolition’s impact is difficult. In 2020, another of MBS’s grand projects displaced 20,000 people for the construction of the futuristic vacation-city, Neom. Among the displaced, Abdulrahim al-Huwaiti refused to be silent, posting a video to the internet criticizing the government. A day after the video was posted, al-Huwaiti was killed by Saudi special forces. Despite the strong threat posed by the Saudi government, citizens under anonymous usernames have posted Twitter videos and messages with the #hadad_jeddah (“Jeddah_demolition” in Arabic) denouncing the injustices.

The government portrayed the neighborhoods as criminal dens and slums, but residents suspect that the neighborhoods were targeted because “they are home to different nationalities” and, alike Jeddah itself, are socially liberal. Compensation schemes exclude foreign nationals, which make up 47% of the evicted population. Exclusion and discrimination of foreign nationals is a common story in Saudi Arabia. The labour system called kafala allows Saudi companies to employ foreign workers without adequate accommodations, and below the national minimum wage. Additionally, any worker who attempts to leave their job without consent face imprisonment and deportation. Possibly it is not buildings nor architecture that do not fit into MBS’s Vision 2030, but it is the people, themselves, that must go.

Among the MBS’s goals is to increase non-oil government revenue from SAR (Saudi riyal) 163 billion to SAR 1 trillion. He emphasizes the importance of diversifying the Saudi economy beyond oil by investing in the creation of logistic, tourist, financial, and industrial zones. Vision 2030 states that the Kingdom will “create attractions that are of the highest international standards.” For Vision 2030 to be a success from the eyes of the crown prince, Saudi Arabia must become a place that is viewed from the outside with admiration. The Vision 2030 Document reads much as a wish list to create the perfect vacation spot as it does to create a well-functioning, stable economy and society. Despite its recent forays into relaxing the stringencies of daily Saudi life, the Kingdom still remains far more conservative than its neighbors. Tourism marketing has promoted Saudi Arabia as a “family-friendly” tourist destination. “[Saudi government officials] with more moderate viewpoints see this as an opportunity to encourage more reforms in the future, as the presence of foreign tourists introduces more conservative elements of Saudi society to the potential benefits of adopting certain outside influences” while conservative constituencies appreciate that the effort will focus on the family, writes Kevin Newton, the founder of Newton Analytical, a consulting firm specializing in MENA affairs.

As the Saudi government begins to cater itself to a greater quantity of foreign national tourists, it will have more incentives to lessen the strictness of daily life. People will not be satisfied with the luxuries of the cities if they also feel the repressive hand of the government on their shoulders. Naturally, freedoms of expression and behavior would need to be extended to tourists, because if people believe that Saudi Arabia will be hostile towards them then they will not bring their business. This process has gradually already begun, despite push-back from conservative elements of the country. In 2017, cultural events such as a packed musical performances in Riyadh and Comic-Con in Jeddah, which had been outlawed, were given permission to occur in the Kingdom. “What we aim to do is create happiness,” said Ahmed al-Khatib, the Chairman of the General Entertainment Authority (GEA). A year prior, the government declared that the Mutaween, a religious police organization which harass women to remove nail polish, cover their hair, and, in an extreme example, prevented 15 school girls from fleeing a burning building resulting in their death because they did not wear proper Islamic dress, become more “gentle and kind” in their conduct. All of these changes are a ringing dinner bell to a whole host of policies which will create a more open society if just for the sake of visitors. 

Although the Saudi government’s incentive to socially liberalize comes from tourists’ sensibilities, as the Saudi economy becomes more dependent on tourism and entertainment revenue, it too will become more dependent on its Saudi hospitality workers and their sensibilities. The threat of government violence will still be present, but any suppressive actions would create more anger by the working class populations who are most subject to strict law enforcement. In 2019, the World Travel and Tourism Council (WTTC) reported that travel and tourism comprised 9.8% of Saudi GDP. In the same year, tourism totaled 12.2% of Saudi employment. As MBS continues to accomplish his goals within Vision 2030, both of these numbers will rise. Hospitality workers in Saudi Arabia will gain significant bargaining power to demand more freedom, economically and socially. They will become participants in the economy who will have a voice— whether the government wants to listen or not. No longer will they be subjects to the throne under current petroleum-based rentierism. 

Economically empowered by tourism, dissatisfied Saudis will have leverage to protest the government’s inevitable toe-stepping. If the kingdom wants to develop a strong “family-friendly” tourism sector, they have incentive to accommodate their citizens. The horror stories from Jeddah’s neighborhoods turned rubble cannot coexist with the international tourism market. More visibility from visitors and leverage in the hands of workers may make Saudi Arabia look very different in 2030; MBS may not like it.

It’s Looking a Lot like 1979 in the UK… or Is It?

I am not the first to note that Queen Elizabeth II’s death on September 8th, 2022 heralds the end of an era. For many, her presence was the one constant during these past seventy years of change, and her death has come at the tail end of a summer representing a fork in the road for Britain. Public uncertainty surrounding the fate of the monarchy has also become representative of the general sense of unease that the United Kingdom has dealt with over the past year. In the few months since Boris Johnson stepped down, inflation has skyrocketed, energy bills have nearly doubled, the pound sterling has slumped nearly to parity with the dollar, strikes have continued to intensify, the airlines have continued to face challenges, and public satisfaction with the much-lauded National Health System (NHS) is at an all-time low. As such, it comes to nobody’s surprise that the very real fears of a recession have dominated the headlines. All of this comes at the heels of a fraught few years of former PM Boris Johnson’s repeated scandals, echoes of the coronavirus pandemic, and the continued economic fallout of Brexit.

To anyone who gives even a cursory look to 20th century British history, it is hard to stave off comparisons to the political and economic situation that gripped the UK in the mid to late 1970s, which was also characterized by internal turmoil. During the unprecedented freezing winter of 1978-1979, the so-called Winter of Discontent took hold, during which the country realized the status quo was no longer tenable. Over forty years later, the country seems poised at an eerily similar turning point. While the winter of 1979 heralded Margaret Thatcher’s rise to power, the 2022 so-called “Summer of Discontent” has left the country with new Prime Minister Liz Truss. Ms. Truss has famously attempted to fashion herself as a second Thatcher, and while there are similarities between the two, there are 40 years between them and the contexts in which they are operating. While there isn’t a single solution to fix national sentiment, Britain must understand that Truss is no Thatcher and that the new government must take immediate strides for structural reform, or face a series of dark, recessionary years in the foreseeable future.

For context, in the two decades following the Second World War, Britain experienced an economic "Golden Age”, during which the country experienced its fastest ever economic growth, 2% unemployment, the construction of national motorways, increased productivity, housing construction, the establishment of a strong welfare state, and overall raised standards of living. The prosperity reached such a degree that in 1959, Queen Magazine–now Harper’s Bazaar–declared that “Britain has launched into an age of unparalleled lavish living,” where average wage was high and unemployment low. Keynesian economic thinking came to dominate the post- war economic consensus, and Britain enjoyed nearly twenty years of economic success. All of this came to a screeching halt in the mid 1970’s.

Even though the UK finally entered the European Economic Community in 1972, throughout the decade, Britain experienced mass strikes by coal miners and rail workers, the effects of the 1973 oil crisis, and widespread blackouts due to lack of available electricity. Unemployment rose once again, exceeding 5%, and inflation peaked at a staggering 25%. In 1976, the Labour Government was forced to borrow $3.9 billion from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to prop up the value of the pound sterling, which had severely dropped in value in relation to the dollar. All of which culminated in the aforementioned Winter of Discontent, where nearly every industrial union went on strike. This included everyone from gravediggers to waste collectors, NHS employees, and truck drivers. They demanded pay raises greater than the limits the Labour government was willing to give, as the government was desperate to tamp down inflation. The strikes caused massive public unrest and inconvenience amid unprecedented freezing temperatures. Unsurprisingly, the Labour government fell in 1979 and Margaret Thatcher was elected as Prime Minister.

Thatcher is perhaps the most controversial figure in modern British politics, equally reviled and beloved. Her government marked a new era in economic policy, adopting what is recognizable to Americans as traditional conservative policies. This included deregulation, privatization, an emphasis on the free market, an overhaul of relations with labor unions, and massive tax cuts. The government adopted stringent economic and fiscal policies to reduce inflation and stuck to them. And to Thatcher’s credit, they were overwhelmingly successful, as inflation was tamped down from 20% in 1980 to around 4% in 1987.

British conservatives are famously known for flip-flopping on issues and are not known for their ideological consistency. Most cynically put, the Conservative manifesto is to adopt policies that will help them stay in power and remain popular with voters. But Margaret Thatcher was famous for sticking to her policies. While there is no doubt as to the widespread suffering Thatcher’s policies caused through cuts to welfare and reduced government spending, she took the country off the brink of economic collapse. 

Returning to the present, it is easy to see where the parallels lie, and on the surface, the current economic situation does not look so different. Liz Truss, another young, female star of the party, from a state-school background, has quickly risen through the ranks to become Prime Minister. Truss has leaned wholeheartedly, and sometimes ridiculously, into this comparison, positioning herself as the second coming of Thatcher. A much-lampooned photo-op saw her in Moscow wearing a nearly identical outfit to Thatcher, and she is even known for wearing the same kind of blouse for which the Iron Lady was famous. However, there are some more meaningful parallels, perhaps best encapsulated by her Reagan-esque belief that cutting taxes will somehow spur productivity growth.

However, this is not 1979, Truss is no Thatcher, and ultimately, her policies make little coherent sense. The ongoing war in Ukraine has defined the current energy crisis, and it was recently announced that the UK was going to face a staggering 80% increase in household energy prices due to limited supply. One of Truss’s first announcements as PM was to cap the per unit cost of energy that providers can charge. This was too popular not to pursue, as the public was nearly united in a push for the government to do something about it. However, this seems to be more of a band aid on a bullet wound, as the government cannot credibly control inflation for the long term by placing a price cap on a good. 

The panic surrounding the Nord Stream 2 Pipeline sabotage is representative of this crisis and how a continued reliance on energy sources from Russia will continue to plague the UK. While Thatcher was saved by the discovery of North Sea oil, a miraculous new discovery of oil and gas resource in British waters seems unlikely. If the war drags on, which it seems likely to do, the scarcity of natural gas available to the UK will persist and prices will continue to rise, ultimately placing more pressure on the government to cover the difference, increasing the deficit––which could ultimately cause inflationary effects. Whether it be a serious investment in renewable energy sources or a shift back towards nuclear, Britain must shift away from this continued reliance on natural gas and oil, especially from foreign sources.  

Despite the inflationary effects that seem bound to occur, Truss seems determined to cut taxes, even as the government remains adamant that they will cover the shortfall between what consumers pay for energy and the market rate. The plan to avoid a fresh windfall tax on energy producers would mean pushing costs on to taxpayers, with as little as 1 pound in every 12 spent on energy support for households recouped from higher taxes on energy firms. Even Thatcher made the unpopular decision to raise taxes in 1981 to manage the deficit and inflation.

While currently Truss appears to hold steadfast in her views to not raise taxes and remain tough on labor unions, for many, she embodies the flip-flopping for which the conservatives are so well-known. For a historical example, she backed the Remain campaign during the 2016 election, but as the tide began turning, and looked as if they were going to lose, she quite suddenly changed her tune and became one of Boris Johnson’s most ardent supporters. While she has timidly announced increased government spending in the form of energy cost caps, she also remains determined to cut taxes, and reduce inflation. But this mixture is far from the Thatcherite policies that worked, and by pursuing what is popular, she remains sailing with the prevailing wind.

While Truss attempts to pursue Thatcherism 2.0, her government must face that they are operating in a completely different time and context. Thatcher was successful in dismantling the postwar economic consensus that was centered around Keynesian thought and instituting neoliberal economic policies, but Truss is operating in a country that is already neoliberalized and thus must face the fact that state intervention is necessary. The war in Ukraine is certain to drag on, and energy prices will continue to rise, especially during the coming winter when demand goes up as well. The leadership also must accept the reality that if they don’t stop the flood of discontent surrounding the party, they are in danger of losing the next general election in two years, as it was under their watch, not Labour’s, that the country has entered its current predicament. And the leader to get the economy back on track does not need to be from the Conservative party.

For millions, Queen Elizabeth II represented stability, reliability, and greatness. Now, without her constancy, the future state of the United Kingdom has been thrown into sharp relief. National sentiment is polling at an all-time low, and it's hard to find anyone in Britain who is optimistic for the future. The Conservative party must adopt hard and fast policies that take aim at the ailments of our time or risk losing the next election. But whether it occurs under Labour or the Tories, a serious change to the status quo is in order.

A special thank you to Daniel Dorey Rodriguez, who contributed much needed economic policy facts and lived experience for this piece!   

No Longer Human: Addressing the use of Artificial Intelligence in IR

Artificial intelligence is a principal instrument for international relations. In areas such as cyber security, military application, and threat monitoring, artificial intelligence isn’t just something that could change the political landscape as we know it: AI will create it. The idea of a non-human entity having a specific agency could make a massive change in politics at the international level. AI has been a doctrine of apocalyptic notions that the world will end with robots. Artificial intelligence has long been a fanciful vision for the future in cinema, art, and literature. The future, however, might be nearer than we think. Already, forms of artificial intelligence affect our everyday lives, including Google translate and search, facial recognition, navigation apps, social media, banking, and even Netflix. From the moment we wake up, AI impacts and influences our lives. Our preferences are tailored to what we are likelier to buy and what we would most likely watch and go. How is this advancement in technology going to change the political and international community? It is safe to assume that artificially intelligent systems might dominate decision-making in the future and that the next cyber attack might not even be human.

In 2022, artificial intelligence will have progressed far enough to become the most revolutionary technology ever created by man. According to Google CEO Sundar Pichai, its impact on our evolution as a species will be comparable to fire and electricity. He also warned that the development of AI was still in its very early stages but that its continued growth would be extreme, stating, “I view it as the most profound technology that humanity will ever develop and work on.” The 2022 trends of AI include advanced language modeling, no-code AI platforms, computer vision technology in business, and creative AI. In global security ventures, artificial intelligence will be increasingly more significant in handling and adequately managing. However, these 2022 AI trends do not come without a cost. Cybercrime has been identified as a substantial threat to global prosperity by the World Economic Forum, which urged nations worldwide to work together to address it. This cybersecurity threat is expansive, transformative, and critical, and with the continued rise in cyberattacks, there is massive growth in the AI market. A July 2022 report by Acumen Research and Consulting says the global market was $14.9 billion in 2021 and is estimated to reach $133.8 billion by 2030. More and more money is being put into this industry, and consequently, working together as an international community is essential in preventing catastrophic damage. Specifically for international relations, AGI might be capable of executing any cognitive or operational task for which human intelligence is currently necessary. These advancements in IR will fundamentally change how the world will look in the near future. 

In a Chatham House Report titled “Artificial Intelligence and International Affairs Disruption Anticipated,” AI can be used in international politics and policymaking in three categories: Analytical roles, predictive roles, and operational roles. In the first category, Artificially intelligent systems are already found in analytical roles, combing through large datasets and deriving conclusions based on pattern recognition. This can be especially helpful when monitoring the outputs of sensors set up to confirm compliance with, for example, a nuclear, chemical, or biological arms control treaty that might be too demanding for human analysts. In predictive roles, artificially intelligent systems may offer opportunities for policymakers to understand possible future events. One such example in the arena of international affairs would be the possibility of modeling complex negotiations. AI might take on other predictive roles with a bearing on geopolitics, contributing to more accurate forecasting of elections, economic performance, and other relevant events. The last category, operational roles, is the traditional sense of robots. The day-to-day functioning of the international system would not be expected to change if truck drivers, ship crews, or pilots were replaced with automation. Still, the large-scale replacement of existing human labor in these capacities will likely cause widespread economic and political disruption in the short to long term. MIT economist Daron Acemoglu’s new research showcases this shift in labor. From 1990 to 2007, adding just one additional robot replaced about 3.3 workers nationally. With this rapid transformation in the labor force, the ethical landscape of AI is becoming more and more significant to the lives of everyone on Earth. 

From a policy standpoint, it is essential to know what data is used, an AI model’s guiding assumptions and the kinds of practices developers employ. The Council on Foreign Relations recently conducted a conference titled “The Future of AI, Ethics, and Defense.” Speakers discussed the intersection of technology, defense, and ethics and the geopolitical competition for the future of innovation. Speakers included former secretary of defense Ash Carter, cofounder of LinkedIn Reid Hoffman, and professor at the Institute for Human-centered artificial intelligence Fei-Fei Li.  Discussing these implications of AI, Fei-Fei Li states, “We have a society that wants to respect human rights, we want to be inclusive, we want to use AI or technology for good, we can have a culture of transparency and accountability, and we can form multi-stakeholder allegiance to both push for innovation, but also put the right guardrails. And this kind of foundation in our world is our competitive advantage.”  Showcasing the ethics that need to be addressed as artificial intelligence advances, Fei-Fei Li concludes that these technologies can benefit society instead of holding it back in the long run. The accountability and transparency related to AI are crucial for the international community to maintain an ethical environment. But what exactly are the ethical challenges of AI? 

Brian Patrick Green, director of Technology Ethics at the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics, addresses these challenges in his article titled “Artificial Intelligence and Ethics: Sixteen Challenges and Opportunities.” Fundamentally, artificial intelligence is increasing at a tremendous rate. Technical safety and if the technology works as intended are important for companies. Another challenge is bias and the malicious use of AI. For example, China's facial recognition system logs more than 6.8 million records daily. The Chinese government is accused of using facial recognition to commit atrocities against Uyghur Muslims, relying on the technology to carry out "the largest mass incarceration of a minority population in the world today." In Russia, authorities have long used biometric data for artificial intelligence-powered facial recognition to surveil and prosecute peaceful protestors and other critics. Additionally, during the Invasion of Ukraine, Russia employed “deepfakes” in propaganda warfare. Deepfakes are images or videos created using AI that can show scenes of things that never happened or even people that never existed. This technology is still increasingly advanced and could be extremely realistic in the future. Furthermore, using AI technology to create cyber weapons to control autonomous tools like drone swarms are being developed. Russian President Vladimir Putin when speaking about the international race to develop artificial intelligence noted, “whoever becomes the leader in this sphere will become the ruler of the world.” 

Anja Kaspersen and Wendell Wallach are senior fellows at Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs. In November 2021, they published an article that changed the AI ethics conversation: “Why Are We Failing at the Ethics of AI?” Concerning the ethical implications of AI, the article states, “Society should be deeply concerned that nowhere near enough substantive progress is being made to develop and scale actionable legal, ethical oversight while simultaneously addressing existing inequalities.” There has been some work done to address ethical concerns, however. There are many ethical proposals, but they are not always coinciding, uniform or unanimous, even in an organization like the EU. A number of publications on AI highlight the need for policies and regulations that would diminish the risks and direct AI development and use toward public benefit. Public policy and governance can ensure that global AI development is a positive-sum game increasing benefits for all. Suggestions for the  US  leadership include calls for building strategic partnerships worldwide. Balancing competition and cooperation is indispensable, for artificial intelligence isn’t just a component of policy anymore but integral in global security. 

With artificial intelligence dominating everyone on the Earth and advancing at an alarming rate, understanding ethical implications and security risks is necessary to maintain a peaceful world that benefits citizens' lives instead of harming them. Artificial intelligence has a multitude of issues that need to be addressed by the international community, including the capability of cyberattacks, the creation of cyberweapons like drones, and propaganda warfare. With the malicious use of facial recognition and privacy crises, there is a plethora of panic and anxiety for the public. With continued technological advancement, policies must be updated and executed. U.S policymakers must balance risks, benefits, and responsibilities when continuing AI endeavors. Additionally, an enormous amount of ethical issues still need to be tackled. AI research will dominate global affairs, and it can be hard to predict outcomes with this transformation. Whatever the future holds, it is clear that artificial intelligence will be a part of it, or perhaps more accurately, directly beside humankind. 

The Case for a Third Party

It is time to wake up from the American nightmare. Two corporate parties dominate politics in the United States– inefficient, polarized, and shunned by the masses of America. On one hand, the Democrats pay lip service to identity politics, preaching change for the oppressed while maintaining firm status quo policy positions. On the other, the Republican party continues to spiral into Trumpism, with radical right wing elements encroaching on the electoral territory of traditional conservatives. Meanwhile, issues such as climate change, housing, and healthcare continue to crush regular people, especially marginalized groups. Neither party represents the interests of the majority of society, and it is not possible to “reform” either party, as some progressive Democrats have suggested. The truth is, the two parties are different arms of the capitalist status quo, and to participate in the charade that passes for politics in the US is to give up hope for real change. What is necessary is a clean break from the Democrats and Republicans, the establishment of a new party which the masses of society can have faith in. This party must put forward a socialist program, a radical alternative to the piecemeal politics of the Democrats and the pseudo-fascism of the Republicans. 

To understand the necessity of a new party, one first must fully grasp the problems with the current system. At the core of the ineptitude of the two major American parties is their class makeup. Both parties are funded and controlled by a tiny minority of wealthy donors and politicians; the political elite. In the context of liberal democracy, this is perfectly acceptable because fundamentally, liberalism is capitalist ideology. As David Harvey argues, neoliberalism has become the hegemonic discourse of our time, justifying many of the injustices of capitalism through the logic of free markets and individual liberty. The political elite does the bidding of, and in many cases, overlaps with the economic elite of our society, the bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie’s fundamental interests are to extract as much value out of working people as possible, and to keep the masses of people from overthrowing them. Through the lens of class analysis, it is clear that the two ruling parties will not present solutions to the contradictions of capitalism, and they will continue to defend the interests of the ruling class, giving as few concessions to workers as possible and concentrating as much wealth as possible in the hands of the few. The ruling parties are representatives of the interests of the ruling class, and they have been since the foundation of the United States. As Howard Zinn revealed in A People’s History of the United States, the revolution of 1776 was a bourgeois revolution which successfully took political and economic power from the British crown and put it in the hands of the American elite. The appeals to liberty, democracy, and other enlightenment ideals put forward by the so-called “founding fathers” were disingenuous at best, and complete lies at worst. Every major party that has risen and fallen in the period since the revolution has represented the interests of the elite of the time at the expense of the masses of society. In order to escape the downward spiral of capitalism, a new political formation is necessary, an organization through which the masses can exert their will. The two modern American parties are not capable of representing the interests of the masses, but it is necessary to analyze their recent behavior in order to understand the state of the ruling class. 

Donald Trump’s support from rural and white workers smacks of serious discontent with the status quo. This discontent is mirrored in more progressive layers of society by the Bernie Sanders candidacy. These populist candidates harnessed the rage of the masses at the material conditions of capitalism in order to propel themselves to electoral victory. The masses of America have become so rightly dissatisfied with the present state of things that they were willing to vote for candidates who promised radical change, even if the policies pursued by these politicians were ultimately detrimental to the interests of the masses. Both Sanders and Trump were opposed by large segments of their respective party elites, which reveals a divide between the political elite as a whole and the rank and file of their parties. “Anti-system” candidates have not gone away, but under the constraints of the modern party system, they can only serve as dissenters within the existing parties, and weak ones at that. Until there is a new party that can openly confront the capitalist system, politicians will continue to harness the discontent of the workers to increase their own political power, meanwhile, the country will continue to deteriorate as the parties put the interests of the ruling class above the concerns of the masses. For example, the resurgent labor movement proves that workers are looking for higher wages, better conditions, and more benefits, but neither party is aiding them because these goals contradict the interests of the bourgeoisie. This is the basis of the logic that a mass socialist party is viable in the United States. 

The fact that there is no mass party fighting for socialist policies is evidence of the stranglehold the bourgeoisie have over American politics. Critics of American socialism like Madison Gesiotto argue that America is too polarized for a mass party of any sort to emerge, but what is the actual nature of the divisions in our society? The issues that are presented as the most contentious in our society frequently stem from some variant of identity politics. This is true of debates over LGBT and women’s rights, immigration, and “critical race theory”. On the right, Republicans appeal to white voters with barely concealed racism and open xenophobia and other forms of bigotry, while on the so called left, a gentler form of identity politics allows Democrats to pose as the party of justice without actually following through on any progressive policies (Das). What both forms of identity politics conceal is the fundamental class contradiction of our society. Regardless of however one identifies, if a person has to work to live, it can be said with almost complete certainty that there is a set of desires that they share with every other working person. These include but are not limited to, reasonable working hours, wages that will support a comfortable life, stable housing, healthcare that won’t immediately result in bankruptcy, affordable education, and freedom to pursue one’s interests outside of the workplace. How many of these desires are met by the social, economic, and political institutions of the United States? When we look past the noise of the culture war, we realize that we are losing the class war. This is an affirmation of Noam Chomsky’s hypothesis that people can be kept passive and obedient if they are presented with lively debates in a narrowly confined spectrum of what is “acceptable” (Chomsky et al.). This is not to dismiss issues of identity as irrelevant or superficial–it is obvious that race, gender and sexuality, and other forms of identity are extremely prevalent to the experiences of huge layers of the population. But in order to actually address them, it is necessary to create a fighting party of the masses which will rise to meet the needs of the working class as a whole, and then work outwards to solve the systemic injustice which runs rampant in this country. The culture war is perpetuated not by the masses of people, but by the political elites, who understand that it is useful to divide the population to prevent it from uniting under a common banner.  A mass socialist party would directly combat this strategy, and is the first step towards the realization of a truly just and equitable society. 

For those who are serious about constructing a mass socialist party, the program of that party is of the utmost importance. The party should stand for the interests of all working people and oppressed groups to encompass as wide a range of interests as possible. First, come the social benefits that a civilized society should afford its citizens. Healthcare, housing, education, and work should be guaranteed to all people. Secondly, the party should fight hand in hand with the labor unions to raise wages and strengthen labor protections. Third, a socialist party should advocate for the nationalization of the key levers of the economy, including the banks, corporations, and financial sector, in order to distribute economic resources according to human need rather than profit. Finally, the party should advocate for action against systemic injustice and policies that will restore the wellbeing of marginalized groups as well as a strong response to the ecological crisis. The point of this program is not necessarily to achieve every proposed reform, but to illustrate for people the inadequacies of the American political system. The strength of such a radical platform lies in the inability of the ruling parties to accept it. When people realize that the policies they support through the mass party will not be accepted by the American government, they will realize the necessity of  revolutionary changes to our society. The party should not be a goal in and of itself, it should be a means towards the end of advancing the consciousness of the masses. 

Green New Champions

While fossil fuel companies and politicians often blame individuals for their carbon emissions and plastic straws, environmental issues are upheld by the lasting effects of industrialization and colonization and perpetuated by systems of oppression. As fires plague entire countries, global temperatures rise, and communities remain without clean water, government policy is the most efficient mechanism for change.

Countries such as Argentina, Poland, Indonesia, and Tanzania engaged in climate protests throughout the month of January. Coordinated events by Fridays for Future brought out protesters around the globe, and people spoke out with criticisms of various environmental policies. These continued into February, and Sweden, Peru, France, and Serbia were brought into the picture. On March 25th, over 700 youth climate strike protests took place worldwide, and one billion people took part in Earth Day this April. As stated by a supporter of the UK Extinction Rebellion Movement, “This has to be the biggest year yet for climate protest.” 

In 2019, Senator Markey and Representative Ocasio-Cortez introduced H.Res.109/S.Res.59. This resolution acknowledged human activity as “the dominant cause of observed climate change over the past century” and climate change as a catalyst for mass migrations, wildfires, and deadly heat stress. It noted that there will be “more than $500,000,000,000 in lost annual economic output in the United States by the year 2100,” and moreover, BIPOC and low-income communities will be disproportionately affected. People, infrastructure, and industry will take a massive blow without major changes in policy, and with this in mind, 14 Senators and 101 Representatives officially recognized “the duty of the Federal Government to create a Green New Deal.” A new vigor was brought to the movement for environmental justice. 

The Green New Deal calls for supporting community projects, updating infrastructure, upgrading renewable energy sources, building energy-efficient power sources, investing in clean manufacturing, working with farmers and ranchers to decrease pollution by the agricultural sector, restoring biodiversity and natural ecosystems, cleaning up hazardous waste, and promoting international collaboration on climate issues. It includes a lengthy section about how jobs and education intersect with these environmental goals, and it recognizes a variety of equity issues. In the past few years, however, the Green New Deal has been criticized for being “too broad and not specific enough.” To dissolve any blurry areas and rejuvenate the energy behind the 2019 resolution, a new environmental pledge was released in March. 

The Green New Deal Pledge

The general idea of the Green New Deal Pledge is for officeholders to actively push for progressive climate legislation, organize their colleagues to join the fight, and publicly advocate for the Green New Deal. More specifically, there are nine bills beyond the Green New Deal Resolution that pledges must co-sponsor within six months of their swearing-in, and they must abide by a contribution policy.

That contribution policy is for each pledge-taker to “reject contributions of over $200 from oil, gas, and coal industry executives, lobbyists, or PACs,” and the essence of this standard is to ensure that political loyalties lie where they should: with the constituents. When Senators and Representatives are propped up by fossil fuel corporations, entire movements can stall. For example, Joe Manchin, who helped stall the Build Back Better Act, had “between $1.4 million and $5.8 million held in coal companies” in 2020. Taking it back to 2019, the “combined fossil fuel contributions to ‘no’ votes against [the] Green New Deal resolution” was over $55,000,000. As shown in the past few years, big oil, gas, and coal companies are responsible for regulating big oil, gas, and coal companies. In order to hold so-called “climate champions” accountable, the pledge requires officeholders to detach their strings. 

On the topic of fossil fuels, one of the bills that must be co-sponsored is the Keep It in the Ground Act, which “eliminates new fossil fuel production projects on federal public land and waters.” It prohibits the Bureau of Land Management and the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management from renewing or authorizing fossil fuel projects, but there are a couple of exceptions involving national security and specific legal restrictions regarding contracts. While the United States is highly reliant on fossil fuels at this point, policymakers must be conscious of the long-term effects. The use of fossil fuels results in land degradation, water pollution, and ocean acidification, and according to the International Energy Agency, no new fossil fuel projects can be implemented for the world to have even half a chance at reaching net-zero emissions by 2050. However, as Senate sponsor Jeff Merkeley stated, “affordable and reliable technology exists to gradually transition to clean energy and clean transportation.” His proposal would be a major win for progressives, and the planet.

Another bill listed in the pledge is the Environmental Justice for All Act, which would “address the disproportionate adverse human health or environmental effects of federal laws or programs on communities of color, low-income communities, or tribal and indigenous communities.” Notably, the infrastructure that distributes fossil fuels is often built in areas that impact communities with little socio-political power. For example, in regard to tribal and indigenous lands and resources, the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) near Standing Rock would contaminate the reservation’s sole source of freshwater; the Line 3 Pipeline would harm aquatic ecosystems; the Keystone XL Pipeline would have threatened ancestral homeland with dirty tar. Additionally, BIPOC and impoverished communities are often the ones most affected by chemicals and toxic materials. Flint, a city that had dirty water for years, is 57 percent African-American with 41 percent of the city under the poverty line—but although Flint is well-known, other communities are facing similar struggles. A journal article published by Nature Communications stated that “water hardship is spread unevenly across both space and society, reflecting the spatial patterning of social inequality due to settler colonialism, racism, and economic inequality in the United States.” Furthermore, when these communities are affected, it takes longer for the problem to be solved than wealthy, white ones, as evidenced by the degree of post-wildfire cleanup and rebuilding. Climate inequality is already prevalent in the United States.

The next bill, the Civilian Climate Corps for Jobs and Justice Act, would create a climate service program “to help communities respond to climate change and transition to a clean economy.” This Act would not only assist with the completion of federally-funded projects—reducing carbon emissions, transitioning to renewable energy, responding to climate disasters, and launching conservation projects—but it would promote equity. Over 5 years, 1.5 million Americans would each receive “compensation of at least $15 per hour, full health care coverage, and critical support services such as transportation, housing, and childcare,” and corpsmembers would be eligible for educational funding. Plus, the bill would include tribal sovereignty protections and funds, and career pathways would lead participants towards green sector jobs. As previously explained, addressing climate injustice is a major part of the environmental movement, and this bill would be a step forward on that front.

The Green New Deal for Public Housing Act would also create up to 240,000 union jobs per year while reducing annual carbon emissions to “the equivalent of taking over 1.2 million cars off the road,” and it would alleviate issues like “mold infestations, lead contamination, poor indoor air quality, and unsafe temperatures.” Additionally, the bill would reduce the costs of water and energy for residents while transitioning to energy efficient, zero carbon housing, and it would showcase how the economy and climate action can be positively intertwined. 

Another bill required through the pledge is the Green New Deal for Cities, which would have the Department of Housing and Urban Development fund projects by states, local governments, and Native American nations. To receive funding, the government must have a local Green New Deal program proposal that includes commitments such as working towards zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2030, and the money would be for solutions to issues like climate adaptation, pollution, and conservation on family farms. Especially due to varying levels of familiarity with local issues and resources, it is critical for all levels of government to collaborate on environmental response. The Green New Deal for Cities would allow that to happen, and it would embolden a stronger network of advocates.

Next, the Farm Systems Reform Act would help give family farmers and ranchers a better chance within a system that favors multinational meatpacking companies. One key part of this bill would include strengthening the Packers & Stockyards Act of 1921 that regulates the meat industry “from unfair, deceptive, unjustly discriminatory and monopolistic practices.” The newer bill would “place a moratorium on large factory farms, sometimes referred to as concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs), and restore mandatory country-of-origin labeling requirements.” To examine the broader picture, large CAFOs create massive amounts of waste—as much as 1.4 billion tons each year—and they are not required to upkeep a treatment facility for that waste. Large CAFOs also cause water pollution that harms not only the environment, but the health of rural communities, and “The overuse of medically important antibiotics by large CAFOs has led to the generation and spread of dangerous antibiotic resistant bacteria.” Additionally, research has shown that air pollution stemming from animal agriculture causes 12,720 deaths in the United States per year. The industry has been accused of supporting profit over people, and this bill seeks to address that.

The Green New Deal for Public Schools Act would offer environmental and educational resources to children at public elementary and secondary schools, as well as Bureau of Indian Education schools. The Department of Energy’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy would provide grants to help convert their facilities into zero-carbon schools, and the Department of Education (ED) would award grants for hiring and retaining teachers and staff in high-need schools. The Climate Change Resiliency Program would be created under ED, helping to “increase the resiliency of public and BIE schools during climate change-related events, natural disasters, and public health crises,” and a similar grant program for state educational agencies would be established. This bill would also create the Office of Sustainable Schools within ED to carry out the administrative process of these tasks.

The Better Utilizing Investments to Leverage Development and Generating Renewable Energy to Electrify the Nation’s Infrastructure and Jobs Act, more succinctly known as the BUILD GREEN Infrastructure and Jobs Act, requires the Department of Transportation (DOT) to establish a substantial grant program for governments and other entities to invest in “electrified surface transportation infrastructure projects.” The bill outlines specific elements of maximum-sustainability projects, and it instructs the DOT to prioritize vulnerable communities and new outdoor areas. In terms of costs, grants must be at least $2 million, with certain exceptions, and a project “may not exceed 85% for planning, design, and construction purposes and 50% of the operation and maintenance costs of the project for its first 10 years.”

Finally, the End Polluter Welfare for Enhanced Oil Recovery Act is a short one, and the overall purpose is to eliminate “the use of carbon oxide as a tertiary injectant” and repeal the tax credit “for enhanced oil recovery costs.” The bill would decrease federal support for fossil fuel projects and remove a financial burden on American taxpayers. It would update royalty rates for oil and gas production, reoccupy royalties from offshore drilling, and reconstruct bidding and leasing practices for coal development on federal property. It would also help fund medical care for “tens of thousands working-class Americans” by maintaining the Black Lung Disability Fund. Within 10 years, the United States will “account for 60 percent global growth in oil and gas production,” but this legislation would help prevent more damage caused by special interests.

Responding to the Climate Emergency 

In 2022, there is irrefutably a climate emergency. The Green New Deal Pledge would create new leaders, or “champions,” of the environmental movement in the United States, and the bills themselves would affect not only Americans, but the rest of the world. While passing the original Green New Deal would be valuable, the health of our planet is declining exponentially, and we need specific steps to take as a united front. That is what the Green New Pledge is designed to do. 

Some people have said that passing the “Green New [Anything]” is far-fetched. However, almost 5 percent of Americans would “willingly participate in civil disobedience” to demand climate action, Data for Progress found that “More than 65 percent of likely voters support Green New Deal measures for cities, public housing, and school,” and already, 71 candidates and 22 elected officials are listed on the official website as having taken the Pledge with almost 50 groups as partners.As time goes on, an increasing number of people are understanding that their lives are on the line, and building a coalition committed to strong environmental advocacy is critical. Taking this Pledge is an expression of government responsibility and accountability, and ultimately, taking the greatest strides to protect this planet is not a “radical” path forward.

France and the Presidency of the Council of the European Union

On January 1st, 2022, France took over the Presidency of the Council of the European Union. During difficult times, the country has been preparing for the presidency since 2017, but its agenda has had to be revised as the world continues to face ongoing challenges. France will be presiding for six months, until July 1st  2022. But with the French elections right around the corner, the future of the Council of the European Union remains unknown. Current French President Emmanuel Macron waited until the last day to become a formal candidate for the election, which will be held in April, just weeks from now. 

The last country to preside over the Council of the European Union was Slovenia. The country’s six months’ program was based around one common theme: resilience. Faced with the pandemic and a prolonged economic crisis throughout Europe, Slovenia developed a plan called “Next Generation EU”. This recovery plan was and still is an opportunity for countries that have suffered from the pandemic to emerge stronger, to transform their economies, to create jobs and opportunities. One of the main goals of Slovenia's Presidency was to ensure safety and stability in neighboring countries of the European Union, especially the Balkans. 

The Council of the European Union represents the interests of the 27 member states in respect to the European Commission and Parliament. Emmanuel Macron, French president since 2017, spoke on January 19 in a speech for the French Presidency of the Council of the European Union. The French president presented his objectives for the presidency of the Council of European Union to the European Parliament in Strasbourg, mentioning a reform of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, a new alliance between the European Union and Africa, the future of the Balkans or the relationship with Russia or the United Kingdom. 

The country is taking the presidency in difficult times, with the ongoing pandemic and challenges that nations across the European Union have been facing over the last two years. Additionally, the French elections are right around the corner, and Macron only recently became an official candidate for these elections, seeking a second term. However, the outcome of these elections remains a mystery, which leaves the future of both France and the Council of the European Union unknown. 

France has prepared its six-month program detailing the priorities and guidelines for the presidency of the Council of the European Union. The program for the French Presidency has three ambitions: a more sovereign Europe, a new European model for growth, and a humane Europe. The guidelines of the Presidency are in line with the work carried out by the Slovenian Presidency, as well as the broader framework of the Trio Presidency programme prepared with the future Czech and Swedish Presidencies.

Emmanuel Macron has expressed strong ambitions for this mandate, but his objectives and his detailed agenda could be disrupted by the Covid-19 crisis, the presidential election, and different global issues such as the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Indeed, the sanitary crisis in France is only now getting better, still hundreds of thousands of new cases appear every day. Vaccines being mandatory, the situation has improved and the country will soon be lifting the mask mandate, but citizens have expressed their discontent with the rules that were set up to mitigate the effects of the virus on individuals. Additionally, the elections, like any other elections, have created a tense situation in the country, as the future of France remains unknown. Many current candidates, such as Marine Le Pen and Eric Zemmour have created a lot of divide in the country, as their ideologies are very different from the ones of other candidates such as Valérie Pécresse, or the current French president, Emmanuel Macron. 

The first ambition of the program of the French Presidency is a more sovereign Europe. In a tweet, Macron shares “A sovereign Europe is first and foremost a Europe capable of controlling its borders.” The programme calls for a reform of the Schengen area, the aim is to strengthen this area and to “create a political steering of border control and an emergency support mechanism in case of crisis” as Emmanuel Macron stated in his tweet on December 9th, 2021. 

Protecting European borders will also allow for a greater control of the migratory crisis, and improve the asylum policy for the many refugees who seek safety in countries of the European Union. France also has the goal to strengthen relations with Africa, as it is one of Macron’s priorities since the beginning of this mandate. Additionally, this first ambition of France has the aim to build a stronger Europe, by its action for the prosperity and stability of its neighbors, in particular by its commitment to the Western Balkans, which follows the goal of Slovenia's presidency. 

The second ambition of the program of the French Presidency is a new European model for growth. Most countries in Europe have been greatly affected by the Covid-19 pandemic, which has created economic issues throughout countries in the European Union. France has set the goal to make Europe a land of production, to create jobs and opportunities for European citizens. This growth model aims to help countries get out of the current economic crisis that they may be facing or have faced over the last two years, helping them in their growth and development, to make Europe a land of prosperity and endless opportunities. 

The third and last ambition of the program of the French Presidency is a more humane Europe. Emmanuel Macron emphasized in its agenda the importance of having a Europe that works with one another, and that listens to the concerns expressed by its citizens through the Conference on the Future of Europe. Over the last few years, a variety of domestic and international affairs such as the economic crisis, the pandemic, or the migrant crisis have divided not only France, but Europe. For this Presidency, French President Emmanuel Macron set the goal of a humane Europe, that is committed to fighting discrimination and securing a future for the next generation.

While the program for the French Presidency has three ambitions, it also has a variety of priorities that the country would like to address throughout its Presidency. Its three priorities are: the introduction of a minimum wage throughout the European Union, the regulation of digital giants and the creation of a carbon tax on products imported into Europe according to their environmental impact.

President Emmanuel Macron said he's in favor of legislation on a minimum wage for all EU nations. Fair wages that ensure a decent standard of living are one of the principles of the European Social Charter. For France, the introduction of minimum wage is aimed at increasing living standards throughout Europe. The introduction of minimum wage will also enhance working conditions in Europe. Having a set minimum wage across European countries would also allow for more fairness, as every worker has the right to a fair wage that guarantees them a decent standard of living. 

The regulation of digital giants is another one of the priorities of France’s Presidency. Their priority will be economic regulation and accountability of digital platforms, especially in the face of hate speech, with legislation on digital services and markets. Economy Minister Bruno Le Maire said that “digital giants are not just nice companies with whom we need to cooperate, they are rivals, rivals of the states that do not respect our economic rules, which must therefore be regulated.” Regulating these digital giants will allow for terrorist threats, and hate speech to be limited, and regulated.

The last priority of the French’s Presidency is in regard to the environment. Their priority will be the creation of a carbon price at the borders of the European Union on imported products. The environmental crisis is an issue that every country is facing, it is a team effort to combat climate change. Through the creation of a carbon price, France hopes to help the environment in the long-run. 

Emmanuel Macron's relationship with the Council of the European Union is important now more than ever. The European Union is facing difficult challenges ever since Russia invaded Ukraine on Thursday February 24th. It has been the duty of Macron to take the role of a mediator in this conflict. He has talked with both Putin, Russia’s president, and Zelenskyy, Ukraine’s president. Over the last few weeks, Macron has demonstrated a great sense of diplomacy, as he attempts to initiate a dialogue on NATO’s role in Europe and Ukraine. Many have said that Emmanuel Macron may benefit from the situation in Eastern Ukraine. His diplomacy has benefitted him politically, he appears to have shown great strength as he and other world leaders are attempting to solve this conflict.

Emmanuel Macron’s agenda advocates for subjects that will be at the heart of the French presidential campaign, that is just a few weeks from now. As France is set to preside the Council of the European Union until July 1st 2022, the French elections are at the center of the attention, as they have divided the country now more than ever. With many candidates with differing viewpoints and the future of France remains unknown, and so does the Presidency of the Council of the European Union, that the country is presiding until July 2022, way after the elections have taken place. 

French president Emmanuel Macron is well aware of the challenges that he will encounter and has encountered while presiding the Council of the European Union. Three months is a very short amount of time to make a meaningful change, considering that we are unaware of what will happen with the presidency of the Council of the European Union  after the elections. 

The question of postponing the French elections by six months had arisen, as a means to not disrupt the presidency of the Council of the European Union, but Emmanuel Macron finally decided against it. A way to show his commitment to Europe in the middle of a presidential campaign. According to many, the French agenda is more than ambitious, but many wonder what will happen with the elections, if Macron is not reelected, it could change a lot of things, lead to new discussions, and affect the future presidencies of the Council of the European Union.

Like any other elections, the French elections have been tense, the final list of candidates was only recently finalized with a total of 12 candidates, the future of France and of Europe remains a mystery. Many fear that the next president will want to change things for the future, having opposing views with Macron, meaning that everything that France will have done until the elections will go to waste, especially future plans that Macron will have set up for future presidencies. 

French citizens are currently divided, as elections are just a few weeks away. As of March 4th 2022, 12 candidates have reached the 500 sponsorships needed to become an official candidate at the French presidential elections. President Macron had already reached the 500 sponsorships needed before he even became an official candidate. But many other official candidates had struggled to reach the 500 sponsorships needed. Indeed, Marine Le Pen, Eric Zemmour and Christiane Taubira were worried about not obtaining the 500 sponsorships. 

The 12 candidates for these french elections are: Nicolas Dupont-Aignan, Yannick Jadot, Marine Le Pen, Jean-Luc Melanchon, Philippe Poutou, Eric Zemmour, Valérie Pécresse, Emmanuel Macron, Anne Hidalgo, Nathalie Arthaud, Fabien Roussel and Jean Lassalle. These candidates are from different parties, but their ideologies have not divided France as much as Eric Zemmour or Marine Le Pen’s ideals have.  

Eric Zemmour and Marine Le Pen are two candidates from the far right. Marine Le Pen party called National Rally is a party that since its creation, is above all an anti-immigration party, which advocates a significant reduction in legal immigration and the protection of French identity, as well as stricter control of illegal immigration. Eric Zemmour, candidate from the far right party is called Reconquête. Both Eric Zemmour and Marine Le Pen have divided France by their ideologies that are very different from the ones of current French President, Emmanuel Macron. 

Marine Le Pen ran against President Macron during the elections in 2017. These two candidates have struggled to reach their 500 sponsorships, and many fear that there is a chance that they will be elected. This will not only divide France but also Europe, as their goals are very different from the ones set by the current agenda that has been set up for the French Presidency of the Council of the European Union. For example, one of the main priorities of the French agenda is to protect European borders and create stability in the European Union; however, Zemmour wishes to build EU border wall to fight undocumented migration. Many are opposed to this idea, as it could potentially create instability and further divide in the European Union. 

The elections will occur right in the middle of France’s Presidency of the Council of the European Union, with ministers and a president who will have to campaign at some point, an effective French presidency of less than 3 months is expected. If there is a changeover in May, the new President and its ministers will have to take over the current files on the fly, but this may lead to conflicts with the current agenda, other members of the Council of the European Union, and other nations.

France’s agenda for the presidency of the Council of the European Union is very ambitious and progressive. However, the uncertainty around the French presidential elections may give rise to more challenges, and discussions after the presidency is over. As of right now, the fate of France and the Council is in the hands of the French voters.

A New Far-Right: How Éric Zemmour Stole Votes and Media Attention from Marine Le Pen throughout the French 2022 Presidential Election

The 2016 US presidential election may feel like a bygone era after several tumultuous years, but in France an eerily similar situation appears to be playing out reminiscent of Donald Trump’s rise to power.

 A mere six months ago Marine Le Pen, leader of France’s far-right party, the National Rally, appeared to be in a strong position for the upcoming French presidential election, despite her presidential loss in 2017. President Macron’s image and stronghold appeared to be failing thanks to his inability to control the ongoing pandemic and resentment over his tax policies and stance on immigration, whereas Marine Le Pen had maintained her supportive base, and used Macron’s failures to instigate disdain against him, thus growing her base.  

Yet in a series of events not unlike former President Trump’s campaign to the White House, another far-right candidate, Éric Zemmour, has entered into the French political arena. By many standards Éric Zemmour is a man of contradictions and hypocrisy, who has used his career as a journalist and author to routinely attack modern day French society. 

Who is Zemmour 

The son of Algerian, Jewish immigrants, Zemmour grew up in Paris where he started his career working as a newspaper journalist, before switching to radio and television. Zemmour’s main success comes from skills as a television presenter and author. He has mastered the art of controversy, routinely making xenophobic, racist, or sexist remarks, and yet frequently avoiding the social judgement that comes with his many convictions and fines of racial hatred. 

Zemmour’s Jewish identity has not prevented him from making anti-semitic public statements and promoting false statistics in regards to French complicity with the Vichy Regime of World War II. During a segment on CNews (a French far-right TV channel), Zemmour falsely claimed that Vichy sought to protect French Jews throughout the War, despite there being no such evidence to support this statement. Zemmour appears to show no recognition or connection to the immigrant experience of his parents, notoriously claiming that unaccompanied migrant children were essentially “rapists” and “murderers.”  

Zemmour’s appeal stems from a variety of skills and political tactics that he has manipulated throughout the election process. His provocative statements have struck a chord with voters, similar to the way Trump won over support in 2016 by saying the unsayable. Additionally, Zemmour’s status as a public figure, not a former politician, has helped him present himself as an alternative to the routine figures seen within the French political system. As the son of immigrants, a Jew, and alumnus of the elite SciencesPo university Zemmour is able to navigate a variety of identities that he can use as a form of protection against criticism. His Jewish identity has enabled him to make antisemitic comments without fearing reproach, and his academic prowess has given him a seat at the table amongst the other intellectual elites of his generation. The complexity of Zemmour’s character and identity allows him to attract a variety of voters from diverse backgrounds, but his best trait according to French voters? He is not Marine Le Pen. 

Le Pen’s weaknesses

Despite bringing the National Rally Party into the French presidential arena, Le Pen has struggled to shake off the image that is routinely associated with her and her party. The French have become accustomed to the National Rally party, ever since its creation in the late seventies. Under her father, Jean Marie Le Pen, the party achieved political success, but it was known mostly for its scandals and provocative political tactics. Since taking over the party from her father in the early 2010’s, Le Pen has done her best to modernize the National Rally, even going so far as to change its name from the National Front to the National Rally. She lost badly to Macron in the final round of the 2017 presidential election, but France was still forced to admit she had taken the party to new heights. Yet for all her efforts Le Pen has been unable to shake the older image of the National Rally; her usage of modern far-right political issues, such as promoting anti-immigration discourse and populist sentiments have resonated with voters, but her party is still seen as it was during her father’s reign when the National Rally represented Holocaust denial and pension reform. Ultimately, Zemmour’s biggest advantage stems from the fact that he has no association with Le Pen or the National Rally party. He represents the new French far-right, and thus can use his clean slate as a tool for success. 

Throughout his campaign Zemmour has frequently either ignored or humiliated Le Pen. He has declared himself to be the only true far-right candidate, insisting that Le Pen has betrayed France by embodying the centrist right. He also exploited tensions within Le Pen’s own party by welcoming former National Rally figureheads to his campaign, such as Jérôme Rivière and Gilbert Collard who were former spokespeople for the National Rally. Marine Le Pen’s own father, Jean Marie Le Pen (who has a fractured relationship with her) has shown little family loyalty in an interview where he declared himself to be both sympathetic and supportive of Zemmour. The former leader of the National Rally also emphasized when he sees as an advantage of Zemmour: “The only difference between me and Mr. Zemmour is that he’s a Jew, so it’s difficult to qualify him as a Nazi or a Fascist…That gives him great freedom » Jean Marie Le Pen’s comment also acknowledges the inconfortable the truth that many have been reluctant to admit: Part of Zemmour’s success in being viewed as a legitimate far-right candidate is that his Jewish identity gives him a minority status that protects him from political and cultural reproach. Zemmour can be critized for racism, sexism, and xenophobia, but he does not have to deny associations of Nazism, unlike many other current and former far-right politicians who are known for their fascist associations. Le Pen is thus facing both the expected reality of a tense political election between rival candidates, but also dealing with the unexpected betrayal of her party members. 

Zemmour’s triumph over Le Pen also stems from the political image that he has artfully crafted throughout his campaign. Both Le Pen and Zemmour have frequently drawn upon figures from France’s past throughout their campaigns, as they paint the picture of a return to the time when France ruled the continent. Le Pen has frequently evoked the image of Joan of Arc, presenting herself as a modern savior of France. With a pension for historical myths and legends, Le Pen often emphasizes France and Joan of Arc as a historical symbol of Christianity and purity in a modern and corrupted world. However Zemmour has taken a more modern historical approach, modeling himself off another « hero » of French history: resistance leader and former president, Charles de Gaulle. 

Zemmour as De Gaulle 

Despite his far-right politics, Zemmour’s video announcement of his 2022 presidential campaign showed an intense correlation with Charles De Gaulle’s famous speech calling for the liberation of France during World War II. Zemmour declares his presidential bid in the video while reading into an old fashioned microphone while barely making eye contact with the camera. The imagery is intense and reflects the exact movements of Charles De Gaulle in his famous speech on resistance, recognizable all across France. Zemmour’s decision to portray himself as Charles de Gaulle may appear to be an unlikely choice, given the two men’s differing political viewpoints (gaullism, a mixture of populisc liberalism and conservatism versus Zemmour’s obvious populism), but by aligning himself with one of France’s most well known and well respected war time leaders, Zemmour is convincing viewers of his legitimacy. Zemmour has succeeded in aligning himself with historical figures in a way that Marine Le Pen has not. While Le Pen has sought to reshape France into its mythical past of glory and tradition, Zemmour has focused on celebrating contemporary concrete history - a tactic that has clearly resonated with voters.

Zemmour also models himself off of more recent leaders, such as Donald Trump. Although he possesses the sophistication and vocabulary that former President Donal Trump notoriously lacked, Zemmour’s speeches reveal similar themes to Trump’s. During a speech in December, Zemmour stated that “We are a great nation, a great people. Our glorious past presages our future. Our soldiers conquered Europe and the world!” He added later that, “we will be worthy of our ancestors. We will not allow ourselves to be dominated, turned into vassals, conquered, colonized. We will not allow ourselves to be replaced.” Through his speeches Zemmour reveals the same populist tactics that won over millions of Americans in 2016.

Uniting the far and center right 

Zemmour has also succeeded in ways that Le Pen has failed to do through his ability to unite the center and far-right. Thanks to his pedigree, educational background, and magnetism, Zemmour is able to establish himself as a legitimate intellectual and man of culture. He has the academic credentials that allow him to remain within the status quo, which is a useful tool when appealing to the more traditionally conservative and rigid center-right. Le Pen has never succeeded in this field, due to issues such as her gender, family history, and the national image of her party. However, thanks to the many aspects of his identity and political tactics, Zemmour can present himself as an antidote to the decades long tension between the far and center right. He offers voters on both sides the chance to unite for a populist candidate, because he can also guarantee center-right voters the promise of stability and status-quo that they are accustomed to. Zemmour has taken Le Pen’s weakest points and used them against her; in areas where she has failed, he has won. It is no wonder that the two candidates would have such strong feelings against each other. Earlier this month in an interview for Figaro, Le Pen accused Zemmour of attempting to “kill” the National Rally, depicting him as a man who seeks destruction along with victory. Yet her intense feelings on Zemmour also reveal a harsh truth for the National Rally: Zemmour has beaten Le Pen at her own game.

A Case to Update How America Measures Poverty

Millions of Americans experience poverty each day. The idea to measure poverty for the purpose of allocating government resources came about in the 1960’s during Lyndon B. Johnson’s “War on Poverty.” The Office of Economic Opportunity needed a statistical measurement and relied on Mollie Orshansky at the Social Security Administration to provide that equation. In 1967, the United States government officially adopted Orshansky’s measurement as the Official Poverty Measure. With this measure, the government created a threshold of who – based on income – qualifies as experiencing poverty and who does not. The Poverty Threshold is the minimum amount of income needed to avoid poverty, and that threshold can vary for families of different sizes, ages, and members. However, for each size of a family, the threshold throughout the U.S. is constant. For example, in 2018 the Poverty Threshold for a single person was $13,064, but that number will alter when evaluating a family of four. The measurements and subsequent thresholds are used to determine eligibility for government services and track trends in poverty. However, there has been little change to how poverty is measured in the United States since the 1960’s, despite how greatly the nation’s economic context has changed. Therefore, poverty in the United States has been mismeasured for years. There are changes that can be made to the poverty measurement in order to account for needs in the 21st century, and to include those who were previously excluded from the equation.

The Current Poverty Measurement

The measurement that President Johnson’s administration created compared pre-tax income of a family unit to three times the minimum food basket of 1963. To gauge the economic makeup of the country, the Official Poverty Measurement draws upon data from the Current Population Survey Annual Social and Economic Supplement, where 100,000 households are surveyed annually during the months of February, March, and April. However, the income that is calculated within the poverty measurement is not just income earned from work. According to the United States Census Bureau, income can include: “Earnings, Unemployment compensation, Worker’s Compensation, Social Security, Supplemental Security Income, Public Assistance, Veteran’s Payments, Survivor Benefits, Pensions, Interest, Dividends, Rents, Royalties, Income on estates, Trusts, Educational assistance, Alimony, Child support, and other qualifying sources. Qualifying income in comparison to the average annual cost of food is adjusted for inflation using the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPRI Urban), meaning that “it measures the changes in the price basket of goods and services purchased by all urban customers.” Therefore, changes in an urban family’s regular spending habits are accounted for, but expensive expenditures and geographic diversity are not.

This measurement accounts for 88% of the United States population but does not adequately account for sudden and costly expenditures: such as healthcare.  However, some analysts suggest adjusting poverty measurements to the Chain Consumer Price Index. The Peter G. Peterson Foundation “argues that the chained CPI provides a more accurate estimate of the changes in the cost of living by reducing the substitution bias, which occurs when consumers substitute one good for another as prices rise.”  The Chained CPI reflects what people buy before and after a price change, and therefore can provide a more accurate estimate of poverty in the United States based on how people are able to withstand economic changes: to not fall under the poverty threshold.

Gaps in the Official Poverty Measurement

The current threshold is created based upon if a family falls above or below the Official Poverty Measure. One’s total income is taken and divided by the threshold. While this measure heavily relies on food, it is not an adequate representative of how a family in 2022 allocates their funds. The Annie E. Casey Foundation notes that while families previously spent one-third of their budget on food in 1963, it is certainly not the case anymore as housing; utility; and technological cost put a heavier burden on American families. Due to holes in the poverty measurement itself, poverty within the United States is under-estimated and therefore excludes many individuals from obtaining fiscal assistance.

One reason that poverty is under-estimated in the United States is that many people experiencing poverty are ignored in official government measurements. When calculating pre-tax income, non-family housemates are calculated separately than the rest of the family, skewing the scale of need. Furthermore, those in institutions such as prisons, nursing homes, college dormitories, military barracks, foster homes, and experiencing homelessness are not surveyed at all in the poverty measurement: leaving out many who are in need. Additionally, the measurement fails to gage the depth of income. The Official Poverty Measurement has not kept pace with the changes in healthcare policies, tax regulations, and other laws. Furthermore, it fails to account for other social programs families receive such as the Child Tax Credit and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). However, one of the core issues opponents note with the Official Poverty Measurement is how there is no variation amongst geographic regions. The cost of living in a rural area is not the same as in a city. For this reason, the lack of geographic variation within the poverty measurement is one of its main faults.

Supplemental Poverty Measure

The federal government has known about gaps in the Official Poverty Measure since only a few years after it was created. However, research is conducted continuously in order to keep up with a rapidly changing economy. In 1970, members of the Census Bureau, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and the Department of Health and Human Services formed the Interagency Poverty Task Force to re-evaluate how the United States measures poverty. In 1990, the National Academies of Sciences met again to evaluate the true scope of poverty in the United States. After finding a higher rate of poverty than the Official Poverty Measurement, the Supplemental Poverty Measurement was created. The Supplemental Poverty Measurement accounts for modern needs in a way that the Official Poverty Measurement does not. It includes expenses for food, clothing, shelter, and utilities. Additionally, the equation makes geographic adjustments and benefits, which is one of the core issues with the original measure. The equation adds cash income and non-cash benefits and subtracts work expenses; medical expenses, and child support from the previous total.

However, this new equation is not a full-proof solution. First, the Supplemental Poverty Measure does not account for the value of benefits. For example, one’s housing unit may not be stable, and access to healthcare does not mean that an individual has a comprehensive plan. Another concern is that the new measurement is prone to human error due to its base in a family’s spending habits and its data collection method. It is based on survey results, which may not be accurate. The American Enterprise Institute suggests that a new poverty measure “will use administrative data to improve the accuracy of survey responses, include a fuller set of resources, reflect actual spending, and recognize some of the issues regarding poverty thresholds.” Finally, there are advantages to living in a high-cost urban area, such as access to more job opportunities and diverse culture. Overall, the concerns with the Supplemental Poverty Measure come from the quality of living being quantified.

Despite its errors, the Supplemental Poverty Measure takes steps closer to truly understanding poverty in the United States. It accounts for a family’s average expenditures over five years, rather than annually. With knowing how many people  and expenditures are excluded from the Official Poverty Measure, the higher poverty rate the new methodology uncovers is widely accepted as a more realistic measure. Furthermore, it gives critical insight to social and economic patterns to further understand how poverty touches American lives.

Moving Forward

Four out of every ten Americans cannot financially manage a $400 emergency such as an ambulance ride, flood, or car accident. Before the COVID-19 pandemic, 50 million Americans faced food insecurity, with that number rising since the start of the pandemic. With 43.3% of Americans identifying as poor or low-income, a measurement that under-estimates poverty makes it seem like an odd socio-economic phenomenon, further stigmatizing the experience: which is harmful.

In a modern economy, Americans pick up more than one job to keep their family above the poverty threshold. With food taking up less than a quarter of a household’s budget, a modern measure is needed to adapt to a changed economy. Shawn Fremstad, a senior policy fellow at the Center for Economic Policy and Research, states that “A better, more modern measure of poverty would set the threshold at half of median disposable income — that is, median income after taxes and transfers, adjusted for household size, a standard commonly used in other wealthy nation.” This is because median income changes faster than the rate of inflation, so a new measure based upon those estimates can keep up with the changing economy more than the current measurement can. Flexibility and inclusivity are key going forward.

Conclusion

An understanding of poverty in the United States is critical to create policy that helps those experiencing it. Policymakers need to recognize that poverty touches every aspect of an individual’s life, from housing to school and healthcare. A new and improved poverty measurement must consider the aforementioned different aspects of poverty, as well as the different groups of people experiencing it — such as those excluded from the Official Poverty Measurement and diverse geographic factors. Without a change in how poverty is measured, the standards of living for an individual can decline without acknowledgement, and they can be barred from crucial social programs. The poverty measure has a long and stagnant history in the American economy, and it is worth the effort to question where there is room for improvement, so more people can thrive.

Bodhissatva of Compassion: The Dalai Lama and the Convergence of Politics and Religion

Introduction

History is no stranger to the connection between religious and political authority. Whether one chooses to study the vast tomes of European literature or the oracle bones of ancient China, they will inevitably discover a clear link between rulers and the religions their subjects practiced. Multiple European monarchs were declared “Defenders of the Faith” for upholding the virtues of Christian exceptionalism, and although the Venice of today betrays the history of Catholic political coordination, the Papal States often directly influenced the political affairs of most European states whether Catholic or otherwise. Most Chinese rulers derived their power from the “Mandate of Heaven”—a justification both material and divine for the rule of the emperor—which spread in various capacities to additional Asian nation-states like Korea, Japan, and Vietnam. These examples are far from isolated, and they serve as only the most popularly known iterations of this “divine right of kings”. But while the monarchs of the Renaissance or antiquity might have recognized a clearer bridge between religious and political life, most modern states have adopted secular models of governance. Disregarding vocal evangelical or traditionalist voting blocs, most living in the developed world would be shocked to witness presidents, prime ministers, or governors  proclaiming themselves to be representatives of some spiritual presence.

Of course, there are always exceptions to the rule. Iran, officially the Islamic Republic of Iran, is a functional theocracy, having been established by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini as a Shi’ite state. Iran’s constitution begins by lauding the god of Islam, dedicating all that follows from the start to “Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful.” The state of Iran exists, both intentionally and in practice, as an Islamic state, with a criminal justice system influenced heavily by sharia (Islamic) law and an inextricable link between political and religious life. Likewise, the aforementioned Holy See operates in a similarly theocratic manner, with the Pope possessing near-unilateral control of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches ex officio. Although the Vatican City technically operates as an independent, secular entity, its bylaws are almost directly decided by the Pope and the College of Cardinals. In both instances, Iran and the Vatican officially acknowledge the Ayatollah and Pope respectively as holy men who either directly or indirectly commune with the divine. Although these states are rare, they are far from nonexistant. Furthermore, these states often grant extreme power to the highest executive  official, allowing them not only to influence the faithful, but over the administrative system as well.

One of the leading deviations from this trend is the 14th Dalai Lama: Tenzin Gyatso. Born in 1940 shortly before the conclusion of the Chinese civil war, Tenzin has largely lived the life of a refugee, having fled from China in 1959 following the suppression of the Tibetan national uprising in Lhasa and remaining in India ever since. The path of Gyatso’s life has been a winding one, with his aims, goals, and intentions shifting as the political situation in Tibet and China itself has changed. Many know the Dalai Lama as a figure of personal spirituality and religious charity, similar to Mother Theresa in his achievements and contributions. To critics, his writings are commonly associated with the “lukewarm Buddhists” and  “dharma-hoppers” of Western Buddhism, encouraging a lifestyle free of obligation to one’s self or others and prevailing the “self-help book epidemic” of other faux-enlightenment figures like Joel Osteen. Despite this apathetic or outright scathing view of Gyatso, for Tibetan Buddhists and Chinese government officials, the nature of his position as Dalai Lama runs far deeper. In fact, it is quite possible that his life—and more importantly his death—could rock the very foundation of Tibet more than any individual alive today. Questions thus remain: what exactly is the Dalai Lama? Why did he need to flee in 1959, and why has he refused to return to his homeland? What are the political implications of his inevitable demise, for Tibet and elsewhere?

In attempting to answer these questions, and others, I wish to explicitly state that I am neither Buddhist nor Tibetan, and my knowledge of the Dalai Lama and Tibet stem only from self-study. While I source my statements, I acknowledge that there is doubtlessly information which I have missed and cultural dynamics which may go over my head. However, in presenting this topic, I not only aim to educate readers about a niche concept within foreign policy, but also to provide an outsider, third-party account of the Dalai Lama affair.

Life After Death: Reincarnation and the Nature of the Dalai Lama

It is first important to understand the lineage of the Dalai Lama and how his divine nature manifests. Buddhism is, to most, a religion of “undesirable reincarnation”: meaning that individuals are trapped within the cycle of death and rebirth (known as samsara) until they achieve nirvana or spiritual enlightenment. Much of Buddhist scripture revolves around this process of samsara, with the centuries-old Bardo Thodol—known in the West as the Tibetan Book of the Dead—describing how an individual should and must react during death to achieve total enlightenment. Across the Middle East, East Asia, and Oceaniac islands, Buddhism has taken many shapes and forms, with various sects borrowing aspects of Christianity and Islam. Likewise, Buddhism has had a deep influence on the history and development of modern Hinduism, Jainism, and many other Central and South Asian religions, and has itself been influenced by these faiths. For example, the idea of dharma—or a virtuous life—is cited to have originally appeared in Hindu texts but was later adopted by Buddhists to mean following the doctrine of the Buddhist teachers.

Bearing this in mind, the various interpretations of Buddhism mean that certain denominations believe that individuals may consciously choose to continue the cycle of rebirth after achieving enlightenment for the purpose of guiding fellow Buddhists to achieve moksha (freedom from samsara). These tulka (or tulku singular) as they are known are not trapped within the cycle, but instead opt to reincarnate into another person in order to forever distribute their wisdom and understanding of nirvana. When applied to the Dalai Lama, this specifically refers to his status as tulku, a reincarnated host body of the bodhissatva (Buddhist teacher) Avalokiteshvara. Technically, no historically-accepted source confirms that Avalokiteshvara ever truly existed as all writings concerning his (or her in some accounts) life derive from spiritual sources. However, this wealth of textual accounts confirms at least that his status within the Tibetan school of Buddhism—known traditionally as a branch of Vajrayana Buddhism—has been long-revered, with a majority of Tibetan Buddhists accepting the Dalai Lama as the reincarnation of this divine figure. To some then, the nature of this high status might at first appear puzzling. Is Avalokiteshvara a human or god? As such, is the Dalai Lama then a human or god?

When asked whether being perceived as a divine figure was a burden or a blessing, the Dalai Lama responded that “It is very helpful.” This answer reveals a few layers of the Dalai Lama’s importance as both a religious figure and a political leader. On the one hand, given that Avalokiteshvara was an enlightened human who chose to continue samsara, their reincarnation means that the Tibetan authority derives from the material world. Furthermore, with Avalokiteshvara being described as originating from Tibet, this meant the ultimate authority of Tibet could only derive from a Tibetan. On the other hand, because Avalokiteshvara is simultaneously human and a mythical figure with divine background and seemingly-inaccessible levels of enlightenment, this means that the Dalai Lama is unique among modern theocratic figures in that he is essentially the reincarnation of a god. Thus, Tibetan political organization is somewhat similar to the aforementioned Chinese “Mandate of Heaven”. Decrees, policies, or wisdom revealed by the Dalai Lama cannot be questioned because they are officially the ordained words of a divine bodhissatva.

It should be noted that the process for revealing the next Dalai Lama has differed throughout the hundreds of years since the third Dalai Lama’s appointment in 1543. This Dalai Lama, Sonam Gyatso, posthumously appointed two predecessors to be his past lives and officially began the lineage of the Dalai Lama. From Sonam, an esoteric procedure was established, where the Dalai Lama, on his deathbed, would foresee the birthplace of his successor tulku. Traditionally, the dreams, visions, and predictions of other high lamas—that is to say the Dalai Lama’s spiritual and political advisors—additionally influenced this operation. Scholars have long commented on the unique dynastic relationship in the Tibetan case, since unlike elsewhere, the Dalai Lama was not based on genetic lineage. As the Dalai Lama has reflected, the process of choosing a Dalai Lama has an egalitarian and indirectly democratic manner of selection. Although some tulkus have originated from those coincidentally close to the high lamas who would have the final say in choosing the next Dalai Lama, most have come from humble beginnings. All have exhibited varying degrees of administrative competence and interpretation of their role as a governmental figure, and this is owed to all coming from different backgrounds and families.

The Dalai Lama and the CCP

All of this being said, a reader might now competently predict the widespread concern over the inevitable selection of the 15th Dalai Lama following the death of the reigning one. While Tibetans had worried for decades over the future of the Dalai Lama’s succession, the Chinese government made official in 2011 that the monastic process of selection would no longer be officially considered. Only Beijing would have the power to select another Dalai Lama, and any other successor candidates would not be considered. But why has the CCP directed intense attention toward the Dalai Lama’s reincarnation? How has the government justified this action, and how has the 14th Dalai Lama responded? More than anything, is there any substantial evidence to suggest that the Chinese government will follow through with its promises? Or are these simply empty threats that the CCP will allow to turn-over upon the passing of the current Dalai Lama?

First, an understanding of Chinese authority over Tibet is necessary to understand the two entitites’ relationship. China holds a long and arduous history with Tibet, but the modern administration over Tibet began in January, 1950, when the Maoist government—freshly in control of mainland China—declared that it would “liberate” Tibet from the yoke of the Dalai Lama. In fairness, there is worthwhile evidence to suggest that life under the Dalai Lama at this time was not beneficial for many Tibetans. As Sorrell Neuss from The Guardian argues: “feudalism and abuse in Tibetan culture has been conveniently forgotten.” From 1913 up to firm Chinese control over Tibetan affairs in 1951, many sources claim that the Drepung Monestary (the controlling monestary of Tibet) enforced a primitive system of serfdom which placed the Tibetan commoners into servitude for the state. A plethora of documented evidence exists which points to medieval-styled torture practices for those who disobeyed the high lamas, with criminals occassionally having their eyes gouged out or their arms forcibly amputated depending on the severity of the wrongdoing. As such, the arrival of the PLA in Lhasa in 1950 was not received entirely negatively, for although Drepung had raised levies against Chinese forces, many wished to see the government go.

Unfortunately, as current critiques toward Chinese rule reveal, the process of “Hanification”—that is, the ostensible ethnic migration and social change of non-Han Chinese territories—has been far from a net positive. Some credit should be given to the Chinese, as with any authoritarian state, in partially uplifting the conditions of the Tibetan people. At the time of occupation, life-expectancy was only 36 years and over 95% of the population was illiterate. Not only did this create a legitimately-sourced moral obligation to the Chinese, it allowed officials to express the factual shortcomings of the Dalai Lama’s rule. Shortly after its incorporation into the PRC, these failures and others were fixed by educating the population and introducing modern medicine to the region. Industrial development and the construction of novel infrastructure—from hospitals to paved roads—brought unparalleled levels of prosperity to the region. To its credit, China has continued to introduce the amenities and and pleasures of modernity to Tibet. As of 2021, the CCP had even pledged $30 billion USD to the development of a 435 kilometer (roughly 270 mile) long high-speed railway linked to Lhasa across the Tibet region.

But even under the USSR did literacy increase. As with the introduction of most authoritarian rulers—regardless of their race, ideology, or intentions—not all Tibetans gained from the occupation. The first to face drastic change were the Phala nomadic peoples of Western Tibet, who were furthest from Beijing’s grasp and had long enjoyed the freedom of their livelihood. Following an uprising in Lhasa in 1959—which formally drove the Dalai Lama and his supporters into exile—the CCP began a full-scale revision of the Tibetan way of life, including for the pastoral Tibetans of the west. Under the rogre (“mutual aid”) system, poor households—which included nomadic peoples unaccustomed to agriculture—were forced (often under threat of violence) into sedentary units to increase crop yields. This is only a glimpse into the way the CCP has drastically altered the lifestyle of many Tibetans, and not always for a net positive. As late as August, 2021, during a celebration of the CCP’s 70th anniversary of rule over Tibet, Beijing insisted on the Tibetan way of life being discarded to adopt a lifestyle more “Chinese in orientation.”

In practice, the consequences for refusing this “Chinese-oriented” lifestyle have been imprisonment, torture, and even death. One of the more notable victims of this refusal include Choekyi Gyaltsen, the 10th Panchen Lama—another theocratic figure who will be brought up later—who directly opposed Chinese rule. In response, Chinese authorities stripped him of all power, declared him an “enemy of the people of Tibet”, humiliated him (both verbally and physically), and forced him to disavow his faith in a public letter. Similar stories happened to hundreds to thousands of Tibetan Buddhists who refused to renounce their religion and heritage. This treatment has continued up until today, as human rights organizations continue to report a failure on behalf of Chinese officials to uphold freedom of religion, press, movement, and assembly. Materially, Tibetan protestors have repeatedly complained about the frequency of local Beijing-appointed officials simply disregarding Tibetan rights and property. Land-grabs are increasingly common, and numerous reports have surfaced of land being sold away for mining rights without small-scale owners’ permission. These mines have resulted in the desecration of Tibetan land and ecosystems, as improper lithium and gold mining have stripped the land of its former beauty. Clearly, the situation is a complicated one, with a variety of arguments for and against Chinese rule over Tibet.

Based on Prescedent: The Story of the Panchen Lama

What does this all mean for the Dalai Lama? Ultimately, aside from the abuses under the high lamas’ rule in the early-mid 20th century—during which Tenzin Gyatso was only a child and had no official power—it is clear that Chinese rule over Tibet is far from an objective good for all parties. But unfortunately, these reports are far from anything new for those interested in the history of human rights under the CCP. As this article from Helen Davidson at The Guardian makes evident, contemporary concerns over rights abuses in China are not only limited to Tibet, but also to Outer Mongolia, Hong Kong, Xinjiang, and elsewhere. What is it about the Dalai Lama situation that makes it unique?

As stated previously, the biggest fear concerning the Dalai Lama as a political figure for Tibetan Buddhists, and specifically his cycle of reincarnation, is that the CCP is likely to tamper with the results of the process. As Krithika Varagur from Foreign Policy put it in her article “The Coming Fight for the Dalai Lama’s Soul”: “There is no question about this: There will be two candidates for the next Dalai Lama.” Considerations surrounding who exactly will succeed Tenzin Gyatso as Dalai Lama have farther reaching implications than the perception from most Westerners that the position’s opening will not matter in the grand scheme of things. After all, why would Buddhists or Hindus care about the death or abdication of a pope? But it is not only that his death will bring about a time of mourning for many Buddhists, but there is evidence to suggest that the Chinese Communist Party will interfere with the process by proclaiming their “own” Dalai Lama and raising him to support the state and its actions in Tibet.

One of thes best ways to illustrate the likelihood of this is to explain the series of events which surrounded the aforementioned 10th Panchen Lama’s succession following his death in 1989. To digress, the very circumstances surrounding his passing are looked at from some Tibetans with suspicion, as Choekyi Gyaltsen died of a heart attack aged 50 just five days after delivering a speech in which he stated that the “price paid for [Tibet’s] development has been greater than the gains.” Choekyi’s status as Panchen Lama—being the tulku reincarnation of the buddha Amitabha and effectively the second-highest position in the Tibetan Buddhist administration—left a vacuum similar to that which the Dalai Lama might  leave following his passing. As both Choekyi and Tenzin had long feared, two separate Panchen Lamas were discovered in 1995: Gyaincain Norbu and Gedhun Choekyi Nyima.

Gedhun was appointed first by the Dalai Lama as the official successor to Choekyi on May 14th, 1995. In one of the most flagrant examples of CCP corruption, Chinese authorities apprehended Gedhun Nyima and his parents just four days later, citing “concern” that the family might be kidnapped by “Tibetan separatists”. To this day, neither Gedhun Nyima nor his parents have contacted anyone outside of China, nor have they appeared alive in television appearances or documented journals. According to CCP officials, as of 2020, Gedhun is claimed to be living as a “college graduate with a stable job” and has refused to accept his ordained position, arguing that he was never the chosen candidate. Gyaincain—known by his religious name Qoigyijabu—was selected on December 8th, 1995, much to the chagrin of most Tibetans, especially those living abroad. As expected, Gyaincain has repeatedly upheld Beijing’s ideology and statements, condemning an anti-CCP protest in Lhasa in 2010, claiming that it was detrimental to national unity. More recently, Gyaincain expressed pro-socialist sentiment, urging Tibet to “sinicize” in order to modernize by embracing the PRC.

Thus, the story of the Panchen Lama’s succession stands as a bleak indicator of what could be to come for the Dalai Lama. Theories range wildly around the identity and current place of Gedhun Nyima. It is entirely possible that he is alive as the CCP insists, and it is equally possible that he and his family were unfortunately murdered by the government, as is the fate of many political prisoners in China. Some have theorized that, assuming Gedhun is alive, that he is being kept healthy only to deter the Dalai Lama or any other influential Tibetan authorities from proclaiming another Panchen Lama aside from Gyaincain. In the event that a new Panchen Lama was announced, Gedhun could be released to the world, exposing the “falsification” of divine Tibetan authority, and thereby undermining the Buddhist powerbase that exists in Tibet today.

 Concluding Remarks: What is to Come

There is no doubt that the Chinese Communist Party will directly influence and decide the next Dalai Lama. Since Beijing’s promise to retain heavy oversight over the process in 2011, the process of selecting another Dalai Lama is almost guaranteed to be heavily biased in favor of the CCP and the Chinese paradigm. The death of any theocratic figure poses deep, complicated questions for the future of their religious adherents. It is vital to understand that the entire future of an independent—or at least autonomous—Tibet may hang in the very balance should the CCP choose to rig the selection process, as they clearly have previously. The United States must support the self-determination of the Tibetan people, as well as demand freedom or at least the truth behind what happened to Gedhun Nyima. In fighting for the liberation of the Tibetan people from Chinese oversight, and in demanding the inevitable selection of the next Dalai Lama be fair and transparent, there is hope for Tibetan Buddhism to maintain its stability and for Tibetans to regain control over their culture and destiny.

Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité...et “Un Passe Sanitaire?” How COVID-19 Vaccine Requirements Forced France to Reconcile its Values

The ongoing nature of the COVID-19 pandemic has forced nations across the world to examine their societal failings, as governments worldwide struggle to balance the need to protect their citizens with the need for personal freedom and a strong economy. While the United States experienced the ravages of the pandemic and the anger of its citizens early on, many European countries succeeded in holding the pandemic, and their citizens' tempers, at bay. France proves to be the perfect example of this phenomenon; the implementation of a strict lockdown policy, the “confinement” which closed businesses and schools, but also limited the periods in which individuals could be outside of their homes throughout the day, all succeeded in lessening the death toll compared with the United States and United Kingdom. 

However, the French government’s recent decision to implement vaccine requirements and vaccination proof has brought about tension and protest towards the government, previously unseen throughout the pandemic. For the first time, the French must question if their beloved national values align with the government’s actions. 

The “passe sanitaire” or French health pass is a compulsory health statement that proves the vaccinated status of an individual, or a negative COVID-19 test, within the past seventy two hours. The passe sanitaire also resembles similar “vaccine passports” seen across the world as both local and national governments attempt to achieve higher vaccination rates and protect their citizens. The passe sanitaire works in conjunction with France’s reopening plan for its economy and as part of the greater European Union’s border health control, a collaborative effort between EU member states to ensure that citizens are not bringing COVID-19 with them to various countries .  

Implemented for several reasons, the passe sanitaire has worked to increase the vaccination rates in France, through the establishment of the passe sanitaire as a ticket into everyday French life. A passe sanitaire is required for entry into restaurants, movie theaters, train and airplane travel, and the majority of public indoor spaces. French president, Emmanuel Macron, promised French citizens that vaccines would never become obligatory, with the exception of individuals in certain industries, however the pass sanitaire can feel obligatory since it serves as an entryway into French society. 

The French government’s decision to implement the pass sanitaire resembles other government’s decisions to create legislation that does not necessarily require vaccination, but “nudges” the population to receive the vaccine. Known as the Nudge Theory, this term describes how a population can be swayed to make decisions that are in their best interest through minor government reforms and policies that encourage citizens to make the choice that is in their best interest. By requiring a passe sanitaire to freely go about the activities of everyday life, the French government is nudging their population towards vaccination. 

The passe sanitaire can easily be described as a success. Since its implementation on July 12th 2021, vaccinations have increased dramatically, with over one million French citizens registering for vaccine appointments the day the passe sanitaire was announced. Vaccination rates rose dramatically in groups that were previously less likely to be vaccinated, such as adolescents and young adults. However despite the passe sanitaire’s success at achieving higher vaccination rates and imposing COVID-19 safety restrictions, the outlash and anger towards the government reveals that a deeper issue is lurking within French society. 

France’s famous revolutionary motto: Liberté, Égalité, et Fraternité (liberty, equality, and brotherhood) is a well known staple of French culture, so much so that evoking the phrase can appear cliché. However, the French mindset surrounding these three key pillars of society has shaped French values. Therefore, the implementation of the pass sanitaire can be viewed as a direct affront to this motto and the purpose it serves. 

Created in 1793 during the first French Revolution, the motto signified the end of the monarchy, the creation of French unity, and the establishment of democracy. The establishment of ‘Liberté’ drew from older notions of liberties, or the exemptions from rules or regulations certain groups within society could experience. Therefore liberty did not just signify freedom, but freedom from the choice to engage or not. Liberty did not just mean personal freedom, but also the right to exist in one's own space, away from the world at large, the acknowledgement of a separation between the individual and society. Maintaining this concept of liberty has been crucial to the French identity. Liberty is a dearly prized concept in French society, but according to a significant portion of the population the passe sanitaire is threatening to destroy French liberty and personal choice. Although the passe sanitaire does not make COVID-19 vaccinations a requirement, it does limit the participation of the unvaccinated in everyday life. Despite the obvious health benefits of the vaccine, at both an individual and national level, critics of the passe sanitaire believe that it threatens individual liberty and suggests the signs of a tyrannical government at work, which leaves the French with one obvious option: protest. 

Following the requirement of the passe sanitaire, hundreds of protests have sprung up around France, in all regions of the country as citizens gather in the streets from all sides of the political spectrum. The protests have remained largely peaceful, however they have revealed specific issues within French society and feelings toward President Macron that suggest a likely change in national interest towards the government.Widespread protests are not a new concept in France, and have played a role in the national identity since the original French Revolution, when the Bastille Prison was liberated by French citizens in 1789. The legacy of the event shaped French society for centuries to come, with monumental shifts in society and culture often happening as a direct result of protests. The protests and uprisings of 1968 turned into a cultural battle between Charles De Gaulle’s traditional French government and the anger of university students in Paris; these protests then transformed into national rallies, and the events of that year would witness a dramatic change in all levels of life, with government reforms, societal norms, and workers rights all undergoing massive development. The 1990’s saw successful results at the hands of French protesters when then prime minister, Alain Juppé, attempted to reform the French social security system, only to quickly back down after three weeks of protests.  More recently, the Yellow Vest movement in France has sparked strikes and protests against Macron’s pension reform and tax breaks for the wealthy, as rural pockets of France and poorer regions express outrage over what they believe are unfair benefits to urban elites. 

Unlike many other western countries, the French frequently achieve tremendous success when protesting, at both a cultural and legislative level. The French government has routinely been brought to its knees by the outrage of the French citizens, which has allowed protesting to become a key part of national identity. Taking to the streets is a way to ensure societal change and to prevent the government from becoming an authoritative, tyrannical regime; protesting is not solely a way to demonstrate outrage, as is frequently the case in allied countries like the United States and United Kingdom, but to shape policy and norms. However, the statistics of the protests would suggest that the majority of French citizens either tolerate or support the implementation of the passe sanitaire. In a country that is known for protesting, the large crowds do not suggest the same national anger as would be the case in other countries. Instead, it appears that there is a growing understanding of the importance of the passe sanitaire as a necessity for daily life and to protect others from COVID-19.

Each protestor has their own reasons for protesting, however there are common shared sentiments. The overlying feeling of the protesters is worry and fear that the passe sanitaire will take away from the personal liberty awarded to each French citizen by ultimately forcing them to get vaccinated. The concept of forced vaccination goes against both the nature of an individual’s right to choose and the right to privacy when it comes to the government’s knowledge of their citizens' health. France is a notoriously private country, and this national value is witnessed in everyday aspects of French culture and law. The simple tradition of closing one's shutters or the government’s refusal to collect data on the racial breakdown of their citizens both reflect an immense desire for privacy. However, issues over personal liberty and privacy are not the only reason driving the French to protest.

The political anger expressed at the Yellow Vest protests towards President Macron and the French government has only grown, and now anger at the implementation of the passe sanitaire is directly targeted towards the government. There is a great distrust and suspicion over the government’s decision to implement the passe sanitaire, with protestors feeling as though the French government is using the passe sanitaire as a means of control, as democracy threatens to be replaced by tyranny. Frustration over the passe sanitaire has manifested itself into different formats, as witnessed in the many protests. The use of symbols from history as a tactic to shock and inspire onlookers is not new, but recent instances reveal that protesters in France are frequently linking the implementation of the passe sanitaire and Macron with Hitler. Images of President Macron’s face embossed with a Hitler-esque moustache or the pinning of a yellow star onto one's shirt suggest a deliberate attempt to connect modern events with historical ones. Despite the blatant offensiveness of these actions, as well as the lack of similarity between the COVID-19 pandemic and the Nazi Regime, the overall effect is haunting and upsetting, suggesting a deep anger towards the French political establishment. 

A quick analysis of the multitude of opinions held reveals the true complexity of feelings surrounding the passe sanitaire. The protestors at these events come from all sides of the political spectrum, from the far left to the far right, a sharp contrast from protests in the United States which are often strictly bipartisan. Interviews with protestors from all sides reveal one shared fear: the threat of authoritarian government policy and the loss of ‘liberté’. One protester, who defines herself as a libertarian and anti-fascist activist, expressed outrage over seeing fellow passe sanitaire protesters associate the vaccination requirements with anti-semitic symbols and carrying the flags of the far-right in support. However despite the shared anger over the health pass and the decision to take to the streets together, there is little unity between the two groups. A far left protester described the separation of the two groups, saying: “We already knew it, but it confirms that my enemy's enemy is not necessarily my friend…” The primary motivations of the far-left protesters appear to be fear over the threat of a tyrannical government, and fear that the far-right will dominate this movement and turn issues of vaccination into a political issue that will serve to benefit them in the upcoming presidential election. The motivations of the far-right also reveal issues with the threat of a tyrannical government, but these protesters are also critiquing the French government’s response to COVID-19 in general, and their frustration at Macron’s Centrist policies. Emmanuel Hirsch, a medical ethics professor lamented over the government’s issue with implementing the passe santiare in an interview with Le Monde. Hirsch claims that Macron did not properly reflect upon the implementation of the passe sanitaire, claiming that this initiative could have been used to create a larger conversation about rebuilding trust in the government and in science. Instead, the passe sanitaire has only served to deepen the tensions between powerful institutions and French citizens. 

The lack of unity at these protests reveal that the French protestors have yet to establish a clear position on the passe sanitaire, simply using it as a symbol to fight against their own personal complaints against the government. The passe sanitaire may indeed be limiting France’s concept of liberté, but the greater issue is one of distrust and fear towards the government, something a vaccine cannot fix. 

Is the New Hampshire Primary Losing Its Importance in American Politics?

As the Democratic Party is wrapping up its primary cycle with former Vice President Joe Biden as their nominee, it’s easy for the average American to get lost in the whirlwind of over-complicated political jargon that’s thrown around by media outlets. Yet, at a time when the political climate has become increasingly divisive, it is important that Americans are aware of how their country’s political processes work so that they are ready to cast an informed vote in November.  

To grasp how the presidential election works, it is necessary to first understand the process by which a candidate is chosen to represent his or her party. This is the function of primaries. A primary is a preliminary election where voters of each party nominate candidates for office. Primaries play a huge role in helping unite a party behind one candidate. However, in recent years the primary process has come under fire with critics taking aim at the primary’s oversized influence in picking presidential candidates. One state in particular, New Hampshire, has been under scrutiny for its seemingly disproportionate influence on America’s presidential elections. To understand this criticism, New Hampshire’s history as the first primary state and the role that it plays in the fate of our nation’s elections must be examined.

New Hampshire’s status as the first primary state dates back to 1948 when Richard F. Upton, speaker of the state’s House of Representatives at the time, passed a law allowing citizens to vote directly for presidential candidates. This new law immediately received national attention, as New Hampshire was the first state to implement such a policy. In the state’s 1952 primary, Republican candidate Dwight D. Eisenhower won in an overwhelming victory. Eisenhower later went on to win the national election in a landslide victory, setting a precedent regarding the importance of New Hampshire’s primary.

Fast forward to the present day, and the importance of New Hampshire’s primary is clear to see. Since 1976, the state’s primary has predicted five of the ten eventual Democratic presidential nominees. Yet as of late, more people have grown critical of New Hampshire’s role in America’s elections. For one, New Hampshire’s population is over 93 percent White. In addition, the Black and Hispanic communities in the state only account for 4 percent and 2 percent of the population, respectively.

The racial composition of New Hampshire is a far cry from the demographic reality of the United States. As of 2019, people identifying as “White” make up 60.4 percent of the country’s population. The Hispanic and Black demographic followed behind, with 18.3 percent and 13.4 percent, respectively. Given this data, is New Hampshire truly reflective of the nation’s demographics?

The reality is that New Hampshire bears little resemblance to this increasingly diverse country. Given the influence that the state’s primary has on the national election, it might be time to reevaluate New Hampshire’s role in the United States electoral process.

Of course, this is not an attack on the citizens of New Hampshire. Some may argue that New Hampshire is a great state to hold the country’s first primary. After all, it is one of the most educated states in America, with 36 percent of adults holding a bachelor’s degree or higher, compared to the national average of 31 percent. In addition, New Hampshire has a relatively small number of voters, making it easy for grass-roots campaigns to gain traction and momentum. Combined with the state’s small, inexpensive media market, New Hampshire provides a healthy environment for candidates to connect personally with voters.

With that being said, New Hampshire’s lack of diversity is startling and shouldn’t be glossed over. As the United States becomes increasingly more diverse, it is hard to picture a future where New Hampshire resembles the countries’ demographics. As the United States finds itself in the midst of a new decade, Americans must embrace the unique opportunities and challenges that come with living in a diverse nation. The face of America is changing — and society must change with it.

When Art Imitates Death: A Look At Contemporary Aestheticized Politics

In a world that prides itself on the values of democracy, why are people all too willing to acquiesce their freedom to the state abandoning democracy with relatively little resistance? One might ask themselves such a question while observing Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi “effectively [bypassing] parliamentary [requirements]” to prematurely annex Kashmir whilst also maintaining a relatively high approval rating of 64 percent. One might also face such a dilemma when observing the apathy of the Filipino people to the “12,000 extrajudicial killings” under President Duterte, another strongman enjoying “record-high approval.” The key to understanding this cognitive dissonance might lie in a key phenomenon behind the historical rise of populist authoritarianism: the aestheticization of politics.

The aestheticization of politics is a concept first explored by political philosopher and cultural critic Walter Benjamin, who used it to serve as an explanation “for the seductive fascination of fascism.” The aestheticization of politics shifts the focus of politics to artistic expression rather than effective governance. The underlying danger behind the existence of this phenomenon is that it is more often than not abused by authoritarian regimes to apply “the grotesque impropriety of applying criteria of beauty to the deaths of human beings,” presenting any deaths as a result of injustice or tyranny as a small contribution to a profoundly artistic and pure national struggle in which suffering is appreciated as a normal and reasonable means to an end. Examples of aestheticized politics can be found being used to significant success in propaganda such as Leni Riefenstahl’s Nazi propaganda film, Triumph of the Will, as well as the various works of the fascist-sponsored Italian futurist movement, both of which detail a great struggle in which the purity of the human spirit is shown to be recognized through violent struggle against all that is degenerate, leaving its viewer feeling “threatened by extinction by images and a simulacra of reality.” It is then only a matter of time as repeated exposure to such media leads to death being seen as a mere fact of theatrics, and a society experiencing an “inhumane indifference to ethical... and moral considerations” of political action. 

Though the ideologies espoused by the societies Benjamin referred to when formulating his theory, Mussolini’s Italy and Hitler’s Germany, are by no means widely accepted today, the aestheticized political process that underpins their allure is just as present as ever: A blatant abuse of the aestheticization of politics is occurring within the Indian political sphere through Bollywood, the Indian film industry. For example, in the 2018 Bollywood film Baaghi 2, the protagonist, a stoic military man Ronny, grabs a man and “ties him to the front of his jeep and uses him as a human shield to get through a lane full of stone-pelters.” By this point in the film, viewers are more likely to see Ronny and his goal of rescuing his lover’s daughter in a noble light, leading them to glance over this ignobility. Viewers might recall, however, an event one year before the movie’s release, in which Kashmiri civilian Farooq Ahmed Dar was apprehended by the Indian military and subsequently “tied to the front bumper of a military jeep as it patrolled villages… serving as a human shield against stone-throwing crowds.” One must ask themselves if, by being shown a dramatized facsimile of the real atrocity in which the perpetrators are displayed as heroes, they would still view the event as a blatant abuse of human rights or as much of an inconsequential artistic display as the film, which went on to gross over $2 billion. 

President Duterte of the Philippines, another strongman often accused of demagogy, is equally as adept in aestheticizing politics, with the basis of his successful campaign being rooted in promises of keeping the streets safe and clean of drug lords. In this case, the aestheticization of politics is heavily facilitated due to the promise of visible benefits without the ethical violations that were the means to reach this end. While an outsider may observe the clean and drug-free streets of Manila and think well of Duterte, it is all to easy for the 12 to 20 thousand victims of violent police and paramilitary action in this pursuit to slip out of mind. 

The dangers of viewing the ramifications caused by political action as a mere byproduct of artistic expression has also taken its toll on the American political landscape, albeit not to a lethal degree. No words can provoke a more vivid image than “Build That Wall”, a long-running popular chant expressing support for the expansion and renovation of the US-Mexican border wall. Glaring problems with such a feat, such as the fact that over two thirds of illegal immigration comes from visa overstays as opposed to border crossings and the rapidly climbing estimates of the construction expenses reaching over $20 billion, are undermined by the aesthetic of an “immigration invasion” prevented only by an immovable wall protecting a rejuvenated nation. The preference of emotional appeal to pragmatic action is blatant in this aspect, and it is apparent that this political narrative of invasion is fueled by an all too human desire to gravitate towards struggle and redemption. One must not underestimate President Trump’s experience in conveying the appeal of such aesthetic struggles, as his past experience in the television industry ensures that he is seasoned in the art of subjugating reality for the purpose of media consumption. Benjamin noted in his observations of 20th century authoritarianism that much of the aesthetic appeal of a government comes from its film industry. With this in mind, one must take note of how President Trump’s allies within the film industry portray him. In the promotional image for his film Death of a Nation, Dinesh D’Souza presents an amalgam of the faces of both President Trump and President Lincoln. The association of Lincoln and his deeds to that of Trump are of great significance, as it has been theorized by Benjamin’s contemporaries that the conflation of an aesthetic conflation of a modern struggle to a previous one is a commonly used tactic in aestheticized politics. 

With the very real implications of a politics aestheticized posing a threat to the ero of modern democracy, it is apparent that the free nations of the world must take measures to ensure that it does not find its democratic foundations eroded by deceiving theatrics. To prevent a reality of harmful political action from being non-differentiable from media, the film industry is urged to avoid contracts entailing an artistic interpretation of violence for political means solicited by aspiring authoritarian entities. The film industry, often complicit in pushing the narratives of demagogues, must reevaluate this relationship lest they risk eroding the independent nature of the film industry, losing their autonomous nature, and resulting in both the producer and consumer being negatively impacted whilst their democracy is undermined. Individuals sympathetic to the democratic way of life must be mindful of the policies proposed by their legislators, ensuring that there is no hidden suffering masked by grand narratives of prosperity. The aestheticization of politics is, ultimately, unavoidable, and the burden lies on the citizens of their nation to remain mindful about separating the violent and political from the aesthetic and the abstract.

Self-Interest Well-Understood: A Doctrine in Need of Revival

“The freedom which we enjoy in our government extends also to our ordinary life. There, far from exercising a jealous surveillance of each other, we do not feel called upon to be angry with our neighbor for doing what he likes …” – Thucydides, Pericles’ funeral oration, 431 BCE

If one were to take a step back and observe the progression of American culture from its beginnings to modern day, a consistent trend of materialism, or more particularly individualism, would be evident. Certainly, there has always been a compulsion for Americans to become secluded into one’s own, focusing on their own interests, whether it be their careers, family, or wealth. Indeed, this phenomenon is not absent from American culture today. However, the recent rise of polarization across economic, political, and social spectrums in the United States, in tandem with this habitual individualism, is cause for alarm; turning inward and pursuing one’s own interests is now accompanied with perceptions of growing maliciousness towards those who remain outside of an immediate inner circle, like family or close friends. These outgroups could be distant and faceless individuals or even neighbors within a given community. With this growing tension between the private individual and their respective communities, it is essential to reexamine the value of individual and communal self-interests in order to find what is truly facilitating America’s divisive climate.

Before assessing American individualism with the contemporary trend of polarization, the social atmosphere of the United States at its founding should be examined; the population’s ancestral diversity and lack of roots formed communities that were particularly telling of the society’s unique sociological behavior. Through this behavior, Americans were an interesting breed to the rest of the world at the turn of the Nineteenth century. American citizens at this time wholly rejected the status quo of centralized rule and established their own colonies, social orders, and man-made institutions with the assistance of geographic isolation. Social assimilation was a spontaneous and organic process which was fueled by the diverse social climate. This contributed to the creation of a democracy that not only emphatically empowered the individual as the Framers envisioned but, also, attributed outstanding importance to communal associations. Moreover, there was a reluctance to willingly cede responsibility beyond these associations to governing authorities, due to the oppressive shadow that the British empire had left on the colonies as well as other driving factors like religious work ethic. These factors, among other influences such as the equal access to socioeconomic mobility, primed materialism to become imbued into the mores of American culture. It is here that materialism reveals itself as a motivating influence within American society; however, the sentiment of individualism has the potential to quickly follow and remains a looming threat to shared communal responsibilities.

There is perhaps no other thinker that has elaborated more on this topic than social and political thinker Alexis de Tocqueville. It was Tocqueville –  a Frenchman – who came to the United States in 1831 and marveled at America’s unique culture. His work, Democracy in America, although parsing many aspects of American democracy, observed the average township’s rejection of centralized authority as well as the culture’s emphasis on the individual, his interests, and the ability to accord it well with others. Tocqueville’s ideas are especially critical of the potential ill-effects of individualism, namely that of utter neglect for those outside of one’s immediate associations. He, more importantly, observed how Americans combatted these ill-effects with the idea of “la doctrine de l’intérêt bien entendu,” or the doctrine of self-interest well understood. This doctrine held that virtue – one of happiness and usefulness – need not be found entirely in one’s pursuit of their own interests, but rather finding where it overlaps with their neighbors in their own pursuits. It awakens elements of discipline and moderation while still pursuing one’s own personal interests.

Although Tocqueville remains rather abstract in describing this phenomenon, the doctrine of self-interest well understood has very practical applications. For instance, imagine a suburban neighborhood during a snowy winter. As snow begins to fall one morning, the members of a neighborhood put their shovels to good use. At first they prioritize their porches and driveways and gradually work toward the public sidewalks and streets. Each neighbor understands, and is obliged to uphold, their responsibility to the community, despite the sidewalks and streets being public domain. In turn, they commit their share of shoveling accordingly along with their fellow neighbors. Alternatively, each neighbor could shovel their own respective property, as one consumed with individualism would be inclined to do, and relinquish the shared responsibility of shoveling public sidewalks and streets to a governing authority – a dangerous potentiality that Tocqueville’s refers to as “soft despotism.” Although this example is exaggerated and in some sense romanticized, it captures the essence of what Tocqueville articulates in his writing. The shared responsibilities of neighbors, despite implying sacrifice, are useful to the individual and the community when faced with certain everyday obstacles, like unplowed rows. The result, in this case, is cleared sidewalks and streets for every community member to use. Yet, the threat of individualism continuously compels neighbors to delegate these shared responsibilities to government authorities, which has the potential to expand and even exploit these communal responsibilities – which is where one can understand American culture today.

The notion that contemporary American culture has succumbed to soft despotism is unsurprising, as Tocqueville understood this trend as characteristically organic to democracies. As time passed, Americans began to prefer having increasingly less public responsibilities, and consequently began to focus their efforts inward. Today, American society accepts that the government retains a sizable amount of responsibilities, such as public welfare and infrastructure. Despite this, the attributes of American society that Tocqueville notes in his travels are still relevant and impactful. His observations describe his understanding of American “social theory” extensively, isolating the qualities that establish America as “a society possessing no roots, no memories, no prejudices, no routine, no common ideas, no national character, yet with a happiness a hundred times greater than ours [France’s] … How are they welded into one people? By a community of interests.” It is not outlandish to think this of America’s current culture, for it continues to embody a diversity of race, ethnicity, language, and opinion. The divergence from this social theory, however, is revealed as soft despotism overtakes communities. What Tocqueville failed to speculate was the potential influence that negative externalities can have within a modern democracy, most notably mass media and social media, each having the ability to penetrate the individual’s inner circle and warp their perception of his or her surroundings. These externalities typically enforce hollow stereotypes and heuristics that emphasize economic, political, and social differences for ratings, social agency, or even electoral backing.

In 2017 the reality of both mass media and social media’s influence cannot be dismissed, especially because it has the capability of altering individual’s social and political dispositions. This influence is more potent as the American sociopolitical climate continues to become polarized. According to the Pew Research Center’s polling, there is a growing division between left and right-leaning ideologies and their trust of specific media outlets. Outlets like The New York Times and The Washington Post have come to be more trusted by individuals who self-identify as left-leaning, while outlets like Fox News and The Sean Hannity Show have come to be trusted by individuals who self-identify as right-leaning. As the majority of individuals continue to receive their news via television and cable, ideological and partisan skews in positions reinforce platforms that emphasize the differences of out-groups. As a result, individuals are less inclined to see the similarities of their neighbors in order to find common interests, as they are portrayed as irredeemably different on account of their perceived affiliations. On social media platforms, the autonomy of associating with others of like ideologies and dispositions eliminates the effort to find common interests with other community members. In a way, individuals form their own digital communities based on an understanding of common interests, like senses of humor, recreational activities, careers, and political ideas. Sorting associations by like political ideas, in particular, is especially noticeable on social media platforms like Twitter and Facebook, as Pew Research notes that many conservative individuals friend only those with similar dispositions, while more liberal individuals unfriend those with differing political opinions. Social media, in this sense, can be understood as an incredibly powerful tool when utilized by political organizations and social causes, such as national and state parties and social causes. Subjugation to mass media and social media outlets implies that individuals are able to form perceptions of communities, demographics, and factions without ever physically interacting with them, which proves to be costly, as it only feeds the growing trend of polarization and divisive sentiment.

It is important to note that Tocqueville does acknowledge that it is within American mores to recognize the differences of our neighbors, a behavior he attributes to the “equality of conditions,” or the facility of socioeconomic mobility in early American society. Indeed, it was once an integral aspect of American culture for individuals recognize the differences of others, particularly in relation to wealth and affluence, as it was relatively easy to work towards this type of success. However, this is purely in an economic capacity; today, warped dispositions of individuals are primarily based on emphasizing political, ideological, or social differences. Unfortunately, as the responsibilities of governing institutions become consolidated and expanded upon as a result of the despotic nature of democracy, so too is the relevance of the elected officials, which creates an incentive for campaigns to use divisive rhetoric to garner a following. A recent example of this was during the 2016 election cycle, as Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton sought to isolate her opponents’ following as “deplorable,” while Republican candidate Donald Trump contrasted elite Americans from “forgotten” Americans. As each candidates’ respective followings received this news through their preferred mass media or social media outlets, their perceptions of opposing were reinforced with malicious overtones, creating starker in-groups and out-groups.

Ideally, community members would understand each others’ fundamental differences and would focus on similarities and common interests – like being snowed in. Further, they would do this without forming preconceptions and make efforts to find some common ground even with knowledge of held differences. Although this simply is not the case today, Tocqueville’s proposed doctrine of self-interest well understood, while being a useful method of repudiating soft despotism, is also useful in nullifying the negative externalities that emphasize hollow and trivial differences. Tocqueville attributes great value to this doctrine in its modest achievability and its accommodation “to the weaknesses of man … [for] it personal interest against itself, and to direct the passions, it makes use of the spur that excites them.” In this context, the “weaknesses of man ” can be understood as the human impulse that drives individuals inward; the doctrine, however, makes use of motivation surrounding self-interests and projects it towards to community. Overcoming the negative influences of mass media and social media, which many mindlessly depend on as aspects of modern society, is essential to rediscover the unique aspects of early American society.

To clarify, Tocqueville’s message is not politically charged. He continuously mulls over the relationship between equality and liberty, believing that the former should not be pursued at the expense of the latter. Throughout Democracy in America, he warns of the possible sleepless complacency to soft despotism, tyranny of the majority, and communitarianism. He proposes ideas that, instead, are not “lofty,” but taken up with a certain willingness and gumption. As American society continues to stray further from Tocqueville’s observations of early American culture, his illustration of American society falling victim to individualism should be considered:

like a stranger to the destiny of all others: his children and his particular friends form the whole human species for him; as for dwelling with his fellow citizens, he is beside them, but he does not see them; he touches them and does not feel them; he exists only in himself and for himself alone.

This dark picture describes what is occurring in today’s social climate in an imperfect fashion, for it does not acknowledge the negative dispositions that individuals hold today over others with differences.   Individuals may essentially be strangers to all others, but they also hold contempt for those who are believed to hold differences in ideas, opinions, and in some cases language and race. The common neighbor, in this sense, does not only lack value to an individual’s self-interested pursuits, but now embodies everything that challenges those pursuits if a particularly skewed outlet isolates their differences as such.

If American society wishes to do away with its entrenching, divisive sentiment, Tocqueville’s doctrine of self-interest well understood is a critical starting point. It is not an incredibly high-minded feat to pursue and achieve, but it is rather one of humility that boasts the potential for a “regulated, temperate, moderate, [and] farsighted” society. Certainly, it is open for debate as to whether centralized governments should return much of the responsibilities that it has stripped, but the doctrine can indisputably bring the polar ends of the spectrum closer together, so as to realize their common similarities before their differences. Moving forward, Americans should be conscious of how media outlets portray those within perceived out-groups, and make a reasonable effort to understand not only their fellow neighbor’s common interests but how neglecting their position in the community on the basis of their differences serves only to divide further.