However, states are much more complex, as they represent the bureaucracy, institutions, laws and principles that transcend administrations and political climates. Because recent presidents have served single four-year terms, the lines between state and government have blurred, which is a grave concern for the integrity of the rule of law.

A country is like a tree — its state is the roots and trunk, while its government is the leaves and flowers. The flowers may bloom and wither, the leaves may grow and fall from year to year but the roots that feed the tree, by nature, remain strong and intact. In the current political environment, the tree is having its roots exposed to rot, making it vulnerable to drying up and collapsing.

I suspect that in 2028 and beyond, the White House will continue to switch between the Democrats and Republicans under single-term presidencies. Unless efforts are made to reach consensus between parties, each new administration will use its respective time in office to undo and overwrite the efforts of the previous government, making real progress impossible.

In other words, a country where governments change frequently and each successive one seeks to undo the actions of the preceding one creates an atmosphere of volatility and politicization for otherwise apolitical aspects of the state.

This has become especially obvious through the extensive use of presidential pardons and executive orders — acts that, so far, attempt to bypass congressional procedures to gain political advantage. Especially in relation to the recent executive orders regarding immigration, Congress has exposed its weakness. It cannot reach the two-thirds majority needed to overrule the actions nor seriously challenge any of the orders out of fear of a government shutdown.

Efforts to exploit gerrymandering to ensure party control over state legislatures are a similar concern, which by now has become another step in escalating partisan divisions. More specifically, solid blue or red states, like California and Texas, and swing states alike are the targets of redistricting efforts seeking guaranteed electoral gains. This is jeopardizing the legitimacy of future elections.

University, police and military or paramilitary institutions will become the primary targets of power struggles between conflicting presidential administrations. For instance, budget cut threats against Harvard and other schools over accusations of student repression have proved that universities are vulnerable to government interference. Meanwhile, the use of the army and the national guard for law enforcement is a concern for local officials not aligned with leadership in Washington, D.C.

In the case of the latter, the deployment of troops in the capital and Los Angeles symbolizes the federal government’s attempt to subdue local legislatures. The use of military force to control cities is a step toward a “self-coup” to maintain party control over local governments dominated by the opposing party.

Countries that fall into chaos tend to follow patterns that repeat across history. One such pattern is the subjugation of state apparatus and institutions by parties and their supporting groups. The concept of blue states and red states is likely to transcend political jargon and instead come to define geographic zones and demographic groups divided by invisible and impenetrable borders. Behind these borders, people ostensibly living in the same country will be subjected to preferential treatment based on which party controls local institutions of law, media, education and law enforcement.

Similarly, constitutional clauses and court rulings may become less dependable in such an environment. Parties may enact, overrule or disregard legislation — the roots of the proverbial tree — allowing their respective side to have the advantage in deciding which laws are passed, who receives a share from federal funding or which policies are pursued on national and state levels without going through the process of parliamentary debate.

The responsibility to maintain the balance of power is shared. Congress must create legislation limiting excess presidential powers, preventing the executive from circumventing the legislative or pressuring local governments. Similarly, local governments must prioritize defending their authority by resisting the transfer of local law enforcement and military to federal control.

Most importantly, funding for government services and education institutions must be protected from the reach of rapid government intervention. In other words, constitutional reform enshrining the neutrality of the state apparatus from partisan politics is necessary to guarantee continuity across administrations.

The stability of the law is what gives a state its power and legitimacy. The current political climate makes it increasingly likely that the executive branch will change hands frequently between parties keen on undoing their predecessors’ actions, risking the stability of state institutions and other neutral institutions. To ensure a stable federal system, the powers of the executive branch must be checked and controlled by a responsible Congress and reformed to limit its abuse of authority.

Deniz Gulay is a junior double-majoring in history and Russian.

Views expressed in the opinions pages represent the opinions of the columnists. The only piece that represents the view of the Pipe Dream Editorial Board is the Staff Editorial.

Perhaps years from now, someone will prove me wrong on this. In fact, I want someone to call me out as a sensationalist and tell me that I indeed exaggerated and dramatized things without reason. I want this because, unless I and others are wrong, the United States is entering a definitive period of political chaos where armed, abrupt and targeted violence, coupled with heightened political tribalism, will be our new reality.

Over the years, I have dedicated many columns to the things that have led the United States to this point — polarization, apathy, mismanaged foreign policy, lack of representative parties and disillusionment with the political system. Up until recently, the one element keeping the United States from entering this period of chaos was a lack of domestic terrorism — but this is no longer the case.

As defined by political analyst Bruce Hoffman, terrorism is “the deliberate creation and exploitation of fear through violence or the threat of violence in the pursuit of political change.” Today, terrorism is a word we associate with bursts of violence, typically enacted by organized extremist groups.

But in this modern age, we especially associate these acts with individuals. Mass shootings, suicide bombings, car attacks and other incidents have dominated domestic terrorism in the media throughout the past few decades. Barring a few examples, these are indicative of individual acts of rage seeking to cause chaos or accomplish a personal vendetta.

However, terrorism had a different connotation in history. Terrorist acts of violence are historically perpetrated to intentionally kill or maim rival political figures. These characterized Russia in the 1900s and 1910s, Turkey during much of the Cold War or Italy during the “Years of Lead,” when the country was torn apart between far-right and far-left militias and brought to the brink of civil war.

We as a nation are sadly inching closer and closer to repeating this history.

In the past nine years, all three U.S. presidential administrations have been defined by a back-and-forth struggle between Republicans and Democrats. This rapid switching of administrations is reminiscent of the United States’ turmoil of the 1970s, which was also defined by economic instability, armed violence and an air of tension plaguing the political atmosphere. In the past 10 years, the American political scene has become especially divided and a lot more fragile, paralleled by armed violence becoming more commonplace.

These pieces almost complete a picture, with one key item missing from it — a fault line or a sociopolitical rift powerful enough to create an “us versus them” struggle that isolates the nation. As I mentioned, incidents of armed violence in the United States in the past decade, by and large, have been defined by individual acts of violence, and there has not been a sustained struggle between political factions like in Italy or Turkey.

But, unlike Italy or Turkey, the United States is at a much higher risk for an environment of chaos due to the wide availability of assault weapons.

As seen in the 2020 insurrection at the capital, one of the first signs of rising political violence in the United States, guns are increasingly being used as “tools of intimidation and violence in increasingly open ways” by extremists, according to an article by Everytown for Gun Safety. When essentially anyone can get their hands on automatic weapons — especially in states with weak gun laws — with enough motivation and organization, there is no probable barrier against the formation of radical militias and rebel formations on a larger scale. Such organizations may arise in the form of cells controlling urban neighborhoods, militias acting as rogue battalions in rural areas or national organizations outright mobilizing disillusioned people to their cause.

Incidents over the last year compel me to notice a deeper pattern of militancy and radicalization. Given the United States’ declining political cooperation and increase in attacks targeting political activists, lawmakers and even presidential candidates, I find it more and more likely that we will experience a period of clashes between extremist groups using targeted acts of violence.

In this era of political chaos, militant organizations would be followed by a series of “tit-for-tat” attacks characteristic of a politically divided nation. This could look something like this: a journalist is shot for criticizing a politician; the politician is shot in response; consequently, a train station is bombed; and then, ultimately, the politician’s party headquarters is bombed and the cycle continues.

This violent path to anarchy must be avoided at all costs, but the United States is not steering itself in another direction. The recent shooting of political activist Charlie Kirk has especially demonstrated this, with experts feeling that political violence in America is becoming uninhibited by laws or social norms and fueled by divisive rhetoric.

If there is any solace to be found here, we must keep in mind that we have not reached a stage of coordinated militancy yet. Countries do not tear themselves apart overnight, but they become divided over years and years of sustained and coordinated political violence. In the United States, there are no open clashes on the streets between groups, and violence has not yet escalated to a mass level.

However, it isn’t sensationalist to point out the obvious: the United States is on a path toward increased political violence, which will cause significant and perhaps irreparable damage to American democracy.

This juncture in time is a precious moment to realize the need for gun control, political reform and welfare reform for all Americans, regardless of their beliefs. Civil means of change must be implemented to ensure safety, avoid further disillusionment among the public and cut off the supply of rage to the radicals who will feed on it to grow.

Failing to address these key issues will lead to continued escalations of violence, and the public will be the victim of armed attacks, politicization of life and erosion of unity. The only way to avoid the impending “Years of Lead” is to build consensus on vital issues and emphasize the primacy of law and order.

Deniz Gulay is a junior double-majoring in history and Russian. 

Views expressed in the opinions pages represent the opinions of the columnists. The only piece that represents the view of the Pipe Dream Editorial Board is the Staff Editorial. 

Tanks and jets might decide a battle, but industry dictates the fate of wars, and the infrastructure behind it shapes the politics of peacetime diplomacy. Major countries across the globe, particularly China and Russia, understand this concept well and prioritize investments in infrastructure both at home and abroad, whereas the United States still faces an investment gap.

To maintain its sphere of influence abroad, the U.S. government must consider investing in projects that benefit transport and economic growth. The paths available for business between countries decide how international relations are established. As the modern world economy is dependent on global trade, resources and services rely on the efficiency of their transportation to outcompete their rivals.

Our modern and collective reliance on trade results in a simple yet critical process for international business: the country that reaches the world more quickly and efficiently gains more money and influence in diplomacy. Cultures and ideologies promoted by sovereign states are spread across the globe on the backs of containers, railcars and tankers that economically bridge nations together, which is precisely the method the United States used to become the superpower it is.

Starting from the aftermath of World War II, though arguably since at least the turn of the 20th century, the United States became increasingly influential in global affairs through its large manufacturing industry and the web of global trade routes it controlled. An economy built on the export of goods made the U.S. dollar the most prominent international currency, which then made the global economy Washington, D.C.’s responsibility.

In 1948, the Marshall Plan gave the United States its biggest geopolitical victory of the century by realigning Western Europe to the economic interests of the country. Investments in reconstruction efforts opened the European markets to U.S. goods, and the trade connections established over the Atlantic were the foundation for the military pacts between Western Europe and the United States.

Investing in infrastructure as a diplomatic strategy has precedence in United States history. The 21st century is relentlessly putting this system to the test, but leaders fail to seize opportunities. If the United States wishes to remain a superpower, it must prioritize securing, overhauling and expanding trade infrastructure.

Washington, D.C. is indisputably lagging in construction capabilities compared to its geopolitical rivals. The most comprehensive example of this is China’s Belt and Road Initiative, a collection of international rail and naval infrastructure projects to construct new transit routes and trade hubs.

In practice, building ports and railways allows for easier shipment of goods, making trade with China more efficient compared to Europe or America. In theory, this also allows Beijing to exert greater influence over the countries where these projects take place.

Control of trade relations allows for control of diplomatic and political decisions in favor of China. Especially in Southeast Asia, China’s efforts to build paths for trade represent a deeper effort to make countries in the region more reliant on China, allowing Beijing to subvert the United States’ influence to establish a political sphere of its own across the Far East. [3]

Today, the United States is far less capable of supporting strategic investments than China and is critically damaging its foreign policy by pursuing trade wars with other countries. Washington, D.C. must assess and take the initiative to assist in solving the infrastructure issues of its allies and partners.

Notably, Germany and the United Kingdom face economic stagnation due to the inefficiency of their railroads, while oil production and export in the Middle East become increasingly risky due to vulnerability to Iranian efforts to disrupt and blockade oil trade in the region. Foreign aid — the reduced scope of which today mostly covers arms exports to conflict zones — must expand into the business of building new and modern infrastructure that connects industries, speeds up travel between countries and secures the transport of resources and raw materials.

Efforts to invest in new projects require cooperation and vision. Common problems that often limit grand projects in the West consist of corruption, bureaucracy and budget mismanagement. These issues are not faced by China when it seeks to expand its trade network rapidly.

More importantly, the disruptive strategy of tariffs and trade restrictions has made the United States an unreliable trade partner and, consequently, an untrustworthy diplomatic partner.

Maintaining a robust network of trade is not only vital but also nonnegotiable for the United States. Unless efforts are made to improve and expand the infrastructure that underpins international trade, Washington, D.C. will lose the initiative to other countries like Beijing, which are more than eager to establish themselves as a more reliable trade partner.

Management of foreign aid to allies and close partners must focus on prospects aiming to create better links between nations over land, air and sea to preserve the United States’ position of power in the world.

Deniz Gulay is a junior double-majoring in history and Russian.

Views expressed in the opinions pages represent the opinions of the columnists. The only piece that represents the view of the Pipe Dream Editorial Board is the Staff Editorial.

This is how I see the United States: a large, substandard city. In an era where everyone can benefit from high-density housing complete with good public transport, the United States continues to fall short.

The United States is missing two things that go hand in hand — affordable housing and public transportation. This is the consequence of a decades-old city planning culture that defines the stereotype of the American city.

There is an entrenched and unchanging cultural norm that people must, by all means, own a car and a large house and drive from that house to their jobs and every other place in that car. This issue is worsened by the fact that cars are also becoming larger, wasting more space and resources.

This is less of an issue in urban areas due to the increased accessibility of public transportation. However, these places are few and far between in the United States.

The sprawling suburban housing is unsustainable, inefficient and cruelly unethical. When car ownership becomes a societal expectation, being unable to afford one becomes a barrier in life. Without being able to walk, cycle or take the bus to a place from home, people without cars are less likely to find jobs, less likely to find opportunities for advancing themselves. They are essentially left out of recreation and socializing opportunities.

Root causes of psychological issues, such as the decline of third spaces and increased social media addiction, are directly linked to the way in which city planning isolates people to their houses and commutes.

Perhaps the saddest aspect of this entire issue — that being a car-dependent society has created phantom barriers against growth and development — is that the United States wasn’t always like this. The old metropolises, like Chicago, New York City, Boston and Philadelphia, were the last vestiges of the time before cars, when people had an incentive to use public transportation because of its availability, accessibility and scope.

To me, the solution for city planning is clear: cities must be organized not around a small center and sprawling suburbs, but blocks that can concentrate people efficiently while leaving more space for recreation.

There is clear proof that cities that blend businesses and housing generate more wealth and more vibrant communities. Both Europe and Asia provide plenty of examples that the United States can adopt, like London, Paris, Bangkok and Ho Chi Minh City.

The cheap excuse that the United States is so large that it can only afford to have large suburbs is only that — an excuse, not a logical belief. Planning and organizing cities is not about how much space there is to occupy, but about how effectively and wisely it is used for the benefit of its residents.

On this subject, I have a suggestion that is borderline heretical for the United States, but at the same time, a perspective that is necessary to consider. Countries in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union have all, in one way or another, adopted the idea of the “microdistrict,” a form of city planning that makes walkability a priority.

In a typical microdistrict with a radius of 30 to 200 acres, a person can live in their apartment and have access to a school, hospital, kindergarten, parks, cafes and other such services. Multiple microdistricts are then connected with avenues supporting bus and light rail networks, and clusters of such districts form cities that are, in principle, easy to travel through and live in.

Space-efficient neighborhoods like these are necessary for the rapid development of affordable housing. Microdistricts can solve the United States’ fundamental problem of single-family homes disconnected from opportunities for employment and recreation.

With the right changes to the principle, the idea of high-density housing and accessible amenities can just be what America needs — cities that are for humans, not vehicles.

Adopting a microdistrict style of housing means increased access to employment and recreation and less dependence on car ownership. Developing high-density housing and public transport decreases the costs of home ownership and daily commutes, making life more affordable for those who don’t have the means for detached housing. Designing space-efficient communities is a tested city planning method that can mitigate the primary issue of home ownership becoming less and less accessible to people in this country.

Because of this, a fundamental cultural shift in city planning and an emphasis on lessening car dependence are vital for social and economic development in the United States. Housing developments must emphasize the idea of grouping people and creating space for jobs, amenities, green areas, education and welfare.

Deniz Gulay is a junior double-majoring in history and Russian. 

Views expressed in the opinions pages represent the opinions of the columnists. The only piece that represents the view of the Pipe Dream Editorial Board is the Staff Editorial. 

Above all types of experimental film, I have one personal niche that I would like filmmakers to explore in more depth and variety — “one take” films. This film style should be popularized for how it makes stories feel alive.

“One take” or “continuous shot” films are unique, an experimental form of art that can be applied to a variety of themes. In this technique, the entire plot of a movie is shown from the beginning to the end as one long, uninterrupted camera shot. Whereas traditional movies cut between characters or scenes, a one take film uses a singular perspective to depict a story experienced in real life rather than one made to look “cinematic.”

Subsequently, our role as the viewer also changes. We are not watching a movie solely to view a story, but instead, we are actively observing it as it unfolds completely before our eyes.

The advantage of this style comes in two forms, the first being the production of art. This artistic aspect relates to the choices screenwriters make during the film’s production process. The archenemy of creatives is a movie plot with no challenge or narrative that drives a story forward. The continuous shot film is excellent at overcoming this issue, forcing the screenwriter into the tight space of a single perspective, which makes them design a story formed of events meaningfully linked to each other, rather than a series of loosely connected scenes that jump between each other.

The second advantage is the reception of art: how we, the viewers, see, follow, remember and interpret the film. We watch, in an interrupted way, what the camera records in an uninterrupted way. The single perspective of the camera creates a psychological effect in which your observation of the events in that film is more akin to a personal experience. From beginning to end, the viewer sees the film from an angle solely for them, making the experience of watching the movie and observing the art that much more personal.

What holds back this style from becoming more common is the difficulty of production. Though it is advantageous from an artistic point of view, logistically it can be very complex to organize the scenes of a movie in a way that flows seamlessly from one to another.

The most notable example of this situation is also the one movie in my recent memory that used this style of filmmaking: “1917.” This 2019 film is based on a World War I story of two British soldiers trekking across the trenches of the Western Front to stop an ill-prepared offensive.

The premise of the movie was implemented masterfully, and it is easily one of my top five movies ever. But it is simply not always feasible to produce a large-scale production like 1917 as a true continuous shot due to the effort and resources spent planning and filming the individual scenes of its long chain of events. Rather than filming the entire movie in one take, the production team edited extremely long shots together to blend into a single continuous take.

The next step for the future of this style is effectively a self-fulfilling prophecy. Films like “1917” and other titles, including “Birdman” and a new series, “Adolescence,” are some of the few examples of this technique being used in professional cinematography. They are works that tackle psychological issues and intimately personal problems — compressing time and space from the perspective of a singular character, allowing us to feel more connected with their stories.

Using their respective psychological themes of “desperation to succeed” and “separation from reality” as artistic examples, more experimentation can and should happen to bring forth such variety and experience for future filmmakers to find inspiration from.

Essentially, the continuous shot is a style worth exploring more in depth in cinema. The few productions made in the last decade using this technique have already made a name for themselves as niche but memorable works admired by the mainstream audience. If it is used more often, even newer techniques for cinematic storytelling can emerge out of artistic experimentation — something I deeply look forward to.

Deniz Gulay is a junior double-majoring in history and Russian. 

Views expressed in the opinions pages represent the opinions of the columnists. The only piece that represents the view of the Pipe Dream Editorial Board is the Staff Editorial. 

The political sphere of the West is undergoing a prolonged period of evolution that is melting away traditions. Attempts across the West to harmonize socialism with rising populist ideologies are often ignored. As a consequence, new, patriotic left-wing movements may forego internationalism as a leftist virtue as they evolve into organizations prioritizing their own homelands. In major countries such as France, Italy, the United Kingdom and Germany, the conventional balance of power between center-left and center-right parties is increasingly challenged by popular, unorthodox movements.

Germany is seeing a consistent rise in the popularity of Alternative for Germany. In France, Marine Le Pen defies predictions of her demise by adamantly pursuing new elections. Reform UK has grown substantially in Britain and the United States has witnessed the return of President Donald Trump. These are all examples of right-wing populist success or near success through strategic and targeted media campaigns that captivate the disgruntled electorate.

Populist rhetoric is dominated by the far right, while there are almost no parties on the left that have ascended to the mainstream in the same way parties from the right have. Evidently, the imbalance in the scale of activism between ideological halves is becoming apparent, leaving the center left in the West in a dire position.

Therein lies the predictable next step. Where the conventional center left has failed, bold, populist-based party policies that challenge economic oligarchy and corruption at all government levels will rise to fill the vacuum, according to an article by The New Statesman [HYPERLINK: https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/greens/2025/08/its-time-for-left-populism].

These current political circumstances are a breeding ground for a new populist-leftist experiment.

In the same Western nations where right-wing populists achieve electoral gains, voters disillusioned with the political center are forming left-wing parties that embrace patriotism. France’s National Rally party is countered by the bloc La France Insoumise, or France Unbowed, while the AfD in Germany is countered by the rise in popularity of Die Linke, or The Left, and BSW, or the Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance.

These left-wing populist movements’ opposition to liberal policies of free trade and common currency puts them in a position where they are more nationalist than socialist and more populist than leftist. Many of these political parties share traits with right-wing movements, like insistence on broad welfare policies, toughness on crime, stricter immigration and leaving international commitments, particularly the European Union. Whether this is a futile betrayal of the left’s core values for publicity or a new strategy for electoral success is up to how skillfully these movements can reach their respective electorate on public concerns.

The primary hurdle this leftist experiment faces is that it is a theory without form. Leftists who seek to harmonize socialism with populism are experiencing a kind of morphogenesis — the creation of new formations or structures, both in biology and social science. They are trying to create their place among the center left that believes in reform, hardliners who push for revolution and an emboldened right that dominates the patriotic rhetoric.

If left-populists wish to achieve this metamorphosis by reaching the mainstream and replacing the existing center left, accomplishing such a political revolution demands an agenda that prioritizes their home countries.

In either case, leftist parties and fronts are forming to counter right-wing populism, not with internationalism, but with their own ideological “twist” on populism. However, the question about the future of populism for the Western left is, for now, without an answer. The results of these experiments that strive to fuse the policies of socialism with the tactics of the right will only reveal themselves during election cycles, which means we must patiently observe the next decade of European politics.

Win or lose, the new stream of left populists in Europe can forever change our understanding of ideologies. In the same way that right-wing populism revealed the disillusionment with the center right, left populists can potentially achieve this by overtaking the center left, leading political discourse in the West to be dominated by radical, bold and uncompromising politicians.

So far, we have only heard occasional footsteps echoing around us, the same ones the political landscape has heard for years. However, history proves that social and economic instability often breeds the most unconventional political developments. The right circumstances might, and very likely will, trigger a silent revolution that will forever redefine the meaning of “being on the left” in the West.

Deniz Gulay is a junior double-majoring in history and Russian. 

Views expressed in the opinions pages represent the opinions of the columnists. The only piece that represents the view of the Pipe Dream Editorial Board is the Staff Editorial. 

These feelings are heightened by the fact that I am a foreigner in this country. There are jokes I can’t tell because they won’t make sense, or poems I can’t read because they won’t rhyme in English, which can be unsettling. I see and hear things as someone shaped by the memory of a place left behind, and my consciousness and emotions feel left out in a place I am not adjusted to.

Being surrounded by a sea of people who presumably have nothing in common with you is a frightening, isolating thought, but one movie taught me that it is natural to feel lost in a crowd.

“The Terminal” is one of Steven Spielberg’s less famous movies — it did not leave the same kind of “mark” on popular culture as some of his other films, but it nonetheless resonates with me. The movie tells the story of Viktor Navorski from the fictional country of Krakozhia. Navorski flies from his home to New York to get an autograph from a saxophone player, but gets stranded in JFK airport as his country collapses into civil war and his passport becomes defunct.

I remember watching the movie for the first time before coming to America and being impressed, then watching it a second time as an immigrant and being simply amazed. The film masterfully depicts the loneliness, isolation and desperation of a human lost among crowds.

Of all the scenes and quotes in the movie, one in particular captures this sentiment most clearly and sincerely. Viktor finds out that his country has collapsed into civil war on TV, and can barely hold back his tears. He desperately wants to use a payphone to call home, but he doesn’t know how to ask for help in English. The camera slowly pulls away from Viktor as he becomes smaller, smaller and smaller in a sea of people he is so hopelessly lost in.

I find the meaning of my life in Viktor Navorski’s loneliness. That singular moment in time when his emotions are for him alone, when no one else can or even cares to understand him, is when he is truly “lost” in life.

Though not everyone reacts the same way to such loneliness, the metaphorical void we fall into during times of alienation brings out our true character. Some become afraid and close themselves in for safety, while others turn to cynicism and become outcasts, mocking the rest of the crowd. Many fall somewhere in between, where their isolation becomes internalized and unavoidable.

Alienation must not be a wall, but a gateway to a new mindset. It is natural to feel lonely, and it is one of the most human feelings to feel lost, ignored or minuscule in the foreignness of unfamiliar spaces. Yet, it is not the strangeness that makes alienation scary, but the fear of discovery and the lack of will to explore what is foreign. The modern human seeks comfort more than the thrill of the unknown — the familiar is easy to hide in, while the unknown is a mystery, leaving us feeling exposed.

I still look back at “The Terminal” as a symbol of who I once was — being lost was, for the longest time, all I could define myself by.

The fear of exploring the unknown is what I tried so hard to challenge as a foreigner in this country. Seeking new things to do, say, see and learn made my experience easier to understand and overcome. From where I stand today, I look back on who I was with a smile on my face, because I know in hindsight that those times when I was lost in the crowds are when I had the curiosity to explore my new domain in life.

I still feel that sense of being “lost” among crowds here today, but I’ve grown into the mindset of taking comfort in this sight. Knowing that my life story is in my hands, and that these lands are becoming more of a home to me with each passing day, makes everything feel more human.

So long as there is a will to find meaning in life, the image of chaos must not scare us, whether that be the largeness of crowds, the sight of unfamiliar lands or the fear of the unknown future.

We must strive to find, and if necessary, invent, our own place in the world. In the end, the answer to the chaos of what is foreign is the creation of a purpose that is completely our own. This is how one might find meaning, and perhaps a bit of solace in feeling “lost.”

Deniz Gulay is a junior double-majoring in history and Russian.

Views expressed in the opinions pages represent the opinions of the columnists. The only piece that represents the view of the Pipe Dream Editorial Board is the Staff Editorial. 

Decades, if not centuries, of political tradition may fall and give way to a distinctly British brand of populism.

The party at the heart of this incoming revolution is Reform UK, a political party that is the vanguard of Euroscepticism in the United Kingdom. Across his 30-year career, leader Nigel Farage has consistently campaigned on a nationalistic and conservative platform against the ties between the United Kingdom and the European Union. His landmark achievement, and the prime success of the movement he created, was the exit of Great Britain from the EU in 2020.

Now, the prospect of Reform UK coming first in the next general election, thus making Farage the Prime Minister, has become far more intriguing.

The success of Reform UK is directly linked to the socioeconomic decline of Britain. Under the leadership of the Conservative Party, the United Kingdom endured a heavily controversial austerity program in response to the 2008 recession. Throughout the 14 years of conservative rule between 2010 and 2024, the British economy largely stagnated while public services faced immense shortages, and homelessness and food bank use increased.

And, as I predicted two years ago, the disillusionment fomenting within the British public has resulted in much broader attention toward unconventional politicians, with Farage at the forefront.

There should be no doubt that Reform UK is on the path to, if not very close to becoming, the victor of the next general election.

During the latest elections in 2024, Reform UK received 14 percent of the popular vote, or roughly four million votes, making it the third-highest performing party. The reason for this is abundantly clear — Britain is getting tired of the mainstream status quo, and the small yet vocal group of representatives now working in Westminster is the first sign of a larger paradigm shift in British political culture.

The power dynamic between the three “established parties” is what Reform UK needs to break apart to succeed. The Conservative Party and the Labour Party represent the two halves of the traditional right-left divide of Western political philosophy. They are complemented by the Liberal Democrats, who have emerged in the last decade as a “kingmaker” party that can influence decision-making in Westminster with their strategic presence.

However, this three-party arrangement is collectively seen by the growing number of Reform UK supporters as a stagnant, rusted tradition that prevents change. Labour’s victory in 2024 did not usher in a positive movement toward greater welfare and economic stability for Britain. The decline in the popularity of Prime Minister Keir Starmer due to his perceived lack of action is now the catalyst for a potential Reform victory in 2029.

If Reform UK indeed secures first place in the next British elections, the shockwaves would be heard across not only Europe but the entire world.

One of the largest economies on Earth, and a major player in international politics, under the leadership of a uniquely nationalist party, will doubtlessly alter the entire political framework of “the West.” Simply put, a Reform UK-led United Kingdom would double down on Brexit to continue severing its ties to EU institutions and agreements. While emphasizing unity and tradition on the home front, a United Kingdom under Reform UK could drastically reduce its economic ties, political involvement and diplomatic influence on global affairs, which would therefore reduce the U.K.’s footprint as a major nation around the world.

Reform’s rise in popularity must not be crudely compared to examples from the past. Reform UK is not a mere repeat of the characteristics of Mussolini, Mosley or Franco. Instead, the party has successfully capitalized on the lack of governmental action and public dissatisfaction with the current leadership, presenting itself as a true modern alternative to a collective social malaise. This achievement must be taken seriously by academics and the electorate alike — a populist ethos can catapult movements that were on the fringe a mere decade ago into grand political success.

Politicians of mainstream ideologies, both in the United Kingdom and in other democracies, must view the rise of parties like Reform UK not as a fad but as a larger sign of change. More and more, people demand politicians who can wield the rhetoric in their favor through strong populism — the conventional right-left divide is losing its relevance for the disillusioned electorate of many countries around the world.

I do not see this as a threat on its own — instead, Reform UK is teaching us that the coming change in Western politics will be a revolution of populist, nationalist spirit. This is precisely what the political center, both left and right, must prepare to be challenged with in the future.

Deniz Gulay is a junior double-majoring in history and Russian. 

Views expressed in the opinions pages represent the opinions of the columnists. The only piece that represents the view of the Pipe Dream Editorial Board is the Staff Editorial. 

Instead, what I observed — the elitism, arrogance and abject ignorance of the leaders of the Rusyn movement — made me realize the supposed ambition to revive this culture is nothing but an outdated shell of its former self.

First, since this is a niche subject, I want to provide some background information. Rusyns are a community of Slavic people who reside primarily in Central Europe and are historically distinct from other Slavic peoples such as Russians, Poles or Ukrainians. What makes Rusyns distinct is that, unlike other Slavic peoples, they never created their own state.

There has historically never been a “Rusyn country,” and the Rusyn people themselves have been subjected to policies of assimilation or discrimination in whichever nation ruled them for the many centuries of their existence. Naturally, this creates a theme of resistance and yearning for self-determination that defines Rusyns as a people — their struggle to invent the Rusyn nation is the bedrock of their cultural mindset and enlightenment.

It is no wonder to me Rusyns embraced this spirit, organizing a period of national awakening throughout the 19th century to create their own distinct society, art and politics. However, the 21st-century incarnation of this heritage is a movement only in name.

From what I witnessed, the Rusyn organization is merely a collection of elite academics doing much less than the bare minimum to form a platform that can campaign for cultural rights and representation. The modern Rusyn movement is more focused on recreational social gathering than mobilizing a cultural movement.

What can be done with this lack of focus? If Rusyns, as people who never had a state to coalesce around, still want to preserve their identity, community and language, the old guard and its lack of care for the future must be openly challenged.

The main obstacle is that, unlike Scots in the United Kingdom who have the Scottish National Party, the South Schleswig Voters’ Association for the Danes in Germany or the Bloc Québécois in Canada, there is no political party carrying the Rusyns’ voice and identity to an elected assembly. There is simply no political momentum for seeking regional autonomy aimed at advancing the cause of representation and recognition for Rusyns.

This is squarely the fault of an elitist society out of touch with the basics of political praxis — the old guard of the modern movement not only ignores but outright denies the need for political representation, being content with small yearly gatherings that do not promote new actions.

This lack of care needs to be swept away to clear the space for a new and modern movement, led and organized by young activists who are energetic, talented and, most importantly, sincere about making the Rusyn cause mainstream.

There are three key factors at play — lack of cultural production, lack of dynamic leadership and, most significantly, lack of political motivation. The first problem was the easiest for me to witness; the modern movement barely moves the Rusyn culture and art away from the endless repetition of folk songs and poems from 200 years ago. There is simply no drive to enrich Rusyn art by incentivizing the use of the Rusyn language in new art forms, nor any ambition to popularize the cultural heritage by making it reach the mainstream.

The other two problems are inextricably linked and arise from the existence of each other. The old guard of historians and linguists who documented Rusyn history for the past few decades has, by now, reached a point of stagnation. Beyond regurgitating and embellishing old history, the people who founded societies and cultural organizations lack the ambition to participate in political campaigning and advocacy to make the community more widely recognized.

Since the old guard is also adamant about maintaining its grip and only passing down positions of authority to people who toe its line, the young activists and researchers who seek to push the Rusyn community into the mainstream get pushed aside. To my greatest surprise, they’re often ridiculed for being “annoying firebrands” compared to the supposed adults in the room who, in reality, do not ever meaningfully advance the collective cause.

I fully believe a true Rusyn cultural awakening can happen in this century, and the youth ready to lead it will use it as an opportunity to campaign for their rights to recognition and a cultural identity. This is, however, only possible if the movement is rescued from the grip of people who have no interest in connecting with people — activism, not isolation, is the answer for the future of Rusyns.

Deniz Gulay is a junior double-majoring in history and Russian. 

Views expressed in the opinions pages represent the opinions of the columnists. The only piece that represents the view of the Pipe Dream Editorial Board is the Staff Editorial. 

I often think about my first few weeks in Binghamton, simply because I remember feeling a unique sense of “living in the present” that I haven’t felt since. Every day brought new knowledge, every week introduced a new friend and the passing of time carried me toward newly imagined goals and hopes. I met many people in those first few weeks, most of whom I still remember and see today. Some of these people later came to my aid in my hour of need, some shared their wisdom when I sought guidance and some became my good friends who made life more fun and fulfilling.

And then there was my first “regret” — my first love.

I wrote about the meaning of soulmates in a different column in an homage to this specific experience. A person I met on a basically random occasion first became my friend, then a close friend and then my best friend. Before long, she was the one person who I thought truly understood me in this place far away from home.

I felt that I, at long last, connected to another person emotionally. Feeling that, among all the lucky instances of an eventful freshman autumn, I also found my true life companion, made love feel all the more satisfying. I suppose the greatest source of comfort was simply sharing my heart with someone who I felt valued it so much.

It sadly did not last long — for a long time, we argued, we doubted each other, and though we never shouted, we were always somehow living in different worlds. I do not have much to write about the relationship itself, because it didn’t even last long enough for memories to accrue. But I remember regret, because that is all that remained of my first try at love. I felt regret, because I never had the chance to apologize for things I said and did. I could not say that I still cared for her, or that I wanted to take responsibility and mend what did not work between us.

How do you move on from that kind of regret? When you’re ready to give everything you have just to have the chance to go back in time and do just a couple of things differently, and yet you know that what’s done is done — that’s difficult.

Even many months after this first relationship, I asked myself the same question: what could have been different? I blamed myself to the point of actively shaming myself over what I should have done. This is the true nastiness about regret — it forces you to play a game you cannot win by making you think of what could have been. Then, it reminds you in the same breath that whatever magical solution you came up with after the fact also cannot ever be used.

But time only moves forward, and so must we.

To all who read these words, I give this sincere advice: forgive your past self. If you feel guilt, shame or depression about something in the past, know that you have since changed and became someone else. What regret tells each of us is that the things we grow to see as mistakes become things we swear not to repeat.

It is this realization that allows us to become who we want to be. The thought of missed opportunities hurts, but so long as we remember all the people we used to be, we can also move bravely into the future as a different version of our past selves.

Knowing that I can’t turn back time pushes me to work harder, pay more attention and show more care to the new people around me. I accept my past self for who he was, a naive but terribly misguided and selfish guy. I strive toward having a more open heart and being a better listener. I focus now on being a trustworthy, dependable and compassionate person — these are things that I once wasn’t, but now I live my life trying to build a better heart for myself.

Accepting who you once were is what sets you apart from your mistakes — it gives you the strength to work with your emotions and develop the personality you want to be known by.

Deniz Gulay is a junior double-majoring in history and Russian.

Views expressed in the opinions pages represent the opinions of the columnists. The only piece that represents the view of the Pipe Dream Editorial Board is the Staff Editorial.

Reflecting on these pages makes me think about how far I have come to be here. I can imagine only one word fitting the emotions I felt while striving to succeed in college: marathon.

Last year, I wrote a column for the 2024 Orientation Issue based on my experiences as a freshman. At that moment, my life was about seeking everything new and novel to me — I was trying to adapt to living in a new country, and the excitement of doing something new every day motivated me.

A year later, as a sophomore, my perspective shifted. While my first year showed me the joy of exploration, the second year taught me the virtue of endurance. Now, I was not only a student, but a club president, a regular columnist, a researcher and an academic writer. Because I very quickly became many things at the same time, I needed a way to orient myself and not lose track of my life.

Looking back, I became much better at time management than I was in my first year. It became routine for me to write two columns for Pipe Dream, run the History Club, do my homework, plan slides for conference presentations, work on my research project and work as a sound engineer for the radio station. And interestingly, while this looks like too much when listed out, I still had so much more free time to use for my own pleasure during my sophomore year. I taught myself to not rush, but to be methodical and take care of tasks one at a time.

I remember how often I wrote in my journals that my life was like a marathon. I thought it’d be a sprint — I’d make a quick run, succeed in what I was doing and coast through classes without worrying about making a consistent effort.

I was naive — in fact, dangerously so. I count myself successful for the many works I completed and responsibilities I carried on top of my classes, but I could not function as a human being without teaching myself to be consistent. I didn’t “coast” through my sophomore year — I worked like a ticking clock to make good use of my time.

I want to emphasize this clock analogy, because it is a very convenient metaphor for college. A clock can be set and reset to match the time, but it always keeps ticking. Your progress and success must have the same spirit to it as well. You can decide who you want to be and what you want to do, and change your mind when your ideas change.

But when you wake up every morning, you should do so with the will to be active that day, so when you go to sleep, you can do so with the satisfaction of a day well spent.

Therefore, I’m building this year’s advice for freshmen on the foundation of what I shared last year. The essence of life — not just college, but for everything beyond it too — is about having the will and the dedication to work consistently, not sporadically. Sticking to a momentum prevents you from the extremes of apathy and burnout. Whereas too much work is unhealthy and inaction breeds melancholy, a determined attitude makes your life more meaningful and satisfying to live.

In college, you will have a unique time to explore and experience new things and learn from the people around you. After a while, these experiences will be the foundations for the next step, which is dedicating yourself to a goal for your future.

You might think these ideals are far too big, far too complicated to hold. Or you might think you’ll have plenty of time in the future to “figure everything out.” However, the true advantage comes from acting early and working consistently, not from speeding toward a goal in a rush. Planning your steps ahead, preparing for tasks one step at a time and having strong discipline are essential for success.

Take your time to think about who you want to become, do not shy away from challenging yourself and give yourself some rest when you earn it. But crucially, you should never lose your pace and stay focused on your ambitions. Use your time wisely, and dedicate yourself to your own great marathon.

Deniz Gulay is a junior double-majoring in history and Russian.

Views expressed in the opinions pages represent the opinions of the columnists. The only piece that represents the view of the Pipe Dream Editorial Board is the staff editorial.

However, a deeper concern is now also present for the core establishments of these parties. Specifically for the Democratic Party, in the coming months, they must be willing to reinvent their ideological foundation — an unquestionable necessity in these turbulent times.

The current position of the Democrats is defined by one word: centrism. For the Democratic Party, adopting the centrist position simply means appealing to the broadest possible electorate by continuing its moderate stance on politics. Essentially, they believe the metaphorical ship of the United States ought to just maintain its course and not risk losing popularity by committing to any unorthodox policy. The Democratic establishment facilitates this view, hindering ideas of progress and reform that require bold leaps to accomplish.

The 2024 elections, in many distinct ways, were a cruel retelling of the joke that was the 2016 elections. In both instances, the Democrats did not have an honest and transparent process to nominate their candidates — backroom deals and the sidelining of progressivist factions resulted in archaic, unconvincing candidates. The candidates nominated by the party did not represent the needs of the people in their campaigns, focusing on maintaining a balanced centrist view at the expense of addressing critical welfare issues.

Most catastrophically, in the aftermath of both elections, the party establishment behaved in every way but sincerely — they did not accept responsibility for their defeat and remained passive in the face of disillusionment with the party.

Today, the Democratic Party is incapable of riling up the masses against the actions of the executive branch. The traditional “spirit” of the party, with its supposed decades of experience and heritage, is thoroughly incapacitated to the point of becoming functionally irrelevant.

Alas, change is necessary. Change, which means the complete ideological rebirth of the Democratic Party, has become inescapable. It is vital for the old elite of the party to step down and give way to a new generation of politicians who represent the direct needs and concerns of the wider population. However, the change I wish to see is not the one you expect or predict.

Attention does not mean popularity or effectiveness. In recent days, Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez made news by touring the country to organize mass rallies. The internet is brimming with discussions about whether Sanders or any other politician following his perspective can actually become the force that can challenge the Democratic Party establishment.

Truthfully, I am pessimistic about these odds. Sanders’ popularity among young voters didn’t mean anything when he was sidelined in 2016, and drawing large crowds also didn’t mean anything for the party during the last election, as seen in Kamala Harris’ defeat despite the large rallies she organized.

Sanders may now be the “face” of change, but achieving true progress requires action. Political action, achieved by constructing and expanding a popular movement, requires organizing people toward change beyond simply preaching the need for it. New and decisive policies must be presented not as mere campaign promises, but as the new core of the very identity of the party.

Populism and progressivism are the two necessary bases of this rebirth — “progress” must no longer be the term for the next set of promises made to attract voters, but the basis on which the entire party platform must sit. The Democratic Party is not a stranger to populist progressivism. After all, that was the path of Franklin D. Roosevelt and the New Deal, which were once so immensely popular that his policies easily captured the appeal of the public and swept elections.

The New Deal of the past was promoted to combat the malaise born from economic depression and diplomatic isolation — the same issues that echo today. If the Democrats really want to be effective in politics, they must adapt their heritage by reaching out to the public sincerely and promoting welfare as a human right.

Policies must appeal to the public, not to business elites or campaign donors. The party must not shy away from promoting affordable housing, appropriate increases in wages, electoral reform, robust industry and a responsibly controlled defense budget.

The breed of people who can succeed in garnering support through populism will be the people who understand and respect the ordinary people of this country. Neither career politicians, media personalities, sociologists nor any corporate elite can substitute for people who come from the same ordinary backgrounds as the voters.

Democrats have to abandon their centrism and dynastic establishment — there is simply no choice other than popular progressivism. There is no logic in belittling “populism” like a curse word. The party must recover its old roots by listening to public demands for genuine welfare. If it wants to stay relevant as a whole, the Democratic Party must see the writing on the wall and begin this change at once.

Deniz Gulay is a sophomore double-majoring in history and Russian. 

Views expressed in the opinions pages represent the opinions of the columnists. The only piece that represents the view of the Pipe Dream Editorial Board is the Staff Editorial.

One movie that I watch for this kind of comfort is the 2013 film “The Secret Life of Walter Mitty,” and I want to add my own perspective to the sea of criticism and mockery people have poured on it since it came out 12 years ago.

Without giving away too much of its premise, the film is an adaptation of James Thurber’s short story of the same name. The movie follows Walter Mitty, an ordinary office worker who works at a magazine based in Manhattan that is soon going out of business. For the final issue of the magazine, the planned cover photo was supposed to be sent by an eccentric photographer as a gift for Walter, but it is nowhere to be found. Walter has to track down the photographer — who doesn’t have a home address or a phone number — and starts traveling the world, leaving his mundane life behind as he embarks on this journey.

I simply love this idea. It isn’t intellectually deep or complex, and in this case, it doesn’t have to be. I like the premise of a person being unwillingly dragged out of their routine and into a challenge that is way outside of their comfort zone. I also enjoy this approach to storytelling — a quote attributed often to Leo Tolstoy says, “There are only two plots in all of literature: A person goes on a journey, or a stranger comes to town.” I feel that the movie presents the former kind of challenge in a memorable, even touching way. However, its performance at the box office seems to have overwhelmed all of this aesthetic greatness by making the movie remembered as a cinematic failure — a “flop.”

There is a common theme in the reviews I read about this film. Supposedly, the sudden changes in Walter’s life and his journey to find the photographer are all abrupt and do not carry meaning. Additionally, some critics believe the songs that are used to mark changes in Walter’s emotions are noises that are carelessly thrown around. In other words, the character that the movie encourages us to look up to — with the whole point of the movie being a character leaving his ordinary life and living a challenging one — is attacked because his transformation makes him stop being “one of us.”

I don’t agree with any of this superficial commentary. I have my own reservations about the movie for different and unrelated reasons, but the story itself is not only entertaining but also very much inspirational to watch. Yes, Walter does stop being “one of us” in the movie — he experiences a journey that an ordinary person with an ordinary job would not live through at all. However, this is only due to the fact that he needs to go completely and literally out of his way to achieve a necessary goal. In the end, something beyond his individual life, perhaps the randomness of life or the machinations of fate, takes him away from the ordinary routine and puts him on a journey to accomplish a task. The beauty of the story comes from how, on this journey, he also gets to answer the questions on his mind, realize long-delayed dreams and find deeper meaning in his life.

The best part of the movie, and the part that is misunderstood the most, is the ending. One particularly harsh criticism pinned the supposed lack of creativity of the film onto its complicated production process, arguing that by the end of it, Walter is simply a character lost in his thoughts with no apparent meaning and no visible escape.

I simply disagree. The ending is my favorite, as this is where all the daydreams and lost thoughts, things that set the themes for Walter’s journey, are resolved and answered. Walter finds himself at the end of this long journey, but also at the start of a completely new life while holding hands with his new partner and having a clearer mind. This final scene carries the most meaning for me. It shows the beauty of having found answers to deep questions and being confident in yourself to live life bravely from then on.

The film speaks to your consciousness beyond any such minor comments. Walter Mitty’s story demonstrates the essence behind “living the life to the fullest,” something everybody wants but nobody really has a clue about. Setting aside minor issues or misguided pedantry, the film is definitely worth knowing and remembering as a good example of what a life challenge can look like. Being pushed out of your comfort zone can put you on a new journey — leaving behind the ordinary routine can show you the extraordinary meaning of life.

Deniz Gulay is a sophomore double-majoring in history and Russian. 

Views expressed in the opinions pages represent the opinions of the columnists. The only piece that represents the view of the Pipe Dream Editorial Board is the staff editorial.

To understand the future of Africa, “Sahel” is a term that we must become familiar with. It represents the geographic borderlands between the Sahara to the north and the savannas to the south. It was historically one of the key possessions of the French Empire during the era of colonialism, and the region was exploited for its underground mineral resources. Though France lost much of its rule over its colonies in the past century, many anti-Western resistance movements in the area still see France as the oppressor.

France has deep political and economic ties in West Africa. Its former colonies use currencies that are heavily influenced by France, and the French military uses army bases in the region to combat Islamist extremists as well as to exert soft power as a phantom master. This foreign policy strategy is the root cause of the anti-Western movement in the Sahel — France is using modern means to manage old possessions, the antagonism against which has given birth to a new form of popular African identity.

The movement against French influence is currently a coalition, but the road to federalization is not a secret. Mali, Burkina Faso and Niger are the three countries in the Sahel whose regimes came into power through military coups and seek to establish a new political system free from Western involvement. In the aftermath of this overthrowing of regimes, the emerging political framework is a new coalition named the “Alliance of Sahel States,” and this development is essential to observe.

This new coalition is very quickly following the necessary steps for complete unification. The alliance members have so far proposed or agreed to form a central bank to replace the CFA franc (the common currency in countries under French influence), a joint parliament, a unified army and free trade measures through common passport and visa schemes. Most importantly, the alliance upholds the measure to establish a common cultural program to establish a unified social identity for the coalition.

Cultural cohesion is what distinguishes the movement in Sahel from other historical examples. The Cold War-era Pan-Arabist movement, as well as current-day movements the East African Community project, are both known for their slow progress, ideological infighting and failure to effectively centralize their coalitions. In contrast, the movement rising out of Sahel has the advantage of being pragmatic and realistic with its financial and political objectives — realizing political unity is objectively a well-defined goal on the path toward greater social ambitions.

Political integration is the essential step after achieving economic and cultural integration. Once the synchronization of infrastructure, administration and trade is achieved, the Sahel states will need to work toward a united constitution and the framework for leadership. The question of leadership is ultimately what killed off many other unification movements in Africa, and the alliance in Sahel is rapidly reaching the critical point where it must define its future for its government and administration.

This may appear as a federation that follows the examples of Yugoslavia or India, which provide limited self-governance to local groups and would imply the continued existence of internal divisions based on regional identities. In contrast, the alliance may focus on complete social integration, following the steps of Germany and Italy from two centuries ago to bring together adjacent countries and forge a new, singular national identity.

Ideally, Sahel benefits from an emphasis on greater social unity, mimicking the path small polities in Germany and Italy followed to create the modern German and Italian states we know today. It is therefore pragmatically useful for the coalition members to centralize their economies and administrations to not only have greater political strength but also facilitate cultural cohesion.

However, this new movement must stay clear of the mistakes of Pan-Arabists of the past century, who started with similar ambitions to unify North Africa but ultimately disintegrated due to regional favoritism and infighting. A new political movement for the Sahel must also define its political direction so that an effective and centralized administration can emerge beyond the push for unification.

Forming a new national identity is the logical next step for the Sahel. Redefining and fusing regional identities has the potential of creating new cultural connections that transcend traditional tribal or otherwise arbitrary colonial divisions — this is a step that can make African peoples effectively reinvent their identities free from foreign control. For this goal, the Sahel nations must maintain their momentum and focus on defining the future of a new state and a new cultural identity for West Africa.

Deniz Gulay is a sophomore double-majoring in history and Russian.

Views expressed in the opinions pages represent the opinions of the columnists. The only piece that represents the view of the Pipe Dream Editorial Board is the staff editorial. 

A simple but effective way to visualize the end, utilized for many years, has been “The Doomsday Clock.” Though the Clock has many critics, it’s worth preserving as an icon symbolizing the threat to humanity.

The Clock itself is not a genuine countdown but a metaphor. Before the Cold War, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists designed it in 1947 to portray the direction humanity was headed toward — and still is heading toward today. In this regard, it is also unique because it is not necessarily affected by the occasional news and events from daily life. Instead, the Clock is a general symbol of the threats imposed by vast issues like nuclear proliferation, climate change, the spread of diseases, artificial intelligence and notable geopolitical issues.

The Clock symbolizes the very foundation of our civilization. It examines the broad trends in our behavior, so it is affected not by the usual scandal of the week, but by what has festered beneath everyday news for years, even decades.

Actions of individual leaders or sensational events may represent memorable moments, but society often changes due to a much longer and more complex chain of events. A large catastrophe in history always involves many different factors that affect each other. Because of this, one must have a broad look at the world to see the direction where things are headed.

This perspective is key to understanding the purpose of the Clock, as reading the news regularly is bound to be a stressful thing to do. There is always another disaster, another tragedy ready to be shown on television or somewhere online. The effect of, and consequently the problem with, this is that one can get so desensitized to negative news that they lose sight of the big trends that shape our world.

I am imagining a countdown, where each of its seconds represents a different magnitude of danger. When the countdown begins, we might see the usual and redundant issues like corruption and overconsumption. These issues are usually mitigated through consistent reform, so they do not pose a challenge, even if they are significant. This is followed by major downturns in industry and civil order — economic upsets that result in lasting difficulties and discontent toward principles of law, signaling the subtle erosion of stability.

We then see more radical shifts, riots and mass violence, trade wars and arms races and, finally, open conflicts. Along with these, patterns of disease spread, followed by radical political movements and the suspension of civil rights for the public. From the most mundane to the most extreme, it makes more sense for the Clock to not just symbolize but also logically and scientifically measure the broad trends of humanity.

The Doomsday Clock is an effective metaphor but not a coherent tool. It must be reformed by defining the stages that lead a civilization to its devastation. Members of the Bulletin in charge of adjusting the Clock have long since branched out of their specialty of nuclear war and have included trends about the environment, politics and technology. The Clock should embrace the diversity of its interests and represent the direction we are headed on a scientific scale.

Desensitization is the root of the criticism against the Doomsday Clock. Many people across the world and across decades found its metaphor a loud but useless stunt. Its critics point out that the Clock does not follow a regular convention or scale; it predicts the incoming apocalypse in an arbitrary way that lacks or even defies nuance. This defeats the Clock’s purpose; it stops being a pragmatic tool for complex understanding and instead becomes a form of sensationalism.

Reforming the metaphor for a scientific purpose also clears up its deeper philosophical message, and that is something I want the public to be aware of. We may feel overwhelmed by the usual barrage of news to the point of apathy, but it is still our responsibility to be educated and well-informed citizens to defend our peace and democracy.

The Doomsday Clock is not only a loud warning against apocalypse but could potentially help us avoid disasters by safeguarding our civilization — from ignorance or from apathy. While it already serves as an iconic metaphor, it is time to make it an educational tool as well.

Deniz Gulay is a sophomore double-majoring in history and Russian. 

Views expressed in the opinions pages represent the opinions of the columnists. The only piece that represents the view of the Pipe Dream Editorial Board is the staff editorial. 

The numbers speak for themselves, and they are not painting a pleasant picture at all. According to the latest numbers from the Department of Veterans Affairs medical facilities, one in 10 veterans who return to civilian life after service report a case of substance abuse. The statistics show that of these people, eight in 10 suffer from alcoholism, nearly one in three suffer from illegal drug abuse and close to one in 10 suffer from a combination of both.

These numbers point toward the improperly addressed mental health issues among veterans. It is vital to know that, while pain management is a motivating force, these statistics emerge chiefly because of underlying psychological challenges faced by soldiers on duty. Of those who served in Afghanistan and Iraq and reported a case of substance abuse, between 82 and 93 percent of them also reported a mental disorder such as anxiety or PTSD gained during deployment.

These are challenges already difficult for the average civilian to overcome, but, for veterans, they can be brick walls impossible to breach. According to numbers, half of all U.S. veterans feel that they do not fit into society after they return from service. Instead, these people may find themselves isolated, lonely and removed from any meaningful social connections with the outside world.

Consider how severely such circumstances may fuel addiction and depression, and the severity of the problem at hand becomes much more apparent. The duties of organizations like the Veterans Affairs Department have come a long way in the past century to recognize and treat issues such as PTSD, but its enduring key problems are ineffective bureaucracy and inconsistent and inadequate care for medical needs. These issues become especially relevant in light of cases of death related to suicide and COVID-19.

These issues are not new, but they can potentially leave a lasting legacy for the U.S. Armed Forces. The issues faced by soldiers returning from operations many thousands of miles away are marked by horror stories of despair, hopelessness, lack of direction, and sadly as a predictable outcome, mental issues and suicide. An environment that turns young and able men into lifeless beings cannot be the reputation of an institution dedicated to defense.

Lack of attention to the lives of soldiers after their service is a key cause behind the ongoing recruitment issues. This naturally means that the U.S. Armed Forces, operating on the basis of volunteers rather than conscription, must address the issue of post-service treatment and emphasize social welfare to make the military a trustworthy institution. After all, political issues stemming from foreign involvements have been making more and more headlines, and the United States’ currently bellicose attitude toward its neighbors is making young Americans question the worth of a life as a soldier. The issue of substance abuse among those who return from service will only further damage the reputation of the military and spur further disillusionment.

The well-being of soldiers, both in the line of duty and beyond, has to be the undebatable priority of the military. It is unrealistic to assume that the reintroduction of the draft will do any good to pump up the numbers; only through genuine welfare reform and professional organization of government resources can this issue be tackled.

Issues of social isolation are at the heart of substance abuse — that is the area the emphasis should be on. The department must focus on developing ways to provide opportunities to find a sense of belonging among veterans. From a social perspective, the career opportunities provided to veterans should guarantee not only employment but also socialization and a sense of identity among peers.

Furthermore, as substance abuse depends on despair as its fuel, veterans must have more common and clear access to treat their mental health problems. The department, as well as foundations and associations dedicated to veterans, must serve not as “institutions” simply looking after people but as places where people go to find their community and sense of purpose in life.

No great power can exist without an honorable military to defend it, and the United States is no exception. The integrity and sustainability of its operations require the government to see these overall trends as a social problem — not merely a medical one — as well as a systemic one, rather than about access to firearms on duty. Conflicts yet to be fought might create the hopeless veterans of tomorrow, or worse still, the veterans who suffer today can put people away from service altogether. For the future of its size and strength, in a system based on volunteers, the military must carry out comprehensive methods to defend its members past and present against addiction, abuse and depression.

Deniz Gulay is a sophomore double-majoring in history and Russian. 

Views expressed in the opinions pages represent the opinions of the columnists. The only piece that represents the view of the Pipe Dream Editorial Board is the staff editorial. 

I want audiences to try something new instead; I want to see the story arcs of characters who were never meant to be “heroes.” Today, the stories that stand out from the average superhero movie or rom-com rolling off the production line are often ones where a random, unassuming character with relatable moral flaws finds themselves challenged. Such stories aren’t just about killing the big monster hiding in that faraway mountain but about moral dilemmas that make us contemplate our choices.

In thinking this, I am inspired by a video game that presented this vision many years ago.

Papers, Please is a game where the protagonist is in precisely such a position — one that is advantageous for a unique story. The protagonist is an officer recently appointed to a border checkpoint in an imaginary country, and the gameplay is simply deciding who can pass through, who is turned away and who is detained. The lore behind this story is limited, but its creative worldbuilding excellently sets up the tense atmosphere of the environment. Most importantly, the main character is a simple man who is solely responsible for keeping his family safe.

The gameplay mechanics are beyond the scope of this column, but the design and role of the protagonist in the game’s story are very interesting to me. The player directly controls every minor decision the character makes, which effectively puts us into the shoes of the protagonist. As the game progresses, the story design forces us to make more and more difficult choices about people’s entry — this is intentionally designed to test our moral compass.

Many moral questions arise while playing the game. Are you dedicated to the laws and rules of your country? If so, will you turn a desperate refugee away just because their files aren’t in order? Are you concerned about making money for your starving family? Will you then let drug smugglers pass freely to earn extra cash from them? Papers, Please first makes you comfortable with the menial routine of a border guard, only to put you in these difficult situations and force you to sacrifice your principles for material benefit or vice versa.

This is not possible with the typical protagonist of a heroic story. Only by creating characters that ordinary people empathize with can we make such stories meaningfully realistic. We know before watching a movie or opening the comic book that Spider-Man must fight and defeat criminals or that Batman must use another expensive gadget to save the day. We cannot relate to them, and we cannot pretend to be like them because they live completely different lives from us.

Compare that to the moral dilemmas of a taxi driver, a traffic warden or, in the case of Papers, Please, a border guard can face. They do not fight evil enemies; they don’t even “fight” in most of the scenarios they are depicted in. They nonetheless interact with other ordinary people and have to make choices about their daily lives.

There isn’t a set rule for making an ordinary life “gripping” to an audience, but if you want to get an idea, then I wholeheartedly recommend giving Papers, Please a try. Regardless of which way you choose your story to go, I am certain that you will learn something new about your morals and thought process in real life through an “impossible” protagonist.

As for the rest of the creative world, I don’t have an exact model each story should follow, but I still have a principle that can be useful for the sake of unique creativity. Especially for media with audience engagement like games and interactive movies, try creating characters in positions of life that are common but unassuming. Put their predictable lives to the test by forcing them to make a critical decision. This sense of dilemma and moral deadlock is exactly the kind of environment from which new and unique ideas can emerge.

We already know what Indiana Jones or Captain America would do when challenged because their characters have predictable patterns. But what would an ordinary human, an average, unassuming person do? What difficult choices do they have to make? Make us, the audience, think about our choices, and what comes next will be a memorable, personal experience.

Deniz Gulay is a sophomore double-majoring in history and Russian. 

Views expressed in the opinions pages represent the opinions of the columnists. The only piece that represents the view of the Pipe Dream Editorial Board is the staff editorial. 

To imagine what tomorrow might bring, we must first understand what is at hand today. The Turkish government has been the target of widespread protests across the country’s big cities. The spark came from an unexpectedly harsh political move: Istanbul’s mayor and a key opposition leader, Ekrem İmamoğlu, was arrested on allegations of corruption and ties to terrorist organizations. His arrest was swiftly followed by the revocation of his university diploma from Istanbul University, and since Turkish presidential elections require candidates to have a university diploma, this move effectively makes him ineligible to be a candidate against current president Recep Tayyip Erdoğan.

The action taken against İmamoğlu is a direct move against the Turkish opposition. He was one of Turkey’s leading figureheads, successful enough to challenge the incumbent conservative Justice and Development Party, or AKP, in local elections in 2019 and 2024. His success in defeating AKP in Istanbul launched his popularity, and this created the motivation among the opposition parties for him to become the candidate to run against Erdoğan in the presidential elections. His arrest and the revocation of his diploma are, therefore, clear attempts to stifle this steadily growing movement.

The resulting backlash has now boiled into mass protests and riots across the major cities of Turkey; spearheaded by political activism groups aided by university students, large masses of the disgruntled and disillusioned followed them. Frequent reports of violent clashes on the streets and brutal police crackdowns have appeared only to strengthen the resolve of the protestors.

Twenty-three years of AKP’s uninterrupted conservative rule over the country has resulted in a weaker economy, more dire living conditions, fewer opportunities for Turkish youth and a loss of hope in the future for many of its citizens. These are the motivations that boil over into anger and fuel the ongoing protests, but protests alone cannot bring the necessary changes to the country. The Turkish youth is the vanguard of this movement, and the youth will decide where Turkey goes from here.

I, as someone who lived in Turkey for 19 years, have the same question as anyone else who is observing these events: Where do we really go from here?

The first option is the pessimistic, but also the predictable one — letting protests go on for a few more weeks would eventually lead to the movement losing steam and dissipating, İmamoğlu would remain in custody, and the opposition would be dealt a significant blow to its strength. This would mimic the outcome of the 2013 Gezi Protests, which historically gathered much support but did not result in a change of government. The incumbent regime could thereafter further solidify its political control, further purge its opposition and exacerbate the ongoing democratic backsliding.

The alternative option is to build and develop the movement on a bigger scale. Protests are a solid beginning, but justice can only be found when the government is challenged through direct economic and social action. Organizing boycotts, systematic strikes and coordinated rallies as a coalition of opposition factions is necessary to represent national unity while avoiding anarchy and uncoordinated chaos. This is precisely the opportunity for the Turkish youth to show its strength by mobilizing the population not for a mere ideological front but for a popular movement representing all of Turkey.

In between these two options is also what I call the “sum of all fears,” a dark but possible outcome. Turkey is no stranger to political crises, and in times of turmoil, the Turkish Armed Forces traditionally step in to overthrow the government and impose harsh regimes to stabilize the country. Military rule, though very unlikely, is also not impossible. And while Turkey faces serious challenges of democratic backsliding, the establishment of an autocratic military emergency regime would be the definitive end of republicanism in Turkey for the foreseeable future.

I believe in the strength of organized masses. Should they act in unison and with clear objectives, I believe the Turkish people can enact justice and mend the ailing order of law in their country. Instability in Turkey is, at any rate, a geopolitical threat to the West, as an autocratic regime is bound to make the country become politically, diplomatically and economically isolated from its Western partners. It is the duty of the new generation to make history and direct the nation toward restoring its democratic roots — all of Turkey’s future depends on its vigor today.

Deniz Gulay is a sophomore double-majoring in history and Russian. Views expressed in the opinions pages represent the opinions of the columnists. 

Views expressed in the opinions pages represent the opinions of the columnists. The only piece that represents the view of the Pipe Dream Editorial Board is the staff editorial.

The way some documentary formats work without narration is through the use of title cards followed by a brief description that gives the viewer context. Then, the subject of the film is shown step by step through archive footage, memoirs and interviews done at the time period of the subject. There is never a point where someone narrates the action or speaks to interpret the story — what is on the screen to see “is” the story itself.

Two of my all-time favorite documentaries use this style. The first one is “LA 92” by National Geographic. As a history documentary, it is superb in its editing and theme choices, as every event covered by the film is linked together in an excellent “cause and effect” chain. It is also very good at bringing in all the perspectives on the actual Los Angeles Riots that occurred more than 30 years ago — the motivations of the Black community, Koreans, the police and Rodney King, who is at the center of the unfolding chaos.

The cinematic beauty of “LA 92” is that the archive footage used for it almost becomes “alive.” You watch the series of recordings and interviews as if you are sitting at your home and watching the 6 o’clock news as Los Angeles is actively burning. The sense of terror and panic is real, and you feel both helpless and morbidly curious. The key principle is to have a clear understanding of the sequence of events, their relative impact on the subject and the perspectives of everyone involved. Even a documentary that “speaks for itself” can still twist reality by cherry-picking events to cover. A systematic analysis of a subject is necessary to make, at the very least, an honest documentary.

My second favorite just came out last year, but I am hopeful it will leave a lasting impact. In fact, “Soundtrack to a Coup d’Etat” by director Johan Grimonprez was so successful as a documentary that I hope it sets a trend in documentary production for many years to come. Usually, when someone “spoils” a movie for you, it is because they told you what happens in the end. You know what to expect, so the element of surprise is taken away. Spoiling this documentary for you would happen if I told you in detail just how beautifully music and history are blended together.

The film is both figuratively and literally a soundtrack. Figuratively, because it ties together the history of Congo’s independence from Belgium like the moving tracks of a playlist — there are the fast-moving tunes of jazz, somber tunes for impending crises, a loud orchestra for upheaval and slow tunes for the moments of revelation and disaster. One theme is followed by another, and the story reinvents itself constantly. It is also literally a soundtrack because instead of a narrator doing the explanation, rhythms and songs speak for themselves while you see what figures like Dwight D. Eisenhower, Nikita Khrushchev or Patrice Lumumba had to say about themselves in memoirs in this “jukebox documentary.”

The method of not needing a narrator works very well because the free audio and visual space necessary for a narrator is instead filled with more music, more history and more art. Naturally, any subject that is before the recording of history or sound is going to be hard to turn into a film like these examples. Nevertheless, there is still a century of events and footage to cover in this style, so the method has a lot of free space to roam for experimentation.

These two documentaries are definitely worth watching just for the experience one can get from them. Setting the educational value aside — and trust me that they are nonetheless very educational with their content — these films use artistic creativity to their highest levels. As works of motion picture, they certainly create a new world of possibilities.

Not having narrators allows history to speak for itself and makes our position as observers all the more meaningful while watching these films. We, the audience, are presented with an intellectual challenge to break barriers made of prejudice and think of history by embracing its rough edges and ugliness. My hope for your experience is that this is a way for you to learn not only about history but “from” it as well.

Deniz Gulay is a sophomore double-majoring in history and Russian. 

Views expressed in the opinions pages represent the opinions of the columnists. The only piece that represents the view of the Pipe Dream Editorial Board is the staff editorial. 

On the other hand, Japan cannot escape this equation — the reality is that Japan relies on U.S. support and aid for its defense, and in return, the United States needs bases on Japanese soil to put pressure on China. Embracing a policy of neutrality fueled by anti-militarism leaves Japan unprepared for future crises and jeopardizes the entire Asia-Pacific defense scheme developed by Washington in the past 80 years.

Japan is a major economic power in Asia, but this does not translate into military strength. This is because Japan has a difficult relationship with the prospect of arming itself due to deeply cultural reasons — the memories and humiliation brought by the Second World War forced the Japanese to abandon their militarist tendencies, embracing pacifism in its place. The Constitution of Japan formally renounced the right to wage war in all forms, and barring minor territorial disputes with Russia, Japan had neither any territorial ambitions nor a motivation to create a sphere of influence like that of Russia, Germany or the United States.

The changing tides of geopolitics may eventually force Japan to reconsider this attitude and it is impossible to avoid internal strife among the Japanese public no matter which direction is taken. The center of this strife is Okinawa, an island governed by Japan sitting halfway between its home islands and Taiwan. It is the primary site of U.S. military buildup against China, and it is fueling a generational dispute between the elderly and the youth of the island.

The memories of Japanese imperialist militarism and the troublesome presence of the U.S. Navy put the older generation against rearmament. In contrast, the growing frequency of airspace breaches caused by Chinese aircraft over Taiwan motivates the youth there to make Okinawa a fortress for the cause of defending Western democracy in the Far East. The former demographic does not want to see Japan using so much as a pistol beyond its borders, while the latter is eager to see Japan become the vanguard, the first nation in the line of fire against China, regardless of the price paid in blood should a war break out in the future.

Japan needs to find a balance between these ideological extremes. Between total militarism and total pacifism, the ideal position emphasizes self-defense that prioritizes Japan’s protection. Beyond any risks coming from Beijing or pressures that may come from Washington D.C., Japan needs to have an independent, self-sustaining and pragmatic defense scheme.

Tokyo needs such a program to counteract the jingoistic attitude of hawkish politicians that argue for rapid militarization as well as the agitation of factions that intend for peace but compromise Japan’s pragmatic needs. Curiously, Japan already embraces this balance as its armed forces are officially known as “Japanese Self-Defense Forces,” strictly implying that Japan does not intend to be an aggressor in an escalation.

A different dimension of this problem is Japan’s economic strength. While it may be very formidable as a prominent G7 country, Japan suffers from the same array of problems the European Union is facing, as its equipment stocks depend on continuous United States aid, training and upkeep. A truly independent defense policy, especially in these times when President Donald Trump’s foreign policy is casting doubts on the United States’ dependability, makes it unquestionably necessary for Japan to seek its own means to procure weapons.

All such questions must come before any discussions on procuring a nuclear arsenal can even begin, as Japan obtaining nuclear weapons right now would only escalate the ongoing tensions and bring the proverbial “midnight” closer to reality. Currently, the big task ahead for Tokyo is to manage its internal politics and arrange the correct compromises for a sustainable defense policy independent of domestic militarism or foreign exploitation.

Without a careful program to ensure Japan’s sovereignty, there cannot be a meaningful discussion of what role it can play in the region. Before ever considering being involved in large geopolitical questions, Japan must first prioritize its own interests and seek to deter conflicts from its soil through pragmatic self-defense. Ensuring that such a program is capable of safeguarding Japan, but at the same time also safe from being used in escalating tensions, is necessary for Tokyo’s geopolitical interests.

Deniz Gulay is a sophomore double-majoring in history and Russian.

Views expressed in the opinions pages represent the opinions of the columnists. The only piece that represents the view of the Pipe Dream Editorial Board is the staff editorial. 

This has been the strategy for three long years, and it’s time to admit that it is not working.

I was saving this subject for a later time to see how President Donald Trump’s diplomatic strategy on Ukraine would play out in the first year of his term. Given how terribly the geopolitical links between the United States and Europe have begun to deteriorate, it is pertinent to think about what was achieved so far with hoping to strangle Russia’s economy together. Speaking sincerely, there cannot be a logical hope to inflict damage on Russia’s war machine through sanctions anymore.

For three years, the United States and the European Union worked in tandem to limit Russia’s participation in the global economy. This was the natural step to follow after cutting off diplomatic ties as, even after the annexation of Crimea and the start of the war in Donbas, Russia maintained some of its ties to the West via trade agreements and resource deals. This stresses that Russia relies on a capitalist model like most other nations and unilaterally cutting off its access to the international markets appeared the obvious thing to do.

A frequent justification for this strategy was — and still is — that Russia is such an economically inefficient country that, despite its size, it has a GDP smaller than Italy’s, and at any moment, it could face a financial collapse, triggering an uprising against the government. This argument ignores the resilience of Russia’s military industry against embargoes and disregards Russia’s natural response to search for new international markets to replace the West.

Trump’s new policy of negotiations is now leaving Europe alone to carry on with this campaign. The United States is leaving the strategy of economic isolation behind to negotiate with President Vladimir Putin for a ceasefire, followed by either a territorial settlement or a Korean Peninsula-style frozen line of contact between Russia and Ukraine. As a result of this change, and due to the trade war ignited between the United States and the European Union, Europe is now racing to bring the nations within its bloc together for a unified economic policy against Russia.

Europe cannot be expected to succeed in this endeavor. E.U. leader Ursula von der Leyen promoted greater defense spending, while the European Commission suggested diverting funds to build military strength, but the full implementation of any defense program cannot happen instantly. Given the bureaucratic nature of the European Union, it may take years for European nations to not rely on U.S. aid and management for their industrial strength.

The very political identity of European idealism may fracture if military development does not happen soon enough. While the United States is one federal government with centralized authority, the European Union is made of 27 different countries acting in far from complete unison. The sheer scale and speed of von der Leyen’s proposal to build pressure against Russia cannot work without the United States, which now seeks to reestablish ties with Moscow for negotiations.

The true problem this situation reveals is that the West has tried everything it could do to challenge Russia — short of actually going to war with Russia. Without a sustainable industry, Europe cannot maintain economic pressure designed to erode Russia’s strength without direct action.

Supporting Ukraine requires the kind of military-industrial program the European Union cannot create fast enough. Continuous arms supplies require a robust production economy to survive a war of attrition like the Ukraine-Russian war, while financial pressure requires E.U. economies to contend with higher prices for resources and goods outside of Russia. At any rate, such measures may require higher defense budgets at the expense of civilian spending and possible austerity measures to afford bigger armies with conscription using funds from European welfare programs.

I predict that there is simply not enough time, political unity or economic strength for the European Union to maintain its pressure on Russia. Moscow is facing a high rate of inflation and reduced trade, but the speed with which Moscow could then embrace a war-oriented economy shows that Russia can endure a war of attrition for far longer than anyone in Brussels hopes for.

In the end, this leaves Europe with a brutal dilemma: either sidestep democratic bureaucracy and ramp up militarization to engage with Russia directly or continue to impose sanctions at a greatly reduced rate without the United States’ backing and slowly lose the war of attrition against the pace that Russia can support its army. I do not see any alternatives to these options, and of the two, it appears the latter is the predictable outcome.

Deniz Gulay is a sophomore double-majoring in history and Russian.

Views expressed in the opinions pages represent the opinions of the columnists. The only piece that represents the view of the Pipe Dream Editorial Board is the staff editorial.

To start, I want you to understand that “religion” is a very broad term to use. The three major Abrahamic faiths of Islam, Christianity and Judaism are divided into many distinct sects and branches, and dozens of other faiths around the world follow vastly different traditions. Precisely because of this, I am using the term “religion” only as an aspect of being people have in their lives without being specific to culture or practices.

Regardless of our personal backgrounds, we as humans crave to be a part of a social circle — the need to be a part of a group is hardwired into our biology. Technology use in our modern world has facilitated this in a variety of ways, and social media has become largely indispensable for us today. However, technology cannot fulfill the need for genuine human collaboration — the kind of interaction that occurs in real life between people and creates a living sense of community.

For much of human history, religion was one institution that was able to facilitate that. Places of worship, that is churches, shrines, mosques and other such places, were “third places” where people would gather and share their social lives with others. Outside of observing their faith, having a place to regularly go each week gave people a place and a purpose to see others from their community.

This is not to say that today’s world has a problem that stems from a lack of faith — people are, and must always be, free to live as they please, and the personal matter of faith or lack thereof is not a question to be explored here. But as for religion as an institution, there are possible changes that can make it an active component of modern life. Religion today is a matter of identity more than it is a symbol of community, which can breed divisions and obstruct the idea of a collective. Reviving the purpose of gathering humans in a collective place should once again be the goal of religion.

This can be achieved by making any place of worship something beyond just a place where people go to worship. A primary cause for people to adopt faith today tends to be a fear of isolation, loneliness or loss of identity that is not quelled by clinical means. Religion can, therefore, focus itself on addressing these questions, making people facing these emotions feel appreciated in gatherings and looking out for their emotional needs outside of regular service.

Another dimension to consider would be local activism, something that religion is very much capable of facilitating. Religion was historically enough of a motivator to mobilize mass movements, political actions and even critical moments such as wars and crusades. Religion has the means to organize and guide people into collective action, which can be utilized to foster a sense of identity in their local area.

Promoting a dynamic and altruistic lifestyle is essential to fostering a social identity. Religion can encourage people to preserve local environments through nature preservation, study local history to enrich the knowledge of heritage in the area or promote volunteer duties to look after those in need. To a certain degree, religion is already involved with such things but fails to advertise the component of social activity, and people who are disillusioned with religion often turn to secular alternatives. Communities formed from these efforts are also useful to lay the foundations of bigger movements across counties and states — grassroots movements can scale up sustainably if the people put trust and value into their own contribution to their communities.

We may worry about political problems such as turnout levels and divides between genders or generations, but in the end, we must first tackle the issue of making the modern person a part of a bigger group again. It is a form of apathy that isolates and restricts humans from society, which is the root cause behind most common psychological issues today. These are secular problems that religion can play a part in resolving, and in doing so, religion may discover its purpose and meaning for the rest of the century, too.

Deniz Gulay is a sophomore double-majoring in history and Russian. 

Views expressed in the opinions pages represent the opinions of the columnists. The only piece that represents the view of the Pipe Dream Editorial Board is the staff editorial. 

Kardashev created the titular “Kardashev scale” as a method of measuring the levels of progress a civilization can theoretically reach. When Earth inevitably becomes insufficient in resources, humanity must seek to develop new planets and new systems to fulfill its needs. He proposed that to satisfy its energy needs, an expanding and spacefaring civilization will seek to harness the total output of its home planet, then its entire solar system and finally an entire galaxy. This means that hypothetically, the predictable trend for us is to seek to colonize and develop the space around us for the continuation of human civilization.

Kardashev was correct in assuming that energy consumption is a solid metric to measure the rate of human progress. However, the cosmic scales of stars and galaxies are still too far away from us; even traveling at light speeds will take us centuries, if not millennia, to achieve the steps required on this scale. Furthermore, Kardashev’s vision for technological progress is not comprehensive enough to be accessible. Harnessing and utilizing energy on large scales is indeed important, but the progress of a civilization that leads to such achievements comes with being able to develop new technologies in transportation, navigation, communication and manufacturing collectively. Therefore, the theory must be adjusted to fit the needs of current and near-future civilizations.

The first step in rethinking Kardashev’s vision starts with technology. Using our history as an example, the mass colonization of entire continents came as a result of the need for resources to fuel the Industrial Revolution but also necessitated the advent of technologies that could sustain the scale of those empires. Larger ships, more accurate maps, the telegraph, the telephone and finally the advent of the production line — these were all innovations that history simply could not progress without. Imagining the scales, speeds and techniques of production and infrastructure is therefore key to the theorization of harnessing energy. If we want to expand the scope of human civilization beyond Earth, we must also have the imagination and planning to conceptualize this expansion in terms of transportation and communication tools.

There is also another arguably less “scientific” but nonetheless deeply important point to consider. Kardashev may have contemplated the expansion of human energy use on planetary and even galactic scales, but he completely overlooked the element of culture and group identity. The history of humanity can be considered a steady progress of coalescing around larger and larger entities — from the earliest tribes to city-states, kingdoms, empires and eventually today’s superpowers and economic blocs, human history took a direction toward greater civilizational centralization that remained consistent throughout the ages.

At this current moment, we are at the stage in which concentrated nation-states are forming blocs on regional and continental levels to combine their collective economies. The implementation of common currencies, common markets and common production for military equipment are steps toward unifying national societies toward entities on the scale of continents. While thinking about the expansion of human civilization on cosmic scales, along with scientific progress, we must imagine how a unified society can transcend vast geographies and function on even larger scales.

The culture factor is key to reimagining the Kardashev scale into something more pragmatic as it puts modern geopolitics into the context of greater civilizations. We need new social theories that can explain the direction of civilization by explaining how states develop, expand and connect. Focusing squarely on GDP or similar economic metrics as a sign of moving up the scale ignores the realities of modern politics; powers such as China and Russia present real material challenges to Western political doctrine despite being far less formidable on paper.

Meanwhile, the European Union contains many national economies that collectively can rival even the largest superpowers, but its future is at risk of fragmentation due to an inability to solidify a continental identity of culture. Therefore, new understandings of human development and progress must encompass factors like the efficiency of material production, the centralization of state apparatus and the exertion of cultural influence across national boundaries.

I hope that it is in our destiny as humans to become a spacefaring civilization, but to do so, social science must step up to the task of hypothesizing the transition from nation-states to great powers and to cosmic entities as Kardashev proposed. Those who study history must look into fusing the processes of technological progress, coalescing of cultures and synchronization of national economies toward larger blocs, trends that will define the future of our collective civilization.

Deniz Gulay is a sophomore double-majoring in history and Russian. 

Views expressed in the opinions pages represent the opinions of the columnists. The only piece that represents the view of the Pipe Dream Editorial Board is the staff editorial.

Every Sunday, on my way to church, I walk past that monument and worry about how their heritage is now being spat and stamped on by spineless ideologues.

Today, something as vile as open sympathy for fascism is being normalized in the media and can even rely on the media for its normalization. There has been a growth in smaller groups opting to self-organize outside of larger organizations and relying on their self-declared place in our communities and online. Their effectiveness has in part come from social media, which is used to recruit people for their cause, expand their message and intimidate ordinary citizens through violent means. They represent a danger beyond what happened in Charlottesville almost eight years ago, beyond the rally at Madison Square Garden 86 years ago and beyond any other instance of public sympathy for autocracy.

The movement is fueled by people who have been agitated to turn against democracy, and should such a movement preserve its momentum, it can altogether erode the constitutional order of this nation.

This is no longer the petulance of a small, irrelevant group but instead an action toward creating a new reactionary — if not an outright fascist — movement in the United States. Fringe movements have learned to effectively manipulate the disillusionment of the average voter and online user with their strategy of disinformation working against the unity of this country.

The first and most obvious issue at hand is the normalization of fascist sympathy. In the past few weeks alone, cities across the United States have been the scene of thugs marching with covered faces and carrying swastika flags. Placards have frequently appeared in public places calling for the murder of Jews, deportation of migrants and violence toward all democratic opposition against fascists. Meanwhile, the infamous case of Elon Musk doing a Nazi salute at President Donald Trump’s inauguration, his lack of accountability for this action and the reluctance of organizations like the Anti-Defamation League to hold Musk accountable make it easy to openly display indifference to history without facing any consequences. Worse still, conservative forums online are complicit in this behavior, indulging in the mockery of those who protest these incidents with “leftist cope.”

The growing incidence of Nazi marches and attacks is another dimension of this problem. These groups need people in their ranks to bolster their size and intimidate people. They need to find people somewhere, and they do so among the most disgruntled and vulnerable people in society. Fascist recruitment strategies, according to the Center on Extremism, include the distribution of racist, antisemitic and anti-LGBTQ fliers, banners, graffiti and posters, marking their presence, as well as flash demonstrations, rallies and marches. This then becomes a cycle — these groups post videos of their rallies to boost engagement, secure their place online, recruit more people and hold more rallies while those disillusioned by the state of affairs are presented with an impressive, captivating alternative — and the cycle repeats.

Nazism in America is a growing fire, and it must be extinguished. The brash display of fascist imagery and rallies is the fuel and the complacency of the government, as well as the inaction of the media and civil society, is the air this fire needs to keep burning. The government has the undebatable moral responsibility to tackle all instances of far-right activism by cracking down on these groups, making it a crime to display Nazi and all other forms of fascist imagery.

So far, it has failed to do so despite both domestic campaigns and numerous U.N. resolutions on which the United States voted “no,” like the Russian Federation-introduced resolution to condemn Nazism and prohibit Nazi speech, citing geopolitical concerns. Should far-right activism continue to rise and become even more of a public safety issue, it will be the error of the government, before anyone else, to disregard this issue.

On the other hand, the air this fire needs comes from the ordinary, albeit disgruntled, working-class citizens, whose disillusionment is hijacked by these groups for their benefit. The media and organizations like the ADL are responsible for not openly calling out those sympathizing with Nazi imagery, and our education system is responsible for not enshrining within the minds of the public the discipline to know the horrors of fascism and stand against it.

So long as this trend of apathy and tolerance persists, more ordinary citizens will be lured to such movements or will simply be complicit in the erosion of their liberties. As for the government, the media and us, the people, the ultimate task is to not let Nazism on U.S. soil be normalized. It is the responsibility of any free-thinking citizen to honor the sacrifices of those who fought against the Nazis and to never let their dogma come back to life.

Deniz Gulay is a sophomore double-majoring in history and Russian. 

Views expressed in the opinions pages represent the opinions of the columnists. The only piece that represents the view of the Pipe Dream Editorial Board is the staff editorial. 

A good dynamic for the latter of games can be defined by the balance between interactive mechanics and stories with narrative depth, though I don’t feel satisfied with the range of games the industry currently has to offer. Especially considering that the term “visual novel” is heavily associated with Japanese works, there isn’t much to go around when it comes to art styles, storytelling methods or plots coming from the West. In my experience, Japanese games that fall under this category are characteristically “railroaded” experiences, meaning they still provide limited space for player interaction and include a narrow set of choices in a closed environment.

But the genre is not limited to the Japanese industry, nor is the genre itself static — new interpretations of the visual novel should borrow previous mechanics and build gaming experiences that provide much greater levels of creativity in interactive gameplay on top of them.

Given current trends, it is much more lucrative to release another game with in-game purchases or rushed mechanics than to take the time to imagine new styles of gameplay. Perhaps I am an outlier for claiming this, but because of this, a game from the West called “Suzerain” should be treated as a rare example of a visual novel that is deeply immersive, and future success for this genre can come by drawing inspiration from it.

The premise of Suzerain is simple. As the president of an imaginary republic, you must persevere through the endless complexities and power struggles of a chaotic society while overcoming harsh political and cultural problems. Every decision you make affects the balance of power in your nation, and you must find your moral ground by interacting with the world around you. Many simulators try to emulate the hard decisions made in politics, but Suzerain is the only one that I can think of in which the experience feels decisively human. I feel that I am living an imaginary life while playing the game, and every decision made within its interactive design makes the experience personal.

On a different note, games that are, technically speaking, not visual novels can still bring an element of creativity into the industry in the West. The most famous example of good narrative being coupled with interesting gameplay is Disco Elysium. Without stretching the definitions too much, this is one of the works from the past years that has introduced new ideas about what visual novels can achieve.

The most excellent part about the storytelling in Disco Elysium is its very human way of approaching the complex setting it is based on. The player begins with no memory, no sense of purpose and no identity, finding the need to invent their own as the dialogue progresses and ascribe meaning to a chaotic world. There is still an eventual end we march toward, and barring the slight variations on the different endings, the way the story concludes is as inevitable as death itself.

This aspect of its story somehow makes me feel like Disco Elysium is an allegory for life itself — while death is inevitable, the choices we make can still define the time we have. Disco Elysium has the potential to reach such a level of complexity in its narrative effectively because the depth of storytelling is always the priority — the experience is distinct from other conventional genres because the story of the game is “your” life story and the purpose of the game is to discover how you specifically choose to see the stories of the world around you.

One thing that made writing this article both exciting and frustrating was this same situation with visual novels — there aren’t many unique ones out there. That is why it is worth paying attention to these two games that have made a name for themselves, primarily because of how much potential they have from a game design point. Their reviews always have the same type of “What other games are like this?” and “Why aren’t there more games like this?” comments by players. The lack of experimentation by the industry until now is at odds with the untapped potential of games beyond mere entertainment and toward creative art. Conventional action and combat genres have a solidified audience in mainstream gaming due to their longtime popularity and physicality, but studios with creative vision must now cross the boundaries of the unknown and experiment with telling stories and interactive story features.

Game design that differs both from the railroaded style of narration in Japan and the greedy mass production of content in the West provides a new frontier for expression with a clear demand. I would be very interested in new games that offer an immersive, interactive storytelling experience that comes with unique mechanics. Since visual novels are good at emphasizing the depths of a fictional story, this can be a new direction to look at. There simply needs to be an incentive or a push for more content in creative writing, which could be the beginning of a new style of game development altogether.

Deniz Gulay is a sophomore double-majoring in history and Russian. 

Views expressed in the opinions pages represent the opinions of the columnists. The only piece that represents the view of the Pipe Dream Editorial Board is the staff editorial. 

“The Paul Street Boys” is a novel by Hungarian author Ferenc Molnár depicting the lives of boys who band together to look after each other in the streets of Budapest. While their country may be at war with enemy armies on faraway fronts, these boys are fighting too in a way — with other bands of boys to defend an empty field in an idle, poor corner of the city. The focus of the book is territorial control over the field by two groups of boys.

The field is sacred to the boys, as it is their homeland — their country — and they must defend it against other boys who want to make it their own. They brawl with each other, pretending to be soldiers and even making ranks and flags for themselves in this imaginary war as their elders do in real ones.

I don’t want to spoil the plot or give away the tragic ending of the book, but Molnár’s creation from 1906 inspired me to write this column about his commentary for his time and the message we can still hear today. Though the world is very different today than what it was in Molnár’s time, and many kids in major cities don’t even play games in open fields anymore, this part of the book sticks out. A group of kids can be fanaticized by their own beliefs, ascribing value where it doesn’t belong and seeking meaning where there isn’t any. There’s never proof that the field is “owned” by anyone, but the kids believe in their ownership anyway. This sounds familiar to the predicament we find ourselves in today.

Our technology and media give each person their chance to find a group to band with, their own flags to fly and their own imaginary — these days, often real — fields to defend. The way society has been changed in, at most, 15 years by social media is revolutionary since it has become uniquely easy to join a group of like-minded people without ever meeting them face to face and defend a territory without ever being there. This, in turn, generates a sense of identity built on the conviction that any other group is strange and inferior, according to Homeland Security Today.

We give ourselves the power to play our own games, sew our own flags, make up our own ranks and pretend that we own our special grassy field like the Paul Street Boys.

Technology gave us an infinite amount of eyes to see the world with. We seem to only have a select number of our favorite paints and clash over them time and time again. We need to fundamentally change and improve the way we hold opinions and believe in ideas. We must be free to keep them as we did, but we must not be incentivized to fight tooth and nail for our vision. Technology allows us to express our identity, but in that process, it also turns our personal, often flawed vision into a reality of its own. Therefore, the purpose of future technology and inventions should be expanding one’s knowledge and consciousness through engagement, not fulfilling one’s self-righteousness.

Molnár himself would never have known the technological wonders of our age, but he could tell that his world was heading toward war as blindly as the Paul Street Boys, and so we must heed his warning and think about how the digital dimension influences our culture. Molnár gave life to the boys, characterizing them as naive but deluded lost souls. Their insistence on fighting came from the hope that they were part of something bigger than themselves, which is reflected collectively in the way we behave online.

My appeal to you is simple: The entire world is our grass field, and we are all the Paul Street Boys. We must not let fighting blind us, and we must not let the field wither away as it eventually did in the story. The great threats faced by today’s democracies are as much from within, due to radicalization and fanaticism, as they are from the outside, due to the risks of conflict. A survey conducted by The Guardian exemplified this, as it reflected growing polarization among both Democrats and Republicans. Maintaining a dignified civilization begins before anything else by upholding freedom from dogma and conviction.

More than that, it begins with the decision within to open your mind to new ideas and see the world as it is with its unwelcome complications rather than simplify it with paint and brushes. Expanding human minds is the ultimate force by which the isolation of human hearts can be fought against.

Deniz Gulay is a sophomore double-majoring in history and Russian. 

Views expressed in the opinions pages represent the opinions of the columnists. The only piece that represents the view of the Pipe Dream Editorial Board is the staff editorial.

While France is one of the oldest democracies in Europe, this system has not been continuous but rather historically vulnerable to crises. As a result of revolutions, coups, military defeats and outright conquests, France is officially governed by the Fifth Republic, whose constitution and system of governance have had to be reformed constantly to avoid political gridlocks. Although successive French governments have maintained relative stability since the 1960s, the current unsteady political climate triggered by rising divisions among the French is a cause for concern, especially for the future of civil liberties in France and the larger European Union. The death of the Fifth Republic is a potential risk that is visible and acknowledged but is not being talked about enough. It is imperative to stress its importance for Europe’s future wellbeing.

The concern for France’s stability exists across two dimensions: administrative and ideological. The administrative concern stems from the fact that the powers of the Assembly and the president are at odds with each other, demonstrated and fueled by the most recent elections, which saw the French National Assembly split between centrists, nationalists — or the far-right — and leftists. The absence of a clear majority by any of these factions led to President Emmanuel Macron appointing a government of politicians he handpicked despite the popular vote being led by the leftists of the New Popular Front.

Moreover, the bypassing of the will of the electorate and, by extension, the will of the Assembly has put the presidency at odds with the legislature, which could trigger more severe constitutional crises if unchecked.

The root cause of this hurdle between the layers of government, however, is a deeper cause for concern. France’s stance on domestic and wider international issues is susceptible to ideological swings. As mentioned earlier, the current National Assembly is split in three while the centrist-right faction is expected to continue the course of pro-E.U. Atlanticism, both Nationalists and Leftists are more openly seeking to decouple France from its pivotal position in the European political sphere. Fueled in equal parts by social apathy, public discontent and political radicalization, these two apparent factions can exploit the current state of instability to pull France into their respective direction.

The effect of this on French society is a visible escalation of social divisions. While this rift is not concerning enough to worry about an uprising or even a civil war, it may still give credence to radical elements that can launch themselves into the mainstream. The opposition of these groups to France’s position in the E.U. could result in the disruption of economic integration that France depends on for its prosperity.

The fundamental reason why this current situation in France is worrying is because it is not unique in France’s history. During the existence of the previous Fourth Republic, France was divided over the issue of decolonization in Algeria, which triggered a series of constitutional crises that eventually led the nation to the brink of civil war. The leadership and organization of Charles de Gaulle eventually rescued the nation from that eventuality and the French political system was reformed into the current Fifth Republic. France’s current position as a military and economic power within the E.U. is contrasted by its political meddling in its former African colonies — a weak foreign policy that is incapable of balancing and resolving these diplomatic fronts will inevitably lead to a gridlock situation that could trigger political upheaval from radical factions.

France’s position in the E.U. and NATO is pivotal — barring a bellicose United States, a revanchist Turkey, a potentially isolationist Germany and a weak United Kingdom, France has one of the largest military forces within the geopolitical sphere of the E.U. The crisis in 1958 at the end of the Fourth Republic could only be averted thanks to strong leadership capable of breaking gridlocks. The absence of any such capable person or group in French politics makes this position all the more vulnerable to instability and even a complete change of course under a new government ready to abandon centrists’ foreign policy.

France now bears the telltale signs of an impending crisis. Macron’s perceived disregard for the outcome of elections and the increasing divisions within the country along ideological lines are both issues that deplete France’s unity and political power. The mere possibility of France’s democracy being undermined in a way that could give way to an erratic Sixth Republic, or worse, a France that is no longer a republic, must compel the French civil society to defend its electoral processes and safeguard national unity above political differences.

Deniz Gulay is a sophomore double-majoring in history and Russian. 

Views expressed in the opinions pages represent the opinions of the columnists. The only piece that represents the view of the Pipe Dream Editorial Board is the staff editorial. 

The recent end of al-Assad’s rule is significant because it also marks the end of his party, the Arab Socialist Ba’ath Party, whose ideology shaped the politics of Arab nations for decades throughout modern history. Throughout its history, the goal of Ba’athism was uniting the Arab nations of the Middle East and North Africa into one anti-imperialist Arab state, and it became the driving motivation for many unification experiments between independent nations. In addition, alliances were formed to weaponize the trade of oil resources to challenge Western economies and their support for wars waged by Israel.

This symbolized the economic doctrine of centralization borrowed from other socialist regimes of the era but with a distinct rejection of class struggle in favor of a focus on ethnic unity.

For all of its positive and negative effects on politics, the roughly 80 years of Ba’athism in the region attempted to cultivate a doctrine of cultural unity across borders and divisions. Its fall may be a cause for celebration to many today, yet this is by no means a step toward a more peaceful Middle East.

The past two decades of Western involvement in Iraq and the new developments in Syria indicate that, in the absence of centralized state governments, new coalitions, either supported by the West or formed out of a motley of rebel factions, become incapable of restoring order. This unrest is particularly evident in Iraq and Syria, which has demonstrated numerous ethnic, tribal, religious and linguistic clashes over the past 25 years. The current situation in Syria is still risky enough for the interim government to collapse due to infighting and a new power vacuum to give birth to new terrorist groups similar to ISIS in the region.

Syria and Iraq, whose borders were on their own already arbitrarily drawn by colonial powers, collapsed into warring factions when the ideology that kept them united as nation-states became weakened through political decline. Without a social principle that seeks to bind the various peoples of the region together, the ethnic and religious minority groups that make up these factions are now less and less likely to reunite back into the original borders of these countries. In the case of Syria specifically, new reports indicate hostilities toward the Christian and Alawite religious minorities as well as the Kurdish.

The leadership of the current factions’ loose coalition, which defeated Assad, continues to make promises for national unity, but effective leadership is still absent, and a new humanitarian crisis born out of sectarian violence appears likely without a firm commitment to centralizing power.

The very concept of centralized nation-states with cohesive governments is becoming a thing of the past in this region, where a state of uncertainty makes territories ripe for strategic takeover and exploitation. Russia, Iran, Turkey and the United States are the four players whose actions will matter significantly in the coming years. The individual armed groups within every active civil war and frozen conflict today have allegiances toward and support from one of these powers. The growing instability in Syria — as a result of a lack of central government and unifying thought — provides a tenuous opportunity for Russia to maintain its naval presence in the Mediterranean, for Israel to advance into Syrian lands with U.S. support and for Turkey to consider cross-border operations into lands held by Kurdish militias.

Each of these actions is a strategic risk for competing powers to come into contact through new proxy wars, and it is, therefore, essential to restore centralized authority in the affected countries before further escalations occur.

The U.S. government continues to pay a price for the aftermath of both the 2003 invasion of Iraq and its failure to establish order. But with the United States having interests in open access to the Eastern Mediterranean, the Red Sea and the Indian Ocean, the foreign policy of the new administration must urgently prioritize establishing channels to mediate and control the process of statecraft. They must do so not independently but by coordinating with other local players, ideally under the supervision of an international body such as the United Nations. The risk of more violent terrorist attacks both in the region and around the world can quickly rise in the absence of unified national governments. The primary responsibility of the United States now is to play a humanitarian role and prevent the fragile conditions of Syria and Iraq from devolving into further anarchy through sectarian hostilities fueled by geopolitical powers. The social movement, Ba’athism, that once kept such countries united despite regional differences is dead and the process toward reuniting, rebuilding and restructuring them must require a sincere international effort that prioritizes humanitarian concerns.

Deniz Gulay is a sophomore double-majoring in history and Russian. 

Views expressed in the opinions pages represent the opinions of the columnists. The only piece that represents the view of the Pipe Dream Editorial Board is the staff editorial. 

If left unaddressed, the order of traditional parties may very soon give way to radicalized political factions that undermine the constitutional order of this nation.

The first thing we need to address about this trend of apathy is its most visible symptom: low turnout. U.S. elections are notorious for having turnout levels far lower than other democracies around the world, with one of the most highlighted points about the 2024 elections being the surprising mismatch between expected and actual turnout levels at the ballot box.

There is no reason to believe that this is a fluke. A significant portion of citizens who are eligible to vote simply are not bothered to participate in the political system, which is a fundamental concern for the very principle of democracy. A declining belief in political representation is the root cause of this effect. Especially among young voters, the general causes for apathy in the last decade are defined by a lack of trust in politicians, knowledge about the political system and hope about anything being done to improve public welfare. Simply put, the stagnant nature of the longstanding two-party system stifles the process through which people can voice opinions.

This situation creates two distinct problems. On a demographic level, the trend of choosing not to vote affects the politically moderate, who simply lose hope in voicing their views from election to election. As these people abstain from the political discourse, the space they leave behind becomes increasingly filled with the fanatical and emotionally driven extremes of the political spectrum. The end result in such a scenario becomes a national culture driven primarily by the numerically small but loud and uncompromising minorities that can sway national politics to ideological extremes. This is the practical aspect of the apathy problem: When more people leave the discussion on politics, the scene becomes dominated more by fanatical factions that are more likely to manipulate or even altogether eliminate the democratic process.

What is to be done then? If half the country is not bothering to vote and the other half is plugging their ears with fingers at every disagreement, what can be done to protect civil discourse? When discussing these questions, the debate very often turns into asking what can be done to “fix the system” by which the people are represented. The United States obviously suffers from its institutions ignoring anything outside the mainstream — for which the archaic nature of electoral politics is to be blamed — but the path to solution involves more than legislative reform.

Civil rights and welfare are the two key issues the American public is concerned with regardless of age, gender, state or background. Politicians must take the initiative to be more transparent and provide genuine solutions to these immediate problems. Politicians elected by popular vote must embrace their responsibility as representatives of the people; addressing local issues, approaching communities and presenting understandable, trustworthy solutions is how the unconvinced can enter the political discussion. This trend can only be corrected by sincerely opening up the political scene to more parties than the existing two, and allowing different perspectives to collaborate to reach genuine and sustainable policies. There is simply no hope for a sincere and open democracy under a two-party rule that is also at risk of being hijacked by its most radical elements. The apathy of the ambivalent voters is rooted in a lack of representation, which can only be solved by providing precisely that to the electorate.

It is equally important for the general public itself to organize and form groups to voice their concerns as a collective rather than as individuals. The term “civil society” is going to be vital to uphold since breaking the taboo about talking politics is the greatest hurdle. It is becoming more and more inconvenient out of fear of misunderstanding or quickly antagonizing people to be open about personal beliefs, which hinders public dialogue. Bringing the opposite ends of the spectrum together and making the public function as a united spirit is key to making people’s voices matter for policy making.

The current situation in the United States is a great trial of endurance both for the spirit of its people and the order of its government institutions. The future of politics at every step and level depends on having people believe that they matter in the process — losing their trust to apathy opens the door to discontent, anger and retribution, all of which must be recognized at long last as the symptoms of a currently declining democracy.

Deniz Gulay is a sophomore double-majoring in history and Russian. 

Views expressed in the opinions pages represent the opinions of the columnists. The only piece that represents the view of the Pipe Dream Editorial Board is the staff editorial. 

Until recently, I had an impression about love that was dangerously misleading: I believed that love was all about finding yourself in someone else — having all of your thoughts and emotions match perfectly with those of another person. Setting aside how improbable that usually is, my experience with relationships made me go through an entirely different kind of problem as well. Believing that love is all about finding “that one person,” I looked at the people I was with as if they really were just that. I didn’t care that people could have their faults and mistakes. If I found one thing attractive about them, that would be enough of a reason to think that they are who I want to be with.

Some call this obsession, some say that it’s a delusion. To me, the experiences from the past two years were, more than anything, a great confusion. Not knowing who I am and what I want, I sought for a long time to see whatever came across my path in an interesting way. In the end, I became increasingly aware that the problem was my not showing any love or respect for myself. Pursuing my happiness in other people’s lives made me forget my own value and made me someone mindlessly pursuing the vague idea of “that ideal partner” to no end. Pursuing a soulmate like this has its roots in believing that “you” aren’t complete and must seek someone who will fill the void supposedly inside you. I even blindly ignored all the negative traits they had during the relationship — that wasn’t meant to matter because supposedly, I had found my “soulmate.”

Looking back on those experiences, I understand more clearly what is now being said about the idea of soulmates — setting false expectations for one person to fulfill the role of an ideal partner and an identical reflection of your own image and obsessing over them has become a very saddening problem in our age. The idea itself can be traced back to early Judaic texts and Greek mythology, which sought to explain the nature of the human spirit through the stories of prophets and gods. Where old folklore wanted people to look deeper at their own hearts for meaning, the modern interpretation of the idea has become much more obsessed with finding a single person as a cure for all problems. The sentimental aspect of the philosophy is instead replaced with unhealthy and unrealistic expectations of bonding in popular culture — books, movies and other media.

Using my own mistakes in love as a guide, I want to show a new way to think about the idea of soulmates. If there is truly a problem about false expectations, the problem has less to do with having them in the first place and more to do with insisting on them.

In the case of a long-term commitment, attraction to who that person is at that very moment is putting them onto a pedestal, but you can only “know” that person by spending time and sharing experiences. We can tell what is right and wrong about us only when we have the time to learn them from others. If we should really find a genuine partner, we should let our relationships grow slowly rather than ignite instantly. Learning things from each other, sharing moments and investing energy into understanding each other’s minds is a solid path towards a healthy bond.

The beauty of this approach is that it makes us treat the people in our lives not as idealized types but as living human beings. We live, feel and think in all kinds of ways, and even if our characters aren’t an exact copy right away, moments shared together create a common ground and reveal our characters. Being compatible and having reliable rather than scripted connections is key to both having and being a trustworthy partner, as trust is the true foundation on which the healthy traits of a relationship are based.

I still believe that soulmates exist. The difference between my past self and now is that I believe in finding not “the soulmate,” but simply a compatible and honest partner. I imagine the fun I would have sharing what makes me happy, interested and excited in life — I think about sharing experiences together, which makes us understand each other better, and have bonding moments that tie us together.

To me, growing a relationship this way over time sounds much more exciting than merely counting on finding that impossible person. In every person I meet, I find a piece of my own mind but also something new that is unique to their character. What I look forward to is having the opportunity to share moments with a person that will make us stick together, and perhaps this is a better way to dream about a soulmate than the alternative.

Deniz Gulay is a sophomore double-majoring in history and Russian. 

Views expressed in the opinions pages represent the opinions of the columnists. The only piece that represents the view of the Pipe Dream Editorial Board is the staff editorial.