It is the tragicomic fate of the American republic that it continues to lurch from the doddering to the demagogic, from the vacuously polite to the vulgarian grotesque, as though it were trapped in a slapstick routine without a punchline. Were this not the world’s most powerful nation, it might simply elicit pity. Instead, it commands a mix of horror and schadenfreude from those outside its borders and outright despair from those within.
The second coming of Mr Trump, a walking conflagration of vanity and resentment, has been greeted with hosannas by the faithful and groans by those still capable of sober thought. His self-declared mission to make America great again now feels like a Möbius strip of rhetoric, endlessly looping back on itself without resolving into anything resembling greatness—unless greatness is measured by the metric of how thoroughly one man can conflate personal grievance with national purpose.
Contrast him, if you will, with Mr Biden, the erstwhile custodian of the status quo, whose presidency was less a chapter in history than a footnote in inertia. Biden governed as if he were attending a wake—polite, mournful, and perpetually reassuring that everything would be alright, even as the republic's foundations groaned beneath him. His reliance on bromides about healing the soul of the nation rang as hollow as a sermon delivered to an empty pew.
If Trump embodies the brash id of the American experiment—unapologetically selfish, gleefully ignorant, and always on the make—Biden represents its staid superego, equally blind to the nation’s moral decay but draped in the comforting garb of decency. They are not opposites; they are two sides of the same debased memecoin, minted in a political system that rewards mediocrity and punishes originality.
Trump's theatrical boorishness is often derided as an aberration, yet it is quintessentially American: he is the distilled essence of a reality-television culture that confuses fame with merit and outrage with substance. His rallies are carnivals of grievance, his governance a manic exercise in tearing down what others have built. But what, pray, has he built other than a cult of grievance, a tower of lies, and a reputation gilded in hubris and fast food wrappers.
Biden, for his part, is the perfect avatar of the Democratic Party’s moribund centrism, a figure so wedded to compromise that he would negotiate with a guillotine. He presided over a Washington more polarized than ever, his mild demeanor doing little to stem the tide of resentment that has hollowed out the political middle. Biden’s greatest achievement may well have been his ability to disappear into the wallpaper of his own administration, leaving his aides to flail at crises he barely seemed to comprehend.
For all their apparent differences, Trump and Biden share more than their supporters might care to admit. Both are men of the establishment, despite Trump’s crude pantomime of populism. Biden embodies its genteel rot, while Trump rages at it only because it failed to bow sufficiently low before his gilded throne. Both have presided over administrations that served the interests of the powerful, albeit with differing rhetoric.
Where Biden mouthed platitudes about unity while advancing policies that perpetuated inequality, Trump dispensed with such pretenses entirely, governing as a king dispensing favors to his courtiers. Both left the American working class bereft, their wages stagnant, their futures uncertain, their faith in institutions eroded.
And here lies the bitterest truth: neither Trump nor Biden is the disease. They are merely the symptoms of a system that is itself sick unto death. The two-party duopoly that strangles American politics is a grotesque carnival of power, where policy is dictated not by reason or need but by the craven demands of donors, lobbyists, and the perpetually outraged bases that keep the coffers full.
The Republican Party, long since hijacked by fanatics and opportunists, now resembles a cult more than a political organization. Its ethos is one of nihilism—government is the problem, but only when the other side governs. Meanwhile, the Democratic Party staggers on as a zombie of its former self, incapable of articulating a coherent vision beyond we’re not them. Its fixation on identity politics as a panacea for systemic inequality is as shallow as it is performative.
If the republic is to be saved it will not be through the ascendancy of one party or the other. The rot runs too deep. It is a problem of structure, not personality; of a system that incentivizes division, mediocrity, and short-term thinking. The perpetual oscillation between figures like Trump and Biden is not a pendulum but a wrecking ball, swinging wildly from one side to the other as it pulverizes what remains of the American experiment.
Perhaps it is time for Americans to consider what they have long dismissed as unthinkable: the abolition of their sclerotic duopoly and the birth of a genuinely pluralistic democracy. Until then, the republic will remain a stage for clowns, each act more farcical than the last.
By 2025, search engines and recommendation systems have moved beyond mere tools for retrieving information—they’ve become extensions of human cognition, functioning as externalized brains. Powered by advances in indexing, vector databases, and cross-referencing technologies, these systems reshape how we process knowledge. But as they grow indispensable, we must confront a critical question: Are they enhancing our thinking, or are we outsourcing it entirely?
In 1587, Queen Elizabeth I’s spymaster, Francis Walsingham, achieved one of the great coups in the history of espionage. Using little more than intercepted letters, ciphers, and the occasional tortured confession, Walsingham exposed the Babington Plot, a conspiracy to assassinate Elizabeth and place Mary, Queen of Scots, on the throne. Walsingham's reward? Eternal gratitude from the queen, the continued survival of Protestant England—and, one imagines, the sort of satisfaction that only comes from outwitting murderous aristocrats. His tools were crude, but his mission was clear: decode the enemy before they destroy you.
It is a truth universally acknowledged, though rarely admitted in polite company, that Donald Trump’s economic ideas have the intellectual rigor of a soggy cocktail napkin. Yet here we are, in 2025, once again grappling with his devotion to tariffs—or as he might call them, the Mona Lisa of economic policy. Tariffs, that ancient tool of mercantilist folly, are now poised to drag the world economy backward, one ham-fisted policy at a time.
History, that tireless collector of humanity’s worst decisions, is littered with tales of leaders who rose to power not by the weight of their ideas but by the clever branding of their banners—often as empty as the heads waving them. The fall of Mrs Harris as a political force, and her Democratic Party’s fixation on identity politics, is yet another grim chapter in this story—a warning about the perils of elevating symbolism over substance.
Amidst a parade of electric vehicles that resemble sullen rectangles and expressionless bars of soap, Rivian's R3 emerges as a pleasant anomaly—proof that design doesn't have to surrender to the soulless tyranny of efficiency. It doesn’t look like it was drawn by an algorithm on a tight deadline, nor does it aspire to double as a Blade Runner prop. Instead, it dares to be approachable, elegant, and, most shockingly of all, human. The R3 suggests that the electric future need not sacrifice warmth and charm at the altar of technological inevitability.
There was a time, not so distant, when the artist’s labor was a rebellion against oblivion—a furious demand to be seen, heard, or understood across the gulfs of time. Caravaggio’s chiaroscuro wrestled with mortality itself; James Joyce redefined the limits of language as though daring humanity to keep up. Today, that struggle has been outsourced to a cold and unfeeling steward: the Algorithm, a faceless arbiter whose only metric is engagement, a deity whose offerings are served with a side of irrelevance.
In the austere marble visions of ancient Rome, a full life was conceived as a mosaic of many parts, each tessera contributing its own brilliance to the greater whole. The ideal citizen of the Republic was expected to begin as a soldier, honing body and spirit on the battlefield. This was no mere martial posturing; it was a rite of passage, a crucible through which courage and discipline were forged. The next phase called for the role of merchant or entrepreneur, extracting profit from the unruly seas of commerce and learning the art of negotiation and resourcefulness. Finally, when wisdom had been chiseled by the hand of experience, the citizen would ascend to politics—a domain for the wrinkled and worldly, where philosophical musings and rhetorical flourishes danced uneasily with power plays and poison-tipped daggers. This triptych of soldier, merchant, and statesman was no accidental sequence; it was a deliberate strategy, a life philosophy that embraced the full spectrum of human potential.
If history has taught us anything, it’s that autocrats come in two flavors: the tyrannical genius and the petty despot. Vladimir Putin—a man whose cult of personality hinges on shirtless photo ops and a permanent sneer—is firmly in the latter camp. A Machiavellian mastermind? Hardly. This is a man whose greatest achievements include turning Russia into an economic afterthought and staging the geopolitical equivalent of a high school drama club production.
In a world saturated with noise—literal, visual, and ideological—it is increasingly rare to encounter spaces that insist upon silence. Yet this is precisely what the work of Tadao Ando accomplishes: an audacious refusal to capitulate to the clamor of modernity. Ando’s structures, which temper the severity of concrete with the capriciousness of light, are not mere buildings but sanctuaries for the mind and soul. They embody a principle that has been all but forgotten in contemporary architecture: the power of restraint.
In 1916, Edward Johnston designed the typeface for the London Underground, a system as labyrinthine as it was revolutionary. Johnston’s task was not merely to create legible signage but to craft a typographic identity that would unify a sprawling and disjointed network. The result, his eponymous typeface, was a study in disciplined elegance: humanist proportions, clean geometry, and an innate sense of balance. It didn’t just guide commuters; it gave the city’s chaotic modernity a sense of order and calm. Johnston understood that type wasn’t a passive component of design but an active force, shaping perception and experience at the most visceral level.
To understand Marcel Proust is to accept the absurd and improbable fact that one of the greatest literary achievements in human history emerged not from a life of action, but from one of inaction—a life largely spent in bed. And not just any bed, mind you, but a fortress of hypersensitivity, meticulously arranged to shield its inhabitant from the twin horrors of modernity: noise and drafts.
There’s something delightful about a book that takes a subject as unsexy as “why stuff doesn’t fall over” and manages to make it both fascinating and, dare I say, funny. J.E. Gordon’s Structures: Or Why Things Don’t Fall Down is that rare sort of book—one that sneaks into your brain disguised as entertainment but leaves you a bit smarter, slightly smugger, and much more suspicious of bridges.
On my office shelf, a photograph of my father stands watch—silent, unchanging, and, in a way, unknowable. In it, he carries wood planks over his shoulder, his grin a fragment of unselfconscious joy. Behind him, the ski chalet he restored stands like a monument to competence and optimism. It’s the sort of picture that captures a person not as they were in their totality but as they might wish to be remembered—a distillation, free of the messier truths of illness, fatigue, or the gradual erosion of character that time so often imposes.