struggle

“Suffs,” Shaina Taub’s musical about how women finally secured the right to vote in America, won Tony Awards for its book and score. It lost the best musical race to “The Outsiders,” but the respect it earned when it opened last spring on Broadway made it an unequivocal winner.

The show is having its Los Angeles premiere at the Hollywood Pantages Theatre in a touring production that is smooth and smart. Taub’s work deserves nothing less than an A. The cast is excellent, the staging is graceful and the political message could not be more timely.

The show might not have the crackling vitality of “Hamilton” or the bluesy poignancy of “The Scottsboro Boys.” It’s a good deal more earnest than either of these history-laden musicals. There’s an educational imperative at the heart of “Suffs,” which deals with a subject that has been marginalized in schools and in the collective consciousness.

The 19th Amendment, which gave women the right to vote, was ratified in 1920, a little more than a century ago. The history isn’t so distant yet I’m sure I wasn’t the only one at Wednesday’s opening who was learning about the forceful tactics that helped Alice Paul and her fellow suffragists push their movement over the finish line.

“Suffs,” a musical for the public square, is as informative as it is uplifting. It is above all a moving testament to the power of sisterhood. The struggle for equality continues to face crushing setbacks today, but Taub wants us to remember what can happen when people stand united for a just cause.

Alice (a winning Maya Keleher) doesn’t seem like a rabble-rouser. A bright, well-educated woman with a polite demeanor, she looks like a future teacher of the year more than a radical organizer. But she has an activist’s most essential quality: She won’t take no for an answer. (Keleher lends alluring warmth to the role Taub made her Broadway debut in.)

Marya Grandy and the company of the national tour of “Suffs.”

(Joan Marcus)

She’s rebuffed by Carrie Chapman Catt (Marya Grandy), the president of the National American Woman Suffrage Assn., whose motto (“Let your all-American mother vote”) is the basis for the show’s opening number, “Let Mother Vote” — a distillation of the old-guard approach that has yet to yield women the vote.

Alice wants to organize a march in Washington, D.C., to force the president’s reluctant hand, but Carrie prefers a more genteel strategy. “Miss Paul, if my late great mentor Susan B. Anthony taught me anything, it’s that men are only willing to consider our cause if we present it in a lady-like fashion.

“State by state, slow and steady, until the country’s ready” is, after all, NAWSA’s fundamental creed. But Alice points out that if they continue at this glacial pace they’ll be dead before they can ever cast a vote.

Swinging into action, Alice teams up with her friend Lucy Burns (Gwynne Wood), who worries that they haven’t the experience to take on such a momentous mission. “We’ve never planned a national action before,” she objects at the start of their duet “Find a Way.” But undaunted Alice has the bold idea of recruiting Inez Milholland (played at the opening night performance by Amanda K. Lopez), and a way forward miraculously materializes.

Inez has just the right glamorous public image that Alice thinks will give their march the publicity boost it needs. Studying for the bar exam, Inez is initially reluctant but agrees if she can lead the march on horseback.

This image of Inez on a steed becomes central both to the movement and to director Leigh Silverman’s production, which finds simple yet striking ways of bringing revolutionary change to life. A chorus line of activists wearing suffragist white (kudos to the luminous tact of costume designer Paul Tazewell) eloquently communicates what solidarity can pull off.

Brandi Porter, left, and Jenny Ashman as President Woodrow Wilson in “Suffs.”

(Joan Marcus)

An all-female and nonbinary cast dramatizes this inspiring American story. Taub takes some fictional license with the characters but largely sticks to the record.

Notable allies in Alice’s organization include Ruza Wenclawska (Joyce Meimei Zheng) a Polish-born trade union organizer with a no-nonsense grassroots style, and Doris Stevens (Livvy Marcus), a shy yet undeterred student from Nebraska who becomes the group’s secret weapon secretary.

Ida B. Wells (Danyel Fulton), an early leader in the civil rights movement, takes part in the march but resists being used as a prop in what she calls NAWSA’s “white women convention.” Mary Church Terrell (Trisha Jeffrey), a fellow Black activist, by contrast believes that it’s only through participation that representation can move forward.

President Woodrow Wilson (Jenny Ashman), who makes promises to the suffragists he is hesitant to keep, is a crucial target of Alice’s pressure campaign. Her group’s access to him is aided by Dudley Malone (Brandi Porter), Wilson’s right-hand man, who becomes smitten with Doris.

The score marches ahead in a manner that makes progress seem, if not inevitable, relentless in its pursuit of justice. The songs combine the patriotic exuberance of John Philip Sousa and the American breadth of Broadway composer Stephen Flaherty (“Ragtime”). The note of pop accessibility in Taub’s music and the satiric humor of her lyrics add to the buoyancy. You won’t leave humming a tune, but the overall effect (while ephemeral) is pleasing in the theater.

With the history already determined, the book can’t help resembling at times a civics exhibition. Dramatic tension is hard to come by. Alice and her cohorts suffer grave disappointments and indignities (including a harrowing stint in prison), but the eventual outcome of their struggles is known.

“Suffs” sometimes feels like a history lesson neatly compartmentalized into Important Episodes. There’s a whiff of PBS to the way the musical unfolds. This is cultural programming that’s good for you.

But the teamwork of the performers honors the messy yet undeniably effective cooperation of Alice and her freedom fighters — women who changed the world by not staying silent in their prescribed place.

This article will discuss the political context and strategic implications of the dissolution of the Partiya Karkerên Kurdistanê (PKK) as a development that reconstructs the domestic political dynamics of Turkey and the Middle East region. For more than four decades, the Kurdish insurgency in Turkey initiated by the Partiya Karkerên Kurdistanê (PKK) has represented the rise of non-state actors as a new force in the international system while challenging the dominance of the state as the sole actor in the modern political configuration. The struggle for recognition of identity and official governmental autonomy ended with an official statement from its main pillar, Abdullah Öcalan, who was still in prison in February 2025. This call was then conveyed by a member of parliament from the pro-Kurdish party, containing orders to lay down arms, disband and end the armed conflict with Turkey. The dissolution of the PKK reinforced Ankara’s consolidation of power and strengthened the legitimacy of Turkey’s foreign policy under the Neo-Ottoman ideology. At the same time, the decision to dissolve the PKK reduced the space for Kurdish political articulation, which had opposed the government’s nationalist-Islamist and centralised narrative within the framework of the state.

PKK: Evolution of the Struggle, Regional Factors and Influences

The Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), also known as the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, is a militant organisation with Kurdish nationalist leanings, founded by Abdullah Öcalan in the late 1970s. The PKK rebellion was motivated by the Turkish government’s lack of sympathy towards Kurdish culture and its human rights violations against the population. This then encouraged the PKK group’s aspirations to gain political autonomy and territory through an independent Kurdish state. From the outset, this group has placed armed action as the main pillar of its struggle and has not hesitated to use violence against Kurds who are considered pro-Turkish government. Since 1984, this group has waged an armed rebellion against Turkey, which by 2024 had claimed the lives of more than 40,000 people, with thousands of other Kurds forced to flee the violence in southeastern Turkey to cities in the north.

As the decades of rebellion progressed, various internal and external factors began to shape new boundaries for the sustainability of the PKK’s armed movement. This was then supported by the involvement of several cross-border actors, including the PKK’s internal structure and militant wing, which included pro-Kurdish political parties and regional Kurdish networks, particularly the Yekîneyên Parastina Gel (YPG) or Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) in Syria and the KDP (Kurdistan Democratic Party) in Iraq. At the regional level, the dynamics of the PKK rebellion are influenced by the role of three major countries, namely Iran, Iraq and Syria, each of which has strategic and political interests in domestic Kurdish affairs that indirectly shape the PKK’s room for manoeuvre. Although it temporarily ceased its activities in the 2000s, the group is indicated to have resumed guerrilla attacks in south-eastern Turkey, resulting in a domino effect of various violent incidents.

Military Pressure, Regional Dynamics and the End of the PKK Rebellion

In the 1990s, Turkey targeted PKK bases operating in the Kurdish safe zone in northern Iraq through air strikes, which were then followed by ground operations. Ultimately, 2007 marked the peak of the Turkish government’s response to this conflict with the passing of a mandate for cross-border military operations against the PKK in Iraq, followed by a series of air strikes and ground operations in February 2008. Although attempts were made to pursue a peace process, this did not prove to be a solution due to the presence of the Democratic Union Party (PYD), which played a significant role in the Syrian Civil War and ultimately triggered the peak of the fighting in 2015 and 2016. Since 2015, the insurgency has resulted in nearly 6,000 casualties, including 600 civilians, 1,300 soldiers, and 4,000 PKK and TAK members (CSIS, 2023).

Subsequently, these developments ultimately crystallised in a political decision in 2025, when the PKK declared an official end to its armed struggle. The author argues that this was influenced by several key factors, including a lack of significant political achievements coupled with a continuing weakening of military capacity, a narrowing operational area, and instability in external support, meaning that the costs of armed struggle were not commensurate with the results obtained. In addition, the PKK has been under constant military pressure from Turkey since Erdoğan came to power, resulting in the loss of safe havens for the PKK to train, hide and mobilise its forces. Öcalan’s ideological shift, which began to question the effectiveness of armed action, also led to the end of the rebellion, as he stated last February that the democratic path was the only way to realise a political system. Based on this statement, Öcalan has emphasised that armed struggle is no longer relevant and that the PKK must abandon its military strategy and choose the political path.

The PKK and the Consolidation of Neo-Ottomanism in Turkey

Neo-Ottomanism is a political and cultural orientation that developed in Turkey after the reform from a secular government to an approach more based on Islamic values, which grew stronger under the leadership of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. This doctrine is manifested in Turkey’s expansive foreign policy, which encompasses geopolitical strategies, overt military intervention, strategic alliances and cultural expansion, with the aim of restoring Turkey’s role as a major regional power and repeating the glory days of the Ottoman EmpireOne of the main ideas of this doctrine emphasises the importance of uniting all ethnic groups, regardless of ethnic background or religious affiliation, with the aim of maintaining the sustainability of the Ottoman Empire and ensuring the welfare of its people (Ivaylo, 2019). Based on this framework, the existence of Kurdish groups such as the PKK, whose main ambition is to gain autonomy and political identity, is considered a serious challenge to the narrative of statehood and Turkey’s dominant role in the region. Therefore, this shows intense tension between local identity aspirations and Turkey’s vision to assert its influence both domestically and regionally.

The Neo-Ottomanism doctrine aims to emphasise Turkey’s image as a strong, stable and leading country in the region. Meanwhile, the PKK rebellion has hindered the positive narrative that the government, particularly the Justice and Development Party (AKP), wants to build. The Erdoğan administration combines Ottoman rhetoric with modern nationalism and the narrative of national security, so that military operations against the PKK become part of Turkey’s duty to maintain unity and buffer zones in areas that were historically under Ottoman rule. In this case, consistent military pressure through Euphrates Shield (2016), Olive Branch (2018) and Claw Operations (2019-2013), accompanied by regional diplomacy and gradual political-economic integration efforts, has reduced the operational capacity and limited the movement of rebel groups such as the PKK. Ultimately, these factors, which were also supported by internal strategic transformations, including Öcalan’s ideological influence leading to the decision to “surrender”, reflect the implementation of the Neo-Ottomanism doctrine strategy and mark a new phase in both the Turkish government’s relationship with Kurdish groups and the opportunity to reshape the domestic and regional security landscape.

A New Phase and Paradigm Shift

Overall, the end of the PKK rebellion in 2025 not only marks the end of an armed conflict that has lasted more than four decades, but also manifests Turkey’s success in enforcing its Neo-Ottoman ideology at the domestic and regional levels to maintain its sovereignty and territory. The dissolution of the PKK was the result of consistent military pressure, structured diplomatic strategies and political-economic integration to limit the movement of non-state actors, in this case the rebels, while strengthening Ankara’s dominance. However, the author argues that it is not impossible that the rebellion will return with new patterns and strategies, although this will take a long time. Thus, this phenomenon is a tangible manifestation of the implementation of Neo-Ottomanism principles, which emphasise strengthening Turkey’s security, political legitimacy and regional influence, supported by a combination of military instruments, diplomacy and ideological pressure on local identities.

Cape Town, South Africa – On an August evening in 1977, 30‑year‑old Steve Biko was on his way back from an aborted secret meeting with an anti-apartheid activist in Cape Town, taking the 12‑hour drive back home to King William’s Town. But it was a journey the resistance fighter would never finish, for he was arrested and, less than a month later, was dead.

Against the backdrop of increasingly harsh racist laws in South Africa, Biko, a bold and forthright youth leader, had emerged as one of the loudest voices calling for change and Black self-determination.

A famously charming and eloquent speaker, he was often touted as Nelson Mandela’s likely successor in the struggle for freedom after the core of the anti-apartheid leadership was jailed in the 1960s.

But his popularity also made him a prime target of the apartheid regime, which put him under banning orders that severely restricted his movement, political activities, and associations; imprisoned him for his political activism; and ultimately caused his death in detention – a case that continues to resonate decades later, largely because none of the perpetrators have ever been brought to justice.

On September 12 this year, 48 years after Biko died, South Africa’s Justice Minister Mmamoloko Kubayi ordered a new inquest into his death. The hearing resumed at the Eastern Cape High Court on Wednesday before being postponed to January 30.

There are “two persons of interest” implicated in Biko’s death who are still alive, according to the country’s National Prosecuting Authority (NPA), which aims to determine whether there is enough evidence that he was murdered, and therefore grounds to prosecute his killers.

While Biko’s family has welcomed the hearings, the long wait for justice has been frustrating, especially for his children.

“There is no such thing as joy in dealing with the case of murder,” Nkosinathi Biko, Biko’s eldest son, who was six at the time of his father’s death, told Al Jazeera. “Death is full and final, and no outcome will be restorative of the lost life.”

The Biko inquest is one of several probes into suspicious apartheid-era deaths that South Africa’s justice minister reopened this year. The inquiries are part of the government’s plan to address past atrocities and provide closure to families of the deceased, the NPA says.

But analysts note that the inquest comes amid growing public pressure on the government to bring about the justice it promised 30 years ago, as a new judicial inquiry is also probing allegations that South Africa’s democratic government intentionally blocked prosecutions of apartheid-era crimes.

Biko: ‘The spark that lit a fire’

Steve Biko was a medical student and national youth leader who, in the late 1960s, pioneered the philosophy of Black Consciousness, which encouraged Black people to reclaim their pride and unity by rejecting racial oppression and valuing their own identity and culture.

The philosophy inspired a generation of young activists to take up the struggle against apartheid, pushed forward by the belief that South Africa’s future lay in a socialist economy with a more equal distribution of wealth.

In his writings, Biko said he was inspired by the African independence struggles that emerged in the 1950s and suggested that South Africa had yet to offer its “great gift” to the world: “a more human face”.

By 1972, Biko’s student organisation had spawned a political wing to unify various Black Consciousness groups under one voice. A year later, he was officially banned by the government. Yet, he continued to covertly expand his philosophy and political organising among youth movements across the country.

In August 1977, despite the banning order still being in effect, Biko had travelled to Cape Town with a fellow activist to meet another anti-apartheid leader, though the meeting was aborted over safety concerns, and the duo left.

According to some reports, Biko heavily disguised himself for the road journey back east, but his attempts at going unnoticed were to no avail: When the car reached the outskirts of King William’s Town on August 18, police stopped them at a roadblock – and Biko was discovered.

The two were taken into custody separately, with Biko arrested under the Terrorism Act and first held at a local police station in Port Elizabeth before being transferred to a facility in the same city where members of the police’s “special branch” – notorious for enforcing apartheid through torture and extrajudicial killings – were based. For weeks in detention, he was stripped and manacled and, as was later discovered, tortured.

On September 12, the apartheid authorities announced that Biko had died in detention in Pretoria, some 1,200km (746 miles) away from where he was arrested and held. The minister of justice and police alleged he had died following a hunger strike, a claim immediately decried as false, as Biko had previously publicly stated that if that was ever cited as a cause of his death, it would be a lie.

Weeks later, an independent autopsy conducted at the request of the Biko family found he had died of severe brain damage due to injuries inflicted during his detention. Following these revelations, authorities launched an investigation. But the inquest cleared the police of any wrongdoing.

Saths Cooper, who was a student activist alongside Biko, remembers the moment he found out about his friend’s death. Cooper was in an isolation block on Robben Island – the prison that also held Mandela – where he spent more than five years with other political prisoners who had taken part in the 1976 student revolt.

“The news stilled us into silence,” the 75-year-old told Al Jazeera, recalling Biko’s provocatively “Socratic” style of engagement and echoing Mandela’s description of Biko as an inspiration. “Living, he was the spark that lit a veld fire across South Africa,” Mandela said in 2002. “His message to the youth and students was simple and clear: Black is Beautiful! Be proud of your Blackness! And with that, he inspired our youth to shed themselves of the sense of inferiority they were born into as a result of more than 300 years of white rule.”

After initial shock at the news of Biko’s death, “then the questions flowed of what had occurred,” Cooper recalled, “to which we had no answers.”

About 20,000 people, including Black and white anti-apartheid activists and Western diplomats, attended Biko’s funeral in King Williams Town on September 25. The day included a five-hour service, powerful speeches and freedom songs. Though police disrupted the service and arrested some mourners, it marked the first large political funeral in South Africa.

His death sparked international condemnation, including expression of “concern” from Pretoria’s allies, the US and the UK. It also led to a United Nations arms embargo against South Africa in November 1977.

Three years later, the British singer Peter Gabriel released a song in his honour, and in 1987, his life was depicted in the film Cry Freedom, in which Biko was played by Denzel Washington.

Nevertheless, Biko’s stature did nothing to hasten justice.

‘The unfinished business of the TRC’

Under the apartheid regime, any further investigation into Biko’s death was effectively put to rest for decades following the official 1977 inquest.

Then in 1996, two years after the end of apartheid, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) was set up to investigate past rights violations, with apartheid-era perpetrators given the opportunity to disclose their crimes and apply for amnesty from prosecution.

Former security police officers Major Harold Snyman, Captain Daniel Siebert, Warrant Officer Ruben Marx, Warrant Officer Jacobus Beneke and Sergeant Gideon Nieuwoudt – the five men suspected of killing Biko – applied for amnesty.

At TRC hearings the following year, the men said that Biko had died days after what they called “a scuffle” with the police at the Sanlam Building in Port Elizabeth, while he was held in shackles and handcuffs. Up to that point, the commission heard, Biko had spent several days in a cell – naked, they claimed, in order to prevent him from taking his life.

In the decades since, it’s come to light that after being badly beaten at the Sanlam Building on September 6 and 7, Biko suffered a brain haemorrhage and was examined by apartheid government doctors, who said they found nothing wrong with him. Days later, on September 11, the police decided to transfer him to a prison hospital hours away in Pretoria. Still naked and shackled, Biko was put in the back of a van and moved. Although he was examined in Pretoria, it was too late, and Biko died on September 12 alone in his cell.

Despite admitting to beating Biko with a hose pipe and noticing his disoriented, slurred speech, the former officers claimed at the TRC that they had no indication of the severity of his injuries. Therefore, they saw nothing wrong with transporting him 1,200km away.

Eventually, the men were denied amnesty in 1999, partly for their lack of full disclosure of the events that caused Biko’s death. The suspected killers, some of whom have since died, were recommended for prosecution by the commission.

However, like most TRC cases, the prosecutions never materialised.

“The Biko case, along with others, must be viewed as the delayed activation of the unfinished business of the TRC – a matter that is a national imperative if we are to instigate a culture of accountability in South Africa,” Nkosinathi, now 54, said of the reopened inquest into his father’s death.

Though the scope of the Biko inquest has not been publicly stated, Gabriel Crouse, a political analyst and fellow with the South African Institute for Race Relations, worries that it will not examine new evidence, but that its goal will simply be to decisively determine whether Biko was murdered.

If this is the case, it would leave many questions unresolved, he says. For example, who pressured the initial forensic pathologist to declare a hunger strike as the cause of death; who ordered Biko’s killing; and what was the official chain of command?

‘The worms are among us’

Although the Biko inquest has renewed hope among his family that some of the perpetrators of his death will finally be brought to justice, analysts warn that the process may reveal uncomfortable truths about the nation’s past – including possible collusion between South Africa’s current government and the apartheid regime.

Nkosinathi now heads a foundation that promotes his father’s legacy. He points out that it is only pressure on the government that brought about this moment.

Months before the Biko inquest reopened, President Cyril Ramaphosa ordered the establishment of a commission of inquiry into whether previous governments led by his African National Congress (ANC) party intentionally suppressed investigations and prosecutions of apartheid-era crimes.

His move in April came after 25 survivors and relatives of victims of apartheid-era crimes launched a court case against his government in January, seeking damages.

The allegations of probes being blocked go back more than a decade. In 2015, former national prosecutions chief Vusi Pikoli caused a stir when he submitted an affidavit in a court case about the death of anti-apartheid fighter Nokuthula Simelane, in which he blamed the stalled cases on senior government officials interfering in the work of the NPA.

Former President Thabo Mbeki, who was head of state during Pikoli’s tenure, has denied that any such political interference took place. But the judicial inquiry, announced in April and now under way, lists former senior officials among those it considers interested parties.

The inquiry will look at why so few of the 300 cases that the TRC referred to the NPA for prosecution, including Biko’s, have been investigated in the last two decades.

“That it has become necessary to have to look into such an allegation tells much about how the huge sacrifice that was made for our democracy has been betrayed,” Nkosinathi told Al Jazeera.

Cooper believes the delayed prosecutions are a result of a compromise made by the apartheid regime and the ANC to conceal one another’s offences, including alleged cases of freedom fighters colluding with the white minority government.

“It’s justice clearly denied,” Cooper said, adding that he once questioned TRC commissioners about why they had concealed the names of rumoured apartheid-era collaborators who went on to work in the new democratic government. “The response was, ‘Broer, it’ll open a can of worms,’” Cooper told Al Jazeera.

“I see one of the commissioners died, the other is around, and when I see him, I say, ‘There’s no more can of worms, the worms are among us.’”

Like Cooper, political analyst Crouse also believes some kind of “backdoor deal” was struck following the transition from apartheid to democracy in 1994.

Many political actors failed to apply for amnesty, he says, despite prima facie evidence of their guilt. “And so it became very apparent that white Afrikaner supremacists and Black ANC liberationists, some from both camps, had gotten together and said, ‘Let’s both keep each other’s secrets and go forward into the new South Africa on that basis,’” he said.

Pikoli’s 2015 affidavit seems to echo such analysis. In his document, Pikoli recalls a meeting in 2006, where former ministers grilled him about the prosecution of suspects implicated in the attempted murder of Mbeki’s former chief of staff, Frank Chikane. Pikoli does not specify what the ministers objected to but says it became clear they did not want the suspects prosecuted “due to their fear of opening the door to prosecutions of ANC members, including government officials.”

A plea bargain was struck with the suspects while Pikoli was on leave in July 2007, as part of which the suspects refused to reveal the masterminds behind the compilation of a hit-list targeting activists. Pikoli believes a court trial would have forced them to disclose more details.

‘A stress test’ for democratic South Africa

Mariam Jooma Carikci, an independent researcher who has written extensively about the failure of justice in the democratic era, believes the official inquiry into the hundreds of unprosecuted TRC cases, including Biko’s, is “a stress test” of democratic South Africa’s honesty.

“For three decades we treated reconciliation as an end in itself – truth commissions instead of prosecutions, memorials instead of justice,” she said.

She sees Biko’s ideas continuing to flourish in today’s student movements, for example, in the #FeesMustFall campaign that called for free university tuition and the decolonisation of education in 2015.

“You see his echo in decolonisation debates and student movements, but the truest honour is policy – land, work, education, healthcare – designed around human worth, not investor or political comfort,” Jooma Carikci said.

While the country waits to hear the outcomes of the Biko inquest and the wider TRC inquiry, Nkosinathi Biko remains haunted by constant reminders of his father.

His younger brother Samora, who recently turned 50, looks exactly like Biko, he says, but being only two at the time of his death, “he was unfortunate not to have had memories of his father because of what happened.”

Meanwhile, for the country in general, Nkosinathi sees connections between Biko’s death and the 2012 Marikana massacre, during which police shot and killed 34 striking miners – the highest death toll from police aggression in democratic South Africa.

In his mind, the image of police opening fire on unarmed protesting workers echoes the country’s dark history – a sign that the state brutality that ended his father’s life has spilled over into democratic South Africa.

Almost a decade ago, I would have wagered my entire wealth on the defeat of candidate Donald Trump in the primaries of the 2016 U.S. presidential election. My premises were clear: presidential elections should be contests among politicians, of which the U.S. has an abundance, making it unlikely for an outsider to succeed; Americans are well-educated, mature citizens unlikely to elect a non-politician; and Trump’s provocative personality would deter the majority from voting for him. I was proven wrong, but this lesson led me to anticipate his victory in the 2024 elections after reevaluating my premises.

My understanding of American intellect has made me overlook a significant portion of society that prioritizes personality over substance, favoring a strong, assertive persona instead of a competent candidate. Elections blend many factors influencing citizens’ decision-making, with power being a major element in American life. Trump’s political incompetence was overshadowed by his ability to manipulate power, convincing over fifty percent of the population to support him—a quality clearly lacking in his 2024 challenger. For Republicans, the victory was cause for celebration — even if it happened by an “insurgent power manipulation.”

While politics revolves around power, democracy was conceived to constrain it and to enable its lawful and moral exercise. The primary challenge for the U.S. is determining how citizens and their leaders can wield power constructively and ethically within a democratic framework. Current polarization in the U.S. isn’t merely a divide between Republicans and Democrats; it encompasses a myriad of issues and policies on both sides, such as abortion, gender identity, and immigration. The underlying struggle remains the interaction between democracy and power that shapes their mindsets.

American society, perhaps like many others, exists in two parallel realities. One ideal reflects a belief in a nation that genuinely upholds liberal democratic values, supported by a system of checks and balances and the rule of law. In contrast, a significant segment of society downscales this notion, accepting that the United States is fundamentally a nation of power—one that should be guided by the realities of its superpower status, often involving elements of violence in its policies, including leadership selection that Trump threatened during the election process.

It is evident that the Democratic Party leadership failed to present a “powerful” presidential candidate in 2024 or effectively engage its base in the democratic process of candidate nomination. This deficiency has reinforced Trump as the strongman that many believe the U.S. needs. Recent polls show that most voters think Trump is pushing the limits of his constitutional authority, yet the nation must accept that his return to power came through a democratic process.

Ultimately, I realized that the American intellect that has shaped my understanding of the U.S. for decades isn’t purely fact-driven; it tends to twist facts depending on the media outlet or institution, which often highlights issues in ways that align with what they define as their “corporate mission” at the expense of true democracy. This mechanism is supported by a multitude of influential writers and podcasters who shape societal thoughts and behaviors. This troubling phenomenon has been countered by social media, which offers alternative, often unaccountable, views that may be entertaining but lack substantiation.

Regrettably, freedom of expression is widely accepted even when if entails provocation or incendiary that significantly contributes to escalating violence in the United States. The average gun ownership rate, estimated at 120 firearms for every 100 people—the highest in the world—amplifies personal power and can easily incite violent actions during conflicts. A small fraction of enraged citizens can commit crimes fueled by personal firearms, exemplified by incidents like the assassination of Charles Kirk. The prevalence of guns among citizens bolsters the phenomenon of a power-driven presidency and society.

Trump is, in fact, a byproduct of American citizens’ overvaluation of power at the expense of democracy. Although he promised to avoid military conflict, politics is notorious for broken promises. Striking Iran and targeting suspected drug smugglers in international waters exemplifies illegal violence that nonetheless strengthens his power status among supporters. Meanwhile, the recent massive protests, part of the No Kings movement against Trump’s policies, represent a form of “soft democracy,” activity which may not resonate with the “power segment” of society. What the United States needs is a clear set of norms, policies, and public order to advance its democracy. This doesn’t imply transforming the nation into an autocracy but rather clarifying many grey areas, such as freedom of speech and incitement. The US military spending, which accounts for roughly 3.4% of GDP, is not intended to defend the nation against a specific enemy; rather, it aims to maintain superpower status in contrast to the unrealistic small budget used by previous administrations to promote democracy, reflecting the nation’s interests in both areas. In my view, the U.S. does not faithfully adhere to democratic principles; instead, power is the true driving force that reflects its nature.

Brad Marchand scored two goals and Sam Reinhart got the go-ahead goal on his 30th birthday in the Florida Panthers’ 5-2 victory over the Kings on Thursday night.

Anton Lundell got a shorthanded goal in the third period and Sam Bennett also scored for the back-to-back Stanley Cup champion Panthers, who rebounded from a 7-3 loss against the Ducks to get their first victory on their four-game West Coast road trip.

Marchand has scored a goal in three straight games since returning to the Panthers from a one-game absence to travel to Nova Scotia to support a close friend who lost his daughter to cancer last month. The veteran tied the game late in the first period after taking the puck from Anton Forsberg behind the Kings’ net, and he added his ninth goal of the season in the third.

Sergei Bobrovsky made 24 saves.

Anze Kopitar got the first goal of his 20th NHL season and Corey Perry also scored for the Kings, who have lost three of four.

Forsberg stopped 19 shots for the Kings, who have started 1-4-2 at their downtown arena after being the NHL’s best home team last season.

Bennett put the Panthers ahead just 2:06 in, controlling and converting the rebound of Jeff Petry’s long shot.

Kopitar scored on the power play midway through the first, and Perry put the Kings ahead on a breakaway set up by a spectacular long pass from Mikey Anderson.

Reinhardt put the Panthers back ahead in the second, getting to the slot and firing a backhand for his seventh goal.

Lundell scored on a short-handed breakaway in the third after a turnover by Adrian Kempe.

Several members of the back-to-back World Series champion Dodgers were the Kings’ guests at the game, getting multiple loud ovations.

Up next for Kings: at Pittsburgh on Sunday to open a six-game trip.

President Donald Trump’s razing of the White House’s East Wing to build a ballroom has put some news organizations following the story in an awkward position, with corporate owners among the contributors to the project — and their reporters covering it vigorously.

Comcast, which owns NBC News and MSNBC, has faced on-air criticism from some of the liberal cable channel’s personalities for its donation. Amazon, whose founder Jeff Bezos owns The Washington Post, is another donor. The newspaper editorialized in favor of Trump’s project, pointing out the Bezos connection a day later after critics noted its omission.

It’s not the first time since Trump regained the presidency that interests of journalists at outlets that are a small part of a corporate titan’s portfolio have clashed with owners. Both the Walt Disney Co. and Paramount have settled lawsuits with Trump rather than defend ABC News and CBS News in court.

“This is Trump’s Washington,” said Chuck Todd, former NBC “Meet the Press” host. “None of this helps the reputations of the news organizations that these companies own, because it compromises everybody.”

Companies haven’t said how much they donated, or why

None of the individuals and corporations identified by the White House as donors has publicly said how much was given, although a $22 million Google donation was revealed in a court filing. Comcast would not say Friday why it gave, although some MSNBC commentators have sought to fill in the blanks.

MSNBC’s Stephanie Ruhle said the donations should be a concern to Americans, “because there ain’t no company out there writing a check just for good will.”

“Those public-facing companies should know that there’s a cost in terms of their reputations with the American people,” Rachel Maddow said on her show this week, specifically citing Comcast. “There may be a cost to their bottom line when they do things against American values, against the public interest because they want to please Trump or buy him off or profit somehow from his authoritarian overthrow of our democracy.”

NBC’s “Nightly News” led its Oct. 22 broadcast with a story on the East Wing demolition, which reporter Gabe Gutierrez said was paid for by private donors, “among them Comcast, NBC’s parent company.”

“Nightly News” spent a total of five minutes on the story that week, half the time of ABC’s “World News Tonight,” though NBC pre-empted its Tuesday newscast for NBA coverage, said Andrew Tyndall, head of ADT Research. There’s no evidence that Comcast tried to influence NBC’s coverage in any way; Todd said the corporation’s leaders have no history of doing that. A Comcast spokeswoman had no comment.

Todd spoke out against his bosses at NBC News in the past, but said he doubted he would have done so in this case, in part because Comcast hasn’t said why the contribution was made. “You could make the defense that it is contributing to the United States” by renovating the White House, he said.

More troubling, he said, is the perception that Comcast CEO Brian Roberts had to do it to curry favor with the Trump administration. Trump, in a Truth Social post in April, called Comcast and Roberts “a disgrace to the integrity of Broadcasting!!!” The president cited the company’s ownership of MSNBC and NBC News.

Roberts may need their help. Stories this week suggested Comcast might be interested in buying all or part of Warner Bros. Discovery, a deal that would require government approval.

White House cannot be ‘a museum to the past’

The Post’s editorial last weekend was eye-opening, even for a section that has taken a conservative turn following Bezos’ direction that it concentrate on defending personal liberties and the free market. The Oct. 25 editorial was unsigned, which indicates that it is the newspaper’s official position, and was titled “In Defense of the White House ballroom.”

The Post said the ballroom is a necessary addition and although Trump is pursuing it “in the most jarring manner possible,” it would not have gotten done in his term if he went through a traditional approval process.

“The White House cannot simply be a museum to the past,” the Post wrote. “Like America, it must evolve with the times to maintain its greatness. Strong leaders reject calcification. In that way, Trump’s undertaking is a shot across the bow at NIMBYs everywhere.”

In sharing a copy of the editorial on social media, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt wrote that it was the “first dose of common sense I’ve seen from the legacy media on this story.”

The New York Times, by contrast, has not taken an editorial stand either for or against the project. It has run a handful of opinion columns: Ross Douthat called Trump’s move necessary considering potential red tape, while Maureen Dowd said it was an “unsanctioned, ahistoric, abominable destruction of the East Wing.”

In a social media post later Saturday, Columbia University journalism professor Bill Grueskin noted the absence of any mention of Bezos in the Post editorial” and said he wrote to a Post spokeswoman about it. In a “stealth edit” that Grueskin said didn’t include any explanation, a paragraph was added the next day about the private donors, including Amazon. “Amazon founder Jeff Bezos owns The Post,” the newspaper said.

The Post had no comment on the issue, spokeswoman Olivia Petersen said on Sunday.

In a story this past week, NPR reported that the ballroom editorial was one of three that the Post had written in the previous two weeks on a matter in which Bezos had a financial or corporate interest without noting his personal stakes.

In a public appearance last December, Bezos acknowledged that he was a “terrible owner” for the Post from the point of view of appearances of conflict. “A pure newspaper owner who only owned a newspaper and did nothing else would probably be, from that point of view, a much better owner,” the Amazon founder said.

Grueskin, in an interview, said Bezos had every right as an owner to influence the Post’s editorial policy. But he said it was important for readers to know his involvement in the East Wing story. They may reject the editorial because of the conflict, he said, or conclude that “the editorial is so well-argued, I put a lot of credibility into what I just read.”

Bauder writes for the Associated Press.