Authority in an Age of Upheaval

Revolutions, Nostalgia, and the Fragility of Control

Welcome to new subscribers Myra K, John L, Allan G, and of course EPW. This modest publication relies upon reader support, so if you’re enjoying what we’re putting out, please share it and encourage your friends to join us.

The focus of each issue is directly influenced by you! Please post comments and like the issues you like so that we get the necessary feedback to keep you engaged and entertained.

---

The world has often been shaped by revolutions, moments of intense disruption that topple old systems and promise something new. Today, Syria stands at the edge of such a transformation. The fall of Bashar al-Assad's regime—marked by rebel advances, the flight of the ruling family, and waves of celebration—has reinvigorated global conversations about revolution and authority. But as the dust settles, familiar questions emerge: What comes next? Who will lead? And how do societies navigate the razor's edge between justice and chaos?

Yet closer to home, the incoming Trump administration signals another kind of upheaval: one built not on the overthrow of a regime but on the wielding of power with rhetoric and policies that push the boundaries of democratic norms.

Threats of mass detention, deportation, and denaturalization are resurfacing in U.S. political discourse. Paired with promises to zealously prosecute political enemies, journalists, and dissenters within the government, this moment forces us to consider: What happens when authority not only fractures but becomes weaponized?

Revolution and the Illusion of Control

Revolution is often romanticized as a reset—a sweeping away of corruption to create a fairer world. Syria’s ongoing upheaval shows both the promise and peril of such moments. The fall of Assad has unleashed a wave of celebrations, but the power vacuum left behind threatens to ignite factionalism, infighting, and prolonged instability. History tells us revolutions often begin with unity but fracture under the weight of competing visions, mistrust, and cycles of retribution.

In the U.S., the Trump administration’s promises to root out perceived enemies, from immigrants to political dissenters, echo the darker chapters of revolutionary and authoritarian history. Actions once thought unthinkable, such as denaturalizing citizens and prosecuting government officials for ideological "disloyalty" are no longer mere speculation but part of the political rhetoric shaping national debates. The risk lies in how easily such rhetoric escalates: what begins as a fight for order can spiral into authoritarianism, just as revolutions devolve into terror.

Nostalgia and the Weaponization of Power

Both revolutions abroad and the shifting political currents in the U.S. share a troubling theme: nostalgia. Nostalgia on the right, for a past defined by "traditional values," fuels policies aimed at exclusion, surveillance, and punishment. Nostalgia on the left, for a mythologized age of rebellion and transformation, often overlooks the costs and dysfunction of revolutionary movements.

What unites these forms of nostalgia is their failure to grapple with the present’s unique context. The hyper-connectivity of social media amplifies polarization, accelerates radicalization, and spreads fear faster than it can be contained. As Syria transitions from authoritarian rule, its new leaders will contend with these forces. Similarly, in the U.S., leaders and citizens alike face a choice: to resist the slide into authoritarianism or embrace it as a means to “restore order.”

The Dangers of Political Violence

The assassination of the United HealthCare CEO, while shocking, is symptomatic of a growing belief that systemic injustice justifies extreme actions. Public responses, ranging from condemnation to quiet approval, underscore the polarizing nature of this moment. But political violence, no matter its intent, carries a universal danger: it often spirals out of control.

This spiral is not hypothetical—it is historical. Revolutions like the French Revolution began with idealistic aims but quickly descended into bloodshed and repression. The Reign of Terror was not an aberration; it was a natural progression of violence once legitimized as a political tool. The same risk looms in Syria, where rebel unity may fracture, and in the U.S., where violent rhetoric from the incoming administration fans the flames of division.

When a government legitimizes the use of violence, whether through threats of mass deportations, detentions, or targeting political opponents, it sets a dangerous precedent. The lines between justice and revenge blur, and society becomes trapped in cycles of escalating retribution.

Authority in the Age of Fear

Authority, once derived from institutions and shared norms, is increasingly tied to fear and spectacle. In both Syria and the U.S., fear is a driving force: fear of losing cultural identity, fear of systemic collapse, fear of being excluded or punished. This fear erodes the possibility of civil discourse, leaving little room for empathy or compromise.

The incoming Trump administration’s threats against immigrants and political adversaries epitomize this dynamic. Prosecution of dissenters signals a broader attempt to consolidate power by creating enemies within. Such policies risk eroding the very democratic principles they claim to protect.

At the same time, the public's response to acts of violence, whether revolutionary or reactionary, reflects a growing acceptance of retribution as justice. This is not sustainable. As history teaches us, once violence is normalized, it is almost impossible to contain.

Can Civil Discourse Survive?

Amid these threats to authority, the question arises: Can civil discourse return as a meaningful alternative to fear and vengeance? Can social media, for all its flaws, offers a platform for connection and understanding?

Rebuilding respect and empathy in public life is not just desirable; it is essential. If societies fail to offer alternatives to cycles of violence and authoritarianism, they risk descending into chaos. The Syrian revolution and the U.S. political climate are two sides of the same coin: both reflect the fragility of authority and the dangers of nostalgia, fear, and retribution.

The Path Forward

The fall of Assad and the rhetoric of the Trump administration remind us that authority, once fractured, is difficult to restore. Both moments challenge us to consider what kind of authority we want to build: one based on fear and exclusion or one rooted in justice, empathy, and shared responsibility.

As Syria rebuilds and the U.S. navigates its political future, the world faces a choice. Will we learn from history, or are we doomed to repeat its cycles of violence and authoritarianism? The answer lies in how we define and wield authority—and whether we can imagine a future where power is not a weapon but a means to uplift and unite.