America was the country of tomorrow, a place people would travel to live out their dreams, to replace their tomorrows with a better one. The country spoke of frontiers, pioneers, economic strength, civil rights and an abundance of promises. The future was not always fairly distributed, nor was it ever innocent. For many Americans, the old dream encompassed exclusion and violence. And yet there was still a public perception of progress. The politicians knew how to navigate change and shine a light on the path forward. Yet today, American politics seems less certain that tomorrow exists. Americans seem to sigh with every flip of the calendar. The dominant mood is not excited anticipation for the day ahead but exhaustion. One party promises restoration, and the other preservation. One side says the nation must be made great once more, and the other warns that democracy must be saved from innate collapse. Both are responding to very real anxieties that threaten the United States, but neither seems to speak of progress. The political imagination has narrowed from striding forward to frantically fixing past mistakes. The once land of prosperity is turning away from the world and its own people. Furthermore, this feeling is measurable. In May 2026, Pew Research Centre reported that 59% of Americans believe the country’s best years are behind it, while only 40% think they lie ahead. When surveyed in imagining the United States 50 years from now, 44% of American citizens were more pessimistic in comparison to the 28% of optimistic viewpoints. As the nation approaches its 250th anniversary, its cracks are beginning to widen, and the future looks more unpredictable than ever. So, who stole the future? A simple reply would be to blame economics. Many young Americans cannot see into next week as rent prices are beyond reach, and home ownership seems like a dream. The housing crisis is not just about property prices, but represents the collapse of the life sequence the country once knew. People just aren’t able to look to the future because there is no optimistic path towards it anymore. Research from the Harvard Joint Centre for Housing Studies found that in 2023, half of all U.S. renters, 22.6 million households, were cost-burdened, meaning they are spending more than 30% of their monthly income on housing. The same report found that 65% of working-age renters did not have enough left after housing costs to cover their daily necessities like food and healthcare. The depressing reality is that not many people can escape, and with the current climate, it’s only set to worsen. We praise the West for individuality; for encouraging people to follow their dreams, choose their own path in life and in doing so are told they will be successful. However, the young are growing up and realizing that this mantra is bittersweet. They cannot choose their path; instead, the path is chosen for them, and it is one with no prospective ending. Politics seems to sanitise this reality with the language of abstraction. After all the bills, debts, and compromises have been gathered under one umbrella term, they become easier to discuss and simpler to forget. That word- precarity is a useful one, but it can become too clean. In practice, it means the future is eaten. Salaries disappear into insurance, transport, groceries, and rent, while those who struggle feel the quiet humiliation of doing everything right but still feeling like they’re behind everyone else. America’s future was never stolen all at once, but instead is direct-debited. Politics seems to sanitise this reality with the language of abstraction. After all the bills, debts, delays, and compromises have been gathered into a single term, they become easier to discuss and easier to forget. Precarity is a useful word, but it can become too clean. In practice, it means the future is eaten. The country’s debt only deepens the theft. The Federal Reserve Bank of New York reported that total US household debt has reached $18.8 trillion in the first quarter of 2026, whilst student loan balances stood at about $1.66 trillion. On top of this, student loan delinquency has also risen, with a 10.3% total of balances being 90 or more days delinquent. The Federal Reserve’s own household well-being reported that amongst borrowers with outstanding student loans for their own education, around 20% were reported behind on their payments in 2024. These figures matter because debt not only impacts spending. It holds discipline over imagination and individuality. A person constantly anxious about loans, repayments, covering rent, and experiencing health problems, is not naturally inclined towards utopian politics. They move towards survival politics. Their horizon strength by the day, and the question then becomes not “what kind of society should exist,” but “how do I get through the next bill cycle without it impacting my credit score?” A democracy full of people living within this stressful environment will undoubtedly struggle to think expansively towards the future. Though economics alone do not explain the public atmosphere. America has endured plenty of turbulence before and managed to produce ambitious political solutions. The deeper crisis is imaginative- whereby the future has not only become materially inaccessible, but it has become ideologically unrealistic. Mark Fisher’s idea of capitalist realism becomes useful for breaking down this problem. Fisher describes a culture in which capitalism shows itself, not simply as the preferable option, but as the only system available. The slogan beneath the age is not “this is good,” but defines the brand as if there is no other alternative. The distinction is important as people do not need to believe the system is working in order to remain trapped within it. People only need to believe that nothing more can be built. And the people are not unaware of their reality by any means. America’s politics is essentially at a cliff edge. The Harvard Youth Poll survey released in April 2026 found that half of 18 to 19-year-olds surveyed said they feel they have no real
By Adia May
Since Trump was elected, his approval rates have dropped increasingly lower. This is happening despite an implication that he and the GOP were serving to promote Christian values. Additionally, even some Christians are holding that they disagree with Trump’s presidency. This brings into question why he was elected, and how we can avoid presidencies that hold poor conduct. The problem that has been continuously shaping American society has been the matter of morality voting vs. issue voting. In understanding this we can begin to disclose why Trump was elected despite the disapproval of many. Firstly, neither of the two are fully accepted by the American public, and the way in which individuals vote is constantly criticized. Still, Trump’s primary pillars within his campaign were arguably immigration and abortion by which he gained many votes from Christian voters, rather than his qualities altogether. A multitude of Christians felt undocumented immigration was a threat to our country in modern times, and that we should prioritize enforcement. Those that felt abortion was wrong voted for him to make abortions unavailable. This ultimately led to the choice of many to ignore his other traits. While people appeared to be feeling distraught by having to choose between these issues and other ethical risks, they were ready to upend their morality for the sake of a ‘counted’ vote. On the contrary, what would the outcome have been if we had chosen not to vote for a president that doesn’t hold our equal moral compass? Likewise, what if we had not voted for someone who speaks with the toxicity of politicians that constantly bring us discomfort? Morality voting may seem impossible, but there are many benefits to surfacing it. Morality voting would bring us individuals who showed empathy through policy, made ethical considerations, and unified both logic and care. Morality voting would allow us to tell the political realm that we do not tolerate corruption, indecency, and selfishness. Morality voting would destroy the current web of financially bribed representatives. Remember, the American government runs under the power of the people. Had we voted on morality, and had we done this many times before that, perhaps our presidencies may have held more ethical approaches. The Trump presidency outcome was never an issue of Trump versus Kamala. It represents the failure of millions of American voters who continue the tradition of far-end party identifications rather than electing moral presidents. While the two party system dreads us and never seems to end, we continue to feed into the most polarizing parts of it. Unfortunately, aligning with our approaches to other issues, inaction due to fear of uselessness sustains the problematic parts of American and world politics. Our votership is a privilege, just as is our ability to be sustainable or speak empathetically to diverse groups of people. We should consider how this reflects us as a people, or our freedoms and privileges may be gone too soon to act. Acknowledgement: The opinions expressed in this article are those of the individual author, not necessarily Our National Conversation as a whole.
By Megan Fincher
On Monday, Pope Leo XIV issued a roughly 42,300-word encyclical, “Magnifica Humanitas,” warning of the rise of artificial intelligence and calling for greater regulation and stronger protections for workers. As more people are facing societal and economic disruptions due to unreliable AI-generated information, environmentally hazardous data centers, and a decrease in job opportunities for the next generation, the Pope has criticized the new technology. He warns about “the growing ease with which autonomous weapons systems can be deployed.” His statements are proving to be very popular with the public, as 57% of voters believe the risks of AI outweigh its benefits. The encyclical implores the defense of humanity in an increasingly automated world. It emphasizes that although the Pope is not opposed to innovation, “technology should not be considered, in itself, as a force antagonistic to humanity.” He urged for stronger safeguards to prevent human agency from being corroded. Interestingly, Pope Leo XIV’s statements mirror a similar warning issued by his predecessor, Pope Leo XIII, in 1891. Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical “Rerum Novarum” addressed the consequences of the Industrial Revolution and its impact on people’s livelihoods at the time. Many have made direct comparisons between the two eras, as many now call the rise of AI a “new industrial revolution.” Pope Leo’s call for AI to be “disarmed” has also sparked some Catholics to argue that they can now object to the implementation of AI in their work for religious reasons. However, it has yet to be proven if that argument holds any water. However, the general public’s perception of AI is widely negative, and the Pope’s comments only further dissuade people from the upcoming technology. It is unclear what the future holds for artificial intelligence and the people who use it, but what is clear is that if the world is to be more receptive to AI, there must be a major change in how it is implemented.
By Alexandra Miskewitz
Follow Us