Interregnum is a word that you do not see frequently in print —it is simply not used that often. Nonetheless, I find myself thinking that we are in an interregnum. The pressing question, to me at least, is where are we headed, what is waiting for us on the other side?
The major institutions of society-religions, universities and corporations — seem to be in flux. A recent Pew Research poll found that about 28 per cent of U.S. adults identified as religiously unaffiliated describing themselves as atheists, agnostics or “nothing in particular.” In addition, many of our major universities appear to lack stability in leadership. Harvard, Columbia and the University of Pennsylvania have all experienced recent upheavals in leadership positions. The private sector also demonstrates unrest as the CEO Times reported that in 2025, a record was set in the number of CEO transitions in Fortune 500 companies.
Anne Applebaum, Pulitzer Prize winner, in a series of books, the latest being, Autocracy Inc., observes the growing number of autocratic, corrupt regimes in the world. Finally, Alexander Fraser Tyler, the Scottish historian, has posited that, “democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government.”
Mankind is currently faced with a confluence of threats that we have never had to confront before. A recent global pandemic, climate change and multiple armed conflicts, all with the availability of nuclear weapons engender a palpable feeling of unrest.
As I approach 80 years of age, a part of me says that I should remain aloof and simply live out my life. However, I find that I cannot reside in that nimbus of detachment. Rather, I feel more engaged, more involved, than I did 10 or 20 years ago. Perhaps, I am in the period of generativity as described by Erik Erikson, the 20th century psychoanalyst, who identified eight stages of life. He defined generativity as the seventh stage which is characterized by “a concern for establishing and guiding the next generation.”
As I speak to friends, this concern for the future is shared by more and more of my contemporaries. My generation is not naïve. Wars have been part of the globe’s reality over the past century. Philip Bobbitt, in his opus magnus, The Shield of Achillies: War, Peace and the Course of History, proposes the term, Long War, to describe the series of conflicts that were ongoing throughout the 20th century. What seems to be different today is both the scope and sophistication of the weaponry.
Despite the Non-Proliferation Treaty of 2025, there are now nine known nuclear armed states. There may be more and probably are. However, layered beyond nuclear weapons is the increasing likelihood and sophistication of biological weapons and the availability and dissemination of relatively low-cost drones, the latest advance in modern warfare. Drones vitiate the efficacy of deterrence which has been the dominant strategy for preserving peace since the end of World War II.
The Covid pandemic taught us that biological vectors do not respect national boundaries. The uncertain consequences of a recent apparent lab accident in Siberia serve to remind us of the potential biological hazards that are under very little supervision or control.
The final alarm is climate change. The uninformed still comprise a significant minority of ‘climate deniers’, but although there is increasing acceptance of the reality of global warming, it remains an unanswered question whether we have reached a ‘tipping point’ in the global environment and whether the future ravages of climate change can be mitigated.
So back to the interregnum. Mankind’s future has always been uncertain, but today, that uncertainty has been magnified. The proliferation of weapons of a variety of types undermines negotiations that could enhance geopolitical stability.
Beyond weaponry and climate change, the stability of governments of all stripes seem to be more fragile than ever before. Democracies have not been spared from that fragility. Starting with the election of William McKinley in 1900 through the re-election of Lyndon Johnson in 1964, the incumbent party won 12 of 17 presidential elections (71 per cent). The power of incumbency was significant.
However, from 1968 with the election of Richard Nixon through 2004 with the re-election of George W. Bush, the incumbent party prevailed in only 6 of 15 presidential elections (40 per cent). In the most recent presidential elections, the disadvantage of incumbency has become more pronounced. Incumbency has seemingly turned into a liability.
So where is the current interregnum leading? The destination is uncertain. The answer appears to rest in two solutions: one obvious and one elusive. The obvious answer is education. Throughout the world, we need to devote more resources to education. An educated populus is more likely to harness science into constructive remedies. An educated population is most likely to consider choices that will benefit, rather than harm, their neighbors.
The second answer is more elusive: leadership. Leadership is hard to define and harder still to identify. However, without leadership no entity, no government, no university and no research facility will thrive. Consider, if you will, where this country would be if just three individuals, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt had never lived?
As a septuagenarian, I think my only answer is to stay engaged. I will continue to read omnivorously, to listen and watch the news media. My parents, part of the ‘Greatest Generation’, left a world better than the one they found. My responsibility is to do nothing less than that for those who follow us.
Kevin R. Loughlin, MD, lives in Edgartown.