Noaman is the executive director of Pizza to the Polls.
After the 2020 election saw some of the longest lines at polling places in the past several elections – from New York and Texas to Georgia and Ohio – voters are proactively preparing and making plans to cast their ballots as the 2022 midterms quickly approach. With so many individuals becoming more politically involved and looking forward to voting this year, it is critical that they are supported with a functioning civic engagement ecosystem.
Feeding people and providing water keeps people in line to vote and keeps elections running smoothly.
Powering an election through food
The lack of resources provided to voters on Election Day is a critical gap in the electoral support system. However, when this gap is closed and support is provided to those in line, we see electoral success in a few key ways: greater turnout and, as a result, a more representative outcome.
When a simple snack or bottle of water is supplied, people who would have otherwise abandoned their right to vote for their basic human need to eat are able to stay in line and cast a ballot. This is critical as, historically, the United States has struggled with voter turnout. In fact, in 2020, only about 69 percent of voters cast a ballot – more than any other year but still only two-thirds of the eligible population.
According to a recent paper published by a University of Pennsylvania political scientist, every additional hour a voter waits in line decreases the probability they will vote by 1 percent. While that may seem insignificant, the paper also suggests that almost 200,000 people did not vote in 2014 because of the amount of time they had to wait in 2012.
Now, imagine if hundreds of thousands of the 69 percent who did vote in 2020 ended up going home because lines were too long and they were hungry or thirsty. Not only could that election have had different results, but the turnout for this year’s election could be compromised too.
When more people vote, the entire electoral process is able to run more smoothly. The process of voting in person is streamlined, identities have already been verified and the votes are immediately counted. However, when ballots are cast via mail or drop box they undergo several additional measures of review before being counted.
Long lines can be incredibly demoralizing to the average voter; providing food and beverages is a great way to keep people engaged and excited during an activity that often feels mundane and taxing. We know that voting is habit forming, so a good experience is crucial to guaranteeing turnout.
Everyone deserves a snack
In 2020, many organizations, such as Pizza to the Polls, successfully stepped up to support those waiting in long lines to vote. Millions of people across the country – from voters and their children to poll workers, journalists and even people passing by – were all able to enjoy refreshments and keep polling locations a place of celebration as intended.
The key to success for many of these initiatives is ensuring that all distribution takes place in a nonpartisan way, following all election compliance laws. Regardless of who you’re voting for (or if you are voting at all), everyone at polling places should have access to food and water in a safe and lawful way. This simple gesture of feeding people in long lines engages civic participants across the political spectrum, ensuring citizens do not have to choose between their civic duty and hunger.
It’s time to fuel democracy
As we look towards the 2022 elections, it’s clear the demand for these resources will once again be high. If we want to see democracy do its job this election season, supporting organizations that provide these basic needs on the ground is essential to electoral success.
A golden tray sits on the Resolute Desk as President Donald Trump speaks during an announcement on American nuclear innovation in the Oval Office at the White House on July 24, 2026, in Washington, D.C. Trump is signing multiple executive orders targeting the nuclear energy sector and easing rules for new reactors and nuclear fuel supply chains.
Trump’s hubris rivals the fallen heroes of ancient Greek mythology
In January, the New York Times asked President Donald Trump if there were any limits on his global powers.
“Yeah,” the president responded, “there is one thing. My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me.”
That was eight months ago, but fortunately Christopher Nolan’s blockbuster adaptation of “The Odyssey” has made ancient Greek literature newly relevant. Before that window closes, I’d like to talk about hubris.
Today, the term mostly means excessive pride or arrogance. That’s part of what the Greeks meant by it too, but the meaning was a bit richer and more specific. Hubris was an insolent or outrageous act that offended the gods, often because the transgressor was claiming abilities or authorities that solely belonged to supreme beings.
Nolan renamed and slightly modified the concept of xenia for the film, calling it “Zeus’ law.” In the director’s telling, mortals should follow the rules laid out by the gods, specifically the requirement to treat strangers with respect lest they be gods in disguise.
In a sense, hubris is the opposite, or at least the rejection, of xenia. The hubris of the suitors, and at times Odysseus himself, invites punishment by the gods and their mortal instruments.
Which brings me back to Donald Trump. His claim that there are no constraints on his personal power to dictate events on the global stage was one of the greatest expressions of hubris ever uttered by a political leader.
Trump’s claim was obviously false when he made it.
He vowed that he could end the Russia-Ukraine war in 24 hours. He’s proved powerless to make that happen. If he had divine powers to work his will, why would he have balked at implementing his tariffs so often that Wall Street adopted the “TACO trade” term for his deals? “TACO” stands for “Trump always chickens out.”
And why would Trump have made so many embarrassing concessions to China — from rescinding tariffs on Chinese goods to allowing them to buy crucial and incredibly valuable computer chips?
But Trump saw his success at capturing Venezuelan strongman Nicolas Maduro as proof of his ability to launch missiles to the same effect as Zeus’ lightning bolts. Trump believed he was the most powerful man who ever lived.
This is no exaggeration. In March, when the Iran invasion seemed successful, Trump gave a document penned by“Presidential Historian David King” to New York Times reporters Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan purporting to prove that Trump was “the most powerful person to have EVER walked this planet.” King was, in fact, a businessman and occasional caddy for legendary golfer Gary Player.
King compared Trump favorably to many of history’s most powerful, and often heinous, figures: Alexander the Great, Attila the Hun, William the Conqueror, Napoleon Bonaparte, Joseph Stalin, Genghis Khan, Mao Tse Tung, Adolf Hitler and Vladimir Lenin. Many of these men thought they were the most powerful person in the world, too. And many were defeated precisely because they believed it.
At least Napoleon and Hitler had a string of truly impressive victories before they learned the folly of hubris. The limits on Trump’s power have been exposed by far less august forces than the combined might of the allies in World War II or the fearsome Russian winter.
Iran is a comparatively middling power. But the regime’s ability to absorb punishment while imposing its will on the Strait of Hormuz has proved to be a greater constraint on Trump’s power than his morality or mind. We should note that, at least rhetorically, his morality has not proved much of a constraint. He has repeatedly promised to destroy Iranian “civilization” if the regime refuses to capitulate.
But they haven’t — and won’t anytime soon — because the regime’s tolerance for pain far outstrips Trump’s. The combined fear of skyrocketing oil prices, outrage of Gulf state potentates, diminishing weapon supplies and domestic unpopularity is doing the work that international law, congressional oversight and the collective opinion of foreign policy experts can’t or won’t do.
If I considered Trump more heroic than reason and facts could allow, I would say his Sisyphean predicament has the whiff of Greek tragedy to it. Trump is vexed by the fact that the Iranians won’t honor deals or ratify his countless premature claims of victory — giving new meaning to his vow that his presidency would make people tired of winning. It’s almost like they’re out-Trumping Trump.
Things might have gone better if he’d heeded that great Greek tragedian Sophocles: “For Zeus utterly abhors the boasts of a proud tongue.”
____
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.