Anderson edited "Leveraging: A Political, Economic and Societal Framework" (Springer, 2014), has taught at five universities and ran for the Democratic nomination for a Maryland congressional seat in 2016.
America needs a new center, but it does not need a new centrist political party. A new centrist political party that could overcome the widely recognized dysfunction in our national politics caused by both political parties would be great, but it is not going to happen. There are too many impediments preventing the rise of a vibrant third party, including the fundraising obstacle, gerrymandering, the absence of open primaries in most states, and the poor historic record of third party candidates.
What is needed is a surge in independent politicians who are not part of a weak national third party, but who will push, directly and indirectly, the political system into a new center space. Democrats and Republicans ironically will be central to the birth of the new center and the death of their joint control over our political system.
Independent candidates from different ideological perspectives in the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate could wield sufficient power to forge compromises on major legislation concerning guns, the environment, child care, paid parental leave, the national debt and corporate tax rates. The key is not to make a centrist political party the change agent, which was the strategy of Charles Wheelan's The Centrist Manifesto and the third party, Unite America. This strategy paints a target on the back of the third party itself.
Dartmouth's Professor Wheelan was about half right: generate enough votes in the Senate to act as a fulcrum (he called his approach the "Fulcrum Strategy") to forge compromises between the two parties. But he was mistaken to think that we needed a political party which advocated for moderate centrist solutions proposed by independents to create the leverage necessary to bring about the changes. Candidates which Unite America backed for the House and Senate in 2018 all came up short, and Unite America reinvented itself in 2019 and 2020. Today they back independents, Republicans and Democrats as well as election reform initiatives.
Independents, on the view being articulated here, would ultimately leverage their power to generate ambitious centrist solutions, but they themselves would not start from a moderate centrist standpoint or an ambitious new centrist standpoint. They would ideally move toward an ambitious new centrist standpoint because it would be more agreeable than the positions of the two major parties. We need creativity and out of the box thinking, not the same old trench warfare.
Therefore, the task before us is to have a diversity of communities and funders to encourage and back candidates from a range of political perspectives -- libertarian to green -- that are united in their opposition to both Democrats and Republicans. These candidates will disagree about substantive policies but agree that neither the Democrats nor the Republicans have the answers or the requisite attitudes to craft the policy solutions we need. Their opposition to the two major parties, however, will in the end be sufficient to create the legislative basis for tripartisan solutions to our major challenges ahead that go beyond a moderate middle position between the two major parties.
There is no doubt that structural changes are needed in our electoral system as well, notably ranked-choice voting, open primaries and elimination of gerrymandering. Yet new laws and regulations will not by themselves transform the electoral system. We need a concept of how legislative change could come about through tripartisan policy solutions, and we need organizations which are in the fixing our democracy space as well as the media, traditional and social, to televise, advertise and catalyze this political development.
Notice that electing an independent president would shorten the birth pangs of this new political system, but change can come about with either a Democratic or Republican president. The president will need to help steer a new centrist legislative agenda, but ultimately it is Congress that will be the driving force of this transformation because Congress, not the president, makes laws.
The trajectory from here, to be sure, will not be linear. It will be more complex and nuanced. It will also take place over the course of five to ten years. You cannot transform Washington politics with a wrecking ball.




















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.