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.
Americans after World War II felt a strong sense of national unity and moral superiority. We fought with our allies against German, Italian and Japanese enemies we believed were morally depraved, and we positioned ourselves on a moral pedestal. The Cold War led us to build up arms against our USSR allies, and this 45-year massive effort kept Democrats and Republicans in Washington positioned on the pedestal even as we engaged in a brutal ideological, economic, and social battle over the nature of our capitalist society.
There was always dissent in the country, notably the progressive young Americans who protested against the Vietnam War and supported politicians ranging from Eugene McCarthy to Robert Kennedy and Malcolm X. Still, the vast majority of Americans believed in the basic moral superiority of the United States and the moral depravity of the Soviet Union and its communist ideology.
Since the end of the Cold War we have become very fragmented as a nation with respect to the basic question of how we fit into the world. Certainly since 2016 when Donald Trump became president the country has developed a large segment of the population who see America as the leader in the world but from an America First perspective. This perspective shares the concept of America on a moral pedestal with our post World War Il and Cold War perspectives, but it broke away from the standpoint that saw the United States engaged in a common political and economic venture with our NATO allies in Europe and Japan, South Korea, India and other Asian allies.
Not all Republican politicians and citizens have embraced the America First ideology. Democrats in Washington and citizens who identify as Democrats, which is roughly about 30 percent of the country (which is a bit more than Americans who identify as Republicans), are themselves divided over how they view the country's place in the world. Bill Clinton and Barack Obama struggled to position us as an indispensable nation, a leader among world leaders. Yet it was never clear what precisely this meant.
What we must accept is that there is not going to be any concept of the country and its destiny that will be embraced by 80 or 90 percent of the country in the near future. We are plainly too fractured to achieve that sense of national unity and destiny. We need a concept of ourselves that 60 to 70 percent of the country can embrace. That is what America must search for in the years ahead.
A natural place to start is with the 40 percent of Americans who, according to Gallup, do not identify as either Democrats or Republicans. They identify as Independents. These Independents are quite a mixture of libertarians, Greens, moderates and creative thinkers who want synthesis and out of the box thinking. What unites them is their disappointment and even disgust with our politics in Washington and the rise of hostility and overall incivility in our culture at large.
This group of American adults, maybe 100 million Americans, can be a source of hope, love and commitment to one America. Leaders must listen to them, as they are not organized and have no clear leaders. These independents, though, can help pundits, the media and politicians with the very challenging task to craft a concept of America that will weave together important strands of Democratic and Republican doctrines without incorporating the one-sidedness and anger of the two parties today.
America can retain its distinctive place in the world, yet not because it is the land of liberty or the land of equal opportunity or the place of religious toleration. Our place on the world stage can no longer be reduced to a single master value.
Instead, it must revolve around our acceptance of the irreconcilable conflict between leading democratic values, notably between economic freedom and economic equality. Although Independents do not occupy the same place on the political spectrum, most do not sit on the polarized left and right sides of the spectrum. America's place in the world and its destiny should therefore come from this diverse group of dissenters. They can, moreover, draw their inspiration from the founders who made up only about a third of the colonists.
The Independents are our centrist identity more than the purists in either party. They also have an attitude of brotherhood and sisterhood which can bring us together. These Independents plus those Democrats and Republicans who are more moderate than purists can get us to 60 or even 70 percent of the country.




















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.