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.




















image of U.S. President Donald Trump is displayed on a digital billboard in Times Square in New York on April 8, 2026.
Trump is stuck between two realities. Neither serves the American people
Normally, I worry that events may overtake a column. But not so with the Iran war.
I don’t worry about running afoul of a headline or Truth Social post from the president because what is said about the situation is no longer very relevant to the reality.
On April 8, Nick Catoggio, my Dispatch colleague, dubbed an earlier stoppage with Iran “Schrödinger’s ceasefire.” This was a reference to the famous thought experiment by the physicist Erwin Schrödinger, who was trying to explain the weirdness of “superpositionality” in quantum physics. A cat in a box is both dead and alive at the same time until you open the box. Schrödinger meant to illustrate the absurdity of the idea that particles aren’t any one thing, but a “cloud of probabilities.”
The Trump administration is stuck in a word cloud of probabilities of his own making. The war is over. The war is on. The war isn’t a war. We have a deal, but we don’t have a deal, but we’re about to have a deal. We destroyed Iran’s military. No, we left it intact. We want regime change. No we don’t. We already accomplished it. We “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear program a year ago. We had to go to war in February to prevent nuclear war. The Strait of Hormuz is open, closed, or something in-between. No deal without “unconditional surrender.” Let’s make a deal!
This everything-all-at-once vibe can be disorienting, particularly since most Americans didn’t have a war with Iran on their bingo cards until the shooting had already started. President Trump didn’t prepare the country or consult with Congress beforehand because he thought it would all be a smashing success in a matter of weeks.
The miscalculation that started it all: killing Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and much of Iran’s senior leadership, on the first day of the war. To “the great proud people of Iran, I say tonight that the hour of your freedom is at hand,” Trump announced on Feb. 28. “When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take. This will be probably your only chance for generations.”
I support regime change in Iran and shed no tears for Khamenei or his goons. But when you start a war by killing the regime’s top leaders, it’s not unreasonable for the remaining ones to conclude that you really intend regime change.
Khamenei was a murderous fanatic, but he was a fairly cautious one. He liked to threaten closing the Strait of Hormuz or attacking our regional allies, but he was reluctant to actually do it, fearing it would invite a regime change war. The mullahs and IRGC goons believed, not unreasonably, that if they lost their grip on power, they’d be lynched by the Iranian people they’ve brutalized for decades.
By starting with a regime change war, Trump removed any reason for the regime not to go for broke. When you have nothing to lose — particularly when you are a millenarian religious fanatic — a Persian Alamo strategy makes a lot of sense.
So Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz and attacked its neighbors.
But it turns out this wasn’t the Alamo. In the contest of wills, Trump blinked. The Iranian regime’s tolerance for punishment proved — so far — to be greater than Trump’s and that of our gulf allies. Militarily we could finish the job, but that would require ground troops and much greater economic turmoil. In a conflict Trump launched unilaterally without the prior support of Congress, NATO or the American people, Trump doesn’t have the political capital for that.
But that’s only half the problem. Trump wants the war over, but he doesn’t want to pay — militarily, economically, politically — what that would cost. So he wants to make a deal that ends it. But there is no deal available that wouldn’t come at an equally undesirable cost. Any deal that looks like what President Obama struck with the Iranians would be too embarrassing to bear. But the Iranians are convinced that they can get just such a deal, and they’re willing to drag things out as long as it takes.
The result: Trump’s in a box of his own making. He thinks he can talk his way out by simply asserting a reality that doesn’t exist. When the financial markets get nervous, he announces a breakthrough that is, at best, a possibility. When the Iranians agree to a deal that looks similar to one Obama might negotiate, Trump goes back to his threats.
It can’t go on forever. But I’m sure it’ll last until long after this column is forgotten.
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.