Clements is president of American Promise and has practiced law in state and federal courts since 1988. He was a partner at Mintz Levin and in his own firm in Boston, before serving as Assistant Attorney General & Chief of the Public Protection Bureau in the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office.
“Tipping point.” We’re hearing that phrase a lot these days.
In 2015, I spent months holed up in conference rooms with my friend John Wass. We were whiteboarding out what would become American Promise and our 10-year strategy to unite Americans behind fundamental reform of our political system. John has one of those Princeton/MIT brains, and the whiteboard quickly filled with the strange phrases of complex systems theory: “Non-linearity.” “Perturbations.” “Emergent properties.” And, of course, “tipping point.”
American society and politics are complex systems. So are pandemics, global banking, beehives, and lots of other things, big and small. Systems are everywhere, and systems thinking helps our understanding of how systems work and change.
Systems theory is at the core of American Promise’s strategy to win the For Our Freedom constitutional amendment to fix the number 1 reason why American democracy is threatened now: the systemic corruption of unaccountable money that drives our elections and government.
In the past few years, millions of Americans have voted in American Promise ballot initiatives, gathered signatures at state fairs and farmers markets, met with their lawmakers at citizen lobby days, posted on social media, or traveled to our annual National Citizens Leadership Conferences or local events. None of them needed to know anything about systems theory to help make a better America out of the mess of today. But whether we know nothing else about systems, we probably have heard the phrase “tipping point.”
John and I knew our constitutional amendment strategy would be met with skepticism from some who think constitutional amendments are impossible. But we also knew that constitutional amendments have always followed classic tipping point models. Or as Congressman Jamie Raskin said at one of our Conferences, we knew that American Promise could help shift the For Our Freedom Amendment “from impossible to inevitable.”
Seven years later, signs of tipping point are unmistakable. Seven out of ten Americans now believe that American democracy is under grave threat, and 86% identify money in politics as the top reason for that. For the first time ever, Pew Research reports that “reducing money in politics” is at the top of priorities that Americans want the President and Congress to act on now; it’s a higher priority than nearly everything else, including crime, immigration, budget deficits, and the climate crisis.
In Congress, a large group has reintroduced a constitutional amendment to enable regulation of money used to influence elections. It has close to 200 supporters in the House and fifty in the Senate. Yes, these are mostly Democrats but now Republicans are leading the amendment effort in the states. Seriously, even the New York Times has noticed.
Or just ask Rick Bennett, Republican State Senator in Maine, who is leading the Protect Maine Elections ballot campaign, a top American Promise initiative this year. Or listen to another Republican, Jim Rubens, a former New Hampshire State Senator, and current American Promise board member. You can see him live from CPAC on Newsmax last month.
Better yet, talk with American Promise volunteers in Brown County, Wisconsin, which just became the latest of nearly 1000 cities, towns and counties to enact formal resolutions calling for Congress to pass the anti-corruption constitutional amendment. Brown County voted for Mitt Romney for President in 2012, Donald Trump in 2016, and Donald Trump in 2020. The American Promise resolution won with 92% support.
Or just ask any American who has paid the high cost of systemic corruption infesting the crypto/investment world, our banking, healthcare, energy, food, and environmental systems.
In another sign of a tipping point, the Brennan Center for Justice, longtime amendment skeptics, held a symposium, Constitutional Amendments: Time to Rethink, last month in New York. I participated, along with some leading law scholars and New York Times editorial board member Jesse Wegman, who noted the sharp shift in prospects for constitutional reform.
Pessimists are still in the media to say nothing will change but now the media, like Newsmax, the New York Times, and NBC New s, are calling American Promise to see what we think. Unlike the pessimists, we have receipts. American Promise has the evidence from Americans across the country who have helped drive 22 states to take action to formally demand that Congress pass the amendment and return it to the states for ratification.
Our Constitution largely derives from four brief “amendment eras” that have recurred roughly every 50 years. These were tipping point moments.
More than 40% of today’s Constitution was not part of the original document. Literally, not symbolically, the Constitution that opens with “We the People” comes from the people. It comes from the people who push amendments through the arduous Article V process of a ⅔ vote in Congress and ratification in ¾ of the states to adapt the Constitution to better serve freedom and justice. Fifty years after Americans ratified four constitutional amendments in less than ten years, a new amendment era may be upon us.
Tipping points rapidly transform complex systems under sustained, multi-factor stresses. From a non-human perspective, tipping points and transformation are neutral. A hurricane, volcano, war, or Great Depression are simply new conditions of complex systems. But from a human perspective, they are catastrophic. Tipping points also can transform conditions rapidly to be much better. Think of life expectancy, public health, and the rise of the middle class in the last century.
With American democracy and society under severe stress, tipping points will cause rapid transformation whether we like it or not. American Promise seeks to be an engine of service, hope, and action for every American to help make sure we can shape tipping point opportunities to transform to a much better state, rather than to something catastrophically worse.




















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.