Benjamin Clary is a Senior Research Analyst at APM Research Lab.
The McCourtney Institute for Democracy’s most recent Mood of the Nation Poll asked Americans what law they would choose, in their own words, if they could enact any law at the start of the new Congress. The results show that Americans are eager for political and electoral reform, especially instituting term limits.
Poll director Eric Plutzer, Ph.D., noted, “I think it says a lot that term limits and similar reforms are the first things that come to mind for so many people. Many Americans are prioritizing fixing the system over any particular policy that might contribute to security, freedom, equality or prosperity. That’s a symptom of deep frustration with government and how it has been functioning—or not—lately.”
Over one-quarter of Americans are eager for political or electoral reform
As part of the latest Mood of the Nation Poll, fielded in mid-November, respondents were asked what law they would enact if they had a magic wand that would make it the law of the United States automatically at the start of the new, 118th Congress. Responses were recorded verbatim and the APM Research Lab coded those responses into broader categories.
More than one-quarter of respondents (28%) gave an answer related to political or electoral reform. We combined political- and election-reform answers since both seek to change the mechanisms by which our government functions. Even when split into two separate categories, political reform remains the frontrunner with nearly one in five Americans (18.5%) wishing for some sort of political reform.
In addition to political or electoral reform, Americans also desired to enact laws pertaining to justice (9.5%), equal rights (8.5%), abortion (7.9%) and income or taxation (7.7%), among others.
Overhauling the political system and instituting term limits are most common suggestions for political or electoral reform
What exactly do Americans mean by political or electoral reform?
Among those who gave an answer that fell under political or electoral reform, 21% felt that some sort of change to our political system was needed to overcome dissatisfaction with America’s two-party system.
Some respondents expressed a desire to eliminate political parties or currently in use political labels, such as one 55-year-old white woman from Indiana, a Republican, who wished for “the abolishment of the party system.” While a handful of others, like this 35-year-old Black man from Pennsylvania, a Democrat, suggested that “making political representation proportional” would bring about necessary political reform.
Nineteen percent of those who gave an answer that fell under political or electoral reform wished to enact a law instituting term limits for those holding political office. Some respondents just said “term limits” without specifying a particular office, while others specified term limits for members of Congress. A few wished for legislation instituting term limits for Supreme Court justices, and a subset of respondents, like this 43-year-old white man from Florida, an independent, sought “Term limits for every political office.”
Those who wished to enact legislation instituting term limits came from across the political spectrum and a range of other demographic categories.
Finally, changing the laws around election finance was the third most popular type of suggestions related to political and election reform. Respondents frequently named the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. FEC as a target of their proposed legislation. Other respondents, while not citing Citizens United, said that there should be a law that elections be only publicly financed.
Americans who would enact a law regarding political and election reform are by and large significantly more likely to identify as male, white and Republican, to have higher levels of educational attainment and higher family income. The largest of these differences are seen across gender, race and family income, as shown in the graph.
Abortion, equal rights and healthcare legislation favored by larger proportions of women, Black Americans and poorer Americans, respectively
Although smaller proportions of Americans overall said they would enact legislation related to abortion, equal rights or healthcare as compared to political reform, certain patterns emerge that reveal these issues are particularly salient among certain demographics, perhaps due to addressing more immediate needs than political system change.
Eight percent of Americans cited abortion as the focus of their legislative wishes. The vast majority of Americans who would enact an abortion law, four in five, said they would legalize abortion access on a national level, while one in five said they would outlaw abortion in any circumstance.
Women, in particular, were significantly more likely than men to say they would enact a law related to abortion (14% compared to 2%). Interestingly, all the men who gave an abortion answer were in favor of legalizing abortion.
The specific form the abortion answers took varied. At least seven respondents mentioned their desire to “codify Roe v. Wade.” Some respondents emphasized bodily autonomy at the root of their legal safeguarding of abortion access. Several people thought abortion should be legally accessible in all cases. Still, other respondents linked abortion to broader concerns around healthcare.
Those who wanted to institute a nationwide ban on abortions mostly kept it focused on that. But a 42-year-old woman from Texas, a Democrat, said she “would overturn Roe v. Wade and outlaw certain guns.” And another respondent emphasized “no abortions of any kind, ever, that we value ALL forms of life. That we never start to devalue life in infants, elderly, different people.”
There were also significant differences in frequency of response based on household income. As the level of family income increases, a somewhat higher proportion of Americans point to abortion policy as their law of choice. This is especially true for those with a family income of $100,000 or more.
Nearly 9% of Americans prioritized enacting legislation that would secure equal rights for marginalized groups. But there are significant differences among frequency of response when it comes to race and ethnicity, and political leaning.
One in five Black Americans said they would enact a law regarding equal rights, and just over one in 10 Latino Americans would do the same. Only 7% of white Americans, however, prioritized legislation pertaining to equal rights.
There is also a significant political difference when it comes to those suggesting a law regarding equal rights. Democrats (15%) were far more likely than either political independents (5%) or Republicans (2%) to say they would enact equal rights legislation. This difference between political leanings may also be influenced by race, since a higher proportion Republicans identify as white.
Many respondents said they would enact a law securing “equal rights for all.” Others sought to advance equal rights specifically as it came to racism, or gender equity, or marriage equality and other LGBTQ rights. One respondent specifically cited enacting the Equal Rights Amendment.
Comparatively speaking, healthcare legislation was among the less frequently cited categories, only 6% of Americans gave an answer related to healthcare. But there is a significant difference in frequency of response when analyzed by household income: those with a lower household income were more likely to say they would enact a law regarding healthcare access than those with a higher household income.
Twelve percent of Americans with an annual family income less than $30,000, double the overall rate, prioritized healthcare access. That proportion drops to 7% for those with a family income between $30,000 and $59,999, 4% for those with a family income between $60,000 and $99,999, and 2% for those with a family income over $100,000.
Among those with a household income less than $30,000 who would enact healthcare-related legislation, one said they would make it so “that we will never be forced to pay a mandate for health insurance again.” But all others advocated for some form of universal healthcare, such as: “Medicare for all!!”, “that all citizens have health insurance regardless of income”, and “comprehensive, single payer healthcare for everyone.”
PARTNER FOR THIS SURVEY
The McCourtney Institute for Democracy at Penn State promotes scholarship and practical innovations that defend and advance democracy in the United States and abroad. Through teaching, research and public outreach, the Institute leverages the resources of Penn State and partners around the world to foster a model of deliberation, policymaking and responsiveness that is passionate, informed and civil.
This article originally appeared on APM Research Lab.
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.