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.
In the past generation, citizens, organizations, and nations increasingly used leverage -- bargaining leverage, resource leverage, and financial leverage -- to get things done. The financial crisis of 2008-09, which centered around housing and manipulative subprime mortgages, was in fact a financial leverage crisis. In addition, information technology, the driving force in our economy in recent decades, is at its core about resource leveraging. A single email or tweet can reach tens of millions of people.
Leverage is a very old concept and is associated with the ancient Greek mathematician and scientist, Archimedes, who described leverage in terms of physical objects. A small force can cause a large force if a fulcrum is used. Archimedes said he could move the entire earth if he had a fulcrum, a place to stand, and a pole that was long enough. Leverage today is associated more with negotiations, relationships, computers, and money. Physical leverage is used all the time. Yet in a largely service economy animated by financial transactions and information, resource, financial and bargaining leverage play a much greater role.
The increasingly important role of leveraging in human relations is particularly evident in international relations, where the end of the Cold War led to less hierarchical relations with clear top-down bargaining leverage and more resource leverage used to motivate others to join in a collective effort. Both President Biden and President Zelensky have leveraged relationships, which are a kind of resource, in order to create coalitions to either provide military resources or request them. Mr. Biden needed to unite NATO countries to provide Ukraine with weapons and impose financial sanctions on Russia. Mr. Zelensky has also needed to leverage his relationships with leaders of these same countries to motivate them to contribute.
Democratic governance requires extensive use of leveraging -- bargaining leveraging but now especially resource leveraging -- because there is a limit on what you can tell other people to do. In 2023, democratic leaders need to leverage resources creatively and not just efficiently as well as consciously avoid the extremes of leveraging too much or leveraging too little. Over-leveraged workers or mothers get burned out, while under-leveraged information technology in a community leads to citizens who lack job, health care and volunteer opportunities.
The national quest to transcend our culture and politics of polarization also has a lot to do with leveraging in the middle. Indeed, leveraging is the main social tool that can be used to address our polarization crisis. It is because leveraging is being used pervasively throughout our society and global politics, but it has yet to be targeted on our chief political problem. Polarization itself is about how the political parties push each other to extreme positions on the left and the right and fail to find the kind of middle ground that is needed to pass major legislation. If there is a mechanism that would facilitate finding that middle ground, then it needs to be employed.
Overcoming polarization, narrow mindedness and siloed thinking in American politics can be found, to a significant extent, by finding the mean between extremes of leveraging. This would be the Leverage Mean. The philosopher Aristotle, another ancient Greek thinker, argued that virtue was the mean between extremes of deficiency and excess. Courage, for example, was the mean between cowardice and foolhardiness. He called this The Golden Mean. Finding the mean between extremes has a long heritage.
Politicians may need to leverage the internet and social media less so that they are less likely to distort the truth about their opponents. Likewise, the media may need to leverage television as well as Facebook and twitter less frequently in order to present a less oversimplified view of the conflict over policy questions. Indeed, they should give more attention to those politicians and citizens who are not at the polar extremes of the two major parties.
If leveraging is the dominant tool countries, organizations and citizens use to get things done, and if polarization is the dominant problem in US politics, then finding and pursuing the Leverage Mean is critical to the way forward.




















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.