On Thursday we published a countervailing view: "More ballot initiatives won't make Americans feel better about politics."
Fields Figueredo is executive director of the Ballot Initiative Strategy Center, which analyzes and supports ballot measures.
Direct democracy finds its roots in ancient Greece, where at the inception, male citizens were able to participate in decision making. The word "democracy," or demos kratis, translates to "power of the people" in Greek.
Flash forward to the United States, where our representative democracy introduced the ballot initiative process to fight corporate excess during the progressive movement of the early 20th century. Since then, ballot measures became a key part of the democratic tradition in more than two dozen states as a check to endure the power of the people.
Over the years, however, big business has found ways to use the ballot initiative process to its advantage. In the 1990s and early 2000s, the ballot measure process was largely a tool of conservatives. The Ballot Initiative Strategy Center was founded during this period to fight conservative inroads at the ballot box. While in its early years, we were largely on the defensive, increasingly we are helping our partners used the ballot box to advance progressive change through ballot initiatives.
Direct democracy is healthy for America, and people should be encouraged to continue to practice it. While measures people support may not always win, direct democracy does not conflict with the government process and, in many ways, it is another form of checks and balances on lawmakers who don't have the people's interests as a priority.
Direct democracy gives a seat at the table to many communities who have been left out of the process. It gives them the opportunity to get their voices heard and enact change. Look at Amendment 4 in Florida, which has given the formerly incarcerated the right to vote. The measure not only had widespread support across party lines, but the people behind the effort were the very individuals impacted by the failure of elected officials to bring justice to people who had served their time.
People are demanding a different future, one that is equitable and just. You see it every day as people march in the streets and demand action on the enormous issues facing our communities. We share this call to action. We believe ballot measures can be a tool for progressive change.
We are proud of how we supported the remarkable ballot initiative wins in 2018. Voters stepped up and rebuked laws steeped in centuries of structural racism and white supremacy. In Louisiana voters stood up to a Jim Crow-era law that did not require unanimous jury verdicts for felony convictions. Voters also stood up for their neighbors, rejecting hate and bigotry at the ballot box in Oregon and Massachusetts.
BISC provided assistance to many of these initiatives including strategy, media training, research and experiments, fundraising, and long-term planning with an eye beyond the campaigns themselves. Our work didn't end after the votes were counted. This work laid the foundation to advance progressive policies for the future.
As we are building for the future, we must be one step ahead of our opposition. We must fight the legal and legislative challenges to our victories. As we continue to succeed we must expect more attacks on the ballot measure process itself. This year, we have seen an unprecedented amount of attacks on that process, with more than 120 pieces of legislation introduced to undermine the will of the people — more than the last two years combined.
We are also seeing a number of attacks on people's rights in 2019 and 2020 with proposed measures and several already on ballots. There are several measures that are anti-immigrant, put severe limits on reproductive rights and fail to address the gun violence epidemic. We are working hand-in-hand with partners to defeat these measures.
Just a few days ago, children not old enough to vote walked out of classrooms across the country to participate in the Climate Justice march, demonstrating that they will be champions for our environment throughout their lives. As a mother, I am convinced our children learn at an early age to question lawmakers, look for ways to make their communities better and speak out when they sense injustice. And while many cannot yet vote, it is our duty to listen and use every form of democracy to build a future where they thrive.
Ballot measures are not a replacement for representative government. We want a government that speaks for the people. But if they fail to listen, we will hold them accountable and ballot measures are one of many tools to do this. When ballot measures and government work together, we build people power and an equitable and just world.




















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.