Nevins is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.
As so often happens in our hyperpartisan political environment, members of Congress and their constituents use events of the day to re-enforce positions they already have.
A perfect example is the Ukrainian crisis that has heightened the debate between those who believe we need to increase oil production and those who believe we need a more environmentally sustainable energy policy that is less reliant on fossil fuel.
Of course it is not surprising that our elected representatives are using the crisis to craft arguments and cherry pick facts to support their respective positions on the issues of climate change and the need for more or less oil production in the United States.
Those members of Congress who for years have been supporting a stronger clean energy policy are using the Ukrainian crisis, and the threat of a Russian cut-off of oil to the West, as an example of why we need to increase our efforts for energy sustainability.
On the other hand, many Republican lawmakers are using the Russian invasion as an opportunity to criticize President Biden’s energy policies they claim have limited domestic production, urging him to step up production so we can wean ourselves of dependence on Russia.
Kevin Stitt, the Republican governor from Oklahoma recently said: “The recent events in Ukraine are yet another example of why we should be selling energy to our friends and not buying it from our enemies."
The debate has been fueled by the dramatic increase in oil prices resulting from Vladimir Putin’s escalating war on Ukraine. Benchmark crude oil jumped past $110 per barrel last week to the highest level since 2014 and politicians have used the dramatic increase to support whatever position they already had as to the solution, as opposed to reevaluating and adapting their initial position based on the new circumstances that have arisen.
Unfortunately, members of Congress are reluctant to think deductively, analyze multiple premises and come up with conclusions based on the facts as opposed to preconceived opinions. How else can you explain that, despite the considerable change that the Ukraine crisis portends on the energy supply-and-demand equation, there is no apparent desire to adapt positions.
There is no doubt that the desire to get elected subjects political aspirants to what is called motivation emotion, influencing their reasoning and judgment. Peter Ditto, a social psychologist at the University of California, Irvine who studies how motivation, emotion and intuition influence judgment, explains the phenomenon this say: "People are capable of being thoughtful and rational, but our wishes, hopes, fears and motivations often tip the scales to make us more likely to accept something as true if it supports what we want to believe."
The energy issue is of course complex and all the more reason that all of the relevant facts need to be considered to make a balanced decision. Is it too much to ask our leaders to stop allowing their ideology to undermine their ability to think critically? Admittedly it is not easy to access the facts. Recently the Financial Times stated:
“Not only does the crisis demonstrate our dependence on such regimes, giving them the ability to blackmail us, but we should also understand that our energy imports, in fact, bankroll the dangerous revisionist adventurism of the current government in Moscow.
“In addition to the all-important climate motivation, replacing imported gas with renewable energy is now a geopolitical priority.”
Yet at about the same time Auke Hoekstra, an expert on the path to 100 percent renewable energy, states that “700 studies (and # growing fast) of many researchers and research groups are now showing 100% [renewable energy] systems are possible and cost-effective.”
Whatever your position is, on this issue or the other great issue that our country must address we need more from our elected officials. We need leaders who take full accountability for actions through a willingness to amend one's positions by seeking our current research and analysis, thus resulting in a more constructive approach to problem identification and solutions.
As a citizen we must demand more of ourselves and our leaders. While it is difficult to accept facts that challenge opinions and beliefs you already have, it is time we all do so.
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.