Jahner is the founder of The Good Decision Project.
Considering the current conflicted state of affairs in our country, we need to reexamine how we make decisions for ourselves and democracy. As the next election cycle accelerates, we are looking at the most important decision Americans make in their public roles. But how do we arrive at the critical threshold called a vote?
The Good Decision was designed to address both the process of consideration and the binary yes/no of decision execution. The Good Decision Project is a call for collaboration in a collective reframing of our decision discipline in personal lives and democracy.
On our website, the collaboration portion of the project is an ongoing blog hosting a discussion of the nature of the much used and abused word “good.” This forum strives to provide followers with an opportunity to explore and discover how their personal sense of good interacts with today’s challenges and decisions. Every true decision we make has cause and consequence in our homes, communities and beyond.
The bottom-line requirement of The Good Decision asks us to face and accept responsibility for the consequences of our decisions, both positive and negative. Part of the hard truth we deal with in this project is accepting that no decision is perfect and no adult is perfectly innocent. This forum on “good” is open but stays within the guardrails of the ethical admonition “Do no harm.”
The due diligence of the Good Decision proposes four levels of identity found in a democratic society: personal sense of good, community sense of good, public/political sense of good and, finally, sense of service. We provide simple exercises an individual can complete to begin practicing the discipline. For most decisions, the process of The Good Decision can take less than a minute, but more complex decisions that involve local community, work settings and the polls, the process can take weeks or months for a single decision.
The neurological workings of decision-making are more uniform across humanity than one would think. The context, history, content and timing infused into the decision process, however, are infinitely varied. The uniform approach of The Good Decision process is designed to allow for the diversity found in a free democracy. Out of that diversity evolves culture and the vibrant differences that make life at once interesting, creative and profoundly challenging. This diversity is generated by the inherent subjectivity found in the individual and human communities.
We have found we can manage our actions by managing the nature of our subjectivity or unconscious bias – the source of how we initially experience “good.” As an adjective, good is used to convey a summarized sense of positive meaning within us as individuals and among ourselves as a community. After all considerations, including religion, the question is: “Does the individual’s initial sense-of -good align with the true, anticipated and witnessed consequences of the option chosen?” The decision’s consequence and individual accepting upfront responsibility for the option chosen underlies the entire process.
The subtext of The Good Decision is “Living well with the harder truth.” As Al Gore told us regarding the environment so many years ago, the truth of our situation was and still is “inconvenient.” By developing your decision making skills, you can live well with the hard truth. The Good Decision Process is described in detail on the website, but allow me to summarize the four levels of consideration or “pauses.”
Pause I: Sense of good
How do I immediately feel about this option? If you have the time to ask this question, it is not a non-conscious life-or-death emergency. You will live, so take the time to breathe and do a body check. The “gut check” is a solid clue to your body’s first impression, but rarely is the first take the complete answer and almost never in complex situations. Take a breath.
Pause II: Sense of community
How will the option I am considering impact my community? Who will thrive and who will suffer? Everyone has a few people whose approval or disapproval matters at the level of physical health. Deep conflict at this level can be experienced as physical pain. Any decision has a consequence of suffering for someone ... who suffers? Who or what thrives? You are now becoming aware of the true cost of this option. Stay conscious and take another breath.
Pause III: Sense of democracy
What are the limits of my tolerance for views and values other than my own or my community’s? Where does my tolerance end? How hard have I worked on non-violent language and my skills in conflict resolution? The sum of tolerance in a democratic society has a direct relationship to civil violence or its absence. The Constitution and the rule of law represent the frames around which the people exercise their skills in transforming their individual and community values/narratives into wisely articulated, just legislation. What is your sense of your democracy?
Pause IV: Sense of service
Given the considerations of the first three levels of identity, how can I best serve? This decision model was initially developed and presented to professionals, almost all of whom had legal issues woven into the decisions that carried heavy burdens of personal and community need. All the personal conflict, ethics and morality charges, audits, and investigations find their source in the mishandling of one of these levels of identity in service. Do your due-diligence and serve well.
Our national healing originates with you, at home, and locally with the decisions you make in daily life. Disagree? Let’s talk and work something out together.
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.