Vines is the executive producer of the 2021 documentary “Dialogue Lab: America” and president/CEO of Ideos Institute.
With the midterm elections over, it is high time we all take a collective sigh of relief. Not that the work is over. In fact, with new leadership, shifting coalitions and renewed focus on the challenges our nation is still faced with, some of our greatest work lies before us. But how does a nation divided across almost everything begin to move forward together towards the kinds of systemic changes and big idea solutions required of us?
Sadly, the jury is still out on exactly how we go about bridging our seemingly unbridgeable divides, much less solutions our political parties will collectively rally behind.
However, one thing I do know is that if we continue to wait patiently for systems change to magically happen, change will certainly remain elusive. Advocacy and activism are incomplete methods of change. Many tout “systems change” as the new solution. But the language of systems change gives the “exhausted majority” of Americans a bit of a hall pass. This exhausted majority feel disconnected from the halls of power and/or powerless given the overwhelming size of the issues themselves.
This is largely why we remain immobilized in the face of issues long overdue for real and sustainable solutions. Major issues like racial injustice, poverty, climate change, voting rights, immigration, gun violence and mental health continue to plague us after generations of political promises. As each party tells us what we want to hear – that they can fix it – we’ve grown cynical. It is time to stop scapegoating particular parties or populations for these systemic failures. Our inability to transform our broken and dysfunctional systems is, in fact, a lack of transformation within the American people themselves. The problem isn’t only the system. The problem is also us, our mindsets and attraction to simple answers, conspiracy theories and other quick fixes. We need to try something new.
For instance, what if we broke down systems change into manageable steps that every American could see themselves participating within? We could transform ourselves and our system, together. To understand this distinction, we must first define what systems change is and how it’s different from other types of approaches.
First, systems change focuses on the addressing of causes, rather than symptoms of social, political and economic issues. It involves the adjusting or “transformation” of the policies, practices, power dynamics, social norms and mindsets that underlie the societal issue at stake. And, for its success, it requires the shared understanding, commitment and action by a diverse set of stakeholders, including those closest to and most affected by the problem. This last part is the people part. It’s not a mindset of “they need to change” but a new mindset of “we need to change” so a new system is supported by all stakeholders, because they helped design and implement it.
Catalyst 2030, a global movement of people and organizations committed to achieving the U.N. Sustainable Development Goals by 2030, outlines systems change in the following way:
Systems change is the shifting, reconfiguring, and transforming of:
- mind-sets, mental models, and paradigms,
- patterns, underlying structures, and ways of operating,
- dynamics and relationships,
in order to:
- address underlying root causes,
- deal with [ever-changing] complex, uncertain, and interconnected systems…,
- Solve big social issues,
through intentional process and design, purposeful interventions, and conscious, deliberate approaches such as…:
- growing the number of people who think and act systemically,
- enabling and supporting leaders with the power to convene systems,
- strengthening capacity and processes to engage,
- strategic, multi-stakeholder approaches coming together across systems,
- having an inner awareness of the whole,
with the outcome of creating, enduring and positively affecting:
- different behaviors and outcomes,
- resilient, lasting, and better results,
- building a bridge to a better tomorrow,
- increased systems of health,
- positive social change,
- just, sustainable, and compassionate societies, [and]
- a new normal, the emergence of a new system and a new reality.
This is the process of systems change.
It is more common to assume the who/what behind systems change is “them,” and resist any change reflexively. We push away any thought that we might be better served with a new system or new belief. Here, today, we invite you to consider that all systems are simply people coordinating together with shared understanding. These “stakeholders” for our multiple looming crises are all of us. There is no “them” to blame, only “us.”
This means that the transformation of broken, antiquated, dysfunctional systems starts with the transformation of actual people. You. Me. Us. In other words, if we are ever going to change the systems most in need of changing, our first and most important step is to begin the work of changing ourselves – our personal mindsets, patterns, paradigms and ways of operating. Changing ourselves is the first step. Only then, according to the process outlined above, will we have a chance at building a just, sustainable and compassionate society.
Yes, the work of systems change is hard. But I would bet large sums of money that the reason why we are so lacking in most areas is because the work of people change is even harder. It is always easier to point our fingers at the other side; the ones with the wrong answers, the evil plans, the destructive ideas. But as my grandmother always told me, “When you point a finger at someone else there are three pointing back at you.”
So, with my three fingers pointing squarely back at myself, I invite you to join me in the work of personal transformation. Join me in a process – as my October piece alludes to, the transformative process of seeing past political, social and cultural identities toward the human being in search of a better future – even if differently designed. This is the messiness of social capital building and the foundation for strong democracies made up of diverse people and perspectives. The kind of democracy we have been promoting globally for decades and now struggle to maintain at home. Yes, the world is watching.


















Eric Trump, the newly appointed ALT5 board director of World Liberty Financial, walks outside of the NASDAQ in Times Square as they mark the $1.5- billion partnership between World Liberty Financial and ALT5 Sigma with the ringing of the NASDAQ opening bell, on Aug. 13, 2025, in New York City.
Why does the Trump family always get a pass?
Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche joined ABC’s “This Week” on Sunday to defend or explain a lot of controversies for the Trump administration: the Epstein files release, the events in Minneapolis, etc. He was also asked about possible conflicts of interest between President Trump’s family business and his job. Specifically, Blanche was asked about a very sketchy deal Trump’s son Eric signed with the UAE’s national security adviser, Sheikh Tahnoon.
Shortly before Trump was inaugurated in early 2025, Tahnoon invested $500 million in the Trump-owned World Liberty, a then newly launched cryptocurrency outfit. A few months later, UAE was granted permission to purchase sensitive American AI chips. According to the Wall Street Journal, which broke the story, “the deal marks something unprecedented in American politics: a foreign government official taking a major ownership stake in an incoming U.S. president’s company.”
“How do you respond to those who say this is a serious conflict of interest?” ABC host George Stephanopoulos asked.
“I love it when these papers talk about something being unprecedented or never happening before,” Blanche replied, “as if the Biden family and the Biden administration didn’t do exactly the same thing, and they were just in office.”
Blanche went on to boast about how the president is utterly transparent regarding his questionable business practices: “I don’t have a comment on it beyond Trump has been completely transparent when his family travels for business reasons. They don’t do so in secret. We don’t learn about it when we find a laptop a few years later. We learn about it when it’s happening.”
Sadly, Stephanopoulos didn’t offer the obvious response, which may have gone something like this: “OK, but the president and countless leading Republicans insisted that President Biden was the head of what they dubbed ‘the Biden Crime family’ and insisted his business dealings were corrupt, and indeed that his corruption merited impeachment. So how is being ‘transparent’ about similar corruption a defense?”
Now, I should be clear that I do think the Biden family’s business dealings were corrupt, whether or not laws were broken. Others disagree. I also think Trump’s business dealings appear to be worse in many ways than even what Biden was alleged to have done. But none of that is relevant. The standard set by Trump and Republicans is the relevant political standard, and by the deputy attorney general’s own account, the Trump administration is doing “exactly the same thing,” just more openly.
Since when is being more transparent about wrongdoing a defense? Try telling a cop or judge, “Yes, I robbed that bank. I’ve been completely transparent about that. So, what’s the big deal?”
This is just a small example of the broader dysfunction in the way we talk about politics.
Americans have a special hatred for hypocrisy. I think it goes back to the founding era. As Alexis de Tocqueville observed in “Democracy In America,” the old world had a different way of dealing with the moral shortcomings of leaders. Rank had its privileges. Nobles, never mind kings, were entitled to behave in ways that were forbidden to the little people.
In America, titles of nobility were banned in the Constitution and in our democratic culture. In a society built on notions of equality (the obvious exceptions of Black people, women, Native Americans notwithstanding) no one has access to special carve-outs or exemptions as to what is right and wrong. Claiming them, particularly in secret, feels like a betrayal against the whole idea of equality.
The problem in the modern era is that elites — of all ideological stripes — have violated that bargain. The result isn’t that we’ve abandoned any notion of right and wrong. Instead, by elevating hypocrisy to the greatest of sins, we end up weaponizing the principles, using them as a cudgel against the other side but not against our own.
Pick an issue: violent rhetoric by politicians, sexual misconduct, corruption and so on. With every revelation, almost immediately the debate becomes a riot of whataboutism. Team A says that Team B has no right to criticize because they did the same thing. Team B points out that Team A has switched positions. Everyone has a point. And everyone is missing the point.
Sure, hypocrisy is a moral failing, and partisan inconsistency is an intellectual one. But neither changes the objective facts. This is something you’re supposed to learn as a child: It doesn’t matter what everyone else is doing or saying, wrong is wrong. It’s also something lawyers like Mr. Blanche are supposed to know. Telling a judge that the hypocrisy of the prosecutor — or your client’s transparency — means your client did nothing wrong would earn you nothing but a laugh.
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.