In this episode of the Politics in Question podcast, the team discusses thermostatic politics to explain what it means and how it works.
Podcast: What is thermostatic politics?


In this episode of the Politics in Question podcast, the team discusses thermostatic politics to explain what it means and how it works.

People watch as US President Donald Trump makes a national address on television at Brooklyn Diner Times Square on April 1, 2026 in New York City. US President Donald Trump's address to the nation is expected to lay out the framework for ending the conflict in Iran.
What does it mean when the presidential oath becomes a performance instead of a promise? It means the nation is left vulnerable to a leader whose actions suggest that personal power may matter more than the Constitution he swore to defend.
He raised his right hand and swore to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution.” Yet millions of Americans have watched a president whose conduct repeatedly raises doubts about his commitment to that oath. His attacks on constitutional limits, his hostility toward oversight, and his tendency to treat institutional constraints as obstacles to personal objectives have led many to conclude that constitutional duty is no longer his governing priority. When the oath becomes symbolic rather than binding, the consequences are carried by the public.
Across the country, Americans feel something deeper than political disagreement. Many describe instability, exhaustion, and concern about an administration that often appears more focused on loyalty, image, and personal power than on public service.
A megalomaniac leader is defined not by a single act, but by a pattern of behavior. Political psychology associates such traits with grandiosity, inflated self‑importance, a need for admiration, intolerance of criticism, and a desire for control. Critics argue that the president’s conduct reflects these traits: demanding loyalty, attacking opponents, rewarding flattery, and framing disagreement as betrayal.
His public image appears central to his leadership style. He has promoted portrayals of himself as a heroic, powerful, symbolic figure. Supporters may view these as political theater; critics see a leader preoccupied with personal greatness. A president grounded in constitutional duty does not require constant self‑mythologizing—the office itself carries authority.
That impulse extends into efforts to attach his name, image, and personal brand to public institutions and national symbols. The significance of monuments, commemorative projects, and branding efforts lies not in any single proposal, but in what they suggest about governing priorities. Symbolic projects become revealing when they overshadow substantive policy needs.
A president’s priorities are revealed not only by what he says but by what he chooses to pursue.
Americans have repeatedly expressed concern about housing affordability, healthcare costs, wages, infrastructure, and economic stability. Yet public attention is often drawn toward symbolic projects and political spectacles centered on the president himself. Critics argue that this contrast reflects a deeper imbalance: while citizens seek solutions to urgent problems, government attention is redirected toward personal recognition.
The issue is not simply vanity. The issue is governance.
Every hour devoted to personal glorification is an hour not devoted to public problems. Taxpayer resources are not unlimited, and government attention is not symbolic—it is consequential. Public funds exist to solve problems, maintain infrastructure, protect rights, and address national needs, not to elevate individual political figures.
While families struggle with housing costs, healthcare expenses, childcare, and economic uncertainty, critics argue that governance often shifts toward symbolic displays, political grievance, and personal branding. Whether through naming efforts, public spectacles, or highly visible self‑referential projects, many Americans see a government increasingly oriented around one individual rather than the population it serves.
This is where concerns about megalomania become relevant. The issue is not a clinical label, but a governing pattern: when self‑focus becomes dominant, priorities shift. Public attention, political capital, and taxpayer resources risk being diverted toward sustaining a leader’s image rather than addressing public needs.
The pattern extends beyond symbolism. The president has frequently attacked judges who rule against him, characterized oversight as persecution, and portrayed institutional constraints as obstacles to his agenda. Supporters argue he is confronting entrenched interests, while critics see a deeper unwillingness to accept limits on presidential authority.
Independent courts, congressional oversight, inspectors general, and accountability mechanisms exist to prevent the concentration of power. When a president repeatedly challenges those safeguards, concerns about executive overreach become clear.
The same concerns arise when examining promises and performance. Presidents of all parties fall short of campaign promises, but critics argue that this presidency is marked by a recurring pattern of sweeping claims, shifting explanations, and refusal to accept responsibility. When narrative becomes more important than accountability, public trust erodes.
Over time, this produces consequences that extend beyond politics. Trust in institutions weakens, polarization intensifies, public servants operate under increased pressure, and citizens become less confident that government is acting in their interest. These are not abstract outcomes—they shape how people experience government in daily life, from economic stability to institutional reliability.
The consequences accumulate into something more serious: erosion of shared confidence in democratic systems themselves.
This is where the risk becomes structural. Political psychologists and constitutional scholars warn that when leadership centers on personal ambition, erodes accountability, and treats safeguards as illegitimate, it creates the conditions for democratic backsliding. Tyranny does not appear in a single moment; it grows when limits on power are steadily weakened or dismissed.
A presidency that concentrates attention on loyalty, undermines oversight, and elevates personal image above institutional restraint does not immediately become authoritarian. But it creates an opening for authoritarian drift: reduced accountability, weakened institutional independence, and normalization of personal power over constitutional limits.
When duty is abandoned, the nation absorbs the abuse—through weakened institutions, distorted priorities, and a presidency centered on personal power rather than public service.
The Framers anticipated this danger. They designed a system of separated powers precisely because they understood that no leader could be trusted with unchecked authority. The Constitution was not written for ideal leaders but for flawed ones—and for moments when ambition overwhelms restraint.
The events surrounding January 6 intensified concerns about how fragile democratic norms can become under strain. Millions watched violence unfold at the Capitol as Congress carried out its constitutional duty. What alarmed many Americans was not only the attack itself but what they viewed as an inadequate response from a president whose foremost responsibility was to defend constitutional order. Critics argue that the episode revealed how quickly institutional stability can be tested when loyalty to a leader competes with loyalty to the Constitution.
Concerns about presidential priorities also extend to foreign policy. Critics argue that several major decisions have contributed to instability, uncertainty, and economic disruption. When projecting strength becomes the goal rather than a strategy, the result is volatility rather than security.
Restoring duty requires every branch of government to fulfill its constitutional role. Congress must exercise oversight, use its power of appropriations, pass legislation, and, when necessary, pursue impeachment. Courts must uphold the law, protect due process, and enforce constitutional limits. Public institutions must remain accountable to the Constitution rather than to any individual officeholder.
Citizens have responsibilities. They must remain informed, reject normalization of abuses of power, participate in civic life, demand accountability, and vote. The Constitution provides remedies, but those remedies depend on a public willing to use them.
A republic survives only when its citizens insist that leaders serve the country—not themselves.
An abusive president who seeks to place his name, image, and personal brand at the center of public life is not simply building a legacy. Critics argue he is attempting to make himself inseparable from the nation itself. The taxpayers who fund government deserve more than spectacle, branding campaigns, political retaliation, and displays of personal grandeur. They deserve constitutional leadership focused on their needs.
The Framers understood the danger of leaders who confuse themselves with the country they govern. They wrote the Constitution not to flatter presidents, but to restrain them—especially those who place personal ambition above public duty. The Republic survives only when the Constitution, not the president, defines the limits of power.
Carolyn Goode is a retired educational leader and national advocate for ethical leadership and civic renewal. She writes about democracy, constitutional duty, and the role of citizens in strengthening public life.

Graham Platner, the Democratic Senate nominee, is running a populist campaign with a focus on corruption and influence.
After Graham Platner secured the Democratic nomination for Senate in Maine, his first ad of the general election didn’t mention his opponent, Sen. Susan Collins, or the Republican Party. It focused on the late disgraced financier and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, and who he called the “Epstein class” of elites in both parties.
“Some of the most powerful Democrats and Republicans in the country were on Epstein island,” Platner said in the ad, referring to Epstein’s former residence in the U.S. Virgin Islands. Platner, whose economic-populist campaign combined with controversial online statements and a since-removed tattoo of a Nazi symbol have drawn national attention, framed himself in opposition to this elite class.
“It seems the only thing the party establishments can agree on is a love of Jeffrey Epstein, and a hatred of me,” he said. “I’m Graham Platner, and I approve this message because together, we will take back our government from the Epstein class.”
It’s not just Platner: In midterm races from Texas to Maine, Democrats and at least one Republican are running against Epstein and “the Epstein class,” a term Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna of California first used last year to describe the men among the economic and cultural elite who traveled in Epstein’s social circles and helped rehabilitate his reputation after the multimillionaire ex-financier became a convicted sex offender in 2008 for soliciting prostitution of a minor.
“I’ll give the survivors credit, but I did coin the phrase ‘Epstein class’ because they’re a group of rich and powerful people who are not playing by the rules, and it offends the sense that we have one tier of justice,” Khanna told The 19th.
The number of candidates highlighting Epstein in their campaign messaging, Khanna argued, “shows what a powerful issue this is to win the midterms and win back the trust of the American public.”
In two of the most competitive races to determine control of the U.S. Senate, Platner and Democratic Sen. Jon Ossoff of Georgia, who is running for reelection, have castigated the “Epstein class” and what they say is elite corruption in their ads and messaging. In Texas, Democratic Senate nominee James Talarico has criticized his opponent, Trump-endorsed Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, for approving what critics have called an overly lenient, “Epstein-style” plea deal for a defendant charged with sexually abusing a child. And in Ohio’s Senate race, both Republican Sen. Jon Husted and his Democratic opponent, former Sen. Sherrod Brown, have run television ads attacking each other by singling out campaign donations from those in Epstein’s orbit.
Last year, Epstein’s survivors fueled a bipartisan push in Congress led by Khanna and Republican Rep. Thomas Massie to compel the Justice Department to release over 3.5 million files from its investigation into Epstein, who died in prison in 2019 while awaiting trial on federal sex trafficking charges. The release of the files, following months of resistance from President Donald Trump and the White House, provided a rare look into how the wealthy and powerful operate behind closed doors.
Epstein’s death was ruled a suicide, but it’s continued to drive scrutiny, skepticism and conspiracy theories in the years since. During the 2024 election, top Trump allies, some of whom ended up in his administration, pledged to release the Epstein files. The Trump administration’s reluctance to do so frustrated and splintered the MAGA base, resulting in a rare rebuke of the administration by Congress. Republicans who bucked Trump by pushing for the release of the files have also faced political consequences: In May, a Trump-backed primary challenger ousted Massie from his seat in Congress.
Americans across the political spectrum have continued to ask about the late financier and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein’s connections among the political elite. (Angela Weiss/AFP)
“I think the single most bipartisan issue in the country is the Epstein files investigation,” Rep. Robert Garcia of California, the top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee who has spearheaded Congress’ investigation into the Epstein case, told reporters this month. “And so I think we’re going to talk about it a lot.”
No one other than co-conspirator Ghislaine Maxwell, currently serving out a prison sentence for sex trafficking, has been prosecuted in connection to Epstein’s crimes in the United States. But Epstein courted influence and rubbed shoulders with prominent individuals associated with both parties in his efforts to rehabilitate his reputation.
Republicans have seized on Epstein’s ties to figures including former President Bill Clinton, who sat for a congressional deposition along with former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and Democratic megadonor Reid Hoffman, who has expressed regret for associating with Epstein, to accuse Democrats of hypocrisy. It’s also provided some Democratic candidates with a way to hit on what they cast as corruption in both parties.
The revelations from the files further fueled the widespread, bipartisan exasperation among voters with the wealthiest elites. The Epstein issue, two Democratic pollsters told The 19th, is rare for its high salience and far reach even among less politically engaged voters — and for the high levels of bipartisan agreement on the need for more action.
Surveys released this year from Democratic-aligned firm Navigator Research and progressive pollster Data for Progress back that argument up. In both polls, majorities of voters, including a majority of Republicans, believe there hasn’t been enough accountability connected to Epstein’s crimes and want to see more arrests and prosecutions. In a Navigator poll released in March, the share of Americans who said they believed Trump administration officials should resign over the Epstein matter increased when they were informed about officials in other countries being arrested, fired or forced to resign over Epstein ties.
“What has happened with the Epstein files is such a clear distillation of the frustration that Americans across different partisan ideologies, even Republicans, even MAGA Republicans, and certainly independents, feel that there’s a different set of rules — or that really no rules at all — for the elite who just seem to get ahead,” said Melissa Toufanian, managing director at Navigator.
In the Navigator survey, half of Americans, including two-thirds of Democrats and 58 percent of independents, said they believed the government was “definitely” covering up additional wrongdoing by Epstein. Seventy-two percent of Americans, including 70 percent of independents, 67 percent of non-MAGA Republicans and 57 percent of respondents identified as MAGA Republicans, said there should be more arrests and prosecutions related to Epstein. Sixty-four percent of respondents, including two-thirds of independents and half of Republicans, said they believed Epstein’s crimes were “unsurprising and the result of a broader problem.”
“It really cuts across every political divide in a way that we almost never see on other issues,” Toufanian said.
The number of red state candidates running on Epstein and the “Epstein class” demonstrates this. In addition to Talarico and Brown, Noah Taylor, an Army veteran running as a Democrat for the Senate in Kansas, and Dan Osborn, an independent Senate candidate in Nebraska, have also framed their campaigns as opposing the “Epstein class.”
Osborn, who is challenging Sen. Pete Ricketts, issued a news release pointing to a campaign rally in which Ricketts and Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas appeared together, calling them “birds of a feather who are content to carry out the agenda of the billionaire Epstein class.”
Research from Data for Progress found that voters were not only highly aware of the Epstein files issue but named specific figures, including Trump, who they believed to be part of the Epstein class. In a Data for Progress poll released in March, a plurality of likely voters said they didn’t expect to see additional arrests connected to Epstein, and majorities of voters said they held both the Trump and Biden administrations accountable for a lack of action.
“What we found there is that people are immediately able to attach this to wealthy elites and corruption and people that are rigging the system in their own interests, and then finally, that voters find those messages to be pretty convincing,” said Ryan O’Donnell, Data for Progress’ executive director.
Inflation and the high cost of living consistently rank among voters’ top concerns ahead of the midterms, an advantage for Democrats aiming to win back control of Congress. Still, O’Donnell said, surveys show that Democrats have little trust advantage on which party voters trust more to tackle corruption. Candidates’ focus on “the Epstein class,” he said, aligns with that broader anti-corruption and anti-elite messaging push many Democratic candidates are centering in 2026.
“I think it directly fits in with voters’ top concern of cost of living right now,” O’Donnell said. “Broadly, Democrats, if they want to fight their way out of this, have to show that they’re actually willing to take on corruption in that way, and I do think that the Epstein class language is one way to do that.”
Why Democrats Are Running Against the ‘Epstein Class’ was originally published by The 19th and is republished with permission.

U.S. President Donald Trump at the U.S. Capitol on June 24, 2026 in Washington, DC.
Donald Trump’s racist, misogynist, xenophobic view of the world has undermined the USA’s global standing. He has surrounded himself with cabinet officials who believe that competence is determined not by expertise, training, education and experience but with factors perceived to be far more important like, whether they are white, male and retain a feudal sense of subservience, other criteria he values include girth, facial hair and his very subjective perception of attractiveness.
Trump’s attack on wokeness and diversity, equity and inclusion mean that his administration is left without a diversity of knowledge , cultural understanding and empathy which means his negotiators for the Iran War cannot appreciate the history of the region, the cultural nuances, the languages, the political tensions, the emotional impact of their actions or the thinking of the current leadership. Being woke means understanding a variety of perspectives and having empathy for others, something this administration sorely lacks. They represent the total opposite of Kissinger, Brzezinski, Albright and Rice who were lifelong experts on their diplomatic counterparts.
In February Donald Trump accused the leaders of the Iranian regime of being a “vicious group of very hard terrible people” . In June he showered compliments on the Iranian leadership. In addition, his about face, and the President’s assurances that the Iranian leaders can be trusted, come after he has killed several family members of the current Supreme Leader.
Had the President not fired the Middle East experts in the State Department, he would have known that Iran is, like much of Central Asia, comprised of people who have survived a variety of empires ranging through several millennia, including but not limited to the Achaemenid/Persian, Ottoman & Mongolian empires. While Trump diverts the 250th anniversary of U.S. Independence from England, to a personal partisan event, MAGA pretends that 250 years is a long time, while they seeks to eradicate the 40,000 years of Native American history. In other words, suggesting that the President thinks in terms of 250-year increments is gratuitous, it is more appropriate to suggest that he thinks, as far ahead as the next campaign season and more likely he barely thinks beyond tomorrow’s news cycle.
I was once working with a lawyer from a neighboring country to Iran and she suggested that “you American lawyers want to get from A to B and you want to get there as fast as possible. I am Byzantine,” she said…”I do not think that way.” The point is, that Iranian leadership does not think the same way the president does. In my opinion they are not interested in money to the same extent that the president is. They do not need to respond to a Congress or an electorate. They have the luxury to think in terms of 2500 years. Their memories are long and while Donald Trump has most likely not given a second thought to the death of the Supreme Leader’s family, the Supreme Leader is unlikely to ever forget or for that matter forgive, nor are the Iranian people likely to forget the massacre of children at the Shajareh Tayyebeh Elementary School.
It is within this context that Donald Trump an inveterate liar suggests that the Iranian leadership is now trustworthy and that he has achieved significant progress with a gentlemen’s agreement. Iranians are less likely to bestow such trust on the USA or its leadership. Trump’s so-called MOU is woefully unspecific. Any diplomat will tell you that strategic ambiguity may be essential to closing a multilateral agreement, but where there is ambiguity, the diplomat must presume that the gaps will be aggressively interpreted against their interests.
The JCPOA was a major achievement because it was not bi-lateral it was multilateral. It included China, France, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom, the United States and was endorsed by the UN Security Council. The inclusion of Russia, and China meant that two of Iran’s leading potential allies were bound to the agreement. Such action would forbid Iran’s allies from assisting Iran to undermine or violate the agreement in any material way. The endorsement of France, Germany the United Kingdom and the UN provided gravitas to the agreement which meant that failure to adhere would bring condemnation on the world stage.
The JCPOA was a 159-page document which outlined explicit terms addressing the limits on Iran’s use of Uranium, its enrichment, stockpiling, research and development, reactor facilities with extensive monitoring and verification by international bodies for up to 25 years. It also outlined a considered approach to sanctions by the UN, the EU and the US.
The current MOU addresses none of these issues. The Israeli’s (who to my understanding are not at the table) have rejected the proposal and regardless of what one thinks of President Netanyahu, it is hard to imagine Israel waiving its right to defend itself. Donald Trump has alienated NATO, and wholly unnecessarily, leaders of the UK , France, Germany & Italy.
In addition to exposing US Allies of Oman, Saudi Arabia, UAE and Qatar, the failure of the administration to clearly secure a victory against Iran has exposed weaknesses in the military capabilities of the USA. Since World War II the goal of the US Military has been to fight under a two-theatre war model. In essence it was intended to be capable of engaging in two major conflicts, essentially one in Europe or the Middle East and one in Asia at the same time.
The Trump administration has demonstrated that there is a serious argument that the US is neither competent nor capable of mounting such efforts. The feeble military action in Iran has provided credible evidence that with the failure to cooperate with NATO and the allocation of resources to the Middle East, that the US’s ability to defend against China for the purposes of fulfilling its historical commitments to Taiwan or against a Putin expansion into Europe have been seriously compromised.
The president has complained that the US has lost respect on a global stage, but he alone has overseen the country’s greatest deconstruction of military, diplomatic and intelligence capabilities since prior to WWI and the utter destruction of the respect and reputation of the USA amongst allies and enemies alike.
Walter H. White, Jr is a director of Lawyers Defending American Democracy and served as a director & chair of the Central Asian American Enterprise Fund during the Clinton & Bush administrations.

U.S. President Donald Trump displays a graph entitled "Our Pool is Bigger than Skyscrapers" as he speaks on his renovations to the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool during an event in the Oval Office of the White House on June 3, 2026, in Washington, D.C.
Every time I get asked by a TV anchor what I think about the drama of the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool, my favorite “historical” headline from the Onion comes to mind: “World’s Largest Metaphor Hits Ice-Berg.”
And every time I do, I hear from defenders of the Trump administration complaining about the disproportionate media coverage of what should be a very minor story in the grand sweep of things. They have a point. President Trump has done some good work rehabbing Washington, D.C., where I live. But the Reflecting Pool has bedeviled him. Algae keep returning to the pool, despite the administration’s best efforts, and attempts to remedy the problem have yielded further problems.
I can think of scores of stories that deserve more attention on the merits.
But there are two problems with this complaint. First, it was Trump who invited extensive scrutiny of the effort. “I’m very proud of it,” he said before the algae counteroffensive. “I’m very good at building things and constructing things, so I hope you go take a look at it.”
Second, there’s the metaphor-on-the-Mall problem. The Reflecting Pool is a microcosm of nearly everything that vexes people about the second Trump term. We can start with his decision to ignore the usual rules and procedures to give a no-bid job to a contractor for the repair and paint work. Trump said it would cost $1.8 million. The costs have grown nearly tenfold. To deal with the insurrectionist algae, he gave another no-bid job to a Mar-a-Lago crony, campaign donor and convicted felon who looks like a villain from the old Dick Tracy comic strip.
The man who vowed to “drain the swamp” of D.C.’s corrupt cronyism used figurative swampy means to deliver literal swampy ends.
Another familiar aspect of the pool fiasco: A project Trump touted as proof of his genius and expertise becomes proof of unpatriotic enemies undermining him when it flounders. Without any evidence, Trump claimed that the only reason the Reflecting Pool’s paint is peeling and algae blooming is because anti-American “vandals” sabotaged it with a “300-foot long gash.”
How vandals evaded park police, security cameras and his own National Guard deployment remains unknown. Never mind how they put a 300-foot gash in a paint job Trump described as “So very strong. You couldn’t, if you had a knife — I don’t want to give anybody ideas — if you had a knife, you can’t even cut it. So strong, so powerful.”
But the metaphorical meaning of the miasma on the Mall hardly ends there.
During a May 27 Cabinet meeting, Trump boasted at length about the Reflecting Pool job and then handed the meeting off to his secretary of Defense. “I think, actually, your efforts on the Reflecting Pool are actually a great segue,” Pete Hegseth said.
“If you look at Washington and Lincoln, these are two men that faced monumental tasks and stood up in historic fashion and delivered for the American people,” Hegseth gushed. “And, when you step back and look at 47 years of what Iran waged … there’s only one man, over the course of both presidencies, who has stood up and said they will never get a nuclear weapon.”
As with so much Hegseth says, this is not exactly true. Every president since Bill Clinton has said that a nuclear Iran was unacceptable. It’s true that Trump is the only president to use massive military force in the name of preventing it. Whether his efforts have made the “never” claim a reality is, at best, an open question.
What isn’t an open question: Trump’s unilateral Iranian adventure did not go as planned. What began as another example of Trump trying to will into existence the reality he wanted segued into a murky, embarrassing and costly spectacle with no satisfying end in sight. Talk about metaphors.
That’s because, as the saying goes, the enemy gets a vote. Trump can bypass or ignore many laws, but not the law of unintended consequences. The defining feature of Trump’s presidency is his unvanquishable belief that laws, rules and norms are impediments to his will and genius.
He expects, nay demands, Hegseth-like sycophancy and praise recognizing that alleged genius. And when events conspire against Trump, the fault must lie in vandals and lies from “fake news.”
The international order, like the domestic order, is not natural. They are more like a man-made garden constructed out of the wilderness of the human condition. When the garden is not maintained, when the rules go ignored, the jungle grows back. Just like the algae.
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.