"Hang a lantern on your problem" was favorite advice from Robert F. Kennedy. In other words, confront a challenge head-on. Illuminate it. Then take steps to tackle it.
Dan Snyder, who announced this week that he will soon rename the NFL franchise he owns, has an opportunity to do one better than RFK's mantra.
By changing Washington's football team name to the Greenbacks, Snyder would not only move a controversial spotlight off of himself, he would also refract it onto an enormously important issue that is starved for more attention: the corrupting influence of big money in American government.
Don't get me wrong. It's not that Americans aren't already aware of this abomination in our politics. In fact, the overwhelming majority of us— regardless of political stripe — say we want reform.
A survey conducted by the University of Maryland found 88 percent believe it's important to reduce the influence of special-interest cash in Washington.
More dramatically, 75 percent support a constitutional amendment that would supersede the Supreme Court's Citizens United v. FEC decision a decade ago and allow "Congress and the states to regulate and set reasonable limits on the raising and spending of money by candidates and others who seek to influence elections."
Our collective support for curbing corruption in Congress should come as no surprise. We know that the preferences of the wealthy influence legislative decisions far more than the rest of us. In fact, the desires of the top 10 percent matter 15 times more than the other 90 percent, according to research from Martin Gilens and Ben Page.
So if we all know that we're getting screwed by the billions of dollars washing through the Capitol, and if nearly all of us have said that we want to change this corrupt system, then why doesn't it happen?
The answer to that question is our national attention span. We don't have one. Not in a sustained enough way where most of us will take real and consistent action.
For instance, most Americans — even within that 75 percent who support a constitutional amendment — are not aware that there are proposed constitutional amendments sitting right now in both the House and the Senate.
But if we don't demand their passage, they won't pass. If we don't vote on the issue and then call our representatives once they're in office, nothing happens.
All of which brings me back to suggesting that Snyder rename his team the Washington Greenbacks. The allusion will be lost on no one. When you change the name of one of the most storied teams in NFL history to associate it with pay-for-play cash money — and that team is in the nation's capital — Americans will have no choice but to regularly contemplate why we allow a corrupt system to roll over us. Daily.
As an old political boss of mine used to say when we were collecting financial pledges: "You want them to remember it? Staple it to their foreheads."
Some might assert that it's nearly impossible to get a constitutional amendment through Congress and ratified by three-quarters of the states. It's an easy argument, since we haven't done so in a while. It's also silly. We've added 17 amendments to the Constitution since the Bill of Rights. Same rules.
Jeff Clements is the president of American Promise, a nonpartisan group dedicated to passing such an amendment to wack the flow of greenbacks. He's in the fight every day. He says he needs more fighters:
"In order to eliminate out-of-control big elite money from our political system, we need this 28th Amendment to the Constitution. American Promise has achieved great progress on this goal — but to make it a reality we'll need millions more Americans to make their voices heard."
Americans need a reminder. Regularly. The Greenbacks.
Yes, I'm aware that Snyder is a massively wealthy guy who almost certainly benefits from tax laws and other public policy decisions driven by special-interest cash. But it's never too late to do the right thing.
If he changed the name of the Redskins to some simple and non-controversial moniker, Snyder would at least be catching up to the 21st century.
But if he renamed it the Greenbacks, he'd be strengthening his country — and stepping into immortality.
Go big, Dan. And if it misses the mark, you won't need to sweat it — Greenbacks are also a species of fish. Worked out fine in Miami.
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.