The very first article written by The Fulcrum referred to Democrats’ sweeping election reform measure as a “political messaging” bill that would never get passed as long as Republicans controlled the Senate. That chapter of democracy reform seems destined to end Wednesday night, as predicted three years ago.
What started as the For the People Act, and given a place of legislative prominence as “HR 1,” morphed into the Freedom to Vote Act before being merged with yet another bill. Tonight, Senate Democrats will attempt, and fail, to push the Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act through an evenly divided chamber.
While Democrats could achieve a simple majority for the bill (thanks to Vice President Harris’ role as Senate tiebreaker), they have no path to overcoming a Republican filibuster. And two of their own members have repeatedly said they will not go along with proposals to change or eliminate the minority party’s ability to block legislation.
On Dec. 18, 2018, The Fulcrum’s founding editor-in-chief, David Hawkings, wrote:
“The legislation's sweeping objectives – limit the influence of money on politics, ease access to the ballot box and intensify government ethics – reflect the aspirational themes of many advocacy groups assembled under the banner of ‘political reform.’
“Having gained 40 seats to reclaim the House majority in January, the Democrats will have more than enough muscle to push their bill halfway through the Capitol. But then it's set to come to a full and lasting stop on the doorstep of the still-Republican Senate, one of many measures that seem destined to show brief signs of life before dying in the newly divided Congress.”
He was writing about the For the People Act, which, as expected, died in the Senate after passing the House. This year, Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia led an effort to revise the bill in order to attract enough Republican support to overcome a filibuster. But the revised bill, known as the Freedom to Vote Act, never picked up GOP support.
Its latest version, which includes another bill designed to restore the Justice Department’s power to oversee election changes in states with a history of racial discrimination, moved through the House in advance of Martin Luther King Jr. Day and will be brought to the Senate floor for debate Wednesday evening.
It will fail.
Democratic leaders will then try to change the filibuster rules. But with Manchin and fellow Democrat Krysten Sinema of Arizona both reaffirming their opposition to a rules change, that effort will fail as well.
And yet, advocates have not given up hope.
“We're still doing all we can to get this bill over the finish line, so while the path may be narrower than ever, we're not there yet,” said Ross Sherman, a spokesman for the reform group RepresentUs. “We've seen countless media headlines throughout last year claiming these bills were dead/doomed/you name it, but our movement never gave up and we've gotten it all the way to this point despite the cynicism.”
Nick Penniman, CEO of Issue One, has begun to look ahead to next steps.
"Today begins the next chapter in the fight to protect our elections. There is a bipartisan path forward if Democrats and Republicans can put politics aside and come together around the need to strengthen our elections,” he said. "It is critical that leaders from both sides now work together to produce a bill that is capable of passage. This must include provisions that strengthen our elections, protect election workers, and ensure that every American's vote is fairly counted. Many of the legislative proposals in Congress are rooted in strong bipartisanship, and are supported by an overwhelming majority of voters across the political spectrum.”
From the beginning, Democrats pursued a “go it alone” legislative strategy, opting not to negotiate with Republicans on what was included in the legislation. And Manchin’s changes were too little, too late. Perhaps it would not have mattered. It’s possible, and maybe even likely, that the top Republican in the Senate, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, would never have gone along even if moderates in his party supported some version of reform.
One option that has been shelved, at least for now, is breaking up the bill into its component parts and trying to pass them individually. Recent polling has found the public supports major pieces of the legislation.
Of course, no one ever wants to admit defeat before it happens, so a piecemeal approach has not been proposed so far. However, historian Heather Cox Richardson reports in her newsletter that Democratic Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey said his party will do just that.
RepresentUs, among others, will therefore focus on activity at the state level.
“I can tell you that we're still fighting gerrymandering in key states, including Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Florida and North Carolina,” said Ross. “We'll also be playing democracy reform offense with our Campaign Accelerator program, working with key state and local partners to pass laws that strengthen democracy, including ranked choice voting and open primaries.”
There is movement in Congress on a different election reform front, as lawmakers on both sides indicate a desire to firm up the rules around the certification of Electoral College votes.
But with midterm elections approaching and partisan battle lines cemented into cries of “voter suppression” on the left and “election security” on the right, reform advocates need to figure out a new path forward.
"There’s still time on the clock, but we need to pick up the ball and start moving down the field quickly in a bipartisan fashion. That work begins anew tomorrow," Penniman said.




















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.