In order to think about the next steps for the Democratic Party and the February 1, 2025, vote for a new Democratic National Committee Chair, it is useful to remember the context of three pairs of Democratic Presidents since the 1960s.
JFK and LBJ led the way for major progressive changes, ranging from the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to Affirmative Action and the War on Poverty. Johnson's Great Society was the most progressive agenda ever promoted by an American president.
President Jimmy Carter and President Bill Clinton especially represented the centrist turn in the Democratic Party. Two Southern Democrats openly recognized the limits of the federal government even as they advanced a range of progressive policies, including Carter's renewable energy agenda and Clinton's signature on the Family and Medical Leave Act Bill. Carter encouraged self-sacrifice, and Clinton chanted, "The era of big government is over," and supported initiatives like welfare reform. Carter's centrism was complicated and particularly visible in his efforts to build up the military. Some recent commentators argue that with his human rights crusade, he, more than President Ronald Reagan, set things in motion to defeat the Soviet Union in the Cold War.
President Barack Obama and President Joe Biden returned to a more progressive orientation in domestic affairs. Obama countered Reagan and President George W. Bush's trickle-down economic agenda with some old-fashioned Keynesian deficit spending during the 2009-10 financial crisis. Obamacare was his historic achievement. Biden followed suit by supporting investments in the child tax credit, green energy, semiconductor chips, and infrastructure. In foreign affairs, Biden asked Congress for substantial financial support for Ukraine against Russia and, to a lesser extent, for Israel against Hamas.
Democrats are trying to figure out the next steps after Vice President Harris's loss to President-elect Trump. Rather than move left, right, or center, a more fruitful but admittedly risky approach for the Democratic Party would be to break out of this pendulum cycle and take the very bold step of reinventing the Democratic Party in such a way that it is able to work effectively with the rising group of independents in the United States.
Ironically, Democrats could advance their cause if they recognized the importance of the over 40% of Americans, according to Gallup, who identify as independents, not in the sense of getting independents to vote for Democrats but getting independents in some select races to vote for independent politicians.
To many, this will sound counterintuitive if not self-destructive. But pursuing this path can help Democrats in the years ahead get 60 votes in the Senate regarding policy bills and 50 votes regarding budget bills and the reconciliation process.
How might this work? I have argued in the last year and a half in the "Fulcrum" and in over 50 US newspapers that our politics should gradually replace the value of bipartisanship with the value of tripartisanship. Independents need representation on Capitol Hill, especially in the Senate, where five to six members, either elected or senators who switched to Independent, could have substantial leverage. Dartmouth economics professor Charles Wheelan illustrated how this "fulcrum strategy" for centrists might work in "The Centrist Manifesto." It would also work for independents.
Democrats in the years ahead might incentivize some Republicans to leave the Republican party and become Independents who would either caucus with them or establish their own Independent Caucus. For example, they might incentivize Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Ak) away from the Republican Party by offering her a Chairmanship or Ranking Member position on an important Senate Committee. Likewise, in Senate races where chances of electing a Democrat seem slim, Democrats might support a candidate running as an Independent.
In fact, in the case of one of the two races for the U.S. Senate in Nebraska, the Nebraska Democratic Party offered its endorsement to an independent, Dan Osborn. But he turned it down because he was not accepting party endorsements. Still, many Democratic PACS supported Osborn, as did many Democratic voters, and it was a surprisingly close race even though incumbent Senator Deb Fischer ultimately won.
Republicans could use the same strategy, but they are currently feeling confident about their power in the Senate, the House, and the White House and are less likely to reinvent themselves. Getting a new DNC Chair to start a war with the Republicans is a 20th-century strategy. Being bold involves doing something new, not just picking up missiles and bombs that have not been used for a while and using them again.
Anderson edited "Leveraging: A Political, Economic and Societal Framework," has taught at five universities and ran for the Democratic nomination for a Maryland congressional seat in 2016.
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.