Four years ago, Michael Steele and Donna Brazile sat down together in Charlottesville, Va., to discuss ways a Republican and a Democrat can bridge the divide on issues of race, despite their partisan differences.
Steele, a former chairman of the Republican National Committee, and Brazile, who led the Democratic National Committee, reconvened Tuesday to find common ground on election reform.
Early on, Steele framed the discussion around three words.
“The three words are ‘we the people,’ and the fundamental principle is that all of us get to play,” Steele said. “It may not have started out that way. But that's how it is right now. And the fact of the matter is, if we don't embrace that from the beginning ... it doesn't matter.”
Both forums were, appropriately enough, sponsored by the Common Ground Committee, which hosts solutions-oriented events to bridge the partisan divide.
Before getting to reform ideas, the pair discussed the state of democracy in the United States.
“This is a system that has been weakened, and it's being drained of trust,” Brazile said. “And if we don't take prudent steps to revitalize our democracy, I think we're in trouble.”
While the upcoming midterm elections will likely feature Republicans hammering Democrats on rising inflation and gas prices, according to Steele, if voting rights legislation goes by the wayside, other issues become less important.
“The reality of it is — those things don't matter if you can't vote,” Steele said. “The fundamental aspect for me is, how do we re-engage with each other to be stewards of our civic responsibility ... to make certain that everyone has free and unfettered access to a ballot box, and that our government doesn’t get in the way of that?”
The moderator, former CBS correspondent Jackie Adams, introduced a 2006 clip of Republican Sen. Mitch McConnell, now the minority leader, supporting the body’s decision to vote 98-0 to reauthorize the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which prohibited racial discrimination in voting.
Despite McConnell’s willingness to reinforce safeguards against racial discrimination in 2006, Adams said, the senator now says the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, passed by the House of Representatives in 2021 to reinforce provisions of the VRA that were struck down by a 2013 Supreme Court decision, is unnecessary.
Steele said the only thing that’s changed in those 16 years is the position of the Republican Party.
“The reality of it is he was right in 2006. He's dead wrong now. He knows it. Everyone knows it,” he said.
But, Steele said, there’s no active spirit within the Republican Party to enter that space and fight for change. It’s incumbent on voters to make that change through the ballot box, he argued.
After Brazile said some legislation is still actively creating obstacles to voting for Black and poor people, Adams asked if Republicans were guilty of systemic racism by preventing the loss of power by the traditional white ruling class through a lack of voting reform.
“Absolutely,” Steele said.
He pointed to the “Southern strategy” — a political realignment of voters by the Republican Party in the 1950s and 1960s, amidst the Jim Crow era and the civil rights movement, to maximize their support among white voters — alongside voter suppression tactics in the 21st century.
Brazile said it’s difficult to hold on to “American” values of access and fairness because elections are decentralized, meaning the rules are set by local and state governments. Federal reforms, such as the For the People Act, the John Lewis bill and the Freedom to Vote Act, have all been blocked by Senate filibusters.
“As long as you need 60 votes, you won't be able to fix anything,” Brazile said. “It's not going to come simply because our lawmakers are trying to make it happen.”
The discussion of state-level laws quickly turned to partisan gerrymandering, which, according to Brazile, ignores the presence of non-aligned voters for much of the process. Because independent voters don’t have a say in primaries, they spend much of the time on the sidelines, she said.
Steele said the issue boils down to elected officials deciding where their districts are and how the power is distributed.
The conversation turned to Georgia, where recently enacted laws were expected to tamp down voter turnout. Instead, large numbers of voters took part in the recent primaries.
“‘Just because people can swim doesn't neglect the fact that there's still sharks in the water,’” she said, channeling voting rights advocate Stacey Abrams. “When the rules have changed, you go out and you educate people, you provide them with information.”




















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.