Fitch is president and CEO of the Congressional Management Foundation and a former congressional staffer.
There is probably no more important concept in the compact between elected officials and those who elect them than accountability. One of the founding principles of American democracy is that members of Congress are ultimately accountable to their constituents, both politically and morally. Most members of Congress get this, but how they demonstrate and implement that concept varies. The two winners of the Congressional Management Foundation’s Democracy Award for Constituent Accountability and Accessibility clearly understand and excel at this concept.
The office of Rep. Gus Bilirakis (R-Fla.) seems to genuinely believe the best ideas come from those he serves and as such has embedded policies and practices throughout his office to maximize constituent engagement. The office has cultivated a culture of excellence and continuous improvement that is supported by formal procedures. The team actively seeks opportunities to translate constituent problems into legislative solutions. They also seek ways to demonstrate accountability by integrating constituent ideas and concerns into their letters to congressional colleagues and testimony at legislative hearings, as well as formal legislation.
The congressman’s voting record is displayed on his website and the rationale for each vote is explained in his weekly newsletter. He held approximately 100 in-person or tele-town hall meetings in 2023. Bilirakis hosts one tele-townhall each month during which he calls 100,000 constituents in the district, offering them an opportunity to hear from him directly.
Bilirakis has won Democracy Awards in three categories — two this year, which kind of makes him the Robert Redford of the Democracy Awards.
The Democratic winner for accountability and accessibility is Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-MA). She and her staff aim to practice “cooperative governing” and “keeping those closest to the pain closest to the power.” This model of governing informs every interaction that the office has with constituents. Pressley leverages every congressional tool available to communicate important updates to her constituents, including a periodical newsletter with updates on her legislative work and upcoming events, and using social media platforms and press interviews to share federal resources.
The office ensures that videos are captioned and photos include alt-text for constituents with hearing and visual impairments, and it is standard practice to use translation options for public community events. In 2023, Pressley held four in-person town halls, quarterly traditional telephone town halls, and at least 50 virtual town halls, roundtables or community meetings. Her office was also one of the first to use direct-to-camera videos and engaging social media graphics to update constituents on legislation, provide resources and solicit feedback.
In addition, all staff are trained on how to identify casework challenges or incoming letters that could be addressed through longer-term legislation, amendments or appropriations requests. Finally, the office has inculcated in the staff a mentality to look for and create access to constituents where barriers could exist. This includes language barriers, physical accessibility issues and even providing child care services at events so parents can attend.
Many members of Congress use some of these methods to demonstrate accountability and accessibility to their constituents. Yet it is the comprehensive combination of many strategies that sets the Bilirakis and Pressley offices apart from their colleagues. Each office has clearly cultivated a culture of openness that is usually met by surprise from a constituent. Americans have become so cynical about Congress that when they get a phone call returned, or are invited to a telephone town hall meeting, they’re shocked. One participant in a telephone town hall meeting said, “It actually made me feel like I had a voice in government.”
These are the types of strategies that more politicians must employ if we are going to strengthen our democratic institutions.
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.