The country has been suffering under the thumb of Trump now for more than a year. So much of our country and people's lives are in shambles because of his actions. He has broken his promises to his middle-class and rural supporters (see my article, "Listen Up, Trump Supporters!"). He has disabled government agencies that protect the people. He has not only taken America to war against Iran without much of an explanation or the approval of Congress, but clearly the war and all the billions that have been spent and will be spent have not and will not result in anything that improves the interests of the United States in the region, and may in fact worsen them.
Trump controls, in large part, by being the most forceful presence, not just in the United States but in the world. In his king-like demeanor, he constantly takes action to undermine or destroy the government's traditional roles; he is a congenital liar, and he is so revered by his followers that he controls the airwaves and the media. The Democratic Party—the loyal opposition—has had no forum to act since Trump has mostly side-stepped his totally subservient Congress in moving his policy agenda forward.
Individual Democratic politicians have certainly made statements about Trump's actions from the sidelines. But the Party itself has not developed a structured, regular format for providing the American people with a counterweight, to let them know its take on what is happening in Washington. It has been missing in action.
Since there is no anointed leader of the party at this point, it falls to the Party leadership, both in Congress and at the DNC, to create a media vehicle to provide this information to the people and to be a regular presence in their lives. Trump provides his information and is present every day. For the sake of the country and the Party, it must provide its information and presence regularly and dependably, probably weekly, with social media posts during the week.
There is precedent for such a media vehicle. I can't think of anything recent, but in the 60s, the Everett Dirksen/Charles Halleck show was the Republican answer to the Kennedy and Johnson administrations. From the moment Kennedy took office in 1961 until Dirksen's death in 1969, the Republican leaders of the House and the Senate met weekly for a televised chat about what had been going on in the government over the previous week. Known as the "Ev and Charlie Show," it was well received and widely viewed and provided the Republican Party with a voice and presence when they were in the minority, as the Democrats are now.
This Democratic media vehicle must be more than a way to provide clear and focused criticism of Trump and his policies; the Party must use this forum to present to the people its vision of what the government should be doing to fulfill its various roles—including securing the rights of all people—grounded always in its take on our founding principles as expressed in the Declaration of Independence. And it must explain those principles clearly to the people because Trump and MAGA have fostered a perverted version of those principles. (See my articles, "Where Is the Democratic Party's Clarion Voice," and "The Far-Right's Biggest Lie.")
It could well be that disapproval of the war and high gas prices could result in Democrats winning both the House and the Senate in the upcoming midterm elections. But the party cannot leave that to chance. They must give people a reason to vote Democratic, rather than just registering disapproval of Trump.
Why? If Democrats win, they will have to present a united front against Trump's policies for the remaining 2 years of his presidency. They can only do that successfully if they have been given a mandate by the people. But their winning the election will only be considered a mandate for them if they have presented their proposals to the people. And so the election becomes not just a rebuke of Trump but an affirmation of the people's support for Democratic policy positions grounded in our founding principles.
Ronald L. Hirsch is a teacher, legal aid lawyer, survey researcher, nonprofit executive, consultant, composer, author, and volunteer. He is a graduate of Brown University and the University of Chicago Law School and the author of We Still Hold These Truths. Read more of his writing at www.PreservingAmericanValues.com
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.