Lockard is an Iowa resident who regularly contributes to regional newspapers and periodicals. She is working on the second of a four-book fictional series based on Jane Austen’s “Pride and Prejudice."
The “Father of our Country,” George Washington, was ironically not himself a father — not a biological one anyway. He was a stepfather and raised two of his step-grandchildren, one of whom was named after him. With his step-children/grandchildren and many nieces and nephews, he relished his large family and domestic life.
At 17, his stepdaughter Patsy Custis died of a seizure in his arms, and he never recovered from it. Since she was 2, he had brought her up. He was her father.
Five years ago, we welcomed a foster daughter, Zoe (not her real name), who was 4 and a half when she came to live with us. Fifteen minutes after coming into our home she tried to strangle our golden retriever. Things only got worse from there.
What had happened with Zoe’s biological mother was unspeakable, and Zoe had been severely and extremely detrimentally impacted by her abuse.
But what had not happened with her biological father, Mark (not his real name), was terribly damaging. He simply was not there, for any reason, at any time. His sole contribution, other than his sperm, was viewing her once in the newborn nursery and, unfortunately, signing his name on her birth certificate.
When Zoe was taken away from her mother, Mark was living in a condemned hotel room with his new girlfriend. The girlfriend had two older children, as well as a toddler and a baby by him, and was expecting another baby (his) in a few months.
As the stated goal of foster care is “reuniting the child with his or her biological family,”
Mark necessarily factored into Zoe’s foster care plan. Accordingly, she would now be spending two and a half hours with him, two or three times a week.
It is an untrue adage “there are no free lunches.”
As Mark did not work, he was available anytime to be picked up by an agency driver and driven to a restaurant for a long, free lunch with Zoe and her case worker. These bi- or triweekly lunch arrangements were more than amenable to him.
And they were absolutely heavenly to Zoe, who was uncontrollably jubilant upon returning from their outings. Her father, before a total stranger, was now “Daddy.”
Surely, though, wasn’t that better than returning from the mandated supervised visits with her mother, with Zoe invariably violent or hysterical?
No! Both parents were detrimental to Zoe’s mental health. To see her reeling from one extreme to the other was heartbreaking.
There is much, much more to this story. Every day Zoe was with us was both difficult and heartrending. As we discovered more about her past and how much help she would need to recover from it, we realized the inadequacy of the foster care system when it came to handling the tragic possibilities of parents who cannot or do not parent their children. We also learned first-hand of the heroes working in these programs: underpaid, overworked and yet somehow tireless.
Zoe’s story has a happy ending. After years of paperwork and hearings, she was adopted by a wonderful family. They are perfect for her, and she for them.
After leaving the “system,” she never saw her “father” again.
There is a desperate need for foster care in this country. The statistics are harrowing: Foster children average 8.3 moves between different homes before they age out of the system. Eighty percent of them exhibit mental health issues. More than one-fifth of the prison population has experienced foster care, and it factors majorly into every societal blight, from drug addiction to human trafficking. In the United States, 400,000 children are now in foster care, many of them homeless. Terrible circumstances, in critical need of attention and solutions.
And beneath it all is the crux of the problem: the essential need for parents to parent.
So, happy Father’s Day to fathers and step-fathers everywhere, who take their “job” seriously, who make it their mission to care for the children in their sphere, who show up for the umpteenth double-header or dentist appointment, bandage the neighbor kid’s knee, pay for camps and colleges, who take in foster children.
Happy Father’s Day as well to all the mentors and coaches, the teachers and leaders, who help along the way, nurturing and encouraging children, who inspire by setting a good example, who fill the gaps.
John F. Kennedy, our 35th president, took office 181 years after our first president. And the world changed dramatically. Yet, the truth of this quote by Kennedy never changes: “Children are the world’s most valuable resource, and our best hope for the future.”
Washington would certainly have agreed.
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.