Molineaux is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and president/CEO of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.
The shadowy politics industry is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Many Americans don’t know this industry exists. Before the 1990s, there were elections managers who helped candidates get elected. Often, these people might work for either political party. But during the Clinton administration something changed. A harder, more partisan approach became vogue. Then came the Citizens United decision, unleashing Super PACs and a new nirvana for political manipulators.
Technology advances were part of the equation, too. As our ability to target people with custom messages evolved, the new politics industry advanced to take advantage of the new technology. And then came social media to provide additional tools and niche marketing. Candidates are packaged in a formulaic manner to win elections. “Common good” ideals seem quaint by comparison.
This evolution was brought on by the politics industry of electioneers, party loyalists, marketers and conflict entrepreneurs, who together contribute to the toxic polarization we see in society. Individually, they are part of a Manhattan-like project, compartmentalized from one another, working their part of an election to subvert the common good in favor of winning elections. It’s time we have second thoughts about the value of winning “at any cost.”
The politics industry has brought us:
- All-or-nothing thinking.
- A disregard for the process of democracy.
- Paranoia that “they” are out to get us.
- Viewing other Americans as the enemy and/or evil.
- Nothing can happen unless we win.
- News bubbles that disallow for multiple viewpoints.
- A flawed census.
- An on going insurrection movement.
Collectively, our social norms have been eroded, exploded and imploded to the point where appeals to our basest survival instincts are used to create conflict among Americans. This is how nations fall. Appeals to our first instinct – that survival instinct – which resides in every human brain, easily manipulate and fool us into thinking our actions are righteous. They are not.
It is only on second thought, when we look around and see that our survival, in reality, is not at risk. Once we assure our survival, then we can engage with critical thinking. We can question “the answer” presented in front of us by the politics industry that “those people or ideas are evil.” We should stop and ask ourselves if there is another explanation and explore multiple perspectives.
In the wake of the leaked memo about the potential – and likely – Supreme Court decision overturning of Roe v. Wade, I received more than 50 appeals for money. Likely you did too. The politics industry will not let a controversy play out in the media when its practitioners could enrich themselves with campaign cash to lambast their opponents.
I am angry about this subversion of our democratic process.
Women’s health, like everyone’s health, is an issue I care deeply about. Yet I resist the knee-jerk reaction to be outraged or donate money to support my perspective. My outrage and money will not be used to support the politics industry that has taught us to follow our first (base) instinct instead of our second (rational) thoughts.
Like so many matters, this is a wedge issue that the politics industry is using to its advantage and our downfall. Maybe you recognize some of the other issues used in every election cycle?
- Gun rights and gun control.
- Immigration.
- Gender and sexuality.
- Vaccines.
- Free speech.
I posit that most Americans don’t realize the extent to which our thinking has been influenced by this shadow industry. Each of us believes our thinking to be infallible, because we live in our information bubbles without challenges.
This is our biggest danger.
It’s time we have second thoughts about any demonization of others. We need spaces and relationships to test what we believe using our critical thinking skills. When we challenge each other, we become stronger. We reweave our social fabric to co-create new social norms. The politics industry doesn’t want us talking to each other. It makes their job of winning elections harder. I say, let it be hard to subvert democracy.
Are we brave enough to follow our second thoughts?
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.