Anderson edited "Leveraging: A Political, Economic and Societal Framework" (Springer, 2014), has taught at five universities and ran for the Democratic nomination for a Maryland congressional seat in 2016.
The conventional wisdom amongst American historians, politicians, pundits and citizens is that the United States took a sharp turn toward the left during the Progressive, New Deal and Great Society eras. This perspective, however, is only instructive when you look at our political and economic history from the standpoint of American history. From the standpoint of world history, the United States took a sharp turn toward the center during these three historic time periods.
The explanation for this fundamental difference is plain. In the United States, we have existed within the confines of what the late Harvard political scientist Louis Hartz called "the liberal tradition.” Unlike the United Kingdom and the countries on the European continent, the United States had neither a feudal past and a long heritage of monarchs nor a socialist tradition.
Our political tradition, Hartz argued in 1955, revolved around individual rights based on the political philosophy of John Locke, whose views we would today call libertarian. Rights theory in the 20th century also included the "liberal" mixed economy or "liberal" welfare state. In any case, Hartz argued that we never developed a serious socialist tradition because we had no tradition of centrally controlled government associated with right-wing monarchies.
Therefore, by the early 20th century the liberal capitalist order did, from our perspective, take a sharp turn to the left when two Republicans – President Theodore Roosevelt and Wisconsin Gov./Sen. Robert LaFollette – and Democratic President Woodrow Wilson led efforts to rein in big business.
They busted up Standard Oil and the trusts in general and created federal agencies to regulate the flow of money (Federal Reserve Board), the production and distribution of food (Food and Drug Administration), and the transportation of commerce across state lines (Federal Trade Commission). They created a federal income tax and gave women the right to vote.
The New Deal and the Great Society kept traveling left, with the National Labor Relations Act, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Social Security Administration, the National Industrialization Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, the Fair Housing Act, Medicare, Medicaid and affirmative action.
From the standpoint of world history, however, the United States since the early 1900s has been moving toward the center, because socialism became the rival force to capitalism from the mid-19th century through the work of writers in France, the U.K. and especially Germany, namely Karl Marx. By 1917 the Russian Revolution brought forth the first major socialist, indeed communist, totalitarian state.
Franklin Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson, even Barack Obama and Joe Biden are regarded as socialists by huge numbers of Republican voters and many Republican politicians. From the perspective of world history, none of these democratic leaders comes close to being a socialist leader. The social democracies of the Nordic countries today, and indeed the socialist-led coalitions on and off in Germany, France and the United Kingdom since World War II, represent the real leftist challenge to the advanced industrial age, the information age and capitalism.
The truth is, the United States and the Western democracies, which are all multiparty parliamentary democracies with a strong socialist presence, have been striving since the 1930s to find the center between laissez-faire capitalism and democratic socialism. It is true that Germany and Italy during World War II became fascist regimes, but those are exceptions.
In the U.S. and the U.K. many Clinton Democrats and members of the Tony Blair Labor Party have been seeking to find the "Third Way," which is really the "New Center," since the 1990s. Our left-right spectrum, which has never had a strong socialist presence (though Sen. Bernie Sanders has given socialism a real boost) occupies the middle of the ideological spectrum – we're in between the two 40-yard lines on a U.S. football field.
If we are to maintain our democracy, in the next 10 years we must find ways to educate ourselves about the reality of our quest for the next stage of the center – on the left side of the center or the right side of the center – whether through nonprofit organizations, political leaders, schools or some combination. Otherwise, we will continue to talk past each other, misidentify each other, and confuse each other in our very narrow perspective on ourselves and the rest of the world.




















Eric Trump, the newly appointed ALT5 board director of World Liberty Financial, walks outside of the NASDAQ in Times Square as they mark the $1.5- billion partnership between World Liberty Financial and ALT5 Sigma with the ringing of the NASDAQ opening bell, on Aug. 13, 2025, in New York City.
Why does the Trump family always get a pass?
Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche joined ABC’s “This Week” on Sunday to defend or explain a lot of controversies for the Trump administration: the Epstein files release, the events in Minneapolis, etc. He was also asked about possible conflicts of interest between President Trump’s family business and his job. Specifically, Blanche was asked about a very sketchy deal Trump’s son Eric signed with the UAE’s national security adviser, Sheikh Tahnoon.
Shortly before Trump was inaugurated in early 2025, Tahnoon invested $500 million in the Trump-owned World Liberty, a then newly launched cryptocurrency outfit. A few months later, UAE was granted permission to purchase sensitive American AI chips. According to the Wall Street Journal, which broke the story, “the deal marks something unprecedented in American politics: a foreign government official taking a major ownership stake in an incoming U.S. president’s company.”
“How do you respond to those who say this is a serious conflict of interest?” ABC host George Stephanopoulos asked.
“I love it when these papers talk about something being unprecedented or never happening before,” Blanche replied, “as if the Biden family and the Biden administration didn’t do exactly the same thing, and they were just in office.”
Blanche went on to boast about how the president is utterly transparent regarding his questionable business practices: “I don’t have a comment on it beyond Trump has been completely transparent when his family travels for business reasons. They don’t do so in secret. We don’t learn about it when we find a laptop a few years later. We learn about it when it’s happening.”
Sadly, Stephanopoulos didn’t offer the obvious response, which may have gone something like this: “OK, but the president and countless leading Republicans insisted that President Biden was the head of what they dubbed ‘the Biden Crime family’ and insisted his business dealings were corrupt, and indeed that his corruption merited impeachment. So how is being ‘transparent’ about similar corruption a defense?”
Now, I should be clear that I do think the Biden family’s business dealings were corrupt, whether or not laws were broken. Others disagree. I also think Trump’s business dealings appear to be worse in many ways than even what Biden was alleged to have done. But none of that is relevant. The standard set by Trump and Republicans is the relevant political standard, and by the deputy attorney general’s own account, the Trump administration is doing “exactly the same thing,” just more openly.
Since when is being more transparent about wrongdoing a defense? Try telling a cop or judge, “Yes, I robbed that bank. I’ve been completely transparent about that. So, what’s the big deal?”
This is just a small example of the broader dysfunction in the way we talk about politics.
Americans have a special hatred for hypocrisy. I think it goes back to the founding era. As Alexis de Tocqueville observed in “Democracy In America,” the old world had a different way of dealing with the moral shortcomings of leaders. Rank had its privileges. Nobles, never mind kings, were entitled to behave in ways that were forbidden to the little people.
In America, titles of nobility were banned in the Constitution and in our democratic culture. In a society built on notions of equality (the obvious exceptions of Black people, women, Native Americans notwithstanding) no one has access to special carve-outs or exemptions as to what is right and wrong. Claiming them, particularly in secret, feels like a betrayal against the whole idea of equality.
The problem in the modern era is that elites — of all ideological stripes — have violated that bargain. The result isn’t that we’ve abandoned any notion of right and wrong. Instead, by elevating hypocrisy to the greatest of sins, we end up weaponizing the principles, using them as a cudgel against the other side but not against our own.
Pick an issue: violent rhetoric by politicians, sexual misconduct, corruption and so on. With every revelation, almost immediately the debate becomes a riot of whataboutism. Team A says that Team B has no right to criticize because they did the same thing. Team B points out that Team A has switched positions. Everyone has a point. And everyone is missing the point.
Sure, hypocrisy is a moral failing, and partisan inconsistency is an intellectual one. But neither changes the objective facts. This is something you’re supposed to learn as a child: It doesn’t matter what everyone else is doing or saying, wrong is wrong. It’s also something lawyers like Mr. Blanche are supposed to know. Telling a judge that the hypocrisy of the prosecutor — or your client’s transparency — means your client did nothing wrong would earn you nothing but a laugh.
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.