Luke Nathan Phillips is Publius Fellow for Public Discourse at Braver Angels. Thoughts expressed here are entirely his own, and should not be read as a formal statement of Braver Angels.
Do you have friends with whom you disagree on politics? Not just friends from different backgrounds, but friends whose opinions are substantively different from yours?
If yes, excellent. You’re part of the solution to one of our most pervasive problems—political polarization reaching into our personal lives and breaking apart our friendships.
Now among your friends with whom you disagree with on politics—this could include people who are close to you on issues, but separated by the artificial yet socially-real boundary lines of political, cultural, and personal identity—you might both be moderates; you might both despise your respective sides’ harshest voices for similar reasons. Or you might both oppose your respective sides’ out-of-touch elites and establishments. This is friendship across a political line, but it is based on a certain sort of common ground.
Go a little further. Do you have any friends with whom you have less political common ground? Friends whose backgrounds are not just different from, but counterposed against, yours? People who you might have good reason to be resentful or suspicious or contemptuous towards, on political or social grounds? People whose politics, malicious or stupid, are actively harmful? Are you friends with them?
I would bet you are. If you’re like most people who work in or adjacent to political and policy activism, you probably have some token handful of friends, or maybe family or neighbors or coworkers, who are completely politically “other” from you. You probably also have larger groups of friendly acquaintances like this, too, and for all you despise their politics, you probably basically like and respect them as people.
This, too, is good. It can be harder to maintain these; these are the sorts of friendships where you might find it prudent never to talk about politics, and that can be all for the best. (There’s more interesting things in life, anyhow.) But by staying friends, even just casually, even with no reference to politics, you are maintaining civic friendship in its most basic, common, and fundamentally democratic mode, and the mode which the vast majority of our fellow Americans, when they too choose to hold America together in their personal lives and friendships, practice too.
But go one step further. We all have our “red lines”—personal convictions on moral, ethical, and political issues, which are dear and core to us as standards, which we hold ourselves to as a matter of belief and conviction. We stand by them not because they are universally recognized, but because they are so often contested, so often threatened by our political opponents. Politics is real, and sometimes other people cross our red lines, and if our convictions mean anything to us, we then must make a choice.
And so—among your friends with whom you disagree on politics, are there any who you know hold opinions or convictions which cross your red lines?
These are the hardest friendships to maintain, and the most commonly terminated. Many of us have cut people off over this, myself regrettably included. Discovering that someone you love and admire is, for example, unrepentantly racist, or spits on your faith, can be a shock.
Yet even here, I suspect that many of you are still friends of sorts with people whose opinions and beliefs cross your red lines. You might not have a coherent justification for it; you might merely have various loyalties and affections for them, on whatever basis, and to boot them out of your life would do less good than harm. You might feel weird about it; you might just not talk politics with them; you might just avoid their darker views, while keeping them as friends.
This, too, is good. It is scary and strange, and you might suffer socially and professionally for it. But if you do have friendships with such people, and value them as people, and keep those friendships despite the tension within and the pressure without, you are doing something very good.
You’re committing the radical act of keeping the personal and the political—so intricately intertwined, so fundamentally the same, yet so fundamentally distinct—in their right relations to each other, denying neither. You’re staying true to your politics, and true to your personhood. It doesn’t make straightforward sense, but it’s the right way to live. Friendship, first because of, then alongside, finally in spite of our duties to public life, is the noblest thing to which free people might aspire, the only real foundation of nationhood and of democracy itself.
Now, we’re in the National Week of Conversation. Keep those friendships front and center, don’t shed them; but if you in some way avoid talking about politics, we invite you to consider that productive, good-faith conversation about literally anything is possible, provided everyone comes in the right spirit, and agrees to the right rules. We at Braver Angels spend this week doing what we always do—convening Americans to sit around in circles and talk about their feelings, nothing more and nothing less, in our various formats of workshop and debate. We do this to remind each other, to remind ourselves, that there is another way to live.
For every friendship is an extended conversation, a drawn-out get-to-know-you session that drags on over months and years and lifetimes, which breaks down every barrier and humbles all the mighty, which literally changes lives. Marriages are rooted in it; mentorships grow into it; any human relationship, no matter how fleeting or transactional, is made beautiful when it becomes, as all can be, a friendship. And what is the American experience but the greatest conversation, and when we live up to it, the most beautiful of friendships?




















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.