Nevins is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.
Yesterday, our congressional dysfunction continued as the vote on the For the People Act was along purely partisan lines with a vote of 50 Democrats in favor and 50 Republicans against. The level of dysfunction is heightened by the fact that this was not a vote to pass the voting rights legislation, but simply a vote on whether to even debate the proposed legislation.
Whether one believes that the wave of state-level voting changes is warranted or not, whether one believes in the voting rights legislation in its present format or not, there is no doubt that Americans believe that voting is at the heart of our democratic process. Yet the vote as to whether to even have a debate on the subject was 100% partisan.
As I listened to the rationale on both sides before, during and after the vote, I realized that the rhetoric was devoid of any desire for an open-minded search for the truth and a workable solution on this vital issue.
As I switched channels between FOX, MSNBC, and CNN, I witnessed the dogma and observed how it can give the holder a warm and comforting feeling of security in this time of great change and anxiety in our nation. Comfort unfortunately does not allow for the possibility of advancement and a modicum of common ground.
Polls repeatedly show that a vast majority of Americans in both parties want fair and open elections. Yet this is rarely mentioned by the press or members of Congress as the dysfunction continues. Finding the balance between reasonable voter ID that 75% of Americans favor and federal standards to ensure that voting is accessible and fair cannot even be debated as both sides are entrenched in the dogmatic rhetoric of left versus right politics.
Therefore, the dysfunction continues as both sides enflame their followers. A writing by professor Dan Schnur published in Allsides.com entitled Both Parties Rely on Fear-Mongering articulates the problem.
Democrats issue dire warnings of the threat of voter suppression. Republicans sound the alarm about the menace of voter fraud. But both parties are dramatically overstating an exaggerated problem to whip their most devoted supporters into a frenzy. The result is that confidence in the foundation of our democratic process is at an all-time low, driven down by unyielding partisan attacks from both the left and the right as a cynical tool to motivate their most committed loyalists.
Last night as I reflected, I was reminded of a quote from Brené Brown, a research professor who has spent a decade studying vulnerability, courage, authenticity, and shame:
My inability to lean into the discomfort of vulnerability limited the fullness of those important experiences that are fraught with uncertainty: Love, belonging, trust, joy, and creativity to name a few.
You may ask how this in any way relates to the dogma perpetrated by our political leaders who each have their own prescribed doctrine proclaimed as unquestionably true by their side. Perhaps it is our fear of uncertainty, and the vulnerability that comes with uncertainty, that leads the citizens of our country to gravitate to candidates who claim to have the answer, who portray everything with a high degree of certainty in comforting black and white terms.
Our nation is trapped by political dogma and the greatest casualty is the truth that is needed for pragmatic solutions. Everything gets lost in the posturing, the fear mongering, and the close mindedness as nothing gets done. And We the People are the collateral damage of this partisan warfare.
We can and must do better as a nation. Now is the time, because so much is at stake.
image of U.S. President Donald Trump is displayed on a digital billboard in Times Square in New York on April 8, 2026.
Trump is stuck between two realities. Neither serves the American people
Normally, I worry that events may overtake a column. But not so with the Iran war.
I don’t worry about running afoul of a headline or Truth Social post from the president because what is said about the situation is no longer very relevant to the reality.
On April 8, Nick Catoggio, my Dispatch colleague, dubbed an earlier stoppage with Iran “Schrödinger’s ceasefire.” This was a reference to the famous thought experiment by the physicist Erwin Schrödinger, who was trying to explain the weirdness of “superpositionality” in quantum physics. A cat in a box is both dead and alive at the same time until you open the box. Schrödinger meant to illustrate the absurdity of the idea that particles aren’t any one thing, but a “cloud of probabilities.”
The Trump administration is stuck in a word cloud of probabilities of his own making. The war is over. The war is on. The war isn’t a war. We have a deal, but we don’t have a deal, but we’re about to have a deal. We destroyed Iran’s military. No, we left it intact. We want regime change. No we don’t. We already accomplished it. We “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear program a year ago. We had to go to war in February to prevent nuclear war. The Strait of Hormuz is open, closed, or something in-between. No deal without “unconditional surrender.” Let’s make a deal!
This everything-all-at-once vibe can be disorienting, particularly since most Americans didn’t have a war with Iran on their bingo cards until the shooting had already started. President Trump didn’t prepare the country or consult with Congress beforehand because he thought it would all be a smashing success in a matter of weeks.
The miscalculation that started it all: killing Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and much of Iran’s senior leadership, on the first day of the war. To “the great proud people of Iran, I say tonight that the hour of your freedom is at hand,” Trump announced on Feb. 28. “When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take. This will be probably your only chance for generations.”
I support regime change in Iran and shed no tears for Khamenei or his goons. But when you start a war by killing the regime’s top leaders, it’s not unreasonable for the remaining ones to conclude that you really intend regime change.
Khamenei was a murderous fanatic, but he was a fairly cautious one. He liked to threaten closing the Strait of Hormuz or attacking our regional allies, but he was reluctant to actually do it, fearing it would invite a regime change war. The mullahs and IRGC goons believed, not unreasonably, that if they lost their grip on power, they’d be lynched by the Iranian people they’ve brutalized for decades.
By starting with a regime change war, Trump removed any reason for the regime not to go for broke. When you have nothing to lose — particularly when you are a millenarian religious fanatic — a Persian Alamo strategy makes a lot of sense.
So Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz and attacked its neighbors.
But it turns out this wasn’t the Alamo. In the contest of wills, Trump blinked. The Iranian regime’s tolerance for punishment proved — so far — to be greater than Trump’s and that of our gulf allies. Militarily we could finish the job, but that would require ground troops and much greater economic turmoil. In a conflict Trump launched unilaterally without the prior support of Congress, NATO or the American people, Trump doesn’t have the political capital for that.
But that’s only half the problem. Trump wants the war over, but he doesn’t want to pay — militarily, economically, politically — what that would cost. So he wants to make a deal that ends it. But there is no deal available that wouldn’t come at an equally undesirable cost. Any deal that looks like what President Obama struck with the Iranians would be too embarrassing to bear. But the Iranians are convinced that they can get just such a deal, and they’re willing to drag things out as long as it takes.
The result: Trump’s in a box of his own making. He thinks he can talk his way out by simply asserting a reality that doesn’t exist. When the financial markets get nervous, he announces a breakthrough that is, at best, a possibility. When the Iranians agree to a deal that looks similar to one Obama might negotiate, Trump goes back to his threats.
It can’t go on forever. But I’m sure it’ll last until long after this column is forgotten.
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.