The President of the United States should be competent, ethical, and full of vigor. This is obvious given the demands of the job. Yet former President Joe Biden, who’s 82 years old, didn’t run for reelection over concerns about his mental facilities. And current president Donald Trump, himself 78, actively tried to reverse the previous election.
Is this really the best we can do for America’s top job?
The presidency, however, isn’t the only problem. The median age in the Senate is 65 years old. The House of Representatives is packed with under-qualified social-media celebrities. And discontent with the judiciary is so bad that many want to impose term limits on federal judges. Indeed, a recent New York Times poll found that nearly 90 percent of Americans think the nation’s political system is broken.
There are, of course, many skillful public servants. And they quietly do important work every day. But far too many government officials shouldn't have the responsibility we've given them.
The American government’s people problem is driven by several factors. First, incumbents stick around far too long. Biden's long refusal to withdraw from the 2024 election may have cost Democrats the presidency. If Kamala Harris had campaigned for multiple years (like Trump did) instead of multiple months, she might have won. By the end of his term, moreover, Biden was far from the right person to occupy the Oval Office.
Ruth Bader Ginsberg likewise held onto her job too long. She could have resigned during Barack Obama’s first term when she was 80, and the Democrats controlled the Senate. She refused. And Trump later replaced Ginsberg with Amy Coney Barrett, who promptly joined a bare majority of justices and overturned Roe v. Wade. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who is 70, likewise rejected calls to step aside while Biden was president.
In Congress, meanwhile, the median age in the House is 57 and, as noted, 65 in the Senate. Yet the median age in the country is 39. Being an incumbent carries a big advantage: you can keep your constituents happy with results from office. This dynamic populates Congress, with people who were first elected long ago. Nancy Pelosi has been in the House since 1987. Mitch McConnell has been in the Senate since 1984. Both are over 80 years old.
The second factor contributing to the government’s people problem is compensation. Most congresspeople make about $175,000 annually. Not too shabby. But compared to alternatives in the private sector, it’s too low, especially in locations where the cost of living is high. Federal judges, for their part, make about $250,000 to a little over $300,000 annually. This is a fraction of the alternative, where lawyers at large law firms make millions.
This comparatively low pay deters talented people from entering government. And it attracts both those who are so rich that pay doesn't matter ( about half the members of Congress are millionaires) and those without better-paying alternatives.
Finally, the biggest problem of all is political dysfunction. American government is overflowing with tribalism, rage, and irrationality. Every … single … day. Attention seekers, like Marjorie Taylor Greene, have great influence. While high-quality officials, like Liz Cheney, get run out of town. And smart, rational people don’t run in the first place.
The result of these three factors is a federal government increasingly unable to address our nation’s mounting public-policy failures—from a broken immigration system to deteriorating public schools, to excessive incarceration, to widespread drug overdoses, to startling economic inequality. The world is growing more complicated as Washington gets more dysfunctional. With a reality television star back in the presidency, these negative trends are only getting worse.
William Cooper is the author of How America Works … And Why It Doesn’t




















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.