In an era of heightened polarization, many voters simply look for an R or D on the ballot and then select the candidate on that line. But strict adherence to one’s preferred party may not result in elected officials who best represent your positions on policy areas, such as abortion rights and the economy, and politics, such as the state of American democracy.
So let’s examine the decision-making process.
Now that you’ve registered to vote and understand the process for submitting your ballot, it’s time to examine the ballot and decide which candidates have earned your vote. It can be difficult and time consuming to determine which candidates best represent your views but there are some key elements to consider that may make the decision a bit easier.
Firstly, discern what issues or facets of a candidate are most important to you. Perhaps there is a specific problem that stirs your passions, or you prefer to focus on candidates’ qualifications, or even a candidate’s identity is your top priority. Deciphering what matters most to you can make finding a candidate a lot easier. You may want to go beyond the candidates’ stances on the most prominent national issues to also consider state and local matters. Determine whether prior experience (either in politics or the private sector), years of education, or other criteria matter.
Once you’ve narrowed down the selection pool, it is time to gather information on said candidates. You can find this information on the campaign websites, social media, press releases, news outlets, candidate debates and speeches, and political advertisements. It’s important to keep in mind that a lot of the information found on candidate- or party-sourced outlets will be heavily biased so it’s beneficial to get information from nonpartisan organizations or even from opposing candidates. This will ensure a well-balanced selection of information on these candidates.
Additional reading:
For example, a candidate may draft a message geared towards female voters using particular imagery and vocabulary, focusing on issues that appeal to female voters. This may not accurately reflect the candidate but, instead, be curated to draw attention from a specific audience. Being able to recognize these biases is a useful tool in gaining information and distinguishing which parts are substantive in your search for the right candidate.
Distortion tactics, or negative campaigning, can be another hurdle that may make it difficult to understand a candidate’s platform. Often, campaigns resort to name-calling, rumor-mongering and other statements that distract from policy debates.
After learning about the candidate, the next step is to equip yourself with information on the issues you care about. Evaluate candidates’ proposals and their effect on the nation and your community. Even when you find someone whose ideas match your own beliefs, weigh the alternatives because you just might be persuaded to change your mind.
Another crucial step is evaluating the potential candidate. After you understand a candidate’s stance on the issues, it's then necessary to consider the candidate’s impact if elected to office. This can be accomplished by examining the candidate’s credibility and their prior work up to the election. Does the candidate have a background in politics? Do they have other experience that has prepared them for office? There are many indicators of whether a candidate will be a good fit for the position. Sometimes, it can just mean getting a sense of the candidate’s personality.
Moreover, understanding how other people perceive the candidate can also be helpful. This can provide alternative viewpoints that may affirm or challenge your thoughts. Learning about who endorses the potential candidate and who finances their campaign can also provide additional insight about the candidate that may indicate how they would serve in office. This can be tedious, time-consuming work but can be critical in better understanding the people who want your vote.
Next up: Tools to help you make those decisions.
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.