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.
Two of the most widely discussed concepts in social theory, psychology and political philosophy are independence and interdependence. Each concept can be defined in a broadly positive way, but however the concepts are defined they can also be the target of criticism.
Independence can be defined as a condition where someone or some institution or some political entity is capable of existing on its own without having to rely on others to sustain itself. With interdependence, two people, organizations or countries are mutually dependent on each other for their survival.
A country which declares its independence from a colonial ruler is therefore thought to be better off for having separated from the country which has dominated it. At the same time, a person who pursues independence to the point that he or she fails to rely on others who wish to have a more intimate relationship may be the cause of a failed interdependent relationship.
Many relationships, be they personal, professional or political, have some dimensions which involve healthy interdependence and some which involve excessive independence that thwarts healthy interdependence. Two partners in a marriage may have a relationship with healthy financial interdependence but unhealthy emotional interdependence. Or, indeed, the relationship may have both unhealthy financial interdependence and unhealthy emotional interdependence as in the case where a wife is financially dependent on her husband, he physically abuses her, and she cannot leave him because she becomes emotionally dependent on him. Psychologists also refer to the concept of co-dependency to explain relationships with these unhealthy, even dangerous, patterns.
The meaning of life may in the end come down to seeking a balance between independence and interdependence, yet recognizing that it will be impossible to ever achieve this balance as one will always be striving to become more independent or more interdependent. Still, we should always analyze our personal, professional and political relationships to try to determine when we have instances of either excessive independence, excessive dependence or lack of interdependence.
In the United States today it would appear that we have at least two major camps with respect to the independence/interdependence tension. On the one hand, we have citizens which identify with the Republican Party and the value of independence. Republicans, as a rule, believe that the federal government as well as state governments should promote laws and regulations which promote the value of independence -- the liberty and autonomy of persons.
This amounts to celebrating the value of independence, whether it concerns guns, higher taxes or reducing environmental legislation and regulations. Republicans stand for a society in which the government does not restrict individual independence or liberty, recognizing that some restrictions are necessary. Libertarians go much further.
Republicans may also be more inclined to promote a foreign policy that stands for an America that has fewer moral commitments to other countries (with the exception of countries like Israel). Ideally we would be as independent from other countries as possible. Certainly, Trump's America First philosophy took that approach.
Democrats, in contrast, are more inclined to promote the value of interdependence when articulating a vision of the relationship between citizens and government, since everything from health care to transportation and national defense requires government support. Medicare, Medicaid, the 1956 Interstate Highway Act and our $600 billion plus annual defense budget all rest on a concept of interdependence. Democrats believe that the federal government and state governments have a moral responsibility to provide citizens with the support they need to pursue educational and employment opportunities to realize their potential and provide for their families.
Democrats are also more inclined to promote a vision of foreign policy that accepts the need for economic, political, and military interdependence with our allies in North America, Europe, the Far East, Australia and South America.
The struggle to unite well-formulated, inspiring concepts of independence and interdependence is endless. Moreover, the debates over balancing freedom and equality, individualism and community, and economic growth and economic efficiency, though valuable, have become tiresome. We need some new concepts at the highest level of political and social debate. Certainly the concept of interdependence is not as widely discussed as the concept of independence.
Politicians, political consultants, the media, think tanks and academia would do well to elevate both concepts. These concepts can also incorporate concepts like freedom, equality, individualism, community, economic growth and economic efficiency. If we are going to wrestle with ongoing challenges over guns, climate change, race, gender and sexual orientation, and different ways to improve capitalism and push for peace in the world, we must transcend much of our current vocabulary.




















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.