Which is better: A world at peace but where there is injustice in every country or a world in which justice reigns in every country but which is in constant economic, political, and military conflict? What a terrible choice! Neither world has ever existed or ever will, but it is instructive to think about both possible worlds to think about the challenges facing political leaders, corporate and nonprofit leaders, political organizations, religious leaders, and citizens themselves.
The world must clearly avoid another World War, a topic receiving increasing attention in the last year or so and especially in recent months. World War III could be a nuclear disaster, although it is not a given that World War III would be a nuclear war. Still, any World War III, whether it develops out of the war between Ukraine and the West and Russia and North Korea, Israel, Hamas, Iran and the Middle East, or Taiwan and China, is potentially a devastating war that could take tens of millions of lives.
Yet even if World War III is avoided, achieving justice in individual countries is a massive, endless journey and, for many, as frightening as war itself. Indeed, while millions pursue justice, the journey remains elusive: there is no concept of justice that all countries share in practice, although some liberal internationalists, some socialists, and some right-wing authoritarians will tell you that there is such a concept in theory.
Even taking a broadly liberal democratic concept of justice -- one that promotes basic civil and political rights and some baseline of economic goods that prevents the worst forms of poverty -- it is still hard to see how it will ever be achieved in all or even most of the countries of the world.
One reason the world is always in conflict on economic and political matters is because different countries have different concepts of justice. Add to this the basic fact that countries speak different languages, and it becomes clear why international relations and diplomacy are so challenging for all countries.
In the months ahead, as the Trump administration begins its second administration, it will be important to keep the twin goals of justice and peace in front of the administration and Congress. As the United States negotiates with other countries on economic matters, we need to work toward advancing our concept of democratic values, recognizing that other countries, even other democracies, do not share our precise concept of democratic values.
There is nothing wrong with promoting our cherished values, but we must not presume that every country lives with the same concepts. This applies especially to Russia and China. In our quest for peace, we must work more collaboratively with our allies since our enemies are forming powerful bonds that will require new alliances to combat them. The China-Russia-Iran-North Korea Axis is extremely powerful, and America alone cannot take them on. We must hold together our bonds with Europe, South Korea, Japan, Israel and Australia.
And while we pursue justice and peace for the world, we must not lose sight of the fact that the battle over justice within our country is broadly similar to the battles over economic and political affairs we have with other nations. American Democrats and American Republicans, and even factions within both parties and with independents and Third Parties, do not share the same concept of justice -- or liberty or equality. Expecting a broad consensus on the world stage is even less likely.
The Freedom Caucus of the Republican Party has different ideals, values, and missions from Center-Left Democrats as well as mainstream Republicans in the same way that the United States overall has battled with the Axis Powers as well as France, Germany, and other NATO countries in West Europe. The reality is that rival factions within countries, as well as conflicts between countries, are similar in that they both talk past each other, often talking without listening to each other.
Despite the endless quests for peace and justice, whether within or between countries, citizens and leaders alike in the United States and other democracies need the kind of hope proclaimed over 50 years ago by Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.: “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice."
Anderson edited "Leveraging: A Political, Economic and Societal Framework," has taught at five universities and ran for the Democratic nomination for a Maryland congressional seat in 2016.




















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.