Kevin Frazier will join the Crump College of Law at St. Thomas University as an Assistant Professor starting this Fall. He currently is a clerk on the Montana Supreme Court.
America needs a democratic awakening and the 2024 presidential election should provide the forum for that revival. Unfortunately, it seems more likely that the election will provide entertainment rather than fodder for meaningful conversations. That is, of course, unless we demand more from our candidates, our media, and ourselves.
We, the voting public, should demand that candidates provide their assessment on our democratic health and what they plan to do to treat our ailments. In particular, candidates should answer three questions:
First, in response to partisanship and polarization, what programs will you create to provide Americans with meaningful opportunities to meet and work with folks from different regions, backgrounds, and socioeconomic statuses? In short, how will you help create a new American story that unites the country and inspires common action?
Second, given that America is a representative democracy in which an unrepresentative fraction of the electorate votes, what steps will you take to make sure your actions by your administration reflect the will of the people?
Third, based on soaring rates of economic inequality, what policies will you advance to help Americans reach their full academic, professional, and personal potential?
These questions are grounded in the fundamentals of a democratic community: Who are we? How do we govern? What do we aspire to? If a candidate doesn’t acknowledge the importance of these questions, then voters will receive a valuable sign that the candidate is not ready to meet this moment.
We should demand that the media follow three rules:
First, refrain from reporting on the “horse race” until a year out from the election. A year will provide voters with more than enough time to evaluate the candidates. So let’s stop spilling ink about potential candidates and analyzing polls weighing hypotheticals until such news is, well, actually news.
Second, focus on the issues. Elections have become a source of entertainment rather than a chance to discuss policy, governing agendas, and visions for the country. Imagine if producers of all major political news asked, “Does this information belong in a tabloid?” before running a segment. My hunch is that we’d cut down on stories that make politicians more like celebrities than policy makers.
Third, do not cover a single poll until a month out from the first primary. Polls suck. Polls get it wrong all the time. Yet, these flawed polls influence who receives attention, donors, and, ultimately, votes.
We should demand one another to take three actions:
First, if you can afford it, buy a local news subscription and gift a subscription to a neighbor. As long as we focus on national news, we will neglect what’s possible in our own backyards. For too long, national outlets have dictated our perceptions of democracy, of the issues, of one another. A revitalization of local news will help ground us and remind us of the people we can help and causes we can further within a few blocks.
Second, unless you absolutely have to stay on a platform, leave all social media behind. A mass exodus is possible and necessary if we’re going to avoid wasting time reading click-bait, arguing over potential candidates and hypothetical polls, and letting the trolls shape our political discourse.
Third, if you’ve got the time, volunteer at a local library and help instill a love of learning within the next generation of voters. The problems we face today are tricky, complex, and getting worse. Our best shot at a better tomorrow is educating young people today. Literacy opens doors, inspires participation, and diminishes the power of mis- and dis-information.
A democratic awakening is possible. These steps will move us in the right direction – away from political hobbyism, away from unthinking partisan loyalty, and away from the nationalization of every issue and race.
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.