Nagel leads the marketing team at Good Party, a company building free tools and a volunteer movement for independent candidates. Prior to his involvement in politics, Jack worked in tech startups, with previous stops at Help Scout and G2.
City governments are not just where Americans feel the most impact of government on their daily lives – they’re the last line of defense against hyper-partisanship. A recent piece in The New York Times revealed a sign of increasing tensions to come: Swing state legislatures this session have passed increasingly partisan agendas without mandates. Local governments, generally non-partisan, are where we can reverse this trend and govern by consensus. These races also provide the perfect platform for independent candidates to emerge as a solution to the two-party system that has devolved into chaos. By recruiting and electing truly independent candidates – those that have no party affiliation or financial backing of partisan special interests – we can foster talent and enthusiasm for a nationwide independent movement.
Early 20th-century progressives sought to make municipal governments – the bodies that have the most impact on the daily lives of the people they represent – more efficient. Today, 22 of the nation’s 30 most populous cities have non-partisan elections. But the promise of local governments escaping partisanship has not panned out. In a study of the San Diego City Council, professor Craig Burnett of Hofstra University found even with a nominally non-partisan council, all but one of the eight city council members consistently voted with their party affiliation. Furthermore, school boards nationwide have become the hotbed of the culture wars with substantial investment in candidates backed by partisan groups such as Moms For Liberty.
The consequences of this development are immense. Local governments hold the power to make decisions that directly impact our day-to-day lives. Increasingly, cities are shifting focus from filling potholes and providing services to wading into national politics. Some governments are even starting to weigh in on foreign policy issues, a far cry from the vision of municipal governments as efficient executors of the public will. This escalating partisanship has resulted in state legislatures punishing local governments with different party affiliations. In Nashville this year, the state attempted to halve the size of the Metro Council in retaliation to the body voting down a proposal to host the RNC in 2024.
Electing truly independent leaders will allow cities to focus on delivering results for their communities. True independents have an opportunity to act in the best interests of their constituents by not taking money from special interests or political parties that may influence their agenda. By refusing money from special interests and political parties, independents can govern based on consensus, eliminate corruption and waste, and prioritize the needs of the people they represent. This approach cultivates good habits in our future leaders, setting good habits for governance.
One of the main obstacles independent candidates face at the national level is their lack of a track record and a popular base to support their campaigns. By starting locally, true independents can gain the necessary experience and demonstrate their ability to govern independently. Plus, these races are winnable – nearly 70 percent of elected offices around the country are left uncontested, and most of these uncontested positions are at the local and regional levels.
This formula has worked elsewhere: Hillary Schieve went from at-large Reno city council to a three-term mayoral incumbent; Calvin Schrage gained experience on the Abbott Loop community council in Alaska to win a state house seat as an independent. Lastly, Ron Nirenberg, the independent mayor of America’s seventh largest city, San Antonio, ran a grassroots, underdog campaign for city council, priming his successful mayoral run.
One organization dedicated to electing more independent candidates around the country with the goal of ending the two-party system is Good Party. This year, they had over 750 participants from around the country say they’re interested in running for local office as independents, and are actively working with 22 individuals on serious mayoral and city council campaigns.
As one of their candidate prospects said, “Winning as an independent is not a moonshot.” By resisting the allure of the noisy federal environment and concentrating on winnable, impactful local races – a nationwide independent movement is just around the corner.
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.