Dariel Cruz Rodriguez is a first-year undergraduate student at The University of Chicago in the Hyde Park neighborhood, where he is currently studying Public Policy and Democracy. He is the founder of Students for Open Primaries, a national election reform organization.
A little over 6 months ago, I found myself standing at the front doors of Chicago’s O’Hare International Airport, two bags in each hand and a promise to learn more about the Windy City ingrained in my head. Little did I know then that I would be starting classes at The University of Chicago while a heated mayoral primary was underway.
It was no secret that Chicagoans were not satisfied with the progress Lightfoot had made up until the end of her mayorship– according to the Chicago Sun-Times, Lightfoot’s public approval rating as Mayor was 29% just before the primary election. That’s considerably down from her 78% approval rating at the start of her term around June 2020. Now, one lame-duck mayor and six failed candidates later, we are left with two Mayor hopefuls: Paul Vallas and Brandon Johnson.
I can only imagine how this election could have played out in a closed primary system. In a closed primary system, only registered members of a particular political party are allowed to vote in that party’s primary elections. This means that independent voters and members of other parties are excluded from participating in the primary process, which can lead to a limited and narrow candidate selection. Closed primaries can often promote more divisive politicians, as candidates who may not appeal to a broader electorate are more likely to be chosen as the party nominee.
However, in Chicago’s recent mayoral primary election, the use of an open primary system allowed for a more diverse and inclusive candidate pool, resulting in a more competitive election, with a wider range of candidates vying for the mayorship. In an open primary system, all registered voters are allowed to participate in the primary election, regardless of their political affiliation. In short, open primaries ensured that all Chicagoans have a say in who (or who won’t) the next mayor could be.
Our friends to the east in New York City faced a complete opposite electoral climate in their latest mayoral election. The closed primary system in the Big Apple has led to a situation where the winner of the Democratic primary is often viewed as the de facto winner of the mayoral race. In contrast, Chicago's open primary system allows for a more diverse and inclusive candidate pool, leading to a more competitive election and a wider range of candidates with different perspectives and platforms. After Lightfoot’s stunning loss in February, we see that Chicago’s election process scrutinizes politicians more on their commitment to the city, rather than their party.
The fact that Lightfoot, a popular and incumbent mayor, was defeated in the primary election shows that open primaries can lead to unexpected outcomes and a true representation of the will of the people. It also underscores the importance of having an open and inclusive democratic process.
I’ve been working on election reforms for the past two years as the co-founder of Students for Open Primaries, and I can say with full confidence that if there is one thing now that the City of Chicago is doing right: it is open primaries.
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.