Leland R. Beaumont is an independent wisdom researcher who is seeking real good. He is currently developing the Applied Wisdom curriculum on Wikiversity.
In the realm of politics, the rivalry between our two dominant political parties often resembles the spectacle and drama of a WrestleMania event. Like professional wrestlers vying for championship glory, these parties engage in heated verbal sparring and theatrical maneuvers while indulging passionate fanbases. However, as captivating as the political spectacle may be, it is essential to recognize that the current state of our political system is far from ideal. The intense competition and focus on winning elections have resulted in a polarized and dysfunctional political landscape that often fails to address the real issues faced by the nation.
One of the key parallels between WrestleMania and politics lies in the lack of genuine competition. The traditional two-party system has created a duopoly, where the focus is on maintaining power rather than delivering meaningful solutions to the people. This lack of competition stifles innovation and accountability, leaving voters with limited choices and entrenched party ideologies.
Furthermore, the quest for victory in politics often overshadows the pursuit of problem-solving. Political parties become more interested in defeating their opponents than collaborating on effective policies. As a result, we witness extreme stances, negative campaigning, and a growing sense of division among the electorate.
However, there is hope for reforming the politics industry and steering it toward a more constructive and accountable system. The book, The Politics Industry by Katherine M. Gehl and Michael E. Porter, presents transformative solutions that aim to address the core issues plaguing our political landscape.
The first proposal is to introduce open primaries, allowing all voters, regardless of party affiliation, to participate in candidate selection. This change would increase competition and force candidates to appeal to a broader range of voters, making them more responsive to the public’s needs and concerns.
Ranked-choice voting is another reform suggested in the book. By allowing voters to rank candidates in order of preference, this system reduces the spoiler effect and creates space for third-party candidates to compete more effectively. As a result, the political landscape becomes more diverse and representative of the people’s varied interests.
Addressing the problem of gerrymandering, the book recommends implementing independent
redistricting commissions. These commissions would draw electoral district boundaries impartially, eliminating the manipulation of district lines to favor one party over another. This measure would foster a fairer and more competitive electoral process.
Non-partisan leadership is a crucial aspect of the proposed solutions. By encouraging the appointment of non-partisan leaders and legislative committees, the focus shifts from ideological battles to evidence-based policy solutions. Such an approach ensures that decisions are made in the best interest of the people rather than party-driven interests.
Lastly, the book emphasizes the importance of adopting a customer-centric approach to politics. By viewing citizens as customers, politicians can concentrate on addressing the needs and concerns of the public. Building trust and delivering tangible results become the primary objectives, fostering a more constructive and accountable political landscape.
In conclusion, the similarities between our two political parties and WrestleMania highlight the dramatic and the theatrical nature of contemporary politics. However, this captivating spectacle should not distract us from the urgent need for reform. Our current political system is polarized and dysfunctional, with a focus on winning at all costs, rather than solving the real issues faced by the nation.
The solutions proposed in The Politics Industry offer a transformative path forward. By introducing open primaries, ranked-choice voting, and independent redistricting commissions, we can foster a more competitive and representative political landscape. Non-partisan leadership and a customer-centric approach will ensure that politicians prioritize the needs of the people over party interests.
Ultimately, by embracing these reforms, we can break free from the WrestleMania-like spectacle and move toward a more constructive and accountable politics industry—one that prioritizes the well-being of the nation and its citizens above all else. Only through such meaningful reform can we revitalize democracy and ensure a brighter future for our society.
ChatGPT contributed substantially to writing this essay.
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.