Goldstone’s most recent book is "On Account of Race: The Supreme Court, White Supremacy, and the Ravaging of African American Voting Rights."
Democracy, which has been under assault around the world in recent years — including, sadly, in the United States — may be making a bit of a comeback.
In France, Emmanuel Macron, facing what was supposed to be an uphill and uncertain fight for re-election, trounced his far-right opponent, Marine Le Pen, by 17 percentage points. While some pundits pointed out that Le Pen had improved on her previous performance by 7 points, that analysis does not take into account that France is notoriously hard on incumbents and had not re-elected a president in two decades. Given that a hefty segment of the French population would not vote for those already in office if they were family members, Le Pen’s performance was not much of an improvement at all.
In Slovenia, highly favored three-term incumbent Janez Jansa, a would-be autocrat who has been compared to Donald Trump, lost in a huge upset to Robert Golob and the pro-environment, pro-democracy Freedom Movement. Jansa had been openly courting authoritarian rule using the Trump playbook — ruthlessly attacking his opponents in parliament, the judiciary and the media — but he still lost by more than 10 points. Finland and Sweden, two unaligned nations with democratic traditions, are seriously considering joining NATO to preserve their form of government in the face of a Russian threat.
And then, of course, there is Ukraine, whose people are enduring devastation, plunder, mass murder and unspeakable barbarism to protect what before the Russian invasion had been a fragile and fractious democracy.
Even in the United States, there was recently a glimmer of hope that some are rejecting the extremism that has been tearing the country apart.
In Utah, a state only slightly less red than a fire engine, the Democratic Party, rather than nominate its own candidate in what would have been a hopeless Senate campaign against incumbent Mike Lee, chose instead to endorse a principled conservative, former CIA officer and presidential candidate Evan McMullin. McMullin, a fiscal conservative who is far to the right of the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, is also pro-environment and believes in voting rights and the rule of law. He was an anti-Trump candidate in 2016, a fierce critic of Trump’s presidency, and endorsed Joe Biden in 2020. In other words, a half-century ago, McMullin might have as easily been a moderate Democrat as a moderate Republican.
Lee, on the other hand, is one of the most conservative members of the Senate, an unapologetic supporter of Donald Trump, who, according to texts to former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, “worked furiously to overturn the 2020 election and keep President Donald Trump in power before ultimately abandoning the effort when no evidence of widespread fraud surfaced and his outreach to states for alternate electors proved futile.”
The willingness of Lee to abandon the basic tenets of democratic rule is hardly unique among his fellow Republicans. The text exchange between Lee and Meadows, as damning as it may be, does not fully depict the lengths to which some of America’s elected leaders will go to subvert their own institutions for personal gain as much as the almost laughable duplicity of House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy.
McCarthy, who seems to want to be speaker as much as Vladimir Putin wants to be tsar, first angrily denied reports that he urged Trump to resign in the wake of the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol — and that he had moaned, “I’ve had it with this guy” — but then was forced to admit they were true when an audiotape surfaced. McCarthy then once again kowtowed to Trump, insisting he was misunderstood, and Trump, ever magnanimous to toadies, agreed to forgive him.
If Lee and McCarthy were exceptions, the Republican Party would be faced with a problem that it possessed the resources to solve. But they are not. That the mainstream Republican Party seems to have as much contempt for democracy as for Democrats is reaffirmed almost daily. Some Republican primary candidates in national, state and local elections are campaigning on their embrace of lies, their willingness to overturn future elections and their eagerness to disenfranchise legitimate voters. And invariably they do so with flag pins in their lapels, spouting their commitment to freedom and the Constitution, neither for which they appear to have any real appreciation.
While Democrats are hardly blameless in what has often become political trench warfare, grousing over Hillary Clinton’s electoral vote loss (she beat Trump by 2.5 million popular votes) is hardly the same as pretending an 8 million vote loss did not occur. Members of “The Squad” might advocate policies that many find offensive, but they pale before the pronouncements of Marjorie Taylor Greene, Lauren Boebert and Matt Gaetz, among others.
Republicans, all too aware they are the minority party — their House candidates got 5 million less votes in 2020 than Democrats — seem to prefer destroying free elections rather than doing what is necessary to earn the majority’s trust. For this, they require no real program at all but simply to pander to the anger and frustration of a base that is inundated with tales of Hunter Biden’s laptop or Clinton’s emails and then to prevent enough of their opponents from voting to ensure their continued rule. Ironic is that those who cannot stop screaming about rigged elections are the ones who are most trying to rig them.
Most parents, to instill a sense of honor and fairness in their children, try to teach them not to be “sore losers,” which means admitting when they have lost and, parents hope, trying harder next time. If Ukrainians are willing to fight, starve, and die to keep the flame of democracy alive in bombed out homes and factories, it does not seem too much to ask the nation that introduced democracy to the modern world to adhere to the same standard of behavior required in a school playground.




















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.