Kull is Program Director of the Program for Public Consultation.
Lewitus is a Research Analyst at Voice of the People whose research interests focus on policy, public opinion and democracy reform.
Thomas is Vice President of Voice of the People and Director of Voice of the People Action. Thomas is an organizer and government relations professional with years of experience working in campaigns, advocacy, and policy research.
The Federal government has failed to address many issues facing our nation, largely due to increasing partisan polarization that results in near-constant gridlock. Some speculate this polarization is a reflection of the American public. However, Voice of the People has found that majorities of Republicans and Democrats actually agree on numerous positions–over 200 as of now. These surveys, conducted mostly by the Program for Public Consultation at the University of Maryland, differ from standard polls in that they provide respondents with background information and pro-con arguments, before they give their recommendations.
Net neutrality is about to once again become a major topic as the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) seeks to reinstate it. The implications are significant, as net neutrality regulations place major restrictions on Internet Service Providers (ISPs), prohibiting them from: creating internet “fast lanes” for users that pay more; providing faster speeds to the ISP’s own applications; or blocking or slowing down specific websites or applications. These rules were instituted by the FCC during the Obama administration, and then repealed by the FCC under the Trump administration. Now that the Biden administration has appointed pro-net neutrality officials to the FCC, they are proposing to reinstate those rules.
The policy debate over net neutrality is quite technical for the average citizen, but it touches on common value debates that every person can weigh in on such as the role of free markets, and the extent of government regulation in ensuring equal treatment. By providing people with the information necessary to understand the issue, as is done in public consultation surveys, the public can effectively apply their values to make a policy recommendation.
In 2022, after net neutrality rules had been repealed, a PPC survey provided respondents with a briefing on the issue and had respondents evaluate arguments for and against reinstating net neutrality regulations. A large, bipartisan majority (73%) supported reinstating them, including 82% of Democrats, 65% of Republicans, and 68% of Independents.
Without the background, standard polling has also found majority support for net neutrality, including a majority or plurality of Republicans, but with large numbers saying they don’t know or have no opinion. A Morning Consult/Politico poll in 2022 found 55% support, with just 16% opposed and a large 29% saying they don’t know or have no opinion. Among Democrats, 57% were in support and 15% opposed; and among Republicans, 49% were in support and 20% opposed. Earlier polls from 2021 ( Ipsos), 2017 ( Morning Consult, Ipsos) and 2018 ( Morning Consult) also found bipartisan majority support.
In the 2022 PPC survey the arguments in favor of net neutrality were found much more convincing than the arguments against it, though the arguments were reviewed by both proponents and opponents.
The first argument in favor of reinstating net neutrality, from the 2022 survey, stated that since net neutrality’s repeal, ISPs have taken advantage of consumers by slowing down internet speeds and requiring higher fees to reinstate them; thus net neutrality rules are needed to rein in such harmful behavior. That argument was found convincing by a bipartisan eight-in-ten (Republicans 74%, Democrats 86%).
The first con argument asserted that net neutrality regulations can stifle innovation, impede the development of internet infrastructure, and result in slower download speeds. Just four-in-ten found this convincing, including 46% of Republicans and 31% of Democrats
The second con argument proclaimed that concerns about the repeal of net neutrality have been overblown, because the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is required to publicly report anti-competitive behaviors of ISPs. Just half found this convincing, although a majority of Republicans did (57%).
The second pro argument countered that disclosure of anti-competitive behavior is not enough, since the FTC has no power to actually police the major ISPs, which dominate the market and provide consumers with little to no choice. A bipartisan two-thirds found this convincing, including 74% of Democrats and 62% of Republicans.
A list of over 200 policy positions with bipartisan public support can be found on Voice of the People’s Common Ground of the American People website.
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.