Anderson edited "Leveraging: A Political, Economic and Societal Framework" (Springer, 2014), has taught at five universities and ran for the Democratic nomination for a Maryland congressional seat in 2016.
Many critiques of capitalist society show that there is either too much of something or too little of something, and each kind of critique can be written in a way to show that the value that we have too much of is equivalent to too little of the opposite of that value. A book that shows that there is too much economic inequality (like Thomas Piketty's Capital in the Twenty-First Century) can also be read as saying that there is too little economic equality. A book that shows that women suffer too much injustice (like Betty Friedan's The Feminine Mystique) can be read to say that women experience too little justice in our society. A book that shows African-Americans suffer too much injustice (like Cornel West's Race Matters) can be read as saying that there is too little justice in our society toward African-Americans.
Leverage is very different. For American society -- in fact all societies -- suffer from both the problem of excessive leverage and deficient leverage though not about the same subject matter. Rather, on some matters we have too much leverage, and on other matters we have too little leverage. Moreover, leverage, unlike equality and justice, is not a moral concept. Leverage is an empirical concept like weight. A person can weigh too much or too little, but the weight itself does not establish the judgment that there is too much or too little weight. That judgment must come from the medical profession, who must defend their own standards and values.
With leverage -- and there are different kinds, bargaining leverage, resource leverage, and financial leverage -- there can be too much or too little. And the judgment that there is too much or too little must come from a normative standpoint-- for example, a moral philosopher, a political philosopher, or a Congressional oversight committee.
Leveraging involves using a minimum force to create a maximum force with the help of some tool and a fulcrum. In traditional physical leverage, you can move a large concrete block with a pen if the pen is placed under the block and lifted in the appropriate way. Archimedes, the ancient Greek scientist who is credited with discovering physical leverage, said he could move the entire earth if he had a pole that was long enough and a fulcrum.
The financial crisis of 2008-09 was, according to many economists, a "leverage crisis," because both banks and homeowners were involved in excessive leveraging practices. In financial leverage, there is borrowing that takes place which is used for an investment that is intended to generate an outsized return. In the home mortgage leveraging crisis, homeowners bought homes which were interest free for a few years and then the interest rates ballooned, leading many homeowners to become incapable of paying their mortgages. They were "overleveraged." The banks, which could not collect the monthly mortgages, were also overleveraged and many of them crashed. Thus, excessive financial leveraging led to a financial disaster. Another example of overleveraging in our society is working mothers who are overwhelmed with their work and family responsibilities.
On the other hand we have under-leveraging. For example, the poor minorities in many American big cities who do not have laptops or broadband (although they may have smartphones), are part of an economy and political system which under-leverages information technology. An economically strong society is going to leverage information technology -- this is resource leverage and not financial or bargaining leverage -- effectively so that citizens can benefit in their work, health care, and family relations. A society can also under-leverage the diversity of its very population if the talents, background and cultural knowledge of different groups of people are not effectively harnessed in business, education, and government. Resource leverage typically goes beyond efficient use of resources. Gary Hamel and C.K. Prahalad in their book Competing for the Future explained how resource leveraging is inherently creative, especially by uniting resources from diverse sources.
A just and prosperous society will minimize the cases of overleveraging and under-leveraging striving to reach what I have called a "Leverage Mean." Aristotle said that virtue was the Golden Mean between excess and deficiency. Leverage analysis sends up red flags when it reveals either excessive or deficient leveraging. Indeed, if there is excessive or deficient leveraging, there is probably some moral value that is being violated.
There we have it then. Leveraging should be used more responsibly, avoiding extremes and hitting the Mean. If we analyze different parts of society via a leverage framework, then we will be better positioned to promote moral values like justice, equality, freedom and stability.




















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.