Goldstone is the author of the forthcoming "Not White Enough: The Long Shameful Road to Japanese American Internment."
On a recent episode of Real Time with Bill Maher, former ten-term Ohio Democratic congressman Tim Ryan, who had recently lost a Senate race to best-selling author, financial executive, and Trump acolyte J. D. Vance, expounded on what has become the toxicity of the Democratic brand.
To make his point, Ryan related the story of fellow Democrat Jennifer Brunner and her bid to be chief justice of the Ohio Supreme Court. Brunner had been immensely popular, winning her seat on the court in 2020 by a half-million votes. In that year, however, judicial candidates ran with no party label printed on the ballot. After the election, the Republican-controlled state legislature decided not to let that happen again and passed a law requiring party affiliation. Although Brunner’s record was spotless and not at all radical, with the “D” next to her name, she lost in 2022 by a half-million votes. Being a Democrat had cost her one million votes.
While it would be easy to dismiss Ryan’s using the “D” next to his name as an excuse for being beaten by a better candidate who ran a better race, Vance was not and did not. In fact, Tim Ryan should have been a dream candidate for Democrats, running in a working-class state that was once a toss-up but now tilted Republican. Born in blue-collar Niles, a depressed steel town, Ryan was a star high school quarterback, went to Bowling Green University, and became the sort of Tip O’Neill Democrat that was once the backbone of the party. He was only 29 years old when he was first elected to Congress.
From the first, the cornerstone of Ryan’s congressional agenda was a reform of American trade policies to make them fairer to the working class. In 2010, he sponsored the Currency Reform for Fair Trade Act, which included punitive tariffs for nations such as China, which uses currency manipulation to make their products more attractive to foreign buyers.
In 2016, in what should have elicited applause across Ohio, he mounted a challenge to Nancy Pelosi, who was then running for House minority leader, contending Democrats needed new—and younger—blood in their leadership. He lost 134-63 but stunned progressives by getting that many votes. In 2020, he briefly ran for president after a GM plant in Lordstown shut down, costing Ohio three thousand jobs. His message, then and always, was that Democrats would fail if they ignored the working class.
But where Ryan remained true to his blue-collar roots, Vance had made a distinct pivot, a habit that became something of a trademark. He was raised in Middletown, joined the Marines, served in Iraq as a journalist, then enrolled in the Ohio State University, after which he attended Yale Law School. He moved to San Francisco, working for far-right venture capitalist Peter Thiel. In 2016, he published Hillbilly Elegy, a controversial memoir that described the economic and social decline in Appalachia.
He thought about challenging Sherrod Brown in the 2018 Ohio Senate race, but Brown seemed too formidable. Instead, in 2022, backed by Thiel and other archconservatives such as Robert Mercer, Vance decided to make a run at Rob Portman’s soon to be vacant Senate seat. The only problem was that Vance was on record as saying some not very complimentary things about Donald Trump. In 2016, he had called Trump “reprehensible,” “a fraud,” and an “idiot,” comparing Trumpism to opioid addiction.
There was no way he could win a primary battle, let alone a general election, with those credentials so, pivoting once more, Vance gushed that Trump was the “greatest president of my lifetime.” Trump reacted to the obligatory fawning by calling Vance an ass-kisser, to which Vance responded by ratcheting up his ass-kissing. Eventually, he received Trump’s full-throated support.
Vance was often all over the place on policy. He spun his views on Ukraine so often that both he and Ohio voters must have gotten vertigo, eventually telling Steve Bannon, “I gotta be honest with you, Steve, I don’t really care what happens to Ukraine. When I wake up in the morning, I worry about whether my five-year-old son is going to interact with a sex trafficker.” This from a man with enough money to send his son to the most exclusive private school in whatever state he happens to be living in at the time.
As with many of those Trump forced on the party, Vance proved to be a weak, not terribly engaged campaigner, so much so that with polls showing a neck-in-neck race, Republicans were forced to pour $30 million into Ohio to prevent an enormous upset, which could conceivably have cost them control of the Senate. With victory seemingly within his grasp, Ryan asked for similar help from the Democratic leadership.
They turned him down.
The Senate Majority PAC, Democrats’ main source of outside spending, refused to invest in Ohio, leaving Vance with a $40 million to $4.5 million spending gap. And their reason? As Ryan said in an interview, “There are strategist types in the highest level of the party saying there are not enough college graduates in Ohio to invest in my campaign.” The party preferred to put their money into North Carolina, where the chances of winning were lower but the number of college graduates greater.
Ohio voters noticed. Christopher Gibbs, a farmer from deep red Shelby County, who had switched his registration from Republican to Democrat, wrote on Twitter, “I joined this party because I hoped to be able to lend a hand in rebuilding credibility in rural areas from the ground up. On second thought, it looks like we better take aim at the topline elite first.”
There has been a good deal of breast-beating among Democrats, lamenting their losses among traditional supporters. President Biden even specifically proposed a “blue-collar blueprint to rebuild America” in his State of the Union address.
Still, as is often the case in politics—and everywhere else for the matter—most Democrats blame not themselves for their unpopularity, but rather the “other guy,” in this case devious, dishonest, amoral Republicans.
But how can you expect to garner votes from people to whom you show open contempt? In 1969, then-vice president Spiro Agnew called the liberal media an “effete corps of impudent snobs,” (not effeminate, as some later suggested.) Now, more than a half century later, Democratic leaders may want to consider whether Agnew had a point.




















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.