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.
The United States needs to transition in the years ahead from the goal of seeking bipartisanship in Washington to the goal of seeking tripartisanship. This process of transition will make our political system more in line with the other great democracies in the world, namely countries ranging from the United Kingdom to France, Australia, Canada, Japan and South Korea.
The concept of bipartisanship is regarded as American as apple pie. It is because our political system is dominated by two major political parties, the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. We have Third Parties, but they have very little power. In Washington, there are a few Independents in the U.S. Senate, Senators Sinema, Sanders and King. They caucus with the Democrats, although they do possess some power as independent members. Still, getting major legislation passed in Congress typically requires 60 votes in the Senate to block a filibuster, and this is why bipartisanship remains a central goal of Congress. Even when one party has control of Congress, they rarely have 60 senators from their own party.
The transformation that is needed in the United States is one to tripartisanship, namely an ideal that would require the support of members who represent American citizens who do not identify as Democrats or Republicans. In almost every month of recent years between 40% and 44% of American voters, according to Gallup, do not identify with either major party. It is these voters, therefore, who hunger for representation in Washington.
In many democratic societies with parliamentary governments there are three or more political parties which have power. In the UK, there are basically three parties, namely the Conservative, Labour, and Liberal Democratic Parties. But in France and Germany, there are more than three. In Australia, the rise of the "Teal Independents" has been a major force in Australian politics in recent years. Coalition building is as British as kidney pie, as French as croissants, as German as sauerkraut.
The United States doesn't need a system with three or more major parties though. Instead, we need a system where an increasing number of candidates run for office as independents, be they libertarian, socialist, or new centrist. Together, these independents could wield power and force the Democrats and Republicans to arrive at solutions to policy challenges that affirm the point of view of the Independents taken as a whole. There may be four or five of six Independent Senators who vote with the Democrats and Republicans to get to 60. Independents can also play an important role crafting the bills themselves. On immigration, it may be group A of senators 1, 2, 5 and 6 who vote with enough Democrats and Republicans to get to 60 votes. On gun safety, it may be group B of senators 2, 3, 4, and 6. And so on.
The idea behind this is that independents would realize that they cannot have everything they want; indeed, no one can. The reason the independents would work with each other would be that coming up with 4-6 votes in the Senate would preserve their club and their leverage. Charles Wheelan was right to argue in The Centrist Manifesto that five or six senators who ran as members of a moderate Centrist Party could wield enormous leverage on Capitol Hill. Where he went wrong is to say that they should all be moderates.
The United States is not going to shift to a parliamentary system. Our president will be elected in his or her own election. We will never have a prime minister who is selected by the party that wins the most Congressional seats. This would require a fundamental change to our Constitution. But a tripartisan ideal is consistent with our Constitution because there is nothing in the Constitution which calls for a two-party system.
Ranked choice voting, Open Primaries and nonpartisan congressional districts will all help bring about this tripartisan revolution. But voters can elect Independents even without these important structural changes in our electoral system if 50 to 60% of them vote in primaries rather than 20 to 30%. In the spirit of liberty that animates the Declaration of Independence, the Independents should stand wherever they choose on the political spectrum. Although different in their ideology they would share a departure from both the Democrats and Republicans. This common departure would be the source of their power and their influence.




















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.