In this episode, Debilyn Molineaux and David Riordan look at the latest rulings from the Supreme Court and check on the status of abortion rights one year after the Dobbs decision overturned the rights awarded in Roe v. Wade. Given all the narratives promoted by both sides of the abortion rights issue, Debilyn and David explore a hidden narrative in the continuing debate that could become the real threat to democracy in America - whose rights get protected in the judiciary?
Podcast: The Imperial Supremes and Rights for Whom?
Vital Signs Of Democracy
Debilyn Molineaux
Debilyn Molineaux is the catalyst of JEDIfutures.org , a global initiative that helps people imagine and create just, equitable, dignified, and inclusive futures. She is best known for her pioneering work in civic innovation, having co-founded Bridge Alliance, Living Room Conversations, and National Week of Conversation. She formerly acted as co-publisher for The Fulcrum. Across these efforts, Debilyn has brought together unlikely allies to co-create solutions for democracy, governance, and social transformation.
Her work lives at the intersection of strategy, systems change, and spirit. A long-time practitioner of personal and collective growth, she brings a deep commitment to the inner dimensions of change that are often overlooked but essential to transformation. Debilyn speaks of the “interstitial spaces” — the connective tissue between people, institutions, and movements — where new possibilities take root.
She also hosts the podcast Terrified Nation, which helps audiences move from fear and despair into courage and action. Her voice is sought by impact investors, changemakers, and visionary leaders who want to align resources, imagination, and human growth toward a thriving future for all.
David Riordan
David Riordan is the director of Vital Signs of Democracy (VSD). David has a long history of producing Hollywood movies, interactive entertainment and documentaries.
The VSD team looks at stories in the news and determines if the events they are reporting on are threatening democracy in America. VSD uses a unique Artificial Intelligence narrative analysis process to rate news stories in 10 key categories and then aggregates those 10 individual scores into one master threat rating published every two weeks.
David and the VSD team identify politically as independents. At the moment their confidence level that either party can rally the 65% of the American public who still believe in democracy to stand up is low. That is why David and his team collect and analyze the stories we are currently telling about democracy in America in an attempt to identify thenarrative themes that will counter the anti-democratic story that is growing in influence.
David joins us twice a month to explore the news stories that are impacting democracy in America.
image of U.S. President Donald Trump is displayed on a digital billboard in Times Square in New York on April 8, 2026.
Trump is stuck between two realities. Neither serves the American people
Normally, I worry that events may overtake a column. But not so with the Iran war.
I don’t worry about running afoul of a headline or Truth Social post from the president because what is said about the situation is no longer very relevant to the reality.
On April 8, Nick Catoggio, my Dispatch colleague, dubbed an earlier stoppage with Iran “Schrödinger’s ceasefire.” This was a reference to the famous thought experiment by the physicist Erwin Schrödinger, who was trying to explain the weirdness of “superpositionality” in quantum physics. A cat in a box is both dead and alive at the same time until you open the box. Schrödinger meant to illustrate the absurdity of the idea that particles aren’t any one thing, but a “cloud of probabilities.”
The Trump administration is stuck in a word cloud of probabilities of his own making. The war is over. The war is on. The war isn’t a war. We have a deal, but we don’t have a deal, but we’re about to have a deal. We destroyed Iran’s military. No, we left it intact. We want regime change. No we don’t. We already accomplished it. We “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear program a year ago. We had to go to war in February to prevent nuclear war. The Strait of Hormuz is open, closed, or something in-between. No deal without “unconditional surrender.” Let’s make a deal!
This everything-all-at-once vibe can be disorienting, particularly since most Americans didn’t have a war with Iran on their bingo cards until the shooting had already started. President Trump didn’t prepare the country or consult with Congress beforehand because he thought it would all be a smashing success in a matter of weeks.
The miscalculation that started it all: killing Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and much of Iran’s senior leadership, on the first day of the war. To “the great proud people of Iran, I say tonight that the hour of your freedom is at hand,” Trump announced on Feb. 28. “When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take. This will be probably your only chance for generations.”
I support regime change in Iran and shed no tears for Khamenei or his goons. But when you start a war by killing the regime’s top leaders, it’s not unreasonable for the remaining ones to conclude that you really intend regime change.
Khamenei was a murderous fanatic, but he was a fairly cautious one. He liked to threaten closing the Strait of Hormuz or attacking our regional allies, but he was reluctant to actually do it, fearing it would invite a regime change war. The mullahs and IRGC goons believed, not unreasonably, that if they lost their grip on power, they’d be lynched by the Iranian people they’ve brutalized for decades.
By starting with a regime change war, Trump removed any reason for the regime not to go for broke. When you have nothing to lose — particularly when you are a millenarian religious fanatic — a Persian Alamo strategy makes a lot of sense.
So Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz and attacked its neighbors.
But it turns out this wasn’t the Alamo. In the contest of wills, Trump blinked. The Iranian regime’s tolerance for punishment proved — so far — to be greater than Trump’s and that of our gulf allies. Militarily we could finish the job, but that would require ground troops and much greater economic turmoil. In a conflict Trump launched unilaterally without the prior support of Congress, NATO or the American people, Trump doesn’t have the political capital for that.
But that’s only half the problem. Trump wants the war over, but he doesn’t want to pay — militarily, economically, politically — what that would cost. So he wants to make a deal that ends it. But there is no deal available that wouldn’t come at an equally undesirable cost. Any deal that looks like what President Obama struck with the Iranians would be too embarrassing to bear. But the Iranians are convinced that they can get just such a deal, and they’re willing to drag things out as long as it takes.
The result: Trump’s in a box of his own making. He thinks he can talk his way out by simply asserting a reality that doesn’t exist. When the financial markets get nervous, he announces a breakthrough that is, at best, a possibility. When the Iranians agree to a deal that looks similar to one Obama might negotiate, Trump goes back to his threats.
It can’t go on forever. But I’m sure it’ll last until long after this column is forgotten.
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.