Fitch is the President & CEO of the Congressional Management Foundation and a former congressional staffer.
It’s no secret that Congress is not held in high esteem by the American people. Much of the blame for dysfunction in Washington, and our system of government, is directed at so-called “special interest groups.” About 70 percent of Americans polled in a national survey said that “Congress works for the rich and powerful, not everyday people.” One research focus group participant said, “I feel like the lobbyists really control Congress. Everything’s going towards…the highest bidder.” Mainstream media and Hollywood consistently weave a narrative that members of Congress are automaton puppets, with nefarious villains pulling the strings. However, the reality bears little resemblance to this story.
The Congressional Management Foundation (CMF) has worked with the Congress for nearly 50years, interacting with hundreds of Members of Congress and thousands of congressional staff. We survey their attitudes about work and constituents, review their operational schedules, and advise them on engaging with their constituents. The truth is that the biggest factor influencing lawmakers’ decisions are constituents, especially constituents connected to a nonprofit organization, trade association, or business in the district or state. For 20 years, CMF has asked the same question to hundreds of congressional staff: “If your Member/Senator has not already arrived at a firm decision on an issue, how much influence might the following advocacy strategies have on his/her decision?” Consistently, the top two tied answers for the most influential strategies have been “in-person meetings with constituents” and “contact from a constituent’s representative.”
The media and general public rarely see these interactions because they affect a narrow swathe of citizens. This is the very reason for organized advocacy, or “special interest” groups. It is citizens who have an interest or opinion on an issue exercising their constitutional right to assemble, frequently through associations, non-profits, and companies. Most interactions between citizens and Congress are facilitated by these groups. Doctors, lawyers, students, hospice nurses, farmers, environmentalists, small business owners, morticians, seniors, insurance agents, retailers, oil company workers, and even employees of media companies have formed associations to further their common interests. Thousands of state and national associations, nonprofits, and companies organize Americans to contact their elected officials on issues of collective importance, most of which do not have broad national interest and are seldom discussed outside of the group’s network.
For example, the Alzheimer’s Association might call on its members to encourage a Representative to cosponsor a bill to increase funding for Alzheimer’s research. Or the American Farm Bureau might reach out to farmers to encourage a Senator to speak publicly against a proposed regulation by the Environmental Protection Agency. The result is a cycle of citizen advocacy translating to congressional action playing out thousands of times a day in Congress, largely not witnessed by either the media or the public. This is not the warped influence of so-called special interest groups – it is a fundamental feature of our democracy for citizens to band together, monitor, and inform elected officials, expressing a voice on the decisions that will impact them.
The cynical view could be that enhanced power by constituents who participate with like-minded others in organized groups (i.e., “special interests”) would skew lawmakers’ decision-making process and lead to worse policy outcomes. But in fact, congressional staff reported that they appreciate a well-prepared constituent, as it makes it easier to understand the implications of public policy on those they represent. Better policy decisions are made through better citizen advocacy.
A few years ago, the legendary journalist Cokie Roberts was asked whether constituent voices really matter. Cokie was not only a distinguished journalist, but both of her parents served in Congress, so she had a front row seat in our democracy. “If it’s someone who is from the district, especially someone who is active in that district, Members of Congress pay a tremendous amount of attention to those people,” she said. Cokie added: “And the truth is, if people from a member’s district actually go to their office and see that member, it really can make a difference.”
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.