Nevins is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.
Most Americans do not pay attention to the intricacies of economic cycles until change impacts them directly. That is exactly what is happening today, causing angst among voters and a feeding frenzy of “who to blame?”
Just go to fill up your car with gas and you feel the impact. In two weeks in March, prices shot up an average of 22 percent, and today the average price of gas per gallon is $4.67 with some states exceeding $5 a gallon. Americans are not only feeling it at the gas pump; they see inflation for groceries, utilities and travel as overall inflation is near a 40-year high.
There are many causes for the current situation but undoubtedly the Russian invasion of Ukraine is impacting the world economy in profound ways. The International Monetary Fund has slashed its expectations for global economic growth for the next two years as a direct result of the invasion. The effects are spreading through the economy on multiple fronts as supply chain problems are becoming more and more obvious in our everyday lives – witness the recent baby formula shortage.
One can’t help but wonder where this all ends. We have economic cycles (growth and contraction) all the time, but is there something different occurring that will fundamentally change how the world economy functions? Governments and multinational corporations are re-assessing the risk-reward dynamic of global economic interdependence.
Most would agree that Russia and China are the two biggest threats to the West in geopolitical terms, yet they are also two of the world’s major commodities producers. This results in substantial risks. The disruption in oil and natural gas prices is directly related to policies Western nations have taken in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The inflation we are feeling extends to food prices as Russia and Ukraine combined account for 20 percent of the world’s wheat production.
How we react as individual citizens and as a nation to the humanitarian crisis will impact our daily lives even though we are far removed from the horrors suffered by Ukrainian citizens. Will we allow ourselves to be economically blackmailed by totalitarian regimes at the expense of our principles? Will we tolerate higher prices at the pump and in the grocery store because we are standing up for the principles of democracy? Or would we succumb to authoritarianism that promises to cost less to us, personally?
As we live through the impact of our response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine we should be mindful about the ramifications if China were to take military action in Taiwan and the United States were to take similar economic actions against China – or military action, as President Biden has suggested and later retracted.
The globalization of the world economy has been expanding at an ever-increasing rate for the last four decades. The advancement of technology has broken down barriers allowing for a free exchange of goods and services. Yet this inter-connectivity comes with dependency upon nations that do not share our principles of freedom and human rights; they are not our friends. This dependency is what must be analyzed.
The benefits have been many, including lower prices for goods and commodities, but our love of a bargain has blinded us to the risks, or even deluded us into thinking that the economic interconnectivity will naturally result in greater cooperation on issues not related to economics, like expanded citizen rights.
The challenges of the last three years starting with Covid, and the war in Ukraine has called into question the efficacy of the continued globalization of the world economy. As supply chain problems continue and geopolitical events spin beyond our control, more and more Americans are concerned about the vulnerability our national economy faces. Yet the question remains: What price we are willing to pay to protect and defend democracy around the world.
It is our willingness to protect the democratic values we cherish that comes into play alongside our willingness to protect the planet. Statistics show that an increasing number of Americans fear the impact of global warming; at the same time we are impacted by $5-a-gallon gas. These points of tension may result in adjusting priorities as to the pace at which our nation weans itself from fossil fuel.
There is no doubt that the events of the last three years are resulting in a rethinking about the dangers of the long-term trend of ever-increasing globalization and integration of world economies. While it is too early to say where this will all end, a strong case can be made that the result will be a fundamental rewiring of the global economy by multinational corporations and by governments. It is critical that those empowered to make these important economic decisions have a moral and ethical framework based on economic justice and opportunity to ensure that changes benefit society as a whole and not just those in power. As citizens we should make sure our voices are heard.
Already the redeployment of assets by American companies has occurred as corporations like McDonalds, Starbucks, Netflix, Disney, Shell and Exxon have suspended operations in or completely cut ties with Russian markets. As the war continues, the list grows. Businesses and the markets respond poorly to uncertainty. The extent of the changes – the rewiring of the global economy – cannot yet be ascertained, there is no doubt that both businesses and government are questioning the old rules.
Weighing the risk of globalization versus benefits of a more nationalistic approach in terms of the ability to control one’s own destiny and our ability to adhere to democratic principles that we hold dear must be reevaluated so we can make critical decisions with rational thinking and less reactivity.
The complexity of the shift extends beyond the boardroom to politics as anti-establishment populism sweeps the world. Questions of national sovereignty, control of our own destiny and immigration all play into a reevaluation of the balance between nationalism and globalization. This will unfortunately play to racist and xenophobic tendencies, exacerbated by conflict profiteers and result in increased fear and hatred.
A reevaluation of globalization must assess the economic risk and rewards and also must question the role globalization plays in perpetuating inequalities if our nation does not adapt socially and economically to the rapid changes resulting from world interconnectivity.
Or perhaps, my desire for reevaluation is overstated and this is simply a normal economic cycle during extraordinary times. When we look back on this moment in history, we’ll be better informed to know if we made the right decisions at the right time. Or we’ll look wistfully on the challenges we face today, wishing we’d made better choices.
Only time will answer this.
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.