The Meaning of Success

I was speaking recently with a fellow graduate of Robinson High School—an exchange that drifted, as these things often do, into politics. It’s a terrain I enter with increasing reluctance, particularly with those firmly aligned with President Trump. The distance between positions has grown such that conversation can feel less like persuasion and more like parallel monologues.

At some point, the familiar charge appeared: Trump Derangement Syndrome. It is, I must concede, an effective line. It reframes disagreement not as a difference of judgment, but as a defect of temperament. It suggests that critics are not merely wrong, but unwell—and, more pointedly, that they are somehow rooting against the country itself.

That accusation deserves a response—not because it is new, but because it rests on a narrow understanding of what national success means.

It is difficult, after all, to regard the United States as anything other than a remarkable success. Its influence—philosophical, military, cultural, and economic—remains profound. Even in recent years, it has demonstrated a resilience that few nations can match. For those with talent, ambition, and opportunity, it continues to offer a path that is, in many parts of the world, simply unavailable.

And yet, success—like most meaningful ideas—is not singular.

For some, it lies in low taxes and limited regulation; for others, in a government capable of providing broad access to healthcare and security in retirement. Some define it through independence in foreign policy; others through sustained alliances and international cooperation. Immigration, too, reflects the divide—whether success is measured by openness and economic dynamism, or by order, enforcement, and adherence to process.

These are not symptoms of derangement. They are the substance of democratic life.

We do not, in this system, grant a president or a party uncontested authorship of national policy. Even when one governs, the rest participate—through elections, advocacy, and peaceful protest. That participation is not disloyalty. It is design.

To disagree—strongly, even completely—with a political figure is not to wish failure upon the country. It is to hold a different view of what success requires.

In a functioning democracy, that is not only acceptable. It is the point.