Latest news with #TheAmericanConservative
Atlantic
03-07-2025
- Politics
- Atlantic
The Phoniest Job in Trump World
To hear Tucker Carlson tell it, an American attack on Iran wasn't just likely to precipitate World War III. It would do something worse: destroy Donald Trump's presidency. 'A strike on the Iranian nuclear sites will almost certainly result in thousands of American deaths at bases throughout the Middle East, and cost the United States tens of billions of dollars,' the conservative commentator wrote on X on March 17. 'Trump ran for president as a peace candidate,' Carlson added on June 4. 'It's why he won. A war with Iran would amount to a profound betrayal of his supporters. It would end his presidency.' 'We can't do this again, we'll tear the country apart,' declared Steve Bannon, Trump's former chief strategist and 2016-campaign CEO, when asked on June 18 about potential war with Iran. 'Worth noting how rare this crossover actually is,' observed Curt Mills, the anti-war executive director of The American Conservative, after Carlson joined Bannon's podcast to oppose American intervention, dubbing the pair the 'two largest intellectual architects of the Trump years other than the president.' The implication: Trump was risking his base if he didn't stay out of the Israel-Iran conflict. 'I'm very concerned based on every[thing] I've seen in the grassroots the last few months that this will cause a massive schism in MAGA,' wrote Charlie Kirk, the head of the conservative youth organization Turning Point USA. 'This is a White House that is responding in real time to its coalition,' which is 'revolting to show it's disgusted with the potential of war with Iran,' Mills told ABC News on June 21. That night, Trump bombed Iran. The U.S. strike may or may not have obliterated the country's nuclear facilities, but it has certainly obliterated the notion that any of the self-proclaimed MAGA intellectuals, such as Carlson and Bannon, speak for the Trump movement. Far from shattering the president's coalition, Trump's strike on Iran brought it together, despite the loud protestations of some of its supposed elites. 'This is Donald Trump's Republican Party,' CNN's chief data analyst, Harry Enten, said three days after the attack on Iran, referring to polls showing that 76 percent of GOP voters approved of Trump's action, compared with just 18 percent who didn't. 'Republicans are with Donald Trump on this, Tucker Carlson be darned. The bottom line is he does not speak for the majority of the Republican base.' Robert Kagan: American democracy might not survive war with Iran The conservative pollster Patrick Ruffini, whose 2023 book, Party of the People, predicted the shape of Trump's victorious 2024 coalition, offered a similar conclusion. 'Polling has been consistent that Republicans remain more committed to a posture of military strength—and MAGA Republicans more so, not less so, than other Republicans,' he told The Dispatch. Indeed, surveys before and after the attack found that self-described 'MAGA Republicans' were more likely than other Republicans to back the president on Iran. In other words, Trump's decision to strike the country's nuclear sites didn't just expose the Iranian regime's empty threats of massive retaliation. It also exposed prominent commentators who have postured as tribunes of Trumpism to be pretenders to power, purporting to speak for a movement that has little interest in their ideas. Watching the president dispense with his critics, the conservative influencer John Ekdahl quipped, 'Props to President Trump for being able to manage a two front war against Iran and Tucker Carlson.' But neither of these was ever much of a contest. Few jobs in Trump world are more farcical than the position of 'architect' of 'America First': There are no MAGA intellectuals, just Trump and opportunistic ideologues attempting to hitch their pet projects to his brand. The self-styled thought leaders of the Trump movement are merely political entrepreneurs trying to appropriate the president for their own purposes and to recast his chaotic and idiosyncratic decisions as reflections of their personal worldview. 'Considering that I'm the one that developed 'America First,' and considering that the term wasn't used until I came along, I think I'm the one that decides' what it means, Trump told my colleague Michael Scherer a week before the bombs dropped. The president was wrong about being the first to claim the mantle of 'America First,' but right about everything else. 'Trumpism' is not 'anti-war' or 'pro-worker,' 'neoconservative' or 'neo-isolationist,' or any other ideologically coherent category; it is whatever Trump says it is. This has always been the case, notwithstanding the pretenses of Trump's alleged intellectual allies. Back in 2017, Trump took office for the first time and brought along Bannon, who set up shop in the West Wing with a whiteboard full of goals for the new administration. Less than seven months later, however, Bannon was cast out of the White House. Not long after, Trump began publicly deriding him as 'Sloppy Steve.' Carlson has followed the same trajectory. The conservative podcast host spoke before Trump on the final night of the 2024 Republican National Convention and was seen as one of the big winners when the president returned to power. But again, Trump quickly tired of his ally's antics. 'I don't know what Tucker Carlson is saying,' the president said in response to the commentator's criticism of his Iran policy. 'Let him go get a television network and say it so people actually listen,' he added—a reference to Carlson being fired from Fox News. Trump then mocked his longtime associate as 'kooky Tucker Carlson' on Truth Social, and later claimed that Carlson called to apologize, something the latter has not denied, because whether it happened or not, he knows exactly where he stands. The simple truth is this: There is Bannonism and Tuckerism, and perhaps, in a quiet corner of the Naval Observatory that has been repeatedly swept for bugs to ensure that the boss isn't listening, J. D. Vance–ism. But there is no Trumpism without Trump. People in the president's orbit are not his confidants—they are his chumps, to be used or discarded when doing so suits the principal's purposes. Carlson seemingly knows this—and resents it. 'We are very, very close to being able to ignore Trump most nights,' he texted his producer after the president lost reelection in 2020. 'I truly can't wait.' After the January 6 riot, Carlson texted: 'He's a demonic force, a destroyer. But he's not going to destroy us. I've been thinking about this every day for four years.' Off the record, people like Carlson not only know that they do not represent Trump, but hold him in contempt. Why, then, do so many still take them seriously as reflections of the president's perspective and coalition? And why does the myth of the Trump whisperer persist despite its manifest failure to explain events? For enterprising conservatives, the utility is clear. Trump may not subscribe to any of their ideas, but he can be prodded to act on them, and in any case, he is 79 years old and serving his second term. Once he departs the scene, his base will be up for grabs among those who have managed to position themselves as its champions. For some anti-Trump liberals, people like Bannon, Carlson, and Vance provide a perverse sort of reassurance. Trump's opponents may find the ideologies of these men to be odious, but at least they suggest a method to the president's madness. The presence of even a rough philosophical framework provides the false hope that what Trump will do next will be predictable and follow from first principles, rather than from haphazard impulse. Better, some may feel, to live in the realm of an evil but explicable king than in that of a demented one. Finally, Bannon and later Carlson may have played into the media's desire for an intellectual from their own class who could domesticate and interpret Trumpism in conventional terms. Rather than a boorish outsider winning the presidency on his own scattershot instincts, one could suppose there was a Svengali behind the scenes who had masterminded the whole affair. This belief imposed order on what appeared to be chaos, imputed logic to what otherwise looked like a personality cult, and thus rescued the prognosticating profession from a situation where its skills might no longer be of use. The only problem with this arrangement was that the pro-Trump intellectuals and influencers were making it all up. They were the political equivalent of the Wizard of Oz, shadows behind a curtain trying to fool people into thinking that they spoke for the president and his movement. But like Oz's projection, they were nothing more than an intimidating illusion. All it took to make them disappear was for Trump to turn on the lights.
Yahoo
13-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Trump embraces Israeli strike after arguing against it
President Donald Trump spent the bulk of this week saying he hoped Israel wouldn't strike Iran. But by Friday, he was all in. The president had hoped for more time to negotiate with Tehran over its nuclear program, but once Israel launched the massive attack, Trump embraced the new dynamic, using it as leverage to try to seal the deal he wanted all along. 'He didn't want them to go now,' a senior administration official said about Israel. 'He understands they're a sovereign nation, and he will support them because they're our ally,' added the official, who was granted anonymity to discuss a sensitive situation, 'but he wanted more time.' The administration's shift in tone in the first 24 hours after the attack underscores the balancing act the president is engaged in as he tries to assuage various factions in the administration while still maintaining pressure on Iran. The messaging served to assure Israel that the United States had its back, nod to the hawkish faction of the Trump coalition and try to calm the jittery MAGA isolationists who have long been wary of Middle East entanglements. The constant, however, was Trump's desire to bring Iran back to the table even as the Islamic Republic vowed retribution. 'There is still time to make this slaughter, with the next already planned attacks being even more brutal, come to an end,' Trump posted on Truth Social, his first public remarks after the Israeli attack. 'Iran must make a deal, before there is nothing left.' Trump's offer to Iran doubled as a 'direct push to Israel' to tap the brakes, the senior administration official said. But by Friday afternoon, with Iran firing dozens/hundreds of rockets toward Israel, the administration left little doubt that it was ready to support Israel's defense, a marked shift from the relatively neutral statement Secretary of State Marco Rubio released immediately after Israel's attack. 'Israel took unilateral action against Iran,' Rubio said Thursday night in a statement. 'We are not involved in strikes against Iran and our top priority is protecting American forces in the region. Israel advised us that they believe this action was necessary for its self-defense.' But by Friday morning, Trump was calling reporters and making it clear that he knew about Israel's plans in advance, describing it as a 'very successful attack' in an interview with the Wall Street Journal. The initial administration messaging was, 'we yellow-lighted it,' said Curt Mills, executive director of The American Conservative magazine. 'Today they said we greenlit it. Or they moved toward a light green.' The senior Trump administration official insisted that while Washington had been informed of Israel's plans ahead of time, the United States had no role in helping plan the attack. 'We did not help plan and they didn't give us every detail,' said the person, who was granted anonymity to discuss sensitive conversations within the administration. 'We purposely did not want to know the details,' they said, adding that the United States had the chance to participate in the action against Iran, but opted not to join. Though Trump might have preferred more time to negotiate, he appeared frustrated that talks had stalled, signaling early this week that time for Iran was running out. 'They are good negotiators, but they're tough,' he said Monday at the White House. 'Sometimes they can be too tough, that's the problem. So we're trying to make a deal so that there's no destruction and death. We told them that. I have told them that. I hope that is the way it works out. It might not work out.' The 'too tough' negotiations came as an influential group of hawkish conservatives lobbied Trump furiously to bless the Israeli government's efforts to destroy Iranian nuclear sites. Israel's attack further exposed a rift inside Trumpworld between those hawks, who see Iran as an existential threat to Israel, and the isolationists wary of Middle East entanglements informed by the long and costly wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. "A lot of people in the MAGA movement, and ones that have really invested a lot in electing Trump and [Vice President JD] Vance will be incredibly disappointed if this turns into a larger war and it will lead to some fractures," said a former Pentagon official granted anonymity to speak about the internal dynamics of the president's foreign policy team.
Politico
13-06-2025
- Politics
- Politico
Trump embraces Israeli strike after arguing against it
President Donald Trump spent the bulk of this week saying he hoped Israel wouldn't strike Iran. But by Friday, he was all in. The president had hoped for more time to negotiate with Tehran over its nuclear program, but once Israel launched the massive attack, Trump embraced the new dynamic, using it as leverage to try to seal the deal he wanted all along. 'He didn't want them to go now,' a senior administration official said about Israel. 'He understands they're a sovereign nation, and he will support them because they're our ally,' added the official, who was granted anonymity to discuss a sensitive situation, 'but he wanted more time.' The administration's shift in tone in the first 24 hours after the attack underscores the balancing act the president is engaged in as he tries to assuage various factions in the administration while still maintaining pressure on Iran. The messaging served to assure Israel that the United States had its back, nod to the hawkish faction of the Trump coalition and try to calm the jittery MAGA isolationists who have long been wary of Middle East entanglements. The constant, however, was Trump's desire to bring Iran back to the table even as the Islamic Republic vowed retribution. 'There is still time to make this slaughter, with the next already planned attacks being even more brutal, come to an end,' Trump posted on Truth Social, his first public remarks after the Israeli attack. 'Iran must make a deal, before there is nothing left.' Trump's offer to Iran doubled as a 'direct push to Israel' to tap the brakes, the senior administration official said. But by Friday afternoon, with Iran firing dozens/hundreds of rockets toward Israel, the administration left little doubt that it was ready to support Israel's defense, a marked shift from the relatively neutral statement Secretary of State Marco Rubio released immediately after Israel's attack. 'Israel took unilateral action against Iran,' Rubio said Thursday night in a statement. 'We are not involved in strikes against Iran and our top priority is protecting American forces in the region. Israel advised us that they believe this action was necessary for its self-defense.' But by Friday morning, Trump was calling reporters and making it clear that he knew about Israel's plans in advance, describing it as a 'very successful attack' in an interview with the Wall Street Journal. The initial administration messaging was, 'we yellow-lighted it,' said Curt Mills, executive director of The American Conservative magazine. 'Today they said we greenlit it. Or they moved toward a light green.' The senior Trump administration official insisted that while Washington had been informed of Israel's plans ahead of time, the United States had no role in helping plan the attack. 'We did not help plan and they didn't give us every detail,' said the person, who was granted anonymity to discuss sensitive conversations within the administration. 'We purposely did not want to know the details,' they said, adding that the United States had the chance to participate in the action against Iran, but opted not to join. Though Trump might have preferred more time to negotiate, he appeared frustrated that talks had stalled, signaling early this week that time for Iran was running out. 'They are good negotiators, but they're tough,' he said Monday at the White House. 'Sometimes they can be too tough, that's the problem. So we're trying to make a deal so that there's no destruction and death. We told them that. I have told them that. I hope that is the way it works out. It might not work out.' The 'too tough' negotiations came as an influential group of hawkish conservatives lobbied Trump furiously to bless the Israeli government's efforts to destroy Iranian nuclear sites. [do we want any of the earlier quotes about this here?] Israel's attack further exposed a rift inside Trumpworld between those hawks, who see Iran as an existential threat to Israel, and the isolationists wary of Middle East entanglements informed by the long and costly wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. 'A lot of people in the MAGA movement, and ones that have really invested a lot in electing Trump and [Vice President JD] Vance will be incredibly disappointed if this turns into a larger war and it will lead to some fractures,' said a former Pentagon official granted anonymity to speak about the internal dynamics of the president's foreign policy team.
Yahoo
21-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
'May God rest his soul': JD Vance reacts to Pope Francis' death day after Vatican meeting
A day after meeting with Pope Francis at the Vatican on Easter Sunday, Vice President JD Vance reacted on social media to the 88-year-old pontiff's death early Monday. "I just learned of the passing of Pope Francis. My heart goes out to the millions of Christians all over the world who loved him," Vance said in a statement on X. "I was happy to see him yesterday, though he was obviously very ill." Vance also said he would long remember the pope's homily during the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, saying, "It was really quite beautiful." "May God rest his soul," Vance said. The vice president met with Pope Francis on Easter Sunday during his family's weekend visit to Vatican City. Vance, who has a home in East Walnut Hills, converted to Catholicism six years ago at a church in Greater Cincinnati. 'Make a mess' A Cincinnati priest reflects on his time in Rome with Pope Francis The visit came amid disagreements between the pope and U.S. President Donald Trump's administration. According to USA TODAY, the pontiff had been critical of the administration's mass deportation of migrants and even disputed Vance's interpretation of theology. The frail but determined Francis greeted thousands in St. Peter's Square after Easter Mass in his open-air popemobile, just five weeks after a hospital stay. Vance's faith is strongly tied to Cincinnati. The Middletown native was raised nominally evangelical and explored atheism before converting to Catholicism in 2019 at St. Gertrude Priory, which is attached to a Dominican parish in Madeira, about 12 miles northeast of Cincinnati. Vance told The American Conservative that as he became more interested in faith, Catholicism was the practice that appealed most to him "intellectually." More: Cincinnati Catholic leaders remember Pope Francis as defender of 'those on the margins' This article originally appeared on Cincinnati Enquirer: JD Vance reacts to Pope Francis' death day after Vatican meeting
Al Jazeera
19-04-2025
- Business
- Al Jazeera
Infowars: Chinese AI memes and US media barbs
A trade war that pits the world's two largest economies against each other is now under way. Alongside the tariff battle is a heated battle of narratives and messages between the two countries. Contributors: Andy Mok – Senior Research Fellow, Center for China and Globalisation Jude Russo – Managing Editor, The American Conservative Isaac Stone Fish – CEO, Strategy Risks Yun Sun – Director of China Program, Stimson Center On April 15, the civil war in Sudan hit the two-year mark. The Sudanese media landscape has been devastated. According to Reporters Without Borders, since the war began, nearly 450 journalists have fled the country. Meenakshi Ravi has more. Donald Trump's public musings about how Canada should become the United States' 51st state, has Canadians rallying around their flag. The Listening Post's Ryan Kohls discusses the Trump effect and the unprecedented impact it is having on Canadian nationalism and politics. Featuring: Rachel Gilmore – Host, Bubble Pop Jonathan Kay – Editor, Quillette David Moscrop – Author and Journalist
