THERE'S NOTHING INHERENTLY WORKING-CLASS ABOUT WANTING TO FIGHT THE VILLAINS

The New Republic's Greg Sargent recently wrote about some research conducted for the Democratic group American Bridge that tried to determine the kinds of party messages that might appeal to white working-class voters who've lost faith in Donald Trump. I know that Democrats always try to win over disaffected Republicans, and it rarely works -- but it's true that the voters in the study aren't happy and blame both Trump and the GOP for what's wrong these days. They might listen to Democrats, for once:

... among the targeted constituencies ... a certain type of economic messaging resonates. It blames insurance companies and other conglomerates for high medical and prescription drug costs and hits big corporations for price gouging and tax avoidance. It blames Trump and Republicans for allowing these things to happen. And finally, that messaging vows that Democrats will crack down on them.

Similarly, regions hit hard by Trump’s tariffs and Iran-war-related costs are very responsive to arguments about those things. Among targeted voters in Iowa’s 1st and 2nd districts, for instance, one message that resonates hits Republicans for backing Trump’s tariffs and his war with Iran, arguing that they’ve hiked grocery and energy costs and hurt farmers who export goods. In short, what appears to work is a populist economics that centers villains, hits Trump and Republicans for enabling them, and pledges action.

John Stoehr thinks a message focused on villains appeals to something special in the white working-class brain.

... that word gets at something important about the white working class. These voters ... have been primed to gobble up messaging that names the bad guy. Only instead of "insurance companies and other conglomerates," the villains have been "criminal illegal aliens" or some other other. The white working class is persuaded by messaging that clearly identifies the criminal, the crime and the punishment, to wit: The brown guy is stealing from you, so crack down on him.

Maga messaging also taps into the fundamental nature of the white working-class voters, which is that, above and beyond all else, they are hierarchical. The belief that society has a top-down structure is fixed. That's why they can apply the word "entitled" to people at the bottom of the social order – undeserving "welfare queens" – as well as people at the top – the undeserving rich. Neither has earned their place. One wants everything given to them. The other has already had everything given to them. Both are "entitled."

Stoehr continues:

For a decade, the GOP has oriented white working-class voters so they look downward only. The trick for the Democrats is reversing that orientation, so the criminal, the crime and the punishment are just as clear looking upward, to wit: The rich are stealing from you, so crack down on them.

I understand what Stoehr is getting at, but I think a lot of this is wrong, and a little bit patronizing.

First of all, if being "hierarchical" means believing "that society has a top-down structure," who's more hierarchical than educated progressives? We believe that the rich have way too much money and politcal power. Our anti-Trump movement is called No Kings. Many of us quote the aphorism "It is easier to imagine an end to the world than an end to capitalism."

Beyond that, if white working-class voters really believed that society's "top-down structure is fixed," they wouldn't want the rich taxed at a higher level, as even some Republicans do now. They wouldn't oppose the construction of data centers by wealthy tech firms, as some Republicans (though far more independents and Democrats) do now.

Do you know who's really hierarchical, in Stoehr's sense? Voters who still admire Trump despite all the maladministration they've seen. These are the people who think Trump's billionaire status and gold-plated life are signs that God wants him to be rich and powerful. Even now, they wallow in AI images in which he bestrides the world like a Colossus. No Democrat is getting their votes, ever.

Stoehr writes:

Progressives who do not come from the white working class may not be aware that working-class white Americans are essentially illiberal, in the sense that they will resist liberal attempts to flatten the top-down structure of society. In that resistance, however, lies an opportunity. It is because they are illiberal that they are not only open to a message of retribution, but attracted by it. They already know who's screwing them. What they don't know is who's going to make it right. The Democratic candidate's job is to tell them.

I'm a progressive who comes from the white working class. If you "resist liberal attempts to flatten the top-down structure of society," does that mean you're "illiberal"? Or does it mean you worry that the would-be flatteners will just become a new set of elites screwing you? (That's certainly what Fox News has told them -- for several decades, not just the decade of Trump.)

And again, if they're "open to a message of retribution," doesn't that mean they are receptive to at least some flattening?

I think what's going on is a lot simpler. A certain percentage of white working-class Americans now believe they're being shafted by a Republican president and his party, and they want action. There's nothing uniquely working-class about wanting action -- suburban Democratic women want action, too. Here's a scene from a gathering of Democrats in the Cleveland suburbs, as reported by The Atlantic's Elaine Godfrey. The chair of the Ohio Democratic Party, Kathleen Clyde, is struggling to win over voters (mostly women) who should be receptive to her message:

“What are we going to do differently?” one woman asked, pointing out that the Democrats’ brand is terrible. Eventually, the microphone was abandoned, and another woman asked: “Why don’t the Democrats have a good message?” A third woman chimed in, a little frantically: “What can we do?!”

Clyde’s eyes were wide. She hadn’t expected friendly fire. “We do have a good message!” she sputtered. “Affordability!” But the women smelled weakness, and now, several of them were shouting at once. “How are you going to do that?” one demanded. “It has to be more specific!”

The weak tea Democrats seem to be offering is We're laser-focused on affordability! with no specifics. The liberal women in that Ohio gathering will sigh wearily and vote for that message, even though they find it lacking. But even very disaffected ex-Trump voters in the white working class probably won't.

How did Mikie Sherill score a double-digit win in the New Jersey gubernatorial race last year? In part, by promising to freeze utility bills.

How did Zohran Mamdani win the mayor's race in New York City last year? In part, by promising to freeze rents.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Curbed (@curbed)

Don't think of white working-class voters as dumb palookas who want combat because that's what appeals to their primitive brains. Think of them as normal people who feel as roughed up by the powers that be as we do, and want to hear what specifically Democrats will do to intervene in the beatdown, just the way we do.

IT'S EASY TO DELEGITIMIZE DEMOCRACY IF YOU DELEGITIMIZE HALF THE ELECTORATE

A few days ago on Bluesky, I made what was probably an overly gloomy prediction, in response to the increasing calls on the right for an end to female suffrage:

I tried to make the case that the right really could take away women's right to vote sometime in the next few decades, but I didn't have much of answer to the obvious question: How do you overturn a right that's unambiguously in the Constitution without a superseding constitutional amendment, which probably couldn't be ratified by 38 state legislatures? Tossing out the heart of the Voting Rights Act is easy by comparison -- it's not in the Constitution. The right to an abortion isn't explicitly in the Constitution. But the 19th Amendment -- "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex" -- is as close to unambiguous as anything in our law.

So if right-wingers can't really take away women's right to vote, why are so many of them talking about doing that?

I think this is how they hope to delegitimize elections that don't go their way in the future, especially in places where their losses can't be attributed to the groups they usually demonize. On right-wing rhetoric about those groups, Jamelle Bouie writes, referencing Donald Trump's claims of fraud in the 2020 election:

There was a reason ... that Trump centered his crusade on ferreting out “illegal votes”; there was a reason he focused on cities with large Black populations like Atlanta, Detroit, Milwaukee and Philadelphia; and there was a reason that when his supporters fought their way into the Capitol, they unfurled Confederate flags to mark their achievement.

The president’s convoluted and false claims about “fraud” were little more than a smoke screen for a more basic claim about who belongs to the community — about who counts as a voter and who counts as a citizen. To say that Democratic victories in Pennsylvania or Georgia were the product of fraud in Philadelphia or Atlanta was to say, in short, that the wrong people were voting. And in the same way that Trump’s “birtherism” wasn’t really about whether Barack Obama was born in the United States, his crusade to “stop the steal” wasn’t about the nation’s election procedures. It was a declaration that the only real voters were his own.

Bouie is a person whose ideas are based in facts and reason, and I think he imagines that Donald Trump is the same way. He asserts that Trump knows he lost the 2020 election, and suggests Trump is arguing that non-white Americans' votes are inherently illegitimate instead of arguing that real fraud took place.

I believe that Trump is making both arguments, and that his case for a rigged election works on a reptile-brain level, and doesn't need to make logical sense. Pallets of fake ballots are being trucked in! Black people are voting! Black people are counting the ballots! It's a rhetorical layer cake, and you get both People we don't like are voting! and Democrats always cheat! in every bite.

Now, imagine that you could delegitimize the votes not just of a minority of the population, but of half the population. Enter the "women shouldn't vote" propaganda campaign.

On a basic level, the message is: Women shouldn't vote because they don't have real adult brains, so they vote the wrong way. See point #2 in this video from Tania Shaw, a Christian-right influencer:

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Tania Shaw (@_taniashaw)

Shaw says:

Women voting never should have been legalized because women vote emotionally, and they primarily vote for the right to kill their babies, and for woke things like gay marriage and men in women's bathrooms and trans ideologies.

In the manosphere, the belief that men are logical and women are emotional is near-universal. So this message appeals to resentful young men.

But the message here isn't just Yes, women are legally entitled to vote, but they shouldn't be because they vote liberal, therefore elections won by liberals are illegitimate. In addition, female suffrage is blamed for liberal immigration policies, which leads to voter fraud and (in the right's view) a civilizational apocalypse.

This isn't an American tweet, but it's a message many on the American right fully agree with:

Women are the ones voting for policies to keep migrants in the country and keep allowing millions more to come every year. Women vote for it because they love diversity and multiculturalism rather than homogeneity for some reason. Europe is fine being European, not African, india

— HH (@SinGal96) June 17, 2026

HH was responding to this:

Disenfranchising women is a matter of civilizational survival. https://t.co/BYA2MN2lAA

— John Carter (@martianwyrdlord) June 17, 2026

On the right (globally), opposition to women's suffrage is tied to white nationalist eliminationism. The message is this: Democracy is a sham and Those People are running rampant because women get to vote.

THE GOP CAPITULATIONS BEGIN

Lindsey Graham was one of the first Republican critics of President Trump's Iran capitulation. A bad sign for Trump? Nahhh -- since then, Graham has caved:

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) on Wednesday commended the new memorandum of understanding (MOU) signed by the U.S. and Iran, after previously expressing skepticism about the state of negotiations between the two nations.

The senator shared in a social media post Wednesday afternoon that he had a “very lengthy and productive discussion” with special envoy Steve Witkoff about the negotiations.

“After this discussion, it is my opinion that signing the MOU will be beneficial to the United States, in as much as the Strait of Hormuz will begin to open, and the hostilities with Iran will stop,” Graham wrote.

“Whether or not the United States can reach an acceptable, verifiable deal with Iran regarding its nuclear program and other issues is yet to be determined, but I see little downside to trying,” he continued. “The economic stability that comes from opening up the Strait and the cessation of hostilities could create a pathway to peace well beyond the Iranian conflict.”

Rupert Murdoch's New York Post was initially skeptical:

On Wednesday morning, the front page of The New York Post offered a critical view of the administration. “Trump devastated Iran, now he hits them with a ... LOVEBOMB,” the right-leaning tabloid’s front page blared, above an image of a burning American flag and text saying that Mr. Trump’s deal showered Iran’s leaders with “cash — and no sanctions.”

But last night the Post published an opinion piece by Miranda Devine that reaches North Korean levels of praise for Dear Leader.

Trump is showing the world, G7 leaders who’s the ‘boss’ and deserves respect for his deal-making

“I’m the boss,” President Trump joked when he arrived a bit late to a meeting with G7 leaders in France Wednesday.

He is.

That’s what his detractors forget.

America is “the boss” again, the colossus.

Iran doesn’t bully us.

Israel doesn’t instruct us.

Europe can sneer at Donald Trump all it likes, but it’s a supplicant.

China respects us.

Canada bows.

Trump understands power, and it rests easy on his shoulders.

He joked about it at the G7 in his relaxed American fashion, and European leaders now get it.

They laughed along, but they understood.

Devine goes on in this vein for many more paragraphs, some of which have more than one sentence. It's the verbal equivalent of those AI-slop cartoons that depict trump as a shirtless two-fisted brawler with a six-pack.

Sometimes you can almost hear Republicans gritting their teeth and defending Trump policies they hate:

On Wednesday’s broadcast of CNN’s “The Source,” Sen. Roger Marshall (R-KS) defended letting Iran get immediate waivers to sell oil....

Host Kaitlan Collins asked, “In 2021, you said that relieving sanctions on Iran, in your words, would ‘only contribute to more terror attacks against America and its allies,’ this includes lifting sanctions on Iran. If they have 60 to $70 billion a year that they get from oil, will America be safer?”

Marshall answered, “I think under this agreement they will be. Look, you’re comparing a different set of time what was going [on] in ’21 to today. It’s a completely different day. We are now negotiating from a point of power. Look, this is a two-way agreement. You can’t have everything you want. And all the president is doing is letting them start [to] get back on their feet. I really think this probably only means about $30 billion. They’re already selling about $30 billion a year in oil. This will probably bring it up to $60 billion. Their whole economy, maybe 4 or $500 billion. So I think you have to let them help themselves a little bit here as well. But everything beyond this is a trust, but verify situation. So let’s give them a chance. Even this just for 60 days. Let’s give them a chance to start bringing their economy back together, rather than Americans dumping money in, that what was what Barack Obama did.”

Later, Collins asked, “There’s no requirement they have to meet to get waivers to sell oil. They can start doing that right now. Are you okay with that?”

Marshall answered, “Absolutely. I think, again, we had to get them to sign the document. So, we gave that up in response for them giving up their nukes. So, I would give them $30 billion of their own money back for them to agree to never build a nuclear weapon? Of course. I’ll take that deal every time. And President Trump leveraged that, I think, perfectly.”

Gas prices are dropping. As the midterms approach, that's primarily what Republicans want because they know that's the main thing Americans care about.

These Republicans know that Trump sold America out. They know that Iran won. But at the end of the day, the party will rally around Trump, because that's what Republicans do.

IN THE RIGHT-WING BUBBLE, THEY DON'T THINK J.D. VANCE IS A LOSER

J.D. Vance might not be the 2028 Republican presidential nominee, and he might lose the general election if he is the nominee. But if you think he's too juiceless and unlikable to win support even among Republicans, you haven't peered into the right-wing bubble.

You might think Vance's appearance on The View yesterday was awkward for him, or even a disaster -- the headline in Britain's Independent was "JD Vance Went on The View and Got Absolutely Torn to Shreds by Middle-Aged Women." AP's lede was this:

Vice President JD Vance, appearing Tuesday on ABC’s “The View” to promote his newly released memoir on faith, was put on the spot from the first question, peppered for nearly an hour on Jeffrey Epstein, the economy, immigration and other issues facing the Trump administration.

You might think that Rupert Murdoch's media properties are likely to put their collective thumb on the scale for Marco Rubio in 2028, based on this Axios preview of the new Maggie Haberman/Jonathan Swan book:

In a scene from the forthcoming "Regime Change," President Trump asks a guest at a private dinner last year to compare Vice President Vance to Secretary of State Marco Rubio.... this time, the judge was Rupert Murdoch.

And with Vance and Rubio sitting awkwardly at the table, Murdoch was notably more effusive about Rubio....

Trump asked Murdoch who he liked best between Vance and Rubio, with the president adding: "They're both great."

Trump: "What do you think of JD?"

Murdoch: "Well ... I think JD has the potential to be great."

Trump: "And what do you think of Marco?"

Murdoch answered immediately: "Marco is brilliant."

But much of the right-wing media admires Vance because he battles the libs and fights the culture wars. Here was the lead story at Breitbart earlier this morning:

Vice President JD Vance and other Republicans have criticized Major League Baseball (MLB) for warning players against wearing Bible verses during Pride Night.

... The incident occurred last Friday when Giants right-hander Landen Roupp displayed “Gen 9:12-16” on his Pride Night hat, which was followed by relievers JT Brubaker and Ryan Walker also featuring Bible verses on their official Pride Night hats.

“The writing on the cap violates our rules, and consistent with normal practice, we have warned the players about future violations,” Pat Courtney, MLB’s chief communications officer, told The Athletic on Monday.

Vice President JD Vance responded to a Sports Illustrated post on X reporting the reprimand.

“Trump won, we don’t have to do this anymore,” said Vance.

And on the subject of that appearance on The View, Vance is getting praise from legacy right-wing sites like RedState (headline: "JD Vance Ventures Onto 'The View,' Serves Up an Unforgettable Schooling") as well as from contemporary Republican influencers:

Other Republican candidates might seem more personable or presidential, but Vance likes to bang heads with Trump critics -- probably less out of loyalty to Trump than because he simply likes fighting with liberals. He enjoys the culture war. Nobody's asking him to weigh in on baseball's Pride Night -- he just did it, apparently for the sheer joy of fighting.

Marco Rubio will do this kind of thing if he's asked to, but Vance clearly enjoys it more. He didn't need to go on The View -- I'm sure he could have limited himself to a few mainstream-media TV appearances where he wouldn't face questioning from a team of hostile interviewers. He wanted this. That's why I still think he's the candidate to beat in the 2028 Republican primaries.

DEMOCRATS MISSED AN OPPORTUNITY

The headline of a new Politico story reads:

Republicans hopeful Iran deal could stop the pain at the pump — but it may be too late

Sadly, I think they're worrying for no reason. The story tells us:

Gas prices have been falling since their pre-Memorial Day peak of $4.56 per gallon in anticipation of a deal to end the war, now hovering just above $4 a gallon. A reopening of the Strait of Hormuz could accelerate that trend though it could take months, as the strait is freed of mines, tankers start the slow work of picking up oil shipments and Middle Eastern countries work to restore oil and gas fields hit by Iranian missiles.

But "months" probably means "by fall" -- exactly when Republicans want gas prices to be considerably lower. I think that timelime is what motivated Trump to agree to a (bad) deal at this exact moment.

Is it too late for Republicans? Are they cooked? Regrettably, it doesn't appear that way. Already, the small decline in the price of gas seems to be correlated with improved polling for President Trump and the GOP. On May 26, Trump's net job approval was -19.0 in the Real Clear Politics average: 39.6% approve, 58.6% disapprove. Now it's -15.0%: 40.9% approve, 55.9% disapprove. And Democrats' lead on the generic congressional ballot has also shrunk, according to RCP: On May 28, it was 8.1% (Democrats 48.8%, Republicans 40.7%). Now it's 5.7% (Democrats 48.3%, Republicans 42.6%).

The deal could fall apart. But I think the most likely scenario is that we'll reach Day 60 of the negotiating period without a final agreement and both sides will just kick the can down the road, maybe for ninety days this time, to get Trump past Election Day. If the Strait of Hormuz is open, even with tolls (or no tolls but "fees"), gas prices will improve. And that might be all Republicans need (along with gerrymandering, intimidation of voter registration workers, and other forms of skulduggery) to minimize their losses. People who study the data know that gas prices are tightly correlated with approval of the party in power.

I know, I know -- Trump is likely to keep mismanaging the country in the runup to November. But even Trump will have a hard time making a mistake as huge as the Iran war.

Which is why I'm beginning to worry that Democrats aren't going to get their blue tsunami, and might not even get a big blue wave. The 2026 midterms could be a mirror image of the 2022 midterms, when Republicans expected a red tsunami and had a net gain of only 9 seats in the House, and a net loss of 1 in the Senate.

Democrats have failed to capitalize on the trough in Trump's polling. This was the moment when they needed to look vigorous, confident, and full of ideas for getting the country out of its morass. I watched Bill Clinton do that in the spring of 1992. He might have been a different kind of Democrat -- pro-death penalty, moderate on other issues -- but he didn't go around apologizing for others in his party. He just talked confidently about his agenda.

Democrats today still seem to be trying to figure out what they stand for, with the general election less than five months away. A Democrat who isn't afraid to talk about his agenda, Graham Platner, just won more primary votes than any previous Democratic Senate primary candidate in his state, despite being -- like Clinton in 1992 -- partly weighed down by scandal. But Platner is an exception.

Over the last few months, Democrats should have carried themselves with confidence, knowing that the public is tired of the other party's approach to governing. They should have behaved as if it's obvious that they're the normal ones. I think they missed their shot. I still believe they'll win the House, and a takeover of the Senate isn't out of the question, but it'll be because swing voters who chose Trump in 2024 decide to stay home, not because Democrats have won a significant number of those voters over.

Democrats have time to become a more impressive party. But a party that won't even rally to defend Michelle Obama -- Michelle Obama! -- doesn't look like a party that has enough fight in it to stand up for ordinary voters, at least for now.

DEMOCRATS SHOULD MAKE JOSH HOKIT TODAY'S MAIN CHARACTER (updated)

I've said a few times here that Democrats should focus on President Trump's failures on important issues and on anything that makes Trump and Republicans look bad, even if it's trivial -- the ballroom, Greenland, putting Trump's face on money. Today we have one key issue in each category. I'm pleased to see that some Democrats are already condemning Trump's surrender to the Iranians:

Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said on “Fox News Sunday” that the U.S. would be receiving “less” under a proposed deal with Iran than it got from the Islamic Republic via the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which was the deal that the Obama administration negotiated to curb Tehran’s nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief....

“So, we have spent billions of dollars. We’ve lost 14 personnel killed in action, hundreds wounded, and we’ve disrupted the world economy. And we’re getting basically less than what we had under the JCPOA, which President Trump walked away from,” Reed told Fox News host Shannon Bream....

Rep. Seth Moulton (D-Mass.), who sits on the House Armed Services Committee, slammed the reported terms of the deal as “basically a surrender document” from Trump to Iranian Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei.

“I mean, $100 billion of taxpayer money already put into this war, 14 Americans dead, and we get a deal that just reopens the strait that was already open before he started the war? How is that a win?” Moulton told MS NOW on Saturday.

But Democrats should also draw attention to this:

UFC heavyweight Josh Hokit sparked backlash after using his post-fight interview at the White House to repeat a false claim about former first lady Michelle Obama following his victory over Derrick Lewis on Sunday.

After defeating Lewis by technical knockout at UFC Freedom 250, Hokit thanked President Donald Trump for hosting the event before ending his interview with UFC commentator Joe Rogan by saying, “Michelle Obama is a man, am I right, America?”

He said this after praising Trump and Jesus Christ, and also making a sex joke about another fighter's mother.

Josh Hokit just called Michelle Obama “a man” on the mic after winning at UFC Freedom 250.

HOKIT: “Hey, shout out to Trump for having the balls to put some sh*t like this on!”

“And if I’m going to say anything, there’s only person more incredible than the Incredible Hulk and… pic.twitter.com/ydNPIEEHww

— Overton (@overton_news) June 15, 2026

The president of the United States “appeared to show a half-smile” in response to Hokit's insult, according to CNN.

I know of only one Democratic member of Congress who's condemned this, though a couple of people who aren't in office have spoken up:

Representative Melanie Stansbury, a New Mexico Democrat, wrote in a post on X, “OK, so let me get this straight…the dude who puked on himself live on TV during his weigh in, is hurling insults at the former first lady now? Disgusting. Welcome to the Trump Administration.”

Yeah, that happened:

The White House Part II - Josh Hokit showed up to the weigh-ins "drunk" and threw up on himself.

[image or embed]

— Raider (@iwillnotbesilenced.bsky.social) June 14, 2026 at 1:04 AM

Jon Favreau, a podcast host and former speechwriter for former President Barack Obama, said, “I’m sure what happened next was a strong condemnation of the remarks from everyone else with a microphone, right?”

Former NFL quarterback Robert Griffin III also criticized Hokit, writing: “Josh Hokit won the biggest fight of his career at the White House and decides to finish his interview by calling Michelle Obama a man. What a disgrace.”

Where's Hakeem Jeffries? Where's Chuck Schumer? Where's AOC? (I see nothing about this in their Twitter feeds.) I know it's relatively early Monday morning, but you don't need to ask a consultant before condemning this. Every Democrat's reaction to this should be visceral.

This is a layup. Michelle Obama is one of the most popular public figures in America. She'll never run for office, but polling from the summer of 2024 suggests that if she'd replaced Joe Biden on the Democratic ticket, she would have beaten Trump by double digits.

I think every Democrat in America should condemn Hokit (and Trump for giving him a platform), the way every Republican in America would have condemned an entertainer who accused Melania Trump of being a former escort in a show on the White House lawn. They all would have condemned the president, too. Some would have said the president should resign. They probably would have sponsored a congressional resolution condemning the remarks and dared Democrats to vote against it.

When I brought this up on Bluesky, one poster wrote:

Hokit is a nothing and a nobody. No need to give him that level of attention and notoriety.

He isn't -- he's a famous athlete -- but Republicans don't hesitate to make even ordinary people into national villains. The entire business model of Libs of TikTok is Let's find a random drag queen from Indiana and sic a Republican mob on that person because of a post that was written to amuse fifty followers. Hokit, at least, is a public figure. He intended those remarks for a mass audience.

Millions of right-wingers think "Michelle is a man" is a hilarious joke. Millions of non-right-wingers have no idea that right-wingers are so vile. It's time they learned.

Instead, liberal commentators are scolding critics of the UFC event.

I lost hope of persuading people out of social media reactions that get a lot of intra-liberal engagement but are unhelpful. Still, if you want to know how billionaires like Trump convince working class people that journalists and adjunct professors are the "elite," the UFC reactions are it.

— Amanda Marcotte (@amandamarcotte.bsky.social) June 14, 2026 at 9:42 AM

But in fact, the event seemed like a bad idea even to non-"elitists."

CNN’s Harry Enten: “The big problem with these UFC fights for Trump is that they reinforce the idea that he's out of touch with Americans. Just 16% say these fights are appropriate. Even just 31% of the GOP do. This comes as 60% of voters and 80% of independents say the White House is out of touch.”

[image or embed]

— Jon Cooper (@joncooper-us.bsky.social) June 14, 2026 at 2:12 PM

Ordinary people understand that there's a time and place for UFC fighting (and trash-talking), and this wasn't it. Non-Republicans also know that Michelle Obama is a woman, even if Republicans don't.

Democrats should make Republicans own this moment.

*****

UPDATE: Hakeem Jeffries weighs in:

Nothing about the vile and disgusting attack on Michelle Obama?

These extremists are sick people. pic.twitter.com/BTmVK0mh3S

— Hakeem Jeffries (@RepJeffries) June 15, 2026

And while I'm not a fan of AI, I'll make an exception for this, which I'd seriously consider posting if I were a member of Congress:

WE HAVE THE UFC AT THE LINCOLN MEMORIAL BECAUSE TRUMP DOESN'T KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN HISTORIC IMPORTANCE AND FAME

Why is this happening?

In front of the Lincoln Memorial. This.

[image or embed]

— Olga Nesterova (@onestpress.onestnetwork.com) June 13, 2026 at 2:09 PM

Obviously it's happening because it pleases Donald Trump, who is a shallow vulgarian. But it's more than that. It's happening because Trump envies Abraham Lincoln -- and envies him in the wrong way. When Trump looks at the Lincoln Memorial -- and also the Washington Monument -- he doesn't see tributes to presidents whose deeds (and also, in Lincoln's case, words) were historically important. He sees presidents who are famous -- famous the way celebrities are famous, famous the way he wants to be famous, now and after his death. Trump is jealous of their fame and wants to usurp it, particularly Lincoln's.

Presidents don't need to have a deep understanding of history. Ronald Reagan didn't. George W. Bush didn't. But even Reagan and Dubya understood that presidential deeds exist on a separate plane from popular celebrity. Reagan thought his efforts to win the Cold War once and for all (and lower taxes on the rich, and destroy the American labor movement) would change the course of history. He was right to think that. He seemed to understand that this wasn't at all like being famous in Hollywood, even if he used Hollywood techniques to sell the public on his presidency.

George W. Bush thought his decision to conquer Iraq and direct its future was historically significant. He was right, though not in the way he imagined.

Barack Obama, who understands history, does things that celebrities do (for instance, compiling an annual list of favorite books, songs, and movies and posting it on Instagram), but as president he did things he hoped would change the course of history (for instance, fighting to pass the Affordable Care Act, or negotiating a nuclear deal with Iran). Obama knows that those acts are on separate planes.

All Donald Trump sees is fame. That's why he seemed to have no actual goal when he decided to attack Iran. He just wanted to be famous for being the guy who beat Iran after all the other presidents failed.

Trump has profound Lincoln envy, but when he looks at Lincoln, what he sees is pure surface. He said in a 2016 campaign speech:

I can be more presidential than any president the United States has ever had except for honest Abe Lincoln. He's tough with the top hat. I can't. Honest Abe. I mean, he was seriously president. Honest Abe. I don't think I can beat honest Abe.

That was five days after he said:

I could be the most presidential person other than -- I always joke and say other than Abe Lincoln. He was pretty good. He was a serious president, right? He had the serious president look.

By the 2024 campaign, he was regularly saying this:

... they said, you know, sir, you're gonna go down as one of the greatest presidents ever. I said, really? No. I said, really? I said, better than Washington. They said, yes, sir. I said, better than honest, Abe Lincoln. They said, yes, sir. I said, I like this guy that said that. I said, guy --, that's a smart guy.

In between, in 2020, there was this during the early days of COVID:

As President Trump’s aides ran down the list of possible backdrops for his latest Fox News event, they eventually landed on their favorite: the Lincoln Memorial, an iconic tribute to an American life, and one of Mr. Trump’s preferred places to add a prime-time touch of drama to his presidency.

There was just one catch: While Mr. Trump and many other presidents have hosted inauguration concerts and gatherings on the memorial’s steps, any event meant to draw an audience inside the interior near Daniel Chester French’s sculpture of a seated Lincoln is prohibited. The area beginning with the marble staircase where the columns start constitutes a boundary protected by federal law.

So on Sunday, when the president sat down with two Fox News anchors at Lincoln’s marbled feet during a coronavirus-focused virtual “town hall,” it was because a directive issued by David Bernhardt, the secretary of the interior, had allowed them to do so.

Mr. Bernhardt, a former oil lobbyist whose Senate nomination was contested by Democrats who pointed to multiple accusations of conflicts of interest and ethical violations, ordered the memorial temporarily closed for the event, citing the coronavirus.

The article, by Katie Rogers of The New York Times, says that Trump's aides chose the site, but Fox's Bret Baier, addressing Trump, referred to it as "Your choice."

The triumphal arch that Trump now wants to build would be massive, and would ruin historically meaningful site lines in Washington, as this NPR story notes:

The proposed structure would be 250 feet tall, more than double the height of the Lincoln Memorial. That's concerning to preservationists and members of the public who have expressed opposition to the project at every turn — in large part because it would obstruct this significant line of sight.

"The connection of the Lincoln Memorial, representing Lincoln himself, to the home of the leader of the Confederate Army, Robert E. Lee, was designed to help heal the wounds of the war that tore apart the nation ... to disrupt this view would disrupt this reconciliation," said architectural historian Alison Hoagland, one of several concerned speakers at the Commission of Fine Arts' May meeting.

But of course Trump wants his arch to diminish the Lincoln Memorial. Remember, this is the guy who responded to the destruction of the Twin Towers on 9/11 by (incorrectly) telling a radio interviewer that he now owned downtown Manhattan's tallest building.

... [Alan] Marcus asked whether Trump’s 40 Wall Street building had suffered any damage. Before getting into his response about his Financial District property, the businessman had something he wanted on the record.

“40 Wall Street actually was the second-tallest building in downtown Manhattan, and it was actually, before the World Trade Center, was the tallest — and then, when they built the World Trade Center, it became known as the second tallest,” Trump said in the WWOR interview. “And now it’s the tallest.”

To Trump, history has no meaning. Only prominence and fame are real.

We can see this even in an absurd moment early in Trump's first term. I'm sure you recall the day in 2017 when it seemed clear that Trump had no idea who Frederick Douglass was. Trump described him as "an example of somebody who’s done an amazing job and is being recognized more and more." But take a look at this longer version of that quote, from CNN:

Trump spoke Wednesday about Douglass – who died in 1895 – and Martin Luther King Jr. through the context of the National Museum of African-American History and Culture, the newest Smithsonian museum that opened in 2016.

“I am very proud now that we have a museum on the National Mall where people can learn about Reverend King, so many other things,” Trump said. “Frederick Douglass is an example of somebody who’s done an amazing job and is being recognized more and more, I notice.”

Trump added: “Harriet Tubman, Rosa Parks, and millions more black Americans who made America what it is today. Big impact.”

"Big impact," "an amazing job," "recognized more and more" -- that's what you say about someone who shows up regularly on the New Yotk Post's Page Six. That's Trump's main measure of significance. To Trump, Washington, Lincoln, King, Douglass, Tubman, and Parks are just boldface names. And he wants to be America's greatest boldface name ever. It's why he first thought about running for president forty years ago.