GENDER INSECURITIES BECOME POLICY

I think Jamelle Bouie is right to argue that Trumpism is very much about gender.

I've done a few videos at this point on a particular theme, and that theme is that everything is gender. What this means is that so much of what is driving our politics today is an acute form of gender anxiety, expressed by those who believe in a kind of hierarchical gender universe in which men are at the top, in which a particular kind an expression of masculinity is deemed to be dominant, in which femininity is disparaged, in which women are disparaged, in which anything that threatens this particular vision of domineering hierarchical masculinity is something to be undermined, if not destroyed outright.

Bouie sees this in the context of President Trump's mad plan to spend a billion dollars to bribe renewal energy companies so they won't build wind farms, at a time when the supply of fossil fuels is threatened by Trump's Iran war. Why the obsession with fossil fuels? Bouie says (at approximately 2:26 in the video):

... clean energy, renewable energy, energy that you produce not through extraction, right? Not through the violent extraction, through literally abusing the land, through literally penetrating the land, right? That's what an oil drill does: it penetrates the land....

For the people in this administration, I believe, I think that they view clean energy and renewable energy as a fundamental threat to their vision of a hierarchical world, to their vision of a hypermasculine, hierarchical world in which the only real law is the law of the strong dominating the weak, and they see renewables, green energy, as representing weakness, as representing femininity, which they equate with weakness.

I agree that masculinity is important to them -- but (and I think Bouie would agree) it's not just male vs. female. It's also macho male vs. non-macho male. I'm seeing this in right-wing memes, like these two:

Liberalism is embodied in a foul-smelling, pot-bellied brony who's clearly inferior to the ripped, iron-pumping Christian embodiment of the Trump zeitgeist. The message is not just that men are better than women, but that right-wing men are better than left-wing men, who are flabby pseudo-men.

But much of this posturing is right-wing men trying to persuade themselves that they're the guy on the right and not the guy on the left.

Here's a thread from Derek Guy. The first post features a clip of the Daily Wire's Michael Knowles talking to a manosphere influencer named Justin Waller (the clip appears in Louis Theroux's documentary Inside the Manosphere). The second post shows the Daily Wire's Matt Walsh:

It's interesting how The Daily Wire attacks the idea that gender is a performance when their sets are all about gender performance. Look at the aesthetics here — the cigars and crystal decanter with Japanese whiskey, the black dress shirt, the tight suit with two-toned double monks and tie bar ...

[image or embed]

— derek guy (@dieworkwear.bsky.social) March 21, 2026 at 3:43 AM

... the Arne Jacobsen egg chair teamed with leather couch and a studio backdrop feat. a Lambo inexplicably inside the room. And where Knowles's set is filled with masculine urban cliches, Walsh's set is the rustic counterpart: the fish, stone fireplace, and boat-shaped shelf with tiny old books.

[image or embed]

— derek guy (@dieworkwear.bsky.social) March 21, 2026 at 3:43 AM

Just feels like every material representation of masculinity for 12 year old boys, all crammed into a tiny digital space that will fit your screen. So farcical that I don't know how anyone working on or watching this production doesn't feel like their intelligence is being insulted.

— derek guy (@dieworkwear.bsky.social) March 21, 2026 at 3:43 AM

Guy says that what we're seeing "feels like every material representation of masculinity for 12 year old boys," but I don't think it's that. I think these are symbols associated with masculinity that allegedly elevate men above women (and above weak men) and allegedly make women flock to men, but they mostly appeal to other men. They're ways men tell one another that they're alpha males.

Waller makes a living selling this image to fans. He's buff and cocksure, so the act is convincing. Knowles and Walsh, on the other hand, don't come off as macho men at all. Nor does Trump, at the age of 79, especially carrying around a body that looks like the brony's body in the memes above.

I suspect that Trump's embrace of fossil fuels is, like so much else in his life, a form of self-soothing -- he embraces energy drilled from ground by burly men and he feels more manly, at a time when, I'm sure, his days as a headline-grabbing ladies' man are in the distant past. I also see self-soothing when Knowles puffs on that cigar and Walsh makes sure the camera angle includes that fish -- yeah, we're real men, and so are you guys if you're watching this.

This is what the dominant political party in America produces as "culture." And this is how policy gets made. It's tests of manhood that men impose on themselves to impress their fellow men. And I guess Trump thinks the war is the ultimate macho flex.

THEY'RE GETTING US READY FOR THE END OF BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP

Since the day after President Trump issued an executive order on birthright citizenship, I've argued that the Supreme Court will side with Trump, tossing out more than a century of precedent, which is the Federalist Society supermajority's favorite sport. I think I see signs that I'm right about this.

At the academic end of the spectrum, we have a law professor named Ilan Wurman who used to believe in birthright citizenship now arguing before Congress that not everyone born here should be citizen. Here's Wurman in 2018:

And here's Wurman now:

Should EVERYONE born in America be a citizen? Part I

Ilan Wurman testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee on 3/10 pic.twitter.com/S8jeQT1rLd

— rationally BASED podcast (@rationallypod) March 11, 2026

For the hoi polloi, we have the New York Post dusting off an old favorite booga-booga story:

Pregnant Chinese women have turned a tropical paradise into a maternity ward — pumping out babies who automatically become US citizens daily.

The Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI), a US territory northeast of Guam in the Pacific Ocean, has been flooded with so-called “birth tourists” since 2009 when then-president Barack Obama introduced a visa-waiver program for Chinese nationals.

China-watchers estimate about 1,000 companies offer birth tourism to the Northern Mariana Islands, other US overseas territories and even the US mainland. They claim a gob-smacking 1.5 million American babies are being raised in China by Chinese parents who’ve participated in birth tourism.

If this has been happening for seventeen years, why is it a story now?

It's part of what I expect to be a huge propaganda campaign to make opposition to birthright citizenship seem like the normie position. The right is very good at reducing every story to a set of purely evil villains deliberately trying to harm upstanding patriots. Your enemies are rich Chinese birth tourists is an argument they hope will work, as is Yeah, birthright citizenship might have been okay once, but not after that evil Joe Biden opened the borders, which is what another right-wing legal scholar, Adrian Vermeule, argues in this Substack post:

Nor does the putatively consistent practice of granting citizenship to the children of illegal aliens provide a convincing rejoinder. What was done at a small scale in the past may have very different consequences for republican sovereignty when done at a massive scale, as has occurred in recent decades, reaching a wild crescendo in the previous administration. The change of scale itself changes the nature and import of the practice, or more accurately, different practices in different eras. Fundamental principles remain the same over time, but their application may change with circumstances.

Arguments the Supremes could use to gut birthright citizenship are being floated in right-wing academic circles, but whichever ones are used, I'm certain the fix is in and birthright citizenship is on its way out.

I suggested a couple of weeks ago that the Supremes might open the door to denaturalizations in time for the midterms. Maybe that won't happen -- but at the very least, I think the Republican partisans on the Court are assuming that Democrats on the campaign trail will declare themselves in favor of a legislative restoration of birthright citizenship, which Republicans assume will hurt Democrats with swing voters. I'm not sure how that would play. But I expect the Court to do the worst possible thing again.

A SHAMELESS WHITE HOUSE ATTEMPTS TO PROVE THAT EVERYTHING IS FINE

How do you know the White House is worried about defections from the Trump voter base? You know because stories like the two I'm about to quote are showing up in the press.

First, there's this from the New York Post:

Reports of Republican fractures over President Trump’s decision to go to war with Iran have been greatly exaggerated, according to a new poll shared exclusively with The Post Thursday.

The J.L. Partners survey showed that 83% of likely Republican voters “strongly” or “somewhat” support Operation Epic Fury, while just 9% say they “strongly” or “somewhat” oppose military action against Iran.

Nearly three-quarters (74%) of respondents say the US should continue its campaign until Iran’s military capabilities are destroyed, with 16% saying Trump should stop the war immediately.

Compared to prominent podcasters Tucker Carlson and Megyn Kelly, both of whom have criticized the president over the Iran war, the poll found 83% of likely Republican voters trust Trump’s judgement, while just 6% place more confidence in the former Fox News hosts.

J.L. Partners is a British firm founded by two Tories. It polls Americans for the Daily Mail, where its surveys have, until recently, been more favorable to President Trump than most polls. Nate Silver, who gives J.L. Partners a B/C rating, adds four points to Trump's "disapprove" numbers to adjust for J.L.'s bias.

Nevertheless, I suspect that this poll largely reflects reality. Other pollsters, such as Quinnipiac, find that Republican voters are overwhelmingly on Trump's side -- though you'd think the numbers would be closer to 100% support in the first couple of weeks of a war started by a president of their own party.

I'd be curious to see the wording of the poll's questions in order to determine whether they skewed the results, but we can't see the survey itself because it was released exclusively to the Post, which isn't revealing many specifics.

The White House is clearly trying to manufacture consent for Trump's war on the right, out of fear that some of the base is defecting, particularly young men. And this Axios story seems like another attempt to suggest that Trump's dude-friendly administration is still very popular:

D.C.'s hottest ticket: Trump's UFC fight night

President Trump tells Axios it's the "hottest ticket that I've ever seen."

He's talking about UFC Freedom 250, the fight Trump is staging on the White House's South Lawn on June 14.

Why it matters: Donors, lobbyists, members of Congress and well-connected fans are clamoring for tickets.

Well, of course donors, lobbyists, and members of Congress are clamoring for tickets. They still need to curry favor with Trump. But Trump wants America, or at least right-wing America, or at least right-wing male America, to believe he's still "the hottest thing."

Of course, we have no idea how true any of this is -- the story, more than most Axios stories, is pure spin, and reads like spin directly from the boss himself.

Top lobbyists and White House-connected operatives are getting inundated with requests, sources said. One of them told us they're sick of being asked about the fight.

Republicans began flooding the White House with inquiries about VIP tickets almost immediately after the event was announced last summer.

One senator asked to attend with their family.

(Only one? Whoops -- this seems like a botched talking point.)

A GOP fundraiser close to the White House received dozens of direct messages on social media asking how they could get in.

Trump himself has been fielding ticket requests, a person familiar with the event prep said.

Is the "person familiar with the event prep" named John Barron?

Trump wants us to assure us that his 2024 voters, young men in particular, aren't rushing to the exits -- or maybe his aides feel the need to assure him. But he can sell the war (and the self-soothing sausagefest on his birthday) as hard as he wants. The latecomers in his coalition aren't buying.

THE SAVE ACT ISN'T JIM CROW -- IT'S MORE DELUSIONAL

In a column about the SAVE Act -- Donald Trump's top domestic priority -- Jamelle Bouie writes:

For reasons of both ego and ideology, Trump does not believe that he can legitimately lose an election. He is, to his mind, the living embodiment of the nation. If he doesn’t win, then the system must be broken. In that sense, the SAVE Act is far less about American elections as they exist than it is about the president’s vision of American society. The basic premise of Trumpism is that the people of the United States are not the collected citizens of the United States, naturalized and natural born, but a particular caste and class of Americans, defined by race, religion and nationality and united by their devotion to Trump.

The SAVE Act is an attempt to make that distinction a political reality by removing as many mere Americans from the voting pool as possible and elevating the true people of the United States — who just so happen to support Trump and the Republican Party — as the only legitimate players in American political life. The goal, then, is to nationalize something akin to what many Americans experienced in the Jim Crow South: a one-party state, backed by the threat of violence, where the law ensures that most people cannot hope for meaningful political representation.

This isn't exactly right. The people who put Jim Crow voting laws in place knew that the Blacks they were disenfranchising were real people born in America who would be allowed to vote if the federal government were able and willing to force the issue. It's my belief that Donald Trump -- influenced by a couple of decades' worth of Republican propaganda -- believes that there simply aren't enough legitimate Democratic voters in America to make the Democratic Party a competitive party. When he says of Democrats, as he did in a speech earlier this month, "They're doing everything possible because they know if we get this, they probably won't win an election for 50 years and maybe longer," I think he legitimately believes that the large number of voters purged from the rolls by the SAVE Act will (a) be overwhelmingly Democratic and (b) be on the rolls fraudulently.

Trump believes this -- believes that all these voters are non-citizen immigrants or dead people or nonexistent people or people otherwise ineligible to vote, possibly because they live on dementia wards or in mental institutions and votes are cast for Democrats in their names -- because he's a Fox News grandpa who's been told over and over again that Democrats cheat in elections on a industrial scale. Millions of other Fox News grandpas and grandmas also believe this.

Here's a video from 2010.



It was produced by an organization called True the Vote, which I've written about many times. After the 2020 election, True the Vote was behind the Dinesh D'Souza "documentary" 2000 Mules, which is so rife with disinformation that even D'Souza himself has had to apologize for its dishonesty. Here's the first claim in the 2010 video, from the late right-wing propagandist David Horowitz:

The voting system is under attack now. Movements that are focused on voter fraud and the integrity of elections are crucial at this point. This is really -- I mean, this is a war! A Democratic Party consultant once told me that Republicans have to win by at least three percent in order to win any election.

The next speaker says:

There are people who are deceased who have shown up as voting. I've actually gone out and taken pictures of the tombstones.

The third speaker -- Catherine Engelbrecht, co-founder of True the Vote -- says:

One lady asked the presiding judge, she looked at him and she goes, "I forget who I'm supposed to vote for," and so he went over there and he actually turned the dial. She pressed Enter. He turned the dial. She pressed Enter.

Trump thinks this is routine. Your Fox-watching relatives think so too. They believe all this happens and they believe that millions of immigrants cross the border and are immediately signed up to vote (always Democratic) and they believe that Democrats slip fake ballots in among the real ones during vote counting and they believe Democrats tamper with voting machines so Republican votes flip to Democratic and...

Jim Crow vote suppressors knew that there were real Americans who would vote against them if they were allowed to. Millions of Republicans seem to believe that there are no legitimate Democratic votes, or very, very few.

They believe this even though they can never produce evidence of this fraud. They believe it the same way they believe that every anti-Trump protestor is a paid agent of the Soros family.

So Trump and his supporters don't exactly believe, as Bouie writes, that "the people of the United States are ... a particular caste and class of Americans, defined by race, religion and nationality and united by their devotion to Trump," excluding Trump critics -- they believe there simply aren't very many sincere Trump critics, or very many Democrats at all, citizens who oppose Trump and his party sincerely and legitimately.

All this, of course, requires them to ignore large chunks of objective reality. But the propaganda they consume has taught them that what everyone outside their bubble portrays as reality must be a lie because people outside their bubble do nothing but lie. Everything they don't want to believe is "fake news." And everything they want to believe is the gospel truth.

I think Trump sincerely believes all this. I'm sure his most fervent fans do. They think the SAVE Act won't disenfranchise a single legitimate voter. It will only disenfranchise Democrats, who are illegitimate voters by definition.

ARE WE SEEING THE BEGINNINGS OF A "PURITY RIGHT"?

It's hard to say we're seeing a Republican crack-up when (per Quinnipiac) 85% of Republicans support the war in Iran, but some fissures are starting to appear:

Joe Kent, the director of the National Counterterrorism Center, announced his resignation on Tuesday, citing his concerns about the justification for military strikes in Iran and saying he “cannot in good conscience” back the Trump administration’s war.

“Iran posed no imminent threat to our nation, and it is clear that we started this war due to pressure from Israel and its powerful American lobby,” Kent said in a statement posted on social media, making claims President Donald Trump has denied.

Kent, a former political candidate with connections to right-wing extremists, was confirmed to his post last July on a 52-44 vote.

Here's a bit more on those connections to right-wing extremists:

Iran war was a bad idea from start. But Joe Kent is not the right messenger on this. See his alleged associations with Nick Fuentes and live streamer who said Hitler was “a complicated historical figure which many people misunderstand” @splcenter.org @westernstatescenter.org 2025 letter:

[image or embed]

— Ryan Goodman (@rgoodlaw.bsky.social) March 17, 2026 at 10:25 AM

Some of the war-related feuding on the right is laughable. Here's an exchange between Megyn Kelly (against the war) and Mark Levin (pro-war):

Busy Sunday morning for Megyn Kelly. She wakes up and has “micrope*is” on her mind. Suffice to say, if it talks like a harlot, and posts like a harlot, it’s … well, you know the rest.

Shalom! https://t.co/3jRmQS0zKp

— Mark R. Levin (@marklevinshow) March 15, 2026

President Trump and his Fox News Mini-Me, Sean Hannity, are siding with Levin, but Marjorie Taylor Greene, Candace Owens, Tucker Carlson, and Steve Bannon are criticizing the war.

So far, the GOP Establishment is holding the line, defending the war and declaring itself shocked, shocked at the increasing groyperization of GOP youth. We can read this as the work of the Republican Party in Ron DeSantis's Florida:

The University of Florida’s College Republicans chapter was disbanded after a finding that some of its members had violated a statewide organization’s rules, including making an antisemitic gesture.

A photo reportedly depicting two students giving a Nazi salute had been shared on social media.

The university said over the weekend that the Florida Federation of College Republicans had disbanded the chapter and asked school officials to deactivate it as a registered student organization while it seeks new leadership for the group.

This isn't good guys vs. bad guys -- it's bad guys vs. worse guys. As we've learned from recent stories about young-Republican chat groups in Florida and New York, the new GOP bigots openly describe Jews as categorically evil. The GOP Establishment talks about quite a few groups that way -- Muslims, trans people, non-Republican Blacks -- but not Jews. It's a rift.

I think the Establishment will retain control of the party for a while. Younger Baby Boomers and GenXers in the party will still hold sway for a few more election cycles. But I think the GOP might be on the verge of developing its own version of the "purity left" -- the young progressives who invariably find a reason not to vote Democratic (Gaza in 2024, forever wars in 2016, etc.).

Young right-wingers really might stay home in future elections if Republicans seem too fond of war, and if they seem too fond of Israel (a reasonable objection) or Jews (a not-reasonable objection). Will these voters abstain, or vote third party, or even vote Democratic, if a strong supporter of Israel -- or even a candidate who seems too comfortable with Jews -- wins the 2028 Republican nomination? They might. We might have young people at both ends of the political spectrum demanding that a major-party candidate earn their vote even though these voters claim to hate everything the other party stands for. That wouldn't be a complete party crack-up, but it could still be very damaging to the GOP. The difference is that in the GOP, hate would be the principal reason.

ARE THE ATTACKS ON GRAHAM PLATNER HELPING HIM?

I want to talk about Graham Platner -- but first I want to note that there have been a couple of recent stories about Zohnran Mamdani's wife, Rama Duwaji, that I expected to be very damaging to the mayor. The first was this:

Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s wife, Rama Duwaji, liked a celebratory Instagram post on the day of Hamas’ Oct. 7, 2023, attack that shared images from the murderous assault on Israel, according to a report Friday.

The inflammatory social media posts by lefty groups included images allegedly taken from livestreamed footage of the attack, showing a gleeful group riding on what appeared to be a commandeered Israel Defense Forces vehicle with the words “resisting apartheid since 1948,” the report from Jewish Insider said.

“Breaking the walls of apartheid and military occupation. Oct. 7, 2023,” read another image on the same post, which the outlet reported showed a bulldozer used by terrorists to breach the barrier between Gaza and Israel that day.

The posts in question don't really celebrate violence against Israelis, but I expected Duwaji's social media activity to be a major scandal for Mamdani. It hasn't been.

This story doesn't seem to be breaking through, either:

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s wife, Rama Duwaji, created artwork for an essay book compiled by an anti-Israel activist who has described Jewish people as “vampires,” “demons” and “ghouls” — and celebrated the Oct. 7, 2023, terror attack on Israel.

Duwaji, a Syrian-American artist and first lady of New York City, drew the lead graphic for “A Trail of Soap,” an essay published by Susan Abulhawa in the Slow Factory’s latest issue of Everything Is Political magazine, the Washington Free Beacon reported Thursday.

The story Duwaji illustrated is introduced but not written by Abulhawa. The author, Diana Islayih, describes using a shared toilet at an encamment in Gaza where there's no available water, so she must rely on dish soap to keep her hands clean.

The mayor has distanced himself from Abulhawa.

A spokeswoman for Mamdani told the Washington Free Beacon that Duwaji does not have a relationship with Abulhawa.

“As is common for freelance illustrators, the First Lady was commissioned to illustrate an excerpt of Abulhawa’s book by an outside publisher,” the spokeswoman said. “She has never engaged with or met Susan Abulhawa, nor had she seen the tweets in question.”

And Mamdani has criticized the social media messages:

“And we stand in our administration, and I can tell you, our administration – which is separate from the first lady, she doesn’t have a role within it – is against bigotry of all forms … unflinchingly,” he told reporters.

“I think that that rhetoric is patently unacceptable. I think it’s reprehensible,” he added, in reference to Abulhawa’s posts.

This is a story in New York, but it's not a big story. It won't end Mamdani's political career. It doesn't seem to be damaging his standing with New Yorkers. And it's barely a story in the national press, despite the media's (and the right's) fascination with Mamdani.

I bring this up in the context of the latest news about Graham Platner:

Maine Senate hopeful Graham Platner isn’t apologizing anymore for the Nazi-linked tattoo he was caught with last year, and he’s claiming Jewish leaders buy his excuse about it.

Platner, who is running for the Democratic nod for Senate and previously apologized for the offensive ink on his chest, argued that headlines have left voters with the impression that his tattoo had a more obvious link to Nazis.

“I had a meeting in New York not that long ago with a number of Jewish leaders, we started talking about it, and when we started, somebody was like, ‘Wait a second. We thought you had a swastika,'” Platner told Zeteo.

“When I explain the actual story, pretty much everybody’s like, again, ‘That seems like an eminently reasonable thing.’”

Zeteo's Platner interview appears under the headline "Graham Platner Was Left for Dead. So Why Is He Winning?" The progressive news outlet seems to find it baffling that Platner is still in the race:

Many people assumed Graham Platner’s Senate candidacy was dead in October. Instead, the oyster farmer and veteran kept campaigning, and continued drawing overflow crowds to town halls all over Maine.

His Democratic opponent, Janet Mills, Maine’s current two-term governor, has led a quieter campaign, and with three months left in the primary, polls suggest Platner is in the lead. Recent surveys, including a poll released Monday, suggest Platner would be a stronger candidate to face incumbent Republican Senator Susan Collins, too.

It was, of course, fair to expect Platner wouldn’t get past the news that he, for years, had a chest tattoo – dating back to his time in the Marines – that resembled a skull-and-crossbones symbol used by the Nazis, even after he apologized and got the tattoo covered up.

Months later, it’s clear the conventional wisdom about Platner’s demise was wrong.

It isn't just the tattoo:

Last year, unearthed Reddit and other social media posts showed Platner vented that “Cops are bas—s. All of them, in fact,” and responding to a post that said, “White people aren’t as racist or stupid as Trump thinks,” writing “Living in white rural America, I’m afraid to tell you they actually are.”

Platner also pondered why black people “don’t tip.” He has since apologized for those past posts.

Also, Platner recently sat for an interview with a podcaster named Nate Cornacchia who has advanced anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. Platner has said he's "a longtime fan" of Cornacchia.

How is Platner getting away with this? Is the Maine Democratic electorate rife with Nazis?

Many politcal commentators argue that Platner is clearly a dyed-in-the-wool Nazi. Their politcal ideas are deep-seated and well thought out, so they assume everyone's politcal ideas are deep-seated and well thought out.

I think many of the people who support Platner aren't deeply political. Platner clearly wasn't deeply political until recently, and it's unclear how deep-rooted the ideas he now expresses are. Platner now seems to be a compelling, passionate advocate of progressive ideas. But he doesn't seem to have thought deeply about politics for most of his life, which led him to indulge some nasty prejudices, and left him unable to recognize the harm that offensive speech can do to real people.

Which makes him similar to a lot of normal people.

I think many people are open to liberal or progressive ideas and also not particularly vigilant about bigotry. They're not free of prejudice -- who is? -- and they want some leeway on their own speech and behavior. They've been encouraged to think that "political correctness" is a greater scourge than bigotry by both conservatives and anti-progressive moderates. They associate speech monitoring with authority, at a time when they hold authorities in extremely low esteem.

But their views are a muddle. Here's some data from a 2024 Pew poll:

About six-in-ten U.S. adults (62%) say that “people being too easily offended by things others say” is a major problem in the country today.

In a separate question, 47% say that “people saying things that are very offensive to others” is a major problem....

* Eight-in-ten Republicans and Republican-leaning independents say people being too easily offended by what others say is a major problem. By comparison, 45% of Democrats and Democratic leaners say the same.

* In contrast, Democrats are more likely than Republicans to say that people saying things that are very offensive is a major problem in the country today. A 59% majority of Democrats say this, compared with 34% of Republicans.

Looking at Americans’ views on these two questions together, about a third (32%) say that people being too easily offended by things others say and people saying very offensive things to others are both major problems.

(Emphasis in original.)

Nearly half the Democrats in this survey said that "people being too easily offended by what others say is a major problem," even though nearly 60% of Democrats agreed that "saying things that are very offensive is a major problem in the country today."

I think an unexpectedly large portion of the Democratic voter base is annoyed by speech monitoring and doesn't respond well to it. They've been encouraged to feel this way by a "PC"-hating culture. And so they're turning the Rana Duwaji stories into a non-scandal -- and possibly rallying around Graham Platner in part because he's being attacked for speech. It's possible he'll be able to survive all the attacks on him all the way to November -- and only after that will we learn who he really is now.

WHY ARE WE ATTACKING IRAN? SO TRUMP CAN BE JOHN BARRON AGAIN.

Here's an NBC News story from Kristen Welker and Alexandra Marquez:

President Donald Trump said Saturday that he’s not ready to make a deal to end the war with Iran despite the country’s willingness to do so “because the terms aren’t good enough yet,” but declined to say what those terms would be.

In a wide-ranging, nearly 30-minute telephone interview with NBC News, the president also said he is working with other countries on a plan to secure the Strait of Hormuz amid surges in global oil prices, and he dismissed Americans’ concerns about rising gas prices since the U.S. and Israel launched their joint military operation two weeks ago.

The president also questioned whether Iran’s new supreme leader is “even alive.”

Trump said he was “surprised” that Iran decided to attack other Middle Eastern countries in response to the U.S.-Israeli operation, and that U.S. strikes on Kharg Island on Saturday “totally demolished” most of the island but that “we may hit it a few more times just for fun.”

NBC has another story, from Welker and Sahil Kapur, based on the same phone conversation:

President Donald Trump told NBC News on Saturday that he’s still mulling a potential endorsement in the competitive Republican primary for a Senate seat in Texas.

Sen. John Cornyn is facing Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton in a May 26 runoff after a close contest on the first ballot.

“I’ll let you know that over the next week or so,” Trump said in a phone interview when asked if he’s going to endorse Cornyn. “I like him. I always liked him.”

We keep asking ourselves why Trump attacked Iran. What's the goal in this war? What's the purpose?

I think this is the purpose: Trump wants to be John Barron again.

In Trump's memory, there was a time when he was the most talked-about real estate developer (and sex god) in New York City. Gossip columnists were desperate for news about him. He was so important to the local media that it was sometimes appropriate for him to pose as his own publicist -- John Barron or John Miller or David Dennison -- so he could give reporters and columnists the inside skinny on what that fascinating Trump fellow was up to.

A war that's gone on for a couple of weeks is making him the object of fascination he thinks he was then. As I told you yesterday, The Atlantic has reported that Trump's personal phone number is in wide circulation. Now that we're in a state of war, D.C. reporters are desperate to talk to him -- and he loves it.

Sometimes in meetings, he will leave his phone face up, allowing staff to gawk at the flashing notifications of incoming or missed calls that pile up on his screen. Only some of them are from numbers that have been saved in the device. “It is literally call after reporter call,” the first official said. “It is just boom, boom, boom.”

This is heaven for Trump:

Since the United States first attacked Iran two weeks ago, Trump has answered more than three dozen phone calls from journalists representing at least a dozen outlets, including ABC News, Axios, CBS News, CNN, The Daily Mail, The Daily Telegraph, Israel’s Channel 14, Fox News, MS NOW, NBC News, The New York Times, the New York Post, Politico, The Times of Israel, The Washington Post, and, yes, The Atlantic. A journalist from The Washington Reporter, a small conservative outlet, has repeatedly called, and the administration officials say Substack authors have started to call, forcing White House staff to look up names they don’t recognize.

Most of these calls are quickies.

Brief seems to be the most frequent descriptor attached to these calls, most of which last just a few minutes, rarely more than 10.

The call with NBC (presumably with Welker) was unusual because it went on for a half hour, long enough to veer off into domestic issues (the Texas Senate race).

Why did a younger Donald Trump build, buy, and redesign builings? Why did he write books, own a football team, run casinos, and put his name on a range of mediocre products? For the money, yes, but mostly for the attention.

That's the main reason he's fighting this war. There's no reason to overthink it. His top strategic goal is to make reporters desperate to talk to him.

WHY DONALD TRUMP DOESN'T CARE WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT THE WAR

In a New York Times roundtable discussion, pollster Kristen Soltis Anderson says that President Trump's Iran war is unpopular because he's unpopular.

Kristen Soltis Anderson: Well, in the absence of a clear case for why we have entered into this conflict, people’s attitudes about it really are just reflective of, do you generally trust Donald Trump or not?

... And so, things like approval of the war tend to track pretty closely with things like Donald Trump’s overall job approval figures....

And I think that’s where the White House has sort of run into a challenge of its own making on this, in that there are some justifications for military engagement in Iran that do get better numbers than just, “How do you feel about Donald Trump today?” The American public is very eager that Iran not be able to have nuclear capabilities, and so on and so forth.

But in the absence of evidence, or a compelling case being made that this is the reason we’ve done this, people have sort of defaulted to, “Do I trust Donald Trump or not?” And, problematically for the White House right now, that means that you are starting with approval for this war that is lower than approval for almost any conflict that the United States has entered into in recent decades.

But it's not clear that the White House cares. In an Atlantic story about the large number of people -- including journalists -- who appear to have Trump's personal phone number, we're told:

The scrum for fleeting—and often conflicting—presidential utterances has made it difficult for the government to sell a clear story to the American people. Yet Trump’s advisers have no plans to intervene. “He enjoys it,” that official continued. “He knows how to handle the press.”

This suggests to me that most people in the Trump White House feel it's perfectly fine if Trump is the war's main salesman, even though he doesn't have a clear message. They're content if the war is no more popular than Trump is, for an obvious reason. The Wall Street Journal reports:

... Trump’s team is privately trying to reassure the president that conservatives aren’t abandoning him. They have provided him with polling data in recent days that they say shows the war is popular with his supporters, people familiar with the matter said.

That's clear from surveys like the most recent Quinnipiac poll:

Democrats (89 - 7 percent) and independents (60 - 31 percent) oppose the U.S. military action against Iran, while Republicans (85 - 11 percent) support it.

Optimists are expecting a bloodbath for the GOP in the midterms, but how bad can it really get? A party needs 218 seats to take control of the House. The Cook Political Report rates 185 seats as "solid Republican" and another 17 seats as "likely Republican." Beyond that, 4 seats "lean Republican." There are similar numbers on the Democratic side. Cook regards only 17 seats as true tossups. A wave election could change all this -- but Trumpian election interference might even prevent Democrats from winning the majority that now seems all but inevitable.

Trump won't be able to get legislation through a Democratic House, but he already bypasses Congress for nearly everything he wants to do. He can be investigated by House Democrats, but how often do congressional investigations change anything in America? He could be impeached by a Democratic House, but conviction and removal from office would require a large number of Republican votes -- 16 if the Democratic caucus holds 51 seats (or probably 17 because John Fetterman will vote to acquit).

I keep thinking about this map:

It's G. Elliott Morris's assessment of Trump's state-by-state popularity. (You can see the numbers for individual states by cursoring over the map here.)

Trump has positive ratings in 14 states: Alabama, Arkansas, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming. Based on 2020 census numbers, these states have 12.57% of the U.S. population -- but 28% of the senators (28 out of 100).

Then we have Missouri, Montana, Indiana, and South Carolina, the four states where Trump is underwater by less than 3%. Morris's polls seem to lean somewhat Democratic, so these states may also be pro-Trump. Trump won them easily in all three of his elections. Now we're up to 18.29% of the population -- and 36% of the senators (36 out of 100), enough to block a vote to convict in any impeachment of Trump (or one of his subordinates).

So the Republicans have a built-in advantage in the Senate because the Framers gave two senators to each state, regardless of size. And the House is so gerrymandered that very few House members need to worry about appealing to swing voters.

No wonder Trump doesn't think he needs to care what Democrats or independents think. No wonder he's fine if support for the war equals personal loyalty to him -- most Republicans still love him, so they'll support the war.

Trump doesn't need to explain his motives to his base. All he needs to say is "I, Donald Trump, want to do this," and he can continue doing whatever he wants to do.

TRUMP TURNS A CELEBRATION OF WOMEN INTO A CELEBRATION OF HIMSELF

There's was an event at the White House yesterday that was advertised as a commemoration of Women's History Month -- but this is the administration of Donald Trump, the most narcissistic person who's ever lived, so the event was primarily about him.

A medal was presented -- not to a woman, but by a woman, to the president. The New York Post reports:

Olympic bobsled champion Kaillie Humphries surprised President Trump Thursday by awarding him the Order of Ikkos medal during White House women’s history month event with Melania Trump.

“Every Olympic medalist in the United States gets an Order of Ikkos that they get to hand to somebody in honor and recognition of somebody who’s made a meaningful contribution to their journey to the podium, because Olympic medals are never achieved alone,” Humphries explained.

“I’m so honored to present this, my Order of Ikkos medal, to you, Donald Trump,” she revealed.

The Order of Ikklos is a real thing, but despite the venerable-sounding name, it's of recent vintage. The U.S. Olympic & Paralympic Committee established the Order in 2008. Each U.S. athlete who wins an Olympic medal is allowed to present the Order of Ikklos medal "to a coach, mentor or other individual who has been instrumental in their success. The Order of Ikkos is named after Ikkos of Tarentum, the first recorded Olympic coach in ancient Greece."

Humphreys is an avowed Trump supporter, and as the Post notes, she lavished praised on Trump yesterday, almost as if she were a Cabinet member at one of those cringe-inducing televised meetings in which heads of departments compete to see who can lavish the most praise on the president.

“I want to recognize the support and the impact you’ve had on women’s sports ... specifically standing up to keep biological women in women’s sports, to keep the field of play safe and allow for fair competition,” the three-time Olympic gold medalist said.

Humphries also praised Trump’s policies “creating greater access to IVF, so families like mine can continue to grow.”

I'm comparing this event to those Cabinet meetings because other attendees joined the praise competition.

Heather Kell, a waitress and single mom from Hendersonville, N.C., said she “had to do a double take” when she did her taxes this year, crediting the savings to Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

Nora Pruitt, a married mom of seven, suggested Trump’s efforts to revitalize domestic manufacturing landed her a “career job” at a steel factory in Baltimore, Md., which “totally changed our lives.”

Lexi Chambers, a second generation farmer from Virginia, lauded Trump’s “support of American agriculture,” declaring that it has provided “families like mine the opportunity to ensure that my daughters can farm one day.”

Clay County Sheriff Michelle Cook quipped that her Florida county is “the only place safer than Washington,” before touting the “additional dollars from their hard work” that law enforcement officers are realizing through Trump’s no tax on tipped wages policy.

This was clearly a requirement imposed by the White House if you wanted to be part of the proceedings.

The Independent concedes that in Trump's own remarks, he praised women -- in his fashion:

After declaring “women are the whole deal” and giving shout-outs to his wife Melania Trump and prominent female members of his cabinet, the president paid his own tribute to women in general.

“They are so powerful and so important and so beautiful,” he said. “I'm not allowed to use the word beautiful, but I'm using it anyway. Usually, it's the end of your political career. If you say a woman's a beautiful woman, they say that's the termination of his career.

“But somehow, it hasn't hurt too much. You are incredible women, and you're beautiful women.”

But after that, he talked about himself.

“The situation with Iran is moving along very rapidly. It's doing very well. Our military is unsurpassed,” he said. “There's never been anything like it… they really are a nation of terror and hate, and they're paying a big price right now.” ...

“And the $12 billion in farm relief we issued using tariff revenue, we get $12 billion, we took in tremendous amounts of money. We're taking in money because of the tariffs. And really, jobs are coming in through the roof.”

Also:

Trump is taking credit for the United States being 250 years old.

[image or embed]

— Mark Jacob (@markjacob.bsky.social) March 12, 2026 at 5:37 PM

Melania Trump introduced the president -- and, surprisingly, didn't praise him, apart from saying that "throughout his career [he] has demonstrated a strong commitment to promoting women in leadership roles." But that's because she devoted most of her remarks to praising herself, in words that seem as if they were lifted from her movie's publicity handouts, or maybe a scammy brochure from Trump University:

As a visionary, I know success is not borne over night, but rather, takes shape after a long, and sometimes challenging process. Often alone at the top, I follow my passion, listen to my instinct, and always maintain a laser focus. In solitude my creative mind dances—filling my imagination with originality.

Attention to detail, demanding schedules, and multi-tasking are everyday realities when building towards success. This principle resonates across all my roles: as a mother, humanitarian, philanthropist, and entrepreneur. As well as with my new film, where I shaped its creative direction, served as producer, managed post-production, and activated the marketing campaign.

Curiosity is a core value that keeps me ahead of the curve. Curiosity begets knowledge, opening doors to ideas and industries that I may have otherwise overlooked. This unrestricted mindset has led me to build across very different sectors: fashion, digital assets, publishing, accessories, skincare, commercial television, and of course, filmmaking.

The lessons I learned when launching my earliest ventures, such as how to build a brand, create superior product design, and activate an advertising campaign, remain just as relevant today. Markets evolve, technologies change, but the fundamentals of thoughtful leadership and continuous learning are everlasting.

Melania's introduction to her husband is 367 words in total, of which the majority -- 199 -- are about herself.

The Trumps celebrated women yesterday pretty much the same way they celebrate everything: by never taking their eyes off the mirror.

MY SALES PITCH IS THIS: NOTHING

A new Washington Post poll finds that a (tiny) plurality of respondents now support the war in Iran.

A Post poll shortly after the strikes began found 39 percent supported “President Trump ordering airstrikes against Iran,” while 52 percent opposed them and 9 percent were unsure. The new poll asked generally about the “U.S. military campaign against Iran,” finding 42 percent support it, 40 percent oppose it, and 17 percent are unsure.

The Post acknowledges that question wording might be responsible for the decrease in opposition.

The absence of President Donald Trump in the new poll’s question may have led more people to say they are “unsure,” as views about the president tend to color people’s opinions of his actions and policies.

But there's movement in Trump's direction on a question that's worded identically in the previous and current polls:

Democratic support increased from 4% to 9%, independent support from 16% to 27%, and Republican support from 54% to 66%.

It's just one poll, obviously. But if we start seeing similar results in other polls, it's a sign of how voters are responding to President Trump's war salesmanship -- or lack of it.

The old template for selling a war was what the Bush administration did before invading Iraq: The president and his surrogates warned of a dire threat for months, offered what they said was solid evidence that the threat was real, and whispered to influential reporters that the situation was perilous. As a result, the attack on Iraq initially had broad support, although it obviously declined over time.

Before attacking Iran, Trump did no selling, and he hasn't done a very good sales job since the initial bombing. (According to the new Post poll, only 35% of respondents think Trump has adequately explained the reasons for the war, while 65% don't think he has.) So if this poll is correct, what's happening?

I think Americans are just getting used to the war.

This is Trump's M.O., especially in the second term: just do stuff, never apologize, never explain, never express doubts ... and wait for Americans to realize that it's happening whether they like it or not. Consciously or unconsciously, Trump simply expects everyone to become accustomed to what he's doing. It's a variation on the old saying "It's easier to ask for forgiveness than permission," except that Trump never asks for forgiveness. He just assumes that he can wear everyone down.

This approach isn't unique to Trump. Scott Walker followed it in 2011 shortly after he was sworn in as governor of Wisconsin: He and Republicans in the state legislature rammed through a bill that

ended most collective bargaining rights for public employee labor unions.... The law also made it much more difficult to certify and maintain a public employee union, and made it more difficult for unions to collect dues from members.... The legislation also adjusted the public employee retirement system to shift the burden of contributions more onto employees, adjusted public employee health insurance plans to cap employer contributions, made it easier to fire employees who engaged in work stoppages or strikes, and enabled changes to state Medicaid programs.

There were massive protests at the state capitol. Walker's opponents gathered enough support to subject him to a recall election. But he survived that, and was subsequently reelected. He'd worn down the opposition.

This is not how Democrats usually operate. They fear criticism, and they have trouble getting the cooperation of centrists in their caucus. In 2021 and 2022, for instance, they could have expanded the Supreme Court. They could have given statehood to D.C. and Puerto Rico. Republicans and many centrists would have howled -- but the correct response to criticism would have been just to keep going. Eventually, the public would have shrugged and accepted the changes.

If Democrats ever control the White House and both houses of Congress again, they need to just do stuff. They need to accept the fact that some of it will be met by skepticism and anger. But once it's done, it will no longer seem unthinkable.

WHY DOES NPR SEEM TO BE PROMOTING A POSSIBLE TRUMP ELECTION INTERVENTION?

I woke up to this Bluesky post from NPR:

Nearly half of Americans support the National Guard monitoring November's elections, potentially signaling an openness to the sort of nationalizing of elections that President Trump says he wants. n.pr/3P1Scjw

[image or embed]

— NPR (@npr.org) March 11, 2026 at 7:03 AM

This would be shockingly anti-democratic election interference, but NPR's take appears to be "Hey, it's not so bad -- almost half the country is cool with it." NPR's write-up of the poll notes that interference of this kind would violate the law, yet the tone of the write-up is measured:

Close to half of Americans support the idea of the National Guard at polling places to monitor this November's midterm elections — something that would be illegal if ordered by the federal government — potentially signaling an openness, especially by Republicans, to the sort of nationalizing of elections that President Trump says he wants.

That datapoint comes from a new NPR/PBS News/Marist poll out Wednesday, which found 46% of Americans support the idea, compared to 54% who say they oppose it.

(The Brennan Center has more on the illegality of sending troops to the polls here.)

NPR mentions an "openness, especially by Republicans" to a military intervention in elections because, as in so many recent polls, Democrats and independents are on one side and Republicans are on the other.

But how did this idea get a positive response from double-digit percentages of Democrats and independents? I'm sure it happened in part because the question in the poll didn't mention Trump. Here's the wording:

How much do you support or oppose having the National Guard at voting locations to monitor November's election?

There's no reference to Trump -- the only person who wants to do this. It's quite possible that at least some respondents, especially some of the 25% of Democrats who think it could be a good idea, are imagining that state or local officials might decide to deploy the Guard for benign reasons.

I assume that if Trump's name had appeared in the question, the favorable numbers among Democrats and independents would have been much lower. Trump's overall job approval in this poll is a woeful 38%, with 57% disapproval; he's at 5% approval among Democrats and 34% approval among independents, and strong disapproval is at 50% overall. And in a midterm election that will be a referendum on the president, Democrats lead by a whopping 9 points, 53% to 44%, on the generic-ballot question.

It's as if NPR, PBS, and Marist felt it would be biased to mention Trump in a question about an intervention that will happen only if he orders it. NPR's poll write-up bends over backwards to imagine other scenarios in which the Guard might be deployed:

The finding is complicated by the fact that the National Guard can legally be used to support elections in many capacities when ordered by state governors.

And many Americans may be more open to military protection for elections now that the U.S. is at war with Iran, said Florida State University professor Michael Morley, an expert in election law.

"I think the conflict with Iran and recent terrorist bombing attempt in New York may influence public opinion on this issue, especially over the next few weeks," Morley said in an email to NPR. "Most of the time having the National Guard at polling places would be seen as unnecessary. But I think most average Americans may be far more worried about the possibility of a terrorist attack than they are about the National Guard."

It's as if NPR is trying to help Trump sell this idea by suggesting a pretext for why it might be done.

The benign interpretation of this is that it's the mainstream media's usual "view from nowhere" perspective: We can't describe the world of politics as it actually is because that would seem biased against Republicans, so we'll imagine a world in which all the parties are reasonable and everyone is proceeding in good faith. The less benign view is that NPR is preparing us psychologically for an illegal intervention by attempting to normalize it.

Another possible reason that the pro-Guard numbers are high might be the fact that, in the poll, this question follows several other questions on election integrity:

* How confident are you that your state or local government will run a fair and accurate election this November?

* How much confidence do you have that ballots cast in the election will be counted accurately?

* From this list, what is the biggest threat to keeping our elections safe and accurate? Voter fraud. Misleading information. Voter suppression. Foreign interference. Problems at your polling place such as long lines or broken machines.

* Which concerns you more: Making sure that everyone who wants to vote can do so. Making sure that no one else votes who is not eligible to vote.

* How likely, if at all, do you think it is that during November’s elections many people will show up to vote and be told they are not eligible?

* How likely, if at all, do you think it is that during November’s elections there will be voter fraud, that is, people who are not eligible to vote will vote, or vote more than once?

After all that fear is stirred up, no wonder nearly half of poll respondents think the Guard might be a good idea.

You can almost see the suspicion creep in as the poll progresses. In answer to the first question, 66% of respondents say they're confident that their state or local government will run a fair and accurate election this November. Then 63% say they're confident that the ballots will be counted accurately. Then comes the fear, seemingly induced by poll questions suggesting that surely something will be hinky.

33% of adults think the biggest threat to safe and secure elections is voter fraud. 26% say misleading information is the biggest threat followed by voter suppression (24%), foreign interference (8%), and problems at their polling place (7%)....

Democrats (41%) are most concerned with voter suppression while Republicans think the biggest threat to above board elections is voter fraud (57%). A plurality of independents (32%) mention misleading information followed by voter fraud (28%) and voter suppression (23%).

I can't blame the poll for the fact that 33% of respondents think voter fraud is the biggest worry in elections. (That includes 57% of Republicans, 15% of Democrats, and 28% of independents.) Nearly every mainstream news story about Republican claims of massive voter fraud say that fraud is not "widespread" -- a word that doesn't convey how extraordinarily rare it is. I can't blame most Americans for believing that it happens at least a fair amount, just not all the time.

I'd like to see some polling on elections that reflects the world we actually live in. For instance: What percentage of elections won by Democrats do Republicans think are legitimate -- and vice versa? (I know there are Democratic 2024 election truthers -- I'm not one of them -- but I think many, if not most, Republicans believe that every Democratic win is fraudulent.) What percentage of each party's votes do poll respondents believe are illegitimate? (The real answer is a fraction of a percent.) But that's not what we have here.

IT'S TIME TO PLAY RIGHT-WING RUMPLESTILTSKIN AGAIN

Jake Lang, a pardoned January 6 insurrectionist who threatened to burn a Qur'an in Minneapolis earlier this year, tried to stir up trouble on Saturday at Gracie Mansion in Manhattan, where the mayor of New York lives. His intent was to stage another anti-Islam demonstration -- he brought a roast pig, a live goat (with which he feigned copulation after a similar provocation a day earlier), and a couple dozen ideological soul mates.

I was there, hoping for a peaceful counterprotest, but things looked ugly -- as in Minneapolis, Lang and his crew were outnumbered by young anti-fascists who wanted to rough him up. The scrum seemed like a bad place for your elderly correspondent, and I left.

Then a bomb was thrown.

A device thrown outside Gracie Mansion on Saturday during dueling protests in New York City was confirmed to be an improvised explosive device, according to police.

Two men, described by police as an 18-year-old and a 19-year-old, were taken into custody after at least one of two devices was ignited....

Police Commissioner Jessica Tisch described the devices Saturday as being smaller than a football and said they appeared to be jars wrapped in black tape with nuts, bolts, screws and a hobby fuse....

A test of the explosive compound found in a container thrown by one of the men has preliminarily come back as triacetone triperoxide, or TATP, a notoriously volatile and dangerous type of homemade explosive....

The two men arrested said they were inspired by ISIS, as the police commissioner noted.

“The defendants were inspired by ISIS to carry out their attack,” NYPD Commissioner Jessica Tisch said Monday during a briefing outlining the five-count federal indictment against Emir Balat and Ibrahim Kayumi. “There should be no confusion about what ISIS constitutes. It is a designated foreign terrorist organization responsible for deadly terrorist attacks across the globe, and has taken credit for mass casualty attacks in Europe, the Middle East and right here in the United States.”

But the right-wing language police told us they were outraged by what the mayor said, or didn't say. The New York Post reported:

Mayor Zohran Mamdani on Monday repeatedly refused to condemn the pair of alleged bomb throwers as ISIS-loving radical Islamists....

Really? What did he say, or fail to say?

“They are suspected of coming here to commit an act of terrorism,” Hizzoner said during a press conference outside Grace Mansion....

Yeah? What else?

On Sunday, Mamdani issued a mealy-mouthed statement denouncing the organizer of a right-wing anti-Muslim rally — but not directly commenting on the alleged bomb tossers.

“Yesterday, white supremacist Jake Lang organized a protest outside Gracie Mansion rooted in bigotry and racism. Such hate has no place in New York City. It is an affront to our city’s values and the unity that defines who we are,” the statement said.

“What followed was even more disturbing. Violence at a protest is never acceptable. The attempt to use an explosive device and hurt others is not only criminal, it is reprehensible and the antithesis of who we are.”

"Criminal" and "reprehensible" seem like negative words to me. What else?

He again stopped short of condemning radical Islam in a statement following the unsealing of the criminal complaint.

“Emir Balat and Ibrahim Kayumi have been charged with committing a heinous act of terrorism and proclaiming their allegiance to ISIS,” he said in a statement. “They should be held fully accountable for their actions.”

Saying that they were inspired by ISIS and committed "a heinous act of terrorism" isn't enough? I guess not. Mamdani didn't say the secret phrase -- "radical Islam"!

In the past, I've called this "wingnut Rumplestiltskin." Steve Benen has invoked "Beetlejuice." The Republican argument is that Democrats have to utter a particular phrase or the terrorists have won. The phrase keeps changing, but it usually includes some form of the word "Islam" or "Muslim."

So at the 2008 Republican convention, Rudy Giuliani attacked Democrats because they refrained from using the phrase "Islamic terrorism." In 2010, after a failed terror bombing in Times Square, The Weekly Standard chided President Obama for, among other things, refusing to use the phrase "Islamic extremism." In 2013, after the Boston Marathon bombing, Charles Krauthammer wagged a finger at Obama for refusing to use the words "jihadist" and "Islamicist." In 2015, after the Charlie Hebdo bombing in Paris, Ralph Peters of Fox News said that Obama's response was inadequate "because it has to say 'Islamist terror,'" adding, "This administration is just soft on radical Islam."

And then, after the November 2015 terrorist attacks in Paris, Marco Rubio said, "What we're involved in now is a civilizational conflict with radical Islam." Shortly afterward, in a presidential debate, Hillary Clinton refrained from using the phrase "radical Islam," but said this:

We need to have a resolve that will bring the world together, to root out the kind of radical, jihadist ideology that motivates organizations like ISIS, a barbaric, ruthless, violent, jihadist, terrorist group.

Rubio went on to criticize that statement as not strong enough.

There was a reason that Obama and Clinton, his first secretary of state, avoided the words Republicans demanded that they use. After Obama left office, Richard Stengel, who worked in his administration, explained:

To defeat radical Islamic extremism, we needed our Islamic allies — the Jordanians, the Emiratis, the Egyptians, the Saudis — and they believed that term unfairly vilified a whole religion.

They also told us that they did not consider the Islamic State to be Islamic, and its grotesque violence against Muslims proved it. We took a lot of care to describe the Islamic State as a terrorist group that acted in the name of Islam. Sure, behind the scenes, our allies understood better than anyone that the Islamic State was a radical perversion of Islam, that it held a dark appeal to a minority of Sunni Muslims, but it didn’t help to call them radical Islamic terrorists.

Obama ordered the assassination of Osama bin Laden. Obama began the process of weakening ISIS that continued in the first Donald Trump presidency. Obama didn't shrink from fighting the violence represented by those words.

Similarly, Mamdani has denounced Saturday's failed bomb attack, and his police force arrested the perpetrators. But for Republicans, deeds are irrelevant. Mamdani and all other Democrats are supposed to use words that make Muslims seem evil. If they refuse to do so, Republicans say, they clearly love evil.

NO, ISRAEL HASN'T LOST THE UNITED STATES

New York magazine's Ross Barkan writes:

Years from now, February 28, 2026, might be remembered as the day Israel finally lost the American public.

The Iran war, launched by the U.S. on that date and executed in direct coordination with Israel, is predictably a catastrophe....

It's not going well, but the usual 40 or so percent of Americans support the war, as they support everything Donald Trump does. In a recent NPR poll, the public opposes the war, but only by a 56%-44% margin, with 84% of Republicans in favor.

Barkan writes that Americans believe the U.S. is "fighting Israel’s war" in Iran, and they're not happy about that:

The fiercest supporters of Israel in the United States do not quite understand that there is no going back. Gavin Newsom, California’s governor and a 2028 presidential front-runner, now calls Israel an “apartheid” state. A few years ago, this would have been unfathomable — a mainstream Democrat who spoke like this would have been ridiculed and censured, driven to the margins of the party.

That's a sign that the Overton window is moving, but Newsom isn't rejecting Israel outright. He's trying to thread the needle.

Gavin Newsom to Ben Shapiro, January 15, 2026:

"I don't share that opinion as it relates to genocide [in Gaza]. I do not agree with that notion. I'm also crystal clear on my love for Israel." https://t.co/RiblgJdiVO pic.twitter.com/Sup5z2eMcn

— lindsay 🙈🏳️‍🌈 (@virtueemoir29) March 4, 2026

Barkan argues that Israel is losing America because anti-Israel critics on the left -- including mainstream liberals -- are being joined by anti-Israel critics (and anti-Semites) on the right:

We are in a new era, and it’s going to be a permanent one: Poll after poll shows that Americans under 40 take a startlingly dim view of Israel.

For a while, Israel hawks could dismiss these polls because they showed only the left-wing youth turning on the Jewish State. They were the radicals who could be, perhaps, nudged off the political stage. Now young people on the right, the MAGA youth, are coming to a similar place, if for different reasons: They view the special relationship between the two countries as a violation of America First. Some of this might be antisemitism; some of it, though, is genuine skepticism of an arrangement that doesn’t make sense to most Americans.

On the right, I think a lot of it is anti-Semitism -- maybe all of it. There's anti-Semitism on the left, but I think it's the dominant reason for Israel skepticism on the right.

But I don't agree that the U.S. and Israel are headed for a divorce, for two reasons: (1) the prominence of Bible-bashers in the GOP and (2) Cleek's Law.

Barkan writes:

The Iran war could be what decisively breaks the United States from Israel. Not yet — certainly not now, with Trump in the White House. But there will be presidents after Trump. A future Democrat will have no incentive to cater to the whims of a warmongering Israel. A Republican not explicitly bound to pro-Israel, right-wing Evangelicals might not care a great deal about Israel, either. Why should he?

Working backward: Does Barkan seriously believe there can be a leader of the GOP who's "not explicitly bound to pro-Israel, right-wing Evangelicals"? I'm reminded of a statistic cited by David French, a product of the Christian right who's become disaffected with the movement:

I’ve shared this statistic before, but if you look at 2024 exit polling, you’ll see that Trump won white evangelical and born-again voters by a 65-point margin, 82 percent to 17 percent. He lost everyone else by 18 points, 58 percent to 40 percent.

There is no GOP without these people. They're not going away. Even a guy like J.D. Vance, who's clearly unfazed by right-wing anti-Semitism, will have to stay on their good side if he wants to be the next president.

But the main reason the GOP won't turn against Israel is Cleek's Law:

Today’s conservatism is the opposite of what liberals want today, updated daily.

Despite the anti-Israel remarks of thought leaders like Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens, and Nick Fuentes, and despite the increasing anti-Semitism among young rightists, the GOP will continue to back Israel because Democrats will increasingly reject Israel. Whatever we hate is what Republicans want.

It's an easy fit, of course: Prime Minister for Life Benjamin Netanyahu doles out cruelty to Muslims, whom even the vilest anti-Semites hate more than they hate Jews. (Hatred of Muslims is all but universal on the right.) If you agreed with Adam Serwer that "the cruelty is the point" of GOP policy in most areas, then it's easy to recognize that Israeli policy toward the Palestinians is cruel in a way that's extraordinarily satisfying to the U.S. right. And I agree with Barkan that "even if a more moderate politician replaces Netanyahu, religious zealots and anti-Arab fanatics will continue to hold sway" in Israel -- to the delight of Rpublican voters in America.

Republicans were generally pro-war from roughly the Nixon years through sometime in the Obama presidency, because they thought the Democratic Party was full of peaceniks. Donald Trump was able to sell skepticism about war to the GOP largely because Barack Obama killed Osama bin Laden and deployed drones against Islamicists. Joe Biden finished the job of withdrawing troops from Afghanistan, and was criticized for the execution of that withdrawal, which gave Trump an opening to be a neocon again. It's always Cleek's Law.

So Republicans won't turn against Israel unless Democrats rush to its defense. They'll attack any Democrat who questions Israel's goodness, even if they're extending a welcome to anti-Semites themselves. All of this will prevent a thorough rethinking of U.S. policy toward Israel.