Some might insist the media has been wrong time and time again, there’s no risk of a permanent break happening now. To me at least, that is a misguided perspective. Because something hasn’t happened, does not mean it will not happen.
While some prefer to cling to nonsensical polls insisting 100% of President Donald Trump’s MAGA movement backs the war in Iran, reality tells a different story. There should be no doubt that a segment of conservative media personalities and influencers have been skeptical if not outright opposed to the effort including Megyn Kelly, Mike Cernovich, Matt Walsh, and others. Beyond these prominent individuals, most of us probably know someone personally, a family member, friend, acquaintance, or colleague that feels the same, or at least I certainly do. There is equally little doubt that the mainstream media is more than happy to play upon these potential divisions, and has been eager to see the movement shattered since President Trump first won against Hillary Clinton in 2016. To them, MAGA is always on the verge of cracking up, the same way the walls are always closing in and everything the President does is a disaster waiting to happen. Some might insist that since it hasn’t shattered so far and the media has been wrong time and time again, there’s no risk of it happening permanently now. To me at least, that is a misguided perspective. Because something hasn’t happened, does not mean it will not happen however much we might wish. As Hamlet had it, if not now, it will be at some point. Though we might disagree with our fellow Trump supporters on the issue of Iran, there should be no doubt that their feelings about the war and their overall concerns about the direction of the second administration are real, important, and not to be easily dismissed. As the conservative commentator and war supporter Kurt Schlichter is fond of pointing out, the President has built a diverse coalition of different blocks of voters with different interests and different perspectives that was never going to agree on everything. This diversity is both a strength and a weakness, especially when the majority of Trump supporters disagree with a minority, as I believe is this case in this conflict, and there is a risk that the majority attempts to run roughshod over the minority, refusing to even acknowledge their concerns. If that occurs on a regular basis, the minority will likely decide it’s time to look elsewhere, permanently shattering the coalition before the next election and ultimately dooming the entire agenda. For obvious reasons, anyone who supported President Trump in the first place should do everything possible to make sure that doesn’t happen.
To me at least, this process begins by understanding what about the war in Iran prompts some Trump supporters to oppose the effort. Why is this issue so important to them, seemingly above most others even as it happens thousands of miles away and the impact on their own lives so far is essentially a rise in gas prices to a level they were just a few years ago? While I cannot look inside their heads to know for certain, from what I can glean based on their public statements, there appear to be two key underlying factors leading them to a potential “break up” with the President. First, there is the belief that President Trump is somehow beholden to Israel at worst, or allows Israel to dictate too much of our foreign policy at best. In their view, the President ran on America First, but in terms of foreign policy, he is Israel First. The New York Times, of all places, advanced this narrative, writing on March 2, that “Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel walked into the Oval Office on the morning of Feb. 11, determined to keep the American president on the path to war. For weeks, the United States and Israel had been secretly discussing a military offensive against Iran. But Trump administration officials had recently begun negotiating with the Iranians over the future of their nuclear program, and the Israeli leader wanted to make sure that the new diplomatic effort did not undermine the plans. Over nearly three hours, the two leaders discussed the prospects of war and even possible dates for an attack, as well as the possibility — however unlikely — that President Trump might be able to reach a deal with Iran.” From there, they noted that “days later” the President seemed skeptical of the prospect that negotiations would work and “two weeks later” we went to war. In their view, the “move toward war grew inexorably, fueled by allies like Mr. Netanyahu who pushed the president to strike a decisive blow against Iran’s theocratic government; and by Mr. Trump’s own confidence after the successful U.S. operation that toppled the Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro in January.”
At the same time, the Times proceeded to undercut their own narrative later in the same story when they acknowledged that before we went to war, there were a series of negotiations between the US and Iran that proved fruitless. About a month before the conflict officially began on February 28, “it became clear over the past month that there was never the space for a deal that could satisfy Mr. Trump, Mr. Netanyahu and Iranian leaders at once — or one that could put off a war more than a few months. The talks delivered nothing.” “Toward the end of the negotiation, I realized that these guys weren’t going to get there,” the President told the Times itself. “I said, ‘Let’s just do it.’” Later, they managed to add even more support to the counternarrative by noting that President Trump issued a series of redlines to Iran over their execution of thousands of protesters in January, threatening military action if they continued. “In the middle of January, when Mr. Trump first threatened to strike Iran in support of the anti-government protests roiling the country, the Pentagon was in no position to wage a lengthy war in the Middle East…By late January, the protests in Iran had been brutally quashed, but the war planning hummed along.” To me at least, this is an awkward if not bizarre way to phrase it. There is the implicit assumption that because we were unable to act before the protests were “brutally quashed,” we were required to not act afterwards. Especially as the Times further acknowledged that negotiations were ongoing throughout February, “Mr. Witkoff and Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law, were having indirect nuclear talks with the Iranians, under orders from Mr. Trump,” the more likely explanation is that the Administration was attempting to pursue every option to resolve both the long-standing nuclear issue and the treatment of protesters through diplomatic means, and only after these means had failed did he decide to go to war.
From this perspective, it is hard to see how this decision being inline with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s desire is relevant considering that the Times itself acknowledged he began discussing the campaign “during the Mar-a-Lago meeting in December.” If the military build up did not begin until after Iran crossed the President’s red line on protesters a month later, why would we assume that he was pushed into it in December rather than the simpler fact that negotiations proved fruitless despite our best efforts? Of course, it’s also worth noting that President Trump has been speaking about the importance of confronting Iran as early as the 1980s, but sadly this is likely a disagreement that cannot be resolved either way. Beliefs on either side can be hard to shake, and even as I disagree, I can certainly understand the idea that the alliance between the US and Israel can at times place us in an awkward position. Fortunately, I tend to believe this issue resolves itself if President Trump is successful in his pursuit of a favorable cease fire and ultimate peace deal, as I think seems likely based on his own statement and recent reports. Between the uneasy peace in Gaza, Hamas and Hezbollah being routed, and a potential deal with Iran, there aren’t all that many remaining challenges in the Middle East that would require us to back an Israeli effort, or at least that’s the hope.
The second divide is related but distinct from the first, and its roots go back further than the start of the Iran conflict. There is a more general sense among those who have soured on the President that he’s spent too much time dealing with challenges abroad than at home. From this perspective, America First does not mean the pursuit of American interests around the world, but rather a sharper focus on American interests within our own borders. While, personally, I might not find it unusual that Presidents frequently focus on international affairs because they have broad powers largely unconstrained by Congress and a huge ability to influence events on their own, they do. As a result, they see the support for last year’s Twelve Day War, the initial strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities, the peace deal in Gaza, the unprecedented action in Venezuela, the current war, and more as time and energy that if not entirely wasted, could’ve been better spent on improving the lives of American citizens. In other words, they do not see these things as important achievements in the way I do or the way I believe most Trump supporters do. They see them instead as distractions and diversions from other priorities such as border enforcement, deportations, fighting inflation, increasing wages, and more. Therefore, arguments that peace, however, uneasy with Iran will benefit us in the long term are not likely to be persuasive, nor are those that relate to a commitment to our allies in the Middle East beyond Israel, countries like Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates that support our efforts. Sadly, this is another area where persuasion has its limits. While objectively, these supporters might understand that the border is secure, deportations and self deportations have continued, DEI and other progressive government priorities have been uprooted, the Big Beautiful bill contained important tax provisions for the middle class leading to larger tax returns to those who need it most this year, they still think the President can and should do more, and are not likely to be convinced otherwise.
Fortunately, this challenge should be within President Trump and his colleagues in the Republican Party’s ability to address. Assuming the war ends soon, a sharp pivot to the economy and matters closer to home is imperative, and not just for MAGA. The President’s approval rating on the economy, immigration, and other domestic issues has steadily declined since he retook office, reaching some of the lowest levels ever recorded, and is approaching the danger zone according to some polls. Pretending that’s not an issue because you believe his policies are working and will continue to work as I do isn’t a strategy. It’s ignoring the problem and the concerns of the voters, which as everyone knows by now didn’t work out well for President Joe Biden or any political movement I’m aware of for that matter. Every Trump supporter, even those that might be distanced from him right now, should have vested interest in altering this trajectory as fast as possible, especially as it should be within our power to do so. While the hour is late, all is not lost. A little effort, a little luck, and yes a little success can go a long way in a short time. Disenchanted voters can be brought back into the fold, and the movement can continue especially when most of the voters in question have no other ready political home, or as one of my friends puts it, Trump is still a million times better than the alternative – if we’re smart about it.
Confessions of a Conservative Atheist 