I am a veteran and later worked for the Department of Defense for more than 30 years. A large part of the military comes directly from Trump’s base. I never ceased to be astounded by the fact that these folks do not draw a line between foreign wars and the chance that their kids and nieces and nephews and grandchildren are more likely to die or be permanently physically or mentally damaged if Trump starts another dangerous and totally unnecessary war.
In his first term, Trump tried to bluff his way to cheap victories with threats (North Korea, 2017; Iran, 2019). This term, he has moved to making quick strikes from a distance, then declaring victory and moving on. That's still different from the invasions and drawn-out quagmires of the G W Bush administration.
DD: You covered almost everything I was inclined to add, so two thumbs up to you.
As the military likes to say in active voice (not the usual preference in bureaucracies, I think), foreign invasions can and probably will "attrit" his base, but it's no surprise that a majority of MAGA is on board. After all, they're on board with invading cities in the U.S.
Insightful take on how foreign policy gets filtered through the economic lens. Ruffini's dismissal of the 'podcast bros' backlash feels spot on when looking at actual voting patterns. My neighbors barely followed the Venezuela thing but they definately noticed grocery prices haven't dropped. That gap between elite foreign policy debates and kitchen table economics is what keeps MAGA intact despite contradictions.
Americans don't much care about military adventures in foreign countries - at least until: 1) the fiscal cost of supporting these adventures becomes apparent, and 2) enough American soldiers have been brought home, either on stretchers or in body bags. Until the fiscal and personal pain reaches a tipping point, patriotic fervor will typically remain strong.
Even MTG has figured out that she can criticize Trump for caring more about being a world leader than working for the people who voted for him and she may give a "MAGA-beyond-MAGA" out to some of these folks
I think military force carries a much heavier political cost when American soldiers die. We avoided casualties in Iran and Venezuela, but had luck gone the other way (if we had lost a helicopter in Venezuela or faced a major Iranian counter-attack), the political consequences would have been tangible and the question I have is in that moment does MAGA rally around the flag or rip itself apart. I also wonder if our regime of "lethal kinetic bros" in the Pentagon could survive a defeat or military setback.
polls tell you what people say, not what they do. they always tell pollsters the most important issue is economics, but they do not always vote for a candidate based on that; certainly not in the now solildy red states, and an argument is made they didn't in 2024 either, as inflation was not that high, reagan had 13 percent inflation and suffered no losses from it, and everyone already knew trump was an economic train wreck. some, like egberto willies, argue that the economy was actually good enough people took a chance on trump despite his rather poor record. why? that should be obvious.....in addition, trump's own team, along with the likes of rick wilson, hold that the trans ads turned the election. especially in the hispanic community. another argument is gaza; some are still citing this as the cause of harris' loss; the figures here would suggest otherwise.
many if not most of them are shocked. i spoke to a honduran guy the other day who voted for trump and he was disgusted; said he didn't know about the rape and felonies. jeebus.
And importantly, Trump is not on the ballot in 2028 as well (at least, for now).
Ultimately, unless the US gets dragged into a major conflict (or starts one itself...), the average American voter isn't going to remember the past month of foreign policy in November, let alone in November 2028.
Trump's foreign policy has been brilliant so far. Without invading any country or losing a single soldier, peace is breaking out all over the world. His brilliant team has ended 8 wars, a brutal dictator in Venezuela has been deposed, Columbia's automatic leader's rule appears to be coming to an end, for the first time in 75 years communism may end in Cuba, an agreement between Russia and Ukraine is likely, and most important of all the powder keg in the Middle East led by the world's biggest sponsor of terrorism in the world will be neutered. Trump deserves his own Mount Rushmore.
First: a word I haven’t seen in a long time: Shah.
Second: all articles about the midterms should carry a footnote about Trump’s intent to takeover the election process. He’s not at all subtle about this. I seem to remember Stalin said something about what’s important in elections is who counts the votes.
Third: is it useless to note there was a nuclear deal with Iran? It was Trump who walked away from it, rather than re-negotiate the existing agreement.
Off-topic, but while I’m typing here: kudos to the Democratic tacticians who engineered the Clintons’ resistance & collapse before the all-powerful Chairman Comer.
I am a veteran and later worked for the Department of Defense for more than 30 years. A large part of the military comes directly from Trump’s base. I never ceased to be astounded by the fact that these folks do not draw a line between foreign wars and the chance that their kids and nieces and nephews and grandchildren are more likely to die or be permanently physically or mentally damaged if Trump starts another dangerous and totally unnecessary war.
In his first term, Trump tried to bluff his way to cheap victories with threats (North Korea, 2017; Iran, 2019). This term, he has moved to making quick strikes from a distance, then declaring victory and moving on. That's still different from the invasions and drawn-out quagmires of the G W Bush administration.
Exactly. MAGA doesn’t want boots on the ground wars. Bombing stuff is fine, though.
Heck, ICE isn't fracturing the base, to the surprise of some who thought they were a part of the base:
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/2026/02/ammon-bundy-trump-ice/685849/
I’m noticing that too.
DD: You covered almost everything I was inclined to add, so two thumbs up to you.
As the military likes to say in active voice (not the usual preference in bureaucracies, I think), foreign invasions can and probably will "attrit" his base, but it's no surprise that a majority of MAGA is on board. After all, they're on board with invading cities in the U.S.
Invading US cities is cool with MAGA as the targets are Democrats.
Insightful take on how foreign policy gets filtered through the economic lens. Ruffini's dismissal of the 'podcast bros' backlash feels spot on when looking at actual voting patterns. My neighbors barely followed the Venezuela thing but they definately noticed grocery prices haven't dropped. That gap between elite foreign policy debates and kitchen table economics is what keeps MAGA intact despite contradictions.
Americans don't much care about military adventures in foreign countries - at least until: 1) the fiscal cost of supporting these adventures becomes apparent, and 2) enough American soldiers have been brought home, either on stretchers or in body bags. Until the fiscal and personal pain reaches a tipping point, patriotic fervor will typically remain strong.
I would like to know who got the most out of the misadventures in Iraq and Afghanistan. What did Joe and Jill Sixpack get?
Americans want boom boom and then the victory parades.
Joe and Jill Sixpack got tactical vests, special op beards, and really cool looking guns as fashion items.
Even MTG has figured out that she can criticize Trump for caring more about being a world leader than working for the people who voted for him and she may give a "MAGA-beyond-MAGA" out to some of these folks
I think military force carries a much heavier political cost when American soldiers die. We avoided casualties in Iran and Venezuela, but had luck gone the other way (if we had lost a helicopter in Venezuela or faced a major Iranian counter-attack), the political consequences would have been tangible and the question I have is in that moment does MAGA rally around the flag or rip itself apart. I also wonder if our regime of "lethal kinetic bros" in the Pentagon could survive a defeat or military setback.
America: the nation most undeserving of international leadership. Good thing it's coming at an end.
polls tell you what people say, not what they do. they always tell pollsters the most important issue is economics, but they do not always vote for a candidate based on that; certainly not in the now solildy red states, and an argument is made they didn't in 2024 either, as inflation was not that high, reagan had 13 percent inflation and suffered no losses from it, and everyone already knew trump was an economic train wreck. some, like egberto willies, argue that the economy was actually good enough people took a chance on trump despite his rather poor record. why? that should be obvious.....in addition, trump's own team, along with the likes of rick wilson, hold that the trans ads turned the election. especially in the hispanic community. another argument is gaza; some are still citing this as the cause of harris' loss; the figures here would suggest otherwise.
Yes, the trans ads were somewhat effective but apparently some of the Hispanics they attracted are put off by the ICE excesses.
many if not most of them are shocked. i spoke to a honduran guy the other day who voted for trump and he was disgusted; said he didn't know about the rape and felonies. jeebus.
And importantly, Trump is not on the ballot in 2028 as well (at least, for now).
Ultimately, unless the US gets dragged into a major conflict (or starts one itself...), the average American voter isn't going to remember the past month of foreign policy in November, let alone in November 2028.
But.... Afghanistan and Biden? We're supposed to believe that that one did stick?
Trump's foreign policy has been brilliant so far. Without invading any country or losing a single soldier, peace is breaking out all over the world. His brilliant team has ended 8 wars, a brutal dictator in Venezuela has been deposed, Columbia's automatic leader's rule appears to be coming to an end, for the first time in 75 years communism may end in Cuba, an agreement between Russia and Ukraine is likely, and most important of all the powder keg in the Middle East led by the world's biggest sponsor of terrorism in the world will be neutered. Trump deserves his own Mount Rushmore.
First: a word I haven’t seen in a long time: Shah.
Second: all articles about the midterms should carry a footnote about Trump’s intent to takeover the election process. He’s not at all subtle about this. I seem to remember Stalin said something about what’s important in elections is who counts the votes.
Third: is it useless to note there was a nuclear deal with Iran? It was Trump who walked away from it, rather than re-negotiate the existing agreement.
Off-topic, but while I’m typing here: kudos to the Democratic tacticians who engineered the Clintons’ resistance & collapse before the all-powerful Chairman Comer.