The defense secretary has floated a White House run with close friends and associates, two people said. And Hegseth sparked speculation with an event in Iowa this month.
You can’t win with just that one type of guy, is what I’m saying. There’s the macho nationalist type of guy on the right, absolutely, but there’s also the libertarian type that’s generally “anti-war” on the basis that war is the government doing stuff and the government doing stuff is always bad.
In 2000, Bush ran as being more isolationist than Gore and staying out of foreign conflicts (after the failure in Vietnam, nobody wanted to be associated with that), then as soon as he got ahold of power started and lost pointless wars of aggression. So then Bush became unpopular on the right and Trump ran as an “anti-establishment” type (after the failure in Afghanistan, nobody wanted to be associated with that) claiming to be a “peace” candidate, and he won, and as soon as he got access to the levers of power he started bombing Syria but nobody really noticed or cared for some reason so then he just repeated the same lies and got into power again and immediately went and bombed Iran, and going forward nobody’s gonna want to be associated with that.
There’s plenty of figures that are positioning themselves to step into that role next, like MTG, Tucker Carlson, and Tulsi Gabbard. The sorts of people who bought into Trump being a peace candidate are dumb as rocks and lack basic pattern recognition so they will absolutely just keep falling for the same trick over and over again. But they do need to be tricked and lied to for the right to have a winning coalition.
It is kinda exciting on some level, like, say Tucker Carlson got his hands on the levers of power, he’d obviously start another war of aggression somewhere, but who really knows where it’d be? And when that war proves to be a hopeless debacle, who will be the one on the right to say that, unlike Tucker who just loves getting into pointless destructive conflicts (who could’ve predicted it?), they actually… you know what, I can’t do this, it’s not exciting, it’s literally just rebooting the same plotline over and over, and I’m gonna be forced to watch it until I’m dead in the ground.
Point being, my prediction is that the Republican nominee will either be someone who has some pretense of being able to distance themself from the Iran War, or they will lose.
You can’t win with just that one type of guy, is what I’m saying. There’s the macho nationalist type of guy on the right, absolutely, but there’s also the libertarian type that’s generally “anti-war” on the basis that war is the government doing stuff and the government doing stuff is always bad.
In 2000, Bush ran as being more isolationist than Gore and staying out of foreign conflicts (after the failure in Vietnam, nobody wanted to be associated with that), then as soon as he got ahold of power started and lost pointless wars of aggression. So then Bush became unpopular on the right and Trump ran as an “anti-establishment” type (after the failure in Afghanistan, nobody wanted to be associated with that) claiming to be a “peace” candidate, and he won, and as soon as he got access to the levers of power he started bombing Syria but nobody really noticed or cared for some reason so then he just repeated the same lies and got into power again and immediately went and bombed Iran, and going forward nobody’s gonna want to be associated with that.
There’s plenty of figures that are positioning themselves to step into that role next, like MTG, Tucker Carlson, and Tulsi Gabbard. The sorts of people who bought into Trump being a peace candidate are dumb as rocks and lack basic pattern recognition so they will absolutely just keep falling for the same trick over and over again. But they do need to be tricked and lied to for the right to have a winning coalition.
It is kinda exciting on some level, like, say Tucker Carlson got his hands on the levers of power, he’d obviously start another war of aggression somewhere, but who really knows where it’d be? And when that war proves to be a hopeless debacle, who will be the one on the right to say that, unlike Tucker who just loves getting into pointless destructive conflicts (who could’ve predicted it?), they actually… you know what, I can’t do this, it’s not exciting, it’s literally just rebooting the same plotline over and over, and I’m gonna be forced to watch it until I’m dead in the ground.
Point being, my prediction is that the Republican nominee will either be someone who has some pretense of being able to distance themself from the Iran War, or they will lose.
Thanks for taking the time. It’s a good read and very informative.
I think you’re right but will have more confidence when I see the result of the midterm.
I want to see how many Trump endorsed republicans will win vs Regular republicans.
You’re words make lot of sense but the world we’re living in right now doesn’t so I guess will wait and see.