I liked Best Picture winner “One Battle After Another,” though it probably would have been better if it had lost an hour of run time in the editing room. So I was surprised to find out how many progressives didn’t like it that the movie’s leftist characters are deeply flawed screw-ups. Or that it didn’t seem “realistic.” 

I don’t want to be mean here, but the movie is overtly satirical. It’s not trying to be a realistic portrayal of left-wing activism, which has indeed avoided pretty much any terrorist activity since the dark days of the 1970s, which is when the book takes place. But it bugs me that so many people need fictional characters to be perfect or heroic in order to find them sympathetic. I liked it that the movie’s message is you don’t need to be perfect to be a hero. Bitter and angry as the film is in some ways, I found that theme humane and inspiring. 

“Sinners” was also good! I totally reject any narrative that holds you have to hate one to like the other.

Since there’s no way for Donald Trump to “win” the Iran war, the only real question is when he falsely declares victory and pulls out, leaving nothing but disaster in his wake? Optimists cite the TACO principle (“Trump Always Chickens Out”), pointing at the president’s sociopathic impulsiveness to suggest that he won’t hang in there much longer, especially if the stock market seriously starts to tank and gas prices keep going up. Pessimists, however, will say that Trump is living in an information bubble where he’s being told that the public actually loves the war — or can be convinced to love it. 

I tend toward the pessimistic side, and I don’t make too much of Trump’s insistence that the war is likely to be over soon. He’ll say that, and in almost the same breath, will suggest it’s gonna drag on a lot longer. This is a ham-fisted trick he learned when he was defrauding investors in his real estate days: Say all the different things, even totally contradicting yourself, because most people will only hear the part they want to hear and discard the rest. Trump’s words are valueless. 

Before the war, YouTuber Tom Nicholas had a fantastic video about political leaders who start wars in response to rapidly dropping approval numbers. Contrary to popular wisdom, there isn’t always a “rally ‘round the flag” effect during a war, especially in situations like this one, where the public simply doesn’t believe there was any genuine threat from the so-called enemy. 

Instead, Nicholas argues, these are efforts by unpopular leaders to “perform competence.” The point is less about uniting people behind the war and the leader than about a politician trying to boost their own ego with a tough-guy act. But as I argued last week with a focus on Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, this seems to be backfiring right now. It’s just exposing how incompetent this administration is, with all its dumb and obvious mistakes, such as making no plan for the near-certain closure of the Strait of Hormuz. 

Support the progressive journalism you trust. Become a Salon member today!

Of course, Trump can’t admit that the Iran war is a political failure. Instead, his administration is getting increasingly shrill and angry, blaming the media for covering the war truthfully. Trump has actually accused the press of “TREASON,” claiming that major news outlets are spreading fake information. In reality, of course, he’s just mad that they’re reporting the facts. FCC chair Brendan Carr repeated and amplified Trump’s lies, and said he’d consider revoking the major networks’ broadcast licenses. Hegseth gloated that CNN is about to be purchased by a Trump loyalist. 

I’m not actually that worried that the Trump administration can successfully intimidate the press into lying openly to the public and spreading war propaganda. Even if Trump’s flunkies can convince a few outlets to pretend the war is a fantastic success, most of the media will continue to report on American casualties, Pentagon failures and soaring gas prices. 

Mostly, what we’re seeing right now is desperation. As Jamelle Bouie writes at the New York Times, Trump is surrounded by sycophants and “has filtered out information that might challenge” him. Also, he’s almost certainly surprised that things are going so poorly and, in his childish fashion, is lashing out at the messengers. 

But if there is an actual strategy at work here, it’s mostly about base management. Right now, a number of major MAGA influencers are expressing skepticism — or even outright opposition — to the Iran war. By invoking a longstanding grievance on the right about the mainstream media, Trump and his goons are sending a message: Republican voters who believe facts are being disloyal. 

Might that work? Maybe! Trump convinced the base to reject scientific facts during the pandemic, even though that wound up killed many of them. The difference here is that many right-wing demagogues who’ve been fervent MAGA supporters, such as Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens, aren’t on board with this war.

People like them have no loyalty to truth, of course, since they’re hardcore conspiracy theorists. But that just makes things worse for Trump, because what folks like Carlson and Owens are telling the GOP base has nothing to do with facts. They’re saying this war will eventually be lost, which is depressing and emasculating. That’s about the only kind of message that can cut through to the base and cause them to question their loyalties. 

Click the speech bubble icon to leave a comment or click the heart to like this post.

Forwarded this email? Get Standing Room Only in your inbox twice a week.

Why does business news feel like it’s written for people who already get it?

Morning Brew changes that.

It’s a free newsletter that breaks down what’s going on in business, finance, and tech — clearly, quickly, and with enough personality to keep things interesting. The result? You don’t just skim headlines. You actually understand what’s going on.

Try it yourself and join over 4 million professionals reading daily.

Check it out