Friday, October 9, 2026

Greece-ing Palms

By Nick Catoggio

Thursday, October 08, 2026

 

No rule of thumb is foolproof but this one will seldom fail you: If you run across someone on social media with an image of Greek antiquity as his avatar, his politics trend fascist.

 

Although the so-called “RETVRN bros” pay lip service to the beauty of classical art and architecture, it’s not ancient Greek and Roman culture per se that attracts them. It’s the tribal bragging rights that culture supplies them. They don’t want to study the Parthenon; they want to point to the Parthenon and say, “Let’s see those Indians produce something that magnificent.” (Er.)

 

To right-wing postliberals forever fulminating against “importing the third world,” antiquity symbolizes the innate superiority of white Europeans and of premodern societies in which men ruled without competition from women. There’s a reason “RETVRN bros” are indeed almost always bros.

 

So when the secretary of state in our very postliberal administration visited Athens this week, he was almost obliged to deliver a speech about ancient Greece and Western civilization with the Acropolis itself as his backdrop.

 

Marco Rubio has spent a decade groping toward some sort of syncretic merger of the Church of Trump and the Enlightenment liberalism of the Founders. It’s a fool’s errand, but he keeps on plugging: My colleague John McCormack flagged the then-senator’s attempt at “synthesis” all the way back in 2018, around the time Rubio began publishing tortured op-eds arguing that nationalism is really just Jeffersonian democracy by another name.

 

“President Trump is right to embrace the label ‘nationalist,’ because a true American nationalism isn’t about a national identity based on race, religion or ethnicity,” Rubio wrote that year. “Instead, it is based on our identity as a nation committed to the idea that all people are created equal, with a God-given right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” That is not what nationalism is, as any Indian-bashing “RETVRN bro” would tell you. Transparently, Rubio was trying to nudge the scumbag movement to which he belongs in a more virtuous direction by smuggling liberal ideals into postliberalism.

 

But as tends to happen when you mix dog s—t with ice cream, the final product ends up tasting more like one ingredient than the other.

 

That was also the case yesterday in Greece, where Rubio gave a defense of first-world culture at the very moment Americans were being reminded—courtesy of the U.S. ambassador—how brazenly third-world the Trump administration is.

 

RETVRN.

 

I found his speech insulting, but I confess to having read it in a spirit of skepticism.

 

It wasn’t just the bad vibes of a Trump stooge enlisting antiquity’s most celebrated ruins for a “RETVRN” diatribe that irked me. It was knowing that it was probably written by (sigh, former Dispatch intern) Nate Hochman, one of many “based” young right-wingers who seem more comfortable with white nationalists than a decent person should be.

 

In a third-world government, those affiliations are no bar to becoming chief speechwriter for the most powerful diplomat on Earth. They might be a credential.

 

Rubio’s remarks can be summarized this way: If his syncretic right-wing project was originally about trying to smuggle liberalism into postliberalism, it’s now more the other way around.

 

One might think a speech delivered in the cradle of Western civilization about antiquity’s influence on America would pay extended tribute to liberalism, specifically democracy and the spirit of inquiry that animated the ancient Greeks and Enlightenment thinkers. Rubio does acknowledge both. (Greece “was the foundation of the Western mind: our math, our science, our medicine. Our philosophy, ethics, and religion.”) But he’s keen to emphasize that the truly important link between our two societies goes “far, far deeper.”

 

That would be the concept of thumos, “the fire of passion, strength, courage, pride,” which he calls “the heart of a great civilization.” Again and again he luxuriates in how that spirit motivated the Greeks to compete ruthlessly with each other. “They organized all of civic life around contest, ambition, competition. … The classical Greek city was an arena for great men to test and prove themselves, to hone their potential through perpetual struggle—to be the best, the strongest, the most beautiful, straining to inch ever closer to perfection. … They were filled with intense passion and rivalry and faction and conflict.”

 

Greatness requires ruthlessness and factional conflict. That’s a very nationalist-friendly lesson to draw about a society whose greatness is typically attributed to its ability, through democracy and reasoned deliberation, to restrain man’s primitive impulse toward brute tribal dominance. And no wonder: Eventually Rubio shows his cards.

 

Under President Trump, the United States has made its choice. We choose the unapologetic pursuit of national power: to take back control of our critical supply chains, to reindustrialize our economy, to rebuild our defense, to fight for dominance of the technologies and industries of the future.

 

The whole point of the speech is to position ruthless Trumpian nationalism—“the unapologetic pursuit of national power,” might makes right—as the rightful civic heir to ancient Greece.

 

In fact, among Rubio’s various complaints about the cultural bequests from antiquity that the modern West has taken for granted, this one is central: “The word ‘nationalism’ became a dirty word. And so we tore down our monuments; we condemned our own history. And in too many places, we taught our children to be ashamed of the countries they would inherit.” The reason “nationalism” became a dirty word isn’t because European leftists are culturally myopic ingrates, though, as Rubio well knows. It’s because nationalists murdered and subjugated millions in the 20th century, including the people of the country in which he delivered his speech.

 

What he’s doing, and not subtly, is positioning “nationalism” as synonymous with “Western civilization.” That’s the same sort of ideological sleight of hand he pulled in 2018, but this time in reverse: He’s trying to make liberals more amenable to postliberalism by alleging that the West can’t exist without it.

 

Duty.

 

Where the speech becomes insulting is in how disconnected it is from the ethos of the administration in which Rubio serves. For instance, chances are very good that the president is preparing to interfere with Americans’ ability to vote next month—yet here’s Marco Rubio using the birthplace of Western democracy to argue that Trumpy fascism is the realization of the Athenian dream.

 

Trump’s populist base is the most aggressively, even proudly, anti-intellectual political movement in modern American history. As I write this, at a moment when Pennsylvania is experiencing the worst measles outbreak in the United States in 30 years, the man that movement put in charge of national health policy is resuming his lifelong effort to discourage people from vaccinating their children. And the president is a willing accomplice in the project.

 

Teeming with conspiracy theorists, grifters, demagogues, and suckers, MAGA is closer in spirit to book-burners than book-writers. Our secretary of state would have us believe that the government they’ve empowered is the keeper of the Socratic flame.

 

And speaking of which. “It is from the Greeks that the West inherited its sense of duty—an unbreakable loyalty to one’s code, one’s cause, one’s country,” Rubio had the nerve to say at one point. “Our heroes, the heroes of the West are those who choose to remain faithful to their duty precisely when it is most difficult and painful to do so: the man who is bound by his word, the soldier who will not abandon his post, the captain, the proverbial captain, who goes down with his ship.”

 

How a lieutenant to Donald Trump, of all people, would dare to lecture others about the virtue of duty is beyond me. But he isn’t wrong about its Greek origins: Socrates felt so bound by duty to comply with the death sentence he was given under the laws of Athens that he declined opportunities to escape before the punishment was carried out. The law might be unjust, he believed, but it was still the law.

 

Imagine Rubio’s boss ever entertaining such a thought.

 

Rubio’s rhetorical slobbering over nationalism is his way of trying to redefine the concept of duty, not unlike how he tried to redefine nationalism in 2018. Those who care about the greatness of Western civilization owe their highest duty not to law, he implies, but to thumos—to the sort of will-to-power that, in his telling, led the Greeks of old to struggle for supremacy over each other and their culture. If anything, the Great Man of History has a duty not to let conventional notions of duty dissuade him from taking up that struggle for dominance.

 

After everything we’ve seen since January 2025, and at a moment when far-right parties are gaining traction in Germany, among other places, it’s quite something to conclude that what the West desperately needs right now is more Trumpian thumos.

 

Which brings us to Kimberly Guilfoyle.

 

‘Honey please.’

 

Guilfoyle is America’s ambassador to Greece and followed the usual modern Republican path to that job. She was a Fox News host, went on to ingratiate herself with the Trump family (she was engaged for a time to Donald Trump Jr.), and was eventually rewarded with a position of responsibility in our formerly serious country’s government.

 

Say this for her: She’s not the most embarrassing person to have gone that route.

 

Yesterday, while her boss at the State Department was explaining how the secret sauce of ancient Greece was social Darwinism, the Wall Street Journal published text messages that appear to show her soliciting a $100,000 bribe from a Trump donor.

 

And not coyly. “Honey please I need you to get this done for me today…. It won’t show up anywhere if you wire money to American Express,” she allegedly texted attorney Eric Deters last year, attaching instructions on how to pay her six-figure credit card balance directly. Her nomination was pending before the Senate at the time, and carrying significant debt would have raised red flags about her potential vulnerability to foreign influence operations.

 

Deters was reluctant but wanted her help with a tax matter before the IRS and with getting the Department of Justice to extradite someone he was suing who had fled to Pakistan. He claims Guilfoyle promised him that “I will be your Trump ride or die, forever and ever,” if he picked up her AmEx tab. On another occasion she boasted that “Every secretary of you know defense, transportation, treasury commerce IRS commissioner everyone gets right back to me,” adding, “Oh yeah, l’m forgetting cash [sic] Patel.”

 

In the end, Deters refused to pay, he told the paper, believing that the $300,000 he had given her in speaking fees over the years should have sufficed to earn him a favor. Instead he got nothing—not even fulfillment of his request that she relay the lyrics of a song he’d written called “Kentucky Outlaw” to Kid Rock. Such are the things of which bribes in a kakistocracy are made.

 

What is there to say about any of this that isn’t completely obvious?

 

One obvious thing is that it’s a rare case in which a public official was smart enough to have consciousness of guilt about her crime but not smart enough to avoid putting the evidence against her in encrypted digital writing. “Eric, I really wish you would stop papering all these things,” she texted Deters at one point. At another, she wrote, “What a nightmare you’ll literally cost me my ambassadorship stop writing.”

 

She seems to have assumed that Deters would never reveal the texts she had sent him, even if she stiffed him on the favor he sought. Imagine her shock at seeing a Trump courtier behave dishonorably.

 

Another thing to say is that, if another Journal story published last month is accurate, Guilfoyle really is—or sure seems to be—vulnerable to foreign influence operations. The paper reported that a lobbyist from a Greek construction firm linked to a state-backed energy company has sat in on so many of her meetings with foreign officials that some attendees thought he was her chief of staff. During a visit to Bulgaria this year, she allegedly told people there that if they wanted natural gas from America, they should do business with the lobbyist’s company. “There is no doubt that this is kind of an official position of the U.S. government,” she’s said to have told them.

 

How many AmEx bills did he pay to earn that kind of referral? And how many others whom we don’t (yet) know about have also covered some of her debts? “We’re hearing that there are more Guilfoyle stories coming,” The Bulwark’s Sam Stein alleged yesterday.

 

A third thing is that this scandal might have more legs than the average Trump scandal, especially with Americans beginning to pay attention to political news as the November 3 election approaches. Guilfoyle isn’t some faceless bureaucrat; her Fox News gig made her famous long ago. And the allegations about her dealings with Deters are unusually straightforward for a bribery story, which nowadays often involves esoterica like crypto transactions, political donations, and other machinations designed to obscure the transaction or create a degree of plausible deniability.

 

Not this time. Pay my credit card bill if you want a favor is a solicitation a sixth-grader could grasp.

 

Twenty-one months of flagrant Trumpist graft have made corruption a sensitive issue as voters go about making up their minds about the midterms, and now here’s a grenade landing right in the White House’s lap. The president has no good options on how to deal with Guilfoyle, either: Leaving her in the job after the Journal exposé would amount to endorsing what she’s done, essentially taking ownership of the scandal, but she’s assuredly learned too much about Trump family malfeasance over the years for him to risk alienating her by firing her.

 

My guess is that he’ll do what he usually does and lateral her over to some private-sector position, buying her silence with a well-paid sinecure.

 

‘We can do that to any country we want.’

 

The last thing to say is the most obvious, though. Guilfoyle isn’t the exception to the rule in how America’s third-world government operates. She is the rule.

 

I won’t rehash the many examples this newsletter has covered of rampant corruption in the Trump administration. Suffice it to say, to all appearances, everyone is getting paid. The president is getting paid, his kids and in-laws are getting paid, people with access to him are getting paid, and—if he has his way—the people who smashed up the Capitol for him on January 6 will be getting paid. My honest initial reaction to yesterday’s story about Deters was that $100,000 seems like a pretty reasonable rate for pay-to-play access to the U.S. government in 2026.

 

Do you know what Marco Rubio, alleged defender of Western civilization and champion of first-world culture, said yesterday when he was asked about Guilfoyle—bearing in mind that he surely had an inkling of what she’s been accused of via the Journal’s requests for comment? Quote: “Suffice it to say, our embassy is doing a great job. Our ambassador has been a strong ambassador.”

 

Making the West great again by whitewashing naked bribery by public officials: just like Plato and Aristotle drew it up. Forced to choose between pursuing her interests and being restrained by a sense of duty, Guilfoyle chose thumos. No wonder Rubio defended her.

 

Her most sterling postliberal credential to serve in Trump’s government has nothing to do with money, though. In its story last month about Guilfoyle and the Greek lobbyist, the Journal claimed that she got into an argument with Greece’s energy minister earlier this year in front of officials from both countries in which she casually threatened Greeks with … a coup. “Referring to the impending collapse of the Romanian government,” the paper alleged, “Guilfoyle told the group, ‘We can do that to any country we want. We can do that here.’”

 

We can do anything we want. The president couldn’t have said it better himself.

 

Menacing the democratically elected government of the nation that founded democracy is next-level postliberal villainy; the fact that Guilfoyle kept her job after she did so tells you all you need to know about how seriously Marco Rubio takes the West’s Greek cultural inheritance. The concoction of dog s—t and ice cream that he’s spent 10 years making is now pure dog s—t, and he’s not going to stop spooning it out.

Do Republicans Want to Rehabilitate Socialism?

By Noah Rothman

Friday, October 09, 2026

 

Of course, if he wanted to, JD Vance could define socialism. He just doesn’t.

 

Contrary to the vice president, “socialism,” a theory of socioeconomic organization in which the state, to varying degrees, owns property and enterprise and redistributes private wealth and goods based on central planners’ determinations, is not a “hard term to define these days.”

 

“Classically, you would think, socialism is about prioritizing workers,” Vance said. That sounds nice! But in the vice president’s view, today’s self-proclaimed socialists have perverted the philosophy’s noble intentions. “So, I don’t know what the term means anymore.”

 

“Vance has to redefine socialism as ‘things I oppose’ because if he defined it in terms of its actual economic philosophy, he’d agree with much of it,” our own Phil Klein observed.

 

Klein is probably right that Vance’s brand of self-described “post-liberal” economics too closely resembles classical socialism to be honest about it. But think about that for a moment: Vance cannot, or will not, argue against socialism just weeks before an election in which the GOP’s hopes rest almost entirely on polarizing the electorate against the Democratic Party’s rising socialist wing. What’s more, he won’t do that because, if he did share the GOP’s priorities, he’d have to put off feathering his own political nest.

 

If Vance cannot define socialism, how can Republicans expect him to combat it? And make no mistake, that is what the GOP’s voters want from their representatives. They are not in thrall to the “warmth of collectivism.” They don’t hunger for the public appropriation of private goods and the inefficient distribution of resources to reengineer society so as to match Vance’s expansive vision for us all.

 

The vice president’s personal project in the second Trump administration has been to rehabilitate big government in the eyes of Republican voters. And he’s enjoyed some success. Pew Research Center, for example, found that GOP support for “big government” rose from 20 percent in 2020 to 24 percent in 2025. But the GOP still despises socialism. While the Democratic Party is increasingly inclined toward state ownership of the means of production, Gallup’s late-September survey found that only 14 percent of Republicans are similarly disposed.

 

So Vance will have to spend down his accumulated political capital to rehab socialism’s image on the right. And it seems he’s doing just that:

 

The image shows a social media thread discussing the implications of a statement made by Rep. Pramila Jayapal regarding Microsoft's suspension from the PERM Program.

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

 

The strategy here, if there is one to speak of, is mystifying. In 2026, the Republican Party is all but united in its opposition to the rise of socialist candidates. Its voters seek a champion who can cogently and forcefully articulate their fundamental and inviolable values. Perhaps foremost among those values is the belief that remote technocrats in Washington can never have the requisite knowledge to distribute resources as efficiently as markets. What’s more, they don’t want to surrender their freedom to Washington just so it can engage in that timeless folly.

 

Vance isn’t fighting socialism. He’s surrendering to it. But is that what Republican voters want?

 

 

Buck Up

By Noah Rothman

Thursday, October 08, 2026

 

This post is in response to Western Discourse Suggests October 7 Achieved Its Political Purpose

By Daniel Foster

 

Far be it from me to interrupt a bout of cathartic fatalism. Lord knows I’m good for those when the occasion permits. But Dan Foster’s latest is a bit too morose even for a “morosity” veteran like me.

 

A cursory survey of the noxious rhetoric coming from the American left and the nationalist right (in Israel, where they gathered for a conference, of all places) calling for America to, if not outright sever, at least strain its relationship with Israel to the breaking point led Dan toward a dour realization: “There’s really nothing else to conclude here but that October 7, at least as an act of political terrorism, if not as an attempt to destabilize the Israeli state, worked.”

 

To view Israel’s relative value to the world through the prism of anti-Israel activism in the West is to despair. But that’s not the only perspective we might bring to bear.

 

We could evaluate how Israel has fared, for example, since the single most violent attack on the Jewish people since 1945. If we did, we’d see that almost all of Qasem Soleimani’s “seven armies,” the “ring of fire” surrounding the Jewish state, are, for now, hobbled to the point of being negligible. Even the Syrian Assad regime — an Iranian satrap since at least the ouster of Saddam Hussein’s regime — is gone.

 

The ringmaster, Iran, is similarly crippled. Its military is in tatters. Its nuclear program is entombed in rubble. The American blockade is throttling its political class. Its people are destitute and angry, and we should expect that — just as the Iranians rose up in 2009, 2011, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2022, and 2025 — they will come for the Islamic Republic’s leaders again.

 

As for Israel itself, the Jewish state is hardly isolated in its region. The war has repelled the Gulf Arab states further from Iran’s orbit and closer to the U.S.-led effort to create a reliable security architecture in the region, with Israel at its center. The Israeli state, already one of the more socially cohesive enterprises in the Western world, is even more integrated (if not exactly harmonious). Despite the deteriorating security situation in the region, foreign direct investment is pouring in from all over the world.

 

I don’t mean to suggest that the animosity toward Israel reliably displayed by Eurocrats, socialist revolutionaries, and right-wing post-liberals presents no threat to either Israel or Washington’s relationship with Jerusalem. It does. Moreover, it would be disastrous if the American right adopted the anti-Israel fashion that has overtaken the American left. But just survey some of the rhetoric coming out of the “NatCons in Jerusalem” that so unnerved Dan:

 

The image shows a National Conservatism Talk screen, featuring a statement about the importance of focusing on strength and optimism rather than solely on the Holocaust, as expressed by an account @L0m3z.

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

 

What American conservative believes that the U.S. should support Israel as some sort of cosmic recompense for the Holocaust? Do the NatCons even talk to conventional conservatives? If they did, they’d probably have been informed that Israel is by far the most capable American ally in the region, as well as a liberal democracy that promotes Western values and culture. Theirs is a materialistic and ideational argument that has precisely nothing to do with Hitler’s works. If the NatCons cannot even pass a Turing test in their attempts to nudge the American right in its ideological direction, their project isn’t going to get too far.

 

There are challenges ahead for the U.S.-Israel relationship, although the Israeli government’s eagerness to be done with American aid should compel Americans to wonder if the loss of a client for U.S. arms would leave us worse off than the Israelis. Still, those challenges do not remotely resemble the sort that Yahya Sinwar envisioned when he unleashed Hamas on Israeli civilians. The Jewish state was not supposed to emerge from this war stronger, richer, more regionally integrated, and more confident in its civilizational mission. But it has.

 

There’s plenty to be dismayed about these days. Israel’s future probably isn’t one of them.

 

 

Iran Exposes an Intolerable U.S. Vulnerability

By Rich Lowry

Friday, October 09, 2026

 

The Iranian missile and drone threat to our Persian Gulf bases was foreseeable, and yet we didn’t do enough to protect them.

 

Churchill said that “wars are not won by evacuations,” and sometimes, he might have added, they are simply embarrassing.

 

The U.S. hastily flew its B-1 bombers out of Fairford air base in the U.K. for fear of a potential Iranian drone attack, the latest in a series of successful Iranian operations to crimp U.S. bases, this time more than 2,000 miles away.

 

The Trump administration has found — by opening a channel to shipping in the Strait of Hormuz and blockading Iran — a strategy to pressure Iran that may yet produce a favorable outcome to the war. Still, the conflict has exposed glaring U.S. military deficiencies, with our inability to protect our bases in the region high on the list.

 

Acting Navy Secretary Hung Cao has said the Iranians “blew the hell out of Bahrain,” referring to the headquarters of the Fifth Fleet in the tiny Gulf kingdom. They have also hit U.S. facilities in Qatar, Kuwait, the UAE, and Saudi Arabia. The vast majority of U.S. casualties have resulted from attacks on our bases.

 

Whereas it once seemed that having so many bases in proximity to Iran was useful to containing the Islamic Republic, when Tehran began firing on these facilities, it became clear that the short distances made them vulnerable targets.

 

Camp Arifjan in Kuwait, where buildings and radar domes got hit, is just over 60 miles away.

 

A number of bases have been fully or partly evacuated, and the effects have been felt on U.S. operations. One reason that there was so much strain on the USS Abraham Lincoln during its lengthy deployment is that Bahrain was no longer available as a supply hub. We had to rely on facilities in Diego Garcia and Singapore, creating a supply chain thousands of miles long.

 

The Iranian missile and drone threat to our bases was foreseeable, and yet we didn’t do enough to protect them.

 

One option now is a broad pullback of our presence in the region, but so long as hydrocarbons power the modern economy, this is a nonstarter. The Gulf states would have an incentive to look elsewhere for strategic partners, most worryingly to Russia or China, and might conclude that they should do more to accommodate an Iran that would have effectively chased us from the Persian Gulf.

 

The answer to the threat to the bases is the same thing that created the threat in the first place — innovation.

 

We’ve long had bases in the Gulf, including a naval command headquarters in Bahrain since 1948, but the purpose and nature of the presence has changed over time. As Kristian Alexander writes in an analysis for the Stimson Center, during the Cold War we didn’t have a large land presence at the bases. After Saddam Hussein’s 1990 invasion of Kuwait, that changed.

 

Today, the question is how to reconfigure our presence again to make it more defensible and sustainable. “U.S. bases,” Alexander writes, “remain indispensable for intelligence collection, command and control, maritime security, air and missile defense, logistics, and long-range power projection.”

 

One option is to locate more facilities in Israel. Elliott Abrams of the Council on Foreign Relations points out that the Jewish state is much farther away — more than 1,000 miles from Iran — and would impose fewer restrictions on our access and overflight rights.

 

But we still require bases in the Gulf. We’re going to need to disperse them, harden them (including with more underground elements), and build in more redundancy. The air defense needs to be more robust and layered, and less dependent on expensive missiles that are in short supply.

 

The Iran war was supposed to represent a short, sharp defanging of the Iranian regime. Instead, it has dragged on and served as a lesson in key shortcomings of U.S. military power that must be addressed, lest they bite us again in a conflict with a much more powerful adversary.

Now Is Not the Time to Just Settle in Iran

By Mike Nelson

Thursday, October 08, 2026

 

Time magazine ushered in October by releasing the transcript of its wide-ranging interview with President Donald Trump, which formed the basis of its cover story on the commander in chief. The display makes Trump—unsurprisingly, given the demands he has placed on Americans’ attention spans—the sole record holder for having appeared on the magazine’s cover more than anyone else in history. The interview itself was in keeping with this phenomenon, with readers left to process Trump’s wild fluctuations among tirades about his ongoing gripes with the media, claims of preternatural ability to comprehend the frontiers of AI because of his uncle’s accomplishments, and his boasts about the progress of his varied construction projects.

 

But buried among the more buzzworthy quotes and tidbits were some insights into the president’s thinking on more critical matters—most prominently on the ongoing war with Iran. While many have focused on the president’s continued hyperbole regarding potentially “annihilating Iran,” or his inapt comparisons between the Middle East conflict and Vietnam, more important was the conclusion of the Iran portion of the interview.

 

Well, last on this question, over the weekend you rejected a ceasefire proposal from the Iranians. Can you just tell us why you did that?

 

Because things that I wouldn’t have approved a year ago I wouldn’t have today.

 

Can you give us an example?

 

I mean, it was—they made an offer to open up the Strait. You know, you saw some aspects of it, not all. But it’s just, it’s just, it’s not good enough. Nearly.

 

It is not correct, as some administration critics claim, that Iran is winning the current conflict. Likewise, those who confuse the impressive tactical achievements with strategic goals are also incorrect when they claim the U.S. is winning. Rather, just as negotiations can result in a win-win scenario, wherein both parties benefit from the arrangement, it is possible for conflicts to be lose-lose—and without a refocused effort by the administration, that seems to be the most likely outcome. The degree to which the results may be disadvantageous to U.S. interests is clear from a consideration of the conditions antebellum.

 

The president’s answers here suggest that he correctly views the conflict as much more than just a matter of reopening traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, and that the administration is viewing the end of the conflict in terms of the many regional and multidimensional points of conflict between the United States and the Iranian regime.

 

Using the president’s temporal framing, a year ago the Iranian regime was arguably at its weakest in terms of regional power and, inversely, the United States enjoyed the diminished capacity and reduced influence of our greatest enemy in the Middle East. Currently, that is not the case, and appreciating how American interests have been affected since the beginning of Epic Fury will help frame suitable conditions for its conclusion.

 

The Iranian nuclear program was dealt its most significant blow by Operation Midnight Hammer, which set back Iran’s progress on weapon development by years. Iran’s vaunted regional proxy network had been seriously degraded, and the linkages to Tehran tested.

 

In Lebanon and Gaza, Israel had done yeoman’s work removing layers of Hezbollah and Hamas leadership and disrupting their communications, logistics, and fighting formations. The remaining leadership of both networks expressed frustration and betrayal that Iran had not done enough to support them after they had been loyal surrogates.

 

In Yemen, the Houthis who had once threatened shipping in the Bab al-Mandab Strait  (one of three strategic chokepoints in the Middle East) had ceased this activity after the second Trump administration’s initial use of military force, Operation Rough Rider. Commerce was flowing freely through all three chokepoints. Iran was, however, building its arsenal of short-range missiles and drones—a concern in terms of their number relative to interceptor missiles throughout the theater.

 

Now, after seven months of America shifting among combat, concession, and coercion, progress has either been reversed or at least diminished in each of these areas. Although preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons underpinned the administration’s justifications for the war, the American strikes have done almost nothing new to disrupt Iran’s remaining nuclear infrastructure and have likely hardened Iranian determination to acquire the bomb. Judging by Trump’s own comments contrasting Iran with North Korea, the message to Iran could not be clearer–America is unlikely to strike a country with a nuclear deterrent. Iran has begun moving assets and material into Pickaxe Mountain—an underground facility that we have not struck. Based on recent congressional testimony from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, it is unclear if we have the capability to destroy it. Iran is currently considering a withdrawal from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which would seem to be an overt communication of a desire it had previously kept covert, albeit obvious.

 

Iran’s relationship with its proxies, frayed a year ago, is being rebuilt. Despite the administration specifying that severing these links was a key goal of our campaign, we have helped strengthen them. We have assisted Iranian protection for Hezbollah, both by admonishing Israel for striking the network, and by including Hezbollah in the ceasefire of the June memorandum of understanding at Iran’s insistence.

 

The Houthis have entered the conflict on Iran’s behalf, targeting both Saudi oil infrastructure and resuming attacks in the Bab al-Mandab—with a slightly enhanced position after their seizure of the Hanish Islands. Iran continues to disrupt traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, although to a lesser extent than in the spring, resulting in prolonged declines in shipping and high energy prices.

 

While the early days of Epic Fury did destroy many of Iran’s missiles and drones and the industrial capacity to produce them, Iran has retained a larger supply of these and has started rebuilding their capabilities. Meanwhile, the United States has expended critical amounts of our force-protection munitions, thus having the opposite effect on our intention to decrease Iranian strike assets relative to our interceptors—a problem that may be exacerbated as Iranian missiles and drones are produced cheaper and with a shorter delivery timeline than our Patriots or THAADs.

 

The current state of affairs does not reflect what the United States must accept. The early days of the war resulted in truly overwhelming kinetic effects but did not translate into strategic progress. Now, however, Iran is showing signs of increased stress as a result of the better plan of continued economic leverage, including long-term imposition of the American blockade against Iranian shipping. America has blunted the impact of Iran’s major point of leverage, both by escorting shipping through the strait and by diverting traffic via points of embarkation elsewhere in the region, resulting in an almost full return to prewar levels of energy shipping across the region as a whole. It is a sign of the regime’s savagery and desperation that it may have shifted to more dramatic and impulsive forms of resistance—with hints of Iranian fingerprints near an air base in England and influencing attacks against Israelis over the skies between Dubai and Tel Aviv.

 

The answer to this current dilemma is not, as some critics advise, to concede defeat and walk away from the conflict, or more aggressively, from the region. Doing so would not improve any of the adverse developments listed above and would likely result in greater Iranian progress in each. Regardless of whether one believes initiating hostilities was wise or disagrees with the means by which the administration has conducted the conflict thus far, these are the circumstances in which we currently find ourselves, and navigating out of them requires decision, direction, and determination—all of which have been lacking to date. The president’s comments to Time offer a glimmer of hope, though they must be taken with a grain of salt. The administration should recognize it entered a regional conflict with regional effects, and while high gas prices are the factor currently felt most prominently by American voters, we would do well to remember where we were in terms of strategic position a year ago, what we want regional stability to look like after the conflict, and not become fixated on simply opening the strait.

 

It is unlikely we will achieve progress across every dimension. And it is to our great shame that we will likely desert, yet again, the Iranian people yearning for freedom after loud pronouncements of support. But we should demand progress across many of them, and avoid, as the president said, agreeing to conditions we would not have accepted a year ago.

Cornell and the Modern Sexual ‘Contract’

By Daniel Foster

Friday, October 09, 2026

 

In the context of the discourse over Cornell (which I otherwise intend to continue avoiding), Oliver Traldi, a philosopher at the University of Toledo and an occasional National Review contributor, argues against the familiar complaint that modern sexual ethics has been reduced to “consent.” He says this overlooks all manner of judgments people routinely make about putatively consensual sex. His examples include “misrepresentation, infidelity, mismatched expectations about the future, age and power disparities” and even bad sex, which, he observes, “is frequently moralized.” Josh Barro agrees that these examples demonstrate the persistence of moral standards beyond consent.

 

I don’t think they establish that at all.

 

Start with misrepresentation. Nobody can meaningfully consent to being defrauded. That’s a basic principle of contract law, in which material misrepresentations can make agreements voidable. Sexual consent, likewise, is usually understood to require some degree of transparency and disclosure about the conditions under which it’s given.

 

Mismatched expectations about the future can be understood similarly, although here we get into the realm of implied promises, which complicate plenty of contract disputes, too. If one party induces another into a sexual encounter conditional on promises (explicit or reasonably inferred) she knows to be false, the objection is that she fraudulently obtained consent. Consider the straightforward case of two people who sincerely want different things, are honest with each other about that, and have sex anyway because they’re looking not for the Right One but for the Right Now. Does contemporary sexual ethics render a judgment here? I don’t see a lot of that.

 

Age and power disparities are more attenuated still, but they likewise have analogues in contracts. We don’t automatically regard every agreement between unequals as invalid, but we recognize that disparities in maturity (and certainly in majority), authority, resources, or other forms of power can raise questions about whether consent was coerced. Progressive morality simpliciter, and therefore progressive sexual morality, often assumes that the existence of power disparities can make the exercise of individual agency illusory. Even if you think you’re doing something you want to do, that desire may itself be the result of structural forces that undermine your agency. You might have given “consent,” but it was under conditions resembling the Marxian notion of false consciousness. Again we find the moral objection isn’t about doing the thing but about the counterfeit nature of the consent obtained to do the thing.

 

Lastly, it’s true complaints about “bad sex” sometimes get moralized in the discourse, but there’s no controlling progressive norm there that I’m aware of, and such claims are often viewed skeptically even by people who are otherwise all in on the program. Still, they can be understood in something like the language of “fraudulent services,” as it were.

 

So, it seems to me Traldi’s putative counterexamples aren’t that at all. If anything, they demonstrate how much work we ask consent to do. Now, I think it’s probably more precise to refer to modern sexual ethics as “contractarian,” because they rely on a bunch of auxiliary concepts from the world of voluntary agreements. But consent is still a necessary condition of contract.

 

And the broader point is that a contractarian sexual ethics has no room for virtues that ought to be promoted, vices that ought to be prevented, rights that ought to be respected, or obligations that ought to be fulfilled—none that are independent of whatever settlement you might have negotiated at the bar.

 

We remain perfectly comfortable (more comfortable than ever!) condemning someone for taking sexual advantage of another. We are much less comfortable saying that two people have made a morally blameworthy sexual choice for themselves and for each other. What we’ve largely abandoned is the confidence to say that some kinds of sex ought not to be had at all, even by people who are perfectly free to choose.

Thursday, October 8, 2026

There’s No Ken Without Angela

By Nick Catoggio

Wednesday, October 07, 2026

 

What if the polls are overestimating Democrats?

 

The out-party leads the generic congressional ballot by 9 points today in Nate Silver’s tracker, its biggest advantage to date. A new YouGov survey has Democratic (or Democratic-aligned independent) Senate candidates ahead in Ohio, Kansas, Nebraska, and Texas, enough for 51 seats next year even without possible/likely pickups in North Carolina, Alaska, and Maine.

 

It ain’t just the “fake news” polls that are bearish on the GOP’s chances, either. It’s Republicans themselves. “If the bottom continues falling out like it has been, this will be worse than 2006,” one national party strategist told Politico. Another described the electoral landscape starkly as “fires everywhere.” Follow the money: An outfit that’s confident it’ll beat expectations wouldn’t be spending hundreds of millions of dollars playing defense in red states.

 

Still, one needn’t be a born Eeyore (ahem) to look at all of that and feel an urge to bed-wet. The numbers for Democrats are so improbably gaudy that they almost have to be wrong, no? Not so wrong that Republicans end up holding the House, maybe, but wrong enough that the Senate might remain under Donald Trump’s thumb for the last two years of his presidency.

 

A net Democratic gain of three seats would produce a 50-50 chamber, making J.D. Vance the tie-breaking vote. A net gain of four would make it 51-49, teeing up John Fetterman for a big (and increasingly inevitable) switcheroo. Those are plausible scenarios if the polls are off by even just a few points.

 

And the theory of how they might be is straightforward. All it would take is some small but meaningful percentage of disgruntled Trump voters who were expected to stay home in November to turn out in the end, half-heartedly or not. Right now, some of those voters might be telling pollsters angrily and sincerely that they intend to boycott the election or to vote Democratic—but in the end will be seduced by partisanship into changing their minds.

 

Others might be less-educated “low-engagement” voters who simply refuse to pick up the phone when pollsters call, creating a problem of “nonresponse bias” that’s led to surveys underestimating Republican support repeatedly during the Trump era. Especially, it seems, in Senate races in Michigan, Ohio, and Iowa, where polls a month out from Election Day dating back to 2018 have overrated Democratic candidates to the tune of 6 points.

 

In fact, there is some evidence that rural Republicans are ducking pollsters again this year. Whether they’re doing so because they’re disgusted with politics and don’t plan to vote or disgusted with doomsaying pollsters and do plan to vote—for the GOP—is a key subplot of the campaign.

 

For the president and his party, the difference between a bloodbath that shatters Trump’s legacy and a shocking comeback that shatters left-wing morale is convincing something like an extra 10 percent of Republican voters to put aside their disaffection, show up on Election Day, and take one for the team.

 

Which brings us back to Texas.

 

High stakes.

 

Of all the battlegrounds in play this fall, the psychological stakes are highest in the one where Democrats haven’t won statewide in more than 30 years.

 

Which seems counterintuitive. Why should liberals invest emotionally in flipping a state where they always lose and which they don’t need to clinch a Senate majority?

 

But that question answers itself. Democrats and Republicans each desperately want to win Texas because of what it represents. Not only is it the nation’s largest red stronghold, it epitomizes what the right believes American culture should look like. The left flipping cowboy country would be like the GOP flipping California. In an endless game of electoral chess, it amounts to taking your opponent’s queen.

 

The stakes were further raised there when the president declined to endorse John Cornyn in this year’s Republican Senate primary before ultimately backing his opponent, the mega-corrupt Ken Paxton, in the runoff. That single decision put an otherwise safe seat in play—so much so that Paxton’s opponent, Democrat James Talarico, has led in the last 13 polls of the state. Trump will own the outcome of this race completely; fumbling a Senate seat in the capital of Red America would be the most humiliating electoral defeat he’s ever suffered or ever will.

 

And he knows it. The president has held rallies lately in Texas to try to rescue Paxton (with more soon to come), has poured millions into the state via his PAC to fund anti-Talarico ads, and, to hear the candidate tell it, has let national operatives all but take over management of Paxton’s campaign. “Texas is a must win, and this would be his biggest endorsement fail,” a former White House official said of Trump to MS NOW. “This one would be a stain on his list.” For Democrats, flipping Texas would add a supreme insult to the injuries they hope to inflict on the president’s stature next month.

 

There’s also a “perfect storm” factor to the race. The left has never had a juicier opportunity to win the state. If not now, when?

 

Paxton’s a lousy candidate, by Trump’s admission. Voters hate the president’s war in Iran and the mayhem it’s caused in oil markets, by Paxton’s admission. Hispanics, who represent some 40 percent of Texas’ population, are trending Democratic nationally out of exasperation with the cost of living and the White House’s “deport ’em all” policies. Talarico, a Presbyterian seminarian, is viewed by more voters as having “the right kind of moral values” than his reptilian opponent, a rare edge for a leftist running in a religious red state.

 

The stars have aligned for an upset. Both parties know it. If not now, when?

 

The stakes in Texas are so high that a close win by either candidate will almost certainly turn the state into ground zero for “rigged election” crankery. If Talarico pulls it out, federal goons at Trump’s behest will descend on blue cities like Austin to interrogate the Democrat’s “suspicious” margins there. If Paxton ekes out a victory, grassroots leftists will accuse the state’s hard-right leadership of having tampered with the count to favor him. Never mind that many Republican officials despise Paxton privately; at the end of the day, the conspiracy theorists will say, he’s still a member of their team. And to the modern right, the team is everything.

 

Just ask state Sen. Angela Paxton, the candidate’s better half.

 

Teamwork.

 

Mrs. Paxton filed for divorce from her husband more than a year ago citing “biblical grounds,” aka adultery. A few days ago, she cut a campaign ad for him.

 

Really.

 

No, they haven’t reconciled. Watch the clip and you’ll see that she can’t bring herself to so much as utter his name. The closest she gets to identifying Ken Paxton is when she refers obliquely to “the elephant in the room,” leaving it to the viewer to infer from her own surname what she might be talking about.

 

Which is an awfully optimistic read on the average voter’s political awareness, I must say.

 

But lay that aside. In 10 years of covering the Trump-era American right, I don’t think I’ve ever seen the logic of vacuous amoral partisanship expressed as efficiently as Angela Paxton expressed it in her ad. This is like the Gettysburg Address of loathsome anti-anti-Trumpism:

 

I’m Texas senator Angela Paxton. People have asked my thoughts about this election and, turns out, I have some. Let’s talk about the elephant in the room. In a general election, it’s not as much about the individual players on the team. It’s about getting the whole team across the finish line. Either we hold every Republican seat or we hand the future of Texas to the other team. That’s why I’m voting for the Republican ticket on November 3. Let’s hold the line together.

 

“The team,” huh? Okay. Let’s talk about the team.

 

The first thing to say about the “team” is that the people most eager to appeal to team spirit are unfailingly the most selfish, least team-oriented figures in the party.

 

If the president cared about the fortunes of Team GOP, he wouldn’t have spent the better part of two years irritating voters with one unpopular policy after another, stuffing his pockets with wads of cash, and doing everything possible to make clear that he cares more about the fate of his ballroom than he does about the price of gas. If Ken Paxton cared about the team, he wouldn’t have spent his career in public service tarnishing the party by committing impeachable offenses and leching around before deciding to vastly complicate its electoral strategy by challenging Cornyn for Senate.

 

Angela Paxton’s own motives for getting involved in this race weren’t very team-minded, it shouldn’t surprise you to learn. “Allies envision her running for statewide office in the future—regardless of whether Mr. Paxton is serving in Washington,” the New York Times reported on Wednesday. “Ms. Paxton feared staying silent in such a close race could hurt her reputation and open the door to politically damaging questions about her loyalty to the party, according to a person familiar with her thinking.”

 

It was reasonable for her to fear that. The GOP is very much a party that would hold a grudge against her for not prioritizing its lust for power over her emotional pain in having to defend a man who cheated on her, personally. But that’s the sort of team Angela Paxton chose to join and, really, that’s the team on which she belongs: Vouching for unfit scumbags to advance one’s own selfish political ambitions has been standard operating procedure in the Republican Party since 2016.

 

What team?

 

Another thing: What even is “the team” at this point?

 

Millions of Republicans joined the team years ago because they believed in free markets, limited government, and advancing America’s interests by encouraging Western liberal values abroad. The leadership of Team GOP no longer supports any of that. The president levies tariffs by whim, demands government stakes in private companies, wages unauthorized wars, sics law enforcement on his political enemies, and routinely behaves more aggressively toward traditional American allies than toward enemies.

 

And the explicit appeal of Ken Paxton’s Senate candidacy to his supporters is that, if elected, he’ll continue to let Trump do all of it.

 

I never joined that team. Why should I or any other conservative give a rat’s ass about getting it across the finish line in Texas? If President Vance were to adopt the progressive economic agenda in toto in 2029—a not-unthinkable possibility—would team spirit require me to support that too?

 

Angela Paxton’s pitch is the political equivalent of Jerry Seinfeld’s famous bit about sports fandom being a matter of “rooting for laundry.” The entire roster might be replaced within a few seasons, he observed, but the fans’ loyalty persists because ultimately they’re cheering for the franchise—for its uniforms, i.e., laundry—more so than its individual personnel.

 

That’s a defensible attitude for a silly pastime. But apply it to politics and you get anti-anti-Trumpism, the belief that being governed by any Republican beats being governed by any Democrat because the Republican laundry is better, however filthy it may have become. Absent that attitude from enabling partisan fanatics like Angela Paxton, postliberalism couldn’t have gained traction in the GOP and Ken Paxton winning a Senate nomination wouldn’t have been possible.

 

There is no Ken without Angela.

 

It’s no coincidence, then, that right-wing team spirit is only ever invoked to extinguish moral qualms about postliberalism, never to encourage them, even if Team GOP would benefit from that encouragement. Consider how Trump responded to Karl Rove declaring that he won’t vote for Republican Bo French for Texas railroad commissioner this year after French complained that the University of Texas is admitting too many Indian-Americans.

 

Rove did his party a favor there, morally and politically. If you want Indian-American voters to feel more comfortable joining the party, penalizing a candidate who’s bigoted toward them might go a long way. French losing his race would be a small price to pay for expanding the Republican tent with nonwhite voters long-term. But that’s not how Trump saw it, of course: He threw a tantrum aimed at Rove—not at French, the man who had actually damaged the team—for daring to suggest that voting for a Democrat is ever justified.

 

The “team” the president and both Paxtons are playing for isn’t actually the Republican Party. Partisanship is simply what they’re selling to immiserated right-wing suckers to try to goose their enthusiasm and get them to turn out this year, another “lesser of two evils” pitch from a political movement that’s morally incapable of offering anything else. If the three were earnest Republican partisans, they would have endorsed John Cornyn to maximize the GOP’s chances of defeating Talarico.

 

The team they’re playing for is postliberalism. Given how comprehensive Ken Paxton’s unfitness for office is, encompassing not just personal sins like philandering but all manner of abuses of his public office, the inescapable takeaway from Angela Paxton’s ad is that no amount of immorality committed by a right-wing candidate can ever disqualify him from wielding power. That’s an essential pillar of postliberal thought, essential to the core conviction that power must be wielded immorally to have any chance of defeating the left.

 

We can draw a straight line between that logic and Max Miller’s continued viability in Ohio. And the warm feelings among MAGA fellow travelers for accused pedophile Andrew Tate. And the sense of impunity with which Donald Trump has committed his various civic obscenities.

 

If you care about Team GOP, which Angela Paxton does not, vote Democratic this fall. It will take more than one landslide to rid the party of postliberal degenerates, but a good thrashing next month might enlighten the right-wing mind going forward to the value of nominating candidates who aren’t sociopaths and of caring what the public thinks before starting new wars or levying new tariffs. Make it hurt. Especially in Texas.