UnHerd82%
How MAGA became the war party 77%
By Sohrab Ahmari84%
8/4/2026, 4:00:06 PM
Keywords: Maga, Republican Party, Foreign Policy, War, Populism, Third Worldism, Stephen Miller, Laura Loomer, Donald Trump
BS Summary: This article contains 37 faulty reasoning types, including Politically Left Leaning Bias, Hasty Generalization, and Recency Bias, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 35.2% saturation with 487 hits. Analysis detected 3,328 faulty-reasoning hits from 1,385 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 60.6% and a BS Rank of 77% (6,940 of 29,339 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 76.30% of the article peer group.
A little more than two years ago, the Republican National Convention released a platform pledging to “PREVENT WORLD WAR THREE” and to “RESTORE PEACE IN EUROPE AND IN THE MIDDLE EAST.”
The document used all-caps, so you knew this was an authentic emanation of the MAGA mind.
A wide range of Donald Trump allies and surrogates relentlessly echoed this same message on social media and the campaign trail.
“Kamala [Harris] leaning all in on starting many new bloody wars in the Middle East,” wrote Stephen Miller on X, adding in a different post : “Kamala’s closing pitch: INVADE THE MIDDLE EAST!”
And again : “Trump will end and prevent war in the Middle East.”
Laura Loomer — the 9/11 truther and Mar-a-Lago regular — warned that a Harris presidency would not only saturate the White House with the scent of curry , but risk triggering “ WORLD WAR III .”
Yet MAGA today is arguably the most hawkish faction on the American scene.
Its ideologues — not least Stephen Miller and Laura Loomer — braid a run of unrelated conflicts, foreign and domestic, into a single struggle against what the administration calls “ Third Worldism ”: a nebulous enemy category encompassing Iran and the Eurasian great powers, Latin American Leftists and drug-traffickers, Somali migrants, and the Zohran Mamdani wing of the Democratic Party.
The bitter truth, especially for those of us who once saw promise in conservative populism, is that the movement was always structurally vulnerable to this turn.
Eighteen months in office, the second Trump administration has waged a full-on war with Iran, while largely abandoning the diplomatic track on Ukraine.
Team Trump, moreover, has racked up various “smaller” interventions: regime change in Venezuela (and, perhaps soon, Cuba); bombings in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Nigeria, Somalia, Ecuador ; and a lawless campaign of strikes against small boats in the Caribbean and the Eastern Pacific that has killed more than 200.
How did we get here?
Part of it has to do with the nature of the Republican Party and its mighty donor class.
The “restraint” faction — conservatives who advocate a lighter footprint abroad, or who insist that Washington conserve scarce resources for the rivalry with China — locked down many national-security jobs in the new administration.
But assistant secretaries of this-and-that don’t write checks, and they can’t get the commander in chief on the phone the way, say, Miriam Adelson, the casino heiress and pro-Israel mega-donor, can.
Then there is GOP coalitional politics.
The South has been a party stronghold since the 1960s at the presidential level and, since the ’90s, down the ballot.
As blue states and cities have declined, the region has drawn people, capital, dynamism, and, with them, political power.
As the writer Michael Lind has noted, the South is also home to a more martial culture than much of the country (the late Sen.
Lindsey Graham was no aberration).
Florida, especially, exerts an immense gravitational pull.
It is no accident that Loomer — who has recently emerged as a champion of Ukraine after years of disparaging the country and its cause — is Florida-based.
So are a host of other hawkish voices: The Babylon Bee , the satirical-ish evangelical magazine; the podcaster Dave Rubin; and many smaller stars in the pro-war constellation.
And that’s not to mention Florida’s Cuban-exile population, whose omni-hawkish worldview the GOP must serve to win in the Sunshine State.
For many of these figures, the “war” is one long front stretching from the Persian Gulf to the Black Sea, and from thence to the Caribbean.
But the deepest factor is ideological.
Populism, almost by definition, needs an enemy — a “hegemonic formation,” as the Left theorist Chantal Mouffe puts it, against which to organize mass political energy.
During his first presidential bid, Trump aimed his followers’ oppositional energy mostly against the bipartisan elites who had plunged America into pointless forever wars in the Middle East, while abandoning the working class to the vagaries of corporate globalization.
“Now we just blow stuff up — this, it turns out, is the ‘new’ in the ‘New Right.’
”
All along, though, there was another side to Trump and MAGA — the one whose critique of porous borders, a perfectly legitimate populist issue, veered into talk of immigrants as “rapists.”
Beginning in the first term, as Trumpism was translated into governance, the economic populism mostly fell by the wayside.
His sole legislative achievement back then was a tax cut for corporations and the wealthiest Americans.
This partly owed to Trump’s own plutocratic instincts, and partly to the familiar personnel and sheer inertia of the Republican Party.
Meanwhile, the Right’s best-organized institutions set about healing these ruptures — refitting populism to the old agenda of oligarchic economics and pro-Israel hawkery.
The National Conservatism conferences, Project 2025, and the like: in retrospect, all served this purpose.
An example is MAGA’s treatment of Big Tech.
The populist problem with Big Tech had once been its overweening market power and lack of accountability; but slowly that objection morphed into decrying the use to which the firms put that domination: namely, promoting “wokeness.”
Once Elon Musk owned Twitter, renamed X, the lopsided power he exercised over the platform ceased to be a problem at all.
And where the MAGA Right had once faulted the “pro-war uniparty” of the Bushes and the Clintons for diving head-first into Mideast quagmires, the rhetoric shifted beginning in the second Trump administration: the sin now isn’t the breaking of nations, but bothering to rebuild afterward or pretending to care about democracy in Muslim lands.
I encountered a version of the latter firsthand, while profiling Pete Hegseth, the then-newly confirmed secretary of defense, aboard his plane on a visit to migrant-processing operations at Gitmo.
He and his closest aides were keen to have me know that Hegseth is a former soldier who had learned the lessons of the post-9/11 wars.
At the time, I took this to mean opposition to ill-defined missions and overreach abroad.
In fact, it meant no longer bothering with even the pretense to moral universalism that had guided the earlier conflicts.
Now we just blow stuff up — this, it turns out, is the “new” in the “New Right.”
If this newly reconstituted Right isn’t in the business of doing real populism — if it indeed enjoys the backing of the likes of Jeff Bezos and Musk — then against whom can it organize its energies?
Already, in the early 2020s, one could see the pseudo-populist elements of the Right road-testing “woke communism”: a category that framed the assistant professor scraping by on $30,000 a year as a subversive “elite” (while Musk came across as a subaltern hero).
More recently, the Right has settled on “Third Worldism” — a term that appears no fewer than 40 times in a new State Department document on “Cuba: The Capital of 21st-Century Communism,” which elevates the puny and faltering Havana regime into a powerful enemy state that could endanger the American way of life at any minute.
The Third Worldist menace is vaguely brown, vaguely communistic, and much easier to “do” something about than confronting the internal contradictions that wrack working- and lower-middle-class America.
To deal with Third Worldism abroad, you don’t have to marshal bills through Congress and strike careful compromises with Democrats.
You can just fire off missiles — foreign and defense policy being the area in which the president and the executive branch enjoy a near-unchecked latitude, at least as the Constitution has been interpreted for the better part of a century.
And it can justify a lot: brutalizing migrants almost as enemy combatants, calls to denaturalize the likes of Mamdani and Rep.
Ilhan Omar, a grinding, aimless new war in the Persian Gulf — all while covering over the failure to shift the immigration system to a skills-based one, say, or to renew the industrial base.
There is only one problem.
Taken to its logical terminus, this ideological agenda will bring the United States much closer to a total conflict — World War III, if we must use Trumpy language — than anything contemplated by even old-school hawkish strategists like Robert Kagan, William Kristol, and Max Boot.
Let alone that warmonger of Miller’s and Loomer’s 2024-era nightmares — Kamala Harris.
Speakers
3speakers6.9%attributed speech1,290writer words
Selected voice
100%flagged-word coverageStephen Miller
33 attributed words35% of attributed speech88% writer coverage
Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Analysis
Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.