Rod Dreher: J.D. Vance’s Time for Choosing ⁠93%

By Rod Dreher⁠100%

7/16/2026, 8:32:48 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 23 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Ambiguity (Equivocation), and Pessimism Bias, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 69.9% saturation with 204 hits. Analysis detected 1,232 faulty-reasoning hits from 292 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 87.7% and a BS Rank of ⁠93% (1,666 of 21,886 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 92.40% of the article peer group.

Let’s start from a position of charity: J.D. 
Vance is in an extremely difficult position. 
It is widely assumed that he opposed the U.S. war on Iran—correctly, in my view—but when President Donald Trump chose to launch it, Vance was fully on board. 
Who can blame him for that? 
Vice presidents don’t usually take public stands against their presidents. 
His dilemma worsened when Trump’s war blew up in his face, thanks to Iran’s asymmetrical warfare—not merely seizing the Strait of Hormuz but a willingness to go for the desalination and gas-refining jugulars of Arab Gulf States, and accept the catastrophic suffering of its own population. 
The president named Vance chief negotiator to try to extract the U.S. from the mess Trump made. 
The June 17 memorandum of understandin g (MOU) negotiated by Vance collapsed under repeated Iranian violations of its terms—which the Islamic Republic had never quite accepted in the first place, which became unignorable after Iran attacked Persian Gulf shipping on July 6. 
In short, Iran made a fool of both the United States and the vice president—but then, given the sinister nature of the Iranian regime, that was always in the cards. 
Trump himself shrugged at the recent NATO summit , calling further negotiations “a waste of time.” 
Meanwhile, the midterms are approaching, Trump’s approval ratings are in the basement, and the administration is increasingly blamed by the right, which accuses Trump of betraying voters who believed he would keep America out of “forever wars.” 
What is Vance, assumed to be looking forward to running as Trump’s successor in 2028, to do? 
Surveying the dire political and geopolitical landscape, the vice president has decided that the real villain in all this is Israel. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 9.6%Rod Dreher: 14.4%The FP: 5.8%Confirmation Bias9.6%This article: 0.0%Rod Dreher: 0.0%The FP: 0.9%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 9.2%Rod Dreher: 3.1%The FP: 4.1%Availability Heuristic9.2%This article: 0.0%Rod Dreher: 1.1%The FP: 1.8%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 24.7%Rod Dreher: 16.9%The FP: 1.5%Hindsight Bias24.7%This article: 0.0%Rod Dreher: 5.0%The FP: 1.5%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 12.7%Rod Dreher: 14.4%The FP: 9.5%Framing Effect12.7%This article: 0.0%Rod Dreher: 0.0%The FP: 0.5%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Rod Dreher: 0.0%The FP: 0.5%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rod Dreher: 0.0%The FP: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Rod Dreher: 0.0%The FP: 1.3%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 31.2%Rod Dreher: 10.4%The FP: 1.6%Pessimism Bias31.2%This article: 69.9%Rod Dreher: 40.4%The FP: 10.8%Negativity Bias69.9%This article: 5.8%Rod Dreher: 1.9%The FP: 1.4%Self-Serving Bias5.8%This article: 0.0%Rod Dreher: 4.3%The FP: 1.3%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Rod Dreher: 0.0%The FP: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rod Dreher: 0.0%The FP: 1.9%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rod Dreher: 5.8%The FP: 1.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rod Dreher: 0.0%The FP: 1.9%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Rod Dreher: 3.4%The FP: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Rod Dreher: 0.0%The FP: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 5.5%Rod Dreher: 1.8%The FP: 2.1%Recency Bias5.5%This article: 0.0%Rod Dreher: 0.0%The FP: 1.1%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Rod Dreher: 0.0%The FP: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rod Dreher: 3.4%The FP: 2.3%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 7.2%Rod Dreher: 2.4%The FP: 1.0%Straw Man7.2%This article: 0.0%Rod Dreher: 0.0%The FP: 3.2%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 25.7%Rod Dreher: 10.5%The FP: 2.5%False Dilemma25.7%This article: 0.0%Rod Dreher: 0.0%The FP: 1.1%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Rod Dreher: 0.0%The FP: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 13.7%Rod Dreher: 9.9%The FP: 8.9%Hasty Generalization13.7%This article: 5.8%Rod Dreher: 1.9%The FP: 0.3%Red Herring5.8%This article: 12.7%Rod Dreher: 8.4%The FP: 1.2%Bandwagon12.7%This article: 2.1%Rod Dreher: 10.0%The FP: 5.8%Appeal to Emotion2.1%This article: 0.0%Rod Dreher: 0.0%The FP: 1.5%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 30.1%Rod Dreher: 10.0%The FP: 2.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)30.1%This article: 0.0%Rod Dreher: 0.0%The FP: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Rod Dreher: 0.0%The FP: 0.6%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Rod Dreher: 0.0%The FP: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Rod Dreher: 0.0%The FP: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 5.5%Rod Dreher: 1.8%The FP: 3.2%Anecdotal5.5%This article: 10.3%Rod Dreher: 3.4%The FP: 0.1%No True Scotsman10.3%This article: 32.5%Rod Dreher: 10.8%The FP: 2.1%Ambiguity (Equivocation)32.5%This article: 0.0%Rod Dreher: 0.0%The FP: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Rod Dreher: 0.0%The FP: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Rod Dreher: 0.0%The FP: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Rod Dreher: 0.0%The FP: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Rod Dreher: 0.0%The FP: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 12.7%Rod Dreher: 6.1%The FP: 2.5%Unattributed Quote12.7%This article: 5.5%Rod Dreher: 1.8%The FP: 1.9%Quote-first Misdirection5.5%This article: 57.5%Rod Dreher: 46.8%The FP: 15.0%Biased Writer Voice57.5%This article: 9.9%Rod Dreher: 4.2%The FP: 2.8%Indoctrination9.9%This article: 0.0%Rod Dreher: 0.0%The FP: 0.5%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 22.3%Rod Dreher: 7.4%The FP: 3.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias22.3%This article: 0.0%Rod Dreher: 0.0%The FP: 4.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

292 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker1.0%attributed speech289writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Rod Dreher • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 46 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 42 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Rod Dreher

0%flagged-word coverage
3 attributed words100% of attributed speech99% writer coverage
0%30.0%60.0%Biased Writer Voice-58.1 ptsWriter: 58.1%Rod Dreher: 0.0%0.0%Politically Right Leaning -22.5 ptsWriter: 22.5%Rod Dreher: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-12.8 ptsWriter: 12.8%Rod Dreher: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-10.0 ptsWriter: 10.0%Rod Dreher: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-5.5 ptsWriter: 5.5%Rod Dreher: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.