It's way too late for keeping a balls-and-strikes ledger

It's utterly useless in an indecent age

Thanks for upgrading to a paid subscription. Writing is my job. Your support of that means everything to me.

I’d like to have Rich Lowry’s “evolution” explained to me.

The National Review editor and syndicated columnist hasn’t gone full convert. His tone still doesn’t fit with unmistakably MAGA outlets like Townhall, The Federalist or American Greatness. He seems to be shooting for something like the objective-observation-with-just-a-touch-of-rightie-orientation that characterizes the work of Michael Barone, the dean of granular political analysis.

But it was not always thus. Lowry was the editor of NR in early 2016, when the magazine devoted an entire issue to essays by a wide variety of conservatives to opposing the Very Stable Genius’s quest for the Republican presidential nomination. He was surely involved in the crafting of the unsigned editorial that kicked the issue off.

That piece rightly characterized Trump as “a philosophically unmoored political opportunist who would trash the broad conservative ideological consensus within the GOP in favor of a free-floating populism with strong-man overtones.”

So what to make over two recent Lowry columns that are quick to depict the VSG as an unprecedentedly effective president?

One is titled “Donald Trump Is A Republican Moderate,” a bit of clickbait to someone who knows some of this backstory. In what sense? Well, Lowry asserts that we have to accept the profound Overton window shift about what the GOP has become to understand what he means:

Trump isn’t moderate in tone. To the contrary, he will routinely talk of taking drastic measures and pursuing extreme outcomes. But if the definition of a moderate or centrist is being in the middle of a political party, that’s Trump.

The president is smack in the ideological center of a GOP that he has remade in his image.

Lowry goes on to talk about how Trump’s decision to drop the bunker busters on Fordow was a middle path between the overwhelming-force crowd (for which he misuses the term “neocon,” because he knows that at this late date it’s commonly recognized shorthand for hawkishness) and isolationism:

He’s comfortable with the idea of striking Iran, but not comfortable with the idea of regime change. He wants a diplomatic deal, although not any diplomatic deal.

The column moves on to the topic of immigration, noting Trump’s backpedaling on exempting hotel and farm workers from ICE raids. It then touches on tariffs, but not in a way that would shed any light on their widely recognized economic harmfulness. (“The first time around Trump had free-traders and protectionists around him. This time he has advisors who like tariffs as a negotiating tactic and tool in the strategic competition with China and advisors who like tariffs because they believe that they are good economics. There’s room for debate there, but it’s on terms that have been defined by Trump.”)

Atta boy, VSG!

And Lowry concludes with a Trump quote for which Lowry’s admiration is unconcealed:

Asked by a journalist the other day if bombing Iran violates “America First,” Trump replied, “Well, considering that I’m the one that developed ‘America First,’ and considering that the term wasn’t used until I came along, I think I’m the one that decides that.”

The other one is titled “Trump seals his ‘President Badass’ Cred — and Makes US Foes Think Twice.” Again, some nice clickbait, Rich. But in the piece, he doesn’t make his case as resolutely as one might expect:

The strike showcased the remarkable reach and proficiency of the US military, and a president willing to wield it as necessary.

The operation may eventually — although this is less certain — be seen as a prelude to the end of a decrepit regime.

Again, who knows how this all plays out, and it may be that there are unanticipated downsides and mission creep. Trump posted the other day about regime change.

The Iranians might believe that’s merely bluster — but they need to take it more seriously than only a couple of days ago.

Such is the effect of Trump’s badass move, and we should hope it is being felt not just in Tehran but in every capital of a country that wishes us harm.

Please note the phrase I put in boldface. It’s pertinent to developments since the US bombings. Iran is once again, as it did after the Obama administration got Iran to sign the JCPOA in 2016, thumbing its nose very publicly at US initiatives:

The Iranian Supreme National Security Council announced on Tuesday that the Islamic Republic had achieved a significant strategic victory, asserting that it had “forced the enemies to seek a ceasefire.”

Citing the unity of the Iranian people, the steadfastness of its armed forces, and the guidance of its leadership, the Council emphasized that Iran had triumphed in the face of Israeli aggression. It noted that Iran’s military remains on high alert and prepared to respond decisively to any future provocation.

The Council underscored that through its vigilance, Iran’s calculated timing dismantled the enemy’s core strategy. According to Fars News Agency, the Council declared that the outcome compelled the Israeli entity to accept defeat and halt its aggression.

Plus, a very basic question at the heart of this whole situation remains unanswered:

A 400kg stockpile of uranium - enough to make up to 10 nuclear weapons, United States Vice President JD Vance told American broadcaster ABC News - is unaccounted for after Washington dropped six 'bunker busters' on three Iranian nuclear facilities last week. The missing uranium - seen as a powerful bargaining chip for Iran, whenever it opts to resume talks with the US on a new nuclear deal - is enriched to 60 per cent. It needs to be enriched to about 90 per cent to be used as a nuclear weapon.

There are reports Iran may have moved the stockpile, as well as some equipment, days before the attack to a secret location, a claim repeated by Israeli officials to The New York Times.

Trump frames the failure of the ceasefire he so throbbingly announced on social media in moral-equivalence terms:

President Donald Trump issued a blunt warning to Israel on Tuesday to “not bomb Iran” as he departed for the NATO summit in The Hague, taking a critical position just 24 hours after brokering a fragile ceasefire already threatened after a missile strike from Iran.

Speaking to reporters before takeoff, the president said that both Israel and Iran had breached the terms of the truce and made clear he was “not pleased” with Israel’s promise to launch retaliatory airstrikes after agreeing to the deal.

Asked by a reporter about whether Iran had violated the ceasefire Trump replied: “They violated but Israel violated it, too.”

The president continued: “Israel as soon as we made the deal they came out and they dropped a load of bombs the likes of which I had never seen before. The biggest load that we have seen. I’m not happy with Israel.”

He added: “You know, when I say ‘okay, now you have 12 hours’ – you don’t go out in the first hour just drop everything you have on them. So I’m not happy with them. I’m not happy with Iran either. But I’m really unhappy if Israel is going out this morning because the one rocket that didn’t land, that was shot, perhaps by mistake, that didn’t land, I’m not happy about that.”

Before departing, he said: “We basically have two countries that have been fighting so long and so hard, that they don’t know what the fuck they are doing.”

It’s of a piece with his assessment of Operation Spiderweb:

U.S. President Donald Trump on June 6 appeared to justify Russia's large-scale attack on Ukrainian cities launched the night before, in response to Ukraine's Operation Spiderweb.

“They gave (Russian President Vladimir) Putin a reason to go in and bomb the hell out of them last night," Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One.

"That's the thing I don't like about it. When I saw it I said 'here we go now it's going to be a strike,' Trump added.

Russia launched a mass missile and drone attack against Ukraine overnight on June 6, targeting the capital, major cities, and the country's far-western regions.

And he definitely has not abandoned his perennial first priority - getting in petty snits with those who don’t show him unfailing loyalty:

Why does Fox News allow failed TV personality Jessica Tarlov to “soil” The Five? Her voice, her manner, and above all else, what she says, are a disgrace to television broadcasting. I’ve had the best poll numbers that I’ve ever had, and she is constantly saying the exact opposite. The just out highly respected Rasmussen Poll is at 56%, Insider Advantage 54%, and many others are at 56% to 68%! Sadly, the audience has to listen to her spew off that I am doing poorly in the polls, while I am beating the democrats by 15%+ points and, more importantly, I just won an election against two candidates, Sleepy Joe and Kamala, in a Landslide by winning all 7 Swing States, and the Popular Vote by millions, with records broken everywhere! In all fairness to Jesse and Greg, who are terrific, they don’t see all of these poll numbers and can’t, therefore come to my defense. But I can! Nobody can stand Tarlov! She lies over and over again, and MAGA is complaining, BIG LEAGUE, that she’s all over Fox. Watch their ratings go down by keeping her on the show — nobody wants to listen to her. Why doesn’t she talk about the fact that I had ZERO illegal aliens come into our Country last month, whereas Sleepy Joe Biden allowed 62,000 people in, many from prisons, mental institutions, and gangs. People like Jessica Tarlov make MAGA absolutely hate Fox!

Are we really expected to keep sorting the VSG’s every move into Good-Trump and Bad-Trump columns?

As I said in my most recent piece here, it reeks of desperation. We’re treated to the spectacle of well-meaning conservatives who think a few hopeful moves make for some kind of candle in the darkness. I guess when there’s nothing more substantive to cling to, one finds hope where one can.

But, again, who will insist on a better set of options for the human beings of post-America, and when will they do so?