Professional “influencers” have two metrics for measuring success: First and foremost is audience size, because that’s how they get paid. Clicks = money. 

Audience size is far and away their most important measurable.

The second is how much “influence” they actually have over their audience. That’s the Holy Grail for advertisers, because brand exposure is secondary to audience activation. It’s why programs that capture hearts and minds are exponentially more valuable than ones that don’t.

Most don’t: They amuse more than they influence. In other words, they’re (mostly) empty entertainment calories.

Gaining oodles of eyeballs makes you rich, but influencing political thought makes you powerful.

Recommended
Actress Criticizes Islam, Loses Her Career Robert Spencer The Very Real Danger of Abdul El-Sayed Kevin Downey Jr.

Think about it like this: There are over 20 billion videos on YouTube. About 0.33% have over 1 million views. That means there are 66 million videos with over a million views. Another 330 videos have more than 1 billion views, with the “Baby Shark Dance” leading the way with over 14 billion.

But how much does “Baby Shark” influence political opinion?

It’s a question worth pondering, because the Iran War has revealed a startling disconnect between MAGA’s most-watched influencers — Tucker Carlson, Megyn Kelly, Candace Owens, and more — and the hearts and minds of MAGA voters. Our influencers are raging against the Iran War with increasingly vitriolic rhetoric:

Amidst their frantic handwringing and furious teeth-gnashing, they’ve unmasked themselves as rudderless navigators of public discourse: 84% of Republicans still support U.S. military action against Iran — including a whopping 92% of MAGA members.

Furthermore, Trump’s overall approval rating amongst the MAGA faithful remains sky-high:

So what’s an influencer supposed to do when they’re incapable of influence?

Simple solution: They move the goalposts and claim their thoughtful, well-intentioned critiques were unfairly maligned.

I like Matt Walsh. Hands down, he’s the most gifted absurdist in the MAGAverse. But right now, he’s making hay of strawmen, because “expressing great concern” is, was, and will always be perfectly acceptable in the public square.

None of the Iran War critics have been silenced, deplatformed, banned, or censored. To suggest otherwise is a bald-faced lie.

How was Walsh “shouted down”? Nobody took away his megaphone — even though his employer, The Daily Wire, certainly seems to disagree with his opinions. (Company cofounder Ben Shapiro has made his support for the Iran War abundantly clear.) As far as I know, Walsh still enjoys the same editorial freedom to say whatever the hell he wants.

If Shapiro (or others) at The Daily Wire are attempting to muzzle him, Walsh should have the courage to say so. Otherwise, he’s tossing red herring-shaped strawmen off the slippery slope of his roof.

Legitimate criticism is 100% welcomed.

Since there seems to be confusion, here’s a handy-dandy guide on how to disagree with the Iran War without being a duplicitous dirtbag:

Rule #1: Make a good-faith argument.

Rule #2: There is no rule #2.

As long as your argument is in good faith, argue for — or against — absolutely ANYTHING you’d like. Argue passionately and ferociously. It’s your God-given right.

In fact, I’d go further: Staying silent is irresponsible — especially when the consequence of your silence is the death of young men and women.

So how do we differentiate between a good-faith and a bad-faith argument?

Most of the time, it’s really not that difficult:

And if you’re still confused:

But you know what is a good faith argument?

Disagreeing with the risk-reward calculation that led us to war. Or believing that U.S. resources would be better allocated elsewhere. Or favoring new foreign alliances. Or arguing that we could’ve enhanced the safety and security of the American people via different tactics.

And y’know what? You could be correct!

The success or failure of the Iran War isn’t guaranteed. By its very nature, war is unpredictable; its outcome unknowable. As Field Marshal Helmuth von Moltke the Elder observed, “No [war] plan survives first contact with the enemy.”

(Or, as famous philosopher Mike Tyson once said, “Everyone has a plan ‘til they get punched in the mouth.”)

The God’s honest truth is, we don’t know how the Iran War will turn out — so if you oppose the war, feel free to shout it at the top of your lungs. It’s not only your right — it’s your moral responsibility. There’s nobility to thoughtful, fact-based criticism. 

It’s the hallmark of true patriotism.

But there’s nothing moral about a bad-faith argument, especially during times of war: A Tokyo Rose by any other name smells just as foul.

Nor is there anything noble about propagandizing against your own country, promoting the enemy’s talking points, or profiteering from misinformation. That’s not patriotism.

It’s moral treason.