Ah, from Orwellian “Newspeak” to the P.C. excesses of modern-day feminism: The English language is constantly evolving. It’s why middle-aged guys need a decoder ring to understand what the hell teenagers are saying. (Teenagers: “Uh, what’s a decoder ring?”)
“Mansplaining” is one of our most recent Frankenstein-language creations. In the annals of feminism, few misdeeds are greater than the crime of mansplaining. It’s mostly defined along the lines of “explaining something to a woman in a condescending way that assumes she has no knowledge about the topic.”
Feminists hate mansplaining! To liberals, it’s part and parcel of the evil, sinister Patriarchy. It could get you tarred, feathered, and booted out of their hallowed “Safe Spaces,” i.e., Bluesky.
Yet oddly enough, these same liberals are absolutely delighted to tell MAGA voters what MAGA is all about: what it is, what it stands for, and what we should think about foreign policy. “Mansplaining” is an evil, awful crime against humanity; “Libsplaining” is bravely speaking truth to power… something, something.
Sensing an opportunity to split the MAGA base, the mainstream media has been working overtime to redefine “America First.” Consider the headlines from just the past week:
MSNBC: Trump’s ‘America First’ supporters feel duped by his hawkishness on Iran
NPR: MAGA is split over potential U.S. involvement in the Middle East
The Hill: MAGA divide over Iran splinters Trump allies
The Guardian: Trump’s saber-rattling over Iran threatens to split his Maga base
Financial Times: War on Iran is splitting Trump’s Maga movement
The Atlantic: The MAGA Coalition Has Turned on Itself
Al Jazeera: How Trump’s position has changed on Iran, splitting MAGA base
PBS: Trump’s decision to strike Iran may draw more criticism from MAGA anti-interventionists
BBC: Trump’s Iran dilemma exposes bitter split in president’s circle
The New York Times: The MAGA Fight Over the Iran Fight
USA Today: ‘It’s blowing up’: The Iran conflict is sparking a MAGA civil war
Reuters: Trump faces uproar from MAGA base over possible Iran strike
The Bulwark: ‘America First’ Is Dead
Vanity Fair: The Donald Trump-Tucker Carlson Schism and the End of “America First”
Well, garsh! I mean, who’s better qualified than Al Jazeera, MSNBC, and Vanity Fair to really understand all the nuances of the MAGA movement? (And not to mention, the inner workings of Donald Trump’s brain?) Clearly, these are the guys we should turn to for an unbiased, even-handed, fair-and-balanced analysis of the man they’ve been swearing was “literally Hitler” for over a decade.
BWAHAHAHAHA! Rather, the exact opposite is true: This is “libsplaining” writ large.
But, like many things, there is a kernel of truth to the media’s contention. “Greatness” — i.e. “Make America Great Again” — is an abstract standard: What one man considers great, another considers mediocre. And given the enormous complexities of foreign policy, the Middle East, and competing risk/reward calculations, there are ample opportunities for conflicting opinions.
That’s not necessarily a bad thing: A good, stable movement isn’t threatened by debate; it’s strengthened by it. For a political movement to survive, it needs to adapt, evolve, and grow with its target audience.
If not, it’ll suffer the same fate as Objectivism, the Ayn Rand philosophy that notoriously forbade dissenting opinions. Rand wouldn’t hesitate to excommunicate apostates, and she fiercely denounced adjacent philosophies, including libertarianism and economic conservatism. As such, Objectivism (mostly) died with her. What could’ve been a long-lasting, hard-hitting shield against government excesses was instead (largely) confined to irrelevancy. Its last gasp on the public stage probably came and went with Alan Greenspan. (Although he’s considered an apostate, too.)
Even Rand Paul would be too “impure” for Ayn Rand.
And that’s a shame, because her ideas deserved a better fate than that. “Francisco’s Money Speech” is still one of the most eloquent defenses of capitalism ever devised.
So the MAGA movement shouldn’t fear debate. Good, honest, thoughtful debate leads to superior ideas. Proverbs 27:17: “As iron sharpens iron, so a friend sharpens a friend.”
The trouble comes when bad-faith actors seize the MAGA mantle to push their own agenda.
Tucker Carlson’s Iran “debate” with Ted Cruz was an obvious example of bad-faith politics. It wasn’t a brave, thoughtful discussion about the size, scope, and limitations of American power. (Although it could’ve been.) Tucker peppered Cruz with “gotcha” questions, doubled down on snark, and repeatedly laughed in Cruz’s face. Whereas Cruz was hoping to reach an understanding, Carlson sought a head on a pike. One man came to unite; the other came to divide.
“America First” is outcome-based; it’s as much a destination as it is a philosophy. Thus, the ultimate litmus test of “America First” policies are “America First” results.
It’s not a call for isolationism — nor is it a call for interventionism. It’s not about doves, hawks, or any other airborne creatures. If that’s your mindset, you’re missing the point.
Instead, “America First” calls for the smart, strategic use of American power to achieve an “America First” outcome.
If being a dove gets you to the finish line, great! If tax cuts are the answer, super! But if the occasion calls for tariffs, war, or bombing an Iranian nuclear site, you frickin’ bomb that bad boy to smithereens.
The lasting lesson from the ill-fated Iraq War wasn’t that WMDs don’t matter, nuclear bombs are totally fine, and intelligence reports are always wrong. It was a lesson about the limitations of America's power, the dangers of hubris, and the brutal, bloody cost of misplaced priorities.
“America First” is outcome-based: The Iraq War didn’t lead to an “America First” outcome. Thus, the Iraq War wasn’t “America First.”
But Iraq and Iran are different — and Donald Trump is absolutely no George W. Bush. As we noted yesterday:
[W]ar is the ultimate reality-driven enterprise. You can’t “spin” your way to military victory.
Should the events on the ground go favorably [in Iran], the Tucker Carlson wing of MAGA will be discredited. They promised an Iranian attack would lead to World War III. They swore thousands of Americans would die. They blasted everyone who disagreed with them as a “warmonger.”
If they’re wrong, they’ll look like clowns. (Or foreign stooges.) Why would you trust anything they say anymore?
It puts them in the unenviable PR position of having to root for American failure. Otherwise, it’s not just the Iranian nuclear sites at Fordow, Natanz, and Esfahan that went up in flames: So did their credibility. [emphasis added]
An “American failure” is antithetical to “America First.”
We were NEVER faced with a binary choice between “no action” and “forever war.” Our options were as limitless as our imagination! It’s Donald Trump’s “America First” responsibility to use ALL the tools in his toolkit to maximize the probability of a pro-American outcome.
That’s it. That’s “America First.” That’s what it means.
And today, Iran is unable to threaten Americans with a nuclear holocaust.
When it’s time for peace, you declare peace. And when it’s time for war, you turn Fordow, Natanz, and Esfahan into a live-action Dig Dug game. Because, when the status quo sucks and/or leads to an “America Last” outcome, a smart president shakes-up the status quo!
Class dismissed.
One Last Thing: The Democrats are on the ropes, but make no mistake: The donkeys are still dangerous. 2025 will either go down in history as the year we finally Made America Great Again — or the year it all slipped through our fingers. We need your help to succeed! As a VIP member, you’ll receive exclusive access to all our family of sites (PJ Media, Townhall, RedState, twitchy, Hot Air, Bearing Arms): More stories, more videos, more content, more fun, more conservatism, more EVERYTHING! And if you CLICK HERE and use the promo code FIGHT you’ll receive a Trumpian 60% discount!
Thank you for your consideration!
Join the conversation as a VIP Member