Club Recap: MAGA Begins to Split Over Iran

What we learn about MAGA's views on Iran via Matt Walsh + Dan Bongino pods

Welcome back to UNASB! This newsletter serves as a recap of our last meeting. As a reminder, here at UNASB, we listen to conservative-leaning podcasts, analyze their messaging and themes, and brainstorm actionable ideas for how the Democratic coalition can strengthen our approach.

It’s been over a month since Trump attacked Iran. The subsequent failures to conclude the war quickly lay bare some of MAGA’s fissures. These fissures, which had laid dormant and knitted together by Trump, have begun to burst out into the open and threaten to peel off a non-insignificant portion of Trump’s MAGA support.

This couldn’t have been more evident in podcasts (watch them here and here) from two of MAGA’s greatest warriors: Dan Bongino, podcaster turned FBI Deputy Director turned podcaster again, and Matt Walsh, of the Tucker Carlson wing of MAGA. Both are deeply loyal to MAGA but their backgrounds explain their differing takes on the war. Bongino is a mostly traditional Republican, having run for office multiple times and served as a federal law enforcement officer. Walsh came up in radio, transitioned to the Daily Wire, and is a self described “theocratic fascist”. Bongino is the guy you get a beer with at the bar. Walsh is probably the dude who radicalizes you on 4Chan.

Bongino’s Version

Both spent much of their podcasts- each posted in the first week of March- talking about the war in Iran in very different ways. Bongino cheerleads the absolute smackdown we are (were?) putting on Iran. He talks about it in the way that Seahawks fans were probably talking shit after they beat the Patriots in the Super Bowl, or American hockey fans to Canada after the Olympics. Ironically, Bongino lampoons the Iranian foreign minister as Baghdad Bobby, an Iraqi propagandist who said things were going absolutely great during the 2003 Iraq War (until Iraq fell to the U.S.). Looking back almost a month after this podcast first aired, it’s fair to ask if Bongino is actually Baghdad Bobby.

Playing against type, though, Bongino provides rather thoughtful commentary on topics that liberals and progressives might agree with him on: the dangers of mass surveillance and the merit of body cameras. He then diverges into some political analysis and advocacy, gently warning about the midterms, and urging his listeners to “10, 10, 10” (call ten friends about the midterms, email friends ten times, and make ten social media posts). It’s a call to action that is so clear and easy that liberals and progressives should take, and take repeatedly.

Matt’s Version

Contra to Bongino, Walsh is extremely skeptical of the war, befitting the America First, isolationist wing that he is associated with. He starts by arguing that for any use of American military force, the benefits should outweigh the costs. He notes that the Trump administration has not made the case for war nor these benefits, effectively going radio silent, while contrasting their approach with the Bush administration- where, despite the disastrous Iraq War- they at least made the case. He also compares the Trump administration’s approach of “trust us, we’re the experts” to the similar approach (in his view) of the public health experts during COVID.

Liberals and progressives would agree with many of Walsh’s critiques. But he then uses the specter of terror attacks by immigrants in America unhappy about the U.S.’ attack against Iran (and the terror attack by a naturalized American citizen from Senegal in Texas in the days after the U.S. first struck Iran) to argue that the Iran War is making America less safe. He demagogues against immigration from the “third world”, arguing for denaturalizing “anti-American invaders”, while stating that before he could support the Iran War, America would need to deport every “third world Muslim militant and potential militant”. Ultimately, he concludes the totality of these risks make the war not worth taking. His conclusion on immigration is sobering and infuriating: if liberals and progressives could find common ground with someone like Walsh on Iran, they will quickly find that with his anti-immigrant rhetoric, it’s poisoned ground.

KEY TAKEAWAYS

Bongino and Walsh both offer places to find common ground with different wings of MAGA.

Speaking from authority as both a former law enforcement officer and Deputy FBI Director, Bongino makes the case against mass surveillance using AI tools and in favor of body cameras to protect law enforcement officers from false accusations. With Walsh, liberals and progressives are uniformly against the war in Iran, just as Walsh and the isolationist wing of MAGA are. This opposition has been proven correct through the subsequent failure to defeat Iran quickly and the closure of the Hormuz Strait that is increasing prices. Hijack these talking points to help pivot conversations.

Despite the common ground, Bongino and Walsh both use extremely loaded language when talking about Democrats and immigrants.

Bongino spends much of his time praising Kristi Noem and blasting Democrats as the “anti anti communists” (willing to lie in bed with anyone, as long as they’re anti-Trump) and Walsh uses extremely demeaning language when talking about immigrants. These guys will never view liberals or progressives as partners on anything.

How are we supposed to square the potential to find agreement with the fundamental incompatibility with Bongino’s and Walsh’s views?

The first step is to separate the listener from the messenger. Just because someone listens to Bongino and Walsh doesn’t mean they will agree with everything they say or believe. The next step is to understand what is core to their appeal. Walsh and Bongino appeal to a sense of safety and order. In the case of Iran, it’s possible to argue that the Iran War has made us less safe, less secure, and also put our troops in harm’s way for no reason.

Like many other successful MAGA commentators, Bongino and Walsh often come off as “we’re just asking questions” guys. Liberals and progressives can use that against them.

First, as someone noted in a listening group, encourage curiosity as an act of resistance, and then use the disconnect in what Bongino and Walsh are stating is fact against the reality that is plainly before us. In the case of the Iran War, it is clear- despite what Bongino Bob says- that the war is not going well or achieving its objectives. Liberals and progressives can use that dissonance to undercut Bongino’s authority before his audience and drive distrust between MAGA leaders and their followers.

WHAT UNASB MEMBERS ARE READING

• The Trump-inspired realignment of the conservative think tank world

• I Went to Florida to See the 31-Year-Old Candidate Thrilling Gen Z. We’re in Trouble.

• For Republicans, the political influence of X is greater than ever

• Silicon Valley Is Drifting Farther and Farther Right

• Evie Magazine Averages an Anti-Birth Control Article Every Month

• Thousands have swooned over this MAGA dream girl. She’s made with AI.

Thanks for reading! We’re currently accepting new members into our 5th (!!) cohort starting in April. Sign up here!