Transcript:President Donald Trump is likely anticipating a “rally around the flag” boost in his approval rating as a result of his recently-declared war against Iran . but he is not likely to get it, one expert recently explained.“Trump is getting no rally-around-the-flag bounce . and probably never will,” journalist and polling analyst G. Elliott Morris explained for his Substack on Thursday. “Presidents historically see approval bumps after military crises. Bush Senior got a 29-point bounce from the Gulf War. FDR got nearly 20 points after Pearl Harbor. Bush Junior gained after both Afghanistan and Iraq. But Trump’s approval is stuck at 39 - 40 percent, completely unchanged since the U. S. struck Iran on February 28.”Morris pointed out that presidents need several conditions for a “rally” to occur. First, there must be a dramatic shock or attack on the homeland, such as the Pearl Harbor or September 11th terrorist attacks. Additionally, there needs to be a preexisting and effective movement among “elites” to convince the public that war is necessary. Alongside this the media needs to confirm the elites’ narrative. Finally the war must appear legitimate, which is not the case here because Trump never received congressional authorization.“Rising gas prices will likely make the reaction to Iran worse,” Morris said. “A viewer asked whether rising gas prices from the Iran war would further erode public support. Short answer: yes. Trump was elected on two promises . lower prices and ending foreign wars . and this war violates both.”He added, “Gas is already up about a dollar, and trade disruptions through the Strait of Hormuz (through which 20% of global trade flows) will push grocery prices up too. About 80-85% of hardcore MAGA voters still back the war, but independents and soft Republicans who lent Trump their votes for economic relief are the ones most likely to peel off.”Steve Schmidt, a Republican political strategist who advised President George W. Bush during his own unpopular Middle Eastern war, wrote on his Substack earlier this week that Trump’s war is “wretched.”“Trust is a rare commodity in our wretched times,” Schmidt argued. “These are the days of corruption, self-dealing, incompetence and faithlessness to the Constitution.”Using the epithet “tiny men and women” to refer to Trump, Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, Schmidt argued none of them are demonstrating any kind of aptitude to prosecute a war.“We deserve to know,” Schmidt argued. “There is no plan. There is no strategy. There is only incoherence. There is only incompetence.”Jonathan V. Last, a conservative commentator for The Bulwark, similarly denounced Trump’s Iran war build-up.“The American military is now telling the New York Times that, far from collapsing, the Iranian regime is adapting to the Israeli–American onslaught and finding our weaknesses,” Last argued. He later added, “How is it possible that the people in charge of running America’s war. by which I mean the commander-in-chief and his secretary of defense. could have misunderestimated Iran so completely?”Our Analysis:Analysis of Trump's Anticipated "Rally Around the Flag" Boost and Its ShortcomingsInstitutional Power and Decision-MakingWho Holds the Power?The article discusses President Donald Trump's decision to declare war against Iran, a significant military and political action. The power to declare war, in theory, resides with Congress under the United States Constitution. However, the reality in modern U. S. politics often sees the Executive Branch taking military actions without explicit congressional authorization, leveraging the President's role as Commander-in-Chief. In this case, President Trump and his administration, particularly the mentioned Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, hold the institutional power and made the decision leading to the military action against Iran.Decision-MakersThe decision to strike Iran was made by the Trump administration, specifically by Trump, advised by his national security team. The critique points towards a lack of congressional authorization, indicating a unilateral decision-making process led by the President. This action reflects the centralization of military decision-making power in the hands of the Executive Branch.Article’s Framing and ResponsibilityThe article frames the situation as a failure by President Trump to achieve a "rally around the flag" boost, attributing this failure to several factors, including the lack of dramatic shock, absence of elite consensus, media confirmation, and the war's perceived illegitimacy due to bypassing Congress. This framing correctly identifies Trump and his administration as the primary actors, thus accurately directing responsibility towards those with actual control over the situation.However, it also touches on broader systemic issues, such as the role of the media and elite opinion in shaping public support for military action. While these are valid points, the core responsibility for the decision lies with Trump and his administration, as the article rightly emphasizes.Misdirection and ScapegoatingThe article does not seem to misdirect responsibility toward actors with limited control over the situation. It maintains a clear focus on Trump's administration as the decision-makers behind the war with Iran. Critics like Steve Schmidt and Jonathan V. Last underscore the perceived incompetence and lack of strategy within the Trump administration, further aligning criticism with those in power rather than external or less influential entities.ConclusionThe article provides a pointed critique of President Trump's decision to go to war with Iran, highlighting the absence of a rally-around-the-flag effect typically seen in past military engagements by the U. S. It correctly identifies the individuals and bodies holding institutional power and making critical decisions. namely, President Trump and his administration. The framing of the article aligns with the factual hierarchy of decision-making authority, focusing criticism on those who initiated the action without congressional approval.While discussing broader systemic and societal factors that could influence public support for war, it does not detract from the central thesis that the decision-making and its outcomes rest squarely on the administration's shoulders. This analysis rejects any diversion of blame and recognizes the article's alignment with the actual distribution of power and responsibility in the situation.s

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit paulstsmith.substack.com