“I think on the Democratic side, we’re almost completely unified—with the exception of Senator Fetterman—that this war is both illegal and deeply foolish.”
JD Vance said the accomplishment he was most proud of was cutting aid to Ukraine. He boosted Viktor Orban. I hope the Iran deal is the last nail in this turd’s coffin, and that that is only the beginning for this travesty of a government.
We still don’t know what’s in the MOU, but the WSJ is reporting that two supertankers of newly unsanctioned Iranian crude have already sailed past the now lifted blockade.
James Donald Bowman. James David Hamel. James David Vance. JD Vance.
Evangelical Protestant. Ayn Rand atheist. Reactionary Catholic (introduced to his faith mentor by Rod Dreher, a former Methodist who had once converted to Roman Catholicism but later converted to Eastern Orthodoxy--could the Eastern Rite be JD's next calling?)
Best-selling basher of the low morals and cultural standards of the drugged-up white working class. Vice presidential working man's hero, booster of the morals and culture of the white working class as epitomized by the glorious UFC cage match on the White House lawn.
Anti-Trump Republican JD, warning in dire terms that Trump could be America's Hitler. Pro-Trump Republican JD, insisting that his opposition from Trump was purely skin-deep and came, evidently, from trying to get liberals to like him. Now he doesn't care what they think, so there. If anyone's the Hitler, YOU'RE the Hitler, not Donald.
Anti-Iran war "voice of reason." Iran war apologist. Iran war fall guy.
What next, whatever next? Perhaps he will wake up to find he has been transformed into a giant insect, and a brilliant but tormented author will write about him.
Not sure this is totally in line, however what you are describing seems to be similar to Trump, constantly changing positions, views, etc. w/o the charisma/showmanship POTUS expouses. Without that M.O. Vance would seem to be toast moving forward.
MOU or Treaty? Does it even matter? Who cares if Congress ratifies it?
The Constitution says that Congress must ratify treaties for them to take effect. That was back in the days when we considered a treaty a serious obligation for our country. How woke it that! Trump ignores treaties and just does stuff, even treaties he previously negotiated. And our supine Congress is fine with that. The problem is that other countries now view a treaty with the US as basically worthless. Regardless of what the MOU (or treaty or whatever) says, Iran will do whatever they want to do. They will impose "fees" for sailing through the straight of Hormuz. They will build nuclear weapons. They will support agents of chaos in the region and perhaps beyond. They may do some of this in secret, or not. What they will not do is act like whatever is written on this piece of paper constrains them in any way. And the rest of the world will understand their position.
It will be a generation, at least, before the US can negotiate a treaty that other countries consider binding.
For some people, it's always too late and the best has always been behind us. Some people are just built that way, and some cultures end up that way, as well. America used to think it was different, with no past baggage to carry around with us (or much less than those Old World countries, at least), and nothing but open road in front of us. But, just like Gatsby's green light and that "fresh green breast of the new world," a lot of that was illusory, and there was always a tide pulling us backwards, no matter how hard we rowed. MAGA has been backwards-looking from Day One; that was its whole attraction for fat old white guys who thought their own glory days and the country's glory days were somewhere in the rear-view mirror. Decline is a choice. It's easier than putting in the hard work of improvement and maintenance.
"Or talk to Kamala Harris, whose role as “border czar” for Joe Biden was widely misunderstood (she was tasked with dealing with the roots of migration not the physical entry points into the country) but nevertheless effectively deployed against her in 2024."
This was going to be my talking point until you stole it.
Holland is a historian attempting to show off his subject expertise vis-à-vis the unwashed. We all know the type. Of course, anyone who seriously thinks about it knows there are too many social and technological divergences between Rome and the United States for any parallel to be indisputably true, given that more than 15 centuries have passed since Rome’s fall. But saying the US isn’t like Rome (thereby implying we are NOT declining and falling) doesn’t mean the sequence of events we have experienced since the invasion of Iraq, a dysfunction accelerated by Trump and his goons, do not portend the decline and fall of America.
And if one is looking for a historical parallel, why not the USSR? A country claiming to be the freest on earth while running a corrupt, authoritarian kleptocracy, run by geriatric leaders, and possessing a bloated, expensive military that is ineffectual at actually winning wars. Could their Afghanistan be our Iran?
I can sympathize with Tom Holland's need to "well, actually" ... I share that inclination more than I'd like to admit. And I agree with his take that the 21st century US doesn't really resemble 5th century Rome (which we can assume people are talking about when they invoke the "fall of Rome"). I also appreciate the impulse to warn us away from complacency, because I likewise believe that we are not so far gone that we can't pull things back.
But I think it's Kristol clear that when most people express fears that we're going the way of Rome, they're not thinking of Odoacer in 476 CE but rather of the bloat, corruption and sclerosis that made the Republic easy pickings for the dynamic, populist autocrat Julius Caesar in the 40s BCE. And while our circumstances aren't identical, I think there is enough overlap to cause concern -- most especially in the sense that, in both times, a political body meant to respond to the concerns of the public became captured by elite, moneyed interests, dominated by experts who knew exactly the procedures and loopholes to exploit.
It's also notable that the Late Republic was defined by Rome's relative lack of conquest; the military expansion had all but stopped, leaving politicians no way to win fame and glory other than by picking and winning domestic arguments (and eventually battles). That sure sounds like "culture war" to me! And you could fairly point out that in the Late Republican period in Rome, the fact that the Legions were essentially private armies that relied on payment by their commanders (often via looting) makes them different than the US in 2026, but with ICE and right-wing militias roaming the streets, looking to the president for legal pardons and financial patronage, I think the distinction no longer holds up as well.
As to the gladiatorial games themselves, I do agree that it's just a fallacy to associate the prominence of bloodsport with the fall of the Roman empire. That said, I think it's not wrong to associate the joy in violent spectacle with a general devaluation of human life, which was extremely evident in Rome, and seems to be on the rise in the US. (For a fascinating discussion of the apparently universal human hunger for morally redemptive political violence, check out ContraPoints' video essay on the Saw franchise. No, seriously!)
Which brings up another point and perhaps draws me back to Holland. We can't forget that almost all the Roman history we have is a history of the rulers and the aristocrats. History didn't particularly care about the peasants until very recently, so they only ever show up when civil unrest gets so crazy that there are mobs roaming the streets. So while we look at the ways the Roman Republic succeeded and failed, we can't forget that the accounts we're studying come to us from aristocrats, and are concerned mainly with the opinions of aristocrats. One of the great moral triumphs of civilization between then and now is in involving the lower classes in the operation of the polity. And if you asked a Roman peasant--or slave--how things were in the glory days of the Republic, their response might make you feel a bit better about our politics today.
just want to say. excellent writing. such clarity is refreshing. [trust me, i used to be a copy editor. in the olden days.] and you're spot on in my view. AND, you read the directions!
After Ada Palmer's comments on how small the group of people who had a say in Italian republics like Florence actually were I need to look that up for Rome but I think we do know something about the plebs and the tribunes in Rome itself even if the aristocrats are telling the story
Fair enough. I was being a little hyperbolic. We certainly know more about the plebs than we know about the freedmen and the slaves—especially the rich plebs who stood a chance of political advancement. Archaeology in particular has helped develop a picture of the lower classes’ material daily life. Personally, though, I have a pretty strong feeling that, if anything, we underestimate the influence effect of the aristocratic historians’ framing on our perception of Roman history. Can you imagine how different and narrow US history would feel if it was told like Plutarch or Tacitus?
I ran to wikipedia for help and in theory the whole people in Rome were sovereign but in practice only magistrates could call the popular assemblies and they were attended mostly by wealthier people with leisure time for politics.
Ninetey-genairian Grassley, is so demented that he didn't realize he poured cement into Shadey's boots with his comment about the Veep working so hard for the last two months on getting to this MoU.
Maybe Grassley is doing his part to hang this massive strategic military failure on Vance. Why not? It would save his icon, the Donald, from ignominy. And he won’t live to pay the price.
That was my take. It’s like when Kennedy grilled Kristi Noem about the airplane. I’ll never believe that was his idea - I’m sure someone in the White House (Trump himself? Susie Wiles?) put that in his ear to provide a reason to get rid of her (and, by extension, Lewandowski). Not that they didn’t have plenty of good reasons already, but they didn’t want it to look as if the Democrats had taken her out.
One of the funniest Bulwark subheds of 2026 😭
Joe's writing never fails to make me laugh, no matter what's going on - today's column was particularly brilliant!
Seriously. Always love a good Bane quote.
Actually, the Chief’s kiss is having JD’s goofy, clueless looking smile under the subheading. “What-me worry?” Mr Neuman would be proud. ;-)
I literally cackled out loud when I read it.
“I think on the Democratic side, we’re almost completely unified—with the exception of Senator Fetterman—that this war is both illegal and deeply foolish.”
Another darkly hilarious moment.
What is a Republican Senator at this point if not a Democrat with half their brain missing?
JD Vance said the accomplishment he was most proud of was cutting aid to Ukraine. He boosted Viktor Orban. I hope the Iran deal is the last nail in this turd’s coffin, and that that is only the beginning for this travesty of a government.
Yes please and for sure.
We still don’t know what’s in the MOU, but the WSJ is reporting that two supertankers of newly unsanctioned Iranian crude have already sailed past the now lifted blockade.
https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/the-trump-iran-deal-allows-tehran-to-immediately-sell-oil-37a1ebe5
James Donald Bowman. James David Hamel. James David Vance. JD Vance.
Evangelical Protestant. Ayn Rand atheist. Reactionary Catholic (introduced to his faith mentor by Rod Dreher, a former Methodist who had once converted to Roman Catholicism but later converted to Eastern Orthodoxy--could the Eastern Rite be JD's next calling?)
Best-selling basher of the low morals and cultural standards of the drugged-up white working class. Vice presidential working man's hero, booster of the morals and culture of the white working class as epitomized by the glorious UFC cage match on the White House lawn.
Anti-Trump Republican JD, warning in dire terms that Trump could be America's Hitler. Pro-Trump Republican JD, insisting that his opposition from Trump was purely skin-deep and came, evidently, from trying to get liberals to like him. Now he doesn't care what they think, so there. If anyone's the Hitler, YOU'RE the Hitler, not Donald.
Anti-Iran war "voice of reason." Iran war apologist. Iran war fall guy.
What next, whatever next? Perhaps he will wake up to find he has been transformed into a giant insect, and a brilliant but tormented author will write about him.
Really enjoyed that summary, willoughby! Especially the last sentence.
Not sure this is totally in line, however what you are describing seems to be similar to Trump, constantly changing positions, views, etc. w/o the charisma/showmanship POTUS expouses. Without that M.O. Vance would seem to be toast moving forward.
And just like Gregor's mom, everyone will look at that giant cockroach flailing on its back and still know exactly who it is
Great summary! A real weathervane.
Couldn’t happen to a more deserving guy. He’s cuttin’ you loose, JD!
That will make room for the cage match between Rubio and the brothers Trump Don, Jr. and Eric the chinless
Oh please, please, please!....
MOU or Treaty? Does it even matter? Who cares if Congress ratifies it?
The Constitution says that Congress must ratify treaties for them to take effect. That was back in the days when we considered a treaty a serious obligation for our country. How woke it that! Trump ignores treaties and just does stuff, even treaties he previously negotiated. And our supine Congress is fine with that. The problem is that other countries now view a treaty with the US as basically worthless. Regardless of what the MOU (or treaty or whatever) says, Iran will do whatever they want to do. They will impose "fees" for sailing through the straight of Hormuz. They will build nuclear weapons. They will support agents of chaos in the region and perhaps beyond. They may do some of this in secret, or not. What they will not do is act like whatever is written on this piece of paper constrains them in any way. And the rest of the world will understand their position.
It will be a generation, at least, before the US can negotiate a treaty that other countries consider binding.
indigenous folk know the value of a treaty with the us.
Reading this article made me very very sad.
Plus no more sanctions on Iranian oil, adding more cash.
For some people, it's always too late and the best has always been behind us. Some people are just built that way, and some cultures end up that way, as well. America used to think it was different, with no past baggage to carry around with us (or much less than those Old World countries, at least), and nothing but open road in front of us. But, just like Gatsby's green light and that "fresh green breast of the new world," a lot of that was illusory, and there was always a tide pulling us backwards, no matter how hard we rowed. MAGA has been backwards-looking from Day One; that was its whole attraction for fat old white guys who thought their own glory days and the country's glory days were somewhere in the rear-view mirror. Decline is a choice. It's easier than putting in the hard work of improvement and maintenance.
Well said, sir.
...why?
Why bother setting him up?
The kind of people who will believe this is all JD's fault, will believe it if Trump just declares it.
The lead photo for this article is 👌.
Vance, after lecturing Leo XIV on theology, is now Trump’s obvious fall guy for his thoughtless Iranian military ‘excursion.’
While Trump pontificates about his marvelous negotiation wins, Vance is shuttled off to Switzerland to sign a leaky Memorandum of Understanding.
JD, guess who Trump will blame, when the MOU unravels? As an observer I consider the Iranians somewhat more credible in negotiations than Trump.
As I sketch a box score of who seems to be winning I find Iran 5 against Trump’s 1/2. His deuces in the hole don’t beat the straight of Hormuz.
The MOU will be history by tomorrow night. Bibi will blow it up if doesn’t fail on its own.
Agree - Bibi is the wild card.
I like it
"Or talk to Kamala Harris, whose role as “border czar” for Joe Biden was widely misunderstood (she was tasked with dealing with the roots of migration not the physical entry points into the country) but nevertheless effectively deployed against her in 2024."
This was going to be my talking point until you stole it.
Holland is a historian attempting to show off his subject expertise vis-à-vis the unwashed. We all know the type. Of course, anyone who seriously thinks about it knows there are too many social and technological divergences between Rome and the United States for any parallel to be indisputably true, given that more than 15 centuries have passed since Rome’s fall. But saying the US isn’t like Rome (thereby implying we are NOT declining and falling) doesn’t mean the sequence of events we have experienced since the invasion of Iraq, a dysfunction accelerated by Trump and his goons, do not portend the decline and fall of America.
And if one is looking for a historical parallel, why not the USSR? A country claiming to be the freest on earth while running a corrupt, authoritarian kleptocracy, run by geriatric leaders, and possessing a bloated, expensive military that is ineffectual at actually winning wars. Could their Afghanistan be our Iran?
gore vidal talking about the american empire decades ago! [decline of said empire. he was right.]
I can sympathize with Tom Holland's need to "well, actually" ... I share that inclination more than I'd like to admit. And I agree with his take that the 21st century US doesn't really resemble 5th century Rome (which we can assume people are talking about when they invoke the "fall of Rome"). I also appreciate the impulse to warn us away from complacency, because I likewise believe that we are not so far gone that we can't pull things back.
But I think it's Kristol clear that when most people express fears that we're going the way of Rome, they're not thinking of Odoacer in 476 CE but rather of the bloat, corruption and sclerosis that made the Republic easy pickings for the dynamic, populist autocrat Julius Caesar in the 40s BCE. And while our circumstances aren't identical, I think there is enough overlap to cause concern -- most especially in the sense that, in both times, a political body meant to respond to the concerns of the public became captured by elite, moneyed interests, dominated by experts who knew exactly the procedures and loopholes to exploit.
It's also notable that the Late Republic was defined by Rome's relative lack of conquest; the military expansion had all but stopped, leaving politicians no way to win fame and glory other than by picking and winning domestic arguments (and eventually battles). That sure sounds like "culture war" to me! And you could fairly point out that in the Late Republican period in Rome, the fact that the Legions were essentially private armies that relied on payment by their commanders (often via looting) makes them different than the US in 2026, but with ICE and right-wing militias roaming the streets, looking to the president for legal pardons and financial patronage, I think the distinction no longer holds up as well.
As to the gladiatorial games themselves, I do agree that it's just a fallacy to associate the prominence of bloodsport with the fall of the Roman empire. That said, I think it's not wrong to associate the joy in violent spectacle with a general devaluation of human life, which was extremely evident in Rome, and seems to be on the rise in the US. (For a fascinating discussion of the apparently universal human hunger for morally redemptive political violence, check out ContraPoints' video essay on the Saw franchise. No, seriously!)
Which brings up another point and perhaps draws me back to Holland. We can't forget that almost all the Roman history we have is a history of the rulers and the aristocrats. History didn't particularly care about the peasants until very recently, so they only ever show up when civil unrest gets so crazy that there are mobs roaming the streets. So while we look at the ways the Roman Republic succeeded and failed, we can't forget that the accounts we're studying come to us from aristocrats, and are concerned mainly with the opinions of aristocrats. One of the great moral triumphs of civilization between then and now is in involving the lower classes in the operation of the polity. And if you asked a Roman peasant--or slave--how things were in the glory days of the Republic, their response might make you feel a bit better about our politics today.
I see what you did there. Clever! You win the Bulwark merch. (Not that Joe mentioned an award! :-)
just want to say. excellent writing. such clarity is refreshing. [trust me, i used to be a copy editor. in the olden days.] and you're spot on in my view. AND, you read the directions!
Thank you, Eileen. I’m honored!
After Ada Palmer's comments on how small the group of people who had a say in Italian republics like Florence actually were I need to look that up for Rome but I think we do know something about the plebs and the tribunes in Rome itself even if the aristocrats are telling the story
Fair enough. I was being a little hyperbolic. We certainly know more about the plebs than we know about the freedmen and the slaves—especially the rich plebs who stood a chance of political advancement. Archaeology in particular has helped develop a picture of the lower classes’ material daily life. Personally, though, I have a pretty strong feeling that, if anything, we underestimate the influence effect of the aristocratic historians’ framing on our perception of Roman history. Can you imagine how different and narrow US history would feel if it was told like Plutarch or Tacitus?
I ran to wikipedia for help and in theory the whole people in Rome were sovereign but in practice only magistrates could call the popular assemblies and they were attended mostly by wealthier people with leisure time for politics.
Thanks for an informative comment!
One of your best pieces, Joe. Lots of info, lots of humor. Well done!
As Pogo said, "We have met the enemy and he is us."
Ninetey-genairian Grassley, is so demented that he didn't realize he poured cement into Shadey's boots with his comment about the Veep working so hard for the last two months on getting to this MoU.
Maybe Grassley is doing his part to hang this massive strategic military failure on Vance. Why not? It would save his icon, the Donald, from ignominy. And he won’t live to pay the price.
That was my take. It’s like when Kennedy grilled Kristi Noem about the airplane. I’ll never believe that was his idea - I’m sure someone in the White House (Trump himself? Susie Wiles?) put that in his ear to provide a reason to get rid of her (and, by extension, Lewandowski). Not that they didn’t have plenty of good reasons already, but they didn’t want it to look as if the Democrats had taken her out.