What’s Left of the Right?

Summary of What’s Left of the Right?

by The Dispatch

1h 17m•June 26, 2026
Listen to Episode

Overview of What’s Left of the Right?

In this live Dispatch Podcast taping at 92nd Street Y, Steve Hayes, Jonah Goldberg, Megan McArdle, and Chris Stirewalt dissected Donald Trump’s increasingly interventionist foreign policy, the credibility costs of his Iran deal/“memorandum of understanding,” and what remains of the Republican Party after years of Trump domination. The panel’s core argument: there is no coherent “Trump doctrine” so much as a personalist, improvisational politics driven by Trump’s ego, short-term incentives, and obsession with loyalty. The conversation then shifted to why Senate Republicans are finally speaking out, and what Trump’s role in the 2028 race may be.

The Main Debate: Trump, War, and the So-Called “Doctrine”

Trump’s foreign policy is opportunistic, not ideological

  • The panel pushed back on the idea that Trump has a consistent strategic worldview.
  • Their view: Trump says what works in the moment, likes victories, and follows praise.
  • He’s willing to use force abroad, but only if it looks fast, decisive, and flattering.

“Trump doctrine” = whatever benefits Trump

  • Megan McArdle argued the closest thing to a Trump doctrine is:
    • what is good for Donald Trump is good for the world,
    • because Trump sees himself as the world.
  • Jonah Goldberg added that Trump’s politics are powered by “wishful thinking” and a belief that saying something makes it true.

Iran exposed the limits of Trump’s instincts

  • The panel suggested Trump thought Iran would be another quick, Maduro-style win:
    • remove a leader,
    • install a friendlier one,
    • declare victory.
  • Instead, he appears to have underestimated:
    • the complexity of Iran,
    • the cost of escalation,
    • and the fact that adversaries often mean what they say.

America First, Pat Buchanan, and the Right’s Internal Split

“America First” was a slogan Trump liked, not a philosophy he deeply understood

  • The hosts argued Trump adopted “America First” because it sounded strong and memorable.
  • Jonah and Chris traced the phrase back to older isolationist and nationalist currents, especially Pat Buchanan.
  • But they emphasized that Trump is not a doctrinaire nationalist; he’s an opportunist who borrows slogans.

The anti-war right is selective

  • A major theme was that many “anti-interventionist” conservatives are really:
    • anti-commitment,
    • anti-alliances when inconvenient,
    • and, in some cases, specifically anti-Israel rather than broadly anti-war.
  • The panel argued that the right’s reactions to Trump’s moves revealed a preference hierarchy:
    • they tolerated toughness on Venezuela, NATO threats, Greenland talk, etc.,
    • but lost patience when Trump’s actions helped Israel or aligned too closely with it.

Buchananism, nationalism, and the movement’s hard edge

  • Chris Stirewalt described the current strain on the right as a continuation of Buchanan-style nationalism.
  • The panel suggested that what survives of Trumpism may be this nationalist current:
    • anti-globalist,
    • anti-internationalist,
    • and often skeptical of traditional Republican foreign-policy orthodoxy.

Why Republicans Are Finally Speaking Out

The Senate revolt is late, but real

  • The panel pointed to Republican senators becoming more openly critical of Trump.
  • A few reasons were identified:
    • Trump is deeply unpopular in some cycles,
    • many senators are retiring or nearing the end of their careers,
    • and they no longer fear immediate retaliation as much.
  • They also noted that Trump’s endorsement power is real, but only when it matches the Republican base’s instincts.

John Cornyn / Ken Paxton was a tipping point

  • McArdle argued that Trump’s willingness to back Ken Paxton over John Cornyn symbolized the party’s degradation:
    • loyalty to Trump matters more than competence or character,
    • and even loyal senators can be discarded if they’re not sufficiently obsequious.
  • The point: Republicans have learned Trump can and will hurt them, regardless of how supportive they are.

Guardrails are weaker than they were in Trump’s first term

  • Jonah argued that in the first term, there were still more internal constraints.
  • Now:
    • the guardrails are weaker,
    • the remaining institutionalists are more isolated,
    • and Trump is more free to act on impulse.
  • The result is more chaos, not less.

What This Means for the GOP and 2028

Trump will still be the most important figure in the next cycle

  • The panel largely agreed Trump will dominate the Republican conversation in 2028.
  • But “most important” is not the same as “most powerful.”
    • He can shape the debate.
    • He can endorse, threaten, and distort.
    • But he may not be able to fully control the outcome.

His influence may outlast his actual authority

  • Jonah predicted Trump will remain the central issue, even if he’s not the decider.
  • Megan added that Trump may shape the race without being able to command it.
  • In practical terms:
    • he can make chaos,
    • but he may not be able to choose his successor or enforce loyalty forever.

The broader Republican Party will likely normalize after Trump

  • One hopeful note from the panel:
    • Trump is unusually bad and unusually personalistic.
    • After he’s gone, the GOP will probably revert to more normal coalition politics.
  • But they also warned that Trump has left real damage behind:
    • weakened norms,
    • a more personality-driven party,
    • and a more cynical political culture.

Key Takeaways

  • There is no coherent Trump doctrine — only Trump’s instincts, ego, and appetite for praise.
  • Trumpism is not a stable ideology; it’s a personality cult with nationalist and populist pieces attached.
  • The right’s anti-war rhetoric is selective and often reveals a deeper anti-Israel or anti-alliance bias.
  • Republicans are belatedly resisting Trump because they see he’s a liability and they’re freer now than before.
  • Trump will likely remain the defining force of the 2028 cycle, even if he can’t directly control it.

Closing Note

The episode ended on a lighter note with a playful “what country would you invade for one food?” game, underscoring the panel’s mix of sharp political analysis and irreverent humor. Their final tone was clear: Trump still sets the agenda, but the Republican coalition around him is increasingly unstable, opportunistic, and post-ideological.