Compact Podcast – "A Tale of Two Wars" (March 4, 2026)

Episode Overview

In this episode of the Compact Podcast, hosts Matthew Schmitz, Ashley Frawley, and Geoff Shullenberger—joined later by assistant editor Steven Adubato—tackle two headline-grabbing conflicts: the current U.S. war against Iran and the European Union’s campaign against so-called “conversion therapy.” The discussion navigates the fragmented nature of modern war propaganda, shifting approaches to statecraft, and the ideological complexities of legislation targeting conversion practices.

I. The Current US War Effort and the Collapse of War Propaganda

Deconstructing Modern War Narratives

• Lack of Cohesive Propaganda: Geoff Shullenberger dives into the noticeable absence of a unified propaganda effort to justify the new war, drawing a stark contrast with the concerted Bush-era push leading up to Iraq.
  • “What’s really odd here, I think, is the sort of apathy about this very fundamental aspect of modern political propaganda… there isn’t even any effort, as far as I can tell, to create a cohesive narrative explaining what’s going on or why this is happening.” — Geoff [03:45]
• Fragmentation of Media and the Public Sphere: The hosts connect this shift to the fracturing of the media environment, where multiple, often contradictory narratives coexist, even within right-wing circles.
  • Example: At Daily Wire, Matt Walsh and Ben Shapiro split on war support, mirroring broader right-wing division—“Fractalization of the media landscape where you see the fragmentation ramify at every level…” — Geoff [08:45]
• Historical Contrast: Poll-measured “rally around the flag” effects were once common, but now publics are too polarized/atomized to mobilize—mirrored by declining trust in institutions.
  • “Maybe that was the tail end of where you needed to, or perceived that there was a need to attempt some kind of narrative coherence.” — Ashley [12:32]

The Managerial Populism of Modern War Rhetoric

• Technocratic Substance, Populist Gloss: The group discusses how today’s leaders, especially Trump, offer practical justifications (“supply chains,” “stability”) rather than ideological ones.
  • “Modern war doesn’t even have to pretend to be ideological… Trump’s not going to say we’re fighting for our freedom. He’s going to be quite bare: ‘they can’t have nukes… No more endless wars.’” — Ashley [14:16]
• Appealing to Fragmented Bases: Instead of national unity, messaging is fine-tuned to fragmented online factions:
  • “The Trump base is this complex organism… you have some who are more hawkish, you have others who are restrainers…” — Matthew [15:45]

The Sidelining of Restraint in US Foreign Policy

• Debate on Right-Wing ‘Restrainers’: “Restrainer” voices (like Tucker Carlson, Emma Ashford) are marginalized as Trump’s hawkish actions (bombing Iran’s nuclear sites, extracting Maduro in Venezuela) are recounted as successes.
  • “Restraint is increasingly sidelined and I think discredited in the administration…” — Matthew [20:50]
• Conflicted Messaging on Motivation: Official statements vacillate between blaming Israel’s influence and justifying decisive action, reflecting an inability to own or clearly define war aims.
  • “They’re kind of trying to have it both ways, hinting that, oh, well, it might have been Israel, but also he acted decisively.” — Ashley [21:41]
  • “I’m sticking to my guns… Donald Trump… was not just suddenly and against his will… tricked into it by the devious Bibi Netanyahu.” — Matthew [23:13]

The Structural Incentive of American Power

• Why Interventionism Persists: With huge executive power and limited legislative efficacy, presidents are incentivized to use military instruments as spectacular demonstrations of agency.
  • “You have this massive apparatus at your disposal… here’s this incredibly powerful apparatus you can wield on the global stage.” — Geoff [28:15]
• Lack of Overarching Vision: Since the Cold War, the US wields power reactively, seized by other countries’ causes (Ukraine, Israel) without clear domestic consensus.
  • “…this apparatus which is, you know, incredibly powerful, but also doesn’t have a clear defining vision…” — Geoff [29:40]

II. The EU’s Fight Against “Conversion Therapy”: Substance or Smokescreen?

NGO Power and Legislative Tactics

• NGO-Led Initiatives: The European push to ban conversion therapy is driven by influential NGOs (like ILGA), using citizen petitions to force EU-level debate.
  • “The EU wouldn’t be taking up this supposedly burning question without the NGO… hands up the backsides of these NGO puppets…” — Ashley [31:43]
• “Bundle” Strategy: Activists tie controversial policies (affirmation-only therapy, self-ID) to popular gay rights reforms as a veil, a tactic outlined in Dentons’ IGLO report.
  • “They explicitly say… tie your campaign to a more popular reform… a ‘veil of protection’ where marriage equality was strongly supported, but gender identity remained difficult…” — Ashley [36:12]

Expansive Definitions and Therapy “Taboos”

• Overbroad Definitions: Data used to justify bans often lump together egregious abuses (electroshock) with minor or ambiguous “non-affirmation” or verbal disapproval.
  • “What exactly was a conversion practice?… if you go to therapy and the therapist does anything other than affirm, then that is a form of conversion therapy.” — Ashley [33:52]
• Suppression of Exploratory Therapy: Moves to criminalize anything but affirmation threaten therapists’ ability to explore the roots of gender or sexual identity with clients.
  • “What is happening… is the potential outlaw of anything other than affirmation for trans people… extremely worrying for parental authority, the ability to work through issues as a family.” — Ashley [34:33]
• Legislative Enthusiasm and Pushback: EU legislators appear more interested in optics than scrutiny, with meaningful opposition limited and easy applause for pro-LGBT rhetoric.
  • “They clapped when the person said, being a friend means that you reaffirm…” — Ashley [39:46]

Identity, Fluidity, and the American Paradigm

• Critiquing Conversion Therapy Bans: Steven Adubato addresses the harm of forced “therapies,” but questions whether identity should be treated as singular or immutable—proposing instead a more fluid understanding.
  • “…you have these actual programs, a lot of which are, are insane and outlandish. But what about the person who wants to work through… the origins of my desire?” — Steven [43:10]
  • “I’m pro bisexual responsiveness. I’m pro fluidity. I think we need to get rid of these categories because they’re not real at the end of the day.” — Steven [47:03]
• Double Standards in Sexual and Gender Experimentation: Social acceptance is conditional, privileging experimentation in progressive directions but policing any return to “straightness.”
  • “You often hear of… girls who were clearly heterosexual but… trying out with women. …If you have a gay guy who’s like, oh, I think I might want to try with girls… they get shouted down…” — Steven [46:00]

Legislative Overreach and Unintended Harms

• The Dangers of Over-Criminalization: Frawley and Adubato caution that sweeping bans risk outlawing beneficial practices and stifling honest client-therapist engagement.
  • “We cannot outlaw everything that might hurt people… you are intentionally, I think, including a ton of things in there that might actually be very helpful to people…” — Ashley [48:55]
• “One Victim Is Too Many?”: Ashley notes the activist rhetorical trick, asking why the standard of “one victim is too many” doesn’t apply to detransitioners or those harmed by affirmation-only approaches.
  • “What about detransitioners?… Oh, so suddenly one victim isn’t too many, is it? Hundreds aren’t even too many for you.” — Ashley [41:00]

III. Memorable Moments & Notable Quotes

• On Fragmented War Messaging:
  “It’s a kind of fractalization of the media landscape… even within a sort of generally pro-MAGA right wing outlet like the Daily Wire, there you see the same fracturing…” — Geoff [08:50]

• On the True Motives for Intervention:
  “If you are a president, then… when you encounter others who have some kind of… seemingly compelling mission… you get to just do this spectacular stuff and assert your power and efficacy on the global stage.” — Geoff [30:30]

• On NGO Tactics in the EU:
  “They’re bundling in a very expansive desire to control people’s speech, to… make it very, very difficult to have anything other than an affirmation only approach…” — Ashley [37:15]

• On the Dangers of Banning All Conversion Practices:
  “Not everything that is harmful should be illegal. And I think a lot of people have lost that distinction.” — Ashley [49:30]

• On Identity and Fluidity:
  “I’m pro bisexual responsiveness. I’m pro fluidity. I think we need to get rid of these categories because they don’t… they’re not real at the end of the day.” — Steven [47:03]

IV. Segment Timestamps

| Timestamp | Segment/Topic | |-----------|-----------------------------------------------| | 01:00 | Intro to episode theme: wars Iran vs. EU's conversion therapy | | 01:39 | Geoff on lack of US war propaganda | | 12:32 | Ashley: waning narrative authority, rise of managerial populism | | 15:45 | Matthew: Internal complexity of Trump coalition and restrainer voices in foreign policy | | 21:41 | Ashley on divergent war justifications (Israel's influence vs. US agency) | | 24:28 | The structural incentive to exercise military power | | 31:16 | Pivot to the EU’s conversion therapy legislation (Ashley, Steven joins) | | 31:43 | NGO-driven policy and 'bundling' technique | | 41:50 | Steven on identity, fluidity, and therapy taboos| | 47:29 | Cross-Atlantic differences & legislative dangers| | 50:56 | Ashley and Steven: the risks of broad bans |

V. Takeaways

• Modern statecraft employs targeted messaging to fractured audiences, abandoning grand narratives in favor of managerial pragmatism.
• US foreign policy is shaped less by grand strategy than by the availability of forceful tools and fractured consensus—wars proceed without mass mobilization.
• EU “conversion therapy” bans, while pitched as defense of the vulnerable, risk suppressing legitimate therapeutic exploration and throttling dissent via expansive definitions.
• Identity categories themselves are questioned, with guests arguing for greater openness to fluidity and skepticism of both affirmational and “conversion” orthodoxies.

For more: Visit compactmag.com or subscribe to the magazine.