Spars and strikes: Who backs Iran war?

Summary

Podcast Summary: The Economist - "Spars and strikes: Who backs Iran war?"

Date: March 5, 2026
Host: Rosie Blore, with Jason Palmer
Featured Correspondents: Adam Roberts (Foreign Editor), Sophie Pedder (Paris Bureau Chief), Shira Avellano (Business Writer)

---

Overview

This episode of The Economist's "The Intelligence" delivers a deep-dive into the unfolding American-led war in Iran (Operation Epic Fury), exploring the shifting domestic and international political landscapes it creates. The podcast also analyzes France’s newly announced moves concerning its nuclear arsenal and strategic alliances, and finally, examines the limited commercial success of brands targeting America's conservative MAGA consumer base.

---

Segment 1: America’s Assault on Iran – Who Supports the War?

[01:29 – 09:58]

Key Discussion Points

• Operation Epic Fury Updates:
  The war enters its sixth day, with US military (backed by Israel) claiming decisive victories.

  • Pete Hegseth, the Secretary of War, describes the offensive as "devastatingly and without mercy." ([02:20])

• Political Gamble for Trump:
  The conflict marks a shift in Donald Trump’s presidential posture from "peace candidate" to "war president," drawing domestic political risks.

  • "The old Donald Trump... would be horrified by what he's seeing right now. The new Donald Trump is ready to... launch what looks like a full scale, really big regional war in the Middle east." – Adam Roberts ([03:47])

• Senate War Powers Vote:
  Democrats attempt to curb Trump’s war powers; Republicans largely support the action but votes fall along party lines.

  • Importance lies in senators' positions being on record for future accountability.
  • War’s duration and costs remain unknown; initial support is tepid.

• American Public Opinion:
  Only 30-40% of Americans support the war at this stage, significantly lower than after 9/11.

  • "If this war carries on more than a few days, that popularity level is very likely to drop." – Adam Roberts ([05:02])

• American Alliances in Play:
  Support from traditional allies is tepid. Israel is the primary backer; European countries (notably the UK, France, and Gulf allies) are hesitant and slow-moving.

  • Trump’s attack on British leader Zakir Starmer illustrates tensions:
    "This is not Winston Churchill that we're dealing with." – Sophie Pedder quoting Trump ([06:47])
  • Allies fear war blowback on their economies and domestic security.

• Inadvertent Escalation and Missile Strikes:
  Iran attempts to widen the conflict, including missile launches toward Turkey and Cyprus.

  • "...sent a missile towards Turkey... If that missile had caused damage at an American base which hosts nuclear weapons, that could have... caused a very grave escalation of this crisis." – Adam Roberts ([07:29])

• Escalation and Unclear Strategy:
  US and Israeli officials tout operational success, but there’s no coherent articulation of war aims.

  • "As successful as you might be on the battlefield, if you don't know why you're fighting, it's very hard to know where this war will go. And it's even harder to know when it will end." – Adam Roberts ([09:45])

Notable Moment

• Sinking of Iranian Frigate:
  "We saw the most remarkable thing happen yesterday in the Indian Ocean, where an American submarine torpedoed an Iranian frigate, killed around 80 people, sank the ship." – Adam Roberts ([08:55])

---

Segment 2: France's Defense Shifts – Nukes and Alliances

[10:11 – 17:19]

Key Discussion Points

• French Naval Moves:
  President Macron deploys the Charles de Gaulle aircraft carrier to the eastern Mediterranean in response to the crisis.

  • "It had been in Sweden, and the decision... was taken in response to the worsening crisis." – Sophie Pedder ([10:49])

• France’s Gulf and EU Interests:
  France seeks to protect its own nationals along with Cyprus (EU member), and Gulf countries (UAE, Kuwait, Qatar) where it has direct defense relationships.

  • Strategy is clearly defensive, not overtly offensive.

• Major Nuclear Posture Shift:
  Macron announces an increase in France's nuclear warheads, departing from decades of doctrine.

  • "France has always had this doctrine whereby... if you can inflict unacceptable massive damage through nuclear strike, then you don't need X number [of warheads]... So... this is quite a shift for French nuclear posture, and it was a surprise to... even those who follow these things quite closely." – Sophie Pedder ([12:23])

• Deepening European Collaboration:
  Macron outlines plans for closer nuclear and military cooperation with seven European countries (including Germany and Poland), making the “European dimension” of France’s deterrent concrete for the first time.

  • Emphasizes France’s nuclear decisions remain sovereign, but operational cooperation and exercises can now involve European allies.

• Motivation: Russia and US Uncertainty:
  France’s shift is fueled by persistent Russian threats and uncertainty over continued US protection of Europe ("doubts about the American guarantee").

  • This adjustment is positioned as complementary to NATO, not as a replacement.

Notable Quotes

• "There is a sense... that they have to stick together now, and they have to take seriously these discussions with France." – Sophie Pedder, on European allies ([15:33])
• "He's not trying to undermine NATO... He's simply taking stock of a situation which is worrying for everybody in Europe." – Sophie Pedder, on Macron’s intentions ([16:29])

---

Segment 3: The Uneasy Economics of Conservative Brands

[18:44 – 23:09]

Key Discussion Points

• MAGA Consumer Brands:
  Despite Trump’s political victories, explicitly conservative/MAGA-branded companies (beers, pillows, razors, diapers, etc.) generally underperform in the market.

  • "These brands have been less [successful]." – Right Wing Market Analyst ([19:09])

• Market Reluctance:
  Most consumers, even Trump supporters, don’t want their purchases to become overt political statements, especially for visible goods like beverages.

  • "Very few people want their consumer choices to reflect their political predilections." – Right Wing Market Analyst ([20:35])

• Brand Boycotts More Impactful:
  Consumer activism more commonly takes the form of boycotts against mainstream brands (e.g., Bud Light after its 2023 campaign involving a transgender influencer).

  • "Bud Light really has taken a multi year hit after a MAGA led boycott in 2023... And Bud Light lost its spot as America's bestselling beer." ([21:24])

• Brands Retreating from "Woke" Moves:
  Some companies have reversed marketing shifts after backlash (e.g., Cracker Barrel restoring its original branding in response to conservative outrage).

• Political Tensions for Business:
  The old adage that brands can "stay out of politics" is increasingly difficult, as even neutrality invites controversy.

  • "You can say, you know, bosses stay out of politics, but in a lot of these cases, politics didn't stay away from them." – Right Wing Market Analyst ([23:01])

---

Memorable Quotes & Timestamps

• Foreign Editor Adam Roberts on the Murky Objectives of the Iran War:
  "As successful as you might be on the battlefield, if you don't know why you're fighting, it's very hard to know where this war will go. And it's even harder to know when it will end." ([09:45])

• Sophie Pedder on France’s Rationales:
  "This is not something that was drawn up in response to the Iran crisis at all... But it is a reminder of how dangerous the world is at the moment." ([12:23])

• Right Wing Market Analyst on Political Branding:
  "Very few people want their consumer choices to reflect their political predilections..." ([20:35])

---

Timeline of Major Segments

| Timestamp | Segment/Topic | |--------------|------------------------------------------------| | 01:29 - 09:58| US-Iran war analysis, alliances, public & Senate reactions (Adam Roberts) | | 10:11 - 17:19| France’s military responses & nuclear/alliances shift (Sophie Pedder) | | 18:44 - 23:09| MAGA-centered brands and consumer politics (Shira Avellano et al.) |

---

Tone and Style

The episode features a sober, analytical tone characteristic of The Economist, balancing on-the-ground facts, political insight, and contextual expertise from correspondents. Memorable zingers come primarily via paraphrased or quoted public figures (e.g., Trump on Starmer or the British non-Winston Churchill jibe), punctuating in-depth discussions.

---

Conclusion

This episode offers a nuanced, multilayered look at a rapidly expanding war in the Middle East, highlighting domestic political gambles, transatlantic alliance strains, and resultant shifts in nuclear deterrence and military policy in Europe. The final segment offers a market microcosm: even in an era where politics suffuses the news, overt partisanship remains a tough sell for most consumer goods – and for much of the public.

---

This summary captures the central themes, critical insights, and memorable moments, providing a comprehensive guide for those who need the key takeaways without listening to the full episode.

Transcript

[UK Government Advertiser]

Scaling requires infrastructure, talent and policy certainty. The UK's modern industrial strategy delivers all three and more through a ten year plan. With ten trillion pounds in capital, world class universities and unrivalled market access, the UK is engineered for growth. Start your investment journey at business.gov.uk forward/growth.

[BetterHelp Advertiser]

This is an ad by BetterHelp.

[Podcast Host or Narrator]

Did I talk too much? Can I just let it go? Thank you so much.

[BetterHelp Advertiser]

Take a breath. You're not alone. Let's talk about what's going on. Counseling helps you sort through the noise with qualified professionals and online therapy makes it convenient. See if it's for you. Visit betterhelp.com random podcast for 10% off your first month of online therapy and let life feel better.

[Shira Avellano]

The economist.

[Rosie Blore]

Hello and welcome to the Intelligence from the Economist. I'm Rosie Blore.

[Shira Avellano]

And I'm Jason Palmer. Every weekday we provide a fresh perspective on the events shaping your world.

[Rosie Blore]

So much has happened in the past week. You may not have noticed that France announced a major shift both in the size of its nuclear stockpile and the shape of its military alliances.

[Shira Avellano]

And if you're politically aligned with America's MAGA movement and inclined to manifest that in your choice of beer or pillows or razors or telecoms provider, there are brands out there for you. But turns out not too many people are so inclined.

[Rosie Blore]

First up, though, Day six of Operation Epic Fury and the assault on Iran continues.

[Podcast Host or Narrator]

They are toast and they know it. Or at least soon enough, they will know it. America is winning decisively, devastatingly and without mercy.

[Rosie Blore]

But while Pete Hegseth, America's secretary of war, touted the military and intelligence successes, Democrats in the Senate tried to constrain Donald Trump's ability to wage war. Until Congress had approved the action, a win would have halted hostilities temporarily. Though this conflict is far from American turf, for Trump, the political implications could strike far closer to home.

[Adam Roberts]

So yesterday the Senate had a vote on what's called the War Powers Act. And this is an effort by the Democrats to force senators to come out and say whether or not they would support Donald Trump's war in Iran.

[Rosie Blore]

Adam Roberts is the Economist's foreign editor.

[Adam Roberts]

The failure of the vote is not at all surprising. We saw the split, basically long party lines. Democrats wanted to go against the war. Republicans have gone for it, by and large. But what that does is it puts on record whether or not you supported it from the start. And that could become tricky for senators later on, depending how this war unfolds.

[Rosie Blore]

Adam this war is a huge political gamble and a change in style of Trump from a peace president, which he came to power saying he was going to be, to a war president, how's that playing domestically?

[Adam Roberts]

So, yeah, you're completely right to say that. The old Donald Trump, the Donald Trump of 2016, if you remember the one who campaigned against forever wars, who attacked the neocons for dragging Americans into conflicts in distant parts of the world, that old Donald Trump would be horrified by what he's seeing right now. The new Donald Trump is ready to send special forces to Venezuela to bomb Iran and now to launch what looks like a full scale, really big regional war in the Middle east, which it's very hard to see will be anything shorter than at at least several weeks long. Pete Hegseth yesterday talked about this being an eight week long war. Who's to say at this stage that it won't be even longer? So for Americans, for the core group of people who oppose these long entanglements overseas, Donald Trump's old supporters, this is a really disturbing turn. This is a sense that America is yet again being dragged into a war in the Middle east that is a war of choice. It's not essential, despite what Donald Trump says, it's not that America was being threatened by Iran, at least not imminently. And so they will find it quite hard, I think, to understand what this war is all about.

[Rosie Blore]

Before strike started, the idea of bombing Iran wasn't popular with the US Public. Now we're in it. Have we seen a rallying around the flag?

[Adam Roberts]

A little bit of rallying around the flag is happening. So if you're a Republican, if you're a Trump supporter, as we've seen in other occasions, they tend to swing behind the president whatever he does. And so there's been a small increase in support in recent days, according to pollsters, but it's still historically a very low level of support for this stage of a war. So if you think back to 2001, when America invaded Afghanistan, at that time, 90% of Americans thought that was a good idea. The most recent polling we've got for what's going on in Iran suggests that maybe 30, possibly 40% of Americans think this is a good idea. That's a very low basis for when you're beginning the war. And remember, this is before many American soldiers have died, before we've really felt the consequences of what's happening. So if this war carries on more than a few days, that popularity level is very likely to drop.

[Rosie Blore]

What about the American alliances abroad? We've already seen some shifts there, right?

[Adam Roberts]

Yeah, it's very striking how few countries wanted to get in and to support America at the very beginning of this. Israel, of course, was very enthusiastic. And some have suggested that Israel was quite influential in encouraging Trump to go ahead and do this attack at all. But you go beyond Israel, and the Europeans, for example, have been quite cagey. They didn't want to lend their military bases to support the initial attacks on Iran. The Gulf allies were certainly in two minds about whether to go ahead with this. They're scared for good reason, that the war in Iran will have big blowback on their economies, on the stability of that area. So allies such as Sakir Starmer here in Britain were rather slow in giving Trump the support he wanted. And that, of course, provoked Trump's now fairly infamous attack on Mr. Starmer.

[Sophie Pedder]

This is not Winston Churchill that we're dealing with.

[Adam Roberts]

I think that's not going to really bother Zakir Starmer very much. He knows that for his domestic voters, being attacked by Donald Trump is usually not a bad thing. But it does point to some caution in this old alliance between Britain and America.

[Rosie Blore]

What about the countries that might be drawn in, whether they want to be

[Adam Roberts]

or not, as much as those European countries, for example, were wary of getting involved at the start. They know because they have so many of their people who live or work or visit the Gulf, that they will get drawn into this war in some way, whether they like it or not. So we've seen that the French, for example, are going to deploy an aircraft carrier to the Mediterranean to be closer to this region. The British are sending a naval ship, HMS Dragon, to Cyprus. Cyprus has already been the target of an Iranian attempted strike in recent days. So we will increasingly see naval assets, but also military bases. Those ones that they were reluctant to lend at the beginning are now going to be used by the Americans initially for so called defensive purposes. But I think increasingly we'll see many of the NATO allies and other allies of the Americans getting drawn into this, too. There was a very notable attempt by Iran this week to try to provoke an even wider conflagration. So it sent a missile towards Turkey, something it had been very wary of doing in the past. Turkey is a NATO ally, and if that missile had caused damage at an American base which hosts nuclear weapons, that could have really caused a very grave escalation of this crisis. The missile was actually shot down, but you can see a very clear effort by the Iranian regime to say, well, you've started this war and we're going to make it as big and as damaging as we possibly can. And we're going to drag in as many others as we can. If we're going to go down, we're going to bring a lot of people down with us.

[Rosie Blore]

Adam, we're on day six of Operation Epic Fury. What happens next?

[Adam Roberts]

I think we'll continue to see a lot of bombing in the coming days. The Americans and the Israelis tell us that it's going extremely well operationally. They say that they're taking out a lot of missile launchers. They're degrading the military capabilities of Iran very successfully. That's what they say. We saw the most remarkable thing happen yesterday in the Indian Ocean, where an American submarine torpedoed an Iranian frigate, killed around 80 people, sank the ship. So I think we will continue to see very intense military escalation, but increasingly dominance from the Americans and the Israelis. But what we don't think we will see is clarity about what this is all for. Beyond the operational success, there has been very poor articulation of what the Americans and the Israelis are actually trying to achieve in Iran. We've been hearing from Pete Hegseth, from Donald Trump, from Bibi Netanyahu, a whole range of contradictory suggestions of what this overwhelmingly devastating operational attack is actually trying to achieve. And as successful as you might be on the battlefield, if you don't know why you're fighting, it's very hard to know where this war will go. And it's even harder to know when it will end.

[Rosie Blore]

Adam, thank you very much.

[Adam Roberts]

Thank you, Rosie.

[Rosie Blore]

And talking of the war widening in recent days, France's President, Emmanuel Macron, has deployed the country's flagship aircraft carrier to the Mediterranean along with a naval escort. But reacting to the conflict in Iran is not the only shift in French defence policy announced this week. As our Paris bureau chief, Sophie Pedder explains, much bigger changes are afoot to France's nuclear capabilities and its European military alliances.

[Sophie Pedder]

Well, on Tuesday evening this week, President Macron announced that he had ordered the Charles de Gaulle aircraft carrier to head for the eastern Mediterranean. It had been in Sweden, and the decision to send it to the eastern Mediterranean was taken in response to the worsening crisis and the need for France to have that asset in place in case of need.

[Rosie Blore]

And what is France's stance on the Middle east and Iran specifically?

[Sophie Pedder]

Well, France, along with the UK And Germany, has long been involved in diplomatic negotiations with Iran. And one of President Macron's first moves was to try and stress the diplomatic side of things. But as the crisis worsened over the first few days, it became clear that France and he had always left the option open to do this. And France needed to act in order to be able to protect its own national interests. It has a naval base in the uae, for example, but also the interests of Cyprus, which is an EU member, and of countries like Kuwait or Qatar or the uae, with which France has a direct defence relationship and agreement. So this is a defensive posture. France is putting the aircraft carrier there to enable it to carry out defensive actions, response to attacks on any of those interests.

[Rosie Blore]

Sophie, it's been an interesting week for France's defence in other ways, too. Macron announced that France is going to bolster its nuclear capabilities. He announced that on Monday. It's not the kind of decision you take just because Iran's just been struck, but the timing is very striking. What is that about?

[Sophie Pedder]

Well, it's important to know that this was a speech that Macron made at the French submarine base where I went on Monday, a high security unit in the west, west of Brittany. It's important to note that this was something that has been prepared for 18 months. So this is not something that was drawn up in response to the Iran crisis at all. Having said that, it is a reminder of how dangerous the world is at the moment. And France's decision announced by President Macron to increase, for example, the number of nuclear warheads it will possess is very interesting, partly because of the timing, but also because of the fact that France has always had this doctrine whereby it has argued, you don't need to increase your number of warheads because if can inflict unacceptable massive damage through nuclear strike, then you don't need X number in order to achieve that. So the deterrence effect, it has always in the past argued, is the same. I think that therefore, this is quite a shift for French nuclear posture, and it was a surprise, I think, to a lot of people who are watching it, even those who follow these things quite closely.

[Rosie Blore]

He wasn't just talking about the number of warheads, though, was he? He was also talking about his alliances.

[Sophie Pedder]

Exactly. And that was the other really important shift in this speech, was that over the years, over the decades, in fact, since the 1970s, successive French presidents have said that there is some sort of a European dimension to the French nuclear deterrent. But they've never spelt out what that is. They've never really given any sort of concrete sense to it. What does it really mean in practice? It's never been a guarantee of any sort whatsoever. And in any case, all the other allied countries have been under the US security umbrella. Well, President Macron announced on Monday. What was so interest was that he has said very explicitly that France now wants to work, and he listed seven other countries, from Poland to Germany to the Netherlands, work with those countries to make it real to this sort of European dimension to the French deterrent. That doesn't mean that it's very important to remember this, that any other country would have their finger on the French nuclear button. That remains a completely sovereign French decision. But what it does mean is that there could be all manner of exercises that involve other countries contributing conventional weapons, conventional assets, a sense of bringing in other countries not quite under a French umbrella, because it's not a guarantee in an explicit sense, but in a way that sends a very strong message to adversaries that European countries are in this together.

[Rosie Blore]

It's a huge shift in strategy. Why is he doing it?

[Sophie Pedder]

There are two elements to this. One is, obviously the Russian threat remains very real to Europe. Europe feels vulnerable. And the second is that the disengagement or the potential diseng engagement of America, or at least the uncertainty about America's commitment to the security of Europe, means that Europeans have to think again about their insecurity. Now, partly that is done under NATO, and Macron has made it very clear that this new arrangement isn't in any way in conflict with NATO. But what it is is something that can be in parallel as a sort of extra complement or even a hedge against that sort of disengagement.

[Rosie Blore]

So why are the other European countries wanting to be part of this?

[Sophie Pedder]

Well, I think this is what's so interesting. There is now a really positive response, and you've seen it in the list of countries from Germany, from Poland. Donald Tusk, the Polish Prime Minister, welcomed this announcement immediately. So did Friedrich Metz, the German Chancellor. There is a sense, I think, of a realization among France's allies in Europe that they have to stick together now, and they have to take seriously these discussions with France. It's a very complicated subject when it comes to nuclear deterrence. These talks usually take a long time, and it's a measure, I think, of the moment that you have such a positive reaction from those countries. This alliance is not exclusive. It's been made very clear by France that other countries are welcome to join these conversations if they want to, and Norway has suggested it might do so, so the list could grow.

[Rosie Blore]

Sophie, it was in an interview with you that Macron said that NATO was brain dead. Is it?

[Sophie Pedder]

I don't think that in his speech anywhere, he was suggesting that NATO is brain dead in any way I that what he's trying to do is to suggest that the alliance is more fragile than it's been because of the doubts about the American guarantee. And that's what this is all about. He is not trying to undermine NATO. He's not trying to suggest that France wants to do something that is a rival to NATO. He's simply taking stock of a situation which is worrying for everybody in Europe. France remains a NATO member. It continues to take part in operations in places like Romania or in the Baltic states. So it is very much committed to NATO, but it's worried whether America is committed to NATO at the same time. And that's what this is all about.

[Rosie Blore]

Sophie, thank you very much.

[Sophie Pedder]

Thanks, Rosie.

[Podcast Host or Narrator]

This Economist podcast is sponsored by Bill, the intelligent finance platform that helps businesses and accounting firms scale with proven results with AI powered automation. Bill isn't just moving money, they're simplifying financial operations. For nearly half a million customers, Bill has securely processed over a trillion dollars in transactions. That's proven infrastructure. Ready to talk with an expert? Visit bill.comproven and get a $250 gift card as a thank you. That's bill.comproven. terms and conditions apply. See offer page for details.

[UK Government Advertiser]

Scaling requires infrastructure, talent and policy certainty. The UK's modern industrial strategy delivers all three and more through a ten year plan. With ten trillion pounds in capital, world class universities and unrivalled market access, the UK is engineered for growth. Start your investment journey at business.gov.uk UK Growth.

[Conservative Dad Advertiser]

Hey, conservative dad here. Jump in, we're going to go for a little drive. I got a woke beer smokey on my tail.

[Right Wing Market Analyst]

So if you spend any time listening to right wing talk radio or watching Fox News, you might hear out ads like that for businesses that are not mainstream and they're not marketed at all. Consumers. In fact, they're marketed at MAGA consumers.

[Shira Avellano]

Shira Avellono writes about business for the Economist.

[Right Wing Market Analyst]

But even as Donald Trump has been remarkably successful politically, these brands have been less so.

[Shira Avellano]

And the brands are created in sort of a direct response to the notion that, I don't know, regular beer is not maga enough is too woke up.

[Right Wing Market Analyst]

So it depends. Some of them advocate for specific conservative aligned causes. So everylife is a pro life diaper brand that donates some of its proceeds to pro life causes. Other times the selling point is that it's beer.

[Shira Avellano]

But maga and you say there is an entire parallel universe of them. This goes far beyond just the beer.

[Right Wing Market Analyst]

Yes, it goes to beer, cigars, obviously T shirts Pillows. Some people around January 6th became familiar with Mike Lindell, the MyPillow guy who is one of the biggest advertisers on talk radio and right wing podcasts as well.

[Shira Avellano]

I can't bear it when my pillow is is too woke. So business is booming for all of these different things?

[Right Wing Market Analyst]

Not exactly. While Trump has done well politically and has been winning elections, these brands have done less well. Very few are publicly listed, but the ones that are have seen their share prices tank, even though they had a brief period of euphoria after Trump won the 2024 election. Since then, not doing as well, even private ones, few report success that is commensurate with, in theory, addressing at least half of the American public.

[Shira Avellano]

Well, exactly. The business case should be good. Why are they doing poorly?

[Right Wing Market Analyst]

So very few people want their consumer choices to reflect their political predilections. Say you take the largest possible group, which is maybe everyone that voted for Trump and even possibly Trump, curious Democrats even within that, it's a much, much, much smaller group that that wants politics to be part of their public facing consumer choices. So if you go out to the beach, say, and you take some beers, people can see the label. And few people want to broadcast their political opinions through that kind of choice. Actually, where you see MAGA show up more in terms of consumer markets is not in supporting new brands, but in trying to press existing ones who diverged from their political opinions.

[Shira Avellano]

How do you mean? How does that work?

[Right Wing Market Analyst]

So a kind of classic case is a boycott. So for example, Bud Light really has taken a multi year hit after a MAGA led boycott in 2023 when it sponsored a post with a transgender influencer. This drew maga's ire and Bud Light lost its spot as America's bestselling beer. And in fact, even though it's been years since, that has continued to tumble in terms of its consumer share. And sometimes the backlash has just achieved its goal very quickly. So for example, Cracker Barrel last summer rebranded in a way that MAGA consumers interpreted as abandoning its traditional southern themed positioning. And they felt that the new logo was woke in their parlance. And so there was a big uproar and the company essentially walked it back and said, listen, we realize that this is a mistake. Clearly a large section of our consumer base is not happy with this, so we're going back to the original.

[Shira Avellano]

And so with that kind of example, people who would otherwise be buying less woke pillows are pressing those existing big brands into changing.

[Sophie Pedder]

Yes.

[Right Wing Market Analyst]

So I think Bud Light was particularly vulnerable for a few reasons. One is that, as I was saying earlier, beer is kind of a visible consumer choice. So people may not want to signal I'm a MAGA voter with their beer, but. But if they're in, say, a conservative crowd, they don't want to signal that they supported what Bud Light did. So they might choose a beer that signals nothing rather than choosing Bud Light.

[Shira Avellano]

I mean, it seems clear then for many brands, the best idea is to not enter the war at all. But the war is kind of coming to their door in a lot of cases.

[Right Wing Market Analyst]

Exactly. You can say, you know, bosses stay out of politics, but in a lot of these cases, politics didn't stay away from them.

[Shira Avellano]

Shira, thanks very much for joining us.

[Right Wing Market Analyst]

Thanks so much.

[Rosie Blore]

That's all for this episode of the Intelligence. We'll see you back here tomorrow.

[Ayo Akimolera]

Ayo Akimolera here from the Athletic FC podcast. Ever feel your workload is out of control? Like you're wearing every hat and you're expected to be everywhere at once? Running a business means juggling books, payments, leads, payroll, basically everything. But with Intuit QuickBooks, your workload gets unloaded. QuickBooks gives you access to Intuit's powerful AI agents and trusted experts. They work together to handle the tedious stuff so you can get back to what actually grows your business. And because everything's streamlined on one platform, your customer management, accounting, expenses and payroll all work seamlessly in just one place. So go ahead, outdo it with Intuit QuickBooks and get 50% off QuickBooks online for three months. Terms and conditions apply. Feature availability may vary by product. Visit QuickBooks.com for details.

[Conservative Dad Advertiser]

There's a saying that in business, how you enter a room really matters. Did you enter like someone who just spent six hours on on the plane, wedged into a middle seat in economy next to the restrooms? Or did you sleep like a baby in your reclining window seat with extra legroom? That's why Amex Global Business Travel remembers how you like to travel. It'll also automatically rebook your flight if it's canceled, because being there is everything. Amexgbt Great ideas Travel.