While few like to admit the truth, politics is a team sport and a team cannot win with prominent members of the chattering classes crapping on their own captain, especially when there is a clear argument to be made about the very nature of our system of government.
There’s no doubt that President Donald Trump’s decision to escalate the slow simmering conflict with Iran into a hot war on February 28, 2026 cost Republicans dearly in the midterm elections last week, resulting in the largest swing between parties since President Barack Obama’s 2010 shellacking and the largest majority for Democrats in two decades. According to exit polls from NBC, 74% of voters across the country claimed the war was a “crucial or major” factor in their decision, and 63% of those respondents voted Democrat, handing control of both chambers to the opposition for the first time since 2020. In addition to the war itself, the resulting increase in oil prices and inflation had an impact, resulting in a confluence of two critical concerns that overwhelmed Republicans even in states that were considered safely red such as Texas, Kansas, Iowa, even Mississippi and Alaska. In that regard, the Associated Press found that 62% of their own exit poll respondents placed the blame for higher prices in general on President Trump. Between the two, a whopping 74% of voters reported being either “angry” or “dissatisfied” with his time in office so far. From that perspective, it’s easy to conclude the war was a mistake, as in the President made a decision the public was deeply dissatisfied with and ultimately punished his party in response.
Perhaps not surprisingly, many pundits described it that way immediately after or in some cases even before, the polls closed on Tuesday. John Daniel Davidson, writing for the conservative website, The Federalist, typified the phenomenon, claiming “The midterms were a referendum on the Trump administration, and above all on Trump’s decision to go to war with Iran. That war, which as of this writing we have lost — with no real prospect of winning it anytime soon — had concrete, everyday effects on Americans’ lives. After February 28 of this year, they began paying more not just for gas but also for groceries and nearly everything else, anything that must be transported by a diesel-fueled truck.” In Mr. Davidson’s view, “This was a war that no Trump voters were asking for in 2024. In fact they were promised the opposite: no new Mideast wars. That, and mass deportations were the two things voters wanted from a second Trump term. He betrayed them on both counts, launching the Iran war and doing too little on mass deportations. And the result is that voters, clearly perceiving the betrayal, have rejected Republicans everywhere.” After providing a litany of several other perceived sins by the second Trump Administration, including “the chaotic tariffs, the shameless corruption of Trump officials, the general megalomania of the president and his often-expressed contempt for ordinary people. Even his bizarre and defensive handling of the Epstein files,” Mr. Davidson concluded that the result was more than a single electoral defeat. It was instead, the “nationwide collapse of the Republican Party at the state and federal level — an historic defeat, far worse than 2006, that will have repercussions for the GOP for decades to come.” While I’m not nearly as convinced of this, there is some truth to his analysis of the midterm election results, at least in the immediate term, but there is also an irony for a publication that calls itself The Federalist.
When drafting the Constitution, the Founders were clear to distinguish between the whims of the public and the rightness of any specific policy. They chose to form a representative republic rather than a direct democracy to empower politicians to make the right decision rather than simply the popular one. In Federalist #10, James Madison wrote, “it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society, consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert results from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party, or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is, that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives, as they have been violent in their deaths.” In contrast, “A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking. Let us examine the points in which it varies from pure democracy, and we shall comprehend both the nature of the cure, and the efficacy which it must derive from the union. The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic, are first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended. The effect of the first difference is, on the one hand, to refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice, will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. Under such a regulation, it may well happen that the public voice pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good, than if pronounced by the people themselves convened for the purpose.”
In the case of the Iran War, we can distinguish between the public’s opposition to it for whatever reason, and the importance of the policy as a whole independent of the public’s opinion. Putting this another way, even if the public is currently dissatisfied at best or outraged at worst, that doesn’t necessarily mean the policy is the wrong one for the country to pursue in our long-term interest. It might well be, from this perspective, the right course of action and according to the Founders of this country themselves, the President is supposed to pursue the correct policy above and beyond the opinion of the public. Once upon a time, we referred to putting what is right ahead of purely political concerns as being a statesman rather than merely a politician, and while we should not expect President Trump’s opposition to make that distinction – if I were them, I would have capitalized on the war the same – surely it should occur to those who claim to be his own supporters, many of whom have been claiming diplomacy had failed to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon before President Trump even took office the first time in 2017. Indeed, The Federalist itself has made a pretty consistent case both that our efforts at resolving the situation peacefully has been a disaster and that, regardless, Iran should never have a nuclear weapon right up until the war began. Back in 2015, while President Barack Obama was promoting his administration’s deal with Iran which was said to prevent such a course, they argued the framework was unsatisfactory because “Iran sponsors terror,” “Iran attacks Americans and American Allies,” and “Iran lies about its nuclear work.” Even during the negotiations with the Obama Administration, “Iran’s leaders have used hateful and threatening rhetoric, practiced attacking U.S. ships in the Strait of Hormuz, launched illegal missiles into space, continue to support terrorism, continue to stonewall weapons inspectors, and continue to ratchet up demands to preserve their nuclear program.”
Seven years later, The Federalist complained that “Biden’s Nuclear Deal With Iran Is Set To Be Even More Disastrous Than Obama’s,” writing “Under the Biden administration, the ‘worst deal ever’ is getting even worse. When President Donald Trump withdrew the United States from the 2015 Iran nuclear deal (the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA), he rightfully called it ‘the worst deal ever’ because of its many serious flaws. But now, the Biden administration is close to announcing a new agreement to reinstate the JCPOA that is not only weaker but puts Russia in charge.” They went on to lament “Iranian intransigence,” that is“Tehran’s representatives refused to negotiate in good faith and would not meet directly with U.S. diplomats. Iran also engaged in belligerent behavior that should have derailed the nuclear talks over the last year, including a huge surge in its nuclear program and ballistic missile tests. In addition, the Houthi rebels in Yemen, an Iranian terrorist proxy, expanded their attacks on foreign targets over the last year by striking Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates with missiles and drones provided by Iran. Over the weekend, Iran fired a dozen ballistic missiles at a U.S. consulate in Irbil in northern Iraq. Moreover, earlier this month it was reported that members of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Corps had been plotting to assassinate former National Security Advisor John Bolton.” At the time, they concluded, “This agreement is astonishingly bad. It lifts sanctions on Iranian terrorists and terrorist organizations, including the Revolutionary Guard Corps. Iran will receive an estimated $90 billion in sanctions relief and an additional $50 billion in extra revenue each year from higher oil exports. Iran also will get a large cash payment when $7 billion in frozen Iranian assets held in South Korea is released to free four Americans falsely imprisoned by Iran. This payment amounts to ransom and is no different than the $1.7 billion ‘planeloads of cash’ ransom the Obama administration paid Iran as part of the JCPOA to free four Americans from an Iranian prison in 2016. Provisions of the new nuclear deal will be much weaker than the already weak JCPOA.”
As late as November 2024, The Federalist was warning, “Iran Is On The Brink Of Nuclear Breakout. Its Next Move Could Be Catastrophic For America,” arguing that “In the supposed interest of peace and stability, the U.S. has waited until its most virulent enemy is in a position to turn the world upside down. The moment that the mullahs have been waiting so patiently for, suffering through decades of sanctions and privations, is finally here. They have a nuclear weapon within their grasp. They need but seize it, knowing that the odds of America’s folding are in their favor, and overwhelmingly so, as long as Joe Biden or Kamala Harris is in power.” In other words, if President Trump took his foreign policy advice from The Federalist alone, he would have likely concluded Iran could not under any circumstances be allowed to have a nuclear weapon, that diplomacy had repeated failed over a long period, and after his own attempt at negotiations broke down last February – while Iran was slaughtering tens of thousands of their own citizens – the only way to prevent the outcome everyone agreed was horrific was to go to war. After all, diplomacy had produced nothing for over a decade – significantly longer when you consider President George W. Bush labelled Iran as part of the “Axis of Evil” – and by their admission, we were running out of time to prevent a catastrophe for America if not the whole world. Setting aside purely political implications, what other option is there to achieve The Federalist’s own stated goals and prevent their fears from being realized then the use of force? In that case, by what bizarre logic are they condemning President Trump for it now?
To me at least, this is the most disturbing aspect of the midterms in particular and President Trump’s second term in general. The opposition is supposed to oppose and supporters are supposed to support, but for reasons I cannot explain, many purported Trump supporters have done the opposite. Not only have they abandoned him in his and his party’s time of need, they have described their political disagreements as a betrayal rather than merely a difference of opinion, despite their previous musings on the matter and in many cases, they have used the language of the opposition to do so. When you compare the reaction among this segment of the President’s supporters with the Democrat and broader liberal reaction to President Obama’s decision to escalate the war in Afghanistan and conduct a new war in Libya, the development only becomes more stunning. While I have no doubt many were privately uncomfortable with both of these decisions at the time, only a handful, such as former Congressman Dennis Kucinich voiced their opinion in public while the majority, especially those in a position of prominence, leapt to his defense instead. The New Republic, for example, begged the handful of detractors to “reconsider whether Barack Obama did the right thing in lending American support to this intervention” in Libya. The New York Times argued, “There is no perfect formula for military intervention. It must be used sparingly — not in Bahrain or Yemen, even though we condemn the violence against protesters in both countries. Libya is a specific case: Muammar el-Qaddafi is erratic, widely reviled, armed with mustard gas and has a history of supporting terrorism. If he is allowed to crush the opposition, it would chill pro-democracy movements across the Arab world.” Juan Cole, an influential blogger at the time, a Middle East Expert and University of Michigan Professor even went so far as to provide ten reasons Libya wasn’t like Iraq or other conflicts, directly refuting comparisons that had been made at the time.
I would argue they did this for obvious reasons: Though they might have been unhappy with these decisions, President Obama was advancing their goals in other areas and rather than risk that progress by attacking him for making war instead of peace, they kept quiet for the good of the party and the movement. While few like to admit the truth, politics is a team sport and a team cannot win with prominent members of the chattering classes crapping on their own captain. The Federalist, other conservative media outlets, and conservative influencers chose a different course, however. Rather than focus on the successes, which like cutting 300,000 employees from the federal government, reducing the number of foreign born in the country by some 2.5 million for the first time in decades, effectively ending the fentanyl crisis, reducing violent crime to some of the lowest levels ever recorded, reducing poverty to the lowest level ever recorded, and other initiatives they claimed were of critical importance, they chose to savage him over the one (or handful of issues) they disagreed with, only to come out meekly right before the election and insist people should vote for Republicans anyway. Of course, that’s not how this works and perhaps even stranger, none of these fair weather friends seem to have the self awareness to realize that they helped contribute to this stunning defeat. Though I do not think they could have changed the result, clearly attacking the leader of their own party for months on end on the eve of an election had consequences. Instead of bitching and moaning, they should own it instead, otherwise there’s an old expression about not needing enemies when you have friends like these.
