Nearly seven months after their crushing defeat in November, Democrats are still struggling to reestablish themselves as a serious political force. Yet instead of recalibrating, they remain convinced their current strategy of opposition to anything associated with President Donald Trump is the best path to political revival.
Although their resistance routinely puts them on the wrong end of 80-20 issues and forces them to defend the most indefensible positions — think Kilmar Abrego Garcia — they’re sticking with it.
Most sane Americans applauded Trump’s decision to strike three Iranian nuclear sites last weekend. It neutralized an imminent existential threat to a key ally and made the world a safer place. But aside from Sen. John Fetterman (D‑PA), most Democrats were quick to condemn the move. Their stated reason, that Trump acted without congressional approval, flies in the face of similar military actions ordered by former Democratic presidents and everybody knows it.
A quick Google search of Americans’ reactions to the strikes might give the impression that a majority of the electorate was opposed. Coupled with the fact that the action was taken unilaterally, the Left seized the opportunity to promote the narrative that Trump was dragging the country into another prolonged war in the Middle East. Unsurprisingly, this became the Democrats’ preferred storyline. Meanwhile, their dutiful foot soldiers in the legacy media have gone into overdrive since the attacks to reinforce and even amplify that message.
Here are some recent headlines:
CNN: A majority of Americans disapproves of Trump’s Iran airstrikes, CNN poll findsForbes: Trump Approval Rating: Significant Share Reject AirstrikesThe Washington Post: More Americans oppose than support a U.S. airstrike in Iran, poll [finds]
Another narrative being pushed hard by the Left is that the strikes have sparked a civil war among MAGA voters. While it’s true that some Republicans, including Tucker Carlson, Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY), Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), and even Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA), have come out strongly against U.S. military action in Iran, the vast majority of Republicans overwhelmingly approve. They also understand the difference between an isolated military strike to remove a threat and starting a war with Iran.
The Washington Free Beacon reported on a new survey from polling and analytics firm GrayHouse, that found 90% of MAGA voters backed Trump’s decision.
The GrayHouse poll, conducted in the immediate wake of the Saturday strikes and obtained by the Washington Free Beacon, shows that 76 percent of Trump voters strongly support the attack, compared with 14 percent who somewhat support them.
It’s often said that pollsters can shape the outcome they want simply by how they word their questions. In this case, many pollsters misleadingly equate Trump’s limited, 30-minute airstrikes with launching a full-scale war against Iran—an absurd and inaccurate comparison.
But unlike the majority of pollsters cited by the legacy media, GrayHouse distinguished between the airstrikes and a wider war. They found that 84% “agreed that the strikes were ‘limited military actions, not war.'”
Moreover, “82% called the attack ‘a smarter, more limited operation that can achieve U.S. objectives without leading to a wider war.'”
The Free Beacon reported:
[T]he GrayHouse poll found that 87 percent of Trump voters agree with the statement, “Iran obtaining nuclear weapons would be an existential threat to the United States and our allies that justifies military action to prevent.” Seventy-five percent said the “airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities” make them “more confident in America’s military capabilities,” while 74 percent said they believe the attack made America “much safer” or “somewhat safer.”
On Tuesday, CNN data analyst Harry Enten looked at the average of a CNN/SSRS and a Reuters/Ipsos poll and came to the same conclusion. “Americans are with Trump on this. Tucker Carlson be darned. … The majority of the Republican base is with Donald Trump.”
Given Iran’s fairly weak retaliation for the strikes on Monday followed by the ceasefire announced later in the day, concerns that Trump was starting a wider war appeared unfounded, irresponsible, and unhelpful.
During next years’ midterm cycle, Democrats will be called on to answer for their “irrational” positions. Among the many questions asked will be how they can claim to be fighting for Americans when they opposed ending the nuclear ambitions of the world’s number one sponsor of terrorism, a theocratic regime that has been engaged in a proxy war with the U.S. since 1979.
Admittedly, I’m biased, but it’s hard to deny that President Trump has achieved a number of meaningful accomplishments for the country since taking office in January. From economic growth to foreign policy moves that have reestablished American strength, his administration has delivered results that many voters recognize and appreciate. Until Democrats come to terms with the fact that reflexive opposition to everything Trump represents is not a sustainable political strategy, they will remain in the wilderness — defined more by what they oppose than by any compelling vision of their own.
Elizabeth writes commentary for Legal Insurrection and The Washington Examiner. She is an academy fellow at The Heritage Foundation. Please follow Elizabeth on LinkedIn or X.
CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY