OPINION:
In times of danger, voters look to their leaders for strength, resolve and reassurance.
Regardless, war does not automatically reward the party in power. Americans look for a uniter, but unity does not necessarily guarantee safety. Does it?
As the 2026 midterm elections approach, President Trump and congressional Republicans face a real test. The historical precedents reveal how national security crises can reshape electoral fortunes.
People were interested in these podcasts
In January 1942, barely a month after Pearl Harbor, President Franklin D. Roosevelt told Congress that “the spirit of the American people was never higher than it is today.” He promised that the nation’s determination would endure “until our security is assured.”
Yet national unity did not prevent a Republican resurgence. In the November 1942 midterms, Republicans gained 47 House seats and nine Senate seats. Wartime shortages, domestic dissatisfaction and the normal tendency to punish the governing party contributed to Democratic losses.
Most important, many voters blamed FDR for Pearl Harbor, which happened on his watch. Voters supported the Pacific war while questioning the administration’s performance.
Two decades later, President Kennedy confronted a different danger. During the October 1962 Cuban missile crisis, the president faced the possibility of nuclear war with the Soviet Union. His response reinforced his image as a serious leader during a moment of extraordinary peril.
In the November elections, Democrats lost four House seats but gained three Senate seats, perhaps a wash in the end and nowhere near the typical off-year election for a president.
In his 1961 inaugural address, Kennedy articulated a principle that is especially relevant to today’s conflict: “Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate.”
The distinction is crucial. Strength and diplomacy are not necessarily competing strategies. It is possible to speak softly and carry a giant stick. Military power can deter an adversary, while negotiation can transform a temporary advantage into a durable settlement.
Voters may judge a president not only by the force deployed but also by the peace ultimately secured.
Then came 2002. After the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Republicans gained eight House seats and two Senate seats, defying the usual midterm pattern.
President George W. Bush’s message was uncompromising. Addressing Congress on Sept. 20, 2001, he declared: “Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there.” He also warned, “Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.”
In each case, voters either supported the party they believed could best defend them or punished the weaker party.
The circumstances surrounding Iran are different. This conflict began on Feb. 28, and its consequences have reached beyond the battlefield to energy markets and household budgets. Approximately 60% of Americans disapprove of President Trump’s handling of Iran, according to a recent Reuters/Ipsos poll, while higher gasoline prices have added to voter concerns ahead of the midterms.
The question for voters is whether these discussions produce measurable improvements in American security. If the conflict ends with a durable agreement and reduced threats, Republicans can argue that military pressure achieved its objectives.
If the war continues without clearly defined goals, mounting costs and uncertainty may overshadow claims of strength.
Economic consequences will matter as well. When gasoline prices rise and families struggle with everyday expenses, foreign policy becomes a kitchen-table issue. The public may support confronting a genuine security threat while questioning whether the strategy is proportionate, sustainable or effective.
The three historical precedents offer no automatic formula. Roosevelt’s party lost seats during World War II. Kennedy’s Democrats limited their losses after the Cuban missile crisis. Mr. Bush’s Republicans gained seats after Sept. 11, 2001.
Each outcome reflected a different combination of public sentiment, presidential leadership, economic conditions and perceived nature of the threat.
For Mr. Trump, the central issue is not whether Americans favor strength; it is whether they believe the war has made them safer.
Kennedy’s warning against fearing negotiation remains pertinent, as does Roosevelt’s promise that the purpose of wartime action is to assure national security. Those are standards by which any administration can be judged.
The 2026 midterms will test whether voters view the Iran campaign as a necessary defense of American interests or as a costly conflict with unresolved objectives. Republicans may point to military achievements; their opponents may question the strategy, economic consequences and long-term implications.
Ultimately, the ballot box will measure public confidence in the administration’s judgment. History suggests that wartime leadership can earn political support — but only when Americans believe that the sacrifices being demanded have brought the country closer to security and peace.
• Craig Shirley is an American historian and author. He has written multiple critically acclaimed books on President Reagan.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.