The speech that undoubtedly won Barack Obama the presidency was delivered six years before he ran for the White House and four years before he reached Congress. In October 2002, Obama, then a state senator from Illinois, gave a strong speech against the coming war in Iraq. “I am not against war in all circumstances,” he said he announced at a public meeting in Chicago. “What I am against is a dumb war.”
Years later, that position would distinguish Obama from Hillary Clinton, the front-runner in the 2008 Democratic primary. The two candidates were largely aligned on domestic policy, which made their differences on foreign policy even greater. Clinton, like most Senate Democrats, had voted to authorize the Iraq War. But that decision is now not very acceptable on the left, Obama he leaned in his early opposition. His campaign produced supercuts of his anti-war sentiments for years and even recorded supporters to recite the lines of his 2002 speech, in one of the first examples of viral video in American politics. The difference has proven to be effective. Research it showed that Democratic voters angered by the war fell for Obama, who defeated Clinton and won the White House.
Today’s Democrats seem to have learned from Obama’s example and the Iraq debate. On March 2, Sen. Jon Ossoff of Georgia, a swing state politician and potential presidential candidate, announced his re-election campaign and voiced strong opposition to another war in the Middle East. “Eight months ago, President Trump lied to the country when he falsely claimed to have destroyed Iran’s nuclear program,” Ossoff said. he told it supporters. “Now he says he has taken the United States to war for regime change with no evidence of an imminent threat, no exhausted diplomacy, no clear goals or plan for results, and no Congressional approval.”
Ossoff’s speech was powerful, but it was also known for its absurdity. Many prominent Democratic politicians, including moderates in purple states and others considering running for president, have expressed similar views. Senator Ruben Gallego of Arizona, a veteran of the Iraq War, has repeatedly called the Iran campaign a “dumb war,” referring to Obama, and warned of an American pullback in the Middle East. California Governor Gavin Newsom accused Trump of “engaging in an illegal and dangerous war that will unjustifiably endanger the lives of our American servicemen and friends of the American people.” Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey, a former presidential candidate and potential future president, called this week for the withdrawal of US forces “from this reckless and unauthorized war of choice with Iran.” Progressive Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez predicted that Trump’s bombing would prove “catastrophic,” while at the other end of the party’s ideological spectrum, even Democratic candidates endorsed by AIPAC, the pro-Israel lobby, they distanced themselves from the war.
The contrast with the Democratic Party of yesteryear could not be more obvious. Back in 2002, Democrats with White House aspirations felt compelled to approve the Iraq War, even if they later turned against it. Many of these politicians had witnessed decisive interventions in areas such as Kosovo, Bosnia, and the first Gulf War that had good results and ended without turning into chaos. Influenced by this experience, Senators John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, and Joe Biden—the Democratic nominees for president in 2004, 2016, and 2020—all voted to support the invasion of Iraq. Today the dynamics have changed, and the presidential candidates refrain from rejecting Trump’s war. Because many have put up opposition, these politicians are unlikely to be the next Obama. But they’re making sure they won’t be the next Hillary Clinton, the presidential hopeful whose support for the Middle East war ruined her candidacy.
The reasons for this change are not just behind. Since Donald Trump took office, American politics has become divisive in its personality, and feelings about the president often dictate opinions about his policies. As a result, it has been very difficult for Republicans to oppose his agenda—and poison Democrats for supporting it. Moreover, unlike the Bush administration in 2002, the Trump administration has made little effort to sell the nation or the international community on intervention, making military action unpopular and easy for an elected politician to reject. Back in 2003, some 60 percent of Americans supported invasion of Iraq, including about 40 percent of the Democrats, and bring great pressure to the elected officials who are biased. Today almost all votes show that most Americans oppose the current campaign in Iran, and that too many refuse expected ground invasion. When it comes to Democrats in particular, the numbers are ridiculous. A YouGov poll released this week found that 81 percent of Democrats believe that war with Iran is “unjust.” Only 7 percent disagreed.
In short, the ghosts of the past and the current polls have conspired to push the Democratic Party in a strong anti-war direction. And given that wars tend to lose popularity as they go on, this is likely the most popular Iran war ever among Democrats. If the controversy turns into a success for Trump, his opposition will have to take responsibility for his slander. But many Democratic elected officials seem to prefer taking that bet over the alternative. Obama’s move didn’t just carry the day in his primaries; changed his party completely.
