In last Tuesday’s election, three incumbent senators, Bob Casey (D-PA), Jon Tester (D-MT), and Sherrod Brown (D-OH), lost reelection to Republican challengers. Unremarked upon was the fact that all three of these Democratic senators were first elected in 2006’s Democratic sweep of both legislative chambers, and lost in circumstances not dissimilar to those in which they won. 

In 2006, three years into the Iraq War, Democrats were able to take advantage of that disaster and the increasingly neglected American at home to take control of both the House and the Senate, the former for the first time in twelve years. Democrats picked up five seats (six including the technically independent Joe Lieberman, admittedly a hawk). Three of those victors would be defeated 18 years later after reversing their earlier foreign policy views.

In Pennsylvania, Casey was able to win a sweeping victory over incumbent Sen. Rick Santorum by campaigning against Bush’s Iraq policy and emphasizing his social conservatism and his family’s reputation as pro-life Democrats. Casey, though opposing immediate withdrawal from Iraq, demanded that the Bush administration put forward various benchmarks to wind down and end the conflict while attacking Santorum as lacking the ability and the “guts” to stand up to Bush on the war. Casey eviscerated Santorum on the campaign trail for being closely tied to Bush in foreign policy, with the line “When two politicians are agreeing 98 percent of the time, one of them isn’t necessary” becoming a common refrain in his campaign against Santorum. In his victory speech in 2006, Casey credited his landslide win to his demand for foreign policy accountability, declaring: “It’s about time that politicians in Washington are held accountable in Iraq.”

Similarly in Montana, Jon Tester ran in 2006 as a fiscal conservative critical of Bush’s Iraq policy. In the campaign against the ultra-hawkish Conrad Burns, Iraq took center-stage, with Tester asserting that the Bush administration had started the war under false pretenses, that the Republican Senate had not done enough to check claims about weapons of mass destruction, and that the war was a distraction from the actual challenges facing Montanans.

At the same time, Sherrod Brown in Ohio overcame his reputation as a progressive in the House by capitalizing on his record of foreign policy restraint in his 2006 campaign. A U.S. representative before his election to the Senate, Brown was well-known for voting against the Iraq War, the PATRIOT Act, and warrantless wiretapping. 

However, by 2024, all three Senators endorsed endless foreign entanglements while ignoring the economic needs of their constituents. Brown, Tester, and Casey all found themselves amongst the ranks of Ukraine-maximalists. The earlier combination of (at least feigned) conservatism and skepticism of foreign interventions that had defined the 2006 campaigns of Tester and Casey had been entirely abandoned in favor of social liberalism and internationalism. Casey completely reversed many of his earlier signature positions, running as the pro-choice candidate in the race and with the Pennsylvania Democrats accused his opponent of not being hawkish enough. Brown also traded in his earlier reputation as an anti-war progressive for one of hawkishness, with Brown’s office declaring in February that aid to Ukraine is necessary as a deterrent not only against Russia, but somehow also against China and Iran. 

This year, much as in 2006, various foreign entanglements (this time in Eastern Europe as well as the Middle East) have cast a shadow over the U.S. election. However, this time the roles of the parties are reversed. Democrats express near-uniform support for endless aid to Ukraine, while Republicans have become increasingly skeptical, as that conflict has dragged on as inconclusively as the Iraq War had in 2006. Democrats campaigned with Liz Cheney, while the Republican vice-presidential nominee walked onto the convention floor to an anti-Bush protest song. And as in 2006, these entanglements, paired with domestic disorder, favored the party promoting a more “America First” vision, with Republicans taking the Presidency, Senate, and retaining the House.

The now-victorious challengers to the seats of Brown and Tester, in particular, businessman Bernie Moreno and former Navy SEAL Tim Sheehy, ran as this year’s culturally conservative realists. While viewed as more hawkish than his potential primary opponent, Matt Rosendale, Sheehy indicated that he would have voted against aid to Ukraine last Spring. Moreno likewise opposed the aid package. Incoming Pennsylvania Sen. David McCormick, by contrast, has sent mixed messages on the Ukraine issue, stating on a podcast that he would have voted against a particular aid package in February, but generally favoring a more internationalist foreign policy. However, with Donald Trump dragging him over the finish line against Casey, one can still interpret McCormick’s win as a win for realism and restraint and as a repudiation of Casey’s alignment with the internationalism of the Biden administration.

While it is somewhat trite to point out that “all politics is local,” in this case it seems necessary to posit a corollary from that saying: that politicians neglect local concerns in favor of foreign preoccupations (be they in Baghdad or Kiev) at their own peril. While it is somewhat unclear how the newly elected senators, Sheehy, Moreno, and McCormick, will govern, it would be wise for them to avoid making the same mistakes as their predecessors.

The post 2024 as 2006’s Mirror appeared first on The American Conservative.