Trump Pays the Price for Expensive Gas, Not for ‘Betraying Eastern Europe’* Part 1
Editor’s note: This is the first of a two-part article. Part 2 will be posted tomorrow.
Donald Trump is a player whose seemingly hopeless circumstances make him exceptionally difficult to defeat. Despite potential losses due to old age and character, the logic of the American political system remains intact.
Everything indicates that, as predicted, the Republican Party has lost its majority in both houses of the U.S. Congress. As I write this, the results are even more devastating than expected: 255-180 for the Democrats in the House of Representatives, and in the more difficult to control Senate: 53-42. Poles followed the information about the upcoming elections with interest, as they were a test for the government and the prestige of President Donald Trump. The war over the Constitutional Tribunal overshadowed it, but the matter is important for the whole world, including Poland.
2026 Midterm Elections: Why Republicans Stuck with Trump
It is said that American presidents are doomed to have their power limited, if not blocked, at the middle of their term. This impression is verified. After 1945, the parties of incumbent presidents performed better in midterm elections than at the beginning of their terms only twice: in 1998, Democrats during Bill Clinton's second term, and in 2002, Republicans in the middle of George W. Bush's first term.
At the same time, the opposition did not always seize control of Congress or even one of its chambers. Generally, Democrats more often dominated the House, frequently with Republican presidents. Indeed, such is the beauty of the American system that a president can find himself in the White House immediately after an election victory with the opposing party controlling Congress or one of its chambers. With both parties divided, a lack of party discipline and the ability of those politicians to negotiate, the nation did not grind to a halt.
It is said to be a kind of referendum, but for decades, midterm elections have only been that to a certain extent. Both Democrats and Republicans were diverse enough that their elections often remained separate from the president's positions and policies. Congressional campaigns were conducted separately in each state (Senate) or district (House of Representatives). This began to change relatively recently, as both groups transformed into increasingly cohesive machines. This was driven as much by the logic of the culture wars as by the polarizing rhetoric of tabloid-style politics played out on social media platforms. The leaders' personalities also had an impact — most notably Trump's.
In 1946, the head of state was Democrat Harry S. Truman, an accidental president who succeeded Franklin D. Roosevelt and struggled with falling poll numbers. Ahead of the midterm elections, Democratic Party Chairman Robert E. Hannegan asked Truman to stay out of the congressional races. Ironically, he had served under Truman as postmaster general. His boss complied with the request, though he bitter about it.
This was old America, respecting the distinctions between congressional and presidential Democrats, when each state had a different face for the party, and its conservative Southern wing often disagreed with the liberal (read: leftist) Democrat Truman. Democrats in both houses of Congress suffered a defeat anyway.
Did Republican candidates have a chance to avoid Trump's patronage in 2026? Definitely not. Some complained about it half-heartedly. Sometimes they distanced themselves slightly from the president. But they perfectly remembered what we can read about, for example, in Alex Isenstadt's book "Revenge: The Inside Story of Trump’s Return to Power.”
Even during his first term, this president interfered in Republican primaries, nodding to his favorites. Even then, he forced hostile, powerful figures from the Capitol into submission. And still, for example, the vote on healthcare reform (read: reduction) failed because six senators from the Grand Old Party did not support it, including John McCain. After his defeat in the 2020 presidential election, some disowned him. He took his revenge, as Isenstadt writes. He broke many. Marco Rubio, his former opponent, became secretary of state.
It's no wonder that in the midterm campaigns, you could see Trump's face behind every Republican candidate. The convention in Dallas became the symbol of this centralized operation. There had never been a party-wide convention for a midterm election. Now, candidates had to reconcile being associated with Trump's absurd promise to give every American $5,000 if his party won, as well as his admiration for Ohio Sen. Jon Husted’s ass. They had to reconcile not only with Trump’s extravagance, but also his senility, an unpopular war with Iran and rising gas prices. Trump’s approval ratings — at 30-35% — resembled Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk's ratings after three years in government.
Less than a week before we knew the results, I participated in the debate "U.S. Elections: The Trumpism Crisis?" as part of the Krynica Forum organized by the Jagiellonian Club. With former ambassador to the U.S. Marek Magierowski, Tomasz Wróblewski (Warsaw Enterprise Institute) and podcaster Jakub Dymek, we formed a group with diverse opinions, but none of us either tried to scare children with Trump (like the liberal mainstream) or prostrated themselves in homage before him (like some of the conservatives).
It was even possible to negotiate some common messaging. It came down to the conclusion that Trump himself was nearing the limit of his capabilities. But he also changed America in the process, and it won't go back to its old ways. As I recalled that, after Truman's double defeat two years later in 1948, he won the presidential election. Trump won’t run again; the Constitution prohibits it. But Republicans still have a chance, as long as their former idol, the hyperactive narcissist, doesn't ruin it for them.
Trump, Globalization, Political Correctness and the War with Iran
In what sense did Trump change America? First, he was a politician who openly promoted slogans but sometimes concrete ideas for breaking the imperative of globalization. In that aspect, he parted ways with the Republican Party's mainstream. Older Republicans were protectionists, supporters of protecting their own economy, but then they gradually came to terms with free trade and the logic of global markets, which Cold War logic favored. It was Trump who finally broke with Reagan-era optimism about globalization.
Hence, the feverish inclination for trade wars with the whole world and the climate of confrontation with China. Hence, the tangle of customs barriers, as chaotically imposed as they are canceled or not always effective. Trump also resorted to other methods, from abandoning climate restrictions to attempts to control individual companies, which former Republicans would consider pure socialism.
In Poland, some have prematurely declared that the parties have switched roles, that Republicans have become socially sensitive, and Democrats are the party of corporations. In reality, this administration also employs traditional Republican methods: from tax cuts, including for the wealthiest, to a chaotic “fight against bureaucracy,” from which they sometimes had to retreat (Elon Musk's raids on government agencies). But undoubtedly, the test for this team will be how many companies and how much capital they manage to attract to the U.S.
Second, Trump declared war on political correctness. That also happened in an atmosphere of chaos, but both halting mass immigration and abandoning the policy of favoring certain minorities have led to this. And then there is blocking the vast flow of money that lubricated the global left, including during Trump's first term.
Third, this administration drew the most radical conclusions from the end of the Cold War. Renunciating the role of world policeman and defender of democracy in favor of serving selfish American interests. Trump isn't the first to do this, but he speaks in brutal language about what previous U.S. presidents masked and implemented, albeit more slowly and only in part. This is a policy of disregarding international law and a reluctance for America to engage in international organizations. This was seasoned with the peculiar pacifism of the MAGA movement, which, incidentally, caused Trump's biggest problem when after some success, such as bringing Venezuela under U.S. control or pushing for Greenland, he struck at Iran. This is a war waged in Israel's interest, which not only is increasing costs for American families, but is incomprehensible in the eyes of traditionally Republican voters, and on top of that demonstrates the limited effectiveness of the American war machine.
This administration’s policy has clashed with Europe's interests many times. When Trump pressured European NATO allies to increase their defense spending, he could be applauded. When he argued that these allies did not help him in the war with Iran, which he had not consulted them about, he was less convincing. A general reduction in the American presence on the Old Continent is justifiable. Even the staunch liberal and Euro-enthusiast Eugeniusz Smolar explains this in his new book "Alliance-Free Chaos: Poland and Europe in the Face of the Rubble of the Old World." But the question remains: To what extent does the American administration still feel bound by NATO's mutual assistance mechanism?
*Editor’s note: This article is available in its original language with a paid subscription.
Donald Trump is a player whose seemingly hopeless circumstances make him exceptionally difficult to defeat. Despite potential losses due to old age and character, the logic of the American political system remains intact.
Everything indicates that, as predicted, the Republican Party has lost its majority in both houses of the U.S. Congress. As I write this, the results are even more devastating than expected: 255-180 for the Democrats in the House of Representatives, and in the more difficult to control Senate: 53-42. Poles followed the information about the upcoming elections with interest, as they were a test for the government and the prestige of President Donald Trump. The war over the Constitutional Tribunal overshadowed it, but the matter is important for the whole world, including Poland.
2026 Midterm Elections: Why Republicans Stuck with Trump
It is said that American presidents are doomed to have their power limited, if not blocked, at the middle of their term. This impression is verified. After 1945, the parties of incumbent presidents performed better in midterm elections than at the beginning of their terms only twice: in 1998, Democrats during Bill Clinton's second term, and in 2002, Republicans in the middle of George W. Bush's first term.
At the same time, the opposition did not always seize control of Congress or even one of its chambers. Generally, Democrats more often dominated the House, frequently with Republican presidents. Indeed, such is the beauty of the American system that a president can find himself in the White House immediately after an election victory with the opposing party controlling Congress or one of its chambers. With both parties divided, a lack of party discipline and the ability of those politicians to negotiate, the nation did not grind to a halt.
It is said to be a kind of referendum, but for decades, midterm elections have only been that to a certain extent. Both Democrats and Republicans were diverse enough that their elections often remained separate from the president's positions and policies. Congressional campaigns were conducted separately in each state (Senate) or district (House of Representatives). This began to change relatively recently, as both groups transformed into increasingly cohesive machines. This was driven as much by the logic of the culture wars as by the polarizing rhetoric of tabloid-style politics played out on social media platforms. The leaders' personalities also had an impact — most notably Trump's.
In 1946, the head of state was Democrat Harry S. Truman, an accidental president who succeeded Franklin D. Roosevelt and struggled with falling poll numbers. Ahead of the midterm elections, Democratic Party Chairman Robert E. Hannegan asked Truman to stay out of the congressional races. Ironically, he had served under Truman as postmaster general. His boss complied with the request, though he bitter about it.
This was old America, respecting the distinctions between congressional and presidential Democrats, when each state had a different face for the party, and its conservative Southern wing often disagreed with the liberal (read: leftist) Democrat Truman. Democrats in both houses of Congress suffered a defeat anyway.
Did Republican candidates have a chance to avoid Trump's patronage in 2026? Definitely not. Some complained about it half-heartedly. Sometimes they distanced themselves slightly from the president. But they perfectly remembered what we can read about, for example, in Alex Isenstadt's book "Revenge: The Inside Story of Trump’s Return to Power.”
Even during his first term, this president interfered in Republican primaries, nodding to his favorites. Even then, he forced hostile, powerful figures from the Capitol into submission. And still, for example, the vote on healthcare reform (read: reduction) failed because six senators from the Grand Old Party did not support it, including John McCain. After his defeat in the 2020 presidential election, some disowned him. He took his revenge, as Isenstadt writes. He broke many. Marco Rubio, his former opponent, became secretary of state.
It's no wonder that in the midterm campaigns, you could see Trump's face behind every Republican candidate. The convention in Dallas became the symbol of this centralized operation. There had never been a party-wide convention for a midterm election. Now, candidates had to reconcile being associated with Trump's absurd promise to give every American $5,000 if his party won, as well as his admiration for Ohio Sen. Jon Husted’s ass. They had to reconcile not only with Trump’s extravagance, but also his senility, an unpopular war with Iran and rising gas prices. Trump’s approval ratings — at 30-35% — resembled Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk's ratings after three years in government.
Less than a week before we knew the results, I participated in the debate "U.S. Elections: The Trumpism Crisis?" as part of the Krynica Forum organized by the Jagiellonian Club. With former ambassador to the U.S. Marek Magierowski, Tomasz Wróblewski (Warsaw Enterprise Institute) and podcaster Jakub Dymek, we formed a group with diverse opinions, but none of us either tried to scare children with Trump (like the liberal mainstream) or prostrated themselves in homage before him (like some of the conservatives).
It was even possible to negotiate some common messaging. It came down to the conclusion that Trump himself was nearing the limit of his capabilities. But he also changed America in the process, and it won't go back to its old ways. As I recalled that, after Truman's double defeat two years later in 1948, he won the presidential election. Trump won’t run again; the Constitution prohibits it. But Republicans still have a chance, as long as their former idol, the hyperactive narcissist, doesn't ruin it for them.
Trump, Globalization, Political Correctness and the War with Iran
In what sense did Trump change America? First, he was a politician who openly promoted slogans but sometimes concrete ideas for breaking the imperative of globalization. In that aspect, he parted ways with the Republican Party's mainstream. Older Republicans were protectionists, supporters of protecting their own economy, but then they gradually came to terms with free trade and the logic of global markets, which Cold War logic favored. It was Trump who finally broke with Reagan-era optimism about globalization.
Hence, the feverish inclination for trade wars with the whole world and the climate of confrontation with China. Hence, the tangle of customs barriers, as chaotically imposed as they are canceled or not always effective. Trump also resorted to other methods, from abandoning climate restrictions to attempts to control individual companies, which former Republicans would consider pure socialism.
In Poland, some have prematurely declared that the parties have switched roles, that Republicans have become socially sensitive, and Democrats are the party of corporations. In reality, this administration also employs traditional Republican methods: from tax cuts, including for the wealthiest, to a chaotic “fight against bureaucracy,” from which they sometimes had to retreat (Elon Musk's raids on government agencies). But undoubtedly, the test for this team will be how many companies and how much capital they manage to attract to the U.S.
Second, Trump declared war on political correctness. That also happened in an atmosphere of chaos, but both halting mass immigration and abandoning the policy of favoring certain minorities have led to this. And then there is blocking the vast flow of money that lubricated the global left, including during Trump's first term.
Third, this administration drew the most radical conclusions from the end of the Cold War. Renunciating the role of world policeman and defender of democracy in favor of serving selfish American interests. Trump isn't the first to do this, but he speaks in brutal language about what previous U.S. presidents masked and implemented, albeit more slowly and only in part. This is a policy of disregarding international law and a reluctance for America to engage in international organizations. This was seasoned with the peculiar pacifism of the MAGA movement, which, incidentally, caused Trump's biggest problem when after some success, such as bringing Venezuela under U.S. control or pushing for Greenland, he struck at Iran. This is a war waged in Israel's interest, which not only is increasing costs for American families, but is incomprehensible in the eyes of traditionally Republican voters, and on top of that demonstrates the limited effectiveness of the American war machine.
This administration’s policy has clashed with Europe's interests many times. When Trump pressured European NATO allies to increase their defense spending, he could be applauded. When he argued that these allies did not help him in the war with Iran, which he had not consulted them about, he was less convincing. A general reduction in the American presence on the Old Continent is justifiable. Even the staunch liberal and Euro-enthusiast Eugeniusz Smolar explains this in his new book "Alliance-Free Chaos: Poland and Europe in the Face of the Rubble of the Old World." But the question remains: To what extent does the American administration still feel bound by NATO's mutual assistance mechanism?
*Editor’s note: This article is available in its original language with a paid subscription.
Previous article![]( "The ‘Donroe Doctrine’ Is in Trouble")