The myth of Republican isolationism

Trump voters support military intervention in Iran at 2-3x the rate as Democrats

Dear readers,

I’m driving back home today from a short vacation in the Smokies, so the Chart of the Week will be brief. I could have taken the day off, but I didn’t want to miss a week, and more importantly I had some thoughts on the politics of potential intervention in Iran to write down.

There are two big points to make. The first is that, despite the conventional wisdom, Republicans are not actually the party of isolationism in America — on attitudes or in policy. The second point is that the situation in the Middle East is potentially very politically toxic for Trump, because it risks both highlighting an issue he is weak on and dividing his party at a crucial time at home.

Let’s look at the data. Please share online, and subscribe for more if you’re new here.

---

GOP hawks and Donald the “dove”

Back in 2016, Trump earned a reputation for isolationism that was key to his victory over Hillary Clinton. Democratic voters were drawn to Obama in part for his so-called “dovish” approach to foreign policy, comparatively speaking, and Trump was able to appeal to them by distancing himself from the hawkishness of former GOP nominees for president. He broke the ideological mold and made it easier for some voters to changes party labels.

Now, 10 years on from Trump announcing his 2016 bid for president, his rhetorical isolationism has had an effect on Republican voters. Polling from the online firm Civiqs finds the share of Republicans who say the U.S. should be “less involved in solving problems overseas” rose from 30% to 77% from 2015 to 2023. The Council on Foreign Relations found in 2024 that a majority of Republicans wanted a more isolationist than interventionist U.S. foreign policy, in relative terms, for the first time in 50 years of polling.

But those are questions on vibes, mostly about the general orientation of the federal government to international conflict. When the rubber meets the road and a specific intervention is being debated, are Republicans actually the party of isolationism? At least on Iran, the answer so far is no.

In a poll from YouGov for The Economist this week, Republican voters are between two and three times as likely to support military action against Iran as Democrats are, depending on the exact question asked.

In one question, YouGov asked respondents what strategy the U.S. should take to get Iran to limit its nuclear program. Respondents could indicate agreement with several options ranging from America increasing economic sanctions on Iran, to decreasing them, to using military force against Iran (or promising not to). Respondents who identified as Republicans were three times as likely as self-identified Democrats, 31% to 9%, to support the use of military force against Iran. 41% supported harsher economic sanctions, versus 22% for Democrats.

In another question, Republicans were twice as likely as Democrats, 22% versus 12%, to say the U.S. should “get involved in the conflict between Israel and Iran.”

The New York Times reported yesterday that Trump is deciding whether to join Israel in a bombing campaign in Iran. Despite his reputation as a dove and the broader polling data on the role of the U.S., given the more pertinent data, the president will likely find more support for intervention in his own party than the opposition. That’s true among voters (see the data above), and also in Congress. Just ask Ted Cruz and Lindsey Graham.

---

Support independent journalism!

Become a paying member of Strength In Numbers today and get exclusive posts, early access to data, and more.

Your support helps fund our polling trackers, original polls, deep analysis, and data-driven journalism that cuts through the noise of corporate media spin and partisan proselytizing that pollute today’s media landscape. Support our site and tell the world that when it comes to the news, there is strength in numbers.

---

Trump is weak on foreign policy

Here’s the second point: Trump is weak on foreign policy, so highlighting international politics may hurt him.

In our latest Strength in Numbers/Verasight poll, Donald Trump’s net approval on foreign policy sits at -14. That’s in the middle of the range of how people feel about the president across issues, and the same as Trump’s overall net approval in our June survey:

If the news agenda shifts to covering Trump on foreign policy, voters will be reminded of a policy agenda they rate him very poorly on.

And any backlash would intensify even more if the president does involve the U.S. in Iran — which a supermajority of Americans oppose, per YouGov.

One other angle to this: Trump’s 2024 platform leaned particularly hard into non-interventionism in Ukraine. Tucker Carlson and other partisan actors built up his credibility with isolationists, particularly with young men. So any move toward conflict with Iran could cut into his support with his own party, too.

Carlson this week was already criticizing Trump for his willingness to get involved.

---

Strength In Numbers this week

Here’s what’s up elsewhere in the newsletter this week:

• Our collective effort to estimate attendance to the No Kings Day protests last weekend was mentioned all over the place, including The Daily Beast and this piece at The Guardian that has a lot of other good context. We even made Wikipedia!

• We released the first batch of analysis from our new poll (linked above) with Verasight on the political climate, plus some interesting findings on news diet and message tests on immigration and abundance. More coming soon!

• This afternoon (Friday) I’m doing a live chat with Ryan Lizza, a fellow reformed reporter for the mainstream media, to talk about our SIN poll, Trump, this Substack, and whatever else comes up. That’s at 3:00 PM ET on the Substack app, or the Strength In Numbers homepage (gelliottmorris.com).

• And Saturday, I’m putting up a pre-recorded video podcast with Paul Krugman and David Nir, of The Downballot. We talk about special elections, backlash to Trump, the No Kings Day protests, and the role of independent media in politics today.

Lots of stuff going on here this week (especially for a vacation week!). But such is the hamster wheel of the news cycle in a Trump presidency. This is what we live for, this is why we get up in the morning.

---

A short celebratory note

And one last note: Strength In Numbers passed 21,000 (free) readers on Tuesday! The recent surge is largely thanks to press attention to our coverage of immigration, the LA protests, and our math on No Kings Day. We are ahead of schedule in growing the free audience and our paid conversion percentage keeps ticking up, which makes this sustainable for me and will help us scale up next year.

This is all fantastic news. So a very humble thanks to everyone who’s joining us in building a new home for independent, data-driven political coverage. I’m proud of the community we’re growing here and grateful for the chance to keep writing for you. I feel like I’m doing some of the best work of my life, and that’s only possible thanks to you.

Have a nice weekend,

Elliott