The author is an American scholar.
ISTANBUL
Through all of the Trumpian "sturm und drang" currently dominating US politics, another issue – only partially the result of the last election cycle – is also the subject of intense debate: What happened to the Democratic Party? [1]
Obviously, no single reason for the Democratic Party’s ruinous condition can be identified. From the party's sclerotic leadership to its festering internal divisions, the Democrats have a long road ahead of them to resurrecting the party’s image and producing inspiring candidates for the national stage.
20 years ago a different scene
As an observer living abroad, the Democratic Party's foreign policies have always held my attention. Until 20 years ago, Türkiye was a topic that appeared in US media only when the political juncture placed it squarely front and center. For that reason, the discussion about Türkiye in the US center-left, where the Democratic Party resides, consisted mostly of bland generalities. Türkiye was simply a country that extremely few Americans had even indirect knowledge about.
But during the Republican George W. Bush administrations, Türkiye's prominence on the world stage began to rise, partially a side effect of the US invasion of Iraq and Bush’s desperate need for an ex post facto justification for that disastrous adventure. When no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq, the Bush administration pivoted to the hastily improvised Greater Middle East Initiative, and to promoting Türkiye as the democratic model the US intended to gift to Iraq.
Neocon malevolence
But not all Republicans provided backup for the Bush administration's political needs. Especially the so-called neoconservatives developed an animosity towards Türkiye and its elected politicians that gained in vehemence as the 2004-2008 era wore on. This hatred took the form of negative concepts and characterizations that neocon commentators concocted in order to label Türkiye, despite being a NATO member, as a threat.
When Barack Obama was elected president in 2008, the rejoicing was global. In Türkiye, songs were written for him, and the joy was palpable. Obama then chose Türkiye's parliament as the forum for his speech announcing a "reset" for America's relations with the Muslim world [2].
Things went downhill from there. During Obama's first years as president, even US progressives began to echo the malevolent, aggressively anti-Türkiye rhetoric developed after 2003 by prominent neoconservative pundits. During Obama's second term, Washington's attitude became progressively more hostile, culminating in the defeated July 2016 coup attempt [3]. Infamously, Obama administration officials reacted with explicit lethargy to the sight of the democratically elected leadership of a NATO ally being threatened by a military coup.
Barrack's Senate Foreign Relations Committee confirmation
The last 15 years were excruciating to watch as not only Obama, but the entire Democratic Party proved completely incapable of comprehending events in Türkiye and its region. The New York Times functions as the Democratic Party's Pravda, through which the world is translated for the party's faithful. So when it comes to Türkiye, groupthink defines the party's "weltanschauung.”
The Democratic Party's most recent display of its inability to fathom events in Türkiye occurred during last month's Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing for Thomas Barrack [4], whom US President Donald Trump nominated as his ambassador to Türkiye [5]. The committee's chairperson is Republican Idaho Senator Jim Risch, who used the hearing to claim personal responsibility for delaying the delivery of F-35 fighter jets to Ankara. Foreign policy hawkishness, however, is the norm for Republicans. Instead, I want to focus on the comments provided by the committee's Democratic members.
Ranking Member Shaheen
As the committee's ranking member, New Hampshire Democrat Jeanne Shaheen has a record of negative comments about Türkiye. Shaheen continued this tendency with an opening statement that referred directly to Türkiye's domestic politics, displaying an inaccurate understanding of recent events that almost certainly came from the pages of the Times [7].
In the case of Barrack, Shaheen does share a personal connection through her husband, as her married name makes clear and as she stated in the hearing [8]. That did not prevent her from trying to steer Barrack into stating that he would involve himself in Türkiye's domestic politics. To his credit, Barrack carefully avoided agreeing with Shaheen, which would have been a violation of diplomatic protocols and means that he is aware of Washington's recent problematic behavior towards Ankara.
Other Democrats: Rosen and Van Hollen
Later in the hearing, other Democratic Senators provided similarly biased or inaccurate comments. Nevada Democratic Senator Jacky Rosen took the now banal approach of denouncing Ankara's relations with Hamas while referring only to the US' so-called "Kurdish allies" in Syria. The analogy is not just faulty; American officials have maintained a blatantly hypocritical stance on this issue since the second Obama administration [9].
Even more exasperating were the comments of Chris Van Hollen, Democratic senator from Maryland [10]. Van Hollen engaged in the same duplicity regarding the SDF that Rosen did, but most disturbing was Van Hollen's mischaracterization of recent political events in Türkiye. Yet the Democratic Party's groupthink concerning Turkey inspired Van Hollen to a state of indignant fervor, his voice even shaking with self-righteousness.
Barrack is a surprise
Overall, Barrack appears to be the most positive US ambassador to Ankara in the past 25 years, particularly in terms of his attitude toward and knowledge of Türkiye. Despite the provocative questions aimed at him by the committee's Democratic members, Barrack maintained a calm demeanor and measured his responses carefully. Clearly, he spoke with a mind to how his comments would be received in Ankara.
In the end, we will have to wait and observe Barrack's performance, but it would be ironic indeed if it were Trump who chose the most competent US ambassador to Türkiye in decades, maybe since George McGhee (1952-1953). Meanwhile, the Democrats are left mindlessly repeating prejudiced and inaccurate clichés about Türkiye and its elected politicians, essentially variations on the same pejorative themes devised 20 years ago by neocon think tankers. That blinkered worldview prevents them from comprehending the socio-political reality in a vibrant, vitally important democratic ally.
[1] For example: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/29/opinion/ezra-klein-podcast-saikat-chakrabarti-zephyr-teachout.html; https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/18/opinion/ezra-klein-podcast-david-shor.html
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3PrM9WJZus
[3] Carried out by Fethullah Gulen's terror cult (FETO), based in Pennsylvania since 1999.
[4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8MmmFVEvT0
[5] Barrack was confirmed by a 60-36 vote on April 29: https://www.congress.gov/nomination/119th-congress/26/3. Democratic senators Coons, Rosen, and Shaheen voted for Barrack’s confirmation while Democratic Senators Booker, Duckworth, Kaine, Merckley, Murphy, Schatz, and Van Hollen voted against. Though Booker, Coons, Duckworth, Merckley, Murphy, and Schatz are members of the Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs, they did not attend Barrack's confirmation hearing. Barrack arrived in Ankara on May 5.
[6] See 49.50 in the video referenced in Footnote 2. Notably, Barrack emphasizes "Türkiye" immediately after Risch repeatedly says "Turkey."
[7] See 45.55 in the video referenced in Footnote 2.
[8] See 54.40 in the video referenced in Footnote 2. Shaheen also used "Türkiye" during the hearing.
[9] The "Kurdish allies" Rosen referred to are the SDF, the Syrian branch of the PKK, which is designated as terrorist under US law.
[10] See 1:27:20 in the video referenced in Footnote 2.
*Opinions expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Anadolu's editorial policy.
