On Trump's defeat

The midterm elections in America have been at the top of the agenda in the world and in Turkey more than ever before.

It is worth thinking about carefully!

After Trump took the presidential seat, he, so to speak, shook the world to its core.

The issue is not just him latching onto Netanyahu's coattails to declare war on Iran, threatening everyone in his path, making absurd remarks here and there, his erratic behavior fueled by his ignorance, or his attempts to fly at the heights of narcissism; the real issue is that he has shown he can nullify all established rules of the global system, alliance ties, interstate relations, and international law with a single move.

Throughout the two years of his second term, he did not just settle for trying to break the status quo in Washington; he triggered a global-scale crisis with his abrasive protectionism, trade wars, and unpredictable foreign policy moves.

Let's put on our reading glasses.

Midterm elections in America are the clearest scale to measure the power of the president in the White House. Presidents usually lose the wind of the election from two years prior at this turn. The voter performs a kind of accounting at the ballot box; they cast their vote on promises, practices, and the country's direction, giving their warning.

Both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama had their share of this!

In 1994, Clinton's Democrats lost 52 seats in the House of Representatives, handing control of Congress to the Republicans for the first time in 40 years.

Obama, on the other hand, suffered one of the heaviest defeats since the end of World War II in 2010, losing 63 seats in the House of Representatives; four years later, he lost his majority in the Senate.

These were shattering ruptures for American political history.

However, reading the defeat Trump suffered in the 2026 midterm elections solely as a part of this historical cycle would be missing the real message that came out of the ballot box.

What really needs to be discussed, beyond the mathematical majority Trump lost in Congress, is that his claim of absolute power—that he could single-handedly redesign American politics, its institutions, and his party in line with his own will—has been proven hollow.

There is a very fundamental difference between these two situations.

Trump was never an ordinary American president who played by the established rules. From his first term, he positioned himself not just as the leader of the Republican Party, but as its very owner. He melted the party around his own personality; he put candidates through loyalty tests and turned everyone who opposed him into an enemy. He made conflict with the judiciary, the press, and the bureaucracy the fuel of his politics.

In this second term of his power, he pushed the pedal even harder.

He saw the Republican majority in Congress as a magnificent ground to expand the powers of the executive branch limitlessly and to implement his decisions without oversight. For Trump, the fact that his party's members in Congress chose to pledge allegiance to his political line instead of being a balancing element against this power was a stroke of luck.

Thus, the line between the constitutional limits of the presidential office and Trump's personal power blurred dangerously.

The November 3 elections seem to have put a thick barrier in front of this trend, at least for now!

The Democrats have taken back both the House of Representatives and the Senate.

Moreover, this was not just an ordinary fluctuation where the race was neck-and-neck and swing states changed hands. Even in lands considered Republican strongholds, where Trump swept in 2024, voters turned their backs.

The Democrats winning the Senate race in Texas and Kansas sending a Democratic senator to Washington for the first time in 94 years summarizes the scale of the wave coming from the depths.

So, what was the reason for this serious dissolution in the conservative voter coalition?

The answer is extremely simple:

The gap between Trump's promises in the squares and the realities of the street widened too much.

He had promised to "end inflation, eliminate the cost of living, and make the American economy soar." He raised customs walls and started trade wars, but the voter could not find that promised prosperity at the market checkout, at the gas station, or in health and housing bills.

Moreover, with the Iran war, the bill for the hawkish moves in foreign policy fell directly onto daily life.

Trump's base did not vote for him just for an economic miracle. The promise that American soldiers would be kept away from overseas adventures and that the budget would not be spent on the wars of the elites in Washington was also the backbone of this support.

The voter saw that these promises were not kept either.

When personal interests, institutional decay, and cronyism were added to this, patience ran out.

The essential nuance that separates Trump from the Clinton and Obama defeats is hidden here.

Previous presidents were punished due to fatigue with their performance or low political performance. Trump, however, was scratched directly because of his way of doing politics, his appetite for using power, and his oppressive attitude toward constitutional institutions.

The American voter harshly reminded the president that the authority given to the White House is not a license to paralyze Congress, the judiciary, and constitutional check-and-balance mechanisms.

This result significantly narrows the political playing field in front of Trump. Now, from the budget to legislation, from investigations to presidential decrees, there is a tough opposition bloc that will audit every step he takes.

Of course, it would also be a mistake for the Democrats to extract a flawless success story for themselves from this picture. The shift of the voter to the left does not mean that Democratic policies are fully embraced. The Democratic Party is still afflicted with its own internal ideological and political divisions.

As it appears, the result from the ballot box is not so much a positive Democratic wave as it is a clear "brake on Trump" reflex.

In other words, the credit given to the Democrats is not unlimited; it is conditional.

The real nightmare for Trump begins from here on out.

Because the 2026 midterm elections have already changed the political balances of the road leading to the 2028 presidential elections.

The loud questioning of Trump's leadership within the Republican Party, the fact that the contradiction between the president's political preferences and party interests has become more visible, and how the power of office will be used in a period when the possibility of re-election has disappeared will be the new debates facing Washington.

Trump is already trying to pin the bill on the failure of the candidates, trying to slip away by saying, "I was not on the ballot."

Yet, it was he himself who shouted to the voters in the squares just a few weeks ago, "Vote as if I am on the ballot." Now, his attempt to exempt himself from the score has no meaning other than an effort to escape responsibility.

The American voter reminded Trump of this fact once again: The presidential seat does not grant unlimited power. Winning an election is not a license to bind a country's institutions to your own will or to drag society behind your personal ego.

Both Clinton and Obama had lost seats in midterm elections. Trump, however, lost much more this time. His claim of leadership, which placed himself at the center of politics, identified the state with his own person, and tried to turn all institutions into an extension of his personal will, hit a wall.

In short, the world is now more than tired of abrasive politics that tries to imprison power within the ego of a single person, discredits institutions, and turns state administration into a tool for personal ambitions.

Today the calendar shows November 10.

While looking at this picture across the ocean, where institutions are being eroded and politics is being shaped around one person's ego, the value of the great legacy left to this country a century ago is understood much better.

Mustafa Kemal Atatürk founded a republic that gives sovereignty to the nation instead of binding a country's future to the will of one person. Moreover, he did not design this only as a form of government; he saw reason, science, law, and institutionalization as the fundamental pillars of the state.

The phrase "Sovereignty belongs unconditionally to the nation" is the strongest answer given from a century ago to leaders who still identify their power with their own persons all over the world today.

The state cannot be fitted into one person's lifespan, ambitions, or political calculations. Governments change, leaders come and go. What must remain is the nation's sovereignty, the rule of law, and the institutional legacy of the republic.

November 10 is not just the day we remember Atatürk with longing once again; it is the day we re-grasp what great reason, what understanding of the state, and what a vision for the future he bequeathed to this country.

Despite all the years that have passed, we understand the value of his greatest work much better today.

With respect, gratitude, and an unending longing...