“Trump needs Vandenberg.” An analysis of what the American president and his predecessor Truman have in common after a crushing defeat in the midterm elections.

By Brett McGurk, CNN Global Affairs Analyst

(CNN) - Shortly after World War II, as the United States faced the rise of the Soviet Union, a devastated Europe, and the beginning of the Cold War, President Harry Truman's Democratic Party suffered a crushing defeat in the midterm elections.

In 1946, Republicans were able to win 55 seats in the House of Representatives and 12 seats in the Senate, thus gaining control of both chambers for the first time in 16 years.

It seemed then that Truman's presidency was over; One senator from his party, J. William Fulbright from Arkansas - Truman would appoint a Republican Secretary of State, then resign from his position, thus handing over the presidency in accordance with the Presidential Succession Law that was in effect at the time.

Not so fast.

Truman turned to Senator Arthur Vandenberg, a Michigan politician who had previously been an isolationist but had become chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee in the new Congress.

Vandenberg's guiding principle was: party politics must stop "at the water's edge" (that is, at the borders of the nation).

Their unlikely partnership contributed to the formulation of the Truman Doctrine and the Marshall Plan, and ultimately led to the North Atlantic Treaty that established NATO. Together, they developed a strategy that successfully contained Soviet expansionism and paved the way for victory in the Cold War decades later.

The two men continued their struggle; Truman launched a campaign against the Republican Congress, which he described as “doing nothing,” while Vandenberg remained a Republican who harbored ambitions to reach the presidency.

But they agreed on the challenges facing the United States, and found a way to work together on the issues that matter most to the country.

After 80 years, such a thing seems almost impossible.

There is no principle of "stopping at the country's borders."

Trump now faces a predicament that Truman would have been familiar with: a crushing defeat in the midterm elections that transferred control of both houses of Congress to the opposition.

Can he find his own Vandenberg?

We have to hope so.

We are locked in a technology race with China over artificial intelligence, a race linked to the future of economic and military power. Europe faces the risk of a wider war breaking out, at a time when the Russian invasion of Ukraine is approaching its fifth year. The United States is also experiencing a state of stagnation in its relationship with Iran, without an easy way out, and without any reason to believe that Tehran will abandon its hostility towards America, its support for terrorism, or its nuclear ambitions.

All of these threats will remain in place even after Trump's presidency ends. Each requires decisions to be made today, the results of which may take years or decades to appear. These challenges become more complex when Washington is unable to maintain a policy for a sufficient period to ensure its success.

Let's look at things from the other side's perspective.

If you are Vladimir Putin, why would you compromise when America is divided and its support for Ukraine could collapse at any moment? The same applies to Chinese President Xi Jinping, who sees the United States as torn by division and in a period of terminal decline.

As well as Iran's leaders; Why would they make concessions when the United States may soon abandon the Middle East entirely? Mojtaba Khamenei - Iran's new supreme leader, whom no one has ever seen - seemed to express the view of all of them when he said that "the collapse of the United States has accelerated" in the wake of the midterm elections.

Even within the United States, if you are an American manufacturer who is asked to expand weapons production, why would you build a new factory without guarantees that Washington will buy what you produce?

This could be called the “uncertainty tax”; Adversaries are exploiting opportunities to consolidate their gains, allies are taking precautionary measures, while American industry is reluctant to move forward.

From politics to governance

The Truman-Vandenberg partnership worked because each took on responsibilities beyond simply seeking to defeat the other party.

Truman had a clear vision: Soviet expansionism threatened American security, and so the United States should strengthen countries vulnerable to Soviet pressure.

The Marshall Plan provided the economic tools, the then-forming NATO provided the military tools, and bipartisan support in Congress ensured the sustainability of these efforts.

Truman also accepted the fact that Vandenberg would participate in policy formulation.

His administration was consulting the senator while developing the proposals. Vandenberg demanded amendments, and succeeded in convincing members of his Republican Party - who were characterized by skepticism - to support these trends. He took responsibility for the policies because he helped design them.

This is a valuable lesson for both parties today.

A partnership that is in the country's interest requires political concessions. The president must realize that his political legacy now requires cooperation with Democrats, while they, in turn, must accept that supporting a policy could give Trump a political victory.

Neither of these things is considered self-evident in Washington today; Just as it was not the case under President Truman.

The Truman-Vandenberg model today

It is true that the establishment of a similar partnership at the present time seems unlikely, but the need for it remains very urgent, and imagining its occurrence is not impossible.

Senator Chris Coons of Delaware is expected to chair the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, while Representative Gregory Meeks of New York will seek to chair its corresponding committee in the House of Representatives. I have worked with both under different presidential administrations; They both have extensive experience and the ability to reach compromises with the White House when necessary. Both of them are aware of the magnitude of the responsibilities placed on their shoulders, and at the same time they represent the practical (pragmatic) trend within their party.

They will face resistance from Democrats who see the election results as a mandate to confront Trump over the next two years, not to cooperate with him. However, the new Congress can still exercise its oversight role and hold Trump accountable, while simultaneously seeking bipartisan agreements on foreign affairs.

Trump represents the most fundamental obstacle; For any party in Congress to act as a partner, it needs to know what it is being asked to support, and whether the president will still support this matter tomorrow. Consistency and shared commitment are not Trump's political traits.

However, let us assume for the sake of argument that there is a spirit of cooperation similar to that which prevailed in the era of Truman and Vandenberg; What can be achieved?

a lot.

Regarding Ukraine, a multi-year agreement could ensure continued military, economic and intelligence support, while requiring European partners to do more and broadly expand US arms production to replenish stockpiles.

For China, an agreement could accelerate the development of the energy and computing infrastructure needed to win the AI ​​race, while addressing issues of electricity costs and economic disruptions.

As for Iran, Trump launched a war without clear goals or a vision for its end. Alternatively, a cooperative approach could set specific goals and benchmarks, and develop a strategy to gradually end the conflict, while containing Iran and preventing it from rebuilding its nuclear program.

In each of these cases, the president's having to set goals and align targets with available resources leads to better, more sustainable policy formulation.

The cost of confusion

The elections distributed the responsibilities of governance, but they did not eliminate the challenges facing the United States. In fact, these challenges may be exacerbated; Opponents seek to seize opportunities, while allies hedge against the stalemate that Washington is experiencing while awaiting another election.

This was the danger in 1946 as well. Truman and Vandenberg then gave other countries, whether allies or enemies, reason to believe that American commitments would remain in place regardless of the election results in the United States.

Of course, Trump will have to offer coherent strategies and accept a role for Congress in shaping them. Democratic leaders will also have to take responsibility for making these strategies successful.

Does this seem far-fetched? Yes. But it is necessary.

The alternative is to spend two years proving two things: to adversaries that they can withstand us longer, and to allies that they need to start making alternative plans.