By Jim Geraghty
Wednesday, April 22, 2026
On yesterday’s Editors podcast, Rich Lowry mentioned
the results of a March Echelon Insights survey, asking 1,033 self-identified
Republican and Democratic registered voters how they feel about various
countries.
Note that the question wording was, “Do you have a
favorable or unfavorable opinion about the following countries?” so we don’t
know whether the respondent was thinking about the country as a whole, or its
government.
Unsurprisingly, almost all respondents felt positively
about Canada, although Democrats — both under age 50 and aged 50 and above —
felt more positively about our neighbor to the north than Republicans. The
survey showed similar dynamics in respondents’ views of the United Kingdom.
(For the rest of this newsletter, I’m going to refer to those under 50 as
“younger” and those 50 and above as “older.” Sorry, 50-year-olds.)
Where you started to see a gap was Mexico, where
Democrats, both younger and older, felt significantly more positive about our
neighbor to the south than both younger and older Republicans.
Thankfully, all groups felt negatively about Russia,
although older members of both parties felt significantly more negatively about
Moscow than younger Republicans. (Living memories of the Cold War make a
difference, apparently.) Every demographic felt somewhat negative about
Venezuela, although younger Democrats were only slightly more negative than
positive in their opinion of that country.*
But the most fascinating, and disturbing, parts of the
survey came in the splits about the remaining countries: Iran, China, and
Israel.
On Iran, older Republicans felt overwhelmingly negative —
the most negative any demographic felt about any country in the survey — and
older Democrats felt almost as negatively. But younger Republicans felt less
negatively about Iran than older Democrats, and while younger Democrats felt
negatively about Iran, it was 37 percentage points fewer than their older
counterparts.
While every demographic in the survey felt negatively
about Iran, younger Democrats felt significantly less negatively about Tehran.
(I suspect living memories of the Iranian hostage crisis make a difference,
too.)
Ask Americans how they feel about China, and you’ll get
strikingly different answers depending upon age and partisan demographic. Among
older Republicans, “negative” scored 83 percentage points net; a number
comparable to feelings about Russia and only slightly less hostile than older
Republicans’ perceptions of Iran. But among younger Republicans and older
Democrats, it was 50 points net in the negative category. But younger Democrats
don’t feel that negatively toward Beijing at all, just around 14 percent.
Now . . . you remember that whole Covid-19 thing, right? The regime’s constant lying about the outbreak when accurate
information was needed most? Or the ongoing genocide of the Uyghurs? The serious threat of an invasion of Taiwan? All the spying going on? All the fentanyl production?
That’s all within the past few years. You don’t need
memories of Tiananmen Square, or the Cultural Revolution, or Chinese support for the North Vietnamese during the Vietnam War.
Is that all a TikTok effect? What kind of naïve, gullible
idiot would feel so positively about China? Oh, wait, I just realized that Eric Swalwell is 45 years old.
But if you want to find a country that younger Democrats
really feel negatively about . . . look to the world’s lone Jewish state.
Among younger Democrats, when asked about Israel,
“negative” scored 45 percentage points net; only Russia scored worse among this
demographic, and even that was only 15 percentage points worse. Remember on
Iran, among young Democrats, “negative” scored 40 percentage points net.
Young Democrats feeling negatively about Israel has been
well-reported. But young Democrats feeling more negatively about Israel than
Iran or China has not. Remember, the Iranian regime and its loyalists still
use “Death
to America!” about as frequently as commas.
Younger Democrats’ intense hostility to Israel was a
serious outlier compared to other demographics; among older Democrats,
“negative” scored 19 percentage points net. Israel is now a partisan issue;
among younger Republicans asked about Israel, “positive” scored 11 percentage
points net, and among older Republicans, “positive” scored 65 percentage points
net.
Let’s say that for some reason, you don’t buy the results
of this Echelon Insights survey. Numbers from two recent Pew Research surveys
broadly line up with the conclusions. First, from a survey about Israel, released April 7:
Eight-in-ten Democrats and
Democratic-leaning independents currently have an unfavorable view of Israel,
up from 69 percent last year and 53 percent in 2022. Democrats under 50 are
slightly more likely than older Democrats to say they have a very unfavorable
view of Israel (47 percent vs. 39 percent).
More Republicans and Republican
leaners have a favorable than unfavorable view of Israel (58% vs. 41%). Still,
the share of Republicans with a negative view has ticked up since last year,
driven by those under 50. Today, 57% of Republicans ages 18 to 49 have an
unfavorable opinion of Israel, up from 50% last year. Large majorities of
Republicans 50 and older continue to view Israel positively.
Then, from another Pew release, a week later:
The increase in favorability
toward China comes largely from Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents. The
share of Democrats who view China positively is up 8 points from last
year. Opinion among Republicans and Republican leaners is largely
unchanged.
Like with favorability, that
movement comes mostly from Democrats: 14 percent of Democrats say China is an
enemy, down from 22 percent in 2025 and 28 percent in 2024. A large majority of
Democrats (72 percent) still view China as a competitor. . . .
Younger Americans have more
positive views of China than older adults do. About a third of adults under 50
(34 percent) have a favorable opinion of China. Just 19 percent of those ages
50 and older agree.
Americans under 50 are also much
less likely than those 50 and older to say China is an enemy of the U.S. (20
percent vs. 38 percent). Republicans of different ages particularly diverge on
this:
Republicans younger than 50 are
23 points less likely than Republicans 50 and older to think China is an enemy.
Among younger and older
Democrats, the gap is just 8 points.
Now . . . have you seen any significant change in the
behavior of the Chinese regime in recent years? Xi Jinping is still running
things over there. Is this simply a matter of the Covid-19 pandemic receding
into the rearview mirror?
I would also pose the question: Which countries do
political leaders in each party talk about the most? On paper, Democrats are
strongly opposed to Vladimir Putin and Russia. But I don’t feel like I hear
them talking about it much anymore — certainly not as much as they talk about
Israel.
Rich noted in his most recent syndicated column:
At their convention over the
weekend, Democrats selected Amir Makled as their nominee for a seat on the
University of Michigan Board of Regents. A Dearborn, Mich., lawyer, Makled
represented pro-Hamas student demonstrators, called for the university to divest
from Israel, and expressed great respect for anti-Israel terrorists in social
media posts.
He reposted X items referring to
Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah as a “martyr” after he was killed in an
Israeli strike. He gave the same treatment to a Hezbollah official named Abu
Ali Khalil, “a martyr on the road to Jerusalem.” For his part, Qasem Soleimani
got the honorific “Haj” after Trump eliminated him in a targeted assassination.
. . .
The Michigander has been
admirably opened-minded when it comes to rancid hatred of Israel. He didn’t let
his progressivism stop him from retweeting a Candace Owens post calling
Israelis “demons,” who “lie, steal, cheat, murder, and blackmail.” He praised
Marjorie Taylor Greene and has endorsed views of Tucker Carlson and antisemitic
goon Dan Bilzerian.
Why is Israel, a country roughly 6,000 miles from Ann
Arbor, such a central issue to who serves on the University of Michigan Board
of Regents?
A big part of it is that America’s Muslim and Arab
communities are becoming a bigger and more consequential demographic within
Democratic Party politics, particularly in the state of Michigan. But I think
there’s another, less-discussed reason.
If you’re looking at the world clearly, I think you look
at the world beyond our shores and see some major threats to the (relative)
peace and prosperity we enjoy today:
·
How do we deter a Chinese invasion, blockade, or
other attempt to take over Taiwan? How do we mitigate, counter, or overcome
China’s far-reaching and wide-ranging efforts to maximize the Beijing regime’s
leverage around the world?
·
How do we get Russia to stop attempting to
invade Ukraine and threaten its neighbors? Vladimir Putin and his regime feel
like they can harass other countries with impunity, with everything from poisonings to cyberattacks to GPS jamming to sabotage and assassinations. What can we do to deter them?
·
Assuming this current conflict doesn’t topple
the mullahs’ regime in Tehran, what do we do about the constant threat from
Iran, the world’s top state sponsor of terrorism?
·
North Korea still has nukes and still is
hostile. Even if Kim Jong-un’s cholesterol catches up with him, his successor is just about guaranteed to be trouble in some
form.
(There are other major national security priorities,
particularly non-state actors like terrorist groups and transnational criminal
organizations, but the ones I just outlined strike me as the big four
state-based threats.)
Those are all hard questions, with few easy or convenient
answers. I suspect the average Democratic primary voter, and the candidates who
win their votes, don’t spend a lot of time thinking about those threats, in
part because there are no simple or politically convenient answers.
But you know what is simple or politically convenient? Bashing
Israel. A Democratic candidate who talks up the threats from China and
Russia runs the risk of his audience’s eyes glazing over, or maybe accusations
of being a jingoistic, paranoid warmonger defending the legacy of colonialism.
But pledge to cut off military aid to Israel, or cite the latest implausible numbers from the Hamas-run Gaza Health Ministry,
and you’ve got a sure-fire applause line at a Democratic rally.
Democratic primary voters, particularly the younger ones,
want to hear their candidate talk about how bad Israel is. But when it comes to
China or Iran, they yawn.
*“Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion about
Venezuela?” is an interesting question, because when someone thinks of
Venezuela, do they think of the old Nicolás Maduro regime, the nascent Delcy
Rodríguez regime, or the Trump administration’s military operation nabbing
Maduro in January? The Economist, no fan of Trump or U.S. military
interventions in general, offered a detailed portrait of the country showing there
are glimmers of good news here and there, albeit with major questions of
whether the Rodríguez regime is serious about reform, both political and
economic:
Nonetheless, some 700 political
prisoners have been released. That is unprecedented in 27 years for the sheer
number, for not being part of an explicit deal and because there have not been
many new arrests, notes Alfredo Romero of Foro Penal, a legal watchdog.
What is more, the regime is
tolerating political demonstrations and marches. In January and February there
were over 1,200 protests. “We’re determined not to leave the streets,” says
Yriana Aular, a retired teacher on a march in Caracas.
ADDENDUM: At 4:09 p.m. Tuesday, President Trump posted to Truth Social:
Based on the fact that the
Government of Iran is seriously fractured, not unexpectedly so and, upon the
request of Field Marshal Asim Munir, and Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, of
Pakistan, we have been asked to hold our Attack on the Country of Iran until
such time as their leaders and representatives can come up with a unified
proposal. I have therefore directed our Military to continue the Blockade and,
in all other respects, remain ready and able, and will therefore extend the
Ceasefire until such time as their proposal is submitted, and discussions are
concluded, one way or the other.
So, we’re extending our side of the cease-fire. This
morning, U.K. Maritime Trade Operations, a shipping monitor run by
the British Navy, reports, “An outbound cargo ship reports having been fired
upon and is now stopped in the water,” and “a Container Ship reported that the
vessel was approached by 1 IRGC gun boat, no VHF challenge that then fired upon
the vessel which has caused heavy damage to the bridge.”
Again, the instructions for a “cease-fire” are right
there in the name. If the Iranians aren’t stopping shooting at cargo and
container ships . . . why have we stopped shooting at them?
No comments:
Post a Comment