The rapidly changing American social and political landscape, marked by significant transformations in recent years, has caught my attention. The ambiguity in U.S. politics and the intense polarization between presidential candidates have prompted me to discuss the 2024 presidential race, in which Americans will vote on Tuesday, November 5th, casting their ballots for one of the candidates.
Despite the crucial developments that have occurred recently, I have repeatedly postponed writing about them for several reasons. As a former diplomat, I generally prefer not to engage in pre-election analyses of the United States, as this matter is primarily an internal affair. However, due to the frequent public and private statements by the United States about elections worldwide, including in my country, I felt compelled to set aside this preference and comment ultimately, especially in light of the widespread consequences that the results of the U.S. elections will have on global politics.
A Complex Scene:
The ongoing legal issues surrounding the main presidential candidates, along with the unresolved status of the other candidates, have only prolonged my hesitation to sit down and write. Moreover, Trump’s candidacy comes as a disappointing surprise. Trump, who is intolerant and aggressive towards anything that doesn’t serve his interests, including his loss in the last election to President Joe Biden, is now facing numerous legal problems that remain unresolved. He recently survived a failed assassination attempt. Despite the fact that Republicans have not truly accepted him, they support him out of fear of the wave of popular support he has garnered.
Recently, Trump’s victory was confirmed, and he was almost crowned as the Republican Party’s nominee. He chose J.D. Vance, the ambitious senator from Ohio, who was once a fierce critic of Trump (Vance is known for his staunch opposition to foreign aid, including aid to Ukraine) but later became one of Trump’s new supporters, as his vice president. Vance, being a well-spoken and charismatic figure with diverse skills, could potentially carry the “Make America Great Again” (MAGA) banner after Trump’s term.
Ironically, the Democratic Party has not been more fortunate than its Republican counterpart, as it too faced significant challenges in rallying around its candidate—current President Biden—after his weak and disgraceful performance against his rival Trump in their debate on June 28th. This weak performance by President Biden was exacerbated during the lackluster interviews he conducted before announcing his diagnosis of COVID-19. Subsequently, several prominent Democratic figures and fundraisers quickly called on President Biden to withdraw. In response, Biden, along with a close group of advisors and family members, reaffirmed his intention to run, positioning himself not only as a capable candidate but also as the one with the best chance of defeating Trump, whom they portrayed as the devil, before later softening their tone after Trump’s assassination attempt.
Under these circumstances, various options were considered for who might be a strong and potential alternative in the upcoming presidential race. Ultimately, Vice President Kamala Harris was chosen as a replacement for President Biden, with Minnesota Governor Tim Walz as her running mate. Many Democrats initially refrained from commenting publicly, hoping for the best while being concerned about the presidential race and its implications for the Senate and House of Representatives in Congress.
For weeks, polls fluctuated between Biden and Trump. However, after the debate and the attempted assassination of Trump, sentiments seemed to tilt in his favor. On the other hand, Biden eventually succumbed to the pressure from his Democratic colleagues and announced that he would not run for a second term. Now, polls are putting Harris and Trump head-to-head. Nevertheless, it is still too early to make reliable, evidence-based predictions about who the next president will be.
Future Outcomes:
Regardless of the election results and the identity of the candidates, there are several interesting conclusions that partners and adversaries should keep in mind, including the following points:
- The United States is searching for its political identity. On the one hand, the Trump/Vance ticket embodies an anti-establishment and anti-elite sentiment. On the other hand, the Harris/Walz ticket represents a return to traditional, established foreign policy, especially concerning U.S. allies.
- The United States is undergoing a transitional phase, with an increasing number of young and Hispanic voters. Therefore, if Trump is elected, he is likely to serve only one four-year term. The other candidates, such as Kamala Harris and J.D. Vance, belong to a different generation, as both are under sixty, indicating that a shift in mindset and approach is not far off.
- Politically, the United States has adopted a less interventionist foreign policy, although it remains more willing to engage abroad than most other countries. Whether Trump or another Democratic president wins, there will be a reluctance to allocate American resources, particularly concerning the deployment of military forces abroad.
- Trump may be more open to dealing with Russian President Vladimir Putin than Harris. However, either contender will face significant pressure to avoid becoming entangled in an endless war in Ukraine.
- NATO is likely to welcome any Democratic candidate, as Republicans Trump and Vance are seen as troublemakers due to their belief that Washington bears too many burdens while its allies benefit.
- Neither Democrats nor Republicans can economically disengage from China. However, Democrats appear to be tougher, as they have already implemented various economic sanctions while officially remaining committed to the One-China policy. Trump is expected to raise issues of economic competitiveness. The real challenge will be the U.S. response to tensions related to China in the Philippines, Taiwan, and the South China Sea. It is noteworthy that China has gradually and skillfully expanded its influence.
- Regarding the Middle East, the positions of Democrats and Republicans are currently quite similar, as both parties offer steadfast commitment to Israel, despite the Biden administration’s discomfort with Netanyahu. Although both parties prefer resolving the Israeli-Palestinian issue, neither will compromise its stance for the sake of right and wrong, making the two-state solution increasingly elusive, especially under Trump.
- The general direction of the Democratic candidate will involve quiet and soft diplomacy to prevent further deterioration in the Middle East and to avoid broader conflicts, particularly concerning Iran. In contrast, Trump will use loud diplomacy alongside a soft approach to achieve similar goals.
- Both sides—Democrats and Trump—will adopt a deal-based approach when dealing with North Africa, the Levant, the Arabian Gulf, and regions like Sudan, Yemen, and the Red Sea. Democrats will focus on countering Russian and Chinese influence, while Trump will focus more on China.
- Democrats will be more willing to engage in multilateral deals, whether through the United Nations or other avenues, such as resuming strategic arms negotiations with Russia or China. Trump, on the other hand, will be less inclined to participate in extended and complex negotiations. Given the transitional nature of the upcoming U.S. administration, significant developments in this regard are not expected.
In conclusion, it is now better for various countries to engage with the United States, especially as it undergoes an important transitional phase, marked by the emergence of a younger generation of political leaders that everyone will have to deal with in the future.
