Since Donald Trump was elected for the second time as the new President of the United States, it is natural to think about how each campaign has positioned itself to the voters, Trump was able to talk to middle America, he created a coalition of voters who were willing to focus on the economy. the view he laid out and ignored the most unsavory aspects of Trump’s stuff: his denial of the election, his racist and sexist comments, and his flirtation with the far right. In contrast, Harris seems to have trouble articulating his overall vision unlike his boss, Joe Biden, and his opponent, Trump.
This race had been intense for months. Ever since Biden withdrew from the race, Harris and Trump have been neck and neck. Therefore, every move in the campaign has been important in getting more votes in a series of battlegrounds. International tensions, conflicts, and challenges have been more important in this election than in any previous presidential election that Donald Trump has fought.
In both campaigns, any foreign policy or security announcements were made in the context of the war in Ukraine, the Israel-Gaza crisis, and ongoing tensions between the West and China. Not only did both campaigns acknowledge the increasing importance of international politics in this election, voters did too. According to a September poll, significant numbers of Democrats and Republicans ranked foreign policy as “very important” to their vote in November. This election we also saw an increase in the differences between the two candidates in their understanding of international security. While both Trump and Harris acknowledge the same problems in international politics, they both have very different responses to them.
Elections and Opportunities
The Harris campaign is framing the election as an opportunity to bolster the gains of the Biden administration. His campaign focused on preventing Trump from further damaging the US standing in the world and maintaining America’s position as a leading democracy. Harris emphasized the importance of America’s allies and the damage caused by Trump’s habit of meeting with dictators.
For Trump, the position of the US in the world is equally important. However, he sees a very different cause of damage this time. The slogan “MAGA” or “Make America Great Again” is almost impossible to separate from the Trump campaign. Trump has repeatedly made the claim that the world is “laughing at us”, since his first speech in 2017. His goal in American society is to prevent the world from exploiting the US. Trump’s usual rhetoric that the US is considered a fool by the world and that US officials are unable or unwilling to negotiate firmly in the interests of the US, are among his most memorable statements.
In this election cycle, Trump repeated this message to Harris. Combining these accusations of his inability to serve the US with his attacks on Harris and his IQ, Trump tried to make the case that electing Harris would mean the continuation of this disgrace for the US. These words played well with his large, loyal MAGA voters, but seemed to be born rather than accepted or accepted by the voters he was appealing to in this election.
Responding to Problems
Harris did not just accept this attack from Trump. He also wanted to go to the school that was his opponent in international debates. In just one election interview, Harris told Trump that Russian leader Vladimir Putin is “a dictator who can eat you for lunch”, to which Trump replied that he “wants to stop the war”. With a strong view of US political isolationism and a strong aversion to military deployments after the Global War on Terror and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, this message is likely to find a receptive audience. Equally, the American public has not been given the ultimate goal of the conflict in Ukraine or an explanation of how to achieve the ultimate goal. Therefore, Trump’s clear intention, although not yet fully developed, presented a strong vision of US involvement in Ukraine.
Ukraine has been a key battleground issue between the two candidates when it comes to foreign policy. Harris’ message centered on the idea that “in these volatile times, it is clear that America cannot retreat”. On the contrary, Trump’s assertions have led some to conclude that he will seek to negotiate with Moscow over the heads of Kyiv. These differences in positions are likely to increase pressure on Ukraine to seek the most favorable deal possible before pressure from Trump or Republicans in Congress push potential negotiations.
In a strange episode after the election results, Trump’s team reported the first phone call between the victorious congressman and Russian President Putin, a call that the Kremlin has denied took place. While this denial may be confusing, it may indicate the Kremlin’s desire to not only deny the call but also the content of the conversations on the phone. While this is pure speculation, it’s unlikely we’ll hear more details on this until Trump’s team has had more time to coordinate. There are several different views on the Ukraine conflict in Trump’s cabinet, and how these will interact remains to be seen.
This division can also be seen in the candidate’s approach to the Israel-Gaza crisis (as well as Israel-Lebanon, Israel-Iran). Unsurprisingly, both candidates are staunch supporters of Israel. However, Harris maintains the Biden administration’s efforts to demand an end to the fighting, despite this limited success in influencing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
In a policy move during his first term, Trump approached the problem by challenging the norms of US-Israel relations. In his first term, he recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and moved the American embassy there, and put his son-in-law Jared Kushner to try to organize a peace agreement for the Middle East Peace Process. In response to the ongoing conflict in Gaza, Trump continued his extreme behavior, saying he told Netanyahu to “do what you have to do”.
US Global Standing
The foreign policy debate in this election has focused on the US’s position in the world. Trump’s claim that the world was taking advantage of the US is familiar to anyone who watches American politics. However, given the increased international tensions in this election cycle, his “primary distraction” approach may have had a greater impact than his previous administration.
In contrast, Harris’ attempts to place the blame for further normalization on the behavior of US officials may make sense but are hardly provocative. As with many of his policy proposals, Harris is constrained by the record of the Biden administration. The “America’s Back” message from Biden could not be reinforced or backed up with action. Biden may say that America is back, but it is not clear which America is back. Similarly, many voters did not see the return to status quo as an advantage, especially when world politics seemed so different and dangerous.
Foreign policy has not been an area of success for Biden. Notable failures such as the withdrawal from Afghanistan have come to the fore, but the general conduct of US foreign policy has been competent but unremarkable, and far from successful. As such, Harris has had a tightrope walk, making the same case that Biden did in 2020 when he tried to show the difference between his foreign policy and that of the Biden White House.
The international context, and US foreign policy, has been a more important issue in the 2024 Presidential election than it has been in recent elections. For voters and both candidates, the position of the US in world politics has become more prominent than in previous elections. The prominence of major international crises in daily news, and the perception of reduced US influence in these crises may have contributed to this. Harris’s announcement of continuing efforts to renew US leadership and cooperation with the rest of the world did not convince American voters. However, Trump’s reaction to isolation and seeking to correct the perceived disrespect shown in the US has been very successful. The 2024 election season and the campaigns of Donald Trump and Kamala Harris presented two very different images of American foreign policy, yet Trump’s victory ultimately reflected what the American electorate wanted.
Further Studies in E-International Relations
Source link
