Thoughts on the US presidential election
Why this election will set the course for the rest of the decade
Tomorrow's US presidential election is probably the most important political event of the year. I would like to take this opportunity to summarize my thoughts about it.
Why am I even interested in this election? I live in Austria and therefore quite far away from the US, I can't vote in this election and yet I have been paying much more attention to it than to the recent national elections in my own country. This is because the elections in the USA have a huge impact on all parts of the world. For Europe, this election is about the question of how the future US administration will behave economically in relation to the EU, but even more so about how it sees its role within the NATO defense alliance - and whether it still sees its role there at all. It is about the future of the conflict between Russia and Ukraine and the future of security and peace on the entire continent.
I therefore believe that a victory for the Democrats in the election is in Europe's interest. The election of Kamala Harris as the next president of the USA would be a choice for the continuation of the not always harmonious but ultimately reliable alliance policy of Joe Biden, who has strengthened the partnerships of the USA almost everywhere during his presidency - not only in Europe, but above all in Asia, where the aim is to prepare for a possible conflict with China.
However, I currently have the feeling that it has become increasingly likely in recent weeks that Donald Trump will win the election. We should therefore already be mentally preparing for this possible future, even if we are still actively working to prevent it.
Why do I have this feeling? In most European countries, the majority of people cannot understand how someone like Donald Trump ever got anywhere near the presidency. If Europeans voted, Trump wouldn't stand a chance. I would therefore like to try to explain how this can happen.
Like many others, I have thought for a long time that Joe Biden will not be able to win another election. I would like to make a distinction between the assessment of his work as president and his role in an election. I respect his work and that of his cabinet over the last few years. A lot has been done right in these years - inflation, which soared as a result of the Covid supply chain problems and the war in Ukraine, has been actively tackled and has now been reduced to an acceptable level again - without steering the economy into recession. On the contrary: the US economy is currently growing faster than almost any other economy in the world. Thanks to advances in fracking, the USA is now also in the comfortable position of being independent of oil and gas imports, which has certainly contributed to this strong economic performance, while the European economies are currently suffering due to their dependence on energy imports and export markets and either stagnation or even a full-blown recession is spreading across the old continent. Nevertheless, inflation is one of the election campaign issues, because citizens are directly experiencing the sharp rise in prices in recent years in a negative way in their everyday lives. While it is unfair to solely blame Biden for this inflation, it will always be the case that the incumbent will be held responsible for what happens during his time in office, even if the reasons for this were beyond his control. Many citizens mentally compare their economic situation in the first years of the Trump administration (before Covid) with their current situation and believe that they have fared better under Trump and will therefore vote for him again.
Biden's role in the Ukraine war is seen as ambivalent. On the one hand, his government supports Ukraine, (far too hesitantly and too little, like the European countries, in my opinion), on the other hand, the Russian attack took place during his term of office, which means he could be accused of not doing enough to prevent this conflict. Even today, more US citizens support aid to Ukraine than oppose it. Biden is also burdened by the disastrous withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan, which he carried out but which was still negotiated by Trump, after which the country was back in the hands of the Taliban within a very short time. Critics claim that the USA has shown the weakness that led Putin to dare to invade Ukraine in the first place.
Unlike for us Europeans, Russia's conflict with Ukraine is very, very far away for Americans and for many it is incomprehensible why the US is getting involved in this conflict. They see that they are not doing particularly well economically and the impression is created that the government would rather send billions to a foreign country whose fate is not particularly important to them than help their own citizens. This impression is of course distorted, because the money that flows into Ukraine consists mainly of the book value of the armaments that are given to the Ukrainian army and the budget that is made available to the US military to replace the armaments given with new ones. Basically, the Ukraine war is a blessing for the US military, which is now in a position to effectively deploy a whole pile of armaments that would have had to be retired in a few years anyway because they are reaching the end of their service life, and receive the budget to modernize its arsenal - money that primarily benefits US companies that have contracts with the US military - so in the end money that flows into US jobs and thus strengthens its own economy. Many of the armaments that are now going to Ukraine were produced back then to prepare for a possible war with Russia in the Cold War era. So it is somewhat ironic that they are now actually being used for this purpose in the Ukraine war. However, it seems that the US government has failed to adequately explain these connections to potential swing voters and that a negative perception of Ukraine aid prevails among many. It is therefore not surprising that the Republicans are campaigning to end this conflict as quickly as possible and to stop sending money to Ukraine. The fact that this would mean a dictated peace on Russia's terms is relatively unimportant to these voters because, as already mentioned, Ukraine is very, very far away and its future or sheer existence feels like it has no real significance for them.
The Gaza conflict is also an issue that is hurting the Democrats more than the Republicans in this election. It seems as if the Israeli government under Benjamin Netanyahu will take the opportunity after the Hamas attack in October 2023 to wipe out the Iranian-backed military enemies around it as far as possible, to deprive them of the military possibilities of being a significant threat to Israel in the long term. The Israeli armed forces have not been squeamish in their approach and the extent of the destruction since then has been immense. The situation puts the US government in a quandary. Secretary of State Antony Blinken is constantly working to de-escalate the situation and dissuade Netanyahu from acting too harshly - but so far relatively unsuccessfully. On the other hand, the US government cannot afford to back away from Israel as an ally in terms of domestic policy; the Jewish lobby groups in Washington are too strong for that. This is not a problem for the Republicans. On the one hand, they are not currently in government anyway and therefore not responsible for any unpopular events; on the other hand, their own electorate has few problems with siding with Israel. The situation is different for the Democrats. They have both the responsibility for current US foreign policy and the problem that there are many, especially young, left-leaning voters within the Democratic voter coalition who are extremely critical of Israel's actions and lack the necessary criticism from the government. This has erupted into bizarre pro-Palestine protests and will no doubt lead to some not voting for Kamala Harris in this election and preferring to stay at home. However, I don't want to overstate the impact of this conflict on the election, as it is not at the top of most US voters' list of most important issues - there are issues such as the economy, immigration and crime.
In addition to inflation, illegal immigration and security at the US-Mexican border are the most important domestic issues in this election campaign. In the first years of Joe Biden's presidency, the number of border crossings into the US has skyrocketed and remained high.
The perception is that the US has lost control of the situation at the border and there is an invasion of illegal migrants who are then allowed by current laws to seek asylum within the country. The handling of the border is probably one of the biggest criticisms of Joe Biden's presidency. He first tried to have Congress solve the problem. There was then also a bill that was supposed to solve the issue. This bill is still a source of controversy today, as it is clear to the Democrats that this bipartisan bill was torpedoed by Donald Trump's influence so that the issue would remain unresolved until the election and he could use it as an effective campaign issue. Republicans, on the other hand, argue that the bill was bad and had no chance of passing Congress and the Senate anyway and that the accusation of Donald Trump's influence is therefore unfounded. It was only in recent months that Joe Biden finally tackled the issue with his authority as President and the number of defections has indeed fallen sharply in recent months. However, the political damage has already been done. Kamala Harris is further harmed by the fact that Republicans have fueled the perception that she was put in charge of the border issue and could not solve the problems, when in fact the border itself was not her responsibility. Many find it questionable why she should be the right person to handle this issue in the future when her administration failed to address it during the past term.
Having looked at the strengths and weaknesses of his tenure in relation to some relevant domestic and foreign policy issues in the last few paragraphs, I would like to return to Joe Biden's role in the current election. As I said, I have long agreed with those who have deemed Joe Biden incapable of winning another election. If he was already visibly old in the 2020 campaign, his cognitive problems have intensified greatly over the last four years. People have increasingly ridiculed his gaffes and his incomprehensible mumbling at all kinds of public appearances - which consequently have become increasingly rare. This does not necessarily limit his ability to perform his duties as president. As president, it is his job to make decisions together with his advisors and his cabinet. In my opinion, he is still able to do this today.
When an election is due, however, the incumbent president has a different task: namely to convince voters to give him their vote again. A president must therefore be able to campaign effectively - to go out to the people and promote his own cause. With Joe Biden, it was pretty clear to many observers, myself included, that he would not be able to do this. It has been frustrating to see how the Democratic Party apparatus has long tried to disperse any concerns about Joe Biden's mental state and at the same time has virtually hidden him away so that there have hardly been any public appearances from him, let alone a free interview or conversation. Even Joe Biden himself did not seem to want to admit it and insisted that only he was capable of beating Donald Trump in another election.
The moment of truth came during the now infamous debate on June 27. Joe Biden had the opportunity to prove his doubters wrong. He succeeded in doing exactly the opposite. He came across as old, weak and barely able to formulate a clear sentence - light years away from what one would expect from a competent candidate for the office of US President. It took almost another month, but on July 21, Joe Biden withdrew his candidacy, no doubt under enormous pressure from within the party. At this point, it had become clear to the top decision-makers within the Democratic Party that Biden running in the fall election would mean handing Donald Trump the presidency on a silver platter.
What should the Democratic Party do next? Joe Biden took the first step by supporting his Vice President Kamala Harris as his successor in the course of his retirement. The party then quickly reached an internal agreement not to hold a contest for the succession and to unite behind Kamala Harris as the new candidate. This avoidance of open conflict was seen by many as a sign of the party's strength. After a short search, a candidate for Vice President was quickly found in Tim Walz, the Governor of Minnesota, and a series of acclaimed first appearances followed, giving the feeling that the shadow had lifted from the Democrats' souls and a new enthusiasm now prevailed. It was understandable that people kept talking about joy returning during the first appearances. I personally felt that this first phase of Kamala Harris' election campaign was very well staged and effective. It was also reflected in the polls, which increasingly saw Harris in the lead in the period after the first appearances and the Democratic convention.
However, an election campaign does not feed on initial enthusiasm alone. When the initial euphoria fades, work on an election program and its promotion has to start. The only public debate between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris took place on September 10. Trump did not cut a particularly good figure and subsequently made the headlines with statements such as accusing Haitian migrants of eating their neighbors' pets or his response that he had “concepts of a plan”. Harris tried to look presidential and was generally considered the winner in the debate.
For Kamala Harris and the Democrats, the election would likely have been successful in the first few weeks after this debate. She had positive momentum in the polls nationally and especially in the seven so-called “swing states” (Georgia, North Carolina, Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Arizona and Nevada) that are crucial to the election and do not have a reliable Democratic or Republican majority.
However, people's and the media's memories are very short and in such a fast-moving media environment, the two months between the debate and the election feel like an eternity. Both positive and negative impressions from the debate faded and the two candidates started to converge again in the polls. For example, those who generally tend to vote Republican but were disappointed by Trump's performance after the debate have had the opportunity to reflect and decide that they are closer to the Republicans, regardless of Trump's performance.
However, after a prolonged period of relative stability, Kamala Harris' lead in the polls has begun to shrink considerably in recent weeks and the decisive forecasts in the swing states are pointing more and more towards Donald Trump. How can this be?
If the election turns out according to these polls, Donald Trump will be president again:
Just as it was the voters of Florida who ultimately decided the election in the disputed 2000 election, this year it looks more and more like it will be the voters of Pennsylvania who will ultimately decide the election. That's where the candidates are closest, and it's increasingly unlikely that there's a way for either candidate to win the election without Pennsylvania.
I think part of the reason for the shifting polls can be found in interviews Kamala Harris has given since then. I watched some of them and was very disappointed. She virtually never answers a question, but talks around the subject in many words without saying anything. Her critics call this a “word salad”. I find this habit, which is common among politicians, extremely annoying and frustrating and I'm certainly not alone in this. It gives the impression that she has no clear answers to the questions that really concern voters. Unfortunately for Harris, this game of hide and seek is so bad that she uses this tactic not only on difficult issues such as the problems with illegal migration or the high cost of living problem, but also on very simple, personal questions, such as a question about one of her weaknesses. This would be a good opportunity to show vulnerability and humanity. Her behavior, on the other hand, gives the impression that she is only showing us a façade, while the person behind it remains invisible and intangible. But people want to have someone real, someone they can trust with their vote.
Donald Trump, on the other hand, often comes across as good-natured and affable in his numerous podcast appearances, in contrast to his usually very attacking election campaign appearances, telling private anecdotes about his family life etc. in a relaxed and open manner. Of course, you can criticize his appearances for saying a lot of nonsense that doesn't correspond to reality, but elections are primarily about perception. If the comments under these videos are to be believed, many viewers are often positively surprised. You often read comments like: The media presented him to me as a monster, but here I see that he is actually a pleasant, interesting, intelligent person, along with the mental implication: I can put my trust in him.
I've read similar things in comments under the podcast video of Theo Von's interview with the Republican candidate for Vice President, J.D. Vance. His Democratic counterpart, Tim Walz, owes his position in part to the fact that he coined a catchphrase over the summer: “Weird”. This is how he described Trump and Vance, emphasizing that these two are not primarily a threat to American democracy, but simply behave in a weird manner, have weird views and are not really to be taken seriously - a criticism that may seem a little infantile on the surface, but was very effective at the time. However, this characterization already suffered during the vice presidential debate on October 1, when Vance came across as presidential and Walz seemed rather nervous and distracted in the beginning. Many of the viewers of the interviews with Vance commented: “He was sold to us as weird, but in reality he is a chill, good guy”. Now, of course, one could assume that such interviews might have a more right-wing audience. But what I found interesting was a New York Times interview with Vance in which the majority of comments praised Vance, even though the NYT is certainly not a right-wing media outlet.
Such reactions are doubly effective, because it may be people who subsequently consider voting Republican not only because they have experienced the candidates as likable and affable in this context, but also because they feel lied to by media that have portrayed people as something (weird, hostile) that they turned out not to be in an in-depth conversation. This damages an already very tarnished trust in large media outlets like the NYT.
If the last few paragraphs sound like Republican propaganda, I would like to remind you once again that, as I said at the beginning, I am writing all this from a European perspective and would therefore like to see a continuation of the Democratic presidency.
My point is that if Trump is re-elected president in a few days' time, the Democratic Party will be responsible. It is responsible because it is their job to convince the voters in the US of their vision for the next four years, especially those who see themselves more in the middle on most issues and have no ideological problems with voting for Trump as an alternative. Unfortunately, I have my doubts as to whether this was successful enough.
In my opinion, Kamala Harris has unfortunately turned out to be a weak candidate. I do not doubt that she would have the competence to lead the USA for the next few years together with a good cabinet, but I do doubt her ability to win over the decisive groups of voters. Anyone who comes across as unapproachable, is unable to provide answers to crucial questions in interviews and spends most of the conversation demonizing the other side instead of letting their own strengths speak for themselves is not doing a good job of promoting themselves or their party. Of course, you can now critically point out that Trump doesn't do this any better in his appearances, and perhaps even worse, and that this criticism is therefore unfair. I don't deny that I find many of Trump's appearances appalling with his caustic and degrading attacks. However, many voters want change and in this case it is Kamala Harris who has to convince these people that this change should not be a change of government to the other party, but rather her as the new face at the head of the ruling party. Even if she were to win the election, I don't think she has succeeded in convincing voters on a broad basis.
Looking back, I criticize the Democratic Party's decision not to hold a quick open party primary after Joe Biden's withdrawal. In today's media landscape, it would have been perfectly sufficient to present a candidate 6-8 weeks before the election.
I remember not liking it when Joe Biden had already endorsed Harris when he withdrew. If I had been asked before Biden's withdrawal who should replace him, her name would not have come up in my mind. She remained unimpactful for me and was too unpopular nationally at the time. In the primaries for the 2020 election, she had to leave the field early on. For me, she was a compromise candidate for vice president at the time, as a younger woman of color to counterbalance the old, white man Joe Biden.
I don't think Kamala Harris would have prevailed as a candidate in an open primary. I would have seen people like California Governor Gavin Newsom, Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro or - my personal favorite - Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg in a stronger position here. Trump is old, unpopular nationally overall despite his enthusiastic following and parts of the Republican party openly dislike him, which is why it should be easy for the Democrats to beat him. The fact that a few days before the election the Republicans, rather than the Democrats, are the favorite to win is, to me, unfortunately a sign of Harris' weakness as a candidate.
I am annoyed by this possible missed opportunity to spare us the chaos of another Donald Trump term in office in the coming years, especially because of the geopolitical implications of the US election.
Noah Smith recently wrote in one of his articles that the free world is on a knife-edge and that with the possible election of Donald Trump as President of the USA, there will be no liberal world power left.
From a European perspective, Russia's war against Ukraine is certainly the most important conflict of recent decades and a victory for Trump would probably mean that it would either end or be frozen with a positive outcome for Russia. This is both tragic and a threat to Ukraine's existence. Russia's long-term goal will remain to completely conquer Ukraine, whose statehood it rejects, and incorporate it into Russia, and then to continue this with other former parts of the Soviet Union, above all the Baltic states and ultimately certainly also with at least parts of Poland.
Even more important than the consequences for Ukraine, however, is the international signal effect of such a foreign policy. It would break the taboo that has existed since the Second World War that wars of aggression with the aim of territorial expansion are not tolerated by the international community under the leadership of the USA.
If this is then compounded by the appearance of internal discord and weakness due to Trump's expected battle with the institutions of US politics, I believe there is a very real danger that the Chinese government will see this situation as historically favorable and carry out the long-announced attack on Taiwan, potentially setting in motion events that could lead to a third world war - if Russia continues to attack European territory, China attacks Taiwan and Iran starts a war with Israel and/or Saudi Arabia in the Middle East.
I also consider this danger to be realistic because the window of opportunity for the Chinese government to carry out these military actions is likely to close by 2040 at the latest due to the rapid aging of its society. In addition, the Chinese economy has been stuttering for several years and the government in Beijing could get involved in a military conflict, at least temporarily, as a distraction from domestic political problems due to the dissatisfaction of the population with the economic situation.
Nobody can wish for these geopolitical upheavals with the built-in danger of large-scale nuclear confrontations between major powers and I consider a Trump victory in the election to be a great danger that they could become a reality.
Finally, I would like to express my hopes. I hope that my fears will not come true, I hope that the election will be fair and that the result will be accepted by both sides without causing major unrest and a repeat of January 6, 2021. I hope that the tensions in the US population will subside again and that they will succeed in finding a common path into the future. I hope that in four years' time, we will be able to look back on the last few years together in a positive light.