The much-anticipated debates between the U.S. presidential candidates, Kamala Harris and Donald Trump, held in Philadelphia on September 10th, did not decisively influence the further course of the election. Voters who remain undecided face a complex, multi-layered choice.
Elegant Ideology vs. Feeble Machismo
"I am Kamala Harris, not Joseph Biden, and certainly not Donald Trump" – these ironic words from the Democratic candidate can serve as the keynote of the debates. This is obvious: facing the stout, somewhat awkward 78-year-old ex-president stood the lively, energetic, ironic, and elegantly refined current vice president, who at 60 years old embodied youth and unstoppable progress.
Both exchanged barbs and vague remarks, but behind these, one could discern their general approaches to key domestic and foreign policy issues: Trump presented his characteristic machismo, which often starkly contrasted with his visibly aging appearance; Harris continued Biden's strategic stance of preserving the existing world order based on the principles of the democratic-dictatorial confrontation.
These approaches were demonstrated in both domestic policies (economy, immigration, abortion) and foreign policies (Ukraine, the Middle East, China). Trump proposed the same "remedies" for inflation and rising prices that he implemented during his first term: reducing corporate taxes, introducing or raising existing tariffs on imports, and conducting "the largest deportation in U.S. history," as he put it, of illegal immigrants. Harris delved more deeply into her economic program, focusing on the middle class and supporting small businesses. Her extensive government financial aid to young families for purchasing their first home, raising children, and other aspects approached the level of European countries with significant social sectors.
Harris did not present a clear immigration policy, only responding to Trump's accusations that she and Biden have pursued an "open borders" policy. According to Trump, this policy has allowed illegal immigrants to "take over our country from within." "In all countries, crime rates have dropped, but in the U.S., they have risen because all countries are sending their criminals here." His blunder about immigrants from Haiti "stealing cats and dogs from the residents of Springfield, Ohio, and eating them" is already being repeated worldwide.
It is impossible to engage in serious discussion on such a complex issue as immigration policy in a country created by immigrants, which throughout its history has welcomed various waves of immigrants. Harris merely noted that, as California's attorney general, she had prosecuted organized international crime and traffickers of all kinds, and she criticized Trump for freezing the immigration bill, developed by the Biden administration and supported by both parties, due to his desire to exploit the problem rather than solve it.
Regarding foreign policy, both candidates reiterated their previously stated positions. Behind the exchange of accusations, it was clear that each would continue their respective policies: Trump with his overt machismo, often unsupported by concrete decisive actions, and Harris with a claim to continue Biden's strategy with slightly shifted accents.
These two approaches were most clearly displayed on the issue of the Russia-Ukraine war. Trump once again repeated that he would force Putin and Zelenskyy to "stop the war," twice avoiding the moderator's direct question, "Is it in the interest of the U.S. for Ukraine to win?" Harris reiterated Biden's stance that Putin did not start a war just against Ukraine but against world democracy and the global order based on international law. "You will flatter Putin, and he will eat you for lunch," she chided her opponent. She also addressed the Polish community (there are up to 800,000 Poles in Pennsylvania, one of the decisive states), stating that if Trump allows Putin to seize Ukraine, Poland will be the next victim of Putin's ambitions. However, Harris did not clarify how her administration would support Ukraine for victory, only suggesting a continuation of the current approach of providing "as much as necessary to prevent Russia from winning."
This vague presentation of political programs, wrapped in an exchange of jabs, did not decisively declare a winner. Most polls favored Harris (CNN - 63% to 37%, others - by 2-3%). However, more detailed surveys revealed that voters prefer Trump on economic and immigration issues but favor Harris on national security and the defense of democracy both domestically and globally. Some voters were likely also put off by Trump's repeated, unsubstantiated attacks on political opponents and the judiciary, as well as his continued refusal to acknowledge his 2020 election defeat and his role in inciting supporters to storm Congress on January 6, 2021.
A King’s Court and a Candidate’s Advisors
The future policies of the candidates become clearer when examining their advisors. Harris' chief national security and foreign policy advisor is Phil Gordon, who held various positions under President Obama, notably contributing to the infamous "reset" with Russia, the unsuccessful support of the Syrian opposition, and the not entirely successful nuclear agreement with Iran (from which the U.S. under Trump withdrew, leaving relations with Iran to other signatories, including Russia). In 2020, Gordon published a book criticizing U.S. attempts to change political regimes in other countries, particularly in the Middle East.
"I believe that, overall, if you take Gordon's views alongside Harris' deputy national security advisor, scholar Rebecca Lissner, you will see a much more modest perspective on what the U.S. can and cannot do globally; we must stop this long-term messianic policy of trying to change regimes and remake the world in the U.S.'s image,"says political expert Michael Hirsh..
Nonetheless, Gordon is a strong proponent of maintaining transatlantic ties and helped Harris prepare for meetings with over 150 world leaders, including Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, according to the The Financial Times.
Harris has built relationships with big business leaders and Wall Street bankers, hosting dinners at her residence. notes Wall Street Journal. At the same time, her economic advisers and assistants help her form the basic positions of her economic policy: support of small businesses with the help of tax benefits and easier access to initial capital; support of young families; the development of affordable housing, - notes the WSJ.
Trump, on the other hand, has 11 advisors on national security, foreign, and domestic policy (strikingly, none of them are women). Some advisors advocate for a focus on Asia, arguing that China will pose the main threat, which could mean less attention to Europe and, specifically, a quick end to the war in Ukraine. Fred Fleitz, for instance, has developed a detailed plan to force both sides to cease fire along the line of contact. "The Trump administration would pressure Ukraine by threatening to cut off U.S. aid if they refuse negotiations while pressuring Russia with threats of increased U.S. military aid to Ukraine without peace talks," notes Foreign Policy. (the publication provides a list and characteristics of the main figures in Trump’s current entourage. A similar plan was developed by another Trump advisor, Keith Kellogg.
Familiar faces from Trump's first term also reappear among his advisors and assistants: Robert O'Brien (who replaced McMaster as National Security Advisor to the White House; he established himself as a competent specialist); Rick Grenell (who was ambassador to Germany, where he became infamous for his 'macho style,' offending German colleagues with the rudeness and straightforwardness with which he demanded the cessation of the construction of Nord Stream 2, etc.); Stephen Miller (who developed Trump's president-era harsh methods against illegal immigrants), among others.
At the same time, Mike Pompeo reappears in Trump's current orbit. As Secretary of State during Trump's presidency, he was the most supportive of providing weapons to Ukraine (at that time, the 'Javelins') and generally proved to be an outstanding diplomat with strategic vision.
All individuals in Trump's orbit are selected based on the primary principle of obedience, emphasizes FP.
The Nonlinear Presidential Choice
From this brief overview of the debates and the teams of the candidates for the highest office in the leading country of the world, it is clear what a complex, nonlinear choice voters face in the decisive seven states where uncertainty still reigns. In these states, both candidates are almost tied at 50:50, and every vote will have decisive importance. Given their fundamental positions on domestic and foreign policy (and the selection of their entourages), it is impossible to clearly determine what specific methods and measures they will use in managing the economy, social policy, foreign policy, and security. Will Harris heed her chief advisor's call for a 'more modest role' for the U.S., or will she, on the contrary, choose to decisively step beyond Biden to lead the younger generation? On whose side will President Trump lean, given the diverse individuals in his closest circle?
Will Trump accept defeat, or will he again incite his supporters? And if Harris loses, how will those who have already been captivated by her respond to her defeat? The events of 2020-2021 pushed U.S. elections to the brink, beyond which looms the threat of mass violence...
The most recent event—the second attempt on Trump's life, which occurred on September 15 near his tennis courts in Florida — sadly confirms these concerns.
Nadiya Banchyk