As Donald Trump has been elected the new president of the United States for the second time, it’s natural to reflect on how each campaign has presented itself to voters. Trump was able to speak to Middle America, building a coalition of voters willing to focus on the economy. vision he has exposed and ignores the most unpleasant elements of the Trump phenomenon: electoral denial, racist and sexist comments and his flirtations with the far right. On the other hand, Harris seems to have struggled to articulate her overall vision unlike her boss, Joe Biden, and her opponent, Trump.
This race had been on a knife edge for months. Since Biden withdrew from the race, Harris and Trump have been neck and neck. As such, each stage of the campaign was crucial to securing the greatest number of votes in a series of battleground states. International crises, conflicts and challenges have been much greater in this election than in the two previous presidential elections in which Donald Trump participated.
For both campaigns, any foreign policy or security announcements are made in the context of the war in Ukraine, the Israel-Gaza crisis and the ongoing tension between the West and China. Not only did both campaigns recognize the growing importance of international politics in this election, but voters did as well. According to a September poll, a significant number of Democrats and Republicans ranked foreign policy as “very important” when voting in November. In this election, we also saw an increase in the divergence between the two candidates in their understanding of international security. Even though Trump and Harris recognize the same crises in international politics, they both have very different responses to them.
Election and opportunity
The Harris campaign presented this election as an opportunity to consolidate the gains of the Biden administration. His campaign aimed to prevent Trump from further harming the United States’ standing in the world and to maintain the United States’ position as a leading democracy. Harris emphasized the importance of America’s allies and the damage caused by Trump’s habit of cozying up to dictators.
For Trump, America’s position in the world is just as important. However, he sees the cause of the damage done to this situation very differently. The slogan “MAGA” or “Make America Great Again” is virtually impossible to separate from the Trump campaign. Trump has repeatedly claimed that the world is “making fun of us,” since his inaugural address in 2017. His pitch to the American public is to stop the world from taking advantage of the United States. Trump’s familiar refrain that the United States is being taken for fools by the rest of the world and that American officials cannot or will not negotiate forcefully enough in the interests of the United States is among his most memorable statements.
For this election cycle, Trump updated that message to Harris. By pairing these accusations of incompetence in defending the United States with his attacks on Harris and her IQ, Trump sought to argue that the election of Harris would mean a continuation of this embarrassment for the United States. These comments went down well with his core voters, the MAGA faithful, but appear to have originated rather than been accepted or welcomed by the voters he was courting for this election.
Responding to crises
Harris didn’t just accept these attacks from Trump. She also sought to educate her opponent in international negotiations. In the one and only election debate, Harris told Trump that Russian leader Vladimir Putin was “a dictator who would eat you for lunch,” with Trump responding that he “wanted to stop the war.” With a strong isolationist streak in American politics and a strong aversion to military deployment after the Global War on Terrorism and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, this message likely found a receptive audience. Likewise, the American public has not been given an end goal for the conflict in Ukraine or an explanation of how to achieve that end goal. Thus, Trump’s clear intent, while not yet fully developed, presents a stronger vision for U.S. involvement in Ukraine.
Ukraine is a key foreign policy battleground between the two candidates. Harris’ message centered on the idea that in “these volatile times, it is clear that America cannot retreat.” In contrast, Trump’s claims have led some to conclude that he would seek to negotiate a deal with Moscow without considering kyiv. This contrast in positions is likely to increase pressure on Ukraine to seek as favorable a deal as possible before pressure from Trump or Republicans in Congress pushes them out of possible negotiations.
In a bizarre episode in the wake of the election results, Trump’s team reported an initial call between its winning candidate and Russian President Putin, a call the Kremlin denied. As disconcerting as these denials may be, they could indicate the Kremlin’s desire to deny not only the phone call but also the content of the discussions surrounding the call. While this is pure speculation, it’s unlikely we’ll hear more details on this until Team Trump has more time to coordinate. There are several different perspectives on the Ukraine conflict within the Trump Cabinet, and it remains to be seen how they will interact with each other.
This division is also found in the candidate’s approach to the Israel-Gaza (and Israel-Lebanon, Israel-Iran) crisis. Not surprisingly, both candidates are strong supporters of Israel. However, Harris maintains the Biden administration’s efforts to seek a negotiated ceasefire, despite this limited success in influencing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Continuing the policies of his first term, Trump approached this crisis by questioning the norms of American relations with Israel. During his first term, he recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, moved the U.S. embassy there, and tasked his son-in-law Jared Kushner with trying to arrange a peace settlement for the Middle East peace process . In response to the ongoing conflict in Gaza, Trump continued his norm-breaking behavior, saying he told Netanyahu to “do what you have to do.”
United States global position
The foreign policy debate in this election has focused on the United States’ standing in the world. Trump’s argument that the world benefits from the United States is familiar to anyone who observes American politics. Yet given the growing prominence of international crises this election cycle, his “heckler-in-chief” approach will likely have an even greater impact than was the case under his previous administration.
In contrast, Harris’s attempts to argue for a continued return to normalcy in American diplomatic conduct are perhaps more sensible, but far less evocative. As with many of her policy proposals, Harris is limited by the Biden administration’s track record. Biden’s “America is back” message lacked reinforcement or support through action. Biden can say that America is back, but it is still unclear which America has returned. Likewise, many voters did not see the return to normal as a benefit, especially when global politics appear so different and so dangerous.
Foreign policy has not been an area of success for Biden. Notable failures such as the withdrawal from Afghanistan have been notable, but the broader conduct of American foreign policy has been competent but unremarkable, and certainly not successful. As such, Harris has struggled to walk a tightrope, presenting a similar argument to that made by Biden in 2020, while also trying to show a difference between her foreign policy and that of the Biden White House.
The international context and American foreign policy have become a much more important issue in the 2024 presidential election than was the case in recent elections. For voters and both candidates, the United States’ position in global politics has become much more salient than in previous elections. The prominence of major international crises in daily news and the perception of reduced American influence on these crises probably contributed to this. Harris’ call for continued efforts to restore U.S. leadership and engagement in the world failed to convince American voters. Yet Trump’s isolationist response to redress the perceived lack of respect for the United States has been far more effective. The 2024 election period and the campaigns of Donald Trump and Kamala Harris presented two very different images of American foreign policy, but Trump’s eventual victory showed what the American electorate was looking for.
Further reading on international electronic relations