On matters of foreign policy, the US president’s powers are considerable. Scholars and pundits note that the power of US presidents has been ‘relentlessly increasing over decades’. This is especially true when it comes to matters of war and peace.
US presidents have access to unparalleled military and economic statecraft that gives them the potential to exert considerable influence on other states by using, or threatening to use, economic sanctions or military force. Even US allies are wary that they could become the target of secondary sanctions. The threat to withhold US military or economic assistance can also be very powerful in certain situations.
Given this enormous power, and the fact that Donald Trump and Kamala Harris have radically different world views, the election matters, a lot, for foreign policy: the rest of the world is on tenterhooks. The 10 September presidential debate will be a defining moment in this campaign.
The messages Harris provided at the Democratic National Convention (DNC) and during her CNN interview suggested that her presidency would promise a large measure of continuity from the Biden administration’s foreign and economic policy.
Already, though, Harris is taking some steps to moderate her policies and create more distance from Biden’s economic proposals.
This may be wise. Bidenomics continues to divide the US public. And on foreign policy, Biden has been framed by Republicans as a president who will leave office with two major wars raging.
Another area where Harris may wish to take a different approach is Gaza. But the pressure to tread a careful line will be immense: the war is an issue that could yet threaten Harris’s powerful new status.
Politics are anything but normal
The presidential race (for now) appears to be in a dead heat, with Harris a few points in the lead in many polls – though a majority of Americans remain locked in their respective camps.
In this context, voter turnout matters a lot and may determine the result of the election. For Democrats, that means a renewed sense of ‘enthusiasm’ is crucial to success.
The party’s convention showcased exactly the transformation in mood the party required. After months of disaffection, Harris’s candidacy has energized voters. 78 per cent of Democrat and Democrat leaning voters are now ‘more enthusiastic than usual’, up from 55 per cent in March.
Their enthusiasm has surpassed the 64 per cent of Republican voters who are also more enthusiastic today. Democrats’ enthusiasm is reflected in donations, with the Harris-Walz campaign raising more than $540 million since its launch.
Harris’ message of joy and hope combines pragmatism (‘do something’) with a set of policies targeted at making daily life affordable for working Americans. All of this is underwritten by realistic expectations, in the words of President Obama, to ‘never underestimate your adversary’.
Republicans are rapidly adjusting. After doubling down on their appeals to conservative, traditional, white working class, and especially male voters, former president Trump is now announcing policies designed to widen his appeal beyond his base, including to make fertility treatments affordable to ordinary Americans. He is also trying to persuade Arab and Muslim Americans that he would be better at ending the war in Gaza.
Economic policy for the middle class
Trump has turned his attacks to economic policy. He is calling for a government efficiency commission, potentially with Elon Musk in charge of auditing federal spending and regulations.
Trump has also tried to frame Kamala Harris as a ‘Marxist’. This may be effective with some voters, but these polarizing methods threaten to displace what is deeply needed: a serious policy debate about the role of government intervention in the economy.
Both campaigns are targeting middle class (read: working class) Americans, addressing a real need to invest in better daily conditions for ordinary Americans. For Harris, this means more affordable housing, child benefit policies, and lowered medical costs.
Among policy experts, Republicans, and even among Democrats, there is division over Bidenomics. A Harris presidency looks like it would continue with much of the president’s approach, but with signs now emerging of some significant changes. Harris has announced a smaller capital gains tax rate than Biden, with a top rate of 28 per cent (plus a 5 per cent surcharge) rather than the 45 per cent that Biden had proposed.
Harris has been strongly averse to Trump’s proposed tariffs (of between 10 and 20 per cent on most imports, and over 60 per cent on Chinese goods) which she and most economists acknowledge risks effectively becoming a tax on consumers. Instead, Harris would continue Biden’s policy of using tariffs selectively, for example on imports of semiconductor chips.
On 4 September Goldman Sachs released an analysis stating that Harris’s policies would boost economic growth, but that Trump’s proposed tariffs and tighter immigration policies would lead to a reduction in economic output.
Some are calling on Harris to further distance her economic platform from Trump’s by promising two pro-growth policies: reform of the US’s legal immigration system and expansion of free trade deals.
Policies to rebuild the middle class will help to mitigate the fear that divides Americans and feeds the demonization of immigrants. But such policies are a hard sell in the US.
51 per cent of Americans say they would rather have smaller government providing fewer services, reflecting party divisions: a June poll revealed that 79 per cent of Trump voters want a smaller role for government, and 74 per cent of Biden’s voters want a larger role.
Foreign policy
For the rest of the world, the US’s next steps on foreign policy are a major preoccupation. Harris’s speech at the convention, and her CNN interview have offered a few clues. So far, most signs indicate that there will be more continuity than change between Biden and Harris on foreign policy.
MAGA Republicans believe the US must focus on China, and that Europe needs to take care of its own security. JD Vance has confirmed this position, and provided an intellectual underpinning for it.
In contrast, in her convention speech Harris premised US leadership on its values and like Biden embraced US allies and partners.
In her CNN interview, Harris also stressed her role prosecuting transnational criminal organizations, suggesting that law will take pride of place in her administration. One question that remains unanswered is how she will balance the US’s fierce embrace of its sovereignty with the interventions of international legal institutions like the International Criminal Court.
Harris has been robust in her support both for Ukraine and for NATO. On China, she made clear at the convention that she will ensure that the ‘US not China wins the competition’ for the 21st Century.
She was also adamant that under her leadership, the US would not cozy up to dictators like Kim Jong Un and Vladimir Putin. Perhaps most stunning was her statement that ‘As commander-in-chief, I will ensure America always has the strongest, most lethal fighting force in the world’.