Presidential Elections and U.S. Foreign Policy

Prof. Dr. Tarık Oğuzlu

The U.S. presidential elections, which will be held on November 5, have taken a new turn after current Democratic President Biden announced he would not run for re-election. It is now the case that Vice President Kamala Harris will face off against the Republican Party’s candidate, Trump.

By choosing the Minnesota governor Tim Walz as her running mate and emphasizing that Trump is the greatest threat to democracy and American exceptionalism, Harris is now running a campaign aimed at turning swing state voters back to the Democratic Party. It remains to be seen, though, if American people would be convinced by Harris’ argument that only the Democrats can raise the living standards of middle- and lower-income Americans.

Biden’s policies to revitalize national industry, increase employment, and reduce inflation would certainly make it easier for Harris to be elected in an ideal and rational world. But we know that politics in America has not been conducted on a rational basis for a long time. Emotions and group identities have taken precedence over everything. Tribalism and partisanship have made it almost impossible for Americans to meet in the middle. In such a climate, the candidate who can appeal to voters’ emotions, win their hearts, and empathize with them will emerge victorious in the elections. At this point, Trump’s track record is much stronger. Especially after surviving an assassination attempt, Trump’s potential to claim that God is on his side and win the sympathy, and of course, the votes of most Americans, seems higher compared to Harris.

The U.S presidential elections will affect not only the fate of Americans but also the trajectory of the World in the years to come. Although America makes up less than five percent of the world’s population, it alone produces nearly a quarter of the world’s economic wealth. America accounts for forty percent of total global military spending. It has around eight hundred military bases worldwide, with approximately two hundred fifty thousand American troops stationed at these bases. The U.S. is engaged in bilateral or multilateral military alliances with more than fifty countries. We know that the dollar remains the main currency used in global trade and that many central banks continue to hold their reserves predominantly in dollars. Although the trend of moving away from the dollar has accelerated in recent years, led by countries like China, Russia, India, and Brazil, the U.S. currency is still seen as the safest investment vehicle

Compared to its global rivals, America’s soft power is also greater. While the number of students going from America to China for university education is around a thousand, the number of Chinese students coming to America exceeds three hundred thousand. Among global actors, America has the highest fertility rate. While many countries in Japan and Europe are aging rapidly, American society remains young. The number of people from around the world who want to immigrate to America is not decreasing but increasing every year. Being an immigrant society and its ability to attract high-quality talent from different parts of the world is one of America’s most important advantages against its global competitors in the era of great power competition.

In this context, the question of who will be America’s president for the next four years affects all of us. Based on his performance in his first term, it can be predicted that under Trump’s leadership, America would follow an inward-looking and anti-immigrant foreign policy based on a nationalist and conservative approach. Preferring unilateralism over multilateralism, and attempting to impose his views on others rather than relying on persuasion-based diplomacy, Trump’s mindset, which is distant from globalization and internationalism, could further increase the global uncertainty we are currently facing. Trump had already shown us that his administration views international politics and foreign policy from a transactional and pragmatic perspective, focusing on protectionist economic policies and the assumption that each nation should fend for itself, rather than building an international community based on shared values and interests. Continually asking ‘What can I get from others?’ and believing that other countries are constantly trying to cheat America, Trump is more focused on making America great again than on addressing the world’s problems. The most notable feature of Trump’s foreign policy is the unpredictability of his actions. One day behaving in one way, and the next day in another, Trump makes it difficult for other countries to build trust-based relationships with America.

This foreign policy approach could provide more room for maneuver to many countries, including Turkey. But the real issue here is that Trump’s recklessness and disregard for the world could open the door to actions that might endanger international peace and stability. What would a world look like where everyone adopts a Trump-like attitude? In a world shaped by lawlessness, where big fish devour small fish, who would stop the global (or regional) bullies? It’s not surprising that countries viewing the world through a sphere-of-influence mentality and seeking hierarchical relationships with neighboring nations are eagerly awaiting Trump’s return to the White House. We should consider why Putin, Xi Jinping, and Netanyahu are waiting for Trump.

On the other hand, if Kamala Harris is elected president instead of Trump, it would mean that the foreign policy line represented by Biden would continue for another four years in its main outlines. From the first day he came to power, Biden prioritized winning back traditional allies in Europe and Asia in the context of great power competition, supporting multilateral institutional mechanisms like NATO and the European Union. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and China’s ambitious and assertive foreign policy, which it has pursued with more confidence in recent years, gave Biden the opportunity to unite America’s traditional allies under his leadership. It also needs to be noted that Harris has put the mantra of “we are moving forward, not backward” at the center of her campaign. While Trump seems to be arguing in favour of “closeness”, Harris is putting emphasis on “openness”.  

One notable development during this period was the revival of NATO, which was claimed to be experiencing ‘brain death,’ after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. NATO, thought to be fading into the pages of history, was revived thanks to Russian expansionism and the accession of Sweden and Finland as the newest members. Therefore, in a possible Harris administration, one could confidently say that America’s European and Asian allies will continue to feel satisfied

In fact, in recent years, both Democrats and Republicans have been telling their wealthy European and Asian allies that they need to stop relying on America and spend more money for their security, considering the possibility that America might shift its strategic focus from the European continent to the Indo-Pacific region. The geopolitical awakening of Europe from its slumber, as seen in the ideals of politicians like French President Macron to create a strategically independent Europe, cannot be explained solely by Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. Similarly, the increase in defense spending by Japan and South Korea in East Asia cannot be reduced merely to the policies of China and North Korea. The calls from America for these countries to ‘put their money where their mouth is’ have definitely played a role in this process.

At this point, there is a structural difference between Democrats and Republicans. While the Trumpist mindset suggests that if Europeans and Asians don’t spend enough on their own security and something happens to them due to Russia or China, America wouldn’t defend them, the Democratic perspective sees the security and stability of Europe and East Asia as being in America’s interest. Democrats are much more patient when it comes to encouraging America’s traditional European and Asian allies to develop military and strategic capacities. In this sense, Trump’s condescending and indifferent attitude toward global affairs seems to have produced significant anxiety in these capitals.

It is predicted that the military and financial support America is providing to Ukraine against Russia would significantly decrease if Trump is elected president. It is now an open secret that Trump would push Ukraine toward a dishonorable peace in order to make a swift peace with Putin’s Russia. Netanyahu’s inhumane, immoral, and illegal foreign policies, which have trampled on international law for months, are also expected to continue without pause under a potential Trump administration. Within the Democratic Party, there have always been factions that criticize Biden’s policies toward Netanyahu’s government and expect him to take a more balanced and moral stance toward the conflicting parties. It is known that Harris is part of this faction.

From this background, it can be easily argued that the Trump-Vance duo would make America more inward-looking, which would, in turn, fuel chaos, anarchy, and lawlessness in international politics. The Trump-Vance pair represents the conservative-nationalist-isolationist tradition within the Republican Party. The internationalist Republican Party of the Reagan and Bush eras is now a thing of the past.

However, we should not be misled by what has been said so far. We are not claiming that, in the event of a Democratic victory in the presidential elections, America would play a more positive role in establishing international peace and stability. The Democrats’ overly ideological approach to international politics, viewed through the lens of a second Cold War, and their demonization of countries like China and Russia, is beneficial to no one. This perspective could force many middle powers, including Turkey and countries of the Global South, to take sides in the emerging geopolitical competition between major powers, which is certainly an undesirable outcome.

Despite some differences between them, we must acknowledge that a bipartisan consensus has already emerged between the two parties in recent years. What unites Americans from both parties is the belief that America’s influence in global politics is gradually declining and that the country should focus more on itself.

Regardless of who becomes president in America, the rest of the world needs to learn to fend for itself in this uncertain environment, spread its strategic risks by placing its eggs in different baskets, and establish sustainable strategic relationships with various global power centers in line with a philosophy of multi-connectivity. The sooner, the better.