In my analysis of American politics roughly a year ago, I stressed the importance of foreign policy in the context of the upcoming presidential elections. It is crucial to remember from that article that the United States is responsible as an active player and major arbiter in geopolitics, with the office of the president carrying the full weight as the symbol of the United States’ leadership. In the months since that article, the election season became host to events and changes that continue to affect the positions of both mainstream and fringe political parties. Global politics and national party politics are corresponsive — world events and parties’ reactions to them will have a clear effect on the November elections’ results and the future of United States diplomacy.
The Democratic Party carries the responsibility of being the incumbent party in this election, as President Joe Biden will carry the legacy of a chaotic withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan, an ardent campaign to support Ukraine in its current war against Russia and continued efforts to counteract the rise of China’s geopolitical strength by providing greater and broader assistance to countries in the Pacific. Though he is no longer the candidate for the Democrats, the mantle of his diplomatic agenda will likely be picked up by the new candidate, Kamala Harris.
Her victory in the election, however, may not mean the direct continuation of current policies and strategies as some of Harris’ most recent statements hint toward a less hawkish and a more tactical use of diplomatic and military support to other countries to avoid deeper entanglements. However, rather than a legitimate change of policy, her attitude to diplomacy could also merely consist of easing off the same rhetoric to have a better appeal to voters. To garner support from disillusioned independents, a potential Harris administration could turn toward the public disapproval of the war in Gaza currently capitalized on by leftist parties and make steps toward cease-fire talks without committing the United States to ending the conflict. Consequently, a Democratic victory in November would likely mean the continuation of the same military support to Ukraine and Israel, the upholding of alliances such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and a strong stance against competing powers such as China and Russia.
The Republican Party has a comparably more radical attitude towards foreign policy than the Democrats. Former President Donald Trump’s previous administration is historically characterized by his strategy of brinkmanship with North Korea, a costly trade war with China and heated tensions with Iran. His pronounced style of radical hawkishness is also curiously paired with a reduction of commitments to existing partnerships and alliances — reducing direct United States military involvement in the European theater and contemplating the withdrawal of the United States from NATO, his foreign policy exemplified the key points of his “America First” stratagems. The latter part of Trump’s term as president is now what he and his vice president candidate JD Vance are specifically capitalizing on during the campaign trail.
There is no room for ambiguity about the position of the Republicans — their victory in November would mean the immediate end to the support of Ukraine, reduction of military assistance to European partners and an overall dissociation from the wide, interwoven network of diplomacy built over many decades by successive administrations in past decades.
Republican stubbornness would instead be more pronounced in the Asia-Pacific against China and, crucially, in the Middle East. Israel would, for characteristically political reasons, assuredly continue to receive support from a potential Trump administration. A policy of unconditional and total support could also mean the United States turning a blind eye to the human rights violations and political controversies stemming from the ongoing conflict, which would seriously erode the trust placed in the moral direction of United States foreign policy.
Both mainstream parties depend heavily on their image not only at home but also across the globe — the position of the United States as a superpower necessitates active leadership regardless of which party wins the elections. The nature of United States diplomacy as an active superpower depends on its collaboration with other nations to maintain its sphere of influence. As a result, with both parties having different focuses and interests regarding diplomacy, the United States’ role can change in radically different ways and affect the political climate in many other parts of the world, for better or for worse. The possibility of United States foreign policy changing courses, depending on who gets the presidency, is a key reason why the elections are one of the most eagerly awaited events of this year.
Significant events and developments have unfolded very rapidly in the past few months, and all signs indicate greater difficulties ahead, which the United States will have to inevitably overcome. Whether solutions are found through peace or force is now up to the decision that will come out of the ballot box in a few weeks — it is prudent to assume at this point that the final result in November may set the precedent for the next decades of strategic decisions around the world.
Deniz Gulay is a sophomore majoring in history.
Views expressed in the opinions pages represent the opinions of the columnists. The only piece that represents the view of the Pipe Dream Editorial Board is the Staff Editorial.