Around the nation, people are casting their ballots in what promises to be one of the most contentious elections in recent U.S. history. You can nearly hear the echo, 'Who Will Win' as friends and families fight about their mixed views.
Countless individuals are dreading the prospect of a Trump victory and the end of the United States as we know it—at least for the foreseeable future, given the likelihood of a Supreme Court filled with conservative justices, even the possibility of a full conservative agenda of nine. If Harris were to win, it would be like the world's largest sigh of relief.
1111r
A watershed point in American history will be decided in just a few days by you, the voters. Joe Biden has said he endorses Kamala Harris. He then withdrew his candidacy for reelection. Many Democrats joyfully and swiftly united around Harris as the new candidate.
Thus, Ms. Harris
Liberals say they will be prepared for the chance Donald Trump may win. After President Joe Biden's dismal performance in the debates, Trump's campaign seemed certain to take over before Biden stepped down.
The nation is in for a nail-biter, with polls showing that Donald Trump and Kamala Harris are in a dead heat. Voter turnout is expected to reach historic highs.
But now we'll see the nation as the people see it. And whether you like it or not, your vote sends a loud and obvious message about which candidate you favor. Every single thing.
Politics will become petty, even childish. The Trump team accused Harris of lying about her Big Mac credentials ever since she talked about her time working at McDonald's as a student. The claim that Democrats are unfamiliar with or misunderstood by McDonald's is unabated, even after the Second Gentleman Doug Emhoff admitted to being an Employee of the Month at the fast food chain.
Acting like a baffoon, Trump donned the McDonald's outfit to show he's a regular guy. Good luck with that. I would not eat those frys.
With the goal of achieving everlasting peace via everlasting power, the United States bolstered its alliances and sent soldiers worldwide. There was also the expectation that the stabilizing effects of U.S. military dominance would extend to other domains, encouraging international collaboration to safeguard human rights, the environment, and commerce as a means to increase wealth.
However, this idea eventually crumbled. American interests have been further entangled in international disputes rather than helped bring about global peace and prosperity. The United States was put in a very precarious position when Russia and China lashed back, but it hasn't prevented them from growing. Despite this, Washington still isn't paying attention to the dangers that affect everyday Americans.
A fresh vision for America's position in the world has been demanded for eight years, and no one has been allowed to challenge Trump more than he has. His promise to put "America first" has been surprisingly effective, despite the fact that many of his initiatives are unpopular and lack logic. Until Mr. Biden stepped out, he had the upper hand in this year's race when it came to foreign policy, and polls show that he still has it now. Regardless of the outcome in November, Republicans will likely maintain Mr. Trump's nationalist rhetoric.
Bill Clinton's remarks at the DNC provided some of the finest counsel that Democrats have heard lately.
First, he cautioned against being arrogant, saying, "We've seen more than one election slip away from us when we believed it couldn't happen, when people became sidetracked by bogus problems or overconfident." Any Clinton knows this to be true intuitively.
Furthermore, he emphasized the need of not degrading voters who do not adhere to liberal principles.
"I encourage you to meet folks where they are," Clinton added, demonstrating her knowledge of how to get votes outside of traditional blue areas. Please don't insult them or seem as if you disagree with them if you do. Remember to treat others with the same level of respect that you would want to be shown to you.
Despite being on the campaign road, Ms. Harris will not sever ties with Joe Biden. But if she takes his office in January, she has to change, get live, say what she means, and innovate more than her opponents, and take control of some kind of foreign policy with zest.
Since the end of the Cold War, no president has taken office with the world so troubled and with the threat of nuclear war looming. Preventing a disastrous war must be the top objective. Even small countries want their share of nuclear weapons. But simple military buildup will ever be sufficient to make the rest of the world cower in fear and sit still. Instead of allowing Trump to monopolize legitimate concerns about World War III, Harris should be totally honest with Americans and explain that the danger is real. It's time for once again for America to lead.
Thus, Ms. Harris should continue to back Ukraine as it fights Russian aggression to protect its independence. But at the same time, she has to do what's necessary to end the war via diplomacy, since every day it continues, the situation might worsen and lead to a direct confrontation between the United States and Russia. There is no realistic way for Ukraine to reclaim all of its land by military means. In the end, it may not matter if the Kremlin discovered a means to do it; in desperation, it may still turn to nuclear weapons to survive. That might be a risk that some Ukrainians are willing to take. It wouldn't be for Americans, and it's the president's job to keep them safe.
Harris could utilize incentives and punishments to get attention, reduce Russian sanctions in exchange for their cooperation or threaten to cut off help to Ukraine under certain circumstances. Harris would shatter the present diplomatic taboo, demonstrate that she would not abide another eternal conflict, and articulate American interests as a sovereign nation fearless in its pursuit of friends or allies. Ignore Republicans' claims of weakness. Each time, they succeed. So, I'll give the floor to Ms. Harris: Would they rather have World War III?
Harris should also modify the strategy her predecessors used to deal with China. The world's two most powerful nations have sunk into open animosity under Trump and Biden, with tensions over Taiwan at an all-time high. More militarization is the recommended course of action in the conventional Washington playbook: gather military around the island and swear to protect it. Extra caution is required of Ms. Harris. Leaders in China base their legitimacy on the prospect of future unification with Taiwan; if the United States takes steps that China sees as putting an end to that possibility, China may decide to invade.
As long as Taiwan maintains its status as an integral component of China and the US recognizes this fact, Beijing has shown that it is prepared to allow self-rule on the island. The United States' "one China" policy is its primary tool for conflict avoidance. By strengthening it, Ms. Harris may put a halt to the perilous weakening that started under Trump and picked up speed under Biden, who repeatedly said that Taiwan should decide on its independence and pledged military defense. Additionally, she has to figure out a way to transport supplies to the island in case of war and encourage Taiwan to strengthen its own defenses by providing increased but conditional help.
She could restrict the alignment of American enemies while she stabilizes important ties. The likelihood of increased collaboration between Iran, North Korea, Russia, and China is low. And perhaps lift sanctions on Iran and North Korea in exchange for limits on their nuclear weapons development or arms agreements with Moscow. However, that could very easily be seen as weakness.
Naturally, Ms. Harris would be under continual pressure from Washington insiders who see any success for Russia or China as almost disastrous. She has to clear the air: There are good reasons to lend a hand to Taiwan and Ukraine, but it would be foolish to risk all to prevent a catastrophic international catastrophe. American safety will not be achieved by Mr. Biden's democracy versus autocracy fatalism or Mr. Trump's frantic gaffes, but rather through pragmatic, relentless diplomacy.
The United States is faced with decades of big mistakes, and diplomacy won't help to get out. The goal of officials who wanted the US to play a pivotal role in global security arrangements has been achieved: the US has pledged to protect more nations than ever before, and some of those promises may soon be due.
More primacy is the answer that some in Washington have already decided upon. They want the United States to build a military that can fight in the Middle East, Europe, and Asia all at once, therefore they're demanding massive increases in military budget. The plan may seem foolishly wrong because, as the Commission on the National Defense Strategy, which was required by Congress, reluctantly recognizes, it would necessitate slashing Social Security and Medicare and increasing taxes. However, it is now par for the course in Washington to make pledges before calculating expenses.
Instead of asking less of U.S. partners, Ms. Harris, as president, should say more, both strategically and decisively, than Mr. Trump and Mr. Biden.
The idea that "America First" Republicans want to reduce the size of the United States military's global footprint is mainly unfounded. The main point that Mr. Trump is trying to make is that the allies should pay more for the service, not that American troops should be responsible for protecting them. Even if that were to happen, the United States' security and foreign policy would remain unaffected. Contrarily, Mr. Biden refers to each partnership as a "holy commitment," as if abstract religious claims could circumvent practical considerations.
There is no denying that American overstretch is an issue that needs fixing. The United States military, despite its enormous budget, is unable to launch simultaneous full-scale operations against Russia and China. The United States would be forced to leave its European allies very vulnerable in the case of an Asian conflict.
It is incumbent to Ms. Harris to resolve this matter and guide alliances toward their legitimate goal: to accomplish the objectives of U.S. national security. While maintaining America's membership in NATO, she should forge a new transatlantic deal that shifts power and responsibility away from the United States and toward Europe. The United States gains an advantage by keeping Russia at bay. However, Europeans get greater rewards and have more economic and military might than Moscow. With Russia's military depleted from fighting in Ukraine, the United States may never have a better or safer chance to make this long-overdue correction.
Ms. Harris should prioritize untangling the US from its Middle Eastern entanglements. The president and vice president discussed withdrawing from the area, but instead they were involved in bombings and killings to prevent worse conflicts. Reason being, they never retreated in the first place. The number of U.S. troops stationed in the Persian Gulf has been relatively constant throughout the last decade.
Ms. Harris should withdraw the majority of these troops from Iraq, Syria, and northeast Jordan, where they are mostly used as targets by militias supported by Iran, if she wants to prevent the Middle East from derailment of American foreign policy and her administration. Then, she has to zero down on two specific objectives: protecting American citizens from terrorist strikes and ensuring the safety of maritime commerce routes. None of these goals need close cooperation with Saudi Arabia and other Gulf rulers. In 2020, Ms. Harris should go back on her promise to "fundamentally re-evaluate our relationship" with the kingdom instead of supporting Mr. Biden's planned treaty that would commit U.S. soldiers to protect Saudi Arabia.
A worsening of relations with Israel is necessary for their eventual improvement. Although Ms. Harris has promised to "always grant Israel the capacity to defend itself," this promise does not have to be upheld in cases when Israel's actions go beyond what is considered justifiable self-defense. Ms. Harris need to be prepared to escalate penalties on aggressive settlers in the West Bank and cease providing weapons to Israeli military operations in Gaza if they persist. If Clinton follows Mr. Biden's lead and shows no disrespect to the Israeli government, she will see Israel further consolidate its control over Palestinian land, increase its regional attacks, and even lead the US into a major conflict with Iran. Restricting Israel's assistance too much could be politically dangerous, but it's better than nothing.
The United States can maintain its concentration on Asia, the region with the most pressing problems, by downsizing its worldwide stance. Ms. Harris can cultivate more independent supporters in that area as well. She ought to convince the Philippines and Japan to fortify themselves against a Chinese invasion, independent of Taiwan's fate. Secure systems in the Indo-Pacific, like those everywhere else, should not be shaped by the policies of any one government and should be able to withstand several waves of attack without collapsing. Rather than keeping America saddled, it is preferable to make the globe robust.
A national security adviser has stated that Ms. Harris wants to make an impression on "how things we do today will affect the United States and the world five, 10 or 20 years into the future." The most critical of these challenges transcend international boundaries and impact American neighborhoods. These include the results of contemporary civilizations on a globalized earth, such as climate change, infectious diseases, and technology risks.
Global risks are having an impact on Americans like never before. A total of 28 "billion-dollar disasters"—damages of $1 billion or more—were caused by climate and weather last year, setting a new record. These events are wreaking havoc on home insurance. The United States lost more people to the COVID-19 epidemic than in any previous war—1.2 million—and there will likely be additional pandemics in the future. We don't yet know how AI will enable human misconduct or how it will evade human oversight; what we do know is that it will. If these dangers are not addressed as urgently as any similar military threat, then massive chaos and devastation will ensue.
Indeed, a Harris government ought to do just that, launching an attack against individuals who would leave the country vulnerable to deadly dangers. Not only should she visit catastrophe areas to comfort victims, but she should also demand extensive action. She should inform the public about her proposed AI initiative, which she is leading for the Biden administration. security initiatives, "the whole range of A.I. danger. Additionally, she has to come up with easy-to-understand measures to track the development of the United States' biological, environmental, and technical defensive capabilities and report on a regular basis with these findings.
Ms. Harris need to be aggressive and even aggressively hostile if she wants other nations to comply with American safety demands, rather than just cooperative. For instance, she may assist underdeveloped nations in combating climate change by providing them with adequate funding to import and manufacture renewable-energy technology, thereby greening their economy. After that, she need to go around and demand that China fulfill its pledges to invest in renewable energy via its Belt and Road Initiative, which has failed to materialize as promised by President Xi Jinping.
Even better, she ought to advise Mr. Xi to put a halt to China's coal-fired power plants, the country's principal contributor to global warming. After a construction frenzy that started in 2020, China finally finished constructing coal plants last year, accounting for two-thirds of all new coal plants worldwide. It is time for Mr. Xi to retire his coal plants to the dustbin of history. As a condition for China's stated goal of "peaceful cohabitation" with the US, the US should impose stricter regulations on coal imports and enable Chinese enterprises to manufacture environmentally friendly items in the US. Coexistence, after all, necessitates that both nations work to keep Earth livable.
Ms. Harris may remain resolute in her pursuit of safeguarding Americans, even in situations when direct confrontation yields less fruit. U.S. global health programs were often portrayed as humanitarian projects or attempts to improve America's reputation prior to COVID-19. Ms. Harris, if president, should make it clear that preventing a pandemic or biological strike on the US is her top priority. At home, we may do part of this by increasing vaccine manufacturing and amassing personal protective equipment. Much of it, however, requires concerted international effort to ensure that other nations take measures to identify, prevent, and contain epidemics before they reach American soil. It would begin with a worldwide pandemic accord that allows for the interchange of data and drugs.
Mr. Trump demonstrates, in his own manner, that it is possible to achieve political resonance by labeling cross-border events as dangers. However, by placing the blame on immigration and commerce, he fails to see the true dangers. The US must maintain border control while also welcoming immigrants. In addition to guaranteeing economic development and worldwide competitiveness for the United States, immigrants are crucial to maintaining health care and Social Security sustainable for the present population. To overcome nativist politics, Ms. Harris has to argue for immigration as a national priority, not via naïve sympathy or deceitful compromises.
Likewise, Ms. Harris need to endeavor to restore national faith in the idea that the US gains economically from international trade. Using the groundwork laid by Mr. Biden, she should enforce the international agreement to impose a minimum tax of 15% on businesses worldwide and put pressure on Congress to implement it. New trade deals, negotiated by Ms. Harris rather than her predecessor, should have an emphasis on resilience and security. In addition to boosting economy, deals in some areas like renewable energy and AI would set shared standards to lessen existential dangers.
The American people may once again perceive possibilities in the globe if Ms. Harris is forthright about the dangers they face.
At a campaign event in Coachella, California, former president Donald Trump was photographed by Jordan Gale of The New York Times.
When circumstances were good, trying to become the dominant military power in the world was futile; now it will be much more so. And by ignoring or downplaying nonmilitary dangers, we have allowed scapegoats to step in and address the problem. A shift in American foreign policy is necessary.
Nevertheless, this transformation must not morph into a values-based, altruistic globalism that fails to consider the practical advantages to the United States. Putting America first isn't the issue with "America First"; what is problematic is that Mr. Trump's rendition completely falls short of that goal. By taking the lead in promoting American national interests, Ms. Harris has a good chance of succeeding. Together, we can combat global threats, develop durable security arrangements, and avoid a conflict between major powers.
While campaigning, Ms. Harris has kept her foreign policy statements vague, giving herself some wiggle space. If given the opportunity, she should not waste it by ignoring the critical issues of the present and future; instead, she should do better than the foreign policies of Mr. Biden and Mr. Trump, who will both be in office for another four years. There need to a zero-sum game for the US and the rest of the globe.
×