Fyodor Lukyanov: Will Americans go for ‘globalist’ Harris or ‘patriot’ Trump?

The race for the White House has been short on ideas but big on insults. Neither candidate looks very inspiring

The race for the US White House has been nervy and protracted, with the late forced withdrawal of President Joe Biden – seen even by his supporters as having little chance of winning – adding a twist during the summer. And episodes of political violence have been poisoning the atmosphere.

The political content has been poor – images and clichés instead of ideas. Towards the end, everything is reduced to crude personal attacks. Most observers and even participants realise that both candidates are, to put it mildly, suboptimal.

Kamala Harris was unexpectedly handed a lottery ticket that she has struggled to capitalize on. As vice-president, she has made little impact. Thus, at the heart of her truncated campaign was an attempt to convince voters that she had untapped potential. It didn’t quite work. It was conspicuous that the challenger has acted according to instructions, and that spontaneous reactions other than infectious laughter are thin on the ground. Her willingness to diametrically change views on key issues has failed to lend any ballast to the campaign, although the tactical calculations are clear.

Donald Trump has lost the flair of sensational novelty and does not exude the type of energy he did eight years ago. His narcissism, which used to be partly offset by a kind of lightness and enthusiasm, now often comes across as oppressive. And expectations that the former president would become more respectable with experience and take on the air of a wise statesman have not been fulfilled.

Whatever about the bona fides of the candidates, major political forces have rallied around them. Harris, who was not seriously considered in the spring, has united the most influential clans of Democrats. They joined the process less out of sympathy for her than out of fear of Trump. The latter, who once seemed like an eccentric freak whose antics made the Republican establishment cringe, now personifies his party and determines its direction. Despite the flaws of the rivals and their lack of coherent platforms, the choice Americans are making is clear.

Read more

The Democratic Party inherits a political tradition that received a powerful boost at the turn of the 1980s and 1990s. At that time, on a wave of the successful conclusion of the confrontation with the USSR, American self-esteem rose sharply. This allowed it to set itself far more ambitious goals, not only in terms of global influence, but also in terms of transforming the homeland. The disappearance of the Soviet adversary unleashed ambitions as well as resources. International dominance offered new opportunities, including for domestic development, but also imposed burdens that gradually began to contradict key internal interests. Nevertheless, the position of hyperpower is perceived as natural not only politically, but also morally and ethically. Especially since progressives, who form part of the democratic core, see themselves as agents of radical social change at home and abroad. “City upon a hill” is interpreted in an expansionist way.

The Republican Party has had a more complex journey over the same period. Seeing itself as the victor over world communism (hello, Ronald Reagan), thirty years later it denounces perceived Marxist domination of the US itself, thus reacting to the left-liberal turn of the Democrats. The Republicans also went through a phase of fascination with foreign expansion, for a time heavily influenced by the neoconservatives. But then the appeal of these policies to promote American interests faded. The more traditional approach of not carrying too much extra weight and taking care of your own came to the fore.

If we simplify the description, while sacrificing important details, we get a menu of ‘liberal-globalists’ versus ‘national-patriots.’ For all its populist primitiveness, it does reflect the choice facing Americans. It is certainly not a crossroads where turning one way or the other means irrevocably choosing a path. There will be no linear movement, because the country is vast, there are many conflicting factors, the society is complex and it doesn’t fall in line on command.

Although there is a caveat to the latter. The US is a very special country. Alexis de Tocqueville, describing American democracy nearly 200 years ago, noted its theatricality and susceptibility to targeted campaigns. The American style of public policy is an illustration of this. Constant marketing as a manifestation of the spirit of capitalism has become intertwined with the processes of social transformation embedded in the original revolutionary nature of the American experiment itself.

Now there are unprecedented opportunities for manipulation through modern means of communication. Thus, some vested interests, who are capable of mounting sophisticated influence efforts, can substantially influence the overall direction of the country’s development.

The globalist part of the establishment has had a significant influence since the end of the 20th century. What’s up in the air now is the ideological bent that will prevail after these elections.

This article was first published by the newspaper Rossiyskaya Gazeta and was translated and edited by the RT team