Two issues at stake in US president race

As the quadrennial presidential contest in the United States reaches its conclusion next week, the two fundamental and entwined issues at stake are how America sees itself at home and how its consequent role abroad ought to be. This is not the first time these soul-searching questions are determining who gets to rule the country, but they are a recent phenomenon. Beyond them, the rest are merely theatre, money, and manoeuvres that underpin any major election spectacle.
First, a few flavours are in order. Less than two weeks, the US is understandably obsessed and consumed by the presidential race between former President Donald J Trump of the Republican Party, who is running for a second term against Vice President Kamala D Harris of the Democratic Party. The news networks are in overdrive with attack ads from both sides. Most of the networks seem to be in favour of the Democratic nominee, while Fox News seems to be the only major outlet that staunchly supports the Republican candidate.
In Atlanta, the heart of America’s old south in Georgia, a so-called “swing state” among several other pivotal states that will decide the outcome in the 538-member “electoral college”, which roughly represents the combined weight of population distribution and state autonomy in a system of federal government, the Trump campaign paints the Harris camp as full of “radical liberals”, calling for advance voting among its supporters to “swamp the vote”. Automated telephone calls featuring Donald Trump Jr made this pitch.
The Harris side depicts Mr Trump, the presidential contender, as “unhinged, unstable, unchecked” and conjures up scary images of “Project 2025”, an advisory document by the conservative Heritage Foundation think-tank outlining how America should be ruled. The final stretch of the Harris campaign included allusions to Mr Trump as “a fascist”, an accusation a Fox News show quickly denied by showing the former president recognising Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and appearing with American-Jewish leaders right after the Hamas attack against Israelis on Oct 7 last year.
These dynamics are par for the course. The nastier they get, the more visceral the polarisation of American society becomes. They also point to deep-seated drivers of America’s divide.
Roughly from the late 1980s, when the notion of “America First” was touted in US presidential politics, the “nativist” strand of the Republican Party has taken root and become entrenched. Although it was opposed by the traditional and established wing of the Republican Party, the nativists have come out on top, spearheaded by Mr Trump. Unsurprisingly, the bulk of Mr Trump’s campaign does not include any of the previous Republican leaders, particularly the Bushes, who were presidents number 41 and 43. Mr Trump has essentially taken over the Republican Party from established Republican leaders.
Ridden by pent-up resentment and frustration, the nativism he stands for is fundamentally against the free and open country America has long been. Mr Trump is thus against basic freedoms and rights that the US is traditionally known for, including immigration, abortion, and healthcare. To be sure, Republican candidates generally tend to promote conservativism on social issues and openness on economic policies. But Mr Trump’s conservatism runs deeper into American identity. Nativism means returning to old roots, a time in the past when the country had not been so swamped by immigrants.
Related to this nativism is an implicit “nationalism” behind the “Make America Great Again” slogan. At issue here is the US’s international roles and engagements. Mr Trump is against underwriting and promoting the international system that the US instrumentally constructed after the Second World War because other actors in this system have been rising and outcompeting America at its expense. Multilateralists naturally abhor Mr Trump’s apparent isolationism from the international system and nationalist protectionism on trade and technology.
Much of the outside world detests Mr Trump because he wants to overturn the international system. Although not all autocrats like Mr Trump, autocratic regimes around the world find common cause with him because they think the international system and multilateralism do not work for them and no longer work the way they are supposed to. Small states tend to dislike Mr Trump because they are beneficiaries of the post-war international order.
Asean member states are wary of the presidential result. A rough benchmark is that Ms Harris would provide continuity in US foreign policy from outgoing President Joe Biden and that a second Trump administration would be similar to his first during 2017-21, except some of the policy directions on protectionism and economic nationalism would be accentuated and doubled down on. We can think of a Harris government as more familiar and continuous and a Trump administration as disruptive and more unpredictable.
Who wins will depend on the divisive state of American society with some technical gamesmanship and electioneering tactics. The Democratic Party seems as united as the Republican Party had been divided prior to Mr Trump’s takeover. Unlike Mr Trump, Ms Harris is being helped on the campaign trail by party stalwarts, featuring the Obamas and the Clintons.
But the more help she gets, the more Ms Harris comes across as less compelling and as a “locked-in” candidate, tied to President Biden. Owing to campaign finance laws, when President Biden stepped aside as the candidate for a second term, the Biden-Harris ticket became the Harris campaign in order to access the many millions in the electoral coffers. When Michelle Obama introduced Ms Harris with a mesmerising speech on Oct 26 at a rally in Kalamazoo in Michigan, another swing state, it became clear that the Democratic Party did not field its best candidate. It does not mean it should have been Ms Obama, but a more compelling candidate should have been forwarded.
When American voters make their decisions this coming Tuesday, the Trump ballots will be for Mr Trump but the Harris votes will be not just for her but for the Democratic Party and, more importantly, for the various efforts to keep the former president from securing a second term. It might well be this difference that will determine the result, especially since the Electoral College counts more than the popular vote.
Thitinan Pongsudhirak, on leave from Chulalongkorn University’s faculty of political science, is currently a visiting professor at the London School of Economics.