The 2020 Presidential Election is approaching with high stakes involved. It is speculated, with the escalating international tensions, the elected president may find themselves in a situation similar to the precipice of a war. The tumultuous global scene, marked by the actions of China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran could escalate into full-blown conflict, posing a significant challenge to the new President.
In the face of this impetus, the electorate looks toward their future president for their unique vision and action plan. To this regard, both Kamala Harris and Donald Trump have the mammoth task of dealing with the intricate situation. It is asserted that the grand vision, with details of action in place, is currently missing in both their campaigns.
President Trump, with his diplomatic approach towards complex international issues, has been bold in stating that his relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin will serve as an opportunity for negotiations to resolve the crisis in Ukraine. However, many question the specificities of this negotiation — the terms, the geographical boundaries, and above all, the guarantees of fulfillment. From his critics’ perspective, the assurance seems hard to find.
Importantly, Donald Trump’s stance on the Ukraine issue is a departure from status quo policy-making. There is a sector of Americans who appreciate his viewpoint, aligning with his ‘America First’ policy. He has consistently challenged the traditional notions of sending massive aid to overseas conflicts. For Trump, it’s time to invest in America’s internal development.
Opposing Trump, the critics argue about Ukraine’s autonomy and sovereignty being potentially jeopardized in Trump’s peace talks. But this perspective appears to be a misplaced anxiety, fueled by those neglecting America’s own needs. Trump’s agenda resonates with a large contingent of citizens who see the value in prioritizing domestic over international duties.
Kamala Harris’s stance largely diverts from Biden’s approach to Ukraine and Gaza. Emphasizing a ceasefire to halt the violence in Gaza, she is yet to put forth a detailed plan regarding other pressing issues like China, North Korea, and the turbulent global security situation. Her silence on these matters has left observers wondering.
When it comes to defense, Harris implicitly sticks with Biden’s plan. Much to the dismay of Trump and his supporters, they perceive this as avoiding the critical issue of strategic-budget-force imbalances, translating to reduced military capability. Trump detects the destructive implications of the ‘woke’ agenda, although the critics dismiss this narrative.
While there is some criticism that both candidates don’t have a clear and comprehensive strategy for a potential wartime presidency, this phenomenon is not new. Even the previous presidents in this century were fairly lacking in this regard. Trump and Harris are hardly devoid of experiences from their time in power that could shape this strategy.
In analyzing historical precedents, we find that many previous presidents like Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry Truman, John F. Kennedy, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, and George H.W. Bush, brought their wartime experiences into office. This trend, unfortunately, has faded into the past since Bill Clinton, presenting a new scenario that Trump and Harris are now a part of.
This evolution does not necessarily mean they are less equipped for the role. Many believe that Trump’s ‘America First’ agenda, though criticized by some, brings a fresh perspective and a necessary redirection of resources towards domestic development. His intentions of decreasing the U.S. overseas presence are seen by many as a positive change.
Still, his critics argue that Trump falls short in offering a proper plan of action and assessing potential consequences on global security. However, optimists, in turn, note that his declarations may not represent his absolute stances. They contend that Trump could adjust his actions according to the changing circumstances just like he has in the past.
On the other side of the coin, Harris’s stance on the matter remains less clear. Those optimistic about her leadership compare her to Truman and harbor the hope that she will rise to the occasion. The national mood acknowledges the uncertainty in ‘hope’, but in America, hope has always been the catalyst for change.
Nevertheless, another question that looms large is about the anticipated appointments to the most senior national security positions by the winning president. The choices will inevitably influence the national security trajectory and how these potential conflicts will be handled, posing yet another layer of uncertainty to the unpredictable future.
Lastly, the concern about a delayed election result, similar to the situation in 2000, presents another potential obstacle. Such a delay could severely affect the time the winning candidate will have to establish their government, creating yet another cause for nervous anticipation.