As the climax of the US election approaches, American citizens prepare to make a weighty decision that shall determine their nation’s direction over the upcoming four years. Observing the choice between the two candidates illustrates a stark disparity in ideology and platform, and leaves no room for ambiguity.
Democratic hopeful Kamala Harris often teeters heavily towards pro-Israel sentiment. Her statement during her sole Presidential debate with Donald Trump suggested a long-lived support for Israel and its citizens. However, her call for a Gaza ceasefire seems less persuasive when entangled with language that implicitly conditions her backing for the Palestinian people on Israel’s ‘security’.
Despite murmurs within her party promoting an arms embargo on Israel, Harris has resisted going down that path. Meanwhile, Donald Trump, the Republican contender, has also exhibited a robust pro-Israel stance. He boldly asserts that a war ‘would not have happened’ under his watch, though fails to provide specifics on how this would be attained.
In his earlier tenure as commander-in-chief, Trump executed some controversial decisions. He relocated the US Embassy to Jerusalem and refrained from denoting Israeli settlements on the West Bank as illegal, even though such a posture flies in the face of international law.
Harris tends to adhere to Joe Biden’s so-called ‘Bidenomics’, which incorporates an elaborate plan for infrastructure and green energy investment. These economic priorities prompted mirth on the campaign trail, as she proceeded to promise to empower and solidify the middle class, without specifying the semantics of this vow.
Trump, however, diverges sharply from her stance, highlighting the concern of high food and housing costs. His strategy encompasses lofty tariffs on China and Europe, eradicating safeguards on Alaskan natural preserves to accommodate oil drilling, and most notably, mass deportation of undocumented immigrants. These policies have been viewed with considerable doubt by economists globally.
Kamala Harris advocates for a tax hike specifically targeting corporations, alongside a reduction in middle-class taxes. In her acceptance speech, she stated her pursuit to ‘implement a middle-class tax cut that will aid over 100 million Americans’. Conversely, Trump seeks further slashes in taxes for big businesses and the affluent, purporting that this move will reduce prices for lower economic strata.
Historical data, however, refutes his claims as it has displayed an increase in the income disparity following these cuts. Additionally, Trump insists on removing the tax on Social Security payments, a move which may find favor among retired Americans but risks causing a significant deficit in the fund.
Harris’s support for abortion rights has been a contentious topic in this election. Her campaign highlights this issue prominently. The conservative majority in the US Supreme Court has enabled Republican states to effectively outlaw abortion. Even physicians providing this life-saving service risk prosecution, and residents seeking an abortion outside their state could face potential arrest and trial upon return.
On the subject of immigration, Harris supports a bipartisan border security bill promising millions for border wall construction. This bill, unfortunately, sunk due to Republican opposition in February 2022. She further declared her intent to resurrect and endorse this bill if she ascends to the presidency.
In stark contrast, Trump’s stance on immigration can be summarized by his infamous 2016 campaign slogan ‘Build the wall’. His commitment to border security and enhanced law enforcement has been unwavering. His ambitions also include initiations of the largest mass deportations of undocumented migrants in US history.
Furthermore, under another Trump presidency, children of undocumented residents could potentially lose their citizenship. Turning to international affairs, Harris reveals her steadfast support for Ukraine. She also encourages a two-state solution between Israel and Palestine, echoing a common though somewhat contentious solution.
Trump, however, wishes to follow an isolationist path, striving to extricate the US from alliances, trade agreements, and global conflicts. This includes a bold claim to resolve the Ukraine-Russia conflict in a single day, though his strategy remains undisclosed.
Regarding climate change, Harris played a significant role in passing the Inflation Reduction Act, funnelling billions towards renewable energy and Electric Vehicle programs. Her stance on fracking, once wishing for its ban in 2019, has evolved. She now asserts that the US should diversify its energy sources to decrease dependency on foreign oil.
Contrarily, Trump in his prior presidency dismantled numerous environmental protections and indubitably plans to continue this path. He has repeatedly berated the EV industry and criticised wind farms. Such policy choices reinforce a stark contrast between the candidates, which is bound to influence the electorate’s decision in this pivotal election.