The choice: Commander-in-chief or disrupter-in-chief

Voters will choose between international leadership built around long-standing alliances, or disruptive unilateralism with a strange fondness for authoritarians.

By

Columnists

October 8, 2024 - 3:38 PM

Democratic presidential nominee, Vice President Kamala Harris speaks to the media before boarding Air Force Two. Over her tenure as vice president, Harris has forged strong relationships with US allies around the world with a goal of containing autocrats such as Russia’s Vladimir Putin and Chinese leader Xi Jinping. (Mario Tama/Getty Images/TNS)

Presidential elections rarely hinge on questions of foreign policy, except when the United States is in a shooting war. Voters are more likely to make their choices based on how they feel about the economy, or abortion, or other domestic issues.

But foreign policy still has a way of barging into a campaign, especially when global events remind voters that the world is a dangerous place.

It has happened this year, as Israel’s war against Hamas in Gaza mushroomed into a regional conflict, including an Iranian missile attack against Israel.

Vice President Kamala Harris abandoned her campaign schedule for a day to monitor the attack from the White House situation room, and seized the chance to sound like a commander-in-chief in waiting.

“I am clear-eyed,” she said. “Iran is a destabilizing, dangerous force in the Middle East, and today’s attack on Israel only further demonstrates that fact. … My commitment to the security of Israel is unwavering.”

Former President Donald Trump reacted by renewing his charge that the war in Gaza was a product of President Joe Biden’s failures, and claimed — without offering evidence — that it would never have started if he were president.

“The whole world is blowing up,” he said at a rally in Michigan last week. “We have incompetent people, and she’s more incompetent than Biden.”

Then he added this falsehood: “You know, I had no conflict. I had no wars.”

During Trump’s presidency, U.S. troops fought wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria, and at least 65 died in combat. (He would be on firmer ground if he said he started no new wars, but that wouldn’t serve his purpose; Biden hasn’t started any new wars either.)

The point of their dueling statements wasn’t to debate the nuances of U.S. policy in the Middle East — although they do have differences. (Harris has advocated a cease-fire in Gaza; Trump urged Israel to “finish the job.”) It was to restate their claims to be the best choice as commander-in-chief.

Trump views himself as a big guy. Big guys like Erdogan in Turkey get to put people in jail and you don’t have to ask anybody’s permission. He kind of likes that.John Bolton, US national security advisor during Trump’s administration

On that count, voters face a choice that extends far beyond the Middle East — not on the details of diplomacy, but on basic principles of American foreign policy. The candidates approach the world with divergent premises.

Harris has placed herself squarely in the tradition of recent Democratic administrations, especially Biden’s, arguing that the United States must lead strong international coalitions to contain autocrats such as Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese leader Xi Jinping.

“In the enduring struggle between democracy and tyranny, I know … where the United States belongs,” she said at the Democratic National Convention.

Trump, meanwhile, has long expressed admiration for repressive autocrats, including Putin (“very strong control”), Xi (“an iron fist”), North Korea’s Kim Jong Un and Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

Related