Raghida Dergham
The contours of the US presidential election in November will become clearer after the televised debate between Democratic nominee Kamala Harris and Republican candidate Donald Trump on Tuesday night.
How the media and the public perceive the outcome of the debate will depend largely on the “performance” of both candidates. This is especially the case after President Joe Biden’s poor showing in his debate against Mr Trump in June forced the then Democratic Party’s presumptive nominee to step aside for Ms Harris.
Policy pronouncements are important, of course, especially if the candidates present new proposals to address domestic issues and foreign policy challenges. However, what American viewers will be most focused on is performance.
Ms Harris’s performance will be scrutinised as she is new to the presidential debate stage, while Mr Trump will probably attempt to undermine her at every opportunity, portraying her as unfit for leadership. Conversely, Mr Trump’s performance may veer into dangerous territory, potentially exposing him to accusations of racism, arrogance and condescension – both towards Ms Harris and, by extension, women.
Both candidates have reportedly prepared extensively for the debate.
Ms Harris, who has plenty of experience as a prosecutor, has been coached by Karen Dunn, who previously advised Hillary Clinton. Reports indicate that Ms Harris has spent five days strategising with her advisers and preparing key points. Mr Trump, on the other hand, may not follow the traditional debate preparation process, but his advisers are urging him to avoid personal attacks on Ms Harris and focus, instead, on highlighting her weaknesses.
As has been the case in the past, foreign policy is unlikely to dominate the debate.
With the exception of the wars in Gaza and Ukraine, most issues pertaining to foreign policy are unlikely to draw widespread attention. Iraq, for example, no longer occupies the spotlight in presidential campaigns as it once did. Libya, another country that continues to wrestle with internal problems as an outcome of western-led intervention, is also for the most part forgotten.
The US’s reputation of abandoning its allies is a sore point with many governments around the world. But most American voters may not remember, or even know about, Washington’s myriad mistakes on the global stage and impact they continue to have today.
This is primarily because large sections of American society care little about these misadventures. Some of this is reflected in the biased and self-serving coverage of these issues in many of the mainstream US media outlets.
Of course, the ongoing wars – and the respective candidates’ policy prescriptions to resolve them – are likely to help some voters make up their mind on whom to vote for in November.
Mr Trump has hinted at new proposals to end the war in Ukraine, but he will probably address the issue with caution to avoid appearing pro-Russia. While many Americans question the US-led support for Kyiv, there is also widespread and deep-rooted suspicion of Moscow’s strategic aims.
Ms Harris will conceivably boast of the Biden-Harris administration’s success in strengthening Nato in its bid to counter Russia. She is also likely to accuse Mr Trump of being friendly with strongmen around the world.
Mr Trump will repeat his claim that if he had been in power, neither the Ukraine war nor the Gaza conflict would have erupted. He will present himself as the candidate with a roadmap to end the Ukraine conflict, probably proposing a deal to prevent Kyiv’s Nato membership and balance its territorial integrity with the identity of those areas that Moscow insists must remain under its control.
On the issue of Israel and its war on Gaza, both candidates will probably attempt to woo the Jewish-American vote. They will look to prove their loyalty towards Israel by pledging to continue providing military and financial support to it while condemning Hamas for its actions on October 7.
Ms Harris may reaffirm her commitment to Palestinian self-determination and dignity while acknowledging the war’s heavy toll on Palestinian civilians. Mr Trump, on the other hand, will probably focus on empowering Israel to “finish the job” and eliminate Hamas, as it sees fit. He is unlikely to commit to a two-state solution, and while Ms Harris may avoid wholeheartedly endorsing it, she will reaffirm her commitment to the principle if asked.
America, in real terms, seems to be abandoning the two-state solution. Washington no longer challenges Mr Netanyahu on the issue, despite his government’s rejection of a Palestinian state alongside Israel.
Leaders around the world will watch the debate with the expectation that, eventually, Ms Harris will win the presidency. The Vice President has attempted to position herself as more adaptable and agile than Mr Trump, who is nearly 18 years her senior. In the process, she has captured global attention, particularly with some of the initial enthusiasm for Mr Trump having waned.
If we were to examine Russian President Vladimir Putin’s tone when he recently said that he supports Ms Harris for president, we would be able to see that he was only half-joking. There is little doubt that governments in countries such as Russia and China have begun planning for a possible Harris administration.
The greatest gift Mr Trump could give Ms Harris during the debate, therefore, would be to underestimate her as a serious candidate.
