EVENT TRANSCRIPT: America Decides: What is at Stake and What to Expect from 2024 Presidential Election
DATE: 16:00, 05/09/2024
LOCATION: Online
SPEAKERS: Molly Ball, Prof. Michael Cox, Danielle Pletka
EVENT CHAIR: Dr Helena Ivanov
Dr Helena Ivanov 0:03
Hello everyone, and welcome to another event hosted by the Henry Jackson Society. My name is Helena, and I will be chairing the event today. I’m joined by Professor Michael Cox from the LSE, Danielle Pletka from the American Enterprise Institute, and Molly Ball from the Wall Street Journal. To day we’re discussing probably the topic of the year, which is the American elections. America decides this year, and we’re going to talk about what is at stake and what we can expect from the 2024 presidential elections. As we’ve seen, the Biden administration has faced a challenging term in office, the withdrawal from Afghanistan, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, energy and living cost crisis, Israel-Hamas war. All of this made Biden’s time in office rather difficult, and in the last few months alone, America has witnessed once in a lifetime event almost on a weekly basis, including the attempted assassination of the former President Donald Trump, and also Biden’s decision not to run for the second term following mounting pressure on him to step aside. Following the Democratic National Convention, the current vice president, Kamala Harris, has been confirmed as a Democratic candidate for the America’s top job. Now that we have the candidates confirmed, many are wondering whether the candidates could unite their voters and also their respective parties. What are the prospects of the candidates to win, and how will their campaigns unfold? Are we going to witness another divisive campaign which will further polarize America and obviously, what are the potential foreign policy implications if either Trump or Harris win the election, especially when it comes to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, but also the ongoing war between Israel and Hamas. These are only some of the questions that I have the pleasure to discuss with our panelists. And to start us off, I would like to introduce Molly Ball, thank you so much.
Molly Ball 1:46
Thank you Helena, and thank you everyone for being here. I’m so happy to be here talking to you. I thought I would begin by just sort of setting the stage for where we are now in the campaign. Unfortunately, I cannot tell you who is going to win the American election. I know, of course, we all know, we just aren’t allowed to tell you no, just kidding. Nobody knows who’s going to win, and that’s what makes it so exciting to be a political reporter. But you know, as Helena was just laying out the I think we went into this campaign anticipating a sort of stale rematch between two dismally unpopular candidates, and for that reason, the broad public was was not enthusiastic about this campaign. Was really sort of dreading the election, but it has all gone topsy turvy because of these many unprecedented events. I would go all the way back to May. It was just in May that Donald Trump became the first ever former president convicted of a crime. He was convicted of 34 felony counts in that Manhattan criminal trial over his hush money payments during the 2016 campaign. And I remember, you know, sitting in that Manhattan courtroom and thinking, this is going to be the defining scene of the 2024 election, right? This was just one of the many criminal cases that Trump was facing. And I think we all thought that that unprecedented formula was going to really be the central drama of the campaign. As it turns out, we’ve all more or less forgotten about it, even though it was, it’s not so long in the past, just because, well, first, because there was a Supreme Court decision in July that further forestalled any action on the remaining criminal charges that Trump is still facing. But also just because so many other things have happened. So you know, the presidential debate between Trump and Biden was in late June. Biden, of course, short circuited in that debate and forced Democrats to face what voters already knew. It was already clear from polls and things like the special counsel’s report earlier in the year, that people knew that the President was very old, and they didn’t like that, and they would prefer it even, but the majority of Democratic voters would have preferred a different candidate, but the party had not been collectively forced to face the state of affairs and what a liability it was, until Biden bombed that debate. So this set off a sort of a month of crisis mode for the Democrats. Meanwhile, in mid July, on the eve of the Republican Convention, Trump was shot and nearly killed. A bullet that missed him nicked his ear and missed him by millimeters, and that was right on the eve of the Republican Convention, where he went on to pick JD Vance as his running mate, and again, being there at the convention in Milwaukee, there was a feeling of inevitability. There was a feeling of spiritual blessedness that you heard from speaker after speaker and from so many of the rank and file delegates. There was a feeling that God himself had spared Trump from certain death, and that his candidacy had been blessed and was therefore unstoppable. The choice of Vance represented a sort of doubling down on the Maga ideology, the Trumpist takeover of the Republican Party an indication that Trump no longer sees any need to sort of share power with the Republican Party of old, as he did with with Mike Pence and and there was a feeling that he was going to become a unifying figure, that he would be fundamentally changed by this attempt on his life. But he proceeded to then get up to give his convention speech on the final night, and more or less announced that he had not changed a bit and didn’t plan to and was going to continue to pursue his candidacy in exactly the same way and saying the same things. And you know, he said at various points since then, you know, people thought I’d be nicer, I promise you, I am not any nicer than I was, than I was before. And so then the democratic crisis culminates in Biden quitting the ticket and endorsing Harris, and she quickly sews up the nomination. And I think none of us could have anticipated given that, you know, when she ran for president, she did not do very well, and that as vice president, she was not, for the most part, any more popular than Biden was. So I think she’s probably been as surprised as anyone that there has been such a surge of momentum and enthusiasm behind her candidacy. She raised half a billion dollars in a matter of a few weeks. She got more individual donations in 10 days than Biden managed to get in 15 months of his candidacy. She’s drawing big crowds. Biden has even as president, often struggled to fill a room with supporters, and as many have said, the vibes have changed around this election, and we’ve gone from a point where most Americans were not enthusiastic about the election, especially Democrats, to a point where the vast majority of Americans are very enthusiastic about voting in November, especially Democrats, their enthusiasm for voting and for voting affirmatively for their candidate, not just against the other side, is now in the 70, 80% and outpaces even the Republicans, which is pretty astonishing, given how enthusiastic we know at least Trump’s base is to vote for him, so we’re looking ahead to debate next week between Harris and Trump. Might be the only debate, it’s not clear. And I think it’s going to be pivotal- pivotal, given that these two candidates have never faced each other before, and that so many people- there seems to be a large undecided chunk of the electorate who are mostly people who don’t like Trump but aren’t sure if they can get on board with Harris. They’re not sure if you know she’s going to be too too liberal, too divisive, too ideological, too- What have you. They want to know where she stands. She has, as Trump never tires of pointing out, only really done one media interview since becoming the candidate, and she has often struggled in those forums where she has to speak off the cup and be unscripted. So I think it’s a significant question mark how she will perform in this debate, and whether she’ll be able to convince those undecided voters that her candidacy is acceptable to sort of the broad middle of the American electorate. We’ve seen both candidates do a lot of policy rollouts. She’s narrowed the gap that Biden was facing with Trump on the biggest issues that are on voters’ minds, the top issue, as usual, tends to be the economy, but we, but a lot of voters, are also very concerned about immigration, that’s an issue that favors Trump, very concerned about abortion rights, that’s an issue that favors Harris. So you see both candidates trying to take their signature issue and make it more salient, put it more front of mind with voters. And so to answer your question about whether this will be another, you know, divisive, polarizing election or not, I think the answer is yes, it will be another divisive, polarizing election. Candidates may pay lip service to unity, but this is a very polarized country, very polarized electorate. And and both candidates are talking about this election in existential terms, and I think a large number of Americans do see it that way. So it’s going to be an exciting next eight weeks until we find out, hopefully, who has won.
Dr Helena Ivanov 9:35
Thank you so much, Molly for this. And before we move to the second candidate, to the second speaker, I just want to say that we will have a Q&A session afterwards. So please use the zoom chat to ask any questions you may have and to continue this panel and tell us a little bit about how the outside world is receiving American elections, we have Professor Michael Cox, thank you.
Prof. Michael Cox 9:53
Yeah, thanks, Helena, and thank you for your comments, Molly, to kick- to kick it off the one. The one thing that stood out for me from from what you had to say is you identified three big issues: immigration, abortion, economy, taking the big three- and the character of the candidates. And as you pointed out, the change of candidates has made a huge difference to the dynamic of this US election. But I’m bound to ask a question from outside the United States, living here in London, as I do, where’s the world in this debate as well, and what impact is this going to have on the world? And not surprisingly, people outside the United States, as distinct to people inside the United States are just as interested in who wins and what impact this is going to have on on the big foreign policy issues of the day. And we we asked that question for the very obvious reasons, that in spite of all the loose talk about American decline and American going back into isolationism and America retreating, the United States is still by far and away, the most significant player in the world, whether you want to talk of alliances, whether you want to talk of the world economy, whether you want to talk of Ukraine, whether you want to talk about what’s going on in Israel and Gaza, you know. And obviously, if you look at China, the key question for China is the United States, and the key question for the United States is China. So I don’t if it’s worrying or a good sign that in the in this very, very significant election, another one. How many more significant elections do we need in the United States? 2016, 2020, now, 2024, I wish there would be a few boring elections, you know, from the outside, a little bit of consensus on both sides would help us all, I think outside. What- where does the world fit into this? And I think it’s fashionable among political scientists. And I don’t call myself one, by the way, I call myself an international relations historian. It’s, I think it’s rational to say it’s all about it’s all about the economy, stupid, to re quote James Carville from the 1990s and it’s all about domestic politics. I’m not saying you said that. But I think, I think foreign policy, in implicit ways, and in some ways, is playing a role in all this. And that’s the only thing I’d really like to push on Molly, not against what you said, but just to add to what you said. I think, firstly, and you know this, and I know Danielle is going to say something about this, I hope anyway, what’s happening in the Middle East, what’s happening in Gaza? You know, whichever way one moves on this particular question, you know, there’s, there’s absolutely no doubt that the events of the last 10 months in in the Middle East, in Gaza, particularly Israel’s policies there, has, to very large degree, lost the United States. Quite a lot of you know what you might call soft power, particularly in the region itself. That may be unfair, that may be the way, that may not, that may not be reasonable, but that’s- and I think it seems to me, and I know Biden has pushed very hard on this, how Gaza is going to play into your election, it seems to be, could be significant, and I’d be very interested to hear what you your thoughts are- are on that. Are there deep differences between the two candidates on Israel? No, they both support Israel. But does one of the two candidates, in this case, Donald Trump, supported in a much more uncritical way? We’ll have to wait and see. But it is, it is a fact you know that foreign policy, in this case, the crisis occasioned by October attack last year is going to play into this election, and it will have significant impact. It may be even before the second thing, of course, and I live in Europe, therefore I’m, I’m not exactly next door to Ukraine, but I think about Ukraine a lot, as indeed, I’m sure you do over there. Nonetheless, Donald Trump has said, and I don’t know if he’s repeated the same point, that he will get this this war finished within a couple of weeks. And he’s got a special relationship, whatever you want to call it, with Vladimir Putin in the Kremlin and he’s going to bring this war to a halt pretty damn quick. Now, A) I don’t think that’s likely, and I don’t think it’s possible on the ground, nonetheless, this could occasion some real big disagreements. If Trump were to win, and I say were to win, I’m not, not predicting it. This could occasion some very big differences within the NATO alliance, I think now, because there’s no question that a number of European countries, although the United States provides, what, 80% of all the military aid, and it is in essence, you know, it is American support that’s been absolutely crucial at mobilizing NATO, uniting NATO. Without that leadership, we may be in a very different position today. And the position we’re in today is not exactly brilliant, is it? Nonetheless, this could occasion, I think, some fairly large differences, possibly more so than last time in 2020 when the war wasn’t actually going on. So I I’d also bring that one into the into the equation, the third point, and here, there may be one, one area where both Kamala Harris and and President Trump agree, which may be on China. Now, I know there’s some subtle differences, and on the one side, the Democrats are engaging, or at least trying to manage the relationship, put some guardrails around that relationship. And on the other side, at least on the what you might call the MAGA wing of the Republican Party, there’s a much tougher line. I’ve even seen articles published in Foreign Affairs. We don’t want to manage China. We don’t- we want to win. I’m not quite sure what that would mean. But here again, I think there is a way in which that big, that biggest foreign policy issue, really, in the end, is going to impact so I very interested to get your your feedback on this, Molly and Danielle on how you feel foreign policy is going to feed into this election. So far, not a great amount of debate on that. Kamala Harris did make a part of the speech on foreign policy, and it’s pretty tough. I mean, there was no retreat, there was no isolationism there. There was no retreat from maintaining American military and political supremacy. It seemed a very tough minded America, not America-first speech, but a very tough speech indeed. So maybe I’m overstating the impact that foreign policy will play in this particular election, but I’d like to get your feedback and that of the of the people listening and viewing as to how they think it’s going to play out. I think it should play out more than it is doing so, and I don’t want foreign policy to be kind of, you know, on the back burner of a debate, because what happens in the United States, whoever wins is going to shape the world for the next four years to come.
Dr Helena Ivanov 16:08
Thank you so much, Professor Cox. And now, to close this part of the panel, before we move to questions, we have Daniela Pletka, thank you so much.
Danielle Pletka 16:16
Thank you, and thanks both to Molly and to Mick for great presentations. You set me up perfectly, Mick, because while I was looking at, actually at a different poll about something that Molly referenced, I saw that YouGov economist, YouGov, which is, I think a good, a good poll. There are sort of crappy pollsters out there, but they did a poll on who voters trust to handle foreign policy, which was which was quite interesting, and in many ways, nobody will be surprised by this. Republicans trust Donald Trump to handle foreign policy. Democrats trust Kamala Harris to handle foreign policy, although I will say they would not be able to answer the question as to what she would actually do, since she’s never, you know, told us what she would do about anything. But the really interesting one here, because this is an election, like most American elections, that is going to be decided by a very small number of people, right? And you know, one thing that that I think a lot of a lot of even Americans and certainly foreigners, don’t understand, is that the blocks that exist have hardened to the point of rigidity, which is one of the reasons why people like like me, sitting on the outside, always criticize the candidates for playing to their base. It’s like your base is going to vote for you. Okay? Because that’s what they’re going to do. The point is that this sort of smaller sliver of independence. And again, I don’t think it’s we really know what independence necessarily means, but they are self identified independence, and they might vote Republican, they might vote Democrat, and usually they have voted both at some time in their history. The interesting part of this poll, to me was, was independents who expressed more confidence on average, in Trump, with 41% confident in Trump during an international crisis, compared to only 25% for Harris. And on the question of effectiveness as commander in chief. And of course, when we use that, that expression commander in chief, we’re using that the the constitutional role of our president as the leader of the armed forces and as the leader of our foreign policy. And again, only 28% of independents said they had confidence in Harris, while 44% expressed confidence in Trump. Now, the habit of most American journalists, Molly being an important exception. and and others is to suggest that the American people are simply stupid, and that’s why they think these things. And I would only respond to that by saying whether they’re stupid or not is completely irrelevant. This is, this is how they make their choices. I- I think that we are, from the foreign policy perspective, and- and make, I’m a foreign policy person, I’m not a politics person, so I look at the politics much as the rest of you do, like an outsider. From the foreign policy perspective, it is A) extraordinarily unusual for it- for foreign policy to be even in the top 10 for American priorities in a national election. The one exception to that was in the post 9/11, election in 2004 when it was in the top three. But generally speaking, even when people express confidence in their candidate, lack of confidence in their candidate, the reality is, when you press them about what their priorities are, they are not foreign policy. This is a very narrow elite concern, and I- and while I don’t have a crystal ball about what’s going to happen, I suspect that not much will happen in the next 60 days to change that. Let’s all keep our fingers crossed, because the last time I said that something terrible did happen. But I think that’s important to understand, and one little, I think, interesting and useful factoid in this regard, when we talk about Gaza and we talk about the Israeli war on Hamas, on the October 7 attack and the anniversary that’s coming up with that, what again, is extraordinarily interesting is you see a very high level of passion, if I can use that absolutely execrable Gen Z word, a very high level of passion about the issue, but when they are asked what they’re voting on, it comes in number nine, so that that correlation doesn’t exist. And that’s fascinating to me, certainly. It’s really important to understand anyone also looking at the American electorate, that those people don’t vote, okay? This is the cohort in the American public that votes the least. And there have been exceptions, Obama, but the reality is those exceptions are very few and far between, and there is almost always a reversion to the norm, to the mean. So you know, you will see people who will say to you, political consultants, who will say, “we must get abortion on the ballot in X, Y and Z state, in order that it motivates young people to come to the polls”. And the answer is, it works episodically, but not reliably. Another really interesting point. And I actually, I wonder, of course, like an old lady, I can do this, and let’s see if it works. I’m going to hold something up for you. All I want you to look at is that blue line, everybody, that is Democrat enthusiasm for the candidate, poor Joe Biden, was in the proverbial crapper of enthusiasm among self identified Democrats for much of the electoral period. And then all of a sudden, magical Kamala appears. Poor old Joe is kicked to the curb, and you see this line go like that. Now, what’s interesting about this is not that the line went like that. What’s interesting as it has dropped right back down again, right? And this is something that I think is sort of perplexing to a lot of pollsters and a lot of observers. So everybody was really, really excited about Kamala, and now enthusiasm levels among Republicans, and this is also YouGov, by the way, among Republicans and Democrats is roughly the same. That’s bad news for Kamala Harris, and the reason it’s bad news for her is that she is going to have to win by more than a point or two, the way that the American electoral college works. And we just did a podcast. I’m literally parroting Karl Rove. I don’t know crap about this. Don’t ask me any hard questions, but we just had Karl Rove on our ‘What the hell is going on’ podcast, and he explained, you know, the way that it works in the electoral college is you are absolutely going to have to win by three, four, even five points as a Democrat, simply because of the structure of the Electoral College. Even though, you know, California and New York are a given, and they’re huge numbers of votes, these small states do actually make a difference and and you know, elections were won and lost by only five digits, in the case of both Biden and Hillary Clinton’s loss, so Biden won by five digits, Hillary lost by five digits. These are not million million, million vote elections. Last point What- what are these- what are these leaders going to do? So Kamala Harris said a lot of things in 2019 and has via aids, said she doesn’t believe those things anymore. She’s now pro fracking. She was against fracking. She’s now pro this. She was against it. She’s now pro other things. Everybody has the right to change their mind. She has never explained this, and that may remain the case. Joe Biden ran from his basement in 2020 and no one saw him, and he won. That may- that may work for Kamala Harris. I suspect in this environment, this will be difficult. But if she is a mystery to us, I think it’s safe to say that Donald Trump is also a mystery to us. We are looking at someone who governs and makes decisions on foreign policy by the seat of his pants. He said as- as Mick, and I think even Molly pointed out, he’s going to, he’s going to solve the Russia-Ukraine war before, before he takes office. Okay, that’s amazing. How are you going to do that? Right and, of course, you know, any one of us, I think could answer this question, but we don’t. We don’t know, right? Is it the fact that she did a fine interview with Dana Bash on CNN. She- she didn’t implode, she wasn’t good, and she wasn’t terrible. And I think it, it largely was, was neutral. I think the real question that- that I struggle with, and I- I’m not being cute, I just don’t know. The answer is that this is a person who, for three and a half years, was less popular than the least popular president we have had since they started polling for this under Harry Truman, okay, less popular than Joe Biden. That relief that the Democratic Party had that I completely, you know, understand, right? Everybody thought he was going to lose. That relief had to settle down to ground. And for me, at least, I think that people still need to hang their hook on something with Kamala Harris. Not being Donald Trump might be enough for somebody like Liz Cheney. It’s not enough for most voters, and that’s my only guess. The problem for her is her first step out of the box with one policy statement was a disaster, in which she was roundly denounced by the left wing editorial pages of the mainstream press. The Washington Post editorial page said, you know, what the hell are you talking about? Price controls is a terrible idea. So I think she’s probably rightly nervous. How they split that difference? Your guess is as good as mine, guys.
Dr Helena Ivanov 27:32
Thank you so much, Danny, and thank you to all the panelists for delivering your remarks. We’re now moving to the Q and A part of this talk. So anybody who has a question, type it up, and I will address it to the panelists. I have one which is sort of continuing on what Danny was talking about. So I’m going to ask it, start with Danny, and then get the rest of the panel to sort of offer their thoughts. It comes from Michael and he says some of the last polls YouGov has recorded a drop in the enthusiasm of the Democratic voters, which is now, again, slightly lower than of the Republicans, it is quite surprising, as it comes so close after the DNC. Do you think it is caused by the fact that Harris and Walz have been avoiding media and still have not introduced almost any policy program, while Trump has been given interviews all around the internet, often to controversial podcasters? Should we expect a shift in the approach from Harris after the debate? Danny, I’m going to give you the floor first, because this sort of continues of what you were building.
Danielle Pletka 28:28
Right and, of course, you know, any one of us, I think could answer this question, but we don’t. We don’t know, right? Is it the fact that she did a fine interview with Dana Bash on CNN. She- she didn’t implode, she wasn’t good, and she wasn’t terrible. And I think it, it largely was, was neutral. I think the real question that- that I struggle with, and I- I’m not being cute, I just don’t know. The answer is that this is a person who, for three and a half years, was less popular than the least popular president we have had since they started polling for this under Harry Truman, okay, less popular than Joe Biden. That relief that the Democratic Party had that I completely, you know, understand, right? Everybody thought he was going to lose. That relief had to settle down to ground. And for me, at least, I think that people still need to hang their hook on something with Kamala Harris. Not being Donald Trump might be enough for somebody like Liz Cheney. It’s not enough for most voters, and that’s my only guess. The problem for her is her first step out of the box with one policy statement was a disaster, in which she was roundly denounced by the left wing editorial pages of the mainstream press. The Washington Post editorial page said, you know, what the hell are you talking about? Price controls is a terrible idea. So I think she’s probably rightly nervous. How they split that difference? Your guess is as good as mine, guys.
Dr Helena Ivanov 28:47
Thanks, Danny. And Molly, how do you see this, especially coming from a perspective of a- of a journalist? Should we, should we expect this shift in approach, more interviews, more policy discussions?
Molly Ball 30:35
I don’t know the answer, and I don’t think anyone does. I don’t think the campaign has made up their collective mind. I think there was a feeling that as long as they had momentum in their favor, there was no reason to mess with that, particularly for a candidate who has sometimes been uncomfortable or had a difficult time in these unscripted settings. I agree with Danny’s assessment of the CNN interview. It wasn’t great, it wasn’t terrible. It didn’t build a campaign. It didn’t really get her anywhere either. And I think a lot maybe riding on how the debate is perceived to have gone for her and whether she feels that she needs to explain herself more. You know, she has been rolling out policy proposals sort of piecemeal. She did have several sort of statements of at least general intent, of where she stood on things in her nomination speech at the convention. And it is true that Trump has been vastly more accessible and has been doing a lot of these unscripted appearances. I would not call those policy rollouts either. He has an economic policy speech today in New York, we’ll see how much he talks about economic policy, versus arguing with the teleprompter and telling the telling his prepared remarks that they’re boring and he wants to talk about something else, which is something he does on a fairly regular basis. So I haven’t seen this- this poll that indicates that democratic enthusiasm has plummeted, and I would want to see more data on that before I become convinced that that is actually the case. We just had our Wall Street Journal poll out last week, and we found quite elevated enthusiasm among Democrats. It’s certainly possible that that’s receding and that she’s falling to Earth. The Trump campaign certainly wants us to think that the honeymoon is over and everything’s crashing down for her. I just haven’t yet seen enough evidence that I’m comfortable making that assessment. And so again, I think a lot is- is therefore riding on this debate. But I just, I- I just, I don’t make predictions as a matter of speculation. I’m a reporter, and so I don’t have a sense from reporting, from talking to, you know, the campaign and people around it, what their intention is with regard to media strategy, because, you know, they have, they did the CNN interview to sort of check a box, but it’s clearly not her comfort zone, and they’re clearly disinclined to do it unless they feel like they have to. And so if it becomes a significant weakness for her, and it’s less of a weakness than I would have thought. I as a journalist, think she should always be talking to the media, particularly the Wall Street Journal. I think she should do interviews all the time, and she and we should be able to ask her tough questions, and she should be held to account for her positions and for the changes in her positions and so on. But those are not the strategic imperatives of a political campaign. They’re trying to win an election, and so, you know, serving democracy and doing what’s good for the electorate by answering questions may not actually suit their strategic goals. They’re going to do it if they feel like they should. I was surprised to see that in our poll, we asked people whether they felt like they needed more information to make up their mind about Kamala Harris, you know, do they need more information about her positions? Do they need to, you know, see her in- I’m elaborating here, that was the whole question. But, you know, so I was interested in this question of whether her lack of accessibility or the Trump campaign’s messaging on this aggressive messaging on her lack of accessibility was making an impression on the electorate, and so I was quite surprised to see that 84% of voters in our poll said they had enough information to make up their mind about Kamala Harris already. So she has clearly sealed the deal, either positively or negatively. And that’s you know, why, as Danny was saying, it is such a small tranche of voters who are truly undecided. Some interesting data on that point, the political analyst Amy Walter studied the undecided voters and came away with the conclusion that- that undecided tranche of the electorate, they are disproportionately younger, disproportionately female, disproportionately pessimistic about the economy, but also disproportionately in favor of abortion rights. So you can see quite naturally how this might be a cross pressured group of voters who maybe look back on the time that Trump was in office and think, “Well, I was better off, the economy was better”. But also look at the candidates abortion positions, and this is a message that Kamala Harris has been much more aggressive about and comfortable with than Joe Biden was, and might be- might lean toward the Democrats on that issue. So there is a small group of voters in the in the seven swing states that are going to decide this election. They probably are not thinking primarily about foreign policy, but I’ll finish by just offering one thought on that, which is that while it is the conventional wisdom that voters don’t usually decide on foreign policy, I do think that foreign policy is part of the vibes of this election, and part of I’m sorry to keep using that term, but the atmospherics, if you will, to use a less Gen Z coded lingo, but, but you know, you make you mentioned the character of the candidates, and I think it goes to people’s broad conceptions of who these candidates are and what their leanings are. And for Trump, you know, as Danny said, his- the main hallmark of him, and particularly his foreign policy, was a sort of unpredictability. And there, and we know that there are a group of voters, including some former Republicans, who are disturbed by the chaos that they think that Trump represents. And so they may not say that they’re voting on foreign policy, but the perception that they have of how Trump behaved in office, including with regard to foreign policy, may be part of that sort of larger characterological assessment and- and certainly the same with with Harris, although she has, as Danny said, not offered a lot of detail, and has not separated herself, really at all from the Biden administration’s foreign policy to- so to the extent that people look at this administration and say, I didn’t trust Biden to handle foreign policy. The world is on fire. I didn’t like the Afghanistan withdrawal, etc. She- that may be part of the assessment that they make of her candidacy as well.
Prof. Michael Cox 36:49
Yeah, if I could just quickly jump in, going back to Danny’s good point, which I of course, can’t disagree. I mean, after all, we had an election here in the United Kingdom. And the one thing you weren’t allowed to talk about was the world. And the one specific thing you never mentioned was Brexit, which, of course, is one of been most significant impact factors on the UK politics and its position in the world since the 2016 vote. So I don’t disagree with you. Danny, all I was trying to raise, I think, was the point that it’s therefore worrying. I mean, because there’s millions and billions of us outside the United States watching you. 160, what is it, million voters, you know, make a decision which is going to impact on the on the rest of the world. And in some ways, I’m a realist enough, Danny, to understand why that happened. You’re going to focus on crime, abortion, immigration, the economy, perceptions of different characters, but for people sitting outside the United States, which is, after all, the majority of humanity, I think they do look at this election and they worry. And it may well be not everybody, of course, but it may well be. Danny, I agree with you that you know Trump may be seen as being, you know better on commander in chief kind of stuff, leadership. We don’t have any evidence from, from, from Kamala Harris, after all, do we, nonetheless, outside, and this is where I’m coming from, then naturally, you know, the perception, and I’m not just reflecting the consensus liberal, social democratic kind of thing you get in Europe, quite a lot of in the UK and and, by the way, in the global south even more so. So the perception is the United States is in deep trouble, that the system is broken, and the fact that the American people are not talking, or even the candidates themselves are not talking about serious issues which will affect the lives of people in Europe, in Asia, right across the world, in the Middle East, is kind of worrying, and that’s the only point I was really trying to make. Danny, I mean, I’m a realist enough to know the world is as it is, and the American electorate is as is it- as indeed is the British electorate. But it’s worrying. And I- I’m not sure if I can put it bluntly, it does the US any favors in terms of what we might call global public opinion, whatever that whatever that thing happens to be, that the world, in a sense, almost disappears in the moment of an election which is going to determine and shape not only the fate of the United States, but what happens in the Middle East, what happens in Europe, what happens in East Asia, and indeed in relations to China. It’s a worry. It’s just worry for me, and it may be for you as well. Danny, I think I don’t know real world is the real world. I get it.
Danielle Pletka 39:38
May- may I take a second? Look, you know, this is what, this is all I care about. So, so, you know, I’m, I’m with you, you know, I look at, I look at the rise of China. I look at what’s happening in the South China Sea and in East Asia. I look at what’s happening in India. I look at what’s happening in Afghanistan. Look at North Korea, Iran, Russia. And my head wants to explode. That’s all I want to talk about. But I will say this. I did a little piece sometime in the last year, and I went through how many major national security addresses were made by presidents of the United States. It looks like that. I’m very image conscious today, for some reason, fewer and fewer and fewer and fewer and fewer. Now I think that’s insane. The you know, my podcast co host Washington Post columnist Mark Thiessen loves to say that Americans are reluctant internationalists, right? They want to be persuaded that something is important. But when they are persuaded, they want to, they want to be in the world. They want to lead. They want to do the right thing and lead with morals and values. But if you never talk about it, of course they’re not going to be on board and then it becomes very easy for, for, for, you know, for, for Barack Obama, Donald Trump and Joe Biden, to talk about ending wars, as if that’s a thing that exists in the real world, right? So I’m with you 100% the problem is this isn’t a disservice by the American people and their electoral choices. This is a failure of leadership, and it’s bipartisan failure of leadership. I just wanted to answer that.
Prof. Michael Cox 41:18
I agree entirely with you on that one, Danny, too.
Dr Helena Ivanov 41:22
I’m going to use my prerogative as the as the chair of the event, and I’m going to actually ask a question about foreign policy. So whether or not foreign policy is a big issue for an ordinary American citizen who’s going to vote in November. Let’s set that aside for a moment. The implications of these elections are very clear on foreign policy. And here I’m wondering, how do we, how do you expect China, Iran and all the other countries that could be characterized as America’s opponents- what do you think they think watching this election campaign? What do you think they’re hoping for? What kind of what kind of behavior can we expect from countries like those once the November elections come to a close, and I’ll give you the first Michael, as you’re on the outside of this. So give us the view.
Prof. Michael Cox 42:06
Yeah, okay. What a horrible question to try and answer all that. Well, one, we do know that Ukrainians are worried about a Trump return. I mean, you know, it’s, it’s, it’s not secret, they’ve not been entirely happy with the with the Biden administration, as we know, but they’ve, I speak to a lot of guys, quite clearly on that one, there’s, there’s a deep worry, of course, in Ukraine. And that, of course, also feeds in, secondly, to- to NATO and European Union, um, particularly to NATO. I mean, you know, NATO says we’re going to stand with Ukraine, whatever that means. It means something. It means something. And if you’ve got a candidate such as Donald Trump and and indeed his vice, his vice presidential candidate of Vance who says Ukraine’s not even on our agenda, it’s not part of our national interest, even, what are we doing over there? You know, so it will. It will impact, therefore, on the alliance and on alliances as well. I suppose the big one really, and I’d also like to hear the views of Molly and Danny on this is, this is a silly question, but how did the Chinese view this particular election? And I kind of say, oh, they’d really much prefer Biden or Biden- Harris. Harris, now, sorry, you know, to win because, you know, they want a managed relationship, a stable relationship with the United States, rather than a deeply conflictual one, which I think it is also. On the other hand, you might take the kind of schadenfreude approach to this and say, well, on the other hand, if Trump brings about more chaos within the United States, say, doesn’t accept the result, or even if he comes into power, he kind of does some real damage to alliances the United States, in Europe and indeed in Asia. Well, I’ve been talking to a group of Indonesian diplomats over the last few days, they’re quite worried, by the way, I’m just telling you what they’re telling me, not what I say is true. Then they may say, well, you know, if Trump comes along and weakens the alliances of the United States, this is going to be good for us, and it’ll it’ll give us, it’ll give us a bit of, a bit of a boost as well.
Dr Helena Ivanov 44:10
Molly, how do you think that the foreign actors are preceding these elections, and what are they expecting once the elections come to a close?
Molly Ball 44:18
I’m not as much as of an expert on this as the other two panelists. I will say, having traveled to Asia with a congressional delegation recently. And I think you get the same sense in Europe, there is the sense that the world is broadly on edge about Trump returning to power. But it is also the case that, particularly when it comes to Asia, Trump really reset the American consensus in a way that is permanent. You know, the Biden administration’s approach to China is different, but it certainly is not a callback to Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, the- he has continued a lot of the tariffs. He’s much more about multilateralism and- and, and building alliances, but he has certainly not tried to take back, you know, the the antagonistic relationship that Trump really reset with China. And so I think, I think you’re right on both sides of the question when it comes to China that while they may prefer a more predictable president than Trump would be, they also have, you know, are not fully opposed to an America that is that is in turmoil, that is in chaos. So you know, I think we Kamala Harris, in her statement so far, and during her time as Vice President, has been supportive of the Biden agenda, including defending the pullout from Afghanistan, which was the most unpopular thing that Biden has done in office, in terms of how voters regard him, she has defended that she, you know, don’t think there would be any question about keeping America and NATO if she were to become president, whereas with Trump, that would be a significant question mark. We saw this play out with the debate over Ukraine aid on the senate supplemental earlier this year, where Trump never actually came out against it, but he was viewed as having helped to cede a growing skepticism among the Republican base toward further aid to Ukraine, and largely for that reason, the increased funding that the administration had had requested to send to Ukraine was was blocked for months in the House and Senate. And in fact, the ringleader of the opposition in the Senate was JD Vance, potentially going even farther than Trump on this. And so while the money did eventually pass, and it did pass with a majority of Senate Republicans supporting it there, I think there’s a consensus view in Washington that that’s the last money that Ukraine is likely to get from the United States, that no matter who becomes president, it’s just a non starter with with the American public and and particularly with Republican based Voters, even though, you know, depending on the poll, majority of or, or plurality of Republicans still do support, you know, support Ukraine and support America helping Ukraine. So that’s obviously something that, that people think would be different between the two candidates, depending on who’s elected, and then, well, I was going to talk about Israel, but I think we can get to that later, because that’s a whole other can of worms, but thanks.
Dr Helena Ivanov 47:49
And Danny, how do you how do you think that, you know, major actors are perceiving these elections?
Danielle Pletka 47:55
Um, you know, this is a really hard one for me. I think Joe Biden, you know, I’m a conservative. I hope that everybody’s figured that out by now. I think Joe Biden’s been a terrible president on foreign policy and pretty much everything else. But as Molly rightly said, I’m certainly no JD Vance Republican, and neither, neither was Trump until he was talked into it at the convention. JD Vance was his third choice for vice president and, and I think one that, frankly, Donald Trump has come to regret, but he’s stuck with him now. Here’s the problem. I talked about this earlier, and I want to underscore this. If you look at polls and the if anybody’s interested in Republican views, and one of the most interesting aspects of Republican views, a division of Republican views by people who identify themselves as MAGA, Make America Great Again, or Trumpy, and non-MAGA Republicans. The Ronald Reagan Institute does a terrific poll every summer, and they really dive deep into this. And one of the weirdest and most counterintuitive things is that self identified MAGA Republicans have much more, what we would call Nikki Haley esque views, on internationalism than the others, which is weird as hell and not at all the way you intuit it. So I think that there’s a lot of scope for a Republican president, for Donald Trump, if he’s reelected, to actually have a forward leaning policy. The question is, as Molly asked, is he, does he want to stay in NATO? Doesn’t he want to stay in NATO? We don’t know because, because none of these things are driven by an ideology. None of these things are driven by a vision. None of these things are driven by principle. They’re just what Donald Trump thinks at that moment and potentially what the last person said to Donald Trump on these topics. Now that being said, there is a great madman theory of the American presidency that I increasingly believe in. Iranian proxies in Hamas murdered an American citizen with a shot to the back of the head. Okay? What was the response of the Biden administration? A Justice Department indictment of people who have been on the terrorism list for the last umpteen years. That was it. Now they know who they’re dealing with. The Iranians know who they’re dealing with. We’ve done absolutely nothing on Iran policy, not that the Brits and the French and the Germans have either, for the last three years. Okay, we have on Ukraine, everybody worries what is Donald Trump going to do? We should worry about the fact that the Biden administration has never stood up. The President has never made an address to the nation in which he lays out why it is we need Ukraine to win. And by the way, has never actually supplied weapons at the pace necessary for them to win. All of these things are really important, and their subtleties, and of course, because you’re talking to a foreign policy person, I’m talking about the nerdly aspects of this, not the “oh my god, Donald Trump is going to be president, even the Queen disliked him, he’s so dreadful”, you know, view of sort of what foreigners think. That doesn’t matter. All of this hangs in the balance, and I think we have no idea. I think we know that America will be less in the world if Kamala Harris becomes president. I think we know we will spend less on defense if Kamala Harris becomes president, I think we know we will be less pro Israel if Kamala Harris becomes president. I think we know because they have told the Congress that a Harris administration is will look for a reset with Russia, because it worked so well last time. So we know that it is status quo and worse, Donald Trump is like door number three in the old game show. We have no damn clue what we’re going to get.
Dr Helena Ivanov 52:30
Thanks, Danny. I want to have two more questions, so I’m going to ask the first one. Try and keep your answers sort of brief-ish. The first one is, let’s open that that topic that the last two speakers have ended their comments with which is Israel. What- what do these elections mean for Israel-Hamas war, and I’m going to go back to Michael.
Prof. Michael Cox 52:49
Well, yeah, what a question. What question is? What is it? What is, what is it meaning with inside the United States itself as well. I mean, this is, this is again, going back to the where the debate is happening is inside the US. It’s happening everywhere, of course, and the debate there, I’m sure Danny and Molly won’t be surprised, here, the debate in the United States is somewhat different than it is on this other side of the the Atlantic. I just put it in these terms. I think Helen just to kind of redirect your question without really answering it, is, what impact is this particular tragedy, this particular war, what impact is that having on perceptions of America, within the global south and within Europe. And I know this is not a fair way of putting it, because there are some fundamental issues of principle here, and I’m well aware of that, but perceptions matter, and there’s no question that both China and Russia in particular, have been making hay over- over the US position at the moment on the ceasefire. Now, I’m not saying a ceasefire is easy, and I’m not naive enough. I don’t know enough about the region to claim on it with any degree of certainty, but there’s no question, China, Russia, are making hay on this, and have been making hay on this. And, you know, in from a geopolitical point of view, Danny, getting back to our love of foreign policy in the rest of the world, you know this, this is worrying, and that’s the way I’d kind of think about this more. You know, there are rights and wrongs in- in the situation, on both sides, in what’s going on, and there have been since 1948 and since 47. Come on, this is not a new issue. But it’s the way in which, basically, the United States’ principal rivals, who are in a very close alignment with the- with each other, let’s be honest. And I’ve actually called it an alliance, in all but name, how they’ve exploited this, you know, and every misstep, or whatever step you want to go, maybe not a mistep, but anything that can be exploited, not only about what happens inside the United States, but how America is perceived outside the United States. And you know, the truth of the matter is the right across Europe and indeed across the united- US campuses and certainly in the Middle East, this is damaging and hurting the United States. I say- I don’t say that because I celebrate it. I say that because, therefore, the two principal authoritarian powers which are opposed to the United States, China and Russia, as I say, are making hay while this situation continues. I don’t see any way, easy way out of this. On the other hand, I think this has simply got to be thrown into, into the debate. You’re losing self power, whatever that means. But it’s being lost, and it’s being lost to countries and like China and Russia that, you know, I don’t- wish us any good.
Dr Helena Ivanov 55:43
Thanks. Michael. Molly, to let you continue where you stopped in your last answer.
Molly Ball 55:49
Sure. So I think Danny was very smart to point out that this issue is much smaller than it appears as a political matter inside the demo- inside the United States. Yes, it is an issue that divides the Democratic Party somewhat. You do have some prominent Democrats calling for the administration to restrict the sale of arms to Israel, for example, and to be more sympathetic to the to the Palestinian cause. The Biden administration position has been to continue to support Israel while also trying to enhance humanitarian aid and broker a ceasefire, an end to the conflict. Neither party has seemed as interested in that as the administration is. So it has been difficult to achieve. But you know, for all of the conflagrations that we’ve seen on college campuses and the protests, primarily at democratic events, this is simply not an issue that looms very large in the minds of of even college students, right? Even even college students, when surveyed, say that this is far down the list of the issues that are important to their vote and the students that you see protesting are simply, you know, a small and unrepresentative minority of not just young people’s sentiment, but really student sentiment overall. The Republican Party position has been that the administration is not backing Israel strongly enough, and that the Biden- and that Biden, should you know more strongly support Netanyahu and his prerogatives in order to enable him to finish the war the way he sees fit. That has not been Trump’s position. And Trump has been sort of all over the map on this. He’s he has said that he- he thinks the war is a bad look for Israel and for Netanyahu. He has an ongoing grudge with Netanyahu for what happened during the 2020 election, and that seems to be playing into it. But his general stance on this has just been Israel should, should get it over with, which isn’t really a firm position on, you know, whether and how the parties should reach some kind of agreement, or, you know, who should govern Gaza going forward, or any of the details that are so important to resolving this in some way. So, so I do think it’s an open question how he would handle it. I don’t think it’s that mysterious what he’d do on foreign policy. I mean, he was president before we all saw what he did, but, but, but he also, in his administration, had a lot of the the people that he now derides as Neo cons, right? I mean, Nikki Haley was there for him at the UN and she was a very strong supporter of Israel. She’s not, she’s not going to probably be in the administration. Again, he’s taken care to sort of purge those influences from his orbit. So, you know, Harris has basically reiterated what Biden has said about this, but in a louder voice, and some people have taken that as as her seeming more sympathetic to the Palestinian cause, even though she’s literally saying the same things that Biden has said, just more forcefully. So is it possible that she would take a different approach to this, of course, but she hasn’t really laid out whether and how she would do that.
Dr Helena Ivanov 59:06
Thanks, and Danny, your thoughts on Israel.
Danielle Pletka 59:11
I don’t have a lot to add here. You know, what we’re looking at is not- what we’re looking at is not really about the individuals involved. You know, this, this, this actually is my area of expertise. We are not talking about what Donald Trump thinks of Israel, and what Donald Trump would do on Israel, and what Kamala Harris thinks about Israel and what she would do. We are talking about a change in the political parties that has been underway for about the last 30 years. You know, when I started in this business, in the year dot, the Democratic Party was a bastion of pro Israel sentiment, and American Jews voted, vote consistently 75% and above for the Democratic Party, I’ll be very interested to see what happens in this election. And the Republican Party was made up of people like James Baker and George H.W. Bush, very oriented towards the Sunni Arab world, very skeptical of Israel as the Sunni Arab world has changed. So no connection, I think, but maybe. So the Republican Party has changed, and Republicans, particularly evangelicals, are extraordinarily pro Israel. This is not a Donald Trump phenomenon. This is not a Kamala Harris phenomenon. The one thing I would say is that Joe Biden, who I met first in 1992 when I went to work at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, where he eventually became chairman, is a representative of the old school. He is a representative of the Democratic Party of Joe Lieberman, of Scoop Jackson, that were staunchly pro Israel. That is not what the Democratic Party is today, and it’s not going to be what the Democratic Party is in 10 years. That’s a really long conversation to have at 11:01, and we’re not going to have it. Next time.
Dr Helena Ivanov 1:01:12
I’m just going to ask one final question. Please keep the answer to just a few sentences. But I have to ask we’ve, all of us have been talking about this campaign as you know, sort of existential for America. I think Molly used that specific term at the start. So my very quick question to you, and the final one is, what about the day after? What’s going to happen, like, will the candidates be able after such a divisive campaign that’s been put to such existential terms, will they be able to have a functional post election America? I’m going to go back to go back to the alphabetical order and give Molly the word first.
Molly Ball 1:01:45
I don’t have any reassurance for you on this. I think we have every indication that Trump would handle a potential loss just like he did last time, not accepting it and trying to foment all kinds of challenges, up to and including violence. And so think a lot of people are on edge about the aftermath of this election, no matter who wins, just because of the- that febrile climate, and how, how existential so many people see it could, could lead to some- now, I will say, and I- we published an op ed by a legal scholar named Rick Hasen about why what happened after the 2020 election would be- was probably not going to happen this year. I would recommend it to everyone on wsj.com just because there have been a lot of changes to laws and procedures that do make, for example, another January 6 unlikely. But there’s still a lot that can happen, and I think we’re all pretty worried.
Dr Helena Ivanov 1:02:40
Thank you, Molly. Michael, your final thoughts the day after.
Prof. Michael Cox 1:02:44
I think of the US the day after compared to what happened in Britain. I mean, the British transition was so dull, so stable, so stayed, and everybody kind of then did the British thing, walking together into the new parliament. And then I’m not, I’m not arguing for the superiority of the British system, don’t believe me for one minute on that, but yeah, I mean, I’ve got to follow Molly on this. I mean the level of polarization, and I’m talking from outside, but I got some very good American colleagues here at the LSE, who’ve done a lot of work on this, as indeed, a lot of people have done it. Polarization has been almost a cliche now. But the level of division and that isn’t going to go away. I mean, that’s that, in the end, may be the most significant outcome of this election. You know, elections are supposed to be this nice, peaceful transition of elites, in which one guy accepts the guy who’s just been, you know, lost or won. You know, the old Vilfredo Pareto to kind of quote an Italian sociologist that your post Pareto in the United States, it isn’t a peaceful transfer of elites. There’s a deep legitimacy question about each other. And it also gets back to the point that Danny said about what’s happening in the Democratic Party, what’s happening in the Republican Party. This is simply symptomatic Danny, is it not, of a degree of delegitimization of the other in the United States, and therefore the election will solve a lot, but the one thing it won’t solve is that problem of division and polarization.
Dr Helena Ivanov 1:04:20
Thanks Michael, and Danny, finally, your thoughts on the day after.
Danielle Pletka 1:04:24
Well I’ll keep it neat and tidy. I’m not an American historian, and I wasn’t born an American. I’m one of the evil, although legal immigrants that live here. I- one of my favorite lectures that I heard in the last few years is a lecture by Carl Rove on American unity and polarization in the 19th century, and let me just say it makes us look like the British Parliament and the transfer of power, because it was so polarized, so violent and so outrageous. Now we see all. Bit now, whereas in the olden days, obviously you didn’t, you weren’t able to get on your sub stack and look at what was going on. The big problem for me is a really boring one, and that is the growing propensity of Republican and Democratic leaders not to do their job. And what do I mean by that? When you’re elected president, the first job you need is to staff up your administration. Right? We have hundreds of 1000s of civil servants, what Trump likes to call the deep state, that tend to act like the deep state when pushed. But you are supposed to nominate people for ambassadorships, for assistant secretaryships, for all sorts of positions. And Trump didn’t do that when he was president, but weirdly, Joe Biden didn’t do that when he was president either. Now we can talk about why, and a lot of that comes back to the fact that we also have a Congress that doesn’t do its job, right? We’re supposed to pass 13 appropriations bills to fund the government every year. We never do, and that’s sort of boring inside politics. But if that is your job, if you are the check writer of the US government, and instead of writing individual checks every October you panic and just say, well, we’ll just do what we did last year, then you’re really not doing what the American people are paying you for. And for me, much more than you know the guy with the horns on his head for January 6, much more than Stormy Daniels, much more than Hunter’s laptop and his ugly coke habit is the fact that nobody in Washington seems to think it’s their responsibility to do their constitutionally mandated job, and that the American people are kind of fine with that. So that’s my last word on the topic, and I think that’s one of the more worrying things about our future.
Dr Helena Ivanov 1:07:00
Thank you so much, Danny. Thank you all. Thank you Michael, thank you Molly. Thank you Danny. Thank you to the audience. This was a few minutes extra, but I think it was totally worth it. Well, we’ll keep our eyes open to see what happens in November. Stay tuned and join other Henry Jackson society’s events. Thank you so much, everyone.