Listen to the article
The Lebanese people are no strangers to political violence and assassinations, sadly. Nor are the American people, even if our experience is less frequent or systematic. One advantage we have is that we remain a nation of institutions, capable of doing what is essential at moments like this — credible, impartial, and transparent investigations to find out what exactly happened. There will always be conspiracy theorists from our society’s right and left margins. But speculation masquerading as evidence or analysis can only be refuted by the facts.
Since pundits must earn their living, there is already — hours after the assassination attempt on former President Donald Trump in Butler, Pennsylvania — no shortage of assessments of its impact on the election. At this still-early stage, it seems obvious the task for the Democrats has been made even harder. First, there is the issue of image. On the one hand, the June 27 presidential debate in Atlanta gave our nation a hard-to-erase image of an incumbent president struggling to communicate coherent thoughts and appearing even older than his 81 years. On the other hand, there are iconic images of his opponent on July 13 showing a commanding bearing, defiance, and presence of mind under dire circumstances. Those are exactly the qualities many Americans seek and admire in a leader. Second, there is the issue of campaign strategy. The Democrats, who have already suspended campaign ads attacking Trump, will find it hard to target and demonize Trump and “MAGA Republicans” as they have been doing and apparently had planned to amplify. They’ll need a strategy re-boot. President Biden began with his address to the nation on July 14. He called for cooling down political rhetoric and for discourse based on good faith, reason, and decency. We’ll see. Our election is four months away and we have already endured some astonishing developments. Maybe the candidates will focus on actual, concrete policy issues, a change that some might find most astonishing of all. Above all, for Trump it will be key to stick to the high road and theme of unity he has so far adopted; for Biden, if he will no longer cast Trump as evil incarnate, he will rely on highlighting competing visions for our future.
When it comes to foreign policy and national defense strategy after the election, there may be more consensus — regardless of who wins in November — than either side is prepared to admit. On trade restrictions, there are few differences between the two candidates, although Trump has promised to increase them even more. On immigration, Biden’s election-eve conversion to a tougher line may soften in a second term, but Republicans and Democrats showed earlier this year that compromise and consensus are possible in the effort to control our borders. There is a broad, bipartisan consensus on our approach to China. As for the Middle East, no matter who gets elected a course correction on Iran policy will be imperative, since the Biden team’s support for a restored JCPOA nuclear deal is obsolete. Trump would redouble his maximum pressure strategy toward Iran; it is less obvious what the Democrats would do, but their current policy of not having a policy is unsustainable. A Trump administration would be less ardently hopeful about a two-state outcome for Israelis and Palestinians. But in any case, it is hard to see how even introducing creative, informed, and effective American diplomacy could overcome the current reality that neither Israelis nor Palestinians seem interested in the compromises and tradeoffs that such a two-state outcome requires — and by “current reality” I mean for the past two decades. On NATO, Trump’s unconventional rhetoric made clear that allies could not expect a free ride — and whatever Trump’s foes may state, that tough line did compel increased defense spending by many NATO members and lay the groundwork for Biden’s choreography of NATO’s contributions to Ukraine’s self-defense. One policy departure: a Trump administration is likely to seek increased U.S. defense spending to outpace inflation, unlike our current budget. Such a position would help enhance America’s deterrence posture against actors such as China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea. The national security tone and style of the two possible presidencies would markedly differ, but less so the policy goals each seeks. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion on which style is more likely to get attention and results.
There is less change than meets the eye in recent elections in the UK, France, and Iran. Even though the shift in voters toward Labor was tiny, the loss of Tory support to smaller parties has given Labor an outsized parliamentary majority. Labor can do most anything it wants for now, but its leaders would be wise to remember they have little more public support today than they did in 2019. Staying in tune with public opinion may preclude radical change. In France, the two-stage election system did its job by keeping the National Front at bay for now, but at the price of what may be a paralyzing cohabitation of natural opponents. Stymied on the domestic front, President Macron may channel his abundant energies into foreign policy, where the president has his own authority. However, France can accomplish little on its own without partners in NATO or the EU, so there are inherent boundaries there as well. Finally, the election of a regime-tolerated moderate as Iran’s president does show a public yearning for change at least on gender and human rights, and perhaps the economy, but power does not rest with the presidency, especially on external policies. Expect no change in Iran’s strategy of menacing its neighbors through proxies and the pursuit of its nuclear ambitions.
So, despite all the tumult, for better or worse the prospect for radical policy change in 2025 may not be so great after all. However, the one major exception may be all that matters: who is more likely to enhance America’s deterrent posture, the incumbent we saw in Atlanta on June 27, or the challenger we saw in Butler on July 13? That’s for voters to decide.
