As the 2024 US presidential election reaches a fever pitch, America finds itself at a crucial crossroads. The stakes are incredibly high for the country itself, yet the rest of the world appears less invested than in previous years. While the two candidates, Democratic nominee Kamala Harris and Republican challenger Donald Trump, present vastly different visions for America’s future, their approaches to international policy surprisingly converge on several critical issues, leaving other nations with limited hope for any substantial shift in US global strategy.
The combative rhetoric and polarization in the current race underscore the intensity of the moment. Harris, who has been subjected to labels like “slow” and “low IQ” by Trump, has responded by calling her opponent “unstable” and a potential “fascist”—a sharp escalation in a country that has long viewed itself as a global standard-bearer for democracy. This vitriolic back-and-forth reflects both the close nature of the race and the high stakes within the US. However, when it comes to matters that concern the global community, analysts suggest that either outcome is unlikely to bring about significant change.
The Domestic Battle: Identity, Autonomy, and Rule of Law
For Americans, this election represents more than just a contest for the presidency; it’s a referendum on fundamental values. The US economy is faring relatively well, with inflation cooling and employment steady. However, issues related to national identity, social justice, and democratic integrity have become far more prominent. Trump’s hardline stance on immigration—encapsulated in his call to “Make America Great Again” by drawing up bridges—remains popular among his base. This approach has forced Harris to adopt a tougher stance on border control while promoting a narrative of inclusivity, a strategy reminiscent of former President Obama’s messaging.
The “idea of America” itself is at stake in this election. Trump’s platform raises existential questions about whether the US still aspires to be a refuge for the world’s “tempest-tossed” or whether it will close itself off from the rest of the globe. Another key issue is reproductive rights, with Harris championing bodily autonomy for women in stark opposition to Trump’s conservative stance on abortion. Many see this as a clash between patriarchy and gender equality, with implications for the country’s broader commitment to individual freedoms.
The election also serves as a sort of referendum on Trump himself. Following the January 6 Capitol riot and multiple legal challenges, Trump’s bid for a second term has reignited questions about the rule of law and respect for democratic institutions. Though “the economy, stupid” has traditionally been the focal point of US elections, this year the social and legal consequences of a Trump victory—or a Harris win—are impossible to ignore.
A Waning Global Impact: The World Watches, but Not as Closely
In previous elections, the world anxiously awaited the results of the US presidential race, anticipating potential shifts in foreign policy that could have global implications. However, this year, while nations like China, Russia, and Iran keep a close eye on the outcome, the broader global community appears less concerned than usual. This indifference stems from an apparent convergence between Trump and Harris on key foreign policy issues, suggesting that neither candidate will significantly alter the US’s current trajectory on international matters.
On climate policy, for instance, Harris would likely pursue a more aggressive stance on carbon emissions than Trump, though her recent softening on fossil fuels marks a departure from the Democratic Party’s past environmental ambitions. Similarly, on trade, while Trump’s proposed tariffs could disrupt global markets, few expect Harris to embrace open trade policies or support World Trade Organization oversight. Both candidates are wary of China’s economic rise and seem committed to maintaining a “small yard, high fence” policy that restricts foreign access to critical American industries. The US no longer champions free-market ideals as it once did, and this shift appears set to continue, regardless of who wins.
Limited Hope for Peace and Stability Abroad
When it comes to international conflict and peacekeeping, expectations for both candidates are notably low. Trump has claimed that he would have prevented the recent escalation in the Middle East, as well as instability in Europe and parts of Asia, but has not offered specifics on how he would have achieved this. His past policies favored a transactional approach to foreign relations, with little regard for diplomatic stability. Meanwhile, Harris has faced criticism for her stance on the Israel-Gaza conflict. Her effort to balance military support for Israel with expressions of sympathy for Gaza has not resonated well, particularly among anti-war advocates and those critical of US interventionism. Critics argue that her rhetoric on Gaza falls flat, and her foreign policy record thus far fails to offer a compelling alternative to America’s current approach to the “axis of upheaval” geopolitical strategy.
Harris has attempted to navigate these complex issues, yet her campaign’s targeted messaging in key states has provided an opening for Trump to present himself as the clearer, if more blunt, option. While Trump remains shrouded in uncertainty on matters of foreign policy, he has successfully leveraged his “you get what you see” persona, appealing to voters wary of political ambiguity. His supporters believe he will keep the US out of entangling alliances and focus on domestic interests, while critics argue that his return to the presidency could exacerbate global instability.
America’s Role in the World: A Reflection of Internal Divisions
As America grapples with its own identity crisis, the rest of the world is left questioning the reliability and direction of US leadership. The chaotic nature of the 2024 race has led many observers to see America as a nation embroiled in internal conflict, distracted from its role as a global leader. Foreign diplomats and analysts alike note that the US’s focus on its internal issues, such as the battle over immigration and reproductive rights, has further diminished its standing as a beacon of democracy and freedom.
Indeed, the polarized nature of this election raises doubts about the US’s ability to unify on a global stage. With one side championing inclusivity and progressive ideals, and the other pushing for a return to traditional values and closed borders, the outcome of this election may reflect America’s future trajectory more than its global ambitions. Yet the consequences of America’s introspection are likely to resonate around the world. As the country continues to debate the nature of its democracy, its global allies and rivals are paying close attention, though with less investment than in the past.
The Path Forward: Internal Focus or Global Responsibility?
For now, it remains uncertain whether the next US president will prioritize global cooperation or continue down a path of nationalistic focus. Both Harris and Trump have taken inward-looking stances on issues that would have previously held significant sway in the international community. This inward focus, combined with the US’s waning commitment to free-market policies, has led many observers to conclude that the era of US-led globalization may be fading.
The 2024 election may indeed be a “photo finish,” with implications for America’s future and its identity. Yet, for the rest of the world, the stakes may be lower than in previous elections. Many international observers are resigned to the fact that, regardless of who wins, the US will continue to prioritize domestic issues and maintain a cautious approach to global engagement.
As America debates its role on the world stage, other nations are watching with tempered expectations. For now, they seem to accept that US influence, while still substantial, will likely focus more on domestic challenges than on reshaping the world order.
