"The United States is now at the pinnacle of world power. This is a solemn moment for American democracy. For with the primacy of power comes an awe-inspiring responsibility for the future. If you look around you, you must recognize not only a sense of duty done, but also an anxiety not to fall below the level of achievement".
Almost seven decades have passed since British Prime Minister Winston Churchill's historic speech in Fulton, Missouri, in which he first mentioned the "Iron Curtain" dividing Europe into East and West, but the role of American democracy has not changed, and the world is the anticipation of the presidential elections is facing new conflicts and divisions, increasingly looking towards the White House and Washington.
As things stand now, in November, American voters, like four years ago, will choose between Democrat and incumbent President Joe Biden and Republican Donald Trump, and the outcome of the vote will have a significant impact on US foreign policy, and therefore on the war in Ukraine, relations with China, the conflict in the Middle East, as well as some European issues, including the Balkans.
"Since the US is probably the most powerful country in the world, with the largest economy and influence, on every continent and in every country, its decisions resonate. Also, American culture is great and is adopted by people all over the world. So what happens in America has an impact. These elections, if they are Donald Trump and Joe Biden, will really determine the direction of America, the course of events, allies, foreign policy priorities, domestic policy, and will also show the state of our democracy. A lot is at stake," Leonard Steinhorn, a professor at the American University in Washington, told VOA.
The future of the NATO alliance and the war in Ukraine
For Christopher Preble from the Stimson Center in Washington, the American presidential elections gained additional weight in the eyes of the world eight years ago, when Trump appeared and began advocating a significantly different foreign policy compared to the continuity that the two parties, Democrats and Republicans, have mostly successfully nurtured decades before that.
"He didn't really implement it, but at least he talked about it. And that's why I think that maybe the election is more important now for other countries because of the potential for US foreign policy to actually change depending on who gets elected," Preble told Voice of America.
“As president, he hasn't really made as many changes as you would expect, given his rhetoric. So, for example, the number of American troops in Europe as part of the NATO alliance actually grew, as did the number of countries in NATO under Trump."
Nevertheless, Preble believes that in the event of Trump's victory, this time there could really be a reduction of American troops in NATO, which would "undermine the credibility of the alliance".
Jeffrey Friedman, a professor at Dartmouth College and a visiting lecturer at Harvard University, estimates that one of the main differences between Biden and Trump is exactly how they see America's role in the world in the coming period.
"This is especially evident in Biden's attempts to have support from European capitals, while Trump has a much more repulsive way of dealing with Europe. I think that's the difference you'd expect to see between the candidates if they're in office. Also, we see a very sharp divergence in how they think about the war in Ukraine. Those are two examples from important policy areas where voter choices are likely to have a pretty important impact on America's role in the world over the next four years," Friedman explains to Voice of America.
Professor Christopher Preble states that a second term for Biden would represent continuity in American foreign policy and the way the White House treats its allies.
"Biden has repeatedly confirmed the USA's commitment to Europe, which, of course, was accelerated by the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the addition of two new NATO members, Sweden and Finland. Although in 2020 many were concerned that the alliance was falling apart, it has become more important. The only exception to that, I would say, is that President Biden and other American leaders are increasingly focused on Asia, on competition with China. If Biden really wanted to fulfill that commitment and highlight Asia, somehow leaving Europe in the background, it would put more responsibility on the shoulders of other NATO members or even the EU."
For several months now, President Biden and the Democrats have been struggling to pass a military aid package for Ukraine in Congress, as Republicans demand that their demands for a stronger immigration policy be met.
"They're trying to solve it on Capitol Hill now, and that's why Ukraine is a big issue. Biden is nervous about the US's commitment to Ukraine and the inability to raise funds without some sort of deal on immigration. In many ways, these two things are connected," says Steinhorn.
Middle East and Asia
Leonard Steinhorn from the American University says that Trump's return to power could bring America the formation of alliances with completely different partners abroad, but that it could also affect the way the US relates to the conflict between Israel and Hamas in the Middle East.
"The question is which allies the Trump administration would prioritize over Biden's." Trump could get closer to Viktor Orbán, while Biden might find it uncomfortable. It will certainly have an impact on the Middle East, given the situation with Israel and the Palestinians and the Arab countries. China is another big question, as well as how much the US will deal with Central and South America, as well as Africa”.
The latest episode of the Middle East crisis began on October 7 with an attack by the Palestinian extremist organization Hamas in which 1.200 people were killed and 240 kidnapped. Israel responded with an offensive on the Gaza Strip that has killed more than 25.000 people so far. The US has traditionally supported Israel, which has split the Democratic Party electorate, while Republicans are much more unified on the issue.
"Look at how many American Jews feel, then Muslims or Arab Americans. That could play a big role, for example, in the state of Michigan, which has a fairly large population of Arab-Americans, many of whom voted for Joe Biden in 2020. But they may be distancing themselves because of Biden's full support for Israel, although over time that may changes".
Christopher Preble recalls that the current administration in the White House believed until last fall that it would not have to deal too much with the possibility of conflict in the Middle East.
"Even national security adviser Jake Sullivan said before the war that the Middle East had not been so peaceful for a long time. He regretted it, and the brutal attack on Israel by Hamas, and then the retaliation that followed, completely disrupted that. And now there is a real danger of war escalating as is the case with Houthi attacks on ships and some attacks in Iraq and elsewhere. So I don't think either President Biden or President Trump would want to spend even more time and attention on the Middle East than Europe and Asia, but they may not have a choice," says Prebl.
Jeffrey Friedman states that many current US allies show "more anxiety" about the possibility of Trump being re-elected, because they see him as less trustworthy, "regardless of whether this is actually true", and points out that the long-term focus of American foreign policy will be on to Asia.
"In the medium and long term, both sides would almost certainly agree that US relations with China will be the main issue. If there is one diplomatic issue in the world with high stakes and a predictable chance of a major crisis, it would be this. Fortunately, on this point, Democrats and Republicans in the United States are relatively in agreement. Both sides are quite wary of China's growing power. Both tried to work with East Asian allies in similar ways. The way the US works with India and the quadrilateral dialogue to contain China is pretty consistent across administrations."
The Balkans in the background
Interlocutors of the Voice of America believe that the issue of the Balkans, relations between the countries of that region, their attitudes towards the war in Ukraine and the general state of the democratic systems in those societies will be the subject of US interest even after the presidential elections, but within the "broader picture and context".
"Now in the U.S., it's not an issue that presidential candidates are talking about a lot on the campaign trail, but I think it fits into a broader set of concerns among American voters and leaders about what is often described as a spreading crisis around the world." To that could be added challenges with attacks on shipping lanes in the Red Sea or Venezuela. I think that the crisis in Serbia fits in the sense that there is a growing feeling that the status quo is unstable and falling apart. And the question is what role should the United States play in trying to help manage those conflicts," says Jeffrey Friedman.
He estimates that it is "almost certain" that another Biden administration would be more inclined to participate in attempts to manage these conflicts than Trump's.
"Trump has been quite vocal in trying to limit America's strategic commitments. He tended to be very skeptical about intervening in any country," he adds.
Analyzing the possible consequences of the outcome of the presidential elections for the Balkans, Christopher Preble says that there are more important parts of the European continent for the USA at the moment.
"But because of President Biden's commitment to Europe, expanding and strengthening the NATO alliance, there is concern about the potential for conflict in the Balkans that could pose a threat to NATO. And so, he may want to spend more time on it than Trump would, because Europe is not a high priority for him. America will probably pay some attention to the Balkans, but not like the rest of Europe or the Middle East or Asia".
Leonard Steinhorn explains that the attention that the US will pay to the Balkans is in many ways "connected to the relationship with Russia and how it will develop".
"It is a consequence of Russia's enormous influence on part of the Balkans and concerns about the war in Ukraine, but also how it is being maintained in NATO. During his term in office, Trump talked about a possible withdrawal from NATO or the US distancing itself. If the world as we know it turns upside down, the question is how do we rebuild alliances and which countries do we prioritize as friends and allies if we go that far under a potentially more isolationist administration like Trump's. All this has consequences, maybe not directly, but certainly indirectly".
How important is foreign policy in the campaign, and how important is the economy?
Jeffrey Friedman, a visiting professor at Harvard, points out that although foreign policy can be a very important factor in voters' decisions, other topics generally dominate.
"Broadly speaking, in US presidential elections, we think recent economic conditions are the main variable shaping voter attitudes. Obviously, many people's vote is influenced by which party they belong to. At this point, there are probably only 10 percent of voters or less whose votes are truly available to either party. And we think that when those voters decide which party to support, they do so on the basis of economic conditions".
He states that he recently worked on research that indicated that "concerns about foreign policy could affect one to two percent of the vote share, which is not much if you want to explain the choice voters make on the ballot."
"But given how close the US presidential election is, and the difference in favor of the winner often comes down to a few tens of thousands of votes, the parties will fight furiously for every percentage of the vote. Even if economic factors tend to dominate national security factors in explaining who gets the most votes in presidential elections, it still plays an important role in candidate strategies."
Friedman adds that the practice in the pre-election campaign is to always hold one national presidential debate exclusively devoted to foreign policy issues. "And I think that's where presidential elections really shape U.S. foreign policy, because the candidates are so eager to get that small portion of the vote that's within their reach."
A tense and uncertain fight
Professor Leonard Steinhorn says he expects an uncertain election, but ignores the polls because, he says, they show what people think at that moment and does not mean they will have the same views in November.
“Additionally, there is the 'wildcard' - a potential third-party candidate and how he can make an impact. For example, if Ralph Nader had not run as a third-party candidate in 2000, Al Gore would probably have been president instead of George W. Bush. Maybe we wouldn't have had a war in Iraq or there would have been other Supreme Court justices. If that had been the case, we might not have seen Roe v. Wade overturned a few years ago."
He also explains that the system in presidential elections is such that the winner is not the one who receives the most votes at the level of the entire country.
“It doesn't matter that Hillary Clinton beat Donald Trump by millions of votes or that George W. Bush lost to Al Gore by 600.000 votes nationwide. It matters who wins the electoral college. And the electoral college is increasingly determined by a small number of states. That's why these are the elections that are being decided in states like Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Arizona and Nevada. And it is very possible that Donald Trump could lose again by millions of votes and still enter the electoral college with a chance to win the presidency".
Christopher Preble estimates that small differences in a few states can have a huge impact on the final outcome.
“You can have very, very large differences in certain states, for example, you know, California and New York. But small differences in a few states can have a huge impact. And so I think that, like in 2016 and 2020, we will see that the elections will be decided in four to six uncertain states".
Jeffrey Friedman assesses that the fact that America is likely to face another uncertain election "causes additional concern". “You can imagine all kinds of legal challenges that could arise. And I think in the U.S. at this point, many are concerned about the recurrence of that kind of discontent. And, you know, like in the case of January 6, the rebellion that followed the 2020 election or maybe something that would be even worse this time."
The shadow of the Capitol invasion looms over the election
Christopher Preble of the Stimson Center says that he hopes for a peaceful election and post-election process, but that the memory of the invasion of the Washington Capitol by Trump supporters on January 6, 2021, causes "concern among many Americans."
"I hope that regardless of what happens in terms of the actual counting of votes - whoever loses it will do so with dignity. As all previous presidential candidates have done and acknowledged the results of the election - something President Trump has refused to do after the 2020 election.”
Jeffrey Friedman points out that he is not sure that America will "avoid a repeat of something like January 6" and explains it by claiming that many Trump supporters are still convinced that he won the previous election, and then it was stolen.
He says that to that should be added the current dissatisfaction of many with the economic situation, because many believe that Biden is doing a bad job on that issue.
"Imagine, if Trump were to lose again, I think that kind of crisis is possible. Again, it's hard to believe that security forces would be surprised by that kind of challenge, as they appeared to be with Capitol Police in 2020. And it would be hard to imagine the FBI and other law enforcement agencies not putting more resources into preparing for it than which they were in the past. So I think it is to be hoped that the government will be more prepared for that than it was in 2020".
Leonard Steinhorn says that four years ago, the basic principle of America was violated - that democracy is a good thing both when you win and when you lose. This, he adds, undermines trust in institutions.
“There was no evidence of fraud at any significant level. And even in those few accidental scams, Democrats and Republicans alike participated. And over time, everyone who tried to prove that there was a fraud, failed. Neither the commission of George W. Bush nor even the task force of Donald Trump and his administration found anything and they were disbanded. When you sow the seeds of distrust in the democratic system only when you lose, and believe in democracy only when you win, it ceases to be democracy".
He assesses that American society must rebuild trust in institutions and that this includes democratic voting, an independent judiciary, freedom of the media and non-governmental organizations.
"We have reached a point where distrust in our democratic institutions has risen to a very uncomfortable level. Another question we have to face in these elections is - how do we want to restore trust in those institutions to make sure that our democracy is functional. "Whether you win or lose, the way to change something is not to question the results of a legitimate defeat, but to convince people to vote against it next time," Steinhorn concluded.
Bonus video:
