What to expect if Kamala Harris becomes president

Friends and adversaries will challenge and test the administration.

Even when successive presidents are from the same political party, such as the administrations of Ronald Reagan (1981-1989) and George Bush (1989-1993), American foreign policy contains elements of both continuity and change. If Kamala Harris succeeds Joe Biden as the president of the United States in January 2025, this will also likely be the case. Even though Ms. Harris and Mr. Biden agree on the fundamental directions for foreign and security policy, adjustments are inevitable. In part, this is because presidents have to respond to the turmoil of the geopolitical environment. But it is also because presidents select their own senior staff and cabinet, and new key officials lead to shifts in priorities.

Applying core liberal principles

In terms of advisors, leaders and ideas, the presidencies of Barack Obama (2009-2017) and Joe Biden (2021-2025) were strongly aligned. The basic principles of American liberal policy will no doubt also apply to a Harris administration.

Engagement: Bill Clinton was the Democratic party’s first post-Cold War president. Mr. Clinton (1993-2001) was known for his “engagement and enlargement” policy, which embraced internationalism and supported the expansion of democratic regimes that complied with international norms. Although former President Obama, President Biden and Vice President Harris also promote the expansion and defense of democracy, engagement focuses on de-escalating conflicts with adversarial regimes such as Russia, China and Iran, seeking compromise whenever possible. Mr. Biden and Ms. Harris, for example, consistently argue that China should and must be a partner in implementing the global green transition. They were also open to engagement with Iran, and sought to find common ground with Tehran on supporting the cause of a Palestinian state. Despite current confrontations with China, Russia and Iran, a Harris administration would likely look for opportunities to cooperate with all three.

Incrementalism: Mr. Obama, Mr. Biden and Ms. Harris all favor policies that call for the restrained use of force, and prefer non-military means to advance national interests. Their preference is to take an incrementalist approach and to use the minimum amount of coercion necessary to achieve desired outcomes. This was reflected, for instance, in the Biden administration’s measured efforts to deter Russia from attacking Ukraine, which began with a series of diplomatic measures and threats of economic sanction. The U.S. response only became more robust after it became clear that deterrence had failed.

Globalism and liberalism: Without question, Democratic leaders believe in a structural approach to foreign policy, which holds that establishing international norms and institutions is key to managing state behavior. They also believe in established practices such as traditional foreign aid as important instruments for international cooperation and global governance. For instance, the Biden-Harris administration remains committed to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) despite the spiraling controversies surrounding the agency since the outbreak of Palestinian violence on October 7 and the Israeli response.

Future challenges

Although the playbook of American liberal governance is well established, all presidents have to adapt to the reality on the ground. Here are the most significant challenges a Democratic president would face.

Rise of global conservativism: European populists and the growing strength of the center-right and conservatives in Europe is not a passing phase, but an increasingly important political force. President Harris would likely not be able to count on a preponderance of European voices sharing her liberal views toward foreign policy. The European Union will increasingly struggle to speak with one voice. The European landscape will look less and less like a place where the U.S. can rely on a “one-stop shop” to coordinate with Europe. This will also be true of the G7. President Harris would engage with leaders who are not like-minded on a range of issues, from migration to economic matters.

Nuclear policy: In the near term, the next U.S. president will face nuclear parity with Russia and China, and a possible nuclear breakout from Iran. The space competition is accelerating, and demands for missile defense will increase. Former President Obama entered office advocating for a “road to nuclear zero” and opposing nuclear modernization. The realities of nuclear competition and extended deterrence could force a Harris administration to completely abandon Democratic orthodoxies on this issue. In addition, the Biden strategy of “integrated” deterrence will likely prove completely inadequate and in need of revision.

Antisemitism and anti-Zionism: The tensions between support for the Palestinians and traditional Democratic support for combating antisemitism and anti-Zionism are creating enormous tensions within the Democratic party. How a Harris administration would address this challenge will greatly affect both future domestic politics and U.S. security and foreign policy.

Economy: The Biden-Harris policy of promoting growth through government spending and higher taxes could well be seen as completely unrealistic by 2025. After promising voters lower inflation and better conditions for the middle and working classes, Ms. Harris will find few traditional liberal policies that can deliver on this promise. Further, the Biden administration has imposed more tariffs and sanctions than the Trump administration and has not completed a single free trade agreement. This will make it difficult to champion free-market policies.

Climate and energy policy: No aspect of liberal governance has achieved a more definitive consensus than the commitment to a green transition agenda and net-zero goals. Yet, these policies are being increasingly questioned around the world, from developed countries with lagging growth to developing countries mired in energy poverty. The liberal orthodoxy might prove unsustainable. Ms. Harris has already claimed she no longer supports banning fracking.

Latin America and immigration: Nowhere has the Democratic policy of engagement and alignment failed more significantly than in Latin America, where the U.S. faces the expanding influence of China, Russia and Iran as well as international criminal and terrorist networks. The illegal population of the U.S. increased under the Biden-Harris administration, and human trafficking from Asia, the Middle East and Africa increased significantly. The chances of a future administration addressing the issue by having Congress approve a mass amnesty are near zero.

Africa:  Africa is undergoing a demographic boom. Within decades Africa will have the youngest population in the world, adding an additional half billion people. Current U.S. policies that rely on traditional instruments and often press Africans to adopt liberal values regarding family, life and gender, are not adequately addressing Africa’s need for growth, security and political stability. A Harris administration would have to face the consequences of this shortcoming, among them dwindling U.S. influence in the region.

Iran: The current Democratic policy toward Iran appears unsustainable. In addition to failing to ameliorate U.S.-Iran relations, constrain Iran’s surrogates or stem the regime’s nuclear weapons program, several individuals among the Biden-Harris staff are currently accused of being sympathetic to or even working for Tehran. The case of Robert Malley, the suspended U.S. Special Representative for Iran, is only the most noteworthy.

This essay was originally published here: https://www.gisreportsonline.com/r/harris-presidency/