Translated from GegenStandpunkt 4-2024

The issues of the American election campaign

Why Americans need strong leadership

The fears have come true – that’s how it’s seen in Germany and not only there. Hopes are high – that’s how it’s seen in Hungary and not only there. Either way: everyone is in on the excitement, worldwide. The American election campaign, and especially its result, not only captivates the Americans, but all countries and all peoples, not just somehow or other, but quite intensely. You can’t blame them. How the ongoing and impending wars in three regions of the world will go; under what conditions the world market of today and tomorrow will even exist; who will have the most powerful ruler in the world on their side in the struggle between established and “populist” parties and what that actually means ... – all of this depends on the outcome of the competition between two contenders for the leadership of the world’s superpower, whose list of tasks they itemize very differently. The states of the world have from early on been probing the opportunities and impositions that the victory of the respective candidate could pose for their own national calculations and claims; their peoples, who in practice they make responsible for this, have also become mentally involved. In the end, the entire world has formed a more or less fixed opinion on how democracy and the general customs of the world power USA are faring.

It’s just that the world doesn’t have a say there. This world power is a model democracy, so it’s only accountable to its own citizens. The latter are therefore deluged with messages during the election campaign that the candidates are all about them, and in which ways.[1] In this general sense, the chauvinistic slogan “America first!” is not just Donald Trump’s slogan, but the guiding principle of the entire event. The top representative of this slogan has now won. So clearly that he can put aside the plans to carry out his threats against those who wanted to cheat him out of his predetermined victory. He even won the “popular vote” this time, so his victory can’t be blamed on the archaic “electoral college” as planned. The electorate’s rightward shift to Trump has swept the nation, across rural and urban areas alike, and across ethnic, age and gender lines. Trump’s Republican Party has also captured a majority in both houses of Congress; the Supreme Court is already firmly in the hands of conservatives. How did he do it?

The media in America, like in Germany, had half a dozen explanations ready as soon as the result was announced. All in all, they cast American voters in a rather bad light – as they do Harris’ Democrats, who failed to prevent the wrong candidate from doing the unthinkable. One finding plays a very prominent role in this, and probably not without good reason: after an eventful summer of campaigning, in which the citizens were repeatedly instructed that what they need above anything else is energetic leadership at the top,[2] it is said that it was ultimately the issues that tipped the scales. It will never be possible to know whether this was really the case; in a democracy, what specifically motivates the citizens is something they are allowed to keep to themselves. What is certain, however, are the alternatives that were offered by the candidates for getting their votes. And that’s eloquent enough.

1. The economy

“‘'It’s the economy, stupid!’ This famous phrase was coined by Democratic campaign strategist James Carville during the 1992 presidential election. And since then, it has been burned into the minds of many observers. It’s the bread and butter issues that significantly influence Americans’ voting decisions, they say. A new Gallup poll from this week confirms that this is true for this year’s presidential election, and to a particularly large extent.” (Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 10.12, 24)

It’s well known that in capitalist democracies three or four fixed criteria have been established to determine whether the economy is doing well or not: growth, employment, the stock market, inflation. The relevant numbers should tell everyone – whether a dishwasher or a millionaire – whether the economy is doing the way it should, i.e. whether satisfaction is trending. Things are different during an election campaign, however. Voters are then offered the opportunity to think solely of themselves when it comes to “the economy.” Overall economic indicators of success undoubtedly remain relevant, but in line with the eternal dictum that “you can’t fill your gas tank with GDP,” the voters should calmly appoint themselves as measuring rods of all economic matters and assess the pretenders to power according to their own well-being. The relevant question is traditionally: “Am I better off today than I was four years ago?” Mind you, there is no talk of “well” or “badly.” It’s about a question that citizens have to answer in the voting booth – they have to make a comparison for this purpose and translate how they are doing economically into the choice of a political leader.

That’s pretty strange. After all, in a free market economy, as everyone knows, “the economy goes on by itself.” A free market economy is celebrated for the fact that the well-being of the free individual depends above all on his personal abilities. But now the self-responsible American, notoriously allergic to authoritarian paternalism, is supposed to imagine his economic situation in such a way that it hinges on the appointment of the head of state? The candidates help him out: the Republican camp advises him to think about the steep rise in prices that he has had to pay for gas, food and a home for the past few years. Of course, no further details are to be expected as to what this has to do with the Democratic administration in the White House; a certain superstition about the relationship between prices and presidents is certainly sufficient for voters to make a decision. With the counter-argument “Biden has created more jobs than Trump!”, the Democratic camp resorts to outright lying to the voters, who know exactly who is hiring and firing them. Harris follows suit with a certain impudence: Her own biographical roots are so very “middle class”; hardly any other member of the political elite has such a level of human understanding for the hardships facing the average citizen; so she’ll sort things out. As usual, Trump, always more honest, takes the opposite approach: voters can only dream of being as rich as him; his leadership can only be good for their situation. And as rich as he already is, there can be no better way to guarantee that a politician is serious when he promises to devote himself entirely to the difficulties of his citizens.

The extent to which voters take such dubious arguments seriously is ultimately impossible to determine; as voters, they have no right to object, only to say yes to one of the alternatives on offer. In any case, this nonsense is very revealing – not only about how non-objective it can be when politically mature citizens have to turn their economic situation into a question of good governance, but also about the free self-responsibility of the individual in a market economy. The candidates are obviously well aware of what this ultimately consists of: a test of responsibility for oneself in the face of constraints and a dependence on conditions not determined by the citizens and which they do not even have to understand. This obviously applies to everyone: to wealthy achievers as well as to those who have to check the price of gas to the third decimal point every day. Regardless of whether you are competing for your own enrichment or struggling to get by in the service of the enrichment of others: Freedom needs authority, and one that is very active to the fullest extent. So for all their pride in their self-responsibility in competition, it is taken for granted that citizens have an extremely affirmative consciousness of their dependence on higher authorities. On this basis, they are given an offer to make a claim that merely testifies to the fact that their free self-determination is realized in a vote for a supreme boss: they should calmly insist that the political leadership does its job properly, and does it in any case as ordered, so that their dependent pursuit of happiness – everyone in their role – is successful.

“As ordered” is traditionally defined by American presidential candidates as sparing the hard-working Americans from the burden that government power always means for them. In Donald Trump’s case, it’s a simple story: he announces the continuation and deepening of his previous tax cuts for companies and the country’s wealthy, as well as a series of new ones. Those who have a lot of money should keep it and use it as capital. In keeping with the operative interdependencies of the free market economy, this will not only benefit the wealthy, but also and especially everyone else: if all goes well, jobs will always trickle down to members of the working class, especially after the abolition of regulatory restrictions on how corporations deal with nature and with themselves. They can take what they can get from the jobs that will then exist as a challenge to their own self-responsibility. Harris, for her part, promises a whole range of relief measures for the notoriously “struggling middle class,” which is now also grappling with rising prices where it really hurts. She announces a reduction in income taxes for normal and low income workers, steps to be taken against cartel-like price hikes in food, lower costs for medical care through tax credits and more negotiating powers for the government vis-à-vis “Big Pharma,” cheaper energy through increased – green as well as fossil fuel – energy production, tax breaks for house builders and small businesses, tax credits for parents so that they can afford, for example, baby high chairs. This is an impressive and extremely concrete act of generosity that plays a particularly prominent role in Harris’s election campaign. And a lot more besides. Harris can’t say often enough how much help a proud “middle class” needs to get by as self-reliant people in the “opportunity economy” she wants to revitalize in America. With more support, they will be better able to withstand what they have to endure if the nation’s wealth is to continue to grow reliably.

At the same time, both candidates made it clear long before the current election campaign that the state must absolutely never leave the economy to its own devices. Even in America that hasn’t ever happened, but it is now clear to both parties: the capitalist prosperity of the nation stands and falls with the resolute deployment of American state power – specifically abroad. The candidates have made this their assignment with the appropriate high handedness. Trump thus remains true to his political worldview: the sacred right of the USA to economic results that reflect its absolute superiority is being neglected – above all by American politicians who have evidently lost their sense of justice and are in any case betraying their citizens. Since capitalists from abroad are earning more money on an annual basis from the biggest market of all time than vice versa, America’s politicians are giving away the nation’s wealth to foreigners. The fact that America’s international solvency isn’t suffering in the slightest, that the notoriously negative trade balance is the flip side of the fact that an entire global economy can’t get enough dollars and dollar debts, i.e. is being used for the unique status of American money, only shows Trump that America doesn’t have to tolerate this flip side at all, yet continues to do so anyway. An ugly “Rust Belt” with its stories of ruined lives proves the same thing: Contrary to established economic reason, Trump doesn’t see this as the regrettable downside of the fact that the entire world has been opened up for use by US capital. It’s the other way around: the latter proves that the world’s most powerful economy is allowing its superiority to be questioned on the home front, of all places. And the fact that one foreign nation in particular has brought about a serious challenge to American supremacy in the glorious era of globalized dollar capital is for him the final proof that the American “leaders” of globalization are not only neglecting the largest market and the best location in the world, but are selling it off for cheap. “America first!” – this doesn’t just express an ambitious American program of renewal, but a legal status that must be restored – “MAGA.” By all appearances, Trump II’s announced economic policy is completely committed to enforcing this right. Consequently, he has discovered his preferred weapon in an area of economic policy that consists of nothing but state decrees:

“Tariff is the most beautiful word in the dictionary.” (Trump) “He has floated a blanket tariff of 10 percent to 20 percent on nearly all imports and of 60 percent or more on Chinese goods, as well as a plan to match the tariffs other countries impose on U.S. products on a reciprocal basis.” (New York Times, 9.10.24)

Trump doesn’t particularly care about the exact amount; the key is the principle: foreign competitors who absolutely need the American market for their enrichment have to pay America a tribute for even being allowed to earn money from it. The amount of this entry fee is to be set in such a way – and so lavishly – that America’s benefit is guaranteed. This also applies, and even more so, to American companies that prefer to supply their domestic market from foreign locations:

“I’m going to put a 100%, 200% or 300%. I’m going to put the highest tariff in history ...The higher the tariff, the more likely it is that the company will come into the United States and build a factory in the United States so it doesn’t have to pay the tariff.” (Trump in Chicago, 10.15.24)

With the relevant entry fees and fines – as well as a new round of tax cuts and deregulation for the patriotic capitalists who exploit genuine American labor for their enrichment – Trump believes that all the nation’s economic questions will be answered to everyone’s satisfaction, and certainly conclusively: This will finance the aforementioned tax cuts and much more; anyway, the calculations of everyone else – from Silicon Valley to the “Rust Belt” – will come to fruition. The economic test facing America is therefore a purely political one: the American state must use the strength that it has long possessed by virtue of its market, come what may. It is poignant when economists, without having been asked, express their concerns about the effects of such tariffs on prices, the business climate, the national debt, etc., and act as if Trump is a bad economist who has not thought his calculations through to the end. If so, then Trump is thinking the other way around – in line with the MAGA principle that America must be made great again – back to the beginnings of the American global economic order. He is recollecting an economic certainty that was the inspiration for the founding of this order: the absolute indispensability of the American market as the source of a dollar-denominated wealth that would henceforth constitute the wealth of the world. The premise that the USA, because of its market, accrues benefits from the world market is something that its competitors now have to help restore with every export to America.

Harris considers Trump’s tariff obsession extremely unserious. In her view, Trump’s approach to the restoration of American economic supremacy is far too unilateral and primitive when he sets himself up as the gatekeeper to the US market in such a insular way. She urgently warns of the counterproductive effects that can be expected from such a ruthless tariff policy: across the board higher prices that will act like a sales tax – Harris calls it the “Trump tax.” It is not foreign competitors who have to pay these taxes, but mainly American companies and end consumers. This will not restore the dominance of American capitalists, but rather place an additional burden on them. This will certainly not be of any help in the (re)conquest foreign markets – especially against the Chinese rival – and in the long term it is more likely to cause damage if foreign competitors feel compelled to retaliate. In contrast to Trump, the Democrats – who have always been more cosmopolitan – insist that not just the American market, but the entire global market must be brought under control as an American asset. Tariffs certainly have their place in this; the Biden-Harris administration has retained and expanded the very tariffs that Trump once imposed on China.[3] This would, for example, make it possible to duly punish China’s crime of using extensive state aid to enable its capitalists to challenge America’s right to superiority. Trade and investment bans, e.g. in the case of Huawei, are also sometimes necessary; here too the Democrats have continued and expanded Trump’s initial advances. However, the imperialist superiority that America really needs, namely a global and sustainable superiority, can’t simply be politically extorted with higher entry fees to the US market. Rather, it requires an offensive in competitive industrial and future technologies. That’s why there is no substitute solution for a superior American capitalism; this can only be achieved with superior capital productivity – in general and in particular in areas on which America’s economic and military supremacy is crucially dependent, e.g. the famous chips, digital infrastructure, green energy production, the means and products of e-mobility, etc.[4] For that, the comprehensive involvement of the state is once again absolutely essential, as the Biden-Harris administration has long since demonstrated: with a clear and practical commitment to an industrial policy that uses large-scale state investment aid to help American businessmen achieve the superiority that the state entrusts them with. The state is also organizing the brain drain that is needed for this by luring promising qualified people to the nation’s centers of innovation. The USA’s technological lead in areas crucial for supremacy on the global market and for world power is to be secured for generations to come with new, more demanding regulations such as intellectual property. Finally, a new generation of trade agreements is needed that commit other nations to the technological capabilities and standards set by America – as a “framework” for their independent, because primarily anti-Chinese, development.[5] When it comes to clean energy, a senior advisor in the Biden-Harris camp can even imagine a new Marshall Plan; the name itself is a big help in understanding what is most important: aid for the countries of the world so that they help the USA achieve supremacy. So Harris and Co. are obviously also returning to a founding moment of the American world market order: the unquestionable superiority of American capital as the premise for a free, open world market. This premise needs to be reinstated – as a product of the announced competitive offensive. To achieve this, as Trump makes clear, America has a great deal to do, both on itself and on its global trading partners, so that they too can make their contribution to America’s advantage. In short: it’s the world market, stupid!

Trump only sees appalling restrictions, of all things, in this offensive. He sees these above all in the planned transition to green technologies in the auto industry and in energy production. He argues for an end to the government-led shift toward e-cars, which are only suitable for un-American short journeys, and for “drill, baby, drill!” If it’s for America’s supremacy, then it must use all America’s strengths. At least on energy issues, the two sides even seem to have come fairly close to each other. For both sides, all forms of American energy are good and worthy of support, provided they are cheap, lucrative, and domestic. Trump has long since warmed to solar energy, while Harris has dropped her documented aversion to fracking – a change of position that she defends by pointing out that her values have always remained the same. She has never had anything else in mind but the success of American capitalism against its competitors. The bottom line is the mutual assurance that they really want to do everything they can to ensure that America returns to its traditional place at the top when it comes to economic dominance over the world.

What does all this have to do with inflation? With the rising prices that, according to the polls, is what voters mainly think of when they hear “the economy, stupid”? Obviously, neither candidate has any intention of limiting government spending out of concern for further inflation. There is too much at stake for that. What is at stake is nothing less than the security of the nation because America does not feel secure as a world superpower with anything less than superiority in every field. Rising prices therefore mean that the candidates must use their very special world money all the more decisively. Both are absolutely certain that they can afford the necessary expenditures. They do not have to re-establish this founding moment of the American world economic order, they just have to apply it consistently enough: the unassailable uniqueness of their dollar.

II. Immigration

The polls say that this is the second most important issue. The candidates say what it actually involves, and to what extent it should be of utmost concern to all Americans.

Trump isn’t afraid to present the immigration issue in textbook racist terms – as a question of the right genes and the right bloodlines:

“[Immigrants] are poisoning the blood of our country,... They poison mental institutions and prisons all over the world, not just in South America, not just to three or four countries that we think about, but all over the world. They’re coming into our country from Africa, from Asia, all over the world.” (Trump, 12.16.2023) “President Donald Trump’s praise of a nearly all white crowd’s ‘good genes’ came during a Friday night rally in Bemidji where he also sharpened attacks on refugees... ‘You have good genes, you know that, right?’ Trump said. ‘You have good genes. A lot of it is about the genes, isn’t it, don’t you believe? The racehorse theory. You think we're so different? You have good genes in Minnesota.” (Minnesota Star Tribune, 9.21.2020)

For all his brief excursions into biology, Trump clearly traces racism back to its state essence: to the suitability of individuals for what they have to be as his American people, namely successful competitors. For Trump, this is the unbiased way of deciding what a breed of human beings cobbled together by the state is good for. In any case, the migrants who are arriving uninvited at the southern border are not suitable; they generally come from “shithole countries,” which says everything about the refugees themselves. Why should they be any more useful in America than at home – especially since Trump claims to have learned that it’s not even the best of the worst who come to America? They are toxic to the success that runs through the veins of real Americans. It’s even worse that the uninvited are denying real Americans their right to the jobs that prove their worth as Americans under particularly tough conditions. The illegals take it upon themselves to use public services and infrastructure – paid for by decent Americans – to go to hospitals, attend schools, drive – allegedly without insurance – on roads that are there for getting the natives through, use the public transportation that still exists in some places, etc. In short: they are here and making life difficult for the legal residents of the United States simply by acting like real Americans when they take personal responsibility for making themselves useful for the nation’s success. Above all, however, Trump and Vance emphasize that immigration from south of the border has become a serious personal threat to the safety of citizens and to their right to exist as a people. The migrants are “invaders” whose crimes deserve a separate category and who sometimes even eat the pets of good Americans – in short: immigrants as criminal intent personified.[6] All in all, a cry for a state authority that reliably ensures law and order, i.e. for a candidate who demonstrates the necessary toughness: This entitlement – above all, the betrayal of it by the ruling Democrats – is what Trump and Vance portray with their notorious enemy images. They are immune to any pointless fact checking because Americans, after all, are always right: Against the – possibly conspiratorial – failures of the ruling Democrats, Trump promises to clean up at the border, as well as in the “heartland,” in a way in which he recognizes only conditional aspects of the law, public morality, and even logistics insofar as he wants to demonstratively violate them.[7] And that can be done without racism. With his demonstrative desire to kick out the uninvited from south of the border and keep them out, Trump is also courting legal Latinos in particular; he is appealing to them – apparently not without success – in their self-confidence that they are no longer mere immigrants but have become true Americans; as such, they have a right to law and order, i.e. to the exclusion of the wrong people. It’s a victory for rabid xenophobia over racism. The great purification would then solve all three problems that illegal immigrants pose for Trump’s Americans: for their national identity, their economic calculations, and their need for law and order.

Harris and Walz counter the racist viciousness of Trump and Vance with a humanitarian insistence on the economic, military, and moral gains that the American land of immigration can post thanks to its migrants. They see migrants as human beings, which always means seeing their likeness to the American competitive patriots that they will have to be. With their manual and mental labor, their entrepreneurial spirit and their capital, immigrants make an extremely valuable contribution to the kind of national community that makes America so special and so exceptionally successful. It not only holds together somehow, but is vastly superior to foreign countries in the competitive arenas that really matter for the power and wealth of the nation, namely on the world market and as a world power. The hostility to foreigners that goes with the competition between states requires an openness to foreign citizens; success at this is what makes a nation truly strong and united. Nevertheless, Harris doesn’t want to gloss anything over in this election campaign. America is suffering from a “border crisis.” It has lost control of its southern border because far too many foreigners are coming in unsolicited and on their own initiative. She therefore answers the immigration question posed by Trump not with beautiful images of a uniquely superior land of immigrants, but with an impeccable tit-for-tat response with regards to the sin of governmental inaction against uninvited foreigners: after all, it was the Republicans who canceled the “bipartisan border bill” [8] negotiated in Congress in the spring, despite its clear Republican signature, for electoral reasons. They would obviously rather exploit a weak border politically than protect citizens. As a result, the relevant bill has had a meteoric career among the Democrats, from a grudging concession to right-wing hardliners who unfortunately cannot be circumvented to a proud achievement whose realization is only being prevented by the Republicans. The Democrats combine assurances of their toughness on the issue with assurances of their objectivity in implementing it: they give the comforting assurance that they have nothing against the immigrants themselves. Voters, however, should not confuse this with an unwillingness to combat the problem that migrants themselves represent. What America needs, then, is neither racial purity nor racist incitement, but a border as impassable as Trump has always imagined his infamous wall to be – not as an unobjective symbol of hatred for migrants, but as a pragmatic necessity of a land of immigrants that puts its sovereign control over immigration before anything else.[9]

In this way, the candidates bring the immigration issue back to the foundation of all civic existence – to the question of how far the power of the state extends in establishing the law and controlling its territory and its population. What for some is the sacred right of the sole true Americans has for others become the objective-pragmatic basis of cosmopolitan liberalism. For both sides, the hypertrophic ideal of a security state must no longer exist merely on paper.

III. Abortion

This issue – the third most important, they say – is by no means just about the women whose bodies are at stake. America sees itself as a community of values. This is what the political leadership tells its people year in, year out, and what they regularly call back to them. And as always, when a nation asserts its value-based unity, it argues at the top and the bottom about what this consists of – and especially about who does not comply with it. This is called the culture war. It never leads to a final decision on things, but the main issue is reproduced in every round of fighting: the universal certainty that the American community is ultimately a matter of shared values, or at least should be. Experience has shown that election campaigns are particularly fruitful for periodically intensifying this struggle – especially because the reverse is true: the dispute over values is very productive for the decision that election campaigns must and always lead to. And when Americans think of their national values, they generally think of family values; after all, this is the context in which the American community reproduces itself, not just morally, but also physically. In this year’s election campaign, reproduction is explicitly at the forefront of the values debate.

In the background is the epochal victory that the conservative majority of Supreme Court justices won for the nation’s conservatives two years ago. Following their ruling in the “Dobbs” case, abortion is no longer a constitutionally protected right; whether and to what extent it is permitted now depends on the respective decisions of the legislatures in the individual states.[10] Trump translates the fact that the right to abortion has been made dependent on the perils of a democratic party competition into general satisfaction. After all, elected politicians in the states – in other words, ultimately, the voters themselves on a local level – can now decide to what extent American women can freely control their bodies. It would be hard to have more “freedom of choice.” The consequences of this slice of living democracy ensures, of course, that the issue, which has been clarified in the highest court, will remain a very hot potato.[11] In light of this, Harris and Walz begin warning the voters with increasing urgency: If Trump wins again, the Dobbs ruling will not be the last win for conservatives on the abortion issue – nor on other controversial issues related to the legal regulations on private life, such as gay marriage, which is a thorn in the side of more than a few leading Republicans.

Trump himself isn’t letting the abortion issue become a decisive battle in the culture war. As much as he presents the Dobbs ruling as his own proud achievement, for which he is justly celebrated by his Christian conservative supporters, he doesn’t appear to be an enemy of the “pro-choice” camp. Melania has even been allowed to publicly promote her own “pro-choice” leanings. After some squirming, he promises to use his veto if a Republican Congress presents him with a federal ban for passage. When asked about the reason for the conspicuous indecisiveness in his self-portrayal between the avenging angel of all conservative hardliners and the reserved moderate who doesn’t want to take anything away from any woman, Trump answers: a more decisive line on the abortion issue would simply be counterproductive for the main issue on which any progress for the conservative cause hinges: “Here's the problem, you have to win elections. And otherwise, you'd be right back where you started.” (Trump in WABC interview, 3.20.24) The problem is also the solution: Trump’s election victory is already the decisive victory in the culture war; with his reign, all essential questions will be clarified.

Harris and Walz warn more and more about the conservative activists who stand at Trump’s side or in his shadow and who want to use his victorious return to power as their second big chance: the protagonists of a conservative movement that literally celebrates Trump I as a gift from heaven, who are hoping for a lot more of the same in a second term, and who are setting themselves up for the relevant administrative, judicial and advisory posts. This includes, in particular, his vice presidential candidate and designated “America first!” successor, J.D. Vance. Having converted to right wing Catholicism a few years ago, he is very outspoken about what’s proper for the private lives of his citizens.[12] From this perspective, what is basically wrong with America is that the politicians do not hold citizens accountable enough as a people. They treat them as mere competitive individuals who confuse the freedom of economic competition with a license for self-realization and declare this to be the purpose of the community. This is anti-social to the point of being a danger to the public; above all, it is a betrayal of the conscientious moral majority whose freedom is thus taken away: It is no longer their country if the politicians are no longer providing them with the certainty that they are the normal people who set the tone. They can only feel free if their morality is the dominant one. So the demand for more state prohibitions – e.g. against abortion, against equal rights for homosexuals and trans people and teaching about them in schools – and for a more ruthless suppression of woke protests, should they ever arise again anywhere, goes together perfectly with their insistence on “limited government.” All in all, a lesson on the connection between freedom-based morality and violence; another big clean-up operation in the service of freedom.

In contrast, Harris and Walz present a decidedly liberal counter-bid. This is, in the first place, legislative in nature: a nationwide right to abortion, gay marriage, and legal protections against anti-trans discrimination. In view of the majority in Congress, however, nobody is under any illusions about the chances of such promises being fulfilled. This makes Harris and Walz all the more vehemently committed to their personal liberalism in such private matters and to their ideological and value-based proximity to normal American citizens, from whom Trump and Vance are the weird deviants in that they want to lay down the law on people’s private affairs, of all things, and because they despise anyone who doesn’t pursue their happiness within the form of the traditional family. Of course, Harris and Walz don’t just want to be recognized as sympathizers with a liberal lifestyle. Rather, they want this to provide the strongest argument possible for their own trustworthiness as power holders whose entire profession consists of laying down the law on people. Also and especially with regard to what women do with their bodies: abortion is not simply to be liberalized, but rather provided with new conditions drawn up and enforced by the state – in line with the ruling in “Roe v. Wade.” A nice clue as to what it really means when the private becomes political: It just becomes another argument to cast your vote for the right power holder in the voting booth.

An even nicer one is provided by a conservative journalist’s question about something that’s on everyone’s mind: whether Kamala Harris would be prepared to finance sex change operations for prison inmates with taxpayer money.[13] Here morality has finally arrived where it belongs. Whether the journalist knows it or not, he has given the fundamental reason why “it’s none of your business!” will never be the guiding principle of a national morality. He points out what the American community of values really is in material terms, beyond all the hypocrisies and ideological gilding about its unity, and what truly binds its members together as citizens: They are the collectively fleeced financial basis of a state. Even and especially in their private lives, they are its people. Their will to prove themselves as such – at work, in their private lives, in their political activities, and, of course, specifically in the reproduction of the nation’s people, which they have to prove themselves as – is one of its main, not merely cultural, but material concerns, and thus entirely within its sovereign sphere of authority. This is also demonstrated by the peremptory question of the journalistic advocate of the taxpayers: In a democracy, the material demands that the state makes of citizens apparently entitles them to claims that go far beyond the material. Above all, it entitles them to elect a president who, when ruling over them, is morally akin to them.

IV. The nation’s wars

There are two ongoing wars that the USA is not fighting with its own “boots on the ground,” but which are inconceivable without it. The same goes for the increasingly heated war hostilities over Taiwan. The expedient destruction of land and people, the current and potential dimensions of which are well documented, wouldn’t be possible without American weapons and all the help required to use them correctly; without the deterrent backing of America’s conventional and nuclear powers of destruction; without the money to mobilize it with its global currency, the dollar, and its allies’ ability to pay; without the economic and diplomatic blackmail moves it employs, e.g. in the form of an international sanctions regime against Russia or in warding off the diplomatic blows that are being attempted against Israel in the UN and its courts. This is why all of this depends on the definitions of friend and foe that are decided in the American capital. What the candidates have to say to their voters is naturally of most interest to the world outside America; this also matters, even more so, to the European states which link their own military calculations to the war plans and powers of the USA.

In contrast, the minor role that the relevant information plays in the American election campaign is all the more striking. The fact that Trump and Harris do not put the global wars and hostilities which are so decisively directed by America at the center of their debate should not, of course, be confused with a downplaying of the significance of these wars or their differences in regards to them. Here, too, they are ultimately concerned with the big picture – with the existence or non-existence of American power in the world. And the existential significance of American supremacy for the world’s wars can also be used to make a suitable appeal to voters, which in both cases is as follows: American voters have to make a choice between salvation or catastrophe for the power of the USA and for the lives of the world’s population.

1.

The offer that former President Trump has to make is very often and very unfairly called “isolationism.” This term is used primarily by the major European allies whose governments expect a great deal from US foreign policy “engagement,” not least its nuclear backing for their own imperialist engagements, which they obviously desperately need it for. The feared absence or unpredictability of the desired services of American power within the alliance is equated – perhaps interestedly – with the absence of any American foreign policy at all. Of course, Trump has no desire to isolate his country from the world; the comprehensive use of all countries for the wealth and power of the USA is the main and general purpose of his foreign policy; the world must not be spared from this. It is the other way around: America should be spared from any disturbances that have an impact on its profitable use of the world. Trump addresses this claim to every country and every government in the world without exception; how they position themselves in this regard divides them into friend and foe. Above all, however, he addresses American politicians: If foreign countries become nuisances for America and its global ambitions, if any foreign country even manages to cause problems for America, then America itself is definitely to blame. Then US leadership has obviously committed the cardinal sin of being too weak. Trump finds many occasions for this accusation; it is obviously not a minor thing that is being demanded of the states and peoples of the world. One version of the accusation is that America’s leaders have allowed themselves to be drawn into conflicts and war alliances in which American interests are not at stake. In other words, they have allowed themselves to be exploited by allies who are obviously not America’s partners if they are causing it costs and problems. The minimum requirement is that reparations must be made. The partners must turn the problem into something worthwhile for America or they will be dropped.

In the current election campaign, Trump is mainly offering a different version of this accusation against US policy. In Ukraine, in the Middle East, maybe soon in Taiwan, and in any war that disrupts America in general, Trump always has the same grievance: it is apparently not considered futile to resist American pronouncements. He therefore always sees the same crime: American politicians have allowed disruptions to arise and grow bigger in the first place because they are perceived as too weak. “Our enemies no longer respect our country.” This obviously makes Biden and Harris “totally incompetent” (Trump in every interview and at every rally). And if the Democrats remain in power, the earth will soon no longer even be inhabitable; because then there will be no stopping the states that want to exploit America’s weakness, i.e. any of them. In this respect, the Democrats, precisely because of their weakness, are leading the country and the world “to the brink of World War III” (Trump, 10.2.23). Faced with such rampant disrespect, America would ultimately have no choice but to draw the necessary conclusions. That would certainly be “sad, so sad,” but what is a world without an American monopoly on violence worth? At least with regards to the requirements of a deterrence policy worthy of the superpower, Trump is well within the mainstream of American foreign policy. For him, too, a successful policy of deterrence always includes a willingness to engage in acts of destruction that render any question about a profitable use of a successfully pacified world of states absurd. Trump – as usual – best expresses the world warlike circumstances himself. When asked whether he would consider it necessary to use military force against China in the Taiwan question, he replies: “I wouldn’t have to because Xi respects me and he knows I’m fucking crazy.” (Wall Street Journal, 10.18.24) In general, Trump has the same consistent answer to all wars and conflicts that are currently dominating the agenda for America: they would never have happened if he was president. So his Americans can count on any peace-promoting lust for destruction necessary.

And the whole world can be happy about this. Because nobody regrets the victims of American-backed wars as much as Trump:

“And so, you know, it’s so sad to think that if I were president, that war would have never started. You wouldn't have all those dead people, all those, you know, just demolished cities and areas. You wouldn't have had October 7th and all of the destruction and the hatred and everything else that followed October 7th. You wouldn't have had Russia attacking Ukraine...you know, the destruction and the death in Ukraine is incredible, far more than people think.” (Trump interview with Al-Arabiya, 10.20.24)

One can take the pity calmly. He sees the victims primarily as a reflection of America’s weakness, the lack of respect that the warring parties show for the devastating danger that emanates from Washington. That hurts.

These are the typical Trumpist formulations of an imperialist principle that is not merely Trumpist: the unconditional insistence on an unassailable American monopoly on violence as a condition for prosperous international relations that guarantee America’s benefit. This is definitely a bipartisan consensus. Trump’s peculiarity lies solely in the extent to which he personalizes this traditional imperialist claim and respect for it in a way that is unusual for US presidents: Expressions of respect toward him are a measure of the respect paid to America’s supremacy. Trump usually formulates the state of diplomatic relations – including and especially with official rivals – in varying ratios of components, praising the fact and the extent to which the rulers of the world communicate with him on a first name basis and clarifying the fact and the extent to which they are intimidated by his dangerousness.

In individual cases, this position can mean anything; casual vagueness is part of the program. What Trump promises his voters, in any case, are immediate, successful results on two decisive fronts:

– He wants to end the war in Ukraine the day after his inauguration. This could mean immediately committing the Ukrainian proxy to an American peace. At least, that’s the fear of those who rightly can’t detect any commitment to the territorial integrity of Ukraine, as well as any of the lofty values that the Biden administration has used to assure Ukraine of its “unwavering support” and so far confirmed in material terms. There’s definitely no partisanship for Russia, which is often found in Trump’s professions of friendship with Putin and his well-documented admiration for his “genius.” The peace that Trump wants at lightning speed most likely consists of an amicable surrender by both sides. This is confirmed by Trump with the assurance that a few years ago he threatened Putin with bombing Moscow if he were to invade Ukraine,[14] as well as with the warning that he will provide far more and deadlier support for Ukraine if Putin doesn’t submit to America’s will. On the basis of both sides’ restored respect for America, negotiations can be conducted efficiently and a quick result achieved. True to style, Trump depicts this certainty of American superiority as the personal respect he enjoys from both presidents: “I have a very good relationship with Putin.” (10.8.24) “I have a very good relationship with Zelensky.” (9.27.24) The main concern of European politicians and journalists about Trump’s plan for Ukraine is his plan, or rather demonstrative contempt, for NATO. When he treats the famous 2% pledge as a payment obligation that the European allies owe to America, they complain that this is a way of extorting “protection money” from them. This is a dirty word because sovereign allied powers shouldn’t be treated this way; because it is unworthy of a noble cause to behave like a mafioso when it comes to spending money on the destructive powers of the largest military alliance in human history. Trump’s firm reservations about NATO; his repeated assurances that America is actually already in the process of heading to an exit – this does not fit with the self-image of this alliance, not even from America’s perspective. Still, Trump’s election campaign at least clarifies what will always be the basis and core of America’s alliances, no matter how passionately America’s bond with its allies is celebrated: the allies are to be used for whatever America puts on the agenda. With Trump, it’s clear: honesty is the best policy. Nor has withdrawal from NATO been announced. And according to Trump, it’s precisely his willingness to terminate this alliance at any time in event of continued tardiness that could weld its members closer together than ever. Here, too, Trump is returning to a founding moment of the American world order: the unassailable, unique military superiority of the USA – albeit contrary to the way America has always managed it up until now.

– In the Middle East, Trump also wants a really peaceful peace, namely a lasting one:

“I want to see it all stop. I want to see the Middle East get back to peace and real peace, but a peace that’s going to be a lasting peace. You don't want this to go on every five years, every two years, every 10 years.” (Interview with Al-Arabiya, 10.20.24)

According to Trump’s statements and hints, this means, first and foremost, that Israel needs unrestricted freedom and American support for every military escalation it threatens and announces against its enemies, who are, after all, enemies of America too. The demands for an early peace, as Biden and Harris envision and see due, are currently defined by Trump as an intolerable existential threat to Israel. When asked what he thinks about the possibility of Israel bombing its main enemy, Iran, he replies with the friendly tip: “Attack the Iranian nuclear program first and worry about the rest later.” If any militant resistance to Israel’s superior power in the region is rendered futile once and for all, nothing will stand in the way of peace with its prosperous business opportunities. A total success of the Israeli war program, which has unfortunately become necessary due to America’s weakness, would also be the best thing that could be done for the Palestinians and all their other neighbors. This assurance of American solidarity with Israel’s campaign of annihilation is at the same time an overriding demand: Israel must bring its war program to a swift and successful conclusion; the dogma that it must eliminate nuisances for America, i.e. it mustn’t cause any, also applies to this “special friend.” Trump is very optimistic for the time being: Netanyahu’s ingratiation with him gives him good reason to be; conversely, this corresponds to Trump’s respect for the notorious intransigence of the head of this extremely useful junior partner for America.

What Trump’s foreign policy guidelines for these wars and these nations actually mean, however, is a completely different question. The regional players and everyone else will find out when Trump is ready, certainly not sooner – their deepest insecurity is one of the few fixed constants of his program.

2.

This is precisely the core of what Harris finds so reprehensible about Trump’s foreign policy promises. His “America first!” threatens to lead to an “America alone!” And that makes America, however uniquely powerful it may be, too small and too weak. With his pompous foreign policy bravado, Trump himself is its first and greatest weak point:

“World leaders think that Donald Trump is an easy mark – easy to manipulate with flattery or favor. Autocrats like Putin and Kim Jong Un are rooting for him in this election.” (Harris on X, 10.29.2024)

– An end to the war in Ukraine is out of the question as long as it is accompanied by a Ukrainian defeat at the hands of Russia. The associated destruction of the country and its people is not an objection, but Russia’s fault. Nor are the war and its casualties an expression of American weakness, but rather an enduring challenge to America’s unique strength; the restoration of its supremacy against “revisionist powers” like Russia and China makes Ukrainian sacrifices necessary and even worthwhile because they contribute to the ruining of Russia’s ability to challenge America’s monopoly on world order. The World War III that Trump is warning voters about if the Democrats remain in power looms as long as Russia remains capable of waging it. Harris agrees with Trump that America owes its unique strength, first and foremost, to its unique destructive capabilities, both conventional and nuclear; in this sense, she promises that America will continue to have “the strongest, most lethal fighting force in the world” under her leadership. What sets her alternative apart from Trump’s is the contribution that America’s alliances – NATO first and foremost – make to American supremacy, precisely because America is so firmly bound to them: as a power that protects and leads partners who increase the reach, effectiveness and stable prestige of American law and order. The costs that such ties undoubtedly entail are offset by a benefit that remains indispensable as long as America wants to put its name on the world order. If America wants to remain the unique superpower – and that is what it wants, otherwise it would no longer be America at all – then the selective enforcement of respect and obedience, and the vicious personal threats within male friendships between strong leaders, are far too shaky a foundation.

Trump is therefore the epitome of a politician who allows himself to be bamboozled by friends and foes alike; the opposite of the unshakeable strength that is the most important personal quality, because it is the highest duty of an American president: Harris clearly does not find the personalization of foreign policy in the war deterrence department absurd at all; on the contrary. She offers herself as the appropriate counter-image: a tough prosecutor who knows all about punishing criminals by profession. Just the right thing given that the current task of American foreign policy is to assert itself as a power against which resistance is futile.

– That America stands by its allies but does not allow itself to be harnessed to their carts is the Solomonic message with which Harris is campaigning in regards to Israel’s war in the Gaza Strip, Lebanon, etc. Israel has the right to defend itself, so America has the duty to provide it with the means to defend itself by destroying entire coastal strips and regions as well as by disarming strikes against enemies in the immediate and more distant vicinities; in other words, in a very offensive and far reaching way. With every bit of destruction, the American citizen can and should see how much Israel needs the unique destructive power of the USA. Of course, this does not mean that America does not feel responsible for protecting the victims it produces – that’s precisely what Harris promises the Arab-American voters in the swing state of Michigan, for whom, for once, US war policy is the decisive issue of the election campaign: Harris takes up their protests against devastation and genocide in the Middle East and against an American government that is aiding and abetting it, without which none of this would be conceivable, as a demand for even more American leadership. She promises this honestly and wholeheartedly.

V. What all the issues boil down to: the fight for democracy

Given the issues at stake and their global significance, American voters face a particularly weighty decision this year when exercising their primary democratic right. Both candidates attach importance to the fact that it is about much more: If the wrong candidate wins, democracy dies.

1.

The candidates are very unfair to each other here. Both have taken an exemplary democratic approach, especially on the issues with which they have sought voters. They have framed them in such a way that everything boils down to the same thing: not to a decision on any issue at all, but rather a decision on the person who has the final say on all major and minor issues – officially validated, sovereignly guaranteed. Every individual life situation, every position of economic power and dependence, and every conflict within it; every private opinion about the national identity of America, the land of immigrants, about what Americans are allowed to do in their private lives and with their sexual organs, as well as what America’s interests and responsibilities are in the world – all of this always leads to the same conclusion for the candidates, in keeping with the national motto “e pluribus unum”: A people needs a national leader who guarantees allegiance.

But not only that. This need of the people for a good ruling power, this quintessence of all substantive issues in democracy, was once again urgently emphasized by both candidates to their voters – precisely in the form of the assurance that government can only remain that of the people if they themselves come to power. That the potency and integrity of the machinery of power are at stake and that the voters’ choice must revolve around this: that’s a very self-confident address to the American electorate. Obviously, the candidates simply assume that they have masterfully met the task of all democratic parties in a democracy – what the German constitution calls the “political will formation of the people.” This refers to the successful completion of a training course that often begins in an election campaign with the question: “What would you do if you were president?” The question is an invitation to a well known delusion. When making their voting decision, voters should imagine the exact opposite of what the act of voting really means for them: the surrender of a decision-making power they never had anyway. In a proper democracy, it is not the rulers who take the standpoint of the people, but the other way around: the voters take the standpoint of the power holders who govern over them. They are supposed to look at the capitalistic, domestic and foreign policy purposes to which the state commits them and for which they should make themselves useful in the economy, as taxpayers, as heads of families, as soldiers, etc., as if these purposes were something else entirely: a collection of possibilities and limits – financial, legal, political, military – on what they expect from state power. And whatever they expect from it, they should and need only think of the one thing that matters for everything: power itself must function. And that needs, above all, a person in power who best embodies this essential thing for all the citizens’ wishes.

2.

Harris and Trump assume that American citizens are a perfectly politicized electorate in this sense when they suggest that power itself – its potency, its functionality – is their main concern.

The Harris camp goes about this with visible self-confidence in defending democratic institutions and procedures against the authoritarian threat of an egomaniac in power. The Harris-Walz campaign shifts away from Biden’s urgent warnings about a man who, were he to win another election victory, would destroy democracy – and with it everything that is beautiful and true that depends on it – to casual contempt for a deviant that anyone in their right mind should find too “weird” for the presidency. The closer it gets to election day and the clearer it becomes that the cool approach to dealing with the unfortunate madman isn’t really working with voters, the more the campaign returns to dire warnings; the key word “fascist!” is then used several times in the final stretch. Of course, citizens should think of the effect on them, whatever their situation may be, if Trump topples the esteemed institutions of democratic state power in the future. Harris likes to help them out by referring to the positions Trump takes on every issue and certainly doesn’t hesitate to blurt out – in order to always end up at the essential point: he and his authoritarian posturing are never about the people, only about himself! This does double damage to the citizens: In the interest of preserving his own power, he divides the people, makes them weaker; he ruins power itself, thus destroying precisely what the citizens have to see as their highest, well understood self-interest. In contrast, Harris presents herself as the correct answer to the question: “What would you do as president?” – namely, exercise power in a way that brings the people together; with respect for the dignity of all Americans and, above all, for the democratic correctness that their institutions of rule need to function properly. This makes the people more than ever an unshakeable foundation for a state power that becomes even stronger as a result. This is how the authority that true freedom requires works, with typically American, that is, model perfection.

Everyone knows that Trump, in turn, is a danger to democracy. This is heard around the clock from the political and journalistic guardians of democracy in the US and abroad. There is plenty of evidence: investigative journalism doesn’t have to dig very deep; in fact it doesn't have to dig at all. Trump himself is notorious for not being shy – neither about what he’s prepared to do to secure the only election result he will accept as legitimate, nor about what he intends to do with power when he regains it in a new term in office. When asked whether he really meant what he said during the election campaign – “I will not be a dictator - except on the first day,” “The real enemy of the nation is the enemy within,” “January 6 was a celebration of love,” etc. – he always doubles down. He actually insists that nobody should fool themselves: his hostility to his opponents is genuine, and to anyone – citizen and politician alike – who does not submit to his will. His determination to respect no taboos, but rather to seek them out and break them while practically eliminating the nation’s enemies, is his favorite boast. His unscrupulousness proves his unshakeable will to really carry out the revolution he promises to save his people, and to be bothered by nothing and nobody. He has also never left any doubt about the practice script for turning American democracy into an executive organ of its leader’s will. “Institutionalizing Trumpism” is the plan for transforming state institutions into his compliant executors. The transformation of the Republican Party into a loyal Trump entourage is already complete. They are to use their majority in the legislative bodies to translate the will of the people’s president into valid law. Anyone in the party who takes positions that contradict Trump’s directives is committing political suicide. The replacement of the executive branch’s senior staff with loyalists who will turn the administrative apparatus into a reliable transmission belt for Trump’s instructions is ready and waiting.[15]

Part of the program is the subordination of the Department of Justice to Trump’s directives: in conjunction with continuing to appoint judgeships to reliably like-minded people at all levels of the legal hierarchy, the third branch of government will become a reliable partner of the second. The first task of the judiciary is to practically validate Trump’s venomous accusation that all proceedings against him – precisely because of his attempt to invalidate the 2020 election results – are nothing but a political “witch hunt.” Revenge awaits the prosecutors who indicted him and all those in politics and the media who supported these accusations. The latter in particular have proven to be enemies of the people because they have cheated the nation of the truism that Trump is always right. Trump’s rule of the people will only be complete when any effective objection to his power and its use has been permanently eliminated. He has firmly promised this to his people as the “final battle” for their liberation from the liberal elite. The right-wing hardliners who are to carry out his fight are quickly found, and the correctness of his appointments is once again confirmed to the dismay of the liberal media and parts of his own party; whether he will even accept the Senate’s authority to officially confirm his personnel decisions remains to be seen.

The US media is astonished at the openness with which Trump touts his authoritarianism as not just the style, but as the very substance of his presidency. And above all – especially after his election victory – by the success with which Trump advertised his campaign. Are American voters not taking him seriously? Or don’t they care? Or is that what they want? The election doesn’t provide a clear answer to these questions. But the media has come to the conclusion, supported by the opinion polls, that the voters see things the way Trump wants them to: a critical mass of voters not only don’t see Trump as a threat to democracy, but as its savior. Namely, from the very politicians who upheld the defense of democracy as the only issue on which they thought, until the end, they could be sure of a majority. And now this: a proto-fascist as the savior of democracy – how can that be?

The free press is saying this around the clock: Trump has understood the American people’s widespread resentment of the country’s political elites and institutions, which the Democrats have woefully underestimated. According to pollsters, this is especially true for members of the proud working class who the Democrats still take for granted as their secure voting bloc while having neglected them for decades in their increasing impoverishment. Trump has offered an interpretation of their impoverishment, which they have complained about for decades, that simply appeals to disappointed citizens: the political establishment has betrayed them, so they need a strong man who will thoroughly clean house – both of the constitutionally embedded obstacles to autocratic governance and of the special interests that are more important to a corrupt political elite than the craving of a patriotic population for their prerogatives against all foreigners and all deviants. A politician who presents himself as the avenger of the disenfranchised with his hostility toward the elite is well received – this is where political expertise knows its stuff.

Yet it would be better, for once, to wonder about this: at how easily and – despite all their contemptuous distancing – how sympathetically professional democrats imitate this extremely affirmative, arch-nationalist reinterpretation of capitalist cases of damage; at how familiar they are with fascism as a radicalization of a discontent with democracy that is always present in democracy and apparently child’s play to mobilize; and at how unwilling they are to accept the relationship between the system of freedom and that of the anti-freedom they spell out to their audience.

Because in fact Trump’s standpoint, just like his voters’ approval of him, is the perfection of an impressive democratic politicization. Trump offers the most fundamental answer imaginable to the basic question with which voters are summoned to a higher, national responsibility: “What would you do as president?” His answer is simple: ensure that the power that must serve the true people really is a power that is unquestionably capable of asserting itself. A people that really rules therefore needs the unrestricted right of a president who declares himself completely united with them. Nothing more convincingly proves that Trump himself is this true man of the people, i.e. the power broker suited for this program of rule, than his desire not just to make enemies, but to take them on offensively: against internal and external enemies, including and especially against the established institutions which, in his view, dilute or even prevent the unified will of the people. Trump thus embodies the people’s right to a political upheaval that finally puts the power of the good people entirely in the hands of their governing personification. Or more succinctly: “Trump will fix it” – there’s no problem for which resolute rule would not be the solution. Not in such a way that the president is unrestrainedly at the service of the citizens, but vice versa, in such a way that he gets serious about the sovereign perspective into which he politicizes all private interests. The will of the people is the assertion of state power against all enemies and deviations, and is the disempowerment of the institutions that are preventing precisely this. So the lesson that Trump has learned from his first term in office calls for an echo from below: He had too little power to deal with his enemies.

Whether this is already fascist or just barely democratic is the wrong question – that’s a matter for the domestic security services of the democratic nations to concern themselves with. It would be better to take note of the achievements that the most powerful democracy in the world is apparently capable of – especially since the warning can be heard everywhere that America is more a harbinger than an exception when it comes to political mores. One achievement concerns the assertion of rule: here, democracy brings to power a leader who adamantly insists that his power alone can save the nation from the “enemy from within” who he will do away with – if necessary, by using the military. The other achievement concerns the formation of citizens into members of the national community who, in their proud self-consciousness that they are the freest people on earth, insist on their right to unrestricted power for the leader of their choice.

Footnotes

[1] This dependence of the parties waging war as well as those affected by war, i.e. all sovereigns worldwide, on the world superpower USA is being taken in the interested public sphere of the major European powers in particular particular as an opportunity to make a strange complaint. They moan about the injustice of so many depending on so few: Nothing less than world peace – as the war success of one’s own side is baptized – depends on a few thousand voters in American swing states? Of course, there is no serious objection to this – where would it be lodged? It is not a brake, but rather a thorn in the side of democratic idealism to imagine dependence on a superior world power as a claim to co-determination – the closer election day, the more intense this becomes, especially after the victory of the wrong person.

[2] See “A hot summer of campaigning in the USA: What must an American president be able to do and be?” in GegenStandpunkt 3-24.

[3] “Trump implemented sweeping tariffs on about $300 billion of Chinese-made products when he was in office. President Joe Biden has kept those tariffs in place and, after the USTR finished a multiyear review earlier this year, decided to increase some of the rates on about $15 billion of Chinese imports. The products that will now face increases are in line with Biden’s other economic policies aimed at boosting domestic manufacturing in industries including clean energy and semiconductor chips...The tariff rate will go up to 100% on electric vehicles, to 50% on solar cells and to 25% on electrical vehicle batteries, critical minerals, steel, aluminum, face masks and ship-to-shore cranes beginning September 27, according to the US Trade Representative’s Office. Tariff hikes on other products, including semiconductor chips, are set to take effect over the next two years.” (CNN, 9.13.2024)

[4] At this point, the Democrats like to talk about a “small yard and high fence” to express – precisely in contrast to Trump’s threats – the surgical nature of their anti-Chinese, i.e., freedom loving, protectionism. This small yard contains precisely the industries with which America intends to dominate the commanding heights of all the economic and military competition of tomorrow.

[5] For this list of planned measures, see the article “How the US wants to modernize its imperialism” in GegenStandpunkt 1-23.

[6] Vance “told CNN host Dana Bash it was OK ‘to create stories’ to draw attention to issues his constituents care about, regarding inflammatory and unfounded claims that Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio, had eaten residents’ pets... ‘When I say that I created a story, I’m ... focusing the press’s attention on what’s going on in Springfield,’ said Vance.” (The Guardian, 9.15.24)

[7] “Trump and his surrogates have offered sparse details for how he would carry out the ‘largest deportation operation in American history,’ but have cemented the goal as a top priority. What is known: The strategy would rely on military troops, friendly state and local law enforcement, and wartime powers. ‘No one’s off the table,’ Tom Homan, Trump’s former head of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, said in July. ‘If you’re in the country illegally, you better be looking over your shoulder.’ ... At a campaign rally earlier this month in Aurora, Colo., Trump said he would invoke the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 ‘to target and dismantle every migrant criminal network operating on American soil.’ The ex-president went on to say that he would send ‘elite squads’ of federal law enforcement officers to ‘hunt down, arrest and deport’ every migrant gang member. Those who attempt to return to the U.S. would be served with 10-year prison sentences without parole, he said, adding that any migrant who kills a U.S. citizen or law enforcement officer would face the death penalty. In May, Trump told Time magazine he would target 15 million to 20 million people who he said are living illegally in the U.S. The nonpartisan Pew Research Center estimates the actual number to be about 11 million as of 2022. More than 2 million people have entered the country illegally since then. ‘Let’s start with 1 million,’ Vance told ABC News in August.” (Los Angeles Times, 10.24.2024)

[8] The proposed legislation consists primarily of the massive strengthening of border protection, the expansion of asylum detention capacities and the rapid processing of asylum applications, including deportations.

[9] “President Biden issued an executive order on Tuesday that prevents migrants from seeking asylum at the U.S.-Mexico border when crossings surge ... The measure is the most restrictive border policy instituted by Mr. Biden, or any other modern Democrat, and echoes an effort in 2018 by President Donald J. Trump to cut off migration ... ‘We must face a simple truth,’ said the president ... ‘To protect America as a land that welcomes immigrants, we must first secure the border and secure it now.’ … The policy kicks in once the seven-day average for daily illegal crossings hits 2,500 — a regular occurrence now. The border would reopen only after the figure drops to 1,500 for seven days in a row and stays that way for two weeks. That is a significant shift in how asylum has worked for years. Typically, migrants who cross illegally and claim asylum are released into the United States to wait for court appearances, where they can plead their cases... The new system is designed to deter those illegal crossings.... The order suspends longtime guarantees that give anyone who steps onto U.S. soil the right to seek a safe haven. The executive action mirrors the legislation that Republicans blocked in February, saying it was not strong enough.” (New York Times, 6.4.24)

[10] See the article “A different kind of homeland security: The American battle over its family values” in GegenStandpunkt 4-22.

[11] “Since 2022 ... many states have made it all but impossible to get abortion care within their borders, and have done their best to isolate people facing unwanted or complicated pregnancies, making them afraid to reach out to medical providers or even to friends and loved ones who might help them. New laws have forced doctors to delay care in life-threatening situations and made women afraid to seek it, leading to preventable deaths...Even when the consequences haven’t been that dire, the day-to-day reality of abortion in America’s left-behind places now involves navigating constant undercurrents of confusion and fear: Is this pill I found on the internet safe? If I miscarry, is anyone going to help me? Or, in the cases of some doctors: How can I help this patient without getting arrested?” (New York Times, 10.17.24)

[12] “In August 2021, one month after launching his candidacy for the Senate, Vance’s campaign sent fundraising emails referring to the ‘radical childless leaders in this country’ following his appearance on ‘Tucker Carlson Tonight’ where he made comments deriding ‘childless cat ladies’ ...’We’ve allowed ourselves to be dominated by childless sociopaths – they’re invested in NOTHING because they’re not invested in this country’s children. Fighting back won’t be easy – our childless opponents have a lot of free time. That’s why I need YOU to stand with me.’” Vance also flirted with the idea of giving parents an additional electoral vote per child.

[13] “About a week after the September debate, Mr. Trump started spending heavily on a television ad that hammered Ms. Harris for her position on a seemingly obscure topic: the use of taxpayer funds to fund surgeries for transgender inmates. ‘Every transgender inmate in the prison system would have access,’ Ms. Harris said in a 2019 clip used in the ad.... The ad, with its vivid tagline — ‘Kamala is for they/them. President Trump is for you’ — broke through in Mr. Trump’s testing to an extent that stunned some of his aides. So they poured still more money into the ads, running them during football games … The anti-trans ads cut to the core of the Trump argument: that Ms. Harris was ‘dangerously liberal’ … The ads were effective with Black and Latino men, according to the Trump team, but also with moderate suburban white women who might be concerned about transgender athletes in girls’ sports.” (New York Times, 11.7.24)

[14] “‘I said: ‘Vladimir, if you go after Ukraine, I am going to hit you so hard you won’t even believe it. I’m going to hit you right in the center of fricking Moscow.’ I said, ‘We’re friends/ I don’t want to do it, but I have no choice.’ He goes, ‘No way!’ I said, ‘Way!’” (Wall Street Journal, 10.18.2024)

[15] In this context, the infamous so-called “Project 2025” has gained some prominence. This is seen as a blueprint for a future Trump dictatorship:

“Project 2025 seeks to place the federal government's entire executive branch under direct presidential control, eliminating the independence of the DOJ,  the FBI, the Federal Communications Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, and other agencies. The plan is based on a controversial interpretation of unitary executive theory, an expansive interpretation of presidential power that aims to centralize greater control over the government in the White House.... It would cut funding for the U.S. Department of Justice, dismantle the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security, and eliminate the Cabinet Departments of Education and Commerce. Among other things, the plan aims to recruit politically targeted individuals after the election to replace approximately 50,000 of the approximately 2.9 million federal civil servants nationwide, who have been labeled members of a deep state because they failed to comply during Trump‘s first term in office. When power shifted from one party to another, it was common practice to replace ‘only’ about 4,000 political appointees. Project director Paul Dans, a former Trump administration official, said in September 2023 that the project was ‘systematically preparing to march into office bringing with it a new army of [ideologically] aligned, trained, and essentially weaponized conservatives ready to fight the Deep State.’ Kevin Roberts, head of the Heritage Foundation, declared: ‘We are about to witness the second American Revolution, which will remain bloodless if the left allows it.’” (Wikipedia, Project 2025)