In American politics, what are often labeled as “debates” bear little resemblance to the structured, substantive exchanges of ideas that many might expect. Instead, they have become more akin to political theater, where candidates seldom engage in true dialogue or address the nuances of complex policy issues. Instead, their performance is judged by soundbites and “zingers”—those clever, well-rehearsed phrases that are easily digested by a media landscape hungry for viral moments.
The foreign policy aspect of the recent debate between former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris followed this pattern to a tee. Despite the gravity of global affairs, the event did little to shed light on their respective strategies or offer new, enlightening perspectives. Instead, it provided a stage for political posturing and a reaffirmation of entrenched positions.
Donald Trump’s affinity for authoritarian leaders is well-documented and was on full display during the debate. His close relationship with figures like Hungary’s Viktor Orbán, who has been criticized for eroding democratic norms, is both striking and disturbing. Orbán’s recent endorsement of Trump, in which he claimed that world powers like China, Russia, and North Korea were “afraid” of the former president, is telling. For a candidate running to lead the world’s foremost democracy, such praise from a leader with authoritarian tendencies raises questions about Trump’s vision for America’s role in the world.
While some might argue that Trump’s “tough guy” image resonates with a certain portion of the electorate, it also underscores his continued admiration for leaders who wield power with little regard for democratic institutions. This was evident in his refusal to condemn Russian President Vladimir Putin unequivocally, even as he acknowledged the ongoing war in Ukraine. Trump has frequently praised Putin’s leadership style, and his reluctance to say outright that he wants Ukraine to win the war could be seen as an effort to avoid alienating yet another strongman leader.
Trump’s argument that Europe should bear more of the financial burden for supporting Ukraine in its defense against Russian aggression is not without merit. It’s a reasonable point that European countries, particularly those closest to the conflict, have a more direct stake in Ukraine’s survival. However, Trump’s failure to articulate a clear stance on the invasion itself leaves room for doubt about his commitment to upholding international norms, including opposition to territorial conquest. The specter of nuclear escalation, which Trump prudently mentioned, is a real concern, but the issue of who pays for defense should not obscure the fundamental moral question of supporting a nation facing illegal invasion.
Harris’ Defense of the Afghanistan Withdrawal: An Unconvincing Response
On the other side of the debate, Vice President Kamala Harris took a firm stance in defending the Biden administration’s decision to withdraw from Afghanistan. The withdrawal, which marked the end of a 20-year American military presence, has been the subject of intense scrutiny, largely due to its chaotic execution. Harris noted that four successive U.S. presidents had voiced intentions to withdraw, but it was President Biden who ultimately followed through.
Harris’s argument that the Trump administration laid the groundwork for the withdrawal is factually correct. Trump negotiated a peace deal with the Taliban that sidelined the Afghan government, freed 5,000 Taliban prisoners, and set a timeline for U.S. troop withdrawal. In inviting the Taliban to Camp David and engaging with them directly, Trump arguably set the stage for the eventual collapse of the Afghan government. Nevertheless, Harris struggled to provide a satisfactory explanation for why the Biden administration failed to anticipate how quickly the Afghan government would fall once U.S. forces left.
Harris leaned on the explanation provided by White House national security spokesman John Kirby, who had argued that no one in the U.S. intelligence community foresaw such a rapid collapse. However, this reasoning does little to absolve the administration of responsibility. The American public, and the world at large, were left questioning the efficacy of U.S. intelligence and planning. Harris’s defense, while attempting to shift some blame onto Trump, ultimately fell flat in addressing the chaotic and tragic nature of the withdrawal.
In a campaign environment dominated by slogans and partisan rhetoric, the Trump-Harris debate offered little meaningful insight into long-term foreign policy strategies. Trump’s proud declaration that he had pressured NATO allies into paying more into the collective security pot is a familiar refrain, one that he used to great effect during his presidency. While it’s true that NATO allies have increased their defense spending in recent years, Trump’s argument skirts the larger, more complex issue of whether wealthy European countries can and should take on a greater share of the defense burden, especially given Russia’s ongoing aggression in Ukraine.
Harris, for her part, offered little in terms of a compelling vision for NATO’s future or how the U.S. could work with allies to ensure a stable, secure Europe. The debate failed to address whether the current defense spending model is sustainable for the U.S. in the long term, particularly when the Russian threat, while significant, pales in comparison to other global challenges. Moreover, both candidates glossed over the broader question of how NATO should adapt to the shifting geopolitical landscape, particularly in light of China’s rising influence.
When the conversation turned to the ongoing Gaza conflict, Harris reiterated her support for Israel’s right to defend itself, a position she shares with the Biden administration. Yet, as the war drags on and the civilian death toll mounts, Harris offered no clear strategy for how the U.S. plans to encourage a peaceful resolution to the conflict. The Biden administration has acknowledged that too many civilians are being killed in Gaza, but Harris avoided discussing the thorny issue of whether the U.S. might leverage its military aid to Israel as a means of pressuring Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to pursue a ceasefire.
Israel’s hawkish government, under Netanyahu, has little incentive to end the fighting as long as U.S. support remains unconditional. Yet, Harris made no mention of the possibility of reevaluating that support, even as many in the international community call for greater accountability for Israel’s military actions. The U.S. remains Israel’s most important ally, and a more nuanced debate could have explored how the U.S. could influence the course of the conflict in a way that balances Israel’s security needs with the humanitarian concerns in Gaza.
Trump’s Misunderstanding of Tariffs and Immigration
One of the more troubling aspects of the debate was Trump’s continued misunderstanding of tariffs and their economic impact. Throughout his presidency, Trump repeatedly touted tariffs as a way to force foreign countries, particularly China, to pay for access to U.S. markets. However, tariffs are effectively taxes on U.S. importers, who pass the increased costs onto American consumers in the form of higher prices. This economic reality eluded Trump during the debate, as he proposed even higher tariffs on China and other nations as a way to bolster the U.S. economy.
In fact, Trump’s tariffs contributed to inflationary pressures, as the increased cost of imported goods raised prices for American consumers. Harris, to her credit, pointed out that the Biden administration has kept some of Trump’s tariffs in place, but she stopped short of advocating for their removal. If the goal is to fight inflation, eliminating tariffs would be a logical step, yet neither candidate seemed willing to embrace that solution.
Immigration was another topic that showcased Trump’s penchant for exaggeration and misinformation. He repeatedly claimed that large numbers of criminals are crossing the U.S.-Mexico border, despite evidence to the contrary. In reality, immigrants—both legal and undocumented—commit fewer violent crimes than native-born Americans. Moreover, legal immigrants often bring valuable skills and education to the U.S. workforce, helping to fill gaps in sectors facing labor shortages.
Harris missed an opportunity to highlight these facts and make a compelling case for increased legal immigration as a way to address both inflation and workforce challenges. Instead, she focused on the Democrats’ support for border security, without delving into the economic benefits that a more open immigration policy could provide.
The debate between Trump and Harris offered little in the way of substantive foreign policy discussion. Both candidates stuck to familiar talking points, with Trump relying on his populist rhetoric and Harris defending the Biden administration’s record. There were few moments of genuine engagement or nuanced analysis of the complex issues facing the United States and the world.
In an era where global challenges—from climate change to geopolitical realignments—require thoughtful, informed leadership, the superficiality of American political debates is disheartening. As long as the focus remains on soundbites and scoring political points, rather than on addressing the real issues at hand, the American public will continue to be left in the dark about the true stakes of these decisions.
