Martin Gurri, author of The Revolt of the Public, is one of the most incisive explainers of our age. The former CIA analyst predicted the rise of populism, Brexit, and BLM—and recently revealed that he will be voting for Donald Trump after refusing to back him in the last two elections. Now, in his latest column for The Free Press, reprinted from Discourse, he forecasts what foreign policy would look like under a Harris administration.
The single most important piece on the geopolitical chessboard is the person holding the office of president of the United States. He—or, as may soon come to pass, she—provides the focal point around which the players of all other nations align themselves. A strong and experienced president like Dwight Eisenhower inspires confidence in our allies and caution in our opponents. A weak or incompetent president is an invitation to chaos and worse.
That John F. Kennedy tolerated Nikita Khrushchev’s tongue-lashing during their Vienna summit in 1961 was no doubt an element in the decision process that brought the world to the brink of nuclear war over Soviet missiles in Cuba. In the same way, Joe Biden’s bungled flight from Afghanistan encouraged hostile powers, like Russia and Iran, to launch military adventures.
It is only a slight exaggeration to say that the policies and character of the president are the keys to war and peace in the world today.
How remarkable is it, then, that Kamala Harris was awarded the Democratic Party nomination, and may become the next president of the United States, while remaining a virtual blank slate on foreign affairs? In her four years as senator and four as vice president, Harris has managed to say nothing meaningful on the subject—a curious reticence, given that American politicians love to strut and lecture on the global stage.
It isn’t a question of inexperience. Barack Obama had less experience when he first ran for president, but his entire candidacy hinged on opposition to the Iraq War. Donald Trump had literally zero foreign policy experience, but he loudly advocated confronting China and making our allies pay their way. Obama and Trump were both candidates of revolt, and part of the change they wished to bring about was a reorientation in this country’s relations with the world.
Harris is in a tight race for the presidency. She has no wish to alienate voters, and she, or at least her handlers, must be aware that her propensity to toss random words into the air amounts almost to a speech impediment. Here she is, for example, trying to explain her administration’s influence over Israel: “The work that we have done has resulted in a number of movements in that region by Israel that were very much prompted by, or a result of, many things including our advocacy for what needs to happen in the region.” When the English language is your enemy, it may be the better part of valor to say little or nothing.
But another factor also comes into play. Harris is the exact opposite of a candidate of revolt—she represents the golden progressive establishment that today controls most American institutions. In this regard, her strange vacuity is an ideal condition: Policies favored by the establishment will simply be stuffed into that void. I suspect most foreign governments look on her as the latest iteration of the Obama and Biden worldview. Because of her office and party, no less than her eager conformism, she’s the candidate who needs no introduction.
To get a sense of what Harris’s foreign policy might look like, I’m trying to say, we first need to understand the journey traveled by her Democratic predecessors.
our Comments
Use common sense here: disagree, debate, but don't be a .