Washington: Numerous hot issues play a crucial role in deciding the 2024 race for the White House between Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris and her Republican rival Donald Trump.
According to Qatar News Agency, despite outstanding foreign issues and increasing tensions around the world, observers believe that internal issues such as the economic situation, immigration, and border security are crucial in voters’ choices. The ongoing aggression on the Gaza Strip, the Russian-Ukrainian crisis, and the developments in Afghanistan are at the forefront of the foreign files that see different positions by both presidential candidates.
On Gaza, Democratic candidate Kamala Harris believes in the necessity of ending the Gaza war and the importance of a two-state solution. On his part, Republican candidate Donald Trump said that the war in Gaza would not have happened if he were President. Nevertheless, none of the candidates presented a plan to end the war.
Regarding the Russian-Ukrainian crisis, Trum
p confirmed his ability to secure a ceasefire in Ukraine even before taking office in case he won the election, while Harris did not present a future agenda on how she would support Ukraine, contenting herself with reviewing the support provided to Ukraine by the current US administration led by President Joe Biden.
As for the situation in Afghanistan, Harris supports the withdrawal of US forces from Afghanistan, a decision that sparked widespread controversy in US political circles. On the other hand, Trump described the withdrawal as “the most embarrassing” moment in the history of the United States, noting that the withdrawal showed the weakness of the United States in Afghanistan and was the cause of the Russian-Ukrainian crisis.
In addressing foreign policy and national security issues, Harris focuses on traditional diplomacy, alliances, strategic defense, and multilateral cooperation to achieve stability, while Trump promotes himself as a strongman who can prevent and end conflicts through personal fo
rce and negotiation.
Climate change emerges as a clear point of contention in the stances of the two presidential candidates. While Harris was keen to attract younger voters and environmental advocates, considering clean energy an economic opportunity and a moral necessity, Trump downplayed the importance of addressing climate change, focusing instead on the economic benefits of traditional energy sources, a rhetoric that resonates with voters concerned about job losses in the oil and gas industries and those skeptical of climate change.
Harris highlighted the current administration’s USD 1 trillion investments in clean energy, increased gas production, and new manufacturing jobs. She stressed the need to continue to innovate and create jobs in the renewable energy sector. On the other hand, Trump called the issue of climate change a hoax, criticizing renewable energy sources like wind and solar as inefficient and harmful to the economy. He noted that energy policies pursued by the US administration during
his presidency created jobs and lowered energy costs.
The historic debate between Kamala Harris, the US Vice President and Democratic candidate for the US presidential election, and Donald Trump, the former President and Republican candidate, showed different stances on many domestic issues, most notably the economic file. Harris vowed to build an “opportunity economy” that focuses on the needs of working and middle-class families through tax breaks, housing initiatives, and support for small businesses. She promoted herself as the “candidate of hope” or “candidate of the future,” criticizing Trump for giving priority to tax cuts for the wealthy and large corporations, which she said led to an inflationary deficit.
For his part, Trump attributed the economic crises facing the United States to inflation and immigration. He described the tariffs he had imposed, especially on China, as the key to economic recovery, arguing that they brought in large revenues while keeping inflation low during his administratio
n. He also blamed the current US administration for the inflation crisis, noting that uncontrolled immigration and bad trade deals exacerbated the problem.
On immigration and border security, Harris emphasized her experience in prosecuting transnational criminal organizations and criticized Trump for blocking bipartisan legislation that would have combated drug and crime flows. On his side, Trump said the border crisis is both a national security and an economic threat. He announced plans for border closure and the largest domestic deportation operation in US history, suggesting that mass deportations would stabilize the country.
Regarding health care, a key issue for the voters, Harris defended the Affordable Care Act and advocated for access to health care, especially for vulnerable population groups, while Trump criticized the Act and said he wanted to improve the system. Harris believes in the need to expand access to health care and reduce costs, such as capping the price of insulin. She described Trum
p’s attempts to repeal the Affordable Care Act as harmful to millions of Americans, especially those with pre-existing conditions. She pledged to continue strengthening the Affordable Care Act if elected.
Contrary to Harris, Trump criticized the Affordable Care Act issued by former President Barack Obama, describing it as fundamentally flawed. He noted that a better plan could be presented in the future, but did not provide specific details during the debate.
The divergence in positions between the two presidential candidates reflects the deep political polarization in the United States. While Democratic candidate Kamala Harris focused her campaign on policies aimed at unity, equality, social welfare, progressive reforms, and addressing the most pressing challenges related to the lives of American citizens, Republican candidate Donald Trump underscored his stance that is based on strength, economic protection, and law and order policies, pledging to restore the country’s greatness by rebuilding the economy,
securing the borders, and strengthening national defense.
Political analyst Mohamed El-Menshawy emphasized in an interview with Qatar News Agency that the outcome of the US elections is unlikely to shift Washington’s foreign policy stance, particularly in the Middle East. He explained that US policy has remained consistently institutional for decades, unaffected by whether a Republican or Democratic president occupies the White House.
Discussing the situation in Gaza and Lebanon, El-Menshawy stated that, should Kamala Harris assume the presidency, the US position would likely remain unchanged. However, he noted that a Donald Trump victory might alter the dynamics, given Trump’s repeated assertions about his intention to end ongoing conflicts.
Addressing peace prospects in the Middle East, El-Menshawy remarked that current discussions of peace lack serious momentum. Although President Joe Biden’s administration frequently advocates for a two-state solution, the immediate priority, given the current regional
tensions, should be to halt Israeli aggression, release detainees, and facilitate humanitarian aid into Gaza.
Turning to the Ukraine crisis, El-Menshawy underscored that the US presidential election results will be crucial. If Harris wins, US support for Ukraine would likely persist. However, if Trump were to return to office, the US stance could shift dramatically, with Trump potentially seeking to end the conflict.
On the subject of China, El-Menshawy pointed out bipartisan agreement between Democrats and Republicans regarding the perceived strategic challenge posed by China. He explained that the US stance on China covering economic, political, military, and technological concerns will remain firm, irrespective of the election’s outcome.
Discussing US relations with the European Union and NATO, El-Menshawy noted that Harris’s presidency would likely maintain the current policy. Conversely, a Trump administration could signal a more contentious approach, as Trump has previously criticized the European Un
ion.
El-Menshawy also highlighted the significance of swing states, particularly Pennsylvania, which he called pivotal to the electoral map. He observed that while Harris cannot secure a victory without Pennsylvania, Trump could potentially win without it, due to alternative pathways.
He further reflected on the recent Harris-Trump debate, noting that Trump’s performance was widely seen as subpar, but he added that such moments are quickly forgotten in the fast-paced American political climate. Similarly, El-Menshawy observed that the American public seems indifferent to past assassination attempts on Trump, with little lasting impact on voters.
On domestic issues such as immigration, the economy, and healthcare, El-Menshawy remarked that these remain challenging topics for American voters. He cited opinion polls suggesting that many voters favorably compare the current situation with conditions under Trump’s previous administration.
Regarding the Arab and Islamic voting bloc, El-Menshawy emphasized its p
otential influence in key swing states, particularly Pennsylvania and Georgia, where large numbers of Arab and Muslim voters reside. However, he noted significant internal divisions within this bloc, which could limit its impact on the election results.
Finally, El-Menshawy addressed the likelihood of post-election disputes. He anticipated extensive controversy and challenges over vote counting and results across states, though he believes the election will ultimately conclude peacefully despite some confrontations.