Why Geopolitics Could Make Trump And Harris Similar Presidents
From polar opposites to parallel paths
“For the first time, geopolitics could bend the US presidency.”
On paper, Trump and Harris could not be more different. Whether it is taxes or trade, the candidates have widely contrasting views. Even when there is rare alignment, like over China, it is short-lived, as the contenders disagree on how serious a threat China is compared to other challenges, like Russia’s invasion of Ukraine or Iran’s nuclear development.
As US voters weigh the pros and cons of each candidate, capitals around the world are doing the same. From allies to adversaries, governments are asking one question: which candidate’s ideas are better for them?
At first glance, this may seem like an easy answer, a “no-brainer.”
To put it mildly, compared to Trump, Harris is more tame. While Trump will rewire the world, Harris will maintain the status quo. Being predictable, and therefore reliable, is what most nations look for on the world stage. The opposite, being full of surprises, especially as the world’s most powerful nation, is what scares many governments. This is why Germany has a team actively formulating strategies and scenarios for a potential Trump return.
Except, the lens that governments are looking at Trump and Harris through, to see and weigh differences, is misleading. It is very narrow, only revealing one dimension.
In light of today’s disruptive geopolitics, the world must see the two candidates in the backdrop of a new global environment that is forming.
Whoever sits in the Oval Office next year will be steering America through a world in disarray.
From the West to the Global South, elections increasingly revolve around nationalism, where the reassertion of borders (in all forms) has become the new rallying cry. From Bangladesh to Bulgaria, new crises, like social revolt or political gridlock, are forcing governments to retreat from the world stage. The global economy, once integrated and accessible, is increasingly becoming vertical (full of walls and barriers). Alliances and connectivity that much of the world relied on for order and stability, are fracturing or worse, being forgotten.
All of this is taking place in conjunction to the wars in Europe and the Middle East and the worsening US-China showdown. They represent “wildfires” rapidly spreading into all four corners of the world.
Compare this to the global landscape during the 2020 US election where a single challenge existed (the Covid-19 virus) in the face of a much more stable, calmer world (relative to today).
All of this means that it is not business as usual for the next US president.
Come January, the next occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania may see the walls closing in around them because of geopolitics. They may have little wiggle room to carry out their ideas or projects on the world stage.
Short of very specific instances, like Trump swiftly ending the Ukraine war versus Harris doubling down on support for Kyiv, on most other matters, the two candidates might end up having a similar footprint. Even in Ukraine, however, depending on what happens over the next two months, as discussed here, Trump and Harris may have to move similarly.
The new geopolitics taking place could confine the next US president, forcing him or her in similar directions, to play similar cards to deal with various crises. This means geopolitics could limit the next president, regardless of party, to the same few options.
In the end, two incredibly different candidates could end up driving the same outcome on the world stage.
Altered World
This shocking possibility stems from major structural changes occurring in the world, because of geopolitics. In combination, they may force Trump or Harris to act in lockstep.
First, while America is still the most reliable nation, and the surest bet, America is no longer spinning the world as it once did. Many nations are charting paths that take them away from the US, potentially off the American-axis.
Whether it is “America First” (Trump) or “Looking Forward” (Harris), these frameworks could be paralyzed by the new reality of the world. Some countries are already putting themselves first, such as China and Russia de-dollarizing the majority of their trade, while some capitals are already looking forward themselves, like the UAE and Egypt joining BRICS.
Faced with an environment where their ideas may have a different reception, Trump and Harris will be forced to recalibrate, potentially repositioning themselves, and the US, to a similar place on the world stage.
Second, the world has been in a state of constant crisis for almost half a decade, ignited by the pandemic, with an accelerated era of crisis after the Russia-Ukraine war began.
Many governments have become normalized, even de-sensitized to geopolitics, and have adapted to the new status quo in their own ways.
This makes them less reliant on America’s solutions. And, also less reliant on the outcome if America’s solutions are implemented. All of this changes the calculus for the next US president, as the ability of the US to solve problems, representative of American leadership, is up in the air.
Turning the Ukraine War into a frozen conflict, like what exists on the Korean Peninsula, means Europe will be relegated to the past, in a semi-permanent state of war where Russia is (once again) the boogeyman, with the addition of China. Or, enacting a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas might end the fighting in Gaza, but when it comes to Israel-Iran, the cat is out of the bag, as the flashpoint quickly snowballs, crushing diplomatic efforts.
This could force Trump and Harris to eye the same prescriptions, drastically different or less impactful than what they initially wanted, in an attempt to ensure Washington still calls the shots.
Third, while China’s economy shakes, China is a different country than just a few years ago. It is no longer an emerging power like before the pandemic or a reclusive power like during the pandemic.
China is speaking when before it stayed quiet; China is moving when before it stayed still. A big part of this is offering countries a real alternative to the US (and Western) systems, from a historic free trade deal with Serbia to a massive deepwater port in Peru. In combination with Russia, along with Iran on the periphery, China is the leader of a new front, pushing a “counter system” to what exists.
China challenging America for global dominance is no longer just a theory in geostrategic thinking.
It is actively happening.
For the US, it may be standing at the top of the mountain. But it is not the only mountain anymore. Be it Trump or Harris, the next US president will have to accept that America is no longer the only store much of the world is shopping at, as China works every angle, from cheap exports to high-tech goods to green trade, to keep the world glued to it and away from America’s ideas (i.e. de-risking).
This could result in Trump or Harris executing similar global projects in similar geographies around similar offerings (i.e. technology, investment), or focusing on the same domestic policies (i.e. tariffs on Chinese imports), as the Chinese footprint limits options.
Lastly, a strange paradox is taking place in the priorities of governments, as domestic affairs overtake global affairs, while global affairs drive domestic affairs.
The massive revolts in Bangladesh over job quotas dismantled the previous government, giving rise to a new government that will be forced, from day one, to focus on the domestic situation.
Except, as Bangladesh turns inward, the moves of India and China could calm the internal waters or stoke new fires for Dhaka.
This push-and-pull dynamic between the domestic and global, which at one moment is clearly demarcated, but at another moment overlaps, is appearing across the globe. The next US president has to contend with the changing outlook of governments, where domestic crises are exploding, taking precedence over global action (with the exception of “black swan” events like a virus or recession).
The spread of domestic challenges may act as barriers, deflecting ideas from Trump or Harris. This could force both potential presidencies to redesign America’s role in the world in very similar ways, falling back on the same allies/partners, or pouring resources into the same ideas in a bid to drive America’s influence forward, but not necessarily higher.
These key structural changes will push the next US president, whoever it is, into the same narrow openings, resulting in very similar, if not the same behavior on the world stage.
This might be hard to imagine, considering how different the candidates are, especially in their policy portrayals. However, almost none of the analyses of Trump or Harris take into account the changing nature of geopolitics and its ability to shape what the most powerful office in the world can do.
For the first time, geopolitics could bend the US presidency.
This is a massive inversion. In the past, geopolitics, often stemming from Washington determined what every other country could do, except America. Now, geopolitics stemming from the world could determine what America can do.
The next US president could face pressures none of their predecessors faced.
Speed > Policy
Accepting that outcomes could be similar if not the same (on the world stage), shifts the focus to a different area. The real differentiating factor between Harris and Trump could be speed.
It may be speed, how fast the candidates enact policy and take action, that Trump and Harris are distinguished by. And, in turn, it may be speed that provides the only real opening for either presidency to stand apart.
When it comes to speed, Trump is like a bullet train, ready to go from zero to one hundred in the blink of an eye, while Haris is like a modern locomotive, accelerating slowly until reaching the desired speed.
There are pros and cons to each model. And, this is where many nations will begin to diverge in who they support. Speed will influence the pace and scale of disruption, as Trump or Harris are quietly united by a separate cause: reasserting American power in the world.
Countries like Saudi Arabia and India may be very open to a bullet-train-like approach, as their hunger to rise continues to grow. Quickly ending the Israel-Hamas War, and introducing stopgaps around an Israel-Iran flareup, returning some stability to the Middle East, will be cheered on by Riyadh and other Arab capitals. Or, bolstering the relationship with India, potentially elevating it to the highest status, enabling India to go beyond a tricky dynamic where its biggest ally (Russia) is close to marrying its biggest adversary (China), will be lauded in New Delhi.
Meanwhile, the EU and Japan may prefer a modern-locomotive-type approach, as they put economics first, and seek to slowly iron out differences instead of taking quick action. An extended discussion between the US and EU over clean energy subsidies or EV exports, that establish common ground instead of common tariffs, is exactly what Brussels is looking for. Or, strategically reintroducing America to deals that Japan has taken the lead on, because of Washington’s previous withdrawal, like CPTPP, would play on Tokyo’s heartstrings.
Speed, and accompanied action, may represent the biggest, structural difference between what a Trump administration or Harris administration will look like around the world - perhaps more so than policy.
Conclusion
In less than 70 days, American voters will select the next president of the United States.
For the world, and especially the US voter, what has taken place this election cycle, in particular the last two months, could not be more surreal. An attempted assassination of the former president, swiftly followed by the “soft resignation” of the sitting president. These are historic, disruptive acts, likely creating doubts in the minds of many Americans about the future of their most sacred political tradition: electing a president.
Added to the bewilderment, and contrasts is the ugly face of this election, where race and violence are openly jostling with policy and ideas, for the attention of a polarized, activated electorate.
As the American population compares and contrasts, so too is the world.
But, as the race for the White House enters its last leg, there is more than meets the eye. The widely-discussed differences and policies by Trump and Harris might not matter much after election day. The big projects eyed by both contenders may need a complete redesign after inauguration day.
Because, the big force in the background, that determines the direction and decisions of the next US president, could be geopolitics. The new geopolitical environment, from trade to alliances, could see Trump or Harris finding themselves standing on the same ground, docking at the same ports, or cutting the same deals.
And, behind this stunning possibility, is another realization: if geopolitics can bend the next US president, then geopolitics can bend every capital in the world. What the most important election in the world is revealing then, is that geopolitics is no longer sitting on the bench or slowly making its presence felt.
Geopolitics is unleashed. And the next US president may be the first to feel it.
—Abishur
Want to republish this insight? Let’s talk: abishur at mrgeopolitics dot com
If you liked this insight, why not invite your team?
If there is somebody you feel would benefit from Mr. Geopolitics, gift them a subscription.