“Fellow-citizens, we cannot escape history. We of this Congress and this administration, will be remembered in spite of ourselves. No personal significance, or insignificance, can spare one or another of us. The fiery trial through which we pass, will light us down, in honor or dishonor, to the latest generation. We say we are for the Union. The world will not forget that we say this. We know how to save the Union. The world knows we do know how to save it. We — even we here — hold the power and bear the responsibility”.
President Abraham Lincoln, December 1, 1862
The debate considered the State of the Union (SOTU) from four perspectives: Washington politics and the preservation of checks and balances; the shape of the respective second terms; the role of foreign and security policy in the forthcoming campaign, with particular emphasis on the state of the US armed forces; impact on allies and partners.
Checks and balances? The forthcoming SOTU on March 7will be one of the most important and the starting gun for both the presidential campaign and the forthcoming battle between the “mainstream media” and Trump’s MAGA bases. In the past, SOTU was meant to be a bipartisan expression of national unity at which flagship policies were launched, but no longer. With a General Election between the incumbent President Biden and former President Trump likely key will be whether the former exudes “confidence and competence and enunciates a clear vision of a second term” and proves “his fitness to stand” in a campaign between two “Zimmer frame candidates”. The election will be won or lost by those in the Washington ‘blob’ on both sides reaching out to the many independents in the country. Trump’s weakness will be reaching out beyond his base to independents; Biden’s weakness will be his reliance on sectors of society that tend not to vote, the poor, the young and ethnic minorities. Much will also depend on which way the House and Senate go on November 5.
The second terms: The difference between a Trump first and second term would be the lack of “guardrails” to prevent him moving to extremes, as would insist on his own team of “MAGA ideologues”. There would almost certainly be a constitutional crisis and a foreign policy crisis. First, the traditional constraining wing of the Republican Party would be excluded, and, second, Trump might use the threat to withdraw from the Washington Treaty to assert presidential power over Congress. An unchecked Trump could even seek to use US armed forces for domestic control. A Biden administration would see more continuity but would not necessarily avert a crisis over burden-sharing in the Alliance The campaign will be fought on four issues: culture wars, immigration, foreign policy, and the economy which will exacerbate deep internal divisions in American society. The economy should play to Biden’s strengths given all key indicators suggest robust economic growth, but the necessary feelgood factor has yet to be felt by many Americans.
Foreign and security policy: Foreign policy normally plays a minor role in presidential campaigns but mass immigration and the wars in Ukraine and Gaza, allied to US military overstretch are seeing domestic and foreign policy merge in the American mind. The future of the US and its alliances could well hang in the balance, with both candidates placing particular emphasis on the state of the US armed forces. US armed forces are still the world’s most powerful and advanced with a budget of over $814 billion in 2024. However, they are “caught between China and Gaza”; overstretched both geographically and doctrinally between Great Power competition and counterinsurgency. With US 1.2 million personnel the US armed forces are the smallest since World War Two and will seek ever more advanced technological “hyperwar” solutions to military overstretch with profound implications for interoperability with analogue European militaries.
The impact on allies and partners: The paradox of US foreign and defence policy is that “whilst the US need for capable partners has never been greater, the solidarity between the US and its allies has never been weaker”. A Trump administration would strengthen mistrust across the Atlantic, and across the Pacific as Trump first presents himself as the “peace president”, and “puts the NATO allies on notice” to do far more. If allies do not increase defence expenditure (to at least 4%?) Trump could well threaten to withdraw the US from an “entangling Alliance”, with allusions to Washington’s Final Address. Biden would be far more reasonable in his dealings with allies and partners but would still face the same problems of US overstretch as Trump.
Conclusion: If Europeans adopt a “hope for the [Biden] best strategy” they are likely to be disappointed. Unfortunately, Brussels, together with many European capitals, is sleepwalking into 2024 with rumours abounding that Biden “might pull the plug” on US support for a Ukraine “that is fast becoming a hostage in the presidential campaign”. Any such step would have the most profound implications for Ukrainians and the security of Europeans more generally. For Trump such an act would be a ‘no-brainer’ because he has no sense of the “ark of history”. Allies beware!
Julian Lindley-French
Photo Credit: Andy Feliciotti on Unsplash