After Joyous Chicago, Kamala Faces Ten Weeks Of Fire

On the second task, voters in presidential elections rarely make up their minds based on specific policy stances. It is all too technical, abstract and probably tendentious for most people: some won't understand policy stances, others won't believe them.

What does probably matter is the impression such stances convey about the basic attitude of the candidates and the apparent coherence of their thinking.

Measured in that way, although many proposals were half-baked at best, the team has probably been successful in conveying the idea that the main Harris-Walz concerns in government will be

• lowering the cost of living for ordinary people,
• curbing the excessive power of big, quasi-monopolistic corporations, and
• restoring basic freedoms – and specifically rights over abortion.

No one will be convinced they have a magic formula and many are likely to be skeptical that they will succeed in doing much about illegal immigration. On the issue of border security, their best hope will be to neutralize the topic, removing any advantage Trump may think he has.

Foreign affairs are notoriously just a sideshow in American elections. When I was at The Economist we would lament every four years about how little time and attention was given to America's huge global role.

This year will be just the same in terms of specific policy stances and specific countries. But it promises to be unusual in terms of the role foreign affairs may play in defining the character of the rival candidates, and it is voters' perceptions of character and behavior that are likely to be decisive.

By their words and performances over the past month, Kamala Harris and Tim Walz have succeeded in presenting themselves as positive, optimistic and, in American terms,“normal” – all of which are key electoral attributes.

Their message that Donald Trump and his running-mate JD Vance are“weird,”“unserious,” deeply negative and in a variety of senses dangerous has proved to be both powerful and convincing.

By focusing on the threat to reproductive rights, personal liberty and democracy itself the Democrats have successfully captured a word usually owned by Republicans, namely“freedom.”

That should provide an excellent platform on which to enter the fierce combat of the next seven weeks. However, what it has not yet done is to clearly and convincingly label the Harris-Walz team as being likely to provide strong leadership and credibility in the face of the inevitable crises that will occur during any administration.

In her acceptance speech, Harris sought to address this by talking about the tough stance she would take toward China and Russia, and by reminding listeners of Trump's friendships with brutal dictators like North Korea's Kim Jong-un.

By doing so, she wasn't trying to get into a debate about foreign affairs, but rather was trying to show that she would be a strong, resolute leader when sitting behind the president's official desk – which is known as“the Resolute desk” not actually because its user necessarily fits that label but because it was built in 1880 from the timbers of a British naval ship, the HMS Resolute.

Using strong, even resolute words will not, however, be enough. Harris now must show that she can be strong and resolute when under daily fire from the Trump team, when questioned by journalists, and, in particular, in the one face-to-face TV debate that the two sides have so far agreed to hold, on ABC on September 10.

Sign up for one of our free newsletters

• The Daily Report Start your day right with Asia Times' top stories
• AT Weekly Report A weekly roundup of Asia Times' most-read stories

If I were forced now to place a bet about who will win on November 5, I would certainly put my money on Kamala Harris and Tim Walz, and on a vote for freedom, normality and positivity. But I would not want to risk too much on that outcome. The race promises to be close and tense, and there is plenty of room for new upsets and earthquakes along the way.

Formerly editor-in-chief of The Economist, Bill Emmott is currently chairman of the
Japan Society of the UK , the
International Institute for Strategic Studies
and the
International Trade Institute .

Previously published on his Substack, Bill Emmott's Global View , this is the English original of an article published on August 25 in Italian by La Stampa. It is republished here with kind permission.

Already have an account? Sign i Sign up here to comment on Asia Times stories OR

Thank you for registering!

An account was already registered with this email. Please check your inbox for an authentication link.