Opinion | Short-sightedness of US presidential election Issues and its political consequences

By Zhou Dewu

November 5 is the official voting day for the US election. On that day, over 70 million nationwide voters will head to polling stations, while 82.7 million voters have already completed early voting. Strictly speaking, since early voting began in September, the entire voting process has stretched nearly two months, which is unusual in global electoral systems.

Trump and Harris have focused their final campaign efforts on the crucial state of Pennsylvania. On the night of Nov. 4, Trump flew back to Florida, where he held an "Election Night" event at the West Palm Beach convention center on the evening of Nov. 5, facing whatever fortunes or misfortunes await him. In contrast, Harris returned to her alma mater, Howard University in Washington, D.C., preparing for any news that "Election Night" might bring. Both candidates, exhausted, returned to their respective "comfort zones" seeking a moment of peace.

What follows is a long wait, likely accompanied by another round of legal battles and political violence. Trump has repeatedly warned that the only reason he could lose the election again is due to "cheating" by the Democrats. To prepare for unforeseen events, both the White House and the venue for "Election Night" have been fenced off.

Trump's straightforwardness often leads to offense; he speaks without holding back, making him a polarizing figure. His supporters adore him passionately, while his detractors despise him equally. Harris, hailing from California, is viewed as a liberal, with her policy proposals labeled as "leftist." Although Harris has articulated her policies on various occasions, her responses tend to be convoluted, ambiguous, and evasive, often masking them with a veneer of "political correctness," which leaves many American voters feeling uneasy and eager to know "the real Harris."

Some voters believe the Democratic Party has strayed too far and urgently needs to correct its course. Perhaps realizing this issue, Harris has significantly adjusted her policy positions. For instance, regarding fracking, she no longer maintains her opposition from 2019 to cater to Pennsylvania voters' interests. Additionally, on immigration, she has shifted from a stance of "decriminalization" to a more stringent approach, which has discontented the party's progressive base.

A long-standing criticism of US elections is that candidates from both parties often issue empty promises to please voters, with very few actually materializing. Politicians frequently focus on short-term gains, incapable of truly guiding the long-term direction of societal development, often acting as "the tail of the masses."

In this election, both candidates have avoided addressing the long-term debt crisis. The total US debt has surpassed US$36 trillion, with interest payments alone exceeding US$1 trillion, not to mention the principal repayment issues. In reality, the US is already insolvent and has not seriously considered repaying its debts, relying instead on borrowing new debt to pay off old debt. 

To win over voters, Trump recently announced in Las Vegas that tips would not be taxed, alongside tax cuts for the wealthy. While this pleases some supporters, the negative repercussions are also evident. Experts estimate that "Trumponomics" could lead to at least US$7 trillion in additional deficits over the next four years. On the other hand, Harris's "Opportunity Economy," which focuses more on social equity, proposes tax relief for child-rearing and a US$25,000 subsidy for first-time homebuyers, likely adding another US$3.5 trillion in fiscal deficits. Compared to Trump's US$7 trillion, Harris's plan is merely a case of "50 steps laughing at 100 steps" as both candidates adopt a "carpe diem" approach regarding national debt.

When it comes to addressing long-term issues like climate change and environmental concerns, both candidates have been silent. As the election countdown progresses, the southern US has experienced two hurricanes—Hurricane Helene and Hurricane Milton. These storms, along with tornadoes, have struck the South in rapid succession, turning key swing states like North Carolina and Georgia into disaster zones, prompting some Florida residents to question the wisdom of living along the coast. During rallies in these areas, both candidates have avoided discussing climate change and environmental issues. Trump has focused on accusing the Democrats of abandoning Republican districts in North Carolina, exacerbating division and resentment towards the Democrats. Harris's visit to the disaster areas was also criticized as a photo-op, lacking genuine empathy.

To gain the support of the "Rust Belt"—the auto unions in Michigan—the Biden-Harris administration announced high tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles and restrictions on the import of Chinese solar panels, contradicting the Democratic Party's pursuit of a "Green New Deal."

Regarding tariffs, Trump views them as "the most beautiful word" and has claimed that he will impose additional tariffs globally after taking office. While the Biden administration disapproves of this approach, it lacks the courage to remove the extra tariffs on China. The paradoxes in the Democratic government's policies make it difficult for Harris to justify her positions during the campaign, significantly weakening her persuasive power with voters.

Though the US election appears to be a domestic affair, its consequences are borne by the entire world, creating an inherent unfairness. In a sense, the existence of a normal, commonsensical, and more inclusive American leader is a hope for the world, which can no longer withstand repeated turmoil.

(Source: Ta Kung Pao)

Related News:

Opinion | Shortcomings in US electoral system: Election, or combat?

Opinion | Battle between genders: Who's worse in US presidential election?