“There are decades where nothing happens; and there are weeks where decades happen.”
Vladimir Ilyich Lenin
In the span of barely a week, the American political landscape has been thrown into turmoil.
History is littered with "what ifs" and branching paths, many of which hinge on the smallest of decisions and the finest of margins. One such moment occurred when Donald Trump turned his head to one side while delivering a speech at a rally in Pennsylvania, causing a bullet destined for his skull to barely graze his ear.
Had he remained stationary, and the would-be assassin's bullet had found its mark, we would be in a very different world today.
Last week's Republican National Convention would have turned into a chaotic battle among potential candidates vying to inherit the mantle of the MAGA movement and determine the future of the American right—assuming the country didn't immediately descend into civil war, following the global broadcast of Donald Trump's head being blown off.
As it stands, Trump survived and took the opportunity to appoint his own successor, selecting Ohio Senator JD Vance as his running mate. This signals a commitment to a full MAGA ticket, rather than appeasing moderate Republicans by choosing a candidate like Nikki Haley, who had challenged him to the very end of this year's primaries.
The implications of this choice are staggering in themselves, notwithstanding the second shockwave that hit when President Joe Biden announced on Sunday evening that he would be withdrawing from the race and would not seek reelection for a second term.
This paves the way for his Vice President, Kamala Harris, to ascend as the Democratic nominee, with Biden and the Clintons—along with numerous elected Democrats—offering their immediate endorsement.
The nature of this year's election has fundamentally changed in such a short period. Trump's popularity bounce following his survival has incited near-cult-like behaviour from Republicans, culminating in a messianic reception at the RNC. This was shortly dwarfed by the historic decision of Joe Biden to bow out and make way for a successor—after mounting pressure following his disastrous debate performance and evidence of cognitive decline becoming too significant to ignore.
The implications of these events on the state of the race are profound. Trump's near-death experience has energised his base like never before. His supporters, already fiercely loyal, now see him as a survivor, almost a martyr, deepening their devotion. The selection of JD Vance as his running mate reinforces Trump's commitment to the core principles of the MAGA movement. Vance, with his populist rhetoric and conservative values, appeals to the grassroots supporters who form the backbone of Trump's political coalition.
It signals a clear message: the Republican ticket is committed to the same hardline stances on immigration, trade, and law and order that defined Trump's first term.
Conversely, Biden's withdrawal marks a significant turning point for the Democratic Party. Kamala Harris, now the presumptive nominee, represents both continuity and change. As Biden's Vice President, she embodies the administration's achievements and its progressive agenda. However, her candidacy also signifies a break from the past, a step towards a more diverse and inclusive Democratic Party. Harris' rise to the top of the ticket is historic; she would be the first woman, the first African American, and the first South Asian American to lead a major party's presidential ticket.
This milestone carries immense symbolic weight and is likely to galvanise key Democratic constituencies, particularly women and minority voters.
The forthcoming election, therefore, promises to be a fundamental clash of ideologies and visions for America's future. On one side, Trump and Vance are poised to campaign on a platform of nationalism, economic populism, and a return to what they consider “traditional” American values. Their message will likely resonate with voters who feel left behind by globalisation and social change, and who are looking for leaders who promise to restore America's perceived lost greatness. Their campaign will also emphasise law and order, a strong stance on immigration, and a commitment to dismantling what they view as the excesses of the federal bureaucracy.
On the other side, Harris will likely champion a progressive agenda that builds on the achievements of the Biden administration. Her platform is expected to focus on issues such as racial and social justice, climate change, healthcare reform, and economic equality. Harris' candidacy will aim to mobilise a broad coalition of voters who support a more inclusive and equitable vision for America—bringing voters disillusioned with Biden back into the fold.
The international ramifications of a Trump-Vance victory would be significant. Trump's foreign policy, characterised by its "America First" approach, has often been unpredictable and contentious. A second Trump term will likely see a continuation of trade wars, a more confrontational stance towards China, and a re-evaluation of America's role in international organisations such as NATO. Vance's views on foreign policy align closely with Trump's, with skepticism towards international agreements that are perceived to undermine American interests, and vocal criticism of the Biden administration’s support for Ukraine.
As the nation stands on the brink of this historic election, the choices before the American people could not be starker. The decisions made in the coming months will determine the direction of the US for years to come, influencing not only the domestic landscape but also the country's role on the global stage.
In this high-stakes battle for the soul of America, the echoes of history remind us that the smallest of margins and the finest of decisions can indeed alter the course of destiny.
The succession
JD Vance's selection cements the reformation of the Republican party as one firmly in Trump's image. Vance, a man who in some ways embodies the MAGA ethos even more than Trump himself, represents the culmination of Trump's influence over the GOP.
With the publication of his book, Hillbilly Elegy, Vance gained early support from the political centre, particularly among conservatives. The American working poor, regardless of location, need civic representatives from the centre-right—people who can talk candidly about the limits of government and who can make a moral case for tough love and personal responsibility, based on shared experience, common values, and genuine compassion.
Someone like Vance, at one time, could have been that candidate.
Hillbilly Elegy gained added attention because it promised to explain the white working class, a demographic that helped propel Trump to the presidency in 2016. Vance refused to make excuses for his own people, rejecting claims of victimhood. He wrote about the self-defeating behaviour of poor white people and the limits of state intervention. Although he may not have had many solutions, he understood that Trump—the charlatan that Vance once worried could become “America’s Hitler”—was not the answer. Vance was an outspoken "never-Trumper", referring to Trump in 2016 as "cultural heroin".
“During this election season, it appears that many Americans have reached for a new pain reliever. It too, promises a quick escape from life’s cares, an easy solution to the mounting social problems of U.S. communities and culture. It demands nothing and requires little more than a modest presence and maybe a few enablers. It enters minds, not through lungs or veins, but through eyes and ears, and its name is Donald Trump.
What Trump offers is an easy escape from the pain. To every complex problem, he promises a simple solution. He can bring jobs back simply by punishing offshoring companies into submission. As he told a New Hampshire crowd—folks all too familiar with the opioid scourge—he can cure the addiction epidemic by building a Mexican wall and keeping the cartels out. He will spare the United States from humiliation and military defeat with indiscriminate bombing. It doesn’t matter that no credible military leader has endorsed his plan. He never offers details for how these plans will work, because he can’t. Trump’s promises are the needle in America’s collective vein.
The great tragedy is that many of the problems Trump identifies are real, and so many of the hurts he exploits demand serious thought and measured action—from governments, yes, but also from community leaders and individuals. Yet so long as people rely on that quick high, so long as wolves point their fingers at everyone but themselves, the nation delays a necessary reckoning. There is no self-reflection in the midst of a false euphoria. Trump is cultural heroin. He makes some feel better for a bit. But he cannot fix what ails them, and one day they’ll realise it.”
However, Vance's conversion to a disciple of Trump has led to criticisms of him as a hollow man, an opportunist driven by a combination of self-admiration and insecurity. Critics argue that Vance has risen to great heights in the Republican Party by espousing beliefs he does not truly hold, particularly regarding his new running mate, Donald Trump. Vance has admitted to regretting his previous comments and he is now a vocal supporter of Trump's agenda, including the controversial Project 2025 by the Heritage Foundation. He is also staunchly anti-abortion—more so than Trump himself—and supports Trump's rhetoric regarding the 2020 election being "stolen."
This alignment with Trump, especially on the issue of the 2020 election, is particularly worrisome for the state of American democracy. Trump's previous Vice President, Mike Pence, refused to overturn the 2020 election results, leading to protestors on January 6th calling for him to be hanged. By performing his duty, he preserved the transfer of power to the incoming Biden administration.
However, should a future election result be contested by Trump (which is very likely given his track record of always claiming victory, regardless of the facts), Vance seems more than willing to overturn a democratic result to deliver Trump to power.
Vance's selection as Trump's running mate confirms the sidelining of Republican moderates in favour of a national populism that threatens the integrity of the American republic. The implications for America's standing in the world are also grave in this age of insecurity and instability. Vance's transformation from a vocal critic of Trump to a MAGA loyalist reflects a broader trend within the Republican Party: the consolidation of power around Trump's brand of politics.
This shift away from traditional conservative principles towards a more populist and authoritarian approach has significant consequences for both domestic and international politics.
Vance's MAGA stance is rooted in his belief in the cultural and economic revival of America's heartland, the areas hardest hit by deindustrialisation and economic stagnation. He champions policies that prioritise American workers over global trade interests, a stance that resonates deeply with the blue-collar voters who feel left behind by the global economy. Vance's rhetoric echoes Trump's call for stringent immigration policies, asserting that unchecked immigration undermines American jobs and wages. His stance on immigration is uncompromising, advocating for strict border control and policies that prioritise American citizens' needs.
Vance's economic views align closely with Trump's protectionist trade policies. He supports tariffs and trade barriers designed to protect American industries from foreign competition, arguing that such measures are necessary to revive manufacturing and restore economic prosperity to neglected regions. This economic nationalism is a cornerstone of the MAGA movement, appealing to voters who believe that America's economic policies should primarily benefit American workers and industries.
Additionally, Vance's alignment with the Heritage Foundation's Project 2025 underscores his commitment to a radical restructuring of the federal government. This project aims to implement sweeping changes to reduce federal regulations, diminish the power of federal agencies, and shift significant authority back to the states. Vance's support for this initiative highlights his commitment to dismantling what he and other MAGA proponents view as an overreaching and unaccountable federal bureaucracy.
On social issues, Vance's positions are notably more conservative than Trump's. He is incredibly anti-abortion, advocating for stringent restrictions on abortion rights. This aligns him with the most conservative factions within the Republican Party and signals a willingness to push for significant changes to abortion laws at both the state and federal levels.
The rise of JD Vance within the Republican Party is a testament to the enduring influence of Trumpism. While Vance's earlier writings and statements suggested a more nuanced and compassionate conservatism, his current alignment with Trump reflects the reality of the GOP's transformation.
The party is now one firmly rooted in Trump's image, with little room for dissent or moderation. This shift has profound implications for the future of American politics and governance—and for the country’s standing on the global stage.
Global implications
A Trump-Vance victory in November promises significant shifts in American foreign policy, especially concerning the ongoing war in Ukraine and growing tensions with China over Taiwan.
Vance, a staunch critic of America's support for Ukraine, prioritises a hardline stance against China, and his selection signals a fundamental pivot in American foreign policy under a second Trump administration that would have profound implications for global stability.
In his first interview after receiving the GOP vice-presidential nomination, Senator Vance told Fox News that a second Trump administration would aim to negotiate a quick end to the war in Ukraine “so America can focus on the real issue, which is China.”
Vance has long opposed American efforts to aid Ukraine, advocating for a more isolationist approach that has alarmed many moderate Republicans. To these traditionalists, Vance’s hawkishness on China might seem reassuring, but the broader implications of his stance suggest a more complex reality.
He argues that America's military resources are stretched too thin to effectively support both Ukraine and Taiwan. At the Munich Security Conference in February, he told European diplomats that the US doesn’t produce enough weapons to support Ukraine while still helping other partners such as Taiwan. He has also emphasised that bolstering Taiwan’s defences is essential for deterring China but claimed “we’re not doing that because we’re sending all the damn weapons to Ukraine.”
However, Vance's approach fails to recognise that Ukraine's success in repelling Russian aggression is crucial for deterring China from attacking Taiwan.
Taiwanese leaders have repeatedly stated their belief that if the United States abandons Ukraine, it would embolden China’s Xi Jinping; Taiwan’s active support for Ukraine, despite its own security needs, underscores this point. Similarly, the Japanese and South Korean governments have also indicated that a Russian victory in Ukraine would be destabilising for Asia, with Japan making its stance clear and South Korea considering providing arms to Ukraine.
Abandoning Ukraine could trigger a crisis of confidence in the Western Pacific regarding American resolve and credibility. Currently, allies such as Japan and South Korea have held back on developing their own nuclear weapons programs, relying instead on US security guarantees. Should that defence umbrella become unreliable, these countries might reconsider their nuclear options, potentially leading to a regional arms race.
Vance's rhetoric against China is another cornerstone of his foreign policy stance. He has consistently framed China as America's primary adversary, criticising previous policies that he believes facilitated China's rise at the expense of American jobs and security. At the RNC, he blamed policies supported by President Biden and other “out-of-touch politicians” in Washington for flooding the US with cheap Chinese goods, cheap foreign labour, and “deadly Chinese fentanyl”.
Vance’s China hawkishness is evidenced by his support for high tariffs on Chinese imports, a policy tightly aligned with Trump’s previous trade war against Beijing. Trump has suggested imposing tariffs as high as 60 percent on Chinese goods to encourage American companies to relocate their manufacturing back to the US, though economists warn that such tariffs could lead to significant economic disruptions and effectively decouple the world’s two largest economies.
Vance’s vision for a reoriented US foreign policy raises several (obvious) critical concerns:
Firstly, forsaking US commitments to allies like Ukraine could undermine America’s global alliances; traditional allies in Europe and Asia might perceive the US as an unreliable partner, prompting them to seek alternative security arrangements or increase their own military capabilities—including nuclear deterrents.
Moreover, Vance’s emphasis on ending the war in Ukraine to focus on China disregards the interconnected nature of global security: a weakened Ukraine could embolden Russia, destabilising Europe and diverting America’s attention and resources from Asia. Conversely, a strong and supported Ukraine could deter not only Russian aggression but also signal to China that NATO, led by the US, is committed to defending its allies and interests worldwide.
The potential for increased tensions with China over Taiwan under a Trump-Vance administration is another significant risk. While Vance’s hardline stance might deter Chinese aggression in the short term, it could also provoke a stronger military response from Beijing. The US maintains unofficial relations with Taiwan, providing the island with the means for its defence—however, Vance’s policies could lead to escalation, and a more confrontational and potentially dangerous standoff with China.
Vance’s criticisms of NATO and European defence spending further complicate the picture. He has echoed Trump’s calls for European nations to contribute more to their own defence, a stance that has drawn praise from Russian officials like Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov.
While advocating for more efficient defence spending and greater European contributions is reasonable, the tone and timing of these criticisms risk alienating key allies and weakening the transatlantic alliance.
Vance’s recent comments about the UK are not only inflammatory and demonstrate a disregard for diplomacy, but also undermine the efforts of the UK’s new leadership to build a cooperative relationship with a potential second Trump administration.
Vance's rhetoric risks alienating a key ally and complicating diplomatic relations at a critical time when unity and collaboration among Western nations are paramount. The UK’s Foreign Secretary, David Lammy, who had previously sought to establish a rapport with Vance based on their shared experiences and political pragmatism, now faces the daunting task of repairing the diplomatic damage caused by these ill-considered remarks.
This episode underscores the broader implications of Vance's approach to foreign policy, characterised by blunt and often divisive language, which could destabilise traditional alliances and weaken the united front necessary to address global challenges.
Vance’s foreign policy positions must also be understood in the broader context of Trump’s approach to international relations. During his first term, Trump reshaped American policy towards Beijing, launching a tech and trade war and casting China as a rival whose success comes at America’s expense. Despite professing respect for Chinese leader Xi Jinping, Trump’s policies were characterised by a confrontational stance towards China, which Vance appears poised to continue.
Trump’s suggestion that Taiwan should pay him for its defence reflects a transactional approach to foreign policy that prioritises short-term gains over long-term strategic stability. This ultimately could undermine America’s role as a global leader and erode the trust of allies who rely on American support for their security.
The potential implications of a Trump-Vance victory on the international stage are profound. Vance’s isolationist tendencies and hardline stance against China could reshape US foreign policy in ways that destabilise existing alliances and embolden adversaries. While focusing on China is a legitimate strategic priority, doing so at the expense of commitments to other allies like Ukraine risks undermining the very foundations of global stability.
Vance’s approach reflects a broader shift within the Republican Party towards a more nationalist and populist foreign policy, one that prioritises immediate national interests over long-term strategic alliances—one that former president George W. Bush warned about back in 2011.
As the world watches the unfolding American election, the choices made by voters will have far-reaching impacts beyond the borders of the United States. The potential for a Trump-Vance administration to reshape American foreign policy underscores the importance of this election, not only for Americans but for the global community as a whole.
Democratic ascendancy
President Joe Biden's decision to step down has dramatically altered the dynamics of this year’s election.
Vice President Kamala Harris now steps into the spotlight, presenting a starkly different platform from that of Trump and Vance. Speculation abounds regarding her potential vice-presidential pick. In my opinion, Pete Buttigieg emerges as a strong and sensible option: his background contrasts sharply with that of JD Vance, and provides competence and stability against a chaotic Republican ticket.
JD Vance has firmly positioned himself as the heir to the MAGA movement, embodying its ethos and policies. For the Democrats to mount an effective challenge, they must quickly unify and present a coherent strategy. Trump’s recent brush with death has given him a temporary surge in popularity, but there are significant vulnerabilities in his and Vance’s platform that Democrats can exploit.
One of the critical points of attack for the Democrats is the issue of age and cognitive abilities. The Republican critique of Joe Biden's age can now be mirrored back onto Trump, highlighting the younger and more vibrant Kamala Harris as a refreshing alternative. Furthermore, Trump and Vance's stringent anti-abortion stance is deeply unpopular across significant swathes of the United States. Harris, as a woman, can emphasise this dramatic attempt to curtail women's reproductive rights, rallying a critical demographic to her side.
Despite the current uncertainties, the election remains too close to call. My own pessimism suggests a narrow Trump victory, but the months leading up to the election are sure to be filled with further controversies and developments. The Democrats' success hinges on their ability to warn the electorate about the imminent authoritarianism of Trump and the future threat posed by JD Vance as the heir apparent to MAGA.
Should Trump win, he cannot run for another term due to constitutional limits, assuming he does not attempt to override the constitution with the Supreme Court’s support and loyalists like Vance.
The future of American democracy hangs in the balance. The far-right’s influence is growing, and their potential return to power poses a significant threat to democratic norms and institutions. Trump’s survival and subsequent selection of Vance have further polarised the political landscape, embedding the MAGA movement deeper within the Republican Party.
For the Democrats, the challenge lies in presenting a unified front that can appeal to a broad spectrum of voters while effectively countering the MAGA agenda. The upcoming election is not just a battle for the presidency but a crucial moment for the preservation of democratic values and international stability. With Trump riding a wave of renewed support and Vance poised as his successor, the stakes have never been higher.
When Republicans cede the republic, this could create an opportunity for Democrats. Almost nothing in the Republican platform is popular. Almost no one desires regime change. Democrats who stand behind the republic—while offering an exciting ticket and a coherent future—would seem to have every chance of winning in November.
The coming months will determine whether America continues on its current path or charts a new course towards a more inclusive and stable future.