Dominic Tierney
In July, U.S. President Joe Biden announced that he would not stand for a second term and endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris as the Democratic candidate, triggering one of the great traditions of American politics: the search for a presidential doctrine, or the encapsulation of a leader’s foreign policy beliefs. A legion of journalists, scholars, and politicians began hunting for the “Harris doctrine” as a guide to what a Harris presidency might look like. Some said the Harris doctrine does not yet exist. Others claimed to have discerned the outlines of a clear agenda. For former president Donald Trump, the essence of the doctrine is weakness: “The Tyrants are laughing at her.” Meanwhile, commentators on the progressive left hope that a Harris presidency will mark a pivot away from American militarization and primacy and toward the pursuit of global justice.
One problem in identifying the Harris doctrine is that a presidential “doctrine” can refer to varying things: a presidential commandment, a leader’s inner compass, or their ultimate policy decisions. Each of these perspectives casts a different light on a potential Harris presidency. Taken together, they suggest that powerful foreign and domestic constraints are likely to guide a Harris presidency—to the surprise, relief, or disappointment of her critics—in a hawkish direction.
No comments:
Post a Comment