Expat Generation: Analyzing the 2020 race as an international student
I was recently asked about my opinion on the presidential race as a “disinterested outsider,” to which I reminded my amicable inquisitor that, living here, I did hold some interest over the matter, regardless of my ability to cast a ballot. Not only this, but as a nation with an unmatched spotlight directed upon it, the ramifications of American politics reverberate across the world, informing movements that transcend well beyond the nation’s borders.
Furthermore, the United States is at the core of the post-Cold War neoliberal international order, so the attitudes and actions that U.S. leadership hold and partake in are of enormous consequence to the rest of the world. The inflection point of world affairs parallels the one the U.S. finds itself in internally as election year rumbles through — four years after a tide of anti-establishment leaders rode the populist wave into government palaces across the world in countries such as Brazil, Hungary and Great Britain.
This column’s political stance is built on ideals of global integration, pluralism, moderation and discourse, even as these ideals might seem decadent in the current political landscape. Nonetheless, I understand that all politics is reactionary.
Forgotten communities and left-behind national economic sectors across the world are the fallout of globalization’s failures and are one of the main instigators of the protectionist and nationalist movements that have defined the latter part of the past decade.
The genius of one-time-long-shot-outsider Donald Trump is not the Machiavellian fealty he demands of his own party, or his sensationalist rhetoric appealing to all types of right and far-right ideologies, or the novelty of his brutal authenticity to character contrasted against a “swamp” of shifty politicians, or even every Trump-branded scandal (“All publicity is good publicity.”)
The genius of the incumbent is him finding the pulse of the left-behind and forgotten and providing them a space to be heard and a direction toward which to point their aggression. While I do not approve of Trump’s divisive tactics, I understand the problems Trump has identified must be dealt with; ignoring the problem will not fix anything.
This election is not about building a stronger coalition that can strong-arm Trump out of office; it’s about bringing people together and providing a better deal for all. With such an understanding, I am interested in forward-looking policies and campaigns seeking comprehensive solutions.
An ideal candidate should differ from Trump in a few fundamental ways. They should not exploit people’s troubles and anger for personal gain, but rather create solutions for them. They should seek to unite, rather than divide. They should have a win-win understanding of trade, rather than a zero-sum one; while Trump has managed to maintain a strong economy, it is unclear if its growth is sustainable because of the trade wars and fallouts left in its wake, not to mention the environmental degradation.
The Democratic candidate should also have a prudent understanding of America’s place and role in championing freedom and human rights. Trump’s impulsivity has left allies reeling across the world and has eroded the power of institutions and organizations that find themselves at odds with his explosive rhetoric. As the U.S. becomes more unreliable, the international order becomes ever more uncertain of what its future might look like. Europe fragmenting as its influence wanes and China continuing to expand aggressively with little regard to human rights are only aggravating the situation.
But has the Democratic Party provided us with a suitable candidate that can win? This remains unclear, as the party lacks the internal unity of Trump’s, weakened by a crowded candidate field, the Iowa debacle and the recent impeachment proceedings.
Two wings dominate the candidate conversation: progressive and centrist. On the progressive wing, presidential hopeful Sen. Bernie Sanders seems to be gaining much traction, as Sen. Elizabeth Warren lags behind. However, both candidates’ visions are divisive and directed at their bases exuding a similar in-group prioritization as Trump.
Meanwhile, the centrist field is clogged by an unnecessary number of candidates, most of whom do not seem particularly promising. Sen. Amy Klobuchar seemed to be going nowhere until New Hampshire, and with a campaign lacking in national resources, it is unclear if she will go anywhere else. Former Vice President Joe Biden’s campaign is reduced to the hope of a decent showing in South Carolina keeping it alive. Michael Bloomberg’s late entry and unorthodox approach makes his campaign seem little more than an attempt to buy his way to the nomination.
The exception might be former Mayor Pete Buttigieg, with one of the most appealing candidate profiles we’ve seen in a long time: Midwestern, Harvard-educated, military veteran, gay, an outsider and virtually unknown a year ago, the only non-millionaire running for office. He has an eloquence and composure fit for the White House and a charisma, energy and momentum that other campaigns seem to lack. However, his young age and troubles catering to marginalized populations might yet derail his campaign.
Overall, the disunity in the Democratic Party only serves to weaken it, especially at a time when not only the country but the entire world could benefit from more unity. The alarmism of some might be unnecessary, however; whatever the election results, the world is bigger than the U.S., and the U.S. is bigger than an election. Nonetheless, across the world are real people facing real issues, who deserve peace and prosperity and leaders who will lead with the people’s interests in mind rather than their own.
Javier Calleja Erdmann is a sophomore writing about the international student experience. His column, “Expat Generation,” runs every other Friday.