There may be approximately 4,787 miles between Malta and Washington, D.C., but the decisions made by the next occupant of the White House will have far-reaching implications for Europe, and by extension, Malta.
As the contest between former President Donald Trump and current Vice President Kamala Harris draws closer to its conclusion, WhosWho.mt speaks to political analyst and public policy lecturer George Vital Zammit about the potential outcomes of the election, the key ideological differences between the candidates, and what another Trump administration could mean for Europe.
Isolation vs negotiation: Why a Harris administration is more likely to work with the EU
Dr Vital Zammit begins by highlighting the fundamental ideological divide between the two candidates. While Trump, lacking a traditional political background, is a businessman at heart, he embodies the Republican ethos of minimal state intervention and support for business growth through lower taxation.
By contrast, Harris, representing the Democratic Party, champions progressive taxation, whereby the wealthy contribute a larger share, and she supports greater state intervention in the economy.
“Who will people trust?” Dr Vital Zammit asks. “Voters may fluctuate in their preferences, and many will favour lower taxes to retain capital for investment. However, Harris currently enjoys a higher level of public trust than Trump.”
Their conflicting economic visions extend beyond taxation to trade and broader economic policy. Trump has promised to introduce a universal tariff on most imports, aiming to protect American industries by raising the costs of foreign goods. His strategy is to reduce reliance on foreign markets and promote domestic production.
Harris, on the other hand, is focused on strengthening trade alliances, enhancing investment in domestic infrastructure, and prioritising green technology. She also seeks to maintain strong global supply chains, continuing the Biden administration’s emphasis on cooperation with allies.
“Trump’s approach reflects a broader Republican commitment to putting America first, almost to the point of isolationism,” Dr Vital Zammit explains. “However, this could be short-sighted.”
He draws a parallel to George W. Bush’s foreign policy in 2000, which initially leaned towards isolationism until the 9/11 attacks drastically altered the trajectory of US international engagement. “Trump’s stance on NATO and other alliances suggests a similar blind spot,” Dr Vital Zammit notes.
In contrast, Harris is likely to adopt a multilateral approach, fostering closer ties with the EU and building global partnerships, he adds.
Ukraine, NATO, and European stability
The divergent foreign policy strategies of Trump and Harris are particularly evident in their responses to the ongoing war in Ukraine.
‘A second Trump presidency would be unhinged’
Trump has vowed to end the war within a day of taking office, should he be re-elected. Harris, in contrast, plans to continue diplomatic efforts and military aid to Ukraine in pursuit of international stability.
While ongoing US assistance would undoubtedly enhance security within Europe, Dr Vital Zammit raises the question: could it also place further economic strain on European economies?
“War, by its very nature, brings uncertainty,” he explains. “Businesses require stability for long-term planning. In countries bordering Russia, particularly in terms of energy supply, there remain significant unresolved questions, which in turn stifle business confidence.”
Dr Vital Zammit warns that a second Trump presidency could have dire consequences for Europe. “If Trump cuts off assistance to Ukraine, it could signal to Putin that further aggression is acceptable,” he asserts.
‘A second Trump presidency would be unhinged’
Having already experienced four years of a Trump administration, what can the world expect if he returns to power?
Dr Vital Zammit expresses concern that a second Trump term could be particularly unpredictable. Since US Presidents are limited to two terms, a re-elected Trump would have nothing to lose. “Without the prospect of re-election, the sky is the limit,” he says. “He could implement radical changes with little regard for the long-term consequences, knowing that he won’t face the voters again.”
One possibility, he suggests, is that Trump might give the National Rifle Association (NRA) free rein on gun legislation, as he would not have to contend with the political fallout.
“By contrast, a Harris administration could potentially span eight years, giving her a broader horizon for implementing policy changes,” Dr Vital Zammit observes.
Reflecting on Trump’s previous term, he points out that the former President’s impulsive decision-making and unilateral stances were well-documented. “We’ve seen what he’s capable of, and there’s little reason to believe his approach would change.”
Dr Vital Zammit also raises the spectre of Trump escalating geopolitical tensions, particularly in Taiwan and the Middle East. “The Middle East is always volatile, and the situation in Gaza this year has shown just how quickly things can spiral out of control,” he remarks.
Who will win?
With less than two months to go, the outcome of the election remains uncertain. While the Biden administration has a strong record on job creation, Trump’s promise of lower taxes continues to resonate with many voters.
At the time of writing, Harris holds a narrow lead in the polls, with a composite of 177 surveys placing her at 49.4%, compared to Trump’s 45.8%. This gives her a slim 3.6% advantage, though the situation could still change.
Dr Vital Zammit is cautious in predicting the winner, pointing out that key swing states like Ohio could tip the scales. “It’s too early to say with certainty,” he notes. “While Harris may have an edge in the polls, the dynamics of the race could shift dramatically in the final weeks.”
One challenge for Harris, he argues, is that she has not been thoroughly tested as a leader. “Trump has already been President, while Harris, despite her role as Vice President, has not been in the spotlight.”
Dr Vital Zammit also comments on the perception of the Vice Presidency in the US, which is often dismissed as largely ceremonial – akin to how many in Malta view the role of the President of the Republic.
Yet despite these hurdles, Harris has managed to challenge Trump’s dominance. Dr Vital Zammit notes that her approval ratings have risen since Biden’s decision to step aside, although just a few months ago, she had some of the lowest ratings of any Vice President. “This wasn’t necessarily due to any specific mistakes, but more a perception that she lacked presidential potential,” he explains.
And ultimately, while Trump may be feeling the pressure from Harris, the ultimate outcome of this unpredictable race remains to be seen.
Main Image:
