Friday News Roundup — July 26, 2024
By James Kitfield
There’s very little in history or precedent to warn us that there would be weeks like the past few in American politics. On July 13th, former president and Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump barely survived a tragic assassination attempt that killed one and critically injured two attendees at his political rally. Wounded in the ear, Trump survived the closest such call since President Ronald Reagan was shot by a would-be assassin in 1981. Seemingly chastened by the experience, Trump and his top supporters promised to “lower the temperature” of the rhetoric in a super-heated presidential race in which both sides claim the future of the Republic is on the ballot. That pledge did not survive the first night of last week’s Republican National Convention.
Less than a week later President Joe Biden shocked the political world on July 21st and threw the Democratic Party into disarray by abruptly ending his reelection campaign on the eve of the Democratic National Convention, becoming the first one-term president to decide not to run for reelection since Lyndon Johnson in 1968 during the Vietnam War. In the chaotic days since, Vice President Kamala Harris has won enough support to clinch the Democratic nomination.
In the midst of that historic political turmoil, Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu did what no other Israeli leader had ever contemplated this week, inserting himself into America’s domestic politics on the eve of a presidential election by accepting a Republican-led invitation to address a joint session of Congress on Israel’s war on Hamas. Netanyahu well knows that his conduct of the war and the death of roughly 40,000 Palestinians in Gaza has deeply divided the Democratic Party. Though he took pains to issue bipartisan thanks to Israeli supporters on both sides of the political aisle in his address to Congress, Netanyahu also labeled protesters against the war as Iran’s “useful idiots.”
Today’s Opening Ceremonies of the Paris Summer Olympic Games offer a welcome distraction from war and hyper-partisan politics. The news this morning that they were preceded by apparently coordinated arson attacks on France’s high-speed rail lines into Paris, however, seemed in keeping with the tenor of these uncertain times.
James Kitfield is a Senior Fellow at CSPC
Presidential race shakeup and military impact
By Ethan Brown
The big news this week, certainly, was that incumbent Joe Biden will not seek reelection this November, signaling an end to his five-plus decades of political experience and the first incumbent since Lyndon Johnson decided not to seek reelection, these circumstances have set the stage for punditry aplenty about outcomes. How do presidential elections impact units, team rooms, and dialogue among the ranks of servicemembers, whose singular most important attribute in the democratic process is remaining institutionally apolitical?
First, rest assured that discourse on politics is a frequent and common occurrence in military units and between servicemembers, just like any other work space. The last full Presidential election cycle I endured while active duty was the 2016 cycle (I retired in summer of 2020 and of course, COVID was on, so that cycle doesn’t quite count). In 2016, while spending several months at a remote location for training, my team and I didn’t miss a single Presidential debate, and were regularly checking polling data while trying to forecast what our national defense grand strategy future would look like under either a Trump or Clinton administration.
The point being, politics remain a key discussion topic among service members who, perhaps more so than any other voter demographic, are immediately and directly impacted by political decision-making on account of changing national security priorities and indeed, responses to global crises. Herein is the impetus for this week’s roundup analysis: how does the sudden rise of Vice President Kamala Harris to the Democratic ticket and the return of Donald Trump to the GOP nomination affect military votes, perspectives on future, and all of the other complexities surrounding an election?
For service members, there are seldom undecided voters, at least compared to the broader American voter demographics, and those undecided tend to be younger military personnel. There may be the assumption that military personnel consistently vote in a more conservative manner, but I want to be clear that in my many years among military personnel and still closely tied into various communities, both major parties (and a surprising number of third-party registrants) were always represented in discourse. An ironic observation made by a special operator I deployed with in 2019 admitted to a slightly hostile discussion group that he had voted Democrat his entire career on account of the fact that “Republican admins always fund and support the big, visible conventional military, whereas Democratic admins tend to favor using us (special operations) over major combat forces in crisis, so I vote democrat for my job security in SOF.” Plenty of U.S. military members voted for Joe Biden, pointing to his extensive political experience, and whose party loyalties are likely to keep their votes blue this cycle, while no surprise that many in uniform have voted for Donald Trump and will certainly do so again this year.
One thing which may create favor for the GOP ticket this cycle was Donald Trump’s selection of Ohio Senator J.D. Vance, who himself is a veteran of the Marine Corps, although he has already made distinction for being the least popular VP candidate since 1980. A major boon for the early Trump administration which garnered massive positive feedback within the military was the former President’s choice to populate a cabinet with names well-known among the ranks: Jim Mattis, Mike Pompeo, H.R. McMaster, and others for both their national security chops as well as “central casting” acumen. Vance, for his part, is a policy lockstep with Trump on issues ranging from domestic challenges to national security, but VP-choices seldom swing elections, the fact that Vance carries the veteran label is merely a small boon to the military community for finally seeing someone with uniformed experience having a chance to influence policy in the White House. Biden, and indeed the heir-apparent Kamala Harris administration to follow, lacks that same token ‘veteran’ representation at the highest levels, pending the Democratic VP selection. A few names on the possible short-list for Harris’s running mate have military experience, names like Pete Buttigieg and Mark Kelly, but the suddenness of Harris’s emergence makes for cloudy projections right now.
Foreign policy, if anything, is likely to have the most impact on military voting, although again there must be emphasis on the fact that very few military voters are undecided. We can likely project what a second Trump administration’s foreign policy would look like, “American first” being the banner term which suggests that foreign engagement and continued multilateralism are at risk over the next fours years. The Biden administration has certainly embodied the opposite of such isolationism, pursuing and expanded integration in both trade, defense, and indeed, deepening ties abroad. A Harris admin is likely to echo those policies, at least to a certain degree, but her track-record for policy as an elected official is light on foreign policy and heavy on domestic issues, something military voters might take pause with. Experts like Jim Townsend told Politico magazine that “She doesn’t really have a background in defense or foreign policy, so she’s really dependent on [her advisors] where she has to take part… she doesn’t jump into those issues very often.”
A Harris admin is predictably going to double-down on support for Ukraine and NATO while countering Russian aggression, but other issue regions are questionable: Israel, where Harris’s critique of Israeli attacks are notable, and her stance on countering an increasingly unstable dynamic with Beijing is, for the most part, unclear. Donald Trump’s camp is very clear on directly contending with China’s hegemonic ambitions (albeit erratically and unpredictably), and has shown that Ukraine is far less of a priority, while his running mate is among congress’s most ardent detractors in supporting Ukraine’s war effort. But while the Biden White House has made Beijing an issue of management and deterrence, a Trump second term is far more volatile, meaning potential conflict. In conflict, partnerships matter a great deal, a strategic lesson which hangs in the balance of a possible Trump return.
NATO is likely the biggest issue, with the GOP candidates’ worn-out track record about what 2% GDP on defense spending actually is, or more importantly, why the alliance is so imperative for hemispheric stability. A Harris admin would all but certainly reiterate NATO allegiance, but this would also sustain the vague and unclear endstate of Ukraine’s war and keep distant the European order thereafter. As power dynamics within the alliance have shifted over the last two years on account of the crisis in Ukraine, and more vocal European leaders emerging within NATO as American attention has shifted towards the Indo-Pacific, managing the American role herein becomes pivotal… or fractious. Few demographics appreciate the importance of partners and allies than do our service members.
Military members care about these issues, which are likely to inform (read: reinforce) opinions on voting in this coming election. Each one of these issue areas are of import to democratic citizens, but more so to those who wear the uniform and carry the burden of national defense. This isn’t a prediction of outcome (and certainly no endorsement from this writer or this organization), but the Trump team is bringing familiar narratives and the same outrageous flair of populism to the ballot box, while a pseudo-incumbent democratic ticket led by Kamala Harris will bring more of the same, but that ‘sameness’ carries the stigma of recent inflation, world crises, and the hyperpartisan vitriol which is undermining our democratic stability. While at the onset of this analysis, I recalled that from past experience and current temperature-gauging, most service members are already decided in their voting trends, the shakeup for the democratic party nomination brings to light myriad questions and issues which are likely to upend voting norms across military communities.
Ethan Brown is a senior fellow for the CSPC.
NEWS YOU MAY HAVE MISSED
María Corina Machado: The Iron Lady Leading Venezuela’s Fight for Change
María Corina Machado, often referred to as the “Iron Lady” of Venezuela, has become a pivotal figure in the country’s opposition against President Nicolás Maduro. A former member of the national assembly and long-time political activist, Machado is known for her conservative stance and advocacy for free-market policies, including the privatization of PDVSA, Venezuela’s state oil company. Despite being barred from running for president, she has successfully unified the opposition around Edmundo González, the consensus candidate.
Machado’s movement is marked by a promise to end 25 years of socialist rule, revive the economy, and reunite families separated by migration. Her appeal cuts across political lines, offering a vision of governance that prioritizes economic stability and anti-corruption measures, resonating with a populace wary of Maduro’s authoritarianism and economic mismanagement. The upcoming election, however, is fraught with challenges. Maduro, facing U.S. Department of Justice charges and an International Criminal Court investigation, is expected to employ significant fraud to retain power despite González’s 25- to 30-point lead in the polls.
Machado’s campaign has faced severe repression, including physical attacks on her team and accusations of government sabotage. Nonetheless, her efforts have energized the opposition and voter base, with nearly half of the electorate prepared to protest potential election fraud. The election’s outcome will significantly impact Venezuela’s future, potentially curbing mass migration to the U.S. and influencing regional stability.
Saakshi Philip is a CSPC intern.
US Sanctions China-based Network Over N. Korea Support
On Wednesday, July 24th, the Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) implemented sanctions against a network of six individuals and five corporations based in China and involved in supporting North Korea’s ballistic missile and space programs. The United States has long been concerned about North Korea’s nuclear weapons and long-range missile programs and, as a result, is taking steps to penalize China’s support.
In a press release on Wednesday, Brian Nelson, the Under Secretary of the Treasury for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, stated that the “United States remains committed to using our tools to enforce these international sanctions, including disrupting the illicit procurement networks that provide key inputs for these technologies and holding accountable those who seek to enable these activities.”
This China-based network, also known as the Shi Qianpei network, procured metal sheets and other vital resources and items for North Korea’s missile production. The network consists of six individuals, namely Shi Qianpei, Choe Chol Min, Du Jiaxin, Wang Dongliang, Chen Tianxin, and Shi Anhui, and five corporations, including Beijing Sanshunda, Beijing Jinghua Qidi, Qidong Hengcheng, Shenzhen City Mean Well, and Yidatong. These individuals and corporations regularly receive procurement requests from North Korea and collaborate with each other to supply materials ranging from metal alloys to electronic parts, while also providing financial and technological support. As a result of the recently announced sanctions, “all property and interests in property of the designated persons described above that are in the United States or in the possession or control of U.S. persons are blocked and must be reported to OFAC.”
Daphne Nwobike is a CSPC Intern.
