Eight years ago, Donald Trump entered American politics. At the same time, Barack Obama neared the end of his final term. Both of America’s major parties held open competitions—Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders on the Democratic side, and Trump vs. the world on the Republican one.
In a sense, Trump and Sanders represented equal and opposite forces—each became a standard-bearer for policy position and radical rhetoric that challenged centrist forces in the major political parties. This resulted in fascinating debates between and within both parties, and provided grist for some outstanding Saturday Night Live skits.
I had the perfect vantage point for that primary season: high school civics class. We covered debates, issues, candidates, precedents, and the like—even the SNL clips. Many young ideologues—Democrats and Republicans—were born out of that class. I’m almost certain that all of my classmates voted the following November, and equally certain that I could guess who voted for whom. For me, it was a vicarious experience—I was just barely too young to vote.
For Democrats, Biden is almost unchallenged, and the party has held no primary debates at time of this writing (October 2023). But one challenger on the Democratic ticket (Marianne Williamson) advocates for a bolder push toward socialism than Biden’s agenda appears to call for—suggesting serious dissent within the party regarding the extent to which progressivism should be pursued.
The Republican field is even more contentious, with eight debate-qualified candidates (excluding Donald Trump, who has spurned the invitations) divided on issues of foreign policy. Some candidates are willing to prosecute the “culture war” more forcefully than others. Part of this was the effect of Trump’s populist approach: cracking the armor of the party establishment and giving voice to dissidents seeking to go further than even Trump himself. The GOP has held two debates so far, with a third scheduled for early November.
At this point, we’re early enough in the race where we can still dream of possibilities, and every candidate deserves our attention. So let’s examine them, in no particular order.
Larry Elder: A Country to Save?
A conservative radio host in California, Elder has been highly critical of Black Lives Matter and Critical Race Theory. He supports school choice and law-and-order. While making inflation a key issue of his campaign, he doesn’t provide many policy specifics about it—or much else. His website also lists containing China as a key issue, but Elder’s platform appears more centered on grievances than policies. Elder has filed formal complaints against the RNC for his exclusion from the two GOP debates that have taken place so far—ironic given that many of his opponents have criticized him for ducking debates in the past. He faces an uphill battle to get onto the debate stage.
Chris Christie: A Bipartisan Record
Former New Jersey governor Christie was a Republican governor in a thoroughly Democratic state. He ran in 2016 on his state-level executive experience in bipartisanship, and seems to be working the same angle again. He calls out teachers’ unions as a key source of inertia in America’s educational systems, and supports federal prosecutors intervening in cities with rampant crime. He’s been to the Ukraine and supports America standing with the Zelenskyy government against Russia. He supports deportation of illegal migrants as part of a solution at the southern border, and calls the fentanyl crisis an “act of war” by China. A vocal critic of Trump’s conduct since 2020, he praises his opponent Mike Pence for his decision to certify the election that brought Joe Biden into office.
Nikki Haley: Foreign Policy Experience
Having served as America’s representative in the United Nations in the Trump administration, former South Carolina governor Nikki Haley has labelled Ukraine and Israel as the “first lines of defense” against Russia and Iran, respectively. She warns against a Russia-China partnership—which stresses her position of aid for Ukraine. Haley is critical of both the Trump and Biden administrations for massive federal spending and borrowing, claims to be “unapologetically pro-life” but has adopted a more flexible stance on abortion than other GOP candidates, and calls for transparency and reading remediation in American schools.
Tim Scott: “These” United States
South Carolina senator Tim Scott struggled for air time at the first GOP debate on August 23rd—he was tied for fewest questions asked. In the second GOP debate, he used the phrase “These United States”, a hearkening back to the states’ rights principles that South Carolina was infamous for in the 19th century—nullifying federal laws and seceding from the Union.
But while Tim Scott pays lip service to small federal government and states’ rights, he also calls for a federal abortion ban beyond 15 weeks, a further $15 billion to finish the Mexico border wall and install military-grade surveillance along the border, and approved much of the stimulus spending the Trump administration passed during the pandemic. In a sense, Scott represents the Republican contradiction—standing for a less invasive federal government while also advocating for specific invasive federal policies.
Doug Bergum: An Afterthought?
Entrepreneur, billionaire, and North Dakota governor Doug Bergum takes a more consistent stand against federal intrusion than Scott. While opposing abortions as governor, he insists that abortion policy should vary by state, and claims he would not support any federal abortion restrictions. He strikes the same tone on education—shut down the federal Department of Education and let states handle it themselves, with schools competing for merit-based federal funding. On foreign policy, Bergum has concerns that the energy transition policies in the U.S. are created heightened exposures to supply chains in China, and that sanctions against Russian oil and gas have turned Russia into “China’s gas station.” He supports a secure border and anti-ship missile deployments on Taiwan to forestall a Chinese attack. Interestingly, he was not mentioned by name by any other candidate at the August debate, although he was the most aggressive candidate in criticizing Biden’s policies.
Asa Hutchinson: Conciliatory to a Fault?
Arkansas governor Asa Hutchinson was also not criticized by name by any other candidate in the first GOP debate, and was in fact complimented twice. His reward? Being excluded from the second debate in September. Striking a similar note against federal spending, he promises to reduce the non-defense federal workforce by 10% As critical of Trump as Christie was, Hutchinson claimed that Trump would be morally disqualified from office under the 14th Amendment. Claiming to be governor of the “most pro-life state”, he nevertheless avoids any specific policy on abortions. He sees drug cartels in Mexico as a joint problem to be solved by cooperation with Mexico rather than unilateral force.
Mike Pence: Trump Without the Circus
Note: Since this writing, on October 28th, Mike Pence has announced that he is suspending his campaign.
Vice president in the Trump White House, former Indiana governor Mike Pence is running largely on the record of Trump’s administration—while trying to distance himself from the circus that Trump created. This puts him in an awkward position, open to criticism from both sides. Pence was criticized by name six times in the first debate, second-most among all candidates—although many of his opponents also praised him for doing the right thing by certifying Biden’s election in 2020.
Pence supports enacting a 15-week federal abortion ban, funding law enforcement in major cities to deal with homelessness and crime, and extending the Trump administration’s tax cuts beyond their expiration in 2025. Like others, he intends to close the Department of Education and promote school choice for parents. He claims to be the first candidate to deal with the long-term issue of America’s national debt—although he will have to shake criticism as the VP in the administration that added more to the debt than any before it. In foreign policy, Pence advocates “peace through strength”, supporting the Ukrainians in fighting their own war, and partnering with Mexico to keep the border secure.
Ron DeSantis: The Heir Apparent?
On the debate stage, Florida governor Ron DeSantis appears as the favorite—and many Republicans consider him the most palatable alternative to Trump—despite trailing Donald in the polls. He was asked more direct questions than any other candidate at the first debate, and was the only one to directly criticize the “deep state”. He can point to his record in Florida for examples of policies he would support federally—including the “Heartbeat bill” abortion ban. Some of his positions appear paradoxical, as he calls for eliminating the Department of Education while also supporting civics education over Critical Race Theory “indoctrination”. Outside of Bergum, he is more critical of Biden than any other candidate, and calls for open energy production of fossil fuels at home. He further appeals to Trump’s base by demanding other NATO members pull their weight in support Ukraine, and supports sending American troops to Mexico to deal with drug cartels.
Donald Trump: It’s Personal Now
Trump of course needs no introduction. His four-year presidency is marred by childish politicking (on both sides) and the once-in-a-century pandemic, but he takes pride in his record and largely plans for more of the same: extending the original 2017 tax cuts, implementing a 4-year reshoring plan to strengthen American supply chains, fully unleash energy production, send federal prosecutors to restore law and order in American cities, and crack down on the border by designating cartels as foreign terrorist groups and reinstating the remain-in-Mexico policy. He also supports merit pay for teachers and a Parental Bill of Rights, and calls for “record” law enforcement funding and missile defense systems.
A lot of these policies are fairly standard measures when compared with his Republican challengers. But in characteristic fashion, Trump insists on going further: term limits and insider trading enforcement for members of Congress, outlawing private funding of local election offices, and banning taxpayer funding of all incumbent campaigns. These measures will make him few friends in Washington, but speak to his original “drain the swamp” rhetoric. Given Trump’s penchant for brashness on social media, I had concerns that his 2024 bid was more about personal vindication than serving the American people, but I was pleasantly surprised that his website gave pretty thorough stances on major issues.
What remains to be seen is whether Trump will be able to run at all given his legal problems. In just the past week, multiple Trump associates accepted plea deals in the Georgia election case—which certainly bodes poorly for Trump’s defense. I will leave these matters to the experts.
Vivek Ramaswamy: The Younger and More Terrible
Like Trump, Vivek is a political outsider with no experience. He brings an intense personality and winning smile to the Republican debate stage. He copied one of Obama’s 2008 lines to open his debate remarks in August, but his policies are, if anything, more radical than any other Republican candidate. He goes beyond the calls of other candidates to “unleash” energy production by calling for embracing nuclear energy and continuing to burn coal. He calls to reform the Federal Reserve to focus on a stable currency (rather than both stable prices and economic strength), and plans to declare war against the “federal administrative state.” He unabashedly calls aggressive climate policies a “hoax”, plans to shut down the Department of Education and the FBI, and wants every American high school senior to successfully pass the same citizenship test required for immigrants. While going further than Trump in his policies, Ramaswamy praises Trump as the best president of the 21st century, and promises to pardon Trump for any and all crimes. He does not shy away from the “culture war” phrase, insisting there are two genders and that the “nuclear family is the greatest form of governance” ever designed. His foreign policy views include cutting off aid to Ukraine, given that American posturing in the war is driving Russia and China further together (directly contradicting Nikki Haley’s conclusion). He insists that the U.S. secure its own border first, and claims he would be the most pro-Israel president in recent history, calling to prevent Iran from ever being nuclear-armed. He advocates for all these policies with a near-messianic message—seeking to reach an American people “hungry for purpose” and reset the moral and patriotic tone of the nation in what he calls the “Revolution of 2024”.
It’s unclear whether Ramaswamy’s rhetoric is intended to draw voters away from Trump or not. But he has struck a nerve with many establishment Republicans. Although asked only four direct questions during the August GOP debate (tied with Tim Scott for the fewest), Ramaswamy did most of the talking since he was called out by name twelve times by other candidates—twice as many as any other candidate. His policy views, especially on Ukraine, have been criticized by the intelligentsia as amateurish and oversimplified—yet he represents many of the positions that Trump held without the moral and legal baggage.
Joe Biden: Do Not Disturb
I was dejected to learn that Joe Biden’s official campaign website is mum on any policy positions the 46th president holds. Yet he has a better excuse than any other candidate for this—he is actually working on running the country. His age and mental sharpness will remain a question, but he can point to his record as president for a guide of what to expect if he gets a second term.
In his first term, Biden advocated for student loan forgiveness (unsuccessfully), a once-in-a-generation investment in infrastructure and jobs (more successfully), and is taking real progress toward the Green New Deal vision of a more electrified economy. At the same time, the inflation that struck in 2022 will be difficult for him to shake, and his posture toward Ukraine and Israel in their times of need will come under scrutiny from his opponents. My hope is that Biden takes an opportunity to have thorough debates with his opponents, and that these debates are more productive and illuminating than the ones he and Trump limped through in 2020.
Biden is a near-lock to be the Democratic choice, although some are concerned about his age and mental acuity. (I would mention that we do have some precedent here, as Woodrow Wilson suffered two debilitating strokes during his second term as president. The country evidently survived it, although it was far easier to mask such an issue a century ago.)
Marianne Williamson: Another Septuagenarian Socialist
Having spent most of her career in writing and humanitarian work, Williamson is one of two candidates seeking to challenge Biden on the Democratic side. On her website, her policy positions are thorough and comprehensive, and not a little reminiscent of Bernie Sanders in the last two elections. Williamson supports an Economic Bill of Rights that includes the right of all Americans to a living-wage job, universal healthcare, cost-free (that is, state-subsidized) higher education, and affordable, quality housing. She supports a $1 trillion payment for slavery reparations, to be paid to a council of eminent black leaders who would determine how to disburse the funds. She also calls for 100% renewable energy by 2035, supporting by investments in the latest fusion technologies. Her foreign policy aims are less clear, although her focus on humanitarian efforts over military interventions is clear: creating a Department of Peace and appointing a leading humanitarian as Secretary of State.
It’s unclear how much these policies would cost, and how exactly a Williamson administration would seek to fund them. It’s also unclear whether Williamson will get a chance to debate Biden directly, and whether such a debate would simply be a re-run of the Biden-Sanders debates in the 2020 primaries.
Robert Kennedy Jr.: Sound Familiar?
Robert Kennedy Jr. is no stranger to presidential elections. He had an uncle in the White House and his father was assassinated in the midst of his own campaign. This next generation of Kennedy leadership is staking out a claim as an independent, and his website is full of pictures of the elder Robert Kenndy and president John F. Kennedy, as if the younger Robert is seeking to make political capital out of a record more than sixty years old.
Kennedy’s policies are a strange mix: a federal $15 minimum wage, 3% mortgage loans for all Americans paid for by floating tax-free bonds to investors, with zero-interest on all student loans. He further calls for an end to Ukraine aid and “military adventurism” in general, while also condemning the “neoliberal austerity” measures taken by the existing order to keep many emerging nations stuck in poverty. In the past, Kennedy has taken controversial positions as a vaccine skeptic. If he runs as an independent, it’s unclear whether Kennedy would get a chance to debate candidates from the two major parties.
Dean Phillips: At the Eleventh Hour
A Democratic congressman from Minnesota, Phillips announced his presidential bid in late October, drawing harsh criticism from members of his own party. Major search engines appear to be against him, too: as of November 4th, a search in Google or Bing for “Dean Phillips for president” returns news coverage of the election and the website Phillips set up while campaigning for Congress—burying his latest campaign website. Whether this is an intentional suppression of a Biden opponent or not, I will let the reader judge for themselves.
Phillips supports a secure border and a path to citizenship as part of “comprehensive immigration reform”, as well as “affordable” higher education, gun violence prevention, and universal healthcare. He claims to be the only member of Congress who refuses money from lobbyists and PACs, and calls the current state of campaign financing “legalized corruption”.
Dean’s efforts to position as a moderate Democrat have left him vulnerable to criticism. His stance on foreign policy issues like Ukraine and Israel isn’t clear from his website, although a recent town hall meeting of his was derailed when he was pressed to call for a cease-fire in Gaza.
Is it Inevitable?
When Trump won in 2016, I was a freshman in college. There were campus protests the following day, and more protests on the day of his inauguration. Some people I knew voted for third-party candidates out of disgust—and these voters came under significant indirect fire. Many Americans, especially young Americans, were appalled at the outcome of the election, and it was a common theme in the cesspools of the Internet for those discontented to place the blame on anyone who had voted third-party, siphoning away votes that could have stemmed the tide and helped Hillary Clinton win.
It’s fair to criticize the “first past the post” electoral system in which any vote for a minor candidate is in practice a wasted one (this will be a topic for another time). But outside of that, I take the strongest possible issue with the premise of such Internet rantings. Our obligation with our vote is to represent ourselves and our views on what is best for the country. To let our two-party system dictate how we make our choices is to put the electoral cart before the republican horse. It is to remain complicit and unquestioning in a system that, like all systems, must be thoroughly questioned. It suggests that Tocqueville was right in his claim that “freedom of speech does not exist in America”, and that any view outside of the mainstream is not worth listening to, or even worth having.
Journalist Robert Bryce captures his political attitudes thus: “I’m not a Democrat or a Republican. I’m disgusted.” For those who feel this way, voting for an “independent candidate” is an act of rebellion against that party system—a rebellion they are in every way entitled to. I don’t say this to advocate for abandonment en masse of either party, or to promote all independent candidates in general. Instead, I want to stress that primaries and elections are not inevitable. It’s not just up to us to choose between two options—we have and must exercise the power to determine our own options. To that end, I encourage all my American readers to vote in 2024—and not just the presidential race. If you’re so inclined, go even further and attend caucuses, vote in primaries, and do your part to advocate for the candidates and ideals you feel will make the country the best it can be.
