US presidential elections: A battle between old and new America

“Make America Great Again” — the slogan that Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump championed for eight years.

“Chart a new way forward,” declared Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris.

The values and proposed policies of the two nominees are vastly different: one reminisces America’s past glory and wants to return to bygone days by all means; the other wants to face the new realities of America with fresh thinking and innovative ways of shaping a new future for America.

This is a battle between new and old America.

The race between a tall and dapper old white man and a mixed-race woman is in itself a reflection of the traditional white-dominated American society and the modern multiethnic society. The values and mindsets underlying their political views stem from the very differences between old and new America.

When Harris proclaimed that the US is “not going back”, the audience erupted into celebration as thousands of party delegates rose to their feet and cheered in unison. Harris’s repeated calls to never go back are a clear departure from Trump’s nostalgic thinking and electoral approach of “making America great again”. 　　

Trump reminisces about the former greatness of American society and hegemony, and is deeply concerned about the decline of traditional American values, the strong economy and national power. He treasures the US’s past glory, loves the country, and hopes that the US can be great again.

He cannot accept the Democratic Party’s overly politically correct and left-leaning policies, harshly attacking the Democratic government’s lax border policies that flooded the country with illegal immigrants; as well as them taking taxpayers’ money and abusing welfare; indulging petty offenders; relaxing the legalisation of drugs and marijuana; condoning crime; supporting the slashing of police budgets; indefinitely expanding the rights of African Americans and non-heterosexuals; and allowing the sharing of bathrooms and dormitories between college men and women.

These are incompatible with traditional American values and have even resulted in fiscal deficit and a breakdown in the rule of law. The US has become like South Africa or Mexico, with domestic affairs and national prestige plummeting into a deep abyss.

Externally, Trump detests the fact that US allies are free riding on the US, taking advantage and relying on the US for protection but unwilling to do anything in return; he asserted that all countries must pay for protection.

He is frustrated with signing economic and free trade agreements with US allies that reaffirm international commitments, and he prefers to return to traditional American isolationism when international organisations fail to prioritise US interests. These are the mindsets and actions that old America embraces. 　

Having grown up in an affluent white family, Trump prioritises the interests of corporations and the wealthy, and strongly believes in individual responsibility, which is why he advocates further cutting corporate tax from 21% to 15%.

Born into a mixed-race family, Harris is deeply influenced by her mother’s Indian immigrant background. Thus, her political views and advocates lean towards the plight and interests of the lower and middle classes. She pushes for active government involvement in the economy, the provision of social benefits, and an increase in the corporate tax from 21% to 28%.　

Due to the widening income inequality, she wants to create an “opportunity economy” and seeks a just, empathetic, dignified society full of opportunities, where everyone can have the chance to fulfil themselves and succeed despite failures.

The sharp decline of the American middle class and the increase in the poor population have become an irreversible trend. Harris keeps an eye on the future of American society and people’s livelihoods, pushing for the building of more homes, subsidising the down payment on home purchases, and cutting taxes for middle-class and lower-income families, making it her mission to strengthen middle-class households.

Harris contrasts her middle-class background with Trump’s wealthy persona, aiming to unite the majority of middle and working-class Americans against Trump, who represents the old, super-rich era.　　

Harris’s fiscal and tax policies are totally opposite from Trump’s, particularly in her stance on tariffs. To restore the competitiveness of US enterprises, bring them back and revitalise the manufacturing sector, Trump strongly advocates a 10% tariff on all US imports. He even proposed 60% to 100% tariffs on Chinese goods for “stealing” US jobs.

Trump has even threatened to impose a 200% tariff on the cheap electric vehicles produced in Mexico set to flood the American market, to protect the US auto industry and jobs.

Harris criticised that Trump’s proposed tariffs would lead to severe inflation, and cost a typical family an additional US$3,900 a year. As for Trump’s plan to increase US oil and traditional energy production to lower prices, Harris stressed that this is a step backward and believes in supporting the development of the green economy and clean energy.

While Trump dismissed the need for climate change mitigation measures, Harris believes in being responsible stewards of the planet.

The issue that most clearly reflects their contrasting approaches of clinging to tradition and adapting to new realities is the matter of women’s reproductive autonomy. Harris advocates a woman’s right to abortion and harshly attacked the interpretation by the three Supreme Court justices appointed by Trump, which holds that abortion is not protected by the constitution.

She argued that opposing abortion is disrespecting women and depriving them of their freedom to choose, which to her violates American traditions of liberty. She vowed to reaffirm her support for reproductive freedom — i.e. abortion rights — if elected.

On the issue of abortion, Trump can be said to be adhering to traditional values, especially the values of evangelical Christianity, which is in serious conflict with present social realities and women’s autonomy. 　　

In terms of international affairs, the forward-looking Harris respects international realities and supports cooperation with allies to face shared security and development issues. She pledged to support Ukraine, unlike Trump who wants Ukraine to recognise the status quo and end the Russia-Ukraine war based on the isolationist mentality of bygone days.

Furthermore, Harris stands by the established US policy of supporting Israel’s right to defend itself while stressing the need to respect the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination. She believes this approach is essential to create conditions for ending the war between Israel and Hamas and achieving peace.

Meanwhile, Trump is repeating the same mistake by supporting Israel unreservedly, as he did when he moved the US embassy to Jerusalem during his presidency, solidifying the inherent bond between the US and Israel.

Harris deliberately portrays Trump as an eccentric person who wants to return to the past while packaging herself as a leader who seeks justice, fairness, freedom, new values and a new future. She wants to build an America filled with opportunities for self-realisation to highlight her role as a representative of the younger generation and the future of the country. Meanwhile, Trump describes Harris as a radical, far-left, socialist harbinger of chaos.　

Their differences and opposition have framed this presidential election as a battle between old and new America. As a result, the majority of Americans has become deeply embroiled in the election, leading to heightened emotions and severe polarisation. Ultimately, the outcome will depend on whether there are more who cling to nostalgia or who adapt to reality and want to shape the future.

This article was first published in Lianhe Zaobao as “总统大选是新旧美国之争”.

Related: Japanese academic: Comparing the China policies of Trump and Harris | Trump or Harris: The choice of a Chinese American professor