National integration emerging as key issue in US presidential poll

The selection by Democratic Party presidential hopeful Joe Biden of California Senator Kamala Harris as his running mate points to the emergence of national integration as a key issue in the upcoming US presidential election.’Black votes’ matter very much in the US now more than ever before and all credit to the Democrats for seeing this with notable clarity.

Such perceptiveness is particularly important against the backdrop of the ‘Black lives matter’ movement which took on phenomenal proportions recently with the killing of Afro-American George Floyd by the US police. The US is bound to realize that without national integration it would be difficult to continue to project itself as a model democracy.

The so-called blacks and other minorities constitute an important support base of the Democratic Party and the observer would not be erring by foreseeing a substantial rise in support on the part of the US’ minority communities for the Democratic presidential candidate and his running mate at the November poll. The George Floyd killing is certain to emerge as a catalyst in this possible upswing in minority support for the Democrats.

How the US could score on the foreign policy front through a projection of itself as a veritable epitome of national integration and multiculturalism ought to be plain to see. Considering that Harris would be the first African American woman and the first Asian American woman to be chosen as the running mate of a major US presidential contender, her election would re-convey to the world that the US is accommodative of racial and cultural diversity. That is, the US could come to be seen as an exemplar of national integration once again. The phrase ‘once again’ is prompted by the fact that the election of Barrack Obama to the US presidency emphatically underscored the commitment to multiculturalism and democratic pluralism on part of significant opinion in the US.

Needless to say, the latter credentials have been undermined severely during the Trump years. A victory by the Democrats is bound to reverse these negative tendencies in US politics. Since, as a general rule, foreign policy replicates in its essentials domestic policy, the US would be better suited and qualified to be seen as an international peace-builder and healer of division. That is, the US would find greater acceptance as a reconciler and ‘bridge-builder’. The divisive policies of President Donald Trump render these foreign policy aims difficult to achieve.

It is bound to be argued that the world didn’t see much evidence to support the ‘bridge-building’ capability of the US during the Obama years but the US was much more at peace with those states which were considered to be at cross-purposes with her. Two of these were Iran and China. Today, the US is at loggerheads with the latter states. International peace-building too is a process and the achievements of a big power on this front could only be evaluated in relative terms.

Nevertheless, a state, regardless of status, is obliged to work towards and uphold its national interest. This was done during the tenure of President Obama as well and it would be in the interests of small states in particular to bear this in mind. However, a US that works with greater vigour and purpose towards national integration is bound to be friendlier towards the global South.

A US under Biden and Harris is also likely to expect much from the South in terms of democratic development, at the heart of which is national integration. Those countries of the South which are prone to be ultra-nationalist in domestic and foreign policy will find themselves to be at cross-purposes with a US under a Biden-Harris combine.

Sri Lanka, for instance, would be obliged to be on the best of terms with the US under a Biden administration on account of her continued dependence on the US on a number of fronts. It would do well to pursue a Non-aligned foreign policy with vigour since she cannot antagonize any of the major powers, considering her economic vulnerabilities in particular.

Women politicians of a Democratic persuasion were at the receiving end of President Trump’s ire. Such outpourings of scorn were seen as attempts to denigrate women and the gender equality cause in general. With Harris coming to the forefront of Democratic Party politics the women’s cause would likely be bolstered. On this score too, democracy would gain in the US since democracy, correctly understood, is gender blind.

The possibility of a political change for the better in the US could not have come at a more crucial time for her. As the latter continues to stagger under the COVID-19 cataclysm, not only ethnic and gender parity but also national economic integration emerges as a priority. The state cannot afford to ignore the economically backward and deprived social sections, whose well being is central to national economic rejuvenation.

The US centre continues to be committed to social welfare spending of considerable proportions but deprived US sections, such as the country’s more depressed communities, tend to be wooed by and cared for more by Democratic administrations. The possibility of the coming to power of the Democrats would be good news for the US’ deprived groups who are likely to feel a greater sense of identity with a Democratic administration.

The big question is, what are the chances of real political change occurring in the US, come November? Going by current opinion polls Trump will be facing an uphill struggle to remain in power. If he is defeated, the lessons for the rest of the world will be plain to see. Power wielders at the centre who thrive on aggravating racial and cultural divides may enjoy some short term gains but a lengthy stay at the top could never be guaranteed. This is a prime lesson. The better option, however, is for central administrations to work consistently towards national integration, ideally through power sharing and a decentralizing of governmental functions. All in all, human welfare and not power should be seen as primal.