The 2024 U.S. Presidential Election According to Zhang Weiwei and Chen Ping
"The entire formulation of the U.S. Constitution was aimed at making it very difficult, almost impossible, to amend later."
As the United States gear up for its 60th Presidential election in November 2024, the political landscape has become increasingly challenging landscape for both parties. As the proverb goes, “within crisis, there are opportunities,” suggesting that challenging or dangerous situations can present new opportunities if one can navigate them effectively.
The recent shift in the Democratic Party’s strategy has injected new dynamics into the presidential race for the upcoming U.S. election. President Biden’s decision to end his re-election campaign and endorse Vice President Kamala Harris marks a significant change. Additionally, the selection of Minnesota Governor Tim Walz as Harris’ running mate also signals potential changes in both domestic. and foreign policy approaches.
This article is largely a commentary on the current state of the U.S. presidential race, structural issues within the American political system and potential implications based on this Guancha post. The two commenters in the post are:
Zhang Weiwei, Distinguished Professor of Fudan University, Dean of China Institute, Seniour Fellow of Chunqiu Institute. He holds a Ph.D. in International Relations from the University of Geneva and has previously served as a professor at the Geneva School of Diplomacy and International Relations, former visiting fellow at Oxford.
Chen Ping, Researcher at China Institute, Fudan University, Researcher at Chunqiu Institute. He has a B.S. in physics from the University of Science and Technology of China in 1968, followed by a Ph.D. in physics from The University of Texas at Austin in 1987.
The Harris-Walz Ticket
Biden’s withdrawal from the race was influenced by intense pressure from fellow Democrats, particularly following a poor performance against Republican nominee, former President Donald Trump. This prompted concerns about his ability to win the election. Harris’ emergence in the race makes her the first black woman to lead a major party ticket in the U.S. history.
“Harris’s appearance is actually splitting the Democratic Party.”1
This observation stemmed from the potential divergence between Harris’ approach and that of the Biden’s administration, particularly on international issues such as the Isreal-Hamas war and the plight of the Palestinians. While Harris still affirmed Isreal’s right to defend itself, she has said in her convention speech that her goal is to ensure “Isreal if secure, the hostages are released, the suffering in Gaza ends, and the Palestinian people realise their right to dignity, security, freedom, and self-determination”.2 This suggests that she may be a stronger advocate for PAlestinians that Biden or Trump and she may be unlikely to go as far as some Democrats pushing for an arms embargo on Isreal.
Walz’s selection is viewed as a shrewd strategic political move to strengthen the Democratic’s appeal in the midwest. Walz, who has past experience teaching in China and has organised U.S.-China student exchanges, brings a unique perspective to the ticket. This choice might indicate a potential shift in the party’s China policy although Harris has said little about China since becoming a candidate except that she would ensure “America, not China, wins the competition for the 21st century”. According to Chen Ping,
“Walz is a very shrewd political consideration. On this point, I think she is indeed much more sophisticated than Biden’s twists and turns.”
Walz’s record as governor is marked by significant legislative achievements in areas like gun control, abortion rights, and paid family leave. Harris and Walz are expected to focus on key issues such as economic stability, healthcare and reproductive rights, while also addressing the needs of the Midwestern voters.
The Trump Factor
Donald Trump’s continued influence on the Republican Party has undoubtedly caused a significant split within the party, as observed by Chen Ping. The split is attributed to Trump’s divergence from traditional Republican positions, particularly on issues of foreign policy and trade.
Trump’s presidency marked a shift away from the party’s traditional support for free trade, alliances, and democracy promotion towards a more protectionist, transactional, and authoritarian-friendly approach.3,4 Despite that this had created tensions with the party’s establishment wing, Trump maintained strong support among the republican base.5
Trump’s choice of J.D.Vance as his running mate further emphasises this shift. As Zhang Weiwei notes,
“You see Vance’s latest speech, which ‘infuriated’ many women. He publicly said that those who control the United States now are some ‘big capitalists’ and a group of ‘women who have cats but no children’—this phrase angered many people.”
Further, his criticism of U.S. support for Ukraine and hawkish stance on Isreal also signal a potential shift in the party’s foreign policy approach.
Divide-and-Rule Governance Model
“The entire formulation of the U.S. Constitution was aimed at making it very difficult, almost impossible, to amend later.”
The assertion that the Western, particularly the U.S. Constitution’s design makes substantive reforms difficult is supported by historical context. Designed in the 18th century, the constitution reflected political realities and philosophical beliefs at that time, influenced by enlightenment ideas of governance and the need to balance power among different branches and levels of government. Those who intended to create a stable government would resist rapid changes. While rigidity can protect against hasty decisions, it also may potentially hamper timely reforms in responding to evolving societal needs. That said, while amendments are difficult to pass, requiring a supermajority, the Constitution has been amended 27 times (33 proposed) in U.S. history.
Prioritising technicalities over foundational principles in governance raises questions about whether the governance model is still effectively serving the populace’s interests or merely perpetuates existing power structures. All in all, this aligns with observations about polarisation in American politics, where partisan divides leading to gridlock and hinder collective action. That said, the current political landscape is marked by deep polarisation with inability to reach consensus on critical issues such as healthcare, climate change, and immigration for example. This exemplifies the challenges of a rigid constitutional framework and entrenched divisions.
“If I win in this state’s election, even if the difference in votes between the two parties is only five-thousandths, or only a few thousand votes... the party that gets a few thousand more votes can win all the electoral votes of that state.”
Chen Peng, further points out that the “winner-takes-all” nature of the system can lead to situations where popular vote does not align with the electoral outcome as seen in previous elections (1824, 1876, 1888, 2000, and 2016)6. Such discrepancies can foster disillusionment among voters, particularly those whose votes are effectively rendered moot in states dominated by one party.
While the system can and have indeed lead to outcomes where the popular vote does not align with the electoral outcome, this is not the norm and has only happened a few times in U.S. history. Also, the 2000 election was ultimately decided by the Electoral College vote after the Supreme Court ruled on the Florida recount, not directly by the Supreme Court.
Both scholars note the increasing polarisation in American politics. Zhang Weiwei observes,
“Now when you analyse Western democratic systems, this system in the past generally said that in order to be elected, you have to move as much as possible to the center. But after entering an atomized society, everyone is moving to both sides, to the extremes.”
This trend towards extremism is seen as a consequence of the system’s design and the increasing atomisation of American society. Historically, candidates aimed for centrist positions to appeal to a broader electorate. The current political climate encourages candidates to cater to their party’s base to secure nominations, leading to more extreme positions and candidates adopting radical stances for differentiation. The polarisation observed is a complex phenomenon influenced by various factors, such as social media, and electoral strategies. Traditional media outlets’ influence have been affected as social media platforms increasingly become primary sources of news for many Americans. This shift has profound implications for how voters receive and process information about candidates and issues.For instance, individuals can now curate their news and social interactions to align with their pre-existing beliefs, reinforcing extreme viewpoints and reducing exposure to differing perspectives. This atomisation of society can lead to echo chambers, where extreme views are amplified and can reinforce polarisation.
Besides, there are also various factors that play significant roles in the 2024 presidential elections. The most dominant would be economic conditions such as inflation concerns, job market conditions, income inequality, trade policies as well as federal debt and deficit. All these will most likely influence the presidential race. The candidate who is able to articulate clear, convincing plans to address these challenges could be a decisive factor.
Also on the list would be healthcare; accessible and affordable healthcare would certainly remain a contentious issue, with debates continuing over the future of the Affordable Care Act, Medicare expansion, and prescription drug pricing. The list can go on (gun control, immigration, reproductive rights, education, foreign policy etc.) and the candidate’s position and proposals on these issues, will clearly be crucial in shaping voters’ preferences and consequently, the election outcome.
International Implications
“So it’s very likely that they have some new considerations on the China issue, but to what extent, even if she is elected, she will be able to make changes, this cannot be guaranteed.”
Walz’s personal experience in China could suggest a more conciliatory approach but both scholars cautioned against expecting dramatic changes.
Chen Ping adds that international issues could be a deciding factor:
“If the international situation does not become a campaign theme, Trump's chances of losing are very high; but if the international situation becomes a theme, Trump may say he can avoid World War III, he may be able to come to power.”
While the outlook may be still uncertain, observers will be watching closely to see how this unfolds and how the various factors ultimately shape the future of American politics and its role on the global stage.
Young, C. (2020). The Electoral College and the Winner Takes All System.