Kamala Harris Wants to Revive an Empire in Decline

In a 2023 commencement address at West Point Military Academy, Kamala Harris said, “a strong America remains indispensable to the world.” 

And indeed, it is this specter of protecting a “strong America” that has weighed heavy on recent presidential administrations — to show that, despite new challenges to U.S. hegemony, the United States can weather these tests and maintain the unipolar order that it has fought for since WWII.

After four years of a Trump presidency marked by an “America first” unilateralism that attempted to pose a solution to this conundrum through a combination of strongarming the world and withdrawing from multilateral alliances  — a politics to achieve a “peace through strength,” as his now Vice Presidential candidate, JD Vance puts it — the Biden-Harris administration took on the task of reassuring the world that the U.S. still had the capacity to lead the world without being antagonistic to it. 

Through his term, Biden has seen some success. Despite early hurdles over the exit from Afghanistan, from the restrengthening NATO and the United States’ European alliances, to building new ones in the Asia Pacific, to the political support it has extended to protect Israel, he made key advances to show that, despite growing tensions, it is still America’s world. Yet, with no clear exit from the war in Ukraine, and as Israel’s war in the Middle East intensifies with its new offensives against Lebanon — all while roads to a ceasefire seem dead in the water — Biden’s presidency draws to a close with few ways to resolve the key geopolitical crises of his term that. As these draw out, they act as a thorn in the project of American leadership.

But why do I begin here? As the battle for the next phase of American leadership enters its final stretch, against a backdrop of increasing confrontations between great powers, it is precisely this question of the future of U.S. imperialism that looms large. 

During his first term in office, with the promise to “Make America Great Again,” Trump embarked on a protectionist campaign that marked a departure from the decades where diplomacy, organized in the fight for “democracy,” helped organize a capitalist world order behind the United States. Declaring that it was time for the world to pay its “fair share,” Trump withdrew the U.S. from key international agreements, such as the Paris Climate Agreement and important UN bodies like the Human Rights Council, and even threatened to withdraw from NATO, all of which have been strategic treaties and institutions of maneuver for U.S. imperialism. Against the United States’ adversaries like China, Trump unleashed a trade war. On the campaign trail now, from championing the U.S. withdrawal from the war in Ukraine, to the competition with China, Trump proposes much the same.

Now, as November pulls closer and the threat of the destabilizing role of another Trump presidency on U.S. imperialism feels prescient, Harris has the task of presenting a different project for American leadership, distinguishing her foreign policy from Trump — and Biden.

Harris’s Hawkish Fight for a “Rules Based Order”

Since being plunged into the presidential race in July following Biden’s withdrawal, Harris has made judicious use of her public time to reassure sectors of the bourgeoisie and global allies that U.S. imperialism will be safe in her hands. She has not only positioned herself as the heir to an administration that put diplomacy back on the table, but also presented a vision for the future: one based in the realization of an American leadership that will restore a “rules based order” through both diplomacy and might, and where the rules are fundamentally set by the U.S. imperialism.

In an interview with ABC’s “This Week” in August following Harris’s acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention (DNC), Liz Cheney said, “it is a speech Ronald Reagan could have given. It is a speech George Bush could have given.”

Indeed, despite the common refrain of “we’re not going back” on the campaign trail, Harris’s campaign has come to embody the promise of a bipartisan leadership of decades past, of a bygone neoliberal world order where both capitalist parties were united in the task of maintaining U.S. hegemony through global partnerships, diplomatic institutions, and military expansion. In a continuation with the Biden administration, central to this project for Harris is the revitalization of traditional alliances, particularly in Europe within organizations like NATO and the United Nations, as well as the strengthening of new geopolitical blocs like the Quad (with Australia, India, and Japan) to shore up defensive maritime positions in the Asia Pacific. She has indicated her willingness to continue Biden’s policies on managing competition with China, and continuing to support Ukraine in its war with Russia. And despite any verbal condolences she’s expressed over the loss of Palestinian lives, she has reiterated her commitment to defending Israel’s right to defend itself, and refused to halt U.S. arms shipments towards the same.

Following the Trump years, for Biden, the task of rebuilding trust in American leadership among capitalist powers amid the crisis of neoliberalism was grounded in the struggle for democracy against the rising tide of “authoritarianism.” Bursting on the political scene during the Cold War, Biden has, through his career, fought for this ideological struggle put forth by U.S. imperialism to reconfigure a world under its boot: one of American exceptionalism, or that the United States, as champions of “democracy,” had to prevail against the specters of communism and “fascism.” Through his presidential term, amid emerging threats to the unipolar world order established by the United States following the defeat of the Soviet Union — particularly with the strengthening of geopolitical alliances and cooperation between China and Russia — it is this struggle that Biden, once again, took up with gusto. He has updated this ideological struggle for a new moment, and is using it to consolidate new geopolitical blocs to take up this struggle for “democracy” against authoritarianism.

While little separates Biden from his heir apparent in terms of their foreign policy at this point in time (besides Harris having far less experience than her mentor), for Harris, this struggle for U.S. capitalist hegemony, cloaked in the guise of a struggle for democracy, is more than an ideological one. A career prosecutor, Harris envisions a world order where the United States, geared towards a new phase of confrontation between great powers — particularly the strengthening bloc between China and Russia —bolsters its position as the world’s police to keep its adversaries in line. Where Trump changed the game with his “strongman” approach, Harris has leaned on her experience to say she can do so but better, and can carry on the decades of multilateralism to lead a global coalition behind it, in this growing fight between “democracy” and “authoritarianism.”

Indeed, in the DNC speech that Cheney cheers on, Harris also vehemently declared that she was going to build the “strongest, most lethal military force in the world” — a phrase she has since repeated in her debate with Trump. This military force is to be geared towards holding the world — and United States’ political adversaries in particular — to the “rules” of international cooperation that are largely set and mediated through the institutions of U.S. imperialism. In truth, as the ongoing military conflicts in Europe and the Middle East show, this “rules-based order” serves to consolidate and organize the United States’ political allies in blocs of maneuver, and punish its competition, at a time when the tendencies towards militarism and war grow more acute. 

Harris’s proposals, however, aren’t a product of a “classic” hawkish project of the decades past, where American imperialism was in better health and a bipartisan leadership was able to lead the rest of the world behind it towards its goals. Her proposals come amidst the growing tensions of an empire in decline, especially amidst the retreat of globalization when the United States, based on the export of manufacturing and exploitation of cheap labor in the global south (and particularly through the restoration of capitalism in China), and debt-fueled consumption, was able to rearticulate a unipolar order behind it. Now, as those cycles of capitalist accumulation reach exhaustion, the lack of a new hegemonic project that can recover world capitalism births new tensions between great powers and leaves the United States with less space to maneuver. Indeed, these tendencies towards great power conflicts — and the United States’ inability to chart an exit — are perhaps made most abundantly clear in Biden’s incapability of setting any limits to Israel’s ruthless military strategy in the Middle East, and his inability to exit the war in Ukraine.

Strategic Competition with China

For Harris, as with Biden, behind this task of strengthening U.S. imperialism remains the increasing competition with the world’s second largest economy that threatens U.S. hegemony.

During a debate with Mike Pence in 2020, Harris had lambasted the Trump administration for its trade war with China, and the over $360 billion in tariffs imposed over Chinese goods — a policy of escalating trade wars that Trump now continues to promise on the campaign trail. “You lost that trade war, you lost it,” she said, “What ended up happening is because of a so-called trade war with China, America lost 300,000 manufacturing jobs. Farmers have experienced bankruptcy because of it. We are in a manufacturing recession because of it.” 

Notably, as Trump was quick to point out in the last debate, the Biden-Harris administration has only marked a continuation of Trump-era policies with regard to China. Over the last 3.5 years, Biden has not only continued Trump era tariffs, but expanded them, with tariffs now covering additional goods of over $18 billion in value. In the competition for leadership in semiconductors, Biden has sought to stifle China’s technological developments by blocking access to key chip-making tools, technologies, and components, both within the U.S. and across the globe. As Esteban Mercatante notes, “Biden has also applied somewhat more “classic” protectionism against China, in the sense that he has aimed above all to preserve the national market in areas where China is gaining an advantage.”

Vying for top office, Harris has shown herself so far to be a continuation of Biden in this confrontation with China. Declaring that “America, not China, wins the competition for the 21st century” in her program, she envisions a period of “de-risking” — not “decoupling” — the relationship between the two countries that, in essence, is geared towards reducing the United States’ dependencies on China, particularly in terms of technology. To win this race, Harris, like Biden, will aim to maneuver an international alliance behind the U.S. towards it. “It’s not about pulling out, but it is about ensuring that we are protecting American interests,” Harris says, making clear who still sets the global agenda, “and that we are a leader in terms of the rules of the road, as opposed to following others’ rules.”

In the Asia Pacific, the Biden-Harris administration has advanced key defensive partnerships, not only with the Quad, but also other allies to present the United States as an alternative to China’s influence in the region. As Vice President, Harris has made three trips to Southeast Asia, visiting Singapore, Vietnam, Thailand, the Philippines, and Indonesia. During her visit to the Philippines, she stopped in Palawan, an archipelago in the South China Sea, where she emphasized the United States’ “unwavering commitment” to its “ally.” She has frequently represented Biden at regional meetings, including the U.S.-Association of Southeast Asian Nations summit in Jakarta last September.

The formation of different security alliances in the Asia Pacific, especially towards Taiwan, whose Strait is becoming increasingly militarized, looks likely to continue under Harris. Indeed, towards a brewing confrontations over Taiwan, while reaffirming her intent to continue honoring the One China policy, Harris has affirmed that the United States — Taiwan’s most consequential defense partner — ”will continue to support Taiwan’s self-defense, consistent with our longstanding policy.” 

Imperialism in the Backyard

As the election cycle enters this final phase, furthermore, the migrant crisis at the southern border has once again emerged at the center of American politics. In 2016, Trump burst upon the political scene not only with promises to “drain the swamp” — or, to shake up the political establishment in Washington — but also with thundering chants to “build the wall” between the U.S. and Mexico to curb immigration and keep out those he termed “rapists” and “murderers” coming in from Mexico. 

Eight years later, that xenophobic, anti-migrant rhetoric is, once again, at the center of his political campaign as he ups the ante, claiming that migrants are “not people” and are “poisoning the blood of our country.” Along with a return to his original anti-migrant policies — most of which are actually still in place under Biden — Trump is promising to deputize the National Guard and police in “cooperative states” to police migration and to “deliver a merit-based immigration system that protects American labor and promotes American values.” 

For her part, Harris has not only shown her willingness to match Trump’s energy, but emphasize that, on the question of immigration, she can be tougher. She has championed the bipartisan border bill that failed twice, after opposition from Congressional Republicans — a bill that would have put further restrictions on immigration, and increased border security, including giving additional funding to border patrol agents. Over the last months, she has chastised Trump for standing in the way of the bill, saying that while Trump wants to block and politick over the bill, she’s the one who actually wants to secure the border.

Through Biden’s term, Harris has been a key aide, especially in terms of border policies, working closely with the administration to curtail immigration from the southern border. In the name of stopping the passage of fentanyl into the United States, the Biden-Harris administration — like the Trump administration before it — has put mounting pressure on Mexico to help secure the border. For his part, despite his promise to “return the army to its barracks,” former Mexican president Lopez Obrador (AMLO) extended the United States’ border across Mexico by overseeing one of the biggest militarization projects that has given the armed forces increasing influence over many aspects of civil society, from attempting to replace the country’s federal police with a new National Guard, to putting the military in charge of infrastructure projects, and, most notably, with policing migration on the country’s borders.

This increased militarism at the border goes hand in hand with the United States’ renewed efforts to consolidate its hegemony in the region, particularly around its growing competition with China, and securing it towards the United States’ economic and political interests. Central to this program is the consolidation of its North American bloc, which, in turn, means the increased subordination of Mexico to the interests of U.S. capital, and looking south towards building shorter, more resilient supply chains for U.S. capital through resource extraction and “nearshoring” amid the retreat of globalization. In Mexico, AMLO’s social and economic plans — which are likely to be carried out by the new Sheinbaum government — around the industrial developments in the south of the country for the benefit of foreign capital only seeks to extend the maquiladoras across the country and will surely have consequences for the Mexican working class, many of whom will become workers in those industrial parks and the possible motors of a new cycle of production.

In addition, Harris, who vehemently told Guatemalan migrants, “don’t come,” has further framed her stance as a commitment to addressing the “root causes” of migration, stressing on the importance of fostering conditions in their home countries that would deter the journey north. Central to this has been her push to foster investments in the region by multinational corporations and businesses to boost economic development in Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador. So far, with the backing of the White House and partnerships with American corporations like Visa, Nestlé, and Meta, to name a few, Harris has secured over $5 billion in investment in the region — partnerships that are further geared towards the transformation of Latin America into a semi-colony of the United States.

No Justice in Sight for Palestine

In what is likely the most central foreign policy crisis that the next president is going to inherit — Israel’s ongoing war in Gaza and escalations towards regional war with deepening the offensive against Lebanon — Harris continues to appear more as a continuation with the Biden administration than a departure from U.S. policy towards Gaza.

Throughout the past year, despite any early criticisms of Netanyahu, Harris has stood steadfast behind Biden and U.S. foreign policy towards Israel, and has given cover to one of the greatest assaults on Palestinian lives and territories in recent years. Indeed, while the Biden-Harris administration has attempted to position itself as fighting tirelessly towards a cease-fire deal, it has set no limits on the Israeli regime, and continued to send military aid and give political cover to its genocidal campaign. At the time of writing, Gaza’s Ministry  of Health has claimed that Israel has killed over 40,000 Gazans over the last year, while the actual toll may end up being higher, with the Lancelet estimating over 186,000 dead. Over 2 million — 90 percent of the population — have been displaced, and Israel has destroyed most of Gaza’s infrastructure and caused an unprecedented humanitarian crisis as the entire strip faces starvation and disease. Yet, the Zionist state has now launched a “new phase” of assault in Lebanon and threatens expanding the regional war to Iran.

While the world continues to sour on Israel’s genocidal campaign, the unconditional support from U.S. imperialism, which has long maintained Israel as its imperialist enclave in the Middle East, has allowed Netanyahu to continue with impunity and plunge the region towards regional war. Even in the face of the fresh hells unleashed by Israel over the last weeks, Harris, like Biden, has continued to reaffirm Israel’s “right to defend itself.” Last month, amid growing calls to shop weapons shipments to Israel, her campaign made it clear that she had no intention of supporting an arms embargo. And in a statement released on Saturday shortly after Israel’s latest rounds of attacks in Lebanon, Harris further states, “I will always support Israel’s right to defend itself against Iran and Iran-backed terrorist groups such as Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis.”

In addition to giving political support to Israel, she has made clear that her enemies aren’t the genocidal regime, but those who stand against it. Indeed, over the last months, she has targeted protesters, shutting down those who dare to interrupt her rallies, and chastising those protesting Netanyahu’s visit to Congress as “antisemitic.”

As the Democratic party nominee, Harris will have the uphill task of whitewashing the party’s image and presenting herself as a viable candidate for a generation of young people and workers who want nothing to do with the bloody interventions of U.S. imperialism.

____

In his speech to the UN General Assembly, Biden described having seen the “remarkable sweep of history.” He quotes William Butler Yeats’s “The Second Coming,” written in 1919 following the end of WWI and the beginning of the Irish War of Independence: “Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold; Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world.” Writing at a time of great crisis for capitalism that dragged the world into two great imperialist wars, Yeats described a morbid world of great chaos and pain saved not by the return of a messianic Jesus, but marked by the arrival of a grotesque beast. Biden, however, makes a critical distinction: against the comparisons between 1919 and 2024, Biden triumphantly declared, “in our time, the center has held.”

Mere days following Biden’s speech and an hour before launching one of the deadliest strikes in Beirut, Netanyahu took the stage at the UN General Assembly, railing against an “antisemitic” Assembly that dared to question Israel’s right to “self-defense,” and reaffirming that he had no intention to stop this campaign until Iran and its allies were defeated. The chamber was nearly empty as most representatives had walked out in protest of Netanyahu’s speech.

It is a picture worth a thousand words: since its first conference in San Francisco in 1945, the United Nations and its many organs have been a key tool for U.S. imperialism to shape a world behind its leadership. Now, as its hegemonic power begins to dwindle, so, too, do the alliances within it. It is an uneasy equilibrium where the United States, for now, has prevailed. As Biden’s term comes to an end with the biggest geopolitical conflicts of his term unresolved, his appointed heir has the task of proving herself worthy to the bourgeoisie that she can fight to hold the “center” he speaks of — to lead U.S. imperialism in a scenario of deepening conflict, militarism and war, to guarantee a new cycle of imperialist exploitation where the U.S. remains at the top.

Whether this center will truly hold, we will see.