The Election of the Year

This week, I had the opportunity to get a closer look at the excitement surrounding the American presidential election. As much as possible, I have been following events from this side of the Atlantic from a respectful distance. So far, I’ve mostly considered the prospects for cooperation with potential winners from the EU’s perspective, especially regarding the candidates’ stances on the war in Ukraine and any anticipated changes in their positions. Given this background, it was an exciting experience to see how the two major parties across the ocean are trying to engage potential voters, whether they are citizens working at embassies or members of the sizable military contingent still stationed in Europe. However, this event wasn’t about them, nor was it primarily aimed at them; it was meant for us—Eurocrats, Brussels insiders, members of national EU delegations, and the media. And we, or at least I, were not disappointed. We got exactly what we expected. 

Author: Szilárd Szélpál

The “election debate” had already been set up by the intense and provocative campaign conducted in the American media, full of sharp retorts and verbal jabs directed at opponents. This included President Joe Biden’s candidacy announcement, his curious mid-process withdrawal from the candidacy, and even the alleged assassination attempts against former President Donald Trump. With such a lead-up, we reached the point where The Parliament Magazine hosted the debate at The Merode Private Club one week before the elections, featuring representatives of both major European parties. Nicolas Conquer represented the Republicans, spokesperson for Republicans Overseas France, while Trip DuBard, Chair of Democrats Abroad Belgium, represented the Democrats.

At first, this face-off between the two party representatives, overshadowed by the presidential candidates themselves, didn’t seem particularly intriguing, but they pleasantly surprised us. On the one hand, they flawlessly presented their parties’ political messages; on the other hand, they pointed out the weaknesses in their rival’s platform. But that’s not what made this debate truly interesting. Naturally, the moderator asked both local party leaders about the pressing issues: migration and its potential solutions, the conflicts in Ukraine and Israel, relations with China and economic ties, climate change, and perhaps most importantly, the state of American democracy, its apparent challenges, and the workings of the democratic system.

We received familiar answers to these questions. What stood out was that Republicans had taken a noticeably peace-oriented stance on nearly all conflicts, emphasizing diplomatic solutions alongside or instead of military support, especially if Trump wins. The issue of handling migration pressure sharply divided the party representatives. The Democratic debater advocated full support, arguing that the U.S. has two million unfilled job positions, which incoming migrants could best fill to prevent severe labor shortages. In contrast, the Republican debater emphasized deporting illegal immigrants and opposed the current administration’s amnesty program, which they argued not only granted many migrants legal status but also secured a significant number of potential voters for the government.

The debate closed with a discussion over a question that, in my opinion, was entirely pointless. The question was whether Trump is a fascist, as presidential candidate Kamala Harris had stated in a television interview. In my view, invoking the fascist or Nazi card in a campaign like this is entirely unnecessary. Not only do the politicians misunderstand these concepts, but they also lack awareness of the practical attributes of these ideologies. At this moment, they highlighted that the representatives were merely echoing their parties’ positions without attempting a substantive debate.

Unfortunately, crucial topics like digitalization or artificial intelligence, whether in public administration, strengthening democratic structures, or defense and security policy, did not come up. There was no significant discussion about the security risks posed by Elon Musk’s constant communication with Russian President Vladimir Putin, especially considering that Musk’s companies handle numerous major government military contracts and projects.

In closing, I can only say that it was profoundly interesting to observe from the Brussels bubble how transatlantic political forces remain locked in their echo chambers, unable to open up to external perspectives, debate, or compromise. It wouldn’t have felt so familiar had I not listened as a Hungarian. The political discourse and overall experience mirrored what we see in Hungary, where political conversations have grown similarly divisive. Both sides in America reminded me of the Hungarian political scene, with its populist character attacks and gestures reflecting both the Hungarian government and its opposition. Given this, following Tuesday’s elections forecast an extremely intriguing future for the U.S. and the entire world. What is clear is that this debate underscored the possibility of a repeat of events from four years ago, potentially escalating into protests that could once again shake the foundations of American democracy, regardless of which party loses. Facing such possibilities and the shadow of global conflicts, the West will have little choice but to unite even further, with the EU needing to move toward greater cohesion to preserve and advance its security, energy independence, and global competitiveness.

Cover photo credit: https://www.ft.com/