US presidential election: a view from Seoul
By Cho Byung-jae
As the 2024 U.S. presidential election approaches, the world watches with bated breath. Will Vice President Kamala Harris rise to become the 47th president of the United States, propelled by a whirlwind campaign? Or will former President Donald Trump, rallying under the banner of "retribution," reclaim the White House after a four-year hiatus? With only two months until the Nov. 5 vote, the stakes could not be higher.
The mood in America is one of deep-seated pessimism. A Pew Research survey last year revealed that 66 percent of Americans believe the U.S. economy will weaken by 2050, 71 percent think the nation’s global influence will diminish, 77 percent expect political divisions to worsen and 81 percent foresee a widening gap between rich and poor. These gloomy forecasts have shown little change over the past year. More recently, a survey from April indicated that 59 percent of Americans believe the country has lost more than it has gained in trade. Whether Harris’ campaign, driven by a new sense of vitality and "politics of joy," can overcome this entrenched pessimism may well determine the election's outcome.
Two Americas: A nation divided
The United States today is more divided than ever — a reality encapsulated by the phrase "Two Americas," first used by Martin Luther King Jr. during the 1960s civil rights movement. King spoke of "one America" that is "overflowing with the miracle of prosperity and the honey of opportunity," and "another America" where millions are "perishing on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity."
Forty years later, political consultant Stanley Greenberg revisited this idea in his book "The Two Americas: Our Current Political Deadlock and How to Break It," published in 2004. His analysis came in the aftermath of the fiercely contested 2000 presidential election between George W. Bush and Al Gore, culminating in the dramatic 35-day Florida recount. Greenberg’s concept of "Two Americas" diverged from King’s, focusing less on economic inequality and more on socio-cultural divides — race, religion, gun control and homosexuality. While the economy remains an external force, race and religion are deeply embedded within our identities.
Two decades later, the idea of "Two Americas" has evolved into a profound ideological chasm. Last July, in a national address announcing his withdrawal from the presidential race, President Joe Biden described America as an "idea." "It’s the most powerful idea in the history of the world," he said. "We’re all created equal, endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
In stark contrast, Senator J.D. Vance, Trump’s running mate, defined America as a "nation" during the Republican National Convention just a week earlier. "America," he declared, "is not just an idea or a set of principles. It is our homeland. People will not fight for abstractions, but they will fight for their homes." While an idea is absolute and intangible, a nation is a tangible reality that can be seen and touched. Is America an idea or a nation? As an idea, America champions a liberal international order. As a nation, it embraces "America First."
The battle for America’s soul
Trump and Harris each represent these "Two Americas," communicating their messages through distinct channels. The mainstream media — such as The New York Times, The Washington Post and CNN — are consistently critical of Trump. However, from Trump’s perspective, these outlets are part of the establishment, much like the Democrats or the so-called "deep state," both of which he believes must be dismantled to "Make America Great Again." Trump’s trust lies with Fox News and newer internet platforms like Newsmax, which have become crucial in spreading the message of his MAGA campaign. In 2022, Trump even launched his own social media platform, Truth Social, to bypass traditional media channels altogether.
The battle between these two visions of America is fierce. Both sides have a realistic shot at victory, yet neither possesses the strength to decisively defeat the other. As identity politics refuses to compromise, partisanship deepens, and polarization intensifies. Recent U.S. presidential elections have been determined by razor-thin margins, with a few tens of thousands of voters in key battleground states deciding the winner. The difference in votes may be small, but the implications are enormous.
What it means for Korea
American politics seems destined to remain in a state of impasse, with neither side likely to dominate the other in the foreseeable future. During this period, U.S. foreign policy will likely oscillate between advocating a liberal international order and embracing "America First."
For over 70 years, South Korea has thrived within the liberal international order. We have grown comfortable within this framework. The "America First" doctrine represents a departure from this comfort zone, a shift that brings both uncertainty and opportunity. As the drama of "Two Americas" unfolds, the decision ultimately rests with the American people. For South Korea, what is required is strategic thinking — setting realistic goals and utilizing limited resources efficiently. We must avoid being overly jubilant or despondent, regardless of the election’s outcome. Instead, we should focus on navigating the changes ahead with a clear-eyed determination to seize the opportunities they present.
Cho Byung-jae is chair professor of Kyungnam University. He served as chancellor of the Korea National Diplomatic Academy.