The first presidential debate between Joe Biden and Donald Trump captivated the world and drew everyone’s attention. Indeed, the US is the most powerful empire in history, but another reason for all of this interest is worth noting.
This was the first time in history that one of the candidates on the US debate stage looked like a “scarecrow” - motionless, stammering, hesitant, and at times, speechless. After it ended, many prominent Democratic figures called the debate a “disaster” and began looking for an alternative to Biden, for fear of losing not only the presidential election in November but also the support of their base.
The Democratic Party’s proposals are more coherent and robust than Biden made them out to be in the debate, and if the Democrats had had someone like Obama debating Trump, the outcome would have been different. The critical question is not what this means for the future of the US - and I say this despite recognizing Biden’s long and respectable political history - but how someone with such limited capabilities managed to be president for four years? How did its unprecedented domestic polarization lead the US to elect a president who cannot actually lead?
On the other side of the stage, Trump was sharp and focused. He managed the time allotted to him well, managing to both present his ideas and respond to his opponent or his rivals' proposals. He skillfully distorted questions to answer by saying what he wanted to, and he roamed the intellectual and political battleground like a wounded lion throughout the debate.
Regardless of whether one agrees with Trump or not, it was obvious that he had undeniably won, leaving Democratic Party leaders skeptical, confused, and panicked about the choice between continuing to support the current president and finding, in the little time they have left, an alternative who could face Trump in the upcoming elections.
We should also note that the Arab Democrats in our countries, Arab supporters of the American Democratic Party, are intellectually, culturally, and politically tainted. They are prevalent in the media and the cultural scene, and even more so on social media - a phenomenon worth looking into. In contrast, we do not have real supporters of the Republican Party, save a few exceptions that do not amount to a real political and social phenomenon.
This unequal debate exposed many news anchors and journalists working for respected Arab media outlets, demonstrating their enthusiasm for the American "liberal left." Their zeal was quite surprising; in fact, some could not see the weaknesses of Biden that have been acknowledged by Democratic Party leaders and major US media outlets biased in favor of the Democrats. These media figures will likely recalibrate their positions in the near future to avoid making their bias too apparent.
In their coverage of the US elections, Arab media outlets often pose different variations of the same question: where do the presidential candidates or the American parties stand on "Arab issues"? This question is misleading because it is premised on the idea that there is such a thing as "Arab issues" and that all Arabs share the same stance on these issues. This assumption is more a dream or illusion than it is a factual conception of today’s politics.
These so-called "Arab issues" are not a feature of US foreign policy, as the Arabs are divided around most of these matters, and that is why the Arab League has been a failed institution since its inception. The Arab League was established based on the idea that there was a need for Arabs to develop unified positions, which is impossible given the divergent interests and tendencies of the various Arab countries and nations.
While the Palestinian cause could be presented as an example of an issue around which there is an Arab consensus - despite the known divergences around it- divergence prevails on other matters. The most obvious examples are the Arabs’ differences on what was falsely called the "Arab Spring" (which was actually a spring of chaos and terrorism) or what is falsely called the "Axis of Resistance" (which is merely a facade for Iranian expansion in Arab countries).
At the state level, there is an "Arab consensus" on the "Arab Peace Initiative" with Israel. However, Arab communities, ideologies, organizations, and militias tied to the "Iranian axis" reject this consensus. Their opposition is reflected by the narrative of many media outlets and the political propositions they have adopted.
The rejectionists have managed to make their voices heard, and to make a lot of noise, consistently managing to undercut sensible and realistic solutions. One example is their stance on the unjust Israeli war on Gaza, which saw some Arab writers and intellectuals promoted hollow slogans and outbid one another in upping the ante, only to fall dead silent after the horrific realities that wounded all of humanity’s conscience came to light.
The Republican Party is a right-wing conservative party, while the Democratic Party is a "liberal" party that the "liberal left" led by Obama has dominated in recent years, and Biden’s presidency an extension of his proposals. The liberal left has grown and expanded in Western countries over the past few decades, and in line with the logic of history, a right-wing movement inevitably arose in response. This is what we now see happening in most European countries, where right-wing movements, parties, and figures have surged.
Ultimately, US elections are for Americans. What matters to us is the interests and stability of our countries.
