Polls of New Zealanders indicate a clear preference for Kamala Harris over Donald Trump. Our opinions carry no weight at the American ballot box, but the election result will have a big influence on New Zealand's economic and security landscape.
The race is tight. At the time of writing, Harris maintains a slim (and diminishing) lead in national polls. However, the popular vote will not necessarily determine the outcome. The peculiarities of the electoral college system mean the real battle is over relatively small numbers of persuadable voters in a handful of swing states.
Trump has a history of confounding pollsters and pundits. Betting markets and forecast models have been swinging in his direction, injecting further uncertainty.
Arguably, the congressional races are just as important as the race for the Presidency. They will determine control of the House of Representatives and the Senate. It remains unclear which party will control these houses, and it is quite possible the next President’s party will not have control of either.
Despite the heated rhetoric and stark ideological contrasts between the candidates, the practical implications for New Zealand may be similar regardless of the winner. This is particularly true in economic policy. Both parties have become more protectionist and interventionist, impacting New Zealand’s economic interests.
The US economy has posted impressive growth figures, but many Americans remain unconvinced of their economic prosperity, influencing both parties’ policies. Trump's influence looms, with Democrats adopting some of his earlier positions to recapture lost working-class voters. Republicans, in turn, have veered even further towards economic nationalism.
Neither candidate is fiscally responsible. Both are likely to expand the deficit and national debt, although Harris's tax-and-spend policies appear marginally less reckless. Trump's potential meddling with the Federal Reserve poses an additional threat to monetary policy stability, a concern that should not be taken lightly.
Bipartisan consensus on free trade has evaporated, with both parties embracing protectionism. Republican and Democratic administrations have blocked appointments to the World Trade Organisation's appellate body, weakening a global trade structure that benefits nations like New Zealand. Trump's promise for a blanket 10% or higher tariff on all imports poses a threat to open trade, making him a worse threat to New Zealand’s economic interests.
The contrast between the candidates is more pronounced in their international relations and security policies. Harris will likely continue the Biden administration's approach of building multilateral coalitions and reaffirming traditional alliances. Trump promises a more transactional foreign policy, potentially destabilising longstanding security arrangements.
Trump's isolationist rhetoric, if translated into policy, could pose significant risks to global democracy. His apparent affinity for autocrats, his ambivalence towards NATO and his lack of support for Ukraine have raised alarm bells in capitals across Europe and beyond. For New Zealand, which has long relied on a rules-based international order, an American retreat from global leadership would be deeply worrying.
On the critical issue of China, both candidates will retain trade restrictions in the interests of economic and technological competition, especially in strategic areas like computer chips. Tensions over the South China Sea and Taiwan will need to be managed, while China’s support for Russia, Iran, and North Korea and its courting of the Global South will need to be countered. Harris would seek to ease tensions diplomatically, while Trump would be bombastic but open to deals. However, neither will want to be seen as soft on China or surrender global leadership.
Both will expect friends and allies to stick with them. This presents a delicate balancing act for New Zealand, which has recently tilted more into the American camp despite China remaining our largest trading partner. It will be tricky under either Harris or Trump. Both candidates' protectionist stances mean neither is likely to offer increased trade access as an incentive for aligning with American strategic interests – but may threaten to punish those that do not.
New Zealand may need to increase defence spending to satisfy our security partners. Focusing on military interoperability with Australian forces might be a wise investment in an increasingly uncertain geopolitical landscape.
New Zealand should continue pushing for trade liberalisation with like-minded countries. However, we should also keep trying to get a trade deal with the United States, even if the prospects of anything economically meaningful are unfavourable. While such an agreement might not have a lot of short-term benefits, it could better position New Zealand for the long term. China’s economy will face strong headwinds as its population ages and shrinks in the coming decades. America has much stronger demographics and it is much more productive, innovative and competitive.
Opportunistically, New Zealand could attract highly skilled tech workers affected by Trump’s anti-immigration policies. If the US makes life hard for skilled workers living there on an H-1B visa, New Zealand could offer those workers immediate residence to bolster its own tech sector. New Zealand could also do more to attract and welcome Americans wanting to escape the dysfunctional politics that has become a hallmark of their nation.
Regardless of the election outcome, New Zealand will face a more protectionist US, heightened geopolitical rivalry with China, and more threats to the international rules-based order.
The American election is consequential for New Zealand, not just in terms of the candidates' personalities but in the broader shifts in American economic and foreign policy.
As the electoral drama unfolds, New Zealand must look beyond the headlines to prepare for a future that will demand resilience and adaptability in equal measure.
Nick is a Senior Fellow, focusing on local government, resource management, and economic policy. This article was first published HERE
Trump has a history of confounding pollsters and pundits. Betting markets and forecast models have been swinging in his direction, injecting further uncertainty.
Arguably, the congressional races are just as important as the race for the Presidency. They will determine control of the House of Representatives and the Senate. It remains unclear which party will control these houses, and it is quite possible the next President’s party will not have control of either.
Despite the heated rhetoric and stark ideological contrasts between the candidates, the practical implications for New Zealand may be similar regardless of the winner. This is particularly true in economic policy. Both parties have become more protectionist and interventionist, impacting New Zealand’s economic interests.
The US economy has posted impressive growth figures, but many Americans remain unconvinced of their economic prosperity, influencing both parties’ policies. Trump's influence looms, with Democrats adopting some of his earlier positions to recapture lost working-class voters. Republicans, in turn, have veered even further towards economic nationalism.
Neither candidate is fiscally responsible. Both are likely to expand the deficit and national debt, although Harris's tax-and-spend policies appear marginally less reckless. Trump's potential meddling with the Federal Reserve poses an additional threat to monetary policy stability, a concern that should not be taken lightly.
Bipartisan consensus on free trade has evaporated, with both parties embracing protectionism. Republican and Democratic administrations have blocked appointments to the World Trade Organisation's appellate body, weakening a global trade structure that benefits nations like New Zealand. Trump's promise for a blanket 10% or higher tariff on all imports poses a threat to open trade, making him a worse threat to New Zealand’s economic interests.
The contrast between the candidates is more pronounced in their international relations and security policies. Harris will likely continue the Biden administration's approach of building multilateral coalitions and reaffirming traditional alliances. Trump promises a more transactional foreign policy, potentially destabilising longstanding security arrangements.
Trump's isolationist rhetoric, if translated into policy, could pose significant risks to global democracy. His apparent affinity for autocrats, his ambivalence towards NATO and his lack of support for Ukraine have raised alarm bells in capitals across Europe and beyond. For New Zealand, which has long relied on a rules-based international order, an American retreat from global leadership would be deeply worrying.
On the critical issue of China, both candidates will retain trade restrictions in the interests of economic and technological competition, especially in strategic areas like computer chips. Tensions over the South China Sea and Taiwan will need to be managed, while China’s support for Russia, Iran, and North Korea and its courting of the Global South will need to be countered. Harris would seek to ease tensions diplomatically, while Trump would be bombastic but open to deals. However, neither will want to be seen as soft on China or surrender global leadership.
Both will expect friends and allies to stick with them. This presents a delicate balancing act for New Zealand, which has recently tilted more into the American camp despite China remaining our largest trading partner. It will be tricky under either Harris or Trump. Both candidates' protectionist stances mean neither is likely to offer increased trade access as an incentive for aligning with American strategic interests – but may threaten to punish those that do not.
New Zealand may need to increase defence spending to satisfy our security partners. Focusing on military interoperability with Australian forces might be a wise investment in an increasingly uncertain geopolitical landscape.
New Zealand should continue pushing for trade liberalisation with like-minded countries. However, we should also keep trying to get a trade deal with the United States, even if the prospects of anything economically meaningful are unfavourable. While such an agreement might not have a lot of short-term benefits, it could better position New Zealand for the long term. China’s economy will face strong headwinds as its population ages and shrinks in the coming decades. America has much stronger demographics and it is much more productive, innovative and competitive.
Opportunistically, New Zealand could attract highly skilled tech workers affected by Trump’s anti-immigration policies. If the US makes life hard for skilled workers living there on an H-1B visa, New Zealand could offer those workers immediate residence to bolster its own tech sector. New Zealand could also do more to attract and welcome Americans wanting to escape the dysfunctional politics that has become a hallmark of their nation.
Regardless of the election outcome, New Zealand will face a more protectionist US, heightened geopolitical rivalry with China, and more threats to the international rules-based order.
The American election is consequential for New Zealand, not just in terms of the candidates' personalities but in the broader shifts in American economic and foreign policy.
As the electoral drama unfolds, New Zealand must look beyond the headlines to prepare for a future that will demand resilience and adaptability in equal measure.
Nick is a Senior Fellow, focusing on local government, resource management, and economic policy. This article was first published HERE
13 comments:
To repurpose another well-used phrase - their country, their choice. We can shake our collective heads in disbelief if Trump wins, but never forget we voted in the Adern Government, the most destructive Government in the history of New Zealand, on the strength of nothing more than a surge of emotion. So I don't think we are in any position to lecture the Americans on their failure to understand what constitutes good governance.
Nick Clarke appears to be a dedicated follower of MSM. His rose tinted view of the disastrous Biden Harris term in office confirms this.
Trump.The guy so misunderstood by kiwis.
No I would not like leftist American tech people moving to NZ.
Lets get our productive sector moving.
I don't believe that anyone has read any of the many biographies about Trump would vote for him.
A Trump autobiography would have to be ghost written and probably a comic book.
This morning there is a excellent piece in the UK Guardian which summarizes Trumps career and personal life which has been quietly edited out of the current campaign.
If US citizens can not look back and see how irrational he is , with no respect for the law, or anyone else, why can't they look forward to understand that Trump's dementia will make him even more unfit to hold Office in 4 years time ?
Umm where does one start? The American electorate under Trump has rejected the rules based international order and rightly so in my opinion. The rules based international order appears to be about endless war, mass marketing of western style consumer goods to the world and mass immigration from 3rd world countries to the West.
Here in NZ our industries have been decimated, our country is in decline and we appear to be beholden to trans national organisations like the World Health organisation that wield enormous power.
So I'd like an end to globalisation and instead a NZ First approach, much like Trump is going America first.
Also Trump won't start any more wars.
Harris is a non entity who is beholden to the cabal that has been running America for the last 4 years. She'll hold the office but she won't be running the show. At least Trump will actually be the president.
Nick Clarke, Please define your argument with some real information , Not bias MSM garbage . OR read and listen to Liberty Nation , or even go out on a limb and listen to the Joe Rogan podcasts of both Trump and JD Vance . Straight from the mouth for 3 hours each . Very Enlightening .
Well said Basil. The MSM is drenching the simple minds with propaganda.
So Basil and Rob, you think Rogan is ideologically as pure as driven snow? This would be the same Rogan whose anti-vax views have been described by virologists as a menace to public health, wlth fringe ideas not backed in science. Sounds to me like a textbook attempt to drench simple minds with propaganda. And giving Trump a three hour opportunity to amplify his toxic message to those same simple minds kind of reinforces the point. Try reading The Economist's analysis of Trump's policies for context. It's not pretty. The Economist is about as main-stream as they come, but being British is able to stand back from the affray and take a rational approach. I would trust their judgement a lot more than some shock-jock intent on nothing more than making himself noticed.
With respect Nick, like so many Trump haters, you misread the western public mood when interpreting polls as favouring Harris over Trump.
Your summation is based on a fixation with Trump the man rather than anything to do with Harris as an unproven candidate for the biggest job in the world. The polls you refer to overwhelming feature responders who would vote for anybody or anything but Trump - even a drovers dog.
Love him or hate him, Trump remains a known quantity and, if elected, will do his best to honour promises made to the electorate during the campaign. It’s anybody’s guess what Harris would - such is her flip flopping on major issues. At no time in our history have we had the need for a leader who will stand up for our freedoms. It may not have been pretty but Trump’s results while President compare favourably with any of his predecessors - even including Reagan.
In my humble opinion, we are about to see a momentous shift in traditional voting preferences in the US.
I also believe that the same is true in most countries throughout the Free World.
Bring it on .
Did Bibby say Harris is an "unproven candidate". So what exactly does serving four years as Vice-President count for? I would suggest Trump's CV in 2016 demonstrated how "unproven" he was at the time. And four years in office changed nothing, except to prove how unproven he was, and still is. And don't joke about broken promises. Was the wall built? Did Mexico pay? Trump can't even remember what he promises from one rally to the next. You are right in one respect however; he sure is a known quantity!
11.42 Anonymous
Ha Ha! Hoist by your own petard
Perhaps l should have said Harris is, like Trump, a known quantity but due to her failures in the office of Vice President, certainly is at best, an un proven candidate for the Presidency and it will be those failures that will sink any chance she has of getting the top job.
Dear me Mr Bibby, you have been drinking rather deeply at the poisoned well of Fox News. I suppose you are relying on the fabricated assertion that Harris somehow failed in the matter of border security. What was that title they invented for her - the failed border tsar? Pity the job Biden tasked her with had nothing to do with policing the border. But there again, the Republicans rarely let the facts get in the way of an unscrupulous personal attack. In this case they couldn't even get the gender right. Next you will be denying it was Trump who scuttled the bipartisan measure introduced into Congress to address the very border issue Harris is being accused of failing to fix. And why did he do that I wonder? Oh yes. It would have removed the one policy issue his whole re-election campaign was based on. But hopefully the results of the election will
be history in 24 hours or so, and then we can both get some rest. Or at least, until the next coup attempt.
Anonymous, please get off the internet. Everything you say is wrong. Write this down. Trump was great in his first term. He will be great again. Kamala is a middle manager out of her depth. Lastly please don't vote Labour for the next 25 years. Thank you. š
Post a Comment