By Aly Kamadia, Editor-In-Chief, iDose

*The following Q&A was crafted based on questions that iDose readers have been nice enough to submit (keep them rolling in!)

Kamadia, you’re Canadian. Why have you taken an interest in American politics for so many years, and American presidential elections?

Anyone who has an interest in the subject of international affairs, as I do, must pay at least some attention to American politics, for reasons that I consider to be rather obvious.

While we no longer live in the bi-polar world that characterized a good chunk of the 20^th century (i.e., American Capitalism versus Soviet Communism), and we certainly do not live in a world in which the United States (US) dominates human affairs, there can be absolutely no doubt that the US is the most powerful country in world.

I do not want to understate the unprecedented  and historical amount of power that China has accumulated over the past few decades.

Nor do I want to fail to acknowledge that a number of other nation states have proven themselves to be forces that must reckoned with.

But the simple fact is that the US remains King on the global chessboard, even if the King’s power is growing increasingly fragile – at least relatively.

One of the reasons that we can draw the conclusion that America remains number one is due to its unmatched military power (to say nothing of its economic power).

For instance, I’m a proud Canadian. And there’s a very simple reason as to why virtually no Canadian goes to sleep at night trembling with nightmares that another country is going to launch military strikes against us, or occupy our land: The US would never tolerate any foreign power screwing around on their doorstop.

It’s a simple matter of geography. 

By contrast, the US not only has staunch allies in China’s neighborhood, but it has notable military assets in the region that China does not have the power to dismiss (at least for now).

Put differently, there remains only one King. 

So in wrapping up this response, let me reiterate that anyone who is interested in international affairs must know at least a bit about what the greatest power in human history (measured in absolute terms) is up to.

Failing to do so provides a remarkably incomplete picture.   

At this point in time, is Kamala Harris more likely to beat Trump in the November 2024 election?

Absolutely not.

Insofar as polling gives us at least a rough indication of where things stand, the race remains a coin toss.

The polling numbers coming out of swings states as these words are being authored confirm this.

For one example, according to the Real Clear Politics Average for the top 7 battleground states, as of September 24th, Trump scores 47.8% while Harris scores 47.6%. Even if there was a difference in a few points, the race would be a coin toss.

No matter how much propaganda and distorted images certain US broadcast ‘news’ outlets want to feed their audiences, anyone with an internet connection can look at what the latest polling indicates.

So you don’t think that Harris’ formidable debate against Trump gave her a significant lead?

Unlike many people, I didn’t find Harris’ debate against Trump to be ‘formidable’ – or anything of the sort.

Harris clearly beat Trump. But she did so by using extremely elementary traps that a good high school debater could deploy. Trump simply couldn’t help himself in taking the bait.

And the mainstream broadcast “news” outlets that are backing Harris (e.g., MSNBC), breathed a heavy sigh of relief because they weren’t quite sure how she’d perform. (On a sidenote, some people working at these outlets are the very same people who pretended Biden’s first debate performance was perfectly acceptable. They were doing so despite the fact that in the real world, Biden was perceived by everyone to have suffered a humiliating loss, not least because his health issues were on full display. The Democratic Party would soon go on to overthrow Biden against his will.)

In fact, if you want to see an example of Trump being absolutely crushed by a skilled politician, you might want to look back at Hillary Clinton’s presidential debate with him in 2016 (for the record, I’m no fan of Clinton). To the best of my recollection, at least in the first debate, Trump was sweating, breathing quite loudly while in a state of acute nervousness, and he was sipping water like a dehydrated man who had been journeying for weeks through the Sahara desert. 

But despite Clinton’s skillful debate performances, we all know what the outcome of the 2016 race was.

And well, will Harris’ performance make a notable difference in swing state voter behavior – where the election is likely to be decided?

I doubt it.

Yes, a lot of people watched the debate. But news cycles move so rapidly in 2024 that the debate seems like it was a century ago. Even the second assassination attempt on Trump, which was subsequent to his debate against Harris, has largely been forgotten.

Since you’re highly critical of politicians in general, are you hoping that either Harris or Trump claims the presidency, or are you indifferent?

Four years ago, I wrote a series of articles warning that Trump was not going to accept the election results if he lost. Given solid evidence, I felt obligated to publish these thoughts. And I did so long before mainstream media even began acknowledging the possibility.

That isn’t some badge of honor. Mainstream American broadcast “news” too often consists of nothing more than a bunch of obedient people gossiping, while engaging in rhetoric more often than even appearing to practice what’s known as journalism. I don’t blame the armies of scholars who are ruthlessly critical about the state of today’s journalism (particularly US broadcast media).

That said, Trump’s not exactly new at this point, and what we know about his character and the way he operates paints an ugly picture.

I concede that I do have some sympathy for American’s who are sick of the Democrats and/or drawn to Trump. In riding the wave of populism that he did, Trump’s first serious campaign condemned America’s foreign policy elite for their ‘forever wars’. One would think that after the so called ‘war on terror’, and the delusional fantasies of bringing liberal democracy to Afghanistan and Iraq (remember that multi TRILLION dollar lie we were sold?), foreign policy elites in America would have learned something.

For the life of me, I can’t understand the logic behind the American foreign policy establishment’s obsession with perpetual war. That policy has caused all sorts of chaos in a number of parts of the world without advancing American interests, and paradoxically, ignoring many vital domestic interests.

But the idea that Trump is wedded to some sort of patriotic duty, that keeps America out of unnecessary wars abroad in order to economically uplift average Americans is fiction. After four decades of neoliberal policies that have transferred wealth to the superrich, it’s comical to believe that Trump is going to rush in to be America’s savior. 

After all, Trump’s religion is money, and he happens to be a fanatic.

In that sense, America needs less religion in the White House.

© All Rights Reserved

Aly Kamadia is Editor-In-Chief of iDose Magazine. Kamadia holds an Honors BA & MA in Political Science, both from the University of Waterloo, Canada. He currently serves as Director of Kamadia & Associates.  To read selected articles by Kamadia, click here.