On November 4, the eve of the US presidential election, I took to the streets of the nation’s capital to ask Americans and foreigners alike about which candidate they trust more to bring an end to conflicts around the world. By the end of the day, the answer was clear: the world doubts that either Donald Trump or Kamala Harris can help diplomatically resolve the conflicts in the Middle East and Ukraine.
I surveyed 86 people – including both American citizens and foreign tourists – outside the US Capitol and the White House over the course of several hours. A plurality of respondents, approximately 42%, said that they trust neither Trump nor Harris to end foreign wars. Nearly one-third of respondents said that they believe Trump will resolve foreign conflicts and just over one-quarter said that they believe Harris will do so. The respondents represented countries all over the world, including the United States, the United Kingdom, Ireland, France, Switzerland, Brazil, Syria, and Malaysia (to name a few).
People who chose “nobody” came from both sides of the political aisle. Many Democratic-leaning respondents were doubtful of Harris’ desire or ability to put an end to the conflict in the Middle East, citing her establishment views and ties to the military-industrial complex. Many libertarians and non-interventionist Republicans were similarly skeptical of Trump’s ability to resolve the conflict in the Middle East or Ukraine, despite his promises to do so on the campaign trail. The Trump skeptics frequently cited the influence of his advisors and cabinet officials as reason to question his peacemaking potential.
However, each candidate did have supporters who appeared to genuinely believe in their ability to broker peace. One Trump supporter, Marty Lasley from Tennessee, told me that Trump’s track record and self-avowed political philosophy give him hope that Trump will prevent US involvement in foreign conflicts.
“[Trump] has said, ‘I don’t want to be in foreign wars.’ He kept us out of foreign wars. I don’t think you’re going to see American troops involved in small skirmishes under Trump, whereas Harris is from a group of neocons and otherwise,” Lasley said.
Trump faced internal opposition to his foreign policy during his first term in office, due to the bipartisan tradition of US intervention, according to Lasley. Trump would likely reject suggestions from interventionist advisors during a second term, Lasley added.
It is rather telling that I could not find a Harris supporter enthusiastic enough about her foreign policy to sit down for a recorded interview in her defense. Many of the Harris supporters simply guffawed and expressed bewilderment at the fact that Trump and Harris were tied on the survey for most of the day. To them, it was just a matter of fact that Harris would be more likely to bring peace, even though none elaborated on that view.
It is likewise telling that many members of the foreign press were very interested in my survey and people’s pessimistic take on the candidates’ diplomatic aptitude. I did interviews with journalists from countries including Italy, Turkey, India, Spain, and Honduras, who were all eager to learn about the survey and why so many respondents were skeptical of both candidates. In contrast, US media outlets were nowhere to be found.
It is sad that American voters do not have an undeniably pro-peace, pro-diplomacy candidate to get behind. Moreover, the rest of the world is also seemingly deprived of the chance to avoid having their own countries dragged into escalating conflicts by the next administration.
The street survey may not meet academic polling standards, but it is nevertheless indicative of a very real truth: many people from around the world doubt that the next US president will be a peacemaker. Although issues like the economy, immigration, and abortion might be bigger factors in most voters’ minds than foreign policy, for those who care about peace and prosperity alike, “nobody” appears to have won their vote.
Ethan Charles Holmes is an experienced reporter with an academic background in Russian culture, history, and politics. He is a regular commentator on foreign policy and advocate for non-interventionism. You can follow him on X @the_posts or email him at ethan.ch.holmes@gmail.com.”