For the third time, on 9 October 2024, the discussion event Die US-Wahl als Richtungsentscheidung. Political and Economic Implications for Europe and the World, the Catholic Academy in Bavaria and the Bavarian Elite Academy Foundation (BEA) organised a successful collaboration. 250 participants on site and over 280 online participants in the livestream followed the event and then discussed with the renowned experts on the podium: Prof. Dr Britta Waldschmidt-Nelson, Professor of History of the European-Transatlantic Cultural Area at the University of Augsburg, Dr Benedikt Franke, Deputy Chairman and CEO of the Munich Security Conference (MSC) and Elmar Theveßen, Head of the ZDF studio in Washington, who took part in the event via a live link from the United States. The evening was moderated by Lotta Straube, a 24th year alumna of the Bavarian Elite Academy.
Dr Martin Dabrowski, Director of Studies at the Catholic Academy in Bavaria, and Prof. Dr Dr Johannes Wallacher, Academic Director of the Bavarian Elite Academy and President of the Munich School of Philosophy, both emphasised the importance of the debate on the outcome of the US election in their opening remarks - for the United States of America, for Europe and also globally.
At the beginning of the panel discussion, moderator Lotta Straube asked the panellists for their views on the US elections. Elmar Theveßen emphasised the danger that after the election - as in 2020 - the election result could be called into question by the Republicans. He added that the complicated US electoral system, which offers many points of attack to contest the election, must also be taken into account.
Particularly in the event of a Democratic election victory, there is greater concern about violent riots, as it can be assumed that Trump would not recognise an election victory by Kamala Harris. The storming of the Capitol in 2021 and the lie of the "stolen election" had already shown this. Britta Waldschmidt-Nelson added that a clear election victory was not to be expected from her point of view either. While Kamala Harris has announced that she wants to be a president for all Americans after the election, there are no such statements from Donald Trump.
According to Elmar Theveßen, Americans are now more open to a woman as president. That is why Kamala Harris' chances of winning the election are better than they were for Hillary Clinton in 2016. All three panellists ultimately agreed that the outcome of the election will be very close, that nothing has been decided yet and that the election result could still be influenced at short notice by various events (such as conflict in the Middle East, war in Ukraine or a natural disaster).
Elmar Theveßen sees the topic of "economy and inflation" as decisive for the election. Both Trump and Harris talk about "America First", but both associate this with different political and economic concepts. While Donald Trump favours punitive tariffs, for example, which would cause more damage from an economic perspective, Kamala Harris would rather rely on foreign investment, e.g. from EU countries to the USA. Nevertheless, according to Britta Waldschmidt-Nelson, the majority of Americans ascribe more economic competence to Donald Trump than to the Biden/Harris administration.
Several questions from the audience then centred on the topics of lies and emotions in the election campaign. In response to a participant's question as to why nothing could be done to counter Trump's lies, Britta Waldschmidt-Nelson replied that it was difficult, as Trump would, for example, withdraw from further speeches with Harris as soon as there was a "fact check". Benedikt Franke added that the guiding principle of "anger & sex sells" applies, especially on social media platforms, which are therefore ideal for right-wing populism. Regulatory initiatives are therefore needed in the long term to curb this danger in Europe too.
According to Elmar Theveßen, a more people-centred policy is needed to take the wind out of the sails of populists. Trump exploits the fact that abstruse lies based on fear are more likely to be believed than rational facts. Kamala Harris also uses the emotional level by fuelling fear of the end of democracy if Donald Trump wins the election, but she does not use lies.
Britta Waldschmidt-Nelson referred to a change in the content of Kamala Harris' election campaign, which increasingly addresses the topics of "patriotism" and "change". In her opinion, this could lead to her being able to reach additional groups of voters for the Democrats.
Another question from the audience asked for an assessment of how the assassination attempt on Donald Trump had changed the election campaign. Elmar Theveßen was of the opinion that the assassination was primarily relevant for Trump's voters, but did not play such a big role for the rest of the American public. Benedikt Franke added that Trump had been denied the opportunity to use the assassination for his election campaign. The nomination of Kamala Harris as presidential candidate shortly after the attack had pushed it out of the media spotlight.
In the final question, all panellists were asked to give their personal assessment of the outcome of the US election on 5 November 2024: All three agreed that the election will be very close and that a lot can still happen between now and election day that could have a lasting impact on the result. However, Kamala Harris has a realistic chance of winning the election and becoming the first female president of the USA.
