Trump Should Be Very Nervous About This Part of Kamala Harris’ DNC Speech

The biggest surprise on the last night of the Democratic convention wasn’t that Beyoncé or Taylor Swift didn’t show up (contrary to widespread rumor). It was that so much time was devoted to touting the party’s credentials as the champion of a principled foreign policy and a strong national defense.

Generally this topic hasn’t been the Democrats’ rhetorical high point, either at previous assemblies or for the short duration of Kamala Harris’ campaign up to this point. Its emergence Thursday night was so striking that Wall Street Journal columnist (and former GOP speechwriter) Peggy Noonan complained that the Dems “stole traditional Republican themes (faith, patriotism) and claimed them as their own.”

Noonan misstates what’s been happening in the era of Donald Trump. The fact is, the Republicans have abandoned those themes, and the Democrats—who never rejected them—are picking them up, with intensity, as part of a broad rescue mission. Democracy, freedom, equality, and community—concepts so deeply embedded in American politics that their validity has long gone unquestioned—are “on the ballot” in this election. The same is true of national security, and so the DNC’s strategists elevated it too from a common cliché to a cherished value and vital interest under threat from the cult of personality surrounding Trump.

But national security falls in a special category. The world is dangerous in particularly complicated ways, teeming with threats and opportunities. Harris faces a big question: Is she up to the task? She faces the question more than many previous Democratic candidates for two reasons. First, despite her three-and-a-half years as vice president and her previous four years as U.S. senator, her record is not well known. Second (and there’s no getting around this), she’s a woman, and there is still a contentious stereotype—which Trump frequently gins up—that women are too weak to stand up to strong dangerous men.

And so, on the convention’s last night—Harris’ night—the schedule was packed with speakers to sweep away that stereotype: to affirm that this Democratic woman grasps the world’s dangers and has the knowhow and nerve to deal with them. Leon Panetta (former secretary of defense and CIA director), Sen. Mark Kelly (former Navy combat pilot), Rep. Adam Kinzinger (who, like several Republicans who appeared to endorse Harris, derided his own party because it was “no longer conservative”), and a stageful of veterans for Harris—all forcefully made the case, on national security grounds, against Trump and for Harris.

Then came the nominee. Most of her speech dealt with traditional domestic themes, but the passages on defense and foreign policy formed in many ways the most impassioned part of her speech—and certainly rank among the most muscular delivered by any candidate at a Democratic convention in living memory. Some of these passages are worth noting and analyzing in detail:

As commander in chief, I will ensure America has the strongest, most lethal fighting force in the world. And I will fulfill our sacred obligation to care for our troops and their families, and I will always honor and never disparage their service and their sacrifice.

Promising to build and maintain the world’s “most lethal fighting force” isn’t a phrase commonly heard coming from a Democratic presidential candidate. The standout word—“lethal”—suggests she understands that the military’s weapons are designed to kill enemy soldiers, that she might have to order U.S. troops into battle with these weapons, and that, if so, the troops will need enough firepower to win their battles. The next sentence—citing the “sacred obligation” to veterans—is meant not only as a contrast to Trump’s demeaning comments about America’s warriors but also a hard-headed acknowledgment that, in their service, some of the troops will make the ultimate sacrifice.

She went on:

And know this: I will never hesitate to take whatever action is necessary to defend our forces and our interests against Iran and Iran-backed terrorists. I will not cozy up to tyrants and dictators like Kim Jong-un, who are rooting for Trump—who are rooting for Trump. Because you know, they know—they know he is easy to manipulate with flattery and favors. They know Trump won’t hold autocrats accountable because he wants to be an autocrat himself.

This is a remarkable passage, not only for its pledge to “take whatever action is necessary” against threats but also for its shrewd understanding of Trump. She’s got his number, and he’s got to be a bit nervous about it. He cuddles up to autocrats—Kim (“we fell in love”), Vladimir Putin (“we get along very well”), the leader of the Taliban (“he called me ‘Your Excellency,’ ” Trump boasted, adding, “I wonder if he calls that to Biden, I doubt it”)—because he envies them, wants to be them.

The implications—both for how he rolls over in world politics and for what he aspires to do in domestic politics—are alarming. Back in 2018, when China’s Xi Jinping declared himself president for life, Trump was bowled over. “President for life,” Trump mused. “No, he’s great. And look, he was able to do that. I think it’s great. Maybe we’ll have to give that a shot someday.”

Consider that remark a mere joke at your risk.

In her acceptance speech Harris also said, “I will make sure that we lead the world into the future on space and artificial intelligence; that America, not China, wins the competition for the 21^st century; and that we strengthen, not abdicate, our global leadership.” She added, “I will stand strong with Ukraine and our NATO allies.” All of this amounts to continuity with the strong points of President Joe Biden’s foreign policy—and a contrast to Trump, who has no vision for “global leadership,” who has threatened to abandon NATO, and whose plan to end Russia’s war on Ukraine is to cut off all aid to Kyiv.

Finally, there was the war in Gaza. This is a delicate matter, one of the very few fissures within the Democratic Party, a fissure that the convention’s planners strenuously evaded. They denied a speaker’s slot to a Palestinian American delegate and relegated a panel on Palestinian rights to a little-watched afternoon slot. A few speakers, including the parents of a Jewish American hostage held by Hamas, called for an immediate cease-fire and a return of all hostages—but it was as if the words Israel and Palestinians had been banned.

Here is what Harris said on the matter:

And let me be clear. Let me be clear. I will always stand up for Israel’s right to defend itself, and I will always ensure Israel has the ability to defend itself, because the people of Israel must never again face the horror that a terrorist organization called Hamas caused on Oct. 7, including unspeakable sexual violence and the massacre of young people at a music festival. At the same time, what has happened in Gaza over the past 10 months is devastating. So many innocent lives lost. Desperate, hungry people fleeing for safety, over and over again. The scale of suffering is heartbreaking. President Biden and I are working to end this war, such that Israel is secure, the hostages are released, the suffering in Gaza ends, and the Palestinian people can realize their right to dignity, security, freedom, and self-determination.

This is as full and forthright a statement as any politician from any party, in or out of the Biden administration, has made on the war. Some, including Biden, have noted America’s “ironclad commitment” to Israel’s defense while also calling for greater care in minimizing the deaths and suffering of Palestinian civilians. But no one else has described the causes, concerns, and horrors on both sides of the conflict in such dramatic, fleshed-out terms, encompassing the human and the geopolitical dimensions. And it’s worth noting, the crowd of delegates met both sets of her remarks—her commitment to Israel’s defense and her support of Palestinian dignity—with roaring applause.

It’s not clear how a Harris administration—or, for that matter, whether anyone—can meet all these commitments or accomplish all these goals. (The main problems are two: First, everyone wants a cease-fire and a hostage deal, except for the two combatants, Israel and Hamas. Second, it seems the outside powers trying to negotiate a deal—the U.S., Qatar, and Egypt—don’t have as much leverage over the combatants as they’d initially thought they did.) Still, it’s encouraging that she grasps the conflict’s depths and difficulties.

This may be the night’s biggest reveal: that Harris understands the complexities of the world—the most challenging task for a president—a lot more than many have assumed. Until very recently, for reasons not entirely clear, this has been one of the tightest-held secrets of the Biden White House. I’ve been following U.S. foreign policy pretty closely, but not until a few weeks ago, when I researched a column about the subject, did I know how deeply involved Harris has been in these matters.

She mentioned one example in her speech:

Five days before Russia attacked Ukraine, I met with President Zelensky to warn him about Russia’s plan to invade. I helped mobilize a global response—over 50 countries—to defend against Putin’s aggression.

She could have mentioned that she has since met with the Ukrainian president, one on one, a half-dozen times. She could have also mentioned her crucial meetings with Philippines President Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr., around the time that he was moving back into America’s orbit and away from China’s—and her leading role in coordinating renewed diplomacy between the Philippines and Japan. She could have mentioned that, when U.S.-French relations were on the verge of rupturing after Biden sold Australia a nuclear-powered submarine, preempting a sub deal that Australia had signed with Paris, Harris proposed a face-to-face meeting with French President Emmanuel Macron, made the trip, and smoothed over the tensions. (The press coverage of her trip focused more on her spending $500 on cookware at E. Dehillerin, a leading kitchen-supply store.)

More important than her 17 foreign trips to 21 countries or her meetings with more than 150 leaders (many of which were pro forma), she could also have mentioned that, as vice president, she has attended almost every National Security Council meeting and almost all of the president’s intelligence briefings (Biden typically received at least five a week)—not just listening in, but often, according to several officials I interviewed, taking part, asking crucial questions and suggesting policy plans.

None of this should be overstated. Biden has been the leading figure in Biden’s foreign policy. His special advisers—National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan, Secretary of State Antony Blinken, and CIA Director William Burns—have been the main executors. But Kamala Harris has been in the room where it’s happened; she’s observed all of it and engaged in much of it. That alone makes her more prepared to step up to the job of commander in chief than any incoming president in more than 50 years.

That is what the last night of the Democratic convention put on display: an underrated veep suddenly thrust to the top bill and appearing, surprisingly, already presidential.