Walz, Vance picks could signal major shift in US foreign policy 

Shortly after Vice President Kamala Harris announced Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz (D) as her vice presidential nominee, the Democratic Party’s left flank left no doubt about what they think it means for U.S. foreign policy. 

“Today was another sign that our collective power can create a historic shift in the Democratic Party: away from militarism and impunity for Israel’s war crimes,” said several pro-Palestinian groups in a joint statement. 

The Democratic Socialists of America echoed the sentiment: “Harris choosing Walz as a running mate has shown the world that DSA and our allies on the left are a force that cannot be ignored.” 

Despite the left’s enthusiasm for the Walz pick, anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian activists are still planning a 20,000-person protest at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago, raising fears of a repeat of the chaos that enveloped the 1968 convention. It’s setting up a historic clash within the party. 

In the short term, Harris may be able to minimize the growing rift by artfully playing both sides, which she appeared to do last week. After she reportedly suggested an openness to discuss an arms embargo on Israel in a meeting with activists, her national security advisor, Phil Gordon, immediately reiterated her opposition to an embargo and commitment to “always ensure Israel is able to defend itself.” 

Eventually, a reckoning is coming, and Vice President Harris will face the prospect of either leading a historic break of the Democratic Party’s support for Israel or enraging the activists who had already turned on President Biden for his refusal to do the same. 

Something similar is happening on the Republican side, where former President Trump’s pick of Ohio Sen. JD Vance has raised expectations on the isolationist right that the U.S. would abandon Ukraine in a second Trump term. 

Here’s what needs to happen now. Both former President Trump and Vice President Harris need to explain — in detail — how they plan to handle Israel and Ukraine if they are elected. Nothing we’ve heard to date has remotely met this standard. Trump has, of course, promised he will end the Ukraine war within 24 hours, offering no details on how he would actually do it. Meanwhile, the Harris campaign continues to coast on “vibes,” assisted by a pliant media that doesn’t seem interested in forcing her or her campaign to answer questions. 

Both candidates have identified the unique danger of this moment for America. Vice President Harris has said the entire international order built by the U.S. is at risk, and former President Trump says we’re on the cusp of World War III. 

Would it be too much to ask both candidates how they plan to get us through this? If they are indeed planning a radical break with Ukraine or Israel, voters deserve to know now, especially given that most Americans still support sending aid to Ukraine and believe that Israel’s war against Hamas is justified. If either candidate doesn’t agree, they should tell us why. 

We’re less than three months from an election that we’re reminded constantly is the most important of our lives. However, the defining feature of this campaign is the total absence of serious discussion about the country’s most important issues. 

The far left thinks a Harris administration is poised to upend a 75-year bipartisan security alliance with Israel, the only democracy in the region. The far right is convinced a Trump administration will leave Ukraine to fend off Russia’s Vladimir Putin by itself. 

Are they right to think that? Both campaigns owe voters an answer.

Ryan Clancy is the chief strategist for No Labels.