Third Way: Not-So Liberal World Order
JIM WATSON / AFP
The past four years have caused the liberal world order to stumble. International faith in the United States has plummeted, and without an American rudder, many international organizations are ships lost at sea. Despite this, discussion of foreign policy, the sixth most important issue for voters, has fallen by the wayside. COVID-19, economic woes, and domestic problems more generally are the main focus of this election. President Donald Trump and Democratic Candidate Joe Biden's actions, however, speak volumes. Trump, believing Americans are tired of internationalism, has wielded a big stick. Biden has championed the human rights Trump has ignored.
Americans still want the United States to play a role in global politics, though there are sharp disagreements on methodology. A Biden Presidency would not have an easy time creating a multilateral foreign policy agenda that suits all Americans. Republicans and Democrats are sharply divided on how foreign policy should be conducted, and many other nations are turning away from the liberal world order. Biden will have to perform the balancing act of the decade if he seeks a bipartisan approved foreign policy. He seems to be up for the challenge.
The most obvious problem Biden will have to deal with is the current bout of American nationalism, vocalized in the slogan "America first." Trump rode this slogan into the Oval Office, preying on some Americans' feelings of being "left behind" or "swept-up" by globalization.
"America First" is not a new rallying cry. Indeed, it has been the slogan of America for much of the country's history. From its conception to the early 1900s, the United States made only one alliance (France in the revolutionary war). It focused instead on territorial expansion and domestic growth, resulting in it becoming a largely self-sufficient power.
With the beginning of the Cold War, the United States entered international politics to stop the perceived threat of Soviet communism. The country engineered organizations like the United Nations and NATO to achieve this goal, where America found itself at the helm. As international engagement increased under President Bill Clinton and President George H. W. Bush, a backlash to globalization began to swell. The American heartland suffered the most, affected by "brain-drain" and manufacturing migration.
Yet, it would be wrong to claim that Trumps’ version of "America first" is as isolationist as the original. Instead, the message indicates a strategy of global bullying. It sees international engagement as a way of boosting American domestic success, while limiting competition from foreign markets. Therefore, the current divide in foreign affairs is not isolationist versus interventionist, rather nationalist versus internationalist.
This rise of nationalism is what made Trump so jarring. The international liberal world order seemed untouchable. When it is in fact incredibly fragile. Without enough participation or respect from hegemonic states, the liberal world order would be powerless to keep greater powers in check and aid lesser ones. The world would find itself in a zero-sum game.
Changing The Game
The ideas of competition and cooperation are the underlying mindsets defining support for and opposition to globalization. Many Americans’ views of globalization revolve around these ideas, according to a Pew Research Center pollster. Respondents who view globalization negatively see politics as a zero-sum game, where those who support globalization see a new opportunity for cooperation. This divide was, naturally, partisan.
These two ways of approaching power have been discussed often. Early formations of international law came about during a time when Thomas Hobbes saw the striving for power as a natural tendency of humans, and one that was inherently competitive. Hugo Grotius, a Dutch philosopher and influencer of Hobbes, had a more middle-ground approach. The "Grotian" theory of statehood saw commonwealths as bodies following international norms (synonymous with natural laws), while also conceding that nation-states will occasionally break these norms in the pursuit of power.
A Grotian understanding of politics gives some insight into how Biden can preserve a sense of American exceptionalism while still playing ball in the liberal world order. This could indicate a turn away from a level playing field in world affairs, but could still be effective, perhaps more so.
Most agree, any strategy is better than Trump's. According to an annual survey on foreign affairs, conducted by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, a majority of Americans want to remain engaged in the world affairs and support allies. There is a divide across party lines, of course, regarding how Americans want to engage with the world, but, overall, Americans want to aid allies and stay involved.
Effects of Globalization
That does not bode well for Trump's nationalism. If there is one issue Republicans and Democrats can shake hands on without crossed fingers, it’s foreign policy. The two parties have come together multiple times in the past four years to assuage angered allies and block Trump's foreign policy. Democrats and Republicans have even denounced human rights violations and genocides ensemble, which the President has entirely ignored. Congress wants to keep up the liberal order, in one form or another.
Trump's nationalist foreign policy faces an even larger demographic threat, which are shifting in the Democrats favor. Millennials favor the internationalist approach, with many thinking America ought to lead from behind in world organizations, if at all. Their growing scepticism of American exceptionalism directs their views on foreign policy.
Where does this leave Biden? On the one hand, he has bipartisan support for international engagement. That much is clear. Yet, on the other hand, Biden faces the challenge of uniting seemingly juxtaposing methods: playing for keeps and playing by the rules.
There are two likely paths Biden can take. One would be a progressive tinged foreign policy that suits millennials. This would entail smarter spending (i.e. fewer guns), a focus on world-wide values (shooting down - or talking down- corruption) and democratizing foreign policy. This policy of restraint has many benefits. Biden would have the moral authority in foreign policy Trump lacks, while also rallying against action that can unify countries. By uniting multiple fields under the banner of foreign policy, Biden could be hard on immoral leaders, such as Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin, possibly winning favor with the Republicans.
Equally, Biden could take a more muscular approach with Democratic goals. This entails learning from Trump's leveraging tactics, but instead of using them strictly for American interests, their goal would be to protect democracy and human rights. This Biden foreign policy iteration would modernize the military, but still pull out of the Middle East. Choosing to see the world as more competitive than co-operative. This tougher approach would find moderate support from both parties, making it well-suited for uniting America. These two views are similar in their main thrust, and their synthesis seems the most likely Biden approach.
The path Biden would never take is the one Trump will. One which would have devastating consequences for the world, returning it back to a World War I era of bullying and self-interest. Trump's tactics have already spread around the globe, as populists use nationalist rhetoric to justify military expansion. Without an American presence to hold these threats in check, factionalism would be the only viable strategy. The global world order would look more like the ‘state of nature’ than a commonwealth of cooperation.
Almost everything is on Biden's side for a new era of foreign policy. He is an experienced statesman ready to challenge old ideas of the liberal world order to benefit his country and the world. Both the American population and future demographics support this change. This is not to say Biden's task will be easy, or that his approach will be flawless. Balancing between internationalism and nationalism is a tricky task, and his moderate approach will always be one of compromise. Liberal or not-so liberal, either way, Biden has a winning hand in the foreign policy arena, and perhaps even an ace up his sleeve.
