[ad_1]
US President Donald Trump (left) and Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden. (Photos: EPA-EFE / OLIVIER DOULIERY / POOL)
With the US presidential election only a few weeks away, millions of citizens are participating in early voting. A key factor for voters to consider should be the stark differences between Donald Trump and Joe Biden in how they will meet major global challenges amid the nation’s diminished state in the eyes of many around the world.
It is a frequent perception of the harshest critics of the American political world to say dismissively that it does not matter much who is elected. For some, it is the argument that all politicians are practically the same. Yes, the opposing cohorts replace each other, but nothing really changes. This is the idea of the Italian social scientist Vilfredo Pareto of the early 20th century, who called this process “the circulation of the elites.”
Others argue that there is an occult class that really runs everything or, alternatively, perhaps, they are enslaved by some deeper and more hidden realities. For some, they are inevitably international bankers and / or global capitalists. For others, it may be an elusive conspiracy like the one presumably revealed through QAnon. Or, perhaps, it’s some kind of “deep state” collective that runs everything from secret headquarters somewhere, absolutely everything.
A guiding principle of such theories is that politicians in the public eye are just puppets dancing to whoever is really in charge. And, by some arguments, those responsible are actually bowing before those relentless wheels of a cheap substrate. According to these theories, the class interests of true teachers are what matters most of all, and everything else is just clever shadow boxing.
The difficulty with such theories is that they do not provide much support for interpreting the actual differences in policies that may arise from changes in national leadership. More especially, these theories help us little to understand how differences arise in a nation’s foreign policy approaches and international relations. Other factors also play a role. As with all other nations and their own unique geopolitical circumstances, the long run of history, economic relationships, and resources; the character and temperament of leaders are important too, and that’s just for starters.
So our task here is to try to resolve the differences between the foreign policy goals and strategies between the two US presidential candidates. Surely both must operate in the same world, subject to the same challenges and pressures, even if they expect very different results (even if Donald Trump is often accused of existing in an alternate universe).
Then this writer realized that there was actually something substantial that the two candidates had in common. “Really?”, This author already hears them all mutter under their breath, “What can they mean by that?”
Well here it goes. Let me explain. Whoever takes office as President of the United States on January 20, 2021, that person must deal with a United States whose international presence, impact, respect, and influence will be at their lowest point in nearly a century. The Pew Research Center tracks such trends and has offered such sad determinations in its reports as this.
We now live in a world where Chinese leader Xi Jinping seems to be gaining more respect than the president of the United States. This is despite the fact that there is growing nervousness about the potential for Chinese imperial overload in the thoughts of a growing number of foreign observers. With the exception of a handful of nations around the world for quite specific and partisan reasons, America’s reputation has fallen to historic depths in many others, much less belief in the idea that America represents an example; that it is the shining city on a hill, a light for the nations, its exceptionality, this as one of the central ideas historically in the American civic mythology.
Consider the obvious fact that by 1945, at the end of World War II, the American project had become incomparably unmatched on the world stage. Its productive industrial base, financial strength, and military prowess were virtually unchallenged worldwide. It owned the nuclear monopoly and its GDP exceeded virtually any other likely combination of nations, despite being only a small fraction of the total world population.
Inevitably, that would change. As other nations revived, America’s relative dominance waned accordingly. But then, through a combination of US multilateral alliances, the vast economic power of other Western and Far Eastern nations like Japan and South Korea, and the internal dynamics of the Soviet Union itself, the governments of the former Soviet Union, and their Eastern European countries. the satrapies collapsed into a messy heap, and American world preeminence was reestablished, almost magically. It was “the end of history” and the triumph of late 20th century American liberal democratic values, globalization, and growing internationalism, until September 11 helped to break that myth.
The American colossus was in place, but the world also engineered a real backlash against the ruling power. The United States was deeply embroiled in military action in Iraq and Afghanistan simultaneously (eventually along with a smaller third in Syria as well), in addition to facing a fast-blooming economic rival in China, a resurgent Russia led by a ruler with outstanding accounts. . , as well as other smaller but very real setbacks.
When Barack Obama entered the White House in 2009, the watchword was not how to expand America’s footprint, but how to refocus American efforts to deal with a different type, size, and scale of challenge, largely coming from its new rival. , China. And perhaps also other more existential ones. As a result, global policy would be restriction, rather than more commitment. (Watch: Obama Foreign Policy: How Will ‘Restriction’ Work In 2016? since the first days of Daily maverick.)
Obama Foreign Policy: How Will ‘Restriction’ Work In 2016?
Even that much-touted turn to Asia was largely based on economic endeavors, rather than an expansion of defense and security capabilities. By the time Obama left office in 2017, the conversation about America’s place in the world had become one of the best adaptations possible in a world that was no longer dominated by America.
Then in 2017, as it relates to incoming President Donald Trump, he saw that his task was, yes, the deception, “Make America Great Again” (whatever that really means), but no, of crucially, about any sense of dominating the world. As a result, it was “America First!”, Not “Fix the world!”
Or as New York Times Serge Schmemann, a member of the editorial board and a veteran foreign correspondent, reminded us the other day: “The world’s problems are not just the doing of Mr. Trump. The rise of China, the machinations of Russia, the tenacity of Maduro [in Venezuela], the sectarian disputes in the Middle East and the new generation of authoritarian rulers were underway before I took office, and they would have taxed any president. “
Consequently, whoever wins these elections will be forced to face the same set of realities and challenges. Or, as Schmemann adds, “What would a Joe Biden victory in the November election mean for American foreign policy? Many of the mainstream currents in world affairs will not change as a result of a change in administration or tone in Washington. Russia will still meddle in foreign elections; China will demand a role commensurate with its wealth and military might; Europe will contribute very little to its defense; a reconfigured Middle East will continue to be battered by sectarian, social, and ethnic divisions; North Korea and Iran will pursue their nuclear ambitions. “
Both Joe Biden and Donald Trump will be forced to address this very reality, regardless of any predilection to the contrary. The challenge of understanding is how choose to accept this reality of less influence, power and respect and how they will respond to the global challenges that will be there, regardless. And that, in turn, will affect the very different policies they choose to adopt to deal with America’s diminished reality.
For Biden’s camp, it is likely that it will be necessary to accept, even embrace, the idea that total and absolute globalization and internationalization in economic and trade relations has real trade-offs that can have negative impacts on large sectors of the economy. the nation’s economy and workers. Plus, Biden’s policies will have some of the texture of a new and improved Obama administration 2.0 flavor.
It will include a re-engagement and reengagement with the country’s alliance structures in Europe and East Asia as the most reliable and ultimately most profitable means of countering the ambitions of Russia and China. Additionally, a Biden administration will reorder priorities toward international efforts to address climate change, epidemiological disasters, and nuclear proliferation.
At the same time, while a second term for Donald Trump would also have to address this diminished role and impact, his responses to these circumstances would continue the sharp inward turn away from engagement with the international community. Make America Great Again would continue to insist on strict transactional processes. Again, as Schmemann argued, “but without Mr. Trump’s rude insults, erratic swings, and selfish views, America will have a chance to claim at least some of its moral authority, and its circle of would-be dictators will feel less comfortable”. . Biden has already pledged to join the Paris climate accord, and he is likely to re-enter other international forums and take steps to repair relationships with pesky allies.
“If Mr. Trump is re-elected, he will conclude that he has a mandate to continue in his dysfunctional political skill, and the world will have no choice but to conclude that the last four years were not an aberration, but that the United States now has to deal with that “.
Undoubtedly, rather than just another ratchet in the elite’s circulation or the effect of the relentless wheels of economic determinism, these upcoming elections truly offer a tough choice of styles of government. But more than just style, the election offers American voters a way to indicate which direction the country will take in dealing with the reality of America’s more limited freedom of action, its limited choice, and the ability to affect the future. of the world. DM
