- Biden’s initial stance on democracy versus autocracy has shifted toward strategic pragmatism.
- U.S. support for Israel amid Gaza conflict exposes inconsistencies in foreign policy.
- Both Trump and Harris signal a more transactional, security-driven global approach.
The Biden administration initially framed its foreign policy as a clear battle between democratic values and authoritarianism, especially regarding adversaries like Russia and China.
However, this idealistic stance has often conflicted with real-world priorities, as strategic partnerships with countries like Saudi Arabia and India have taken precedence.
America’s Global Balancing Act: From Principles to Pragmatism
Additionally, U.S. backing of Israel during the recent Gaza conflict has intensified international criticism. While Washington’s unwavering support aligns with historical alliances, it has led many to question America’s commitment to international law and humanitarian principles. This perceived inconsistency undermines the legitimacy of the “rules-based international order” championed by the U.S. and has broader implications for global power dynamics, especially as rivals observe and potentially emulate these exceptions.
Despite Biden’s initial opposition, the administration strengthened ties with Saudi Arabia to stabilize oil markets. This realignment underscores how the U.S. continues to balance democratic values with geopolitical interests, especially in regions where oil and security are paramount. Even with nations like India, where democratic backsliding and nationalist policies conflict with U.S. ideals, partnerships persist to counterbalance China’s influence in the Indo-Pacific region.
The recent conflict in Gaza has added a new layer to America’s shifting stance. U.S. support for Israel, even amidst criticism of alleged war crimes, has drawn scrutiny from rights groups and undermined Washington’s credibility in advocating international law. This selective application of norms raises questions about the consistency of U.S. foreign policy, as it appears to favor specific alliances over universal standards.
Looking ahead, both potential candidates in the upcoming U.S. election hint at different, yet similarly pragmatic, foreign policy approaches. Trump’s transactional politics favor strong alliances with autocrats, while Harris may attempt to reconcile liberal values with realist objectives. However, both would likely face pressure to navigate alliances carefully, aware of the public’s growing preference for reduced intervention abroad.
The shifting U.S. foreign policy stance reflects a broader departure from the binary democracy-versus-autocracy narrative. As American leaders prioritize strategic stability, the global order is increasingly shaped by practical alliances and complex compromises.
“Given the massive suffering and loss of life in Gaza, the outrage at Israel’s exemption from the so-called rules-based order is probably greater than the discontent over the various autocratic exceptions
