Biden’s Foreign Policy Legacy: A Reality Check for Democrats

The debate over Joe Biden’s foreign policy legacy has become a defining feature of the Democratic Party’s internal struggle. As this critical discussion unfolds, it is essential to separate fact from fiction and recognize that the Biden administration did not simply restore the “old liberal international order” or pursue a naive form of great-power cooperation.

In reality, the Biden team departed significantly from previous Democratic administrations’ assumptions about globalization and free trade. National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan’s 2023 speech at Brookings Institution marked a clear shift in approach: instead of relying on global integration to strengthen American prosperity and stability, the administration wagered that domestic industrial strength would become the foundation of national power.

This fundamental change is often overlooked in favor of simplistic narratives about Biden’s supposed restorationism. However, those who worked within the administration attest that the president’s approach was far more confrontational and competitive than his predecessors’, particularly when it came to Russia and China. The Biden team armed Ukraine with unprecedented support, including intelligence sharing, and pursued a policy of managed competition with Beijing.

The idea that Biden simply wanted to “get back to” some mythical pre-Trump era is a gross misrepresentation of the actual policies implemented by the administration. Instead of relying on old alliances and post-Cold War templates, the Biden team emphasized new agreements, such as AUKUS, and engaged in high-level diplomacy with China to prevent competition from escalating into conflict.

Critics of Biden’s approach often argue that it is overly cautious or ineffective, but this critique overlooks the very real challenges facing U.S. policymakers today. The world has indeed become more complex and competitive, making it essential for American leaders to adapt and innovate their strategies.

The most significant legacy of the Biden administration is its recognition that domestic industrial strength must be a key component of national power. This shift acknowledges that globalization and free trade alone cannot ensure American stability or prosperity in a rapidly changing world.

In light of this reality check, Democrats would do well to reassess their foreign policy priorities. Rather than indulging in internecine squabbles over personalities or simplistic narratives about the “old order,” party leaders should focus on developing a more nuanced understanding of the global landscape and the role that American leadership must play within it.

One area where Democrats may wish to revise course is their approach to Israel’s war in Gaza. While the Biden administration provided significant support to Israel, many critics argue that this came at too great a human cost. In retrospect, it’s clear that the administration could have done more to pressure Netanyahu’s government to minimize civilian casualties and mass displacement.

As Democrats move forward, they must engage in a more mature and informed debate about their foreign policy priorities. This means acknowledging both the successes and limitations of the Biden administration’s approach and recognizing the need for continuous adaptation and innovation in an increasingly complex world.

The ongoing struggles within the Democratic Party over its foreign policy direction are a testament to the critical nature of this discussion. As the party grapples with its internal divisions, one thing is clear: the United States’ role in the world has never been more critical or demanding. It’s time for Democrats to put aside their differences and work together to develop a coherent and effective foreign policy that reflects the realities of the 21st century.

Biden’s legacy will ultimately be shaped by his administration’s willingness to adapt and innovate in the face of unprecedented global challenges. As Democrats look to the future, they would do well to remember that the world is a far more complicated place than any single policy initiative can address – and that American leadership must always be guided by a deep understanding of this complexity.