Biden's 'Exceptionalism' Is Likely To Stay

 

moon of  alabama

An emphasis of U.S. exceptionalism has been a major theme throughout Joe Biden's presidency.

Remarks by President Biden on a Future Made in America - May 18 2021

This is the United States of America, for God’s sake.

---

60 Minutes - President Joe Biden: The 2023 60 Minutes interview transcript - Oct 15 2023

Scott Pelley: Are the wars in Israel and Ukraine more than the United States can take on at the same time?

President Biden: No. We're the United States of America for God's sake, the most powerful nation in the history-- not in the world, in the history of the world. The history of the world. We can take care of both of these and still maintain our overall international defense.

---

Full Transcript of President Joe Biden’s Interview With TIME - Jun 5 2024

Q: Is America still able to play the role of world power that it played in World War Two, and in the Cold War?

Biden: Yes, we're planning even more. We are, we are the world power.

---

Talk of claimed U.S. exceptionalism is usually bi-partisan.

But finally there is a voice in U.S. foreign policy who argues against exceptionalism and calls for a different view of things.

Ben Rhodes, former National Security Advisor to President Barrack Obama, writes in the pages of Foreign Affairs magazine.

A Foreign Policy for the World as It Is
Biden and the Search for a New American Strategy

[T]he Biden administration’s mindset of restoration has occasionally struggled against the currents of our disordered times. An updated conception of U.S. leadership—one tailored to a world that has moved on from American primacy and the eccentricities of American politics—is necessary to minimize enormous risks and pursue new opportunities.
...

That seems like a well intended advice. The U.S. tends to intentionally ignore the consequences of its policies. It does not reflect on them. Should it start doing that its policies might change:

To date, Washington has failed to do the necessary audit of the ways its post–Cold War foreign policy discredited U.S. leadership. The “war on terror” emboldened autocrats, misallocated resources, fueled a global migration crisis, and contributed to an arc of instability from South Asia through North Africa. The free-market prescriptions of the so-called Washington consensus ended in a financial crisis that opened the door to populists railing against out-of-touch elites. The overuse of sanctions led to increased workarounds and global fatigue with Washington’s weaponization of the dollar’s dominance. Over the last two decades, American lectures on democracy have increasingly been tuned out.

The case of Gaza emphasizes this and has renewed a global rejection of U.S. policies:

Indeed, after Hamas’s October 7 attack on Israel and the Israeli military campaign in Gaza, American rhetoric about the rules-based international order has been seen around the world on a split screen of hypocrisy, as Washington has supplied the Israeli government with weapons used to bombard Palestinian civilians with impunity. The war has created a policy challenge for an administration that criticizes Russia for the same indiscriminate tactics that Israel has used in Gaza, a political challenge for a Democratic Party with core constituencies who don’t understand why the president has supported a far-right government that ignores the United States’ advice, and a moral crisis for a country whose foreign policy purports to be driven by universal values. Put simply: Gaza should shock Washington out of the muscle memory that guides too many of its actions.

The world has moved on. If the U.S. wants to stay a part of it it will have to adopt:

Too often, the United States has appeared unable or unwilling to see itself through the eyes of most of the world’s population, particularly people in the global South who feel that the international order is not designed for their benefit. [...] Yet the overuse of sanctions, along with the prioritization of Ukraine and other U.S. geopolitical interests, misreads the room. To build better ties with developing countries, Washington needs to consistently prioritize the issues they care about: investment, technology, and clean energy.

Once again, Gaza interacts with this challenge. To be blunt: for much of the world, it appears that Washington doesn’t value the lives of Palestinian children as much as it values the lives of Israelis or Ukrainians. Unconditional military aid to Israel, questioning the Palestinian death toll, vetoing cease-fire resolutions at the UN Security Council, and criticizing investigations into alleged Israeli war crimes may all feel like autopilot in Washington—but that’s precisely the problem. Much of the world now hears U.S. rhetoric about human rights and the rule of law as cynical rather than aspirational, particularly when it fails to wrestle with double standards. Total consistency is unattainable in foreign policy. But by listening and responding to more diverse voices from around the world, Washington could begin to build a reservoir of goodwill.

But would that change policies? Rhodes doesn't argue for a rejuvenation of international organizations and a U.S. subjugation to these. He still seems to see the U.S. as some kind of outstanding entity.

There is anyway little chance that Biden will adopt Rhodes' advice. During the Obama administration Biden's team had several run-ins with the Rhodes' led National Security shop.

It leaves the impression that Rhodes only wants a new rhetoric, not a really new way to do international policies. Keep doing what you are doing, he says, but sell it differently.

It fits to another piece in the current edition of Foreign Affairs in which three professors try to sell their basically neoconservative policies - do what we say or else ... - as a 'progressive' program:

The Progressive Case for American Power
Retrenchment Would Do More Harm Than Good

Today’s progressives need to get comfortable with American power, which, for all its flaws, has a crucial role to play. That doesn’t mean condoning illiberal actions to achieve just ends or cynically invoking progressive ideals to justify military adventurism. But it does mean seeking to harness power to advance the values progressives cherish—and accepting that might sometimes makes right.

It is, on its face, the opposite of what Rhodes argues for.

I applaud the idea behind Rhodes' piece but I see little chance, especially under Biden, for it to get implemented.

'The World power' - as Biden calls the U.S. of A. - will not move aside unless someone makes it do so.

Posted by b on June 19, 2024 at 13:59 UTC | Permalink

https://www.moonofalabama.org/2024/06/rhodes.html#more