Joe Biden and Offensive Liberalism
America's Shift to Muscular Liberalism After Russia's 2022 Invasion of Ukraine
One of the fascinating things of Joe Biden’s tenure as president is how he has morphed into a slightly less reckless version of George W. Bush. Both Bush and Biden promised one set of foreign policy plans and then, because of a national security crisis, sharply shifted gears to adopt a set of foreign policies best described as “offensive liberalism.”
Bush came into office pledging a foreign policy in line with realism—a policy that would call for the U.S. to attend to its relations with other great power and pull back from overseas conflicts. And Bush began to work toward implementing that vision. During his first eight months in office, Bush focused on relations with China and Russia, sought to get out of the nation building business, attempted to build stronger relations in the Americas (his first international trip was to Mexico, his second to Canada), withdrew the U.S. from the Kyoto Treaty, explored missile defense, and placed a heavy emphasis on his domestic agenda (tax cuts and tax reform, faith based initiatives, etc.). And then September 11th happened. September 11th completely transformed Bush's strategic thinking and policy for the next seven years. Practically overnight Bush turned into a hardcore foreign policy liberal, because he believed that democratic regime change was the key to stopping terrorism. Undoubtedly, he was labeled a neoconservative post-9/11, but in reality, there's relatively little difference between neoconservatism and offensive liberalism (other than neoconservative's disdain for international institutions). The final seven years of the Bush presidency were marked by the tendency of his administration to use American power, most notably military power, to try to promote and impose democracy and liberalism for national security ends.
The Biden administration has experienced a similar but more subtle shift. Biden came into office as a defensive liberal. Supposedly, Biden and National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan and others on his staff were influenced by G. John Ikenberry's 2020 book "A World Safe For Democracy," which laid out a vision that looked to re-energize liberal foreign policy with a non-interventionist bent so as to show that democracy can work for the middle class in the 21st century. Ikenberry called for the U.S. to protect and defend democracy and liberalism, not necessarily to promote it or expand its ranks abroad. Taking cues from Ikenberry, it was clear that Biden’s term in office would emphasize restoring and strengthening democracy at home, preserving democracy abroad, re-establishing relationships with key allies and international agreements, and getting out of America's protracted wars of the 2000s.
Once Biden entered office, Covid-19 (the vax rollout, the stimulus, etc.) was, of course, a major priority. Additionally, his administration rejoined the Paris Climate Accords, withdrew Trump's initiative to remove the US from the WHO, quickly moved to engage with U.S. allies in East Asia and Europe, held the Summit for Democracy, and withdrew U.S. troops from Afghanistan. All are very consistent with defensive liberalism. But then Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022. And akin to Bush's transformation in the immediate hours, days and weeks after 9/11, Biden's foreign policy changed. The Ukraine War shifted Biden from a defensive to offensive liberal.
From February 2022 to today, Biden has embraced a hawkish form of liberalism. His policy is draped in the language of democracy, alliances, and institutions, yes, but don't let that distract from the fact the U.S. is involved in two wars simultaneously. And it's not just that the U.S. is engaged in two wars, but that the nature and goals of these wars that the U.S. is supporting effectively seek to overturn the regional status quo. First, Biden supports Ukraine's efforts to roll back the status quo that had been established on the ground for a decade, as Ukraine scrapes and claws its unlikely way to recapturing Crimea, despite the redline and nuclear threats from Russia. Perhaps some critics would take issue with this argument, claiming that Ukraine is fighting to reclaim territory that is rightfully theirs. Fine. But more alarmingly, the White House publicly looks the other way whenever Ukraine launches drone strikes well into the heart of Russian territory, repeatedly taking the fight to Russia proper, or when Ukraine coordinated the attack on the Nord Stream pipeline. Those are hardly defensive maneuvers by the Zelensky government. Only recently has the Biden administration tried to rein in Ukrainian attacks on Russian energy facilities, though that effort was primarily motivated by worries that Ukrainian attacks have been driving up oil prices and hurting Biden’s re-election chances. Surely, what is left unsaid is that the White House is seemingly perfectly fine if Ukraine hits other things (places, people) in Russia, as it has been doing for well over a year now.
Second, despite its reluctance and frustration, the Biden administration, via military aid and diplomatic cover, is nevertheless aiding and abetting the Netanyahu government’s ability to reconquer the Gaza Strip—which is exactly what some members of the Israeli cabinet want. Certainly, Biden isn’t in favor of Israel doing so, but in giving Netanyahu unlimited military aid and being unwilling to put much public pressure on him to change war strategy or tactics–abstaining on a UN vote doesn’t qualify as consequential pressure—means that Israel can do what it wants in Gaza.
It’s also noteworthy that the White House allowed Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer to call for new elections in Israel. Think this through. Because the White House finds itself so tethered to Israel and therefore stuck in Gaza along with its ally, it thinks that regime change in Israel is the answer to its Middle East problems. There’s no evidence that Netanyahu’s removal as Prime Minister would even slightly change Israel’s war policy, as public polling indicates strong approval for the war. If anything, American moves to destabilize Israeli politics could cause a rift with Israel that would need to be mended.
Needless to say, Biden’s wars reflect a shift toward offensive liberalism. Because Biden hasn't put U.S. troops directly into the fire in either war makes his foreign policy less reckless than Bush's. Still, although Biden tends to frame his support for both wars as the right and moral thing to do, that the U.S. is backing the "good guys," major swaths of the world don't view it that way and, as a result, he's facing blowback globally, much like Bush did. Moreover, like Bush, Biden is facing criticism and declining support from the right AND the left within the U.S. who see these wars as wrong and wasteful and need to be wrapped up quickly. Indeed, some of the most vocal and persistent criticism of Biden's two wars often come from his left. And we're seeing this manifest itself in various state primaries this spring, as votes for undeclared/undecided are being siphoned away from Biden.
Back when Biden was Vice President, he was known as the guy who was cautious, pragmatic, and disinclined to support the use of force. Most notably, he was against using force to take out Osama bin Laden. Those days are gone. Much like how 9/11 altered Bush’s strategic thinking and policymaking, Russia's invasion of Ukraine did the same to Biden, provoking Biden into a policies that are in some ways antithetical to what he supported on the campaign trail and in his early days as president.
Before Putin’s February 2022 invasion of Ukraine, Biden’s policy, in a nutshell, centered on internally strengthening America’s democracy and trying to show the world’s democracies that are large benefits to be gained from recommitting to liberal democratic values and institutions. Given the events of January 6th (2021), the widespread election denialism, the ever widening political polarization, and the still looming presence of wannabe authoritarian Donald Trump, and more generally the rise in nationalist populism across the West, it’s not surprising the Biden administration focused on the threats to democracy coming from within democratic nations. After February 2022, however, Biden embraced a dual plan of combatting anti-democratic figures and forces coming from within and from abroad.
But taking on the anti-democratic barbarians has taken a toll. Inside the U.S. there is some democracy exhaustion. Many on the right and many independents think the internal threat to American democracy has been overhyped, served as a distraction to other important issues, like inflation, and has been an excuse to go after political opponents.
But even more worryingly, Biden’s assistance to Ukraine and Israel, even though well-intended, risks thrusting the U.S. into predicaments that could spin out of control. After all, there are still reasons to worry about Russian escalation in Ukraine as well as the spread of the Gaza War into other parts of the Middle East. If even one of those two things happens, U.S. interests and security would be compromised. Those situations would threaten and harm U.S. allies and American troops based in and around both conflict zones, cause the U.S. to sink deeper into both wars, jeopardize America’s position in the Middle East and Europe, and severely test U.S. credibility as nervous allies and rapacious aggressors observe how the White House acts, among many other things. And as all of this happens, the U.S. continues to drain its budget as it funds conflicts that show little sign of ending soon, and even when they do end, the U.S. will still be paying for an array of post-conflict hardships (peacekeeping, rebuilding societies). In the end, offensive liberalism only overextends and overcommits the U.S.
Now, can Biden reverse course? It will be difficult. Biden has framed the foursome of North Korea, Russia, Iran, and Hamas as working on their own and collectively to harm and undermine democracies around the world. Pushing for permanent peace in Ukraine and Israel—at least given the situation on the ground right now in both conflicts—cuts against Biden’s view of the main threats to the U.S. and America’s allies.
In Ukraine, Biden has shown little inclination to support a brokered settlement, fearing now that Putin has the upper hand there, war termination would only solidify a victory for him and potentially embolden him to initiate mischief in other parts of Europe, thereby threatening America’s allies in Central Europe and in the Baltics. Meantime, in Gaza, it’s true that the Biden administration is trying to broker ceasefire there, but that effort is all about getting the hostages out and more humanitarian aid in. At heart, Biden really wants Hamas smashed and eliminated, and I’d bet that he’d be in favor of continued war and risking the reoccupation of Gaza if it meant that Hamas was no more, or at least significantly degraded.