This letter was written in response to Rakev Tadesse’s op-ed published Nov. 20, 2020 entitled “Opinion: Why a Trump loss is a win for liberal democracy.”
With the victory of United States president-elect Joe Biden this November, many were quick to rejoice at the prospect of a return to normalcy in American foreign policy. In his op-ed for the Charlatan, the writer praised the result as “a win for liberal democracy.”
While a return to the status quo is likely better than Trumpism, I’d argue that an America as it has always been is far from good news for the world.
What is this “liberal democracy” that Biden’s win is supposed to boost? Various Google searches will produce dozens of recent articles examining the state of liberal democracy, and though their theses may differ slightly (Tadesse’s article argues liberal democracy just received a boost; this New York Times article from before the election argues it is under threat), they all tend to agree that the liberal democratic ideal is something to be preserved. Despite all the discussion surrounding the term, it is seldom defined.
As both an unfocused and widespread notion, the most reasonable conclusion we can make about “liberal democracy” is that it is a platitude standing in for the status quo.
Of course, the “liberal” in liberal democracy does have a long-standing definition. Proponents of early liberalism (classical liberals) believed that the government should promote civil liberties but also protect economic freedom. As a result, democracy was not necessarily supreme—lest it restrict property rights. The profit motive would be the driving force in society.
Later, neoliberalism came along. Figures such as Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher worked to cut back the small gains of the working and middle classes in favour, again, of prioritizing the market.
Today we also have social liberals, who maintain that a government has a responsibility for some aspects of its citizens’ well-being, but who still see the market as the single driving force in the economy and thus deserving of significant resources and dedication. Of course, Biden, who has said he would veto universal health care over its cost, would find himself at odds with even that narrow concession.
The liberal ideology remains dominant in the West. We must remember that not only is liberalism not synonymous with democracy, but liberalism and democracy often find themselves at odds.
To see how much American foreign policy in the name of “liberal democracy” has had to do with actual democracy, look no further than the history of U.S. operations in Latin America.
Between 1898 and 1994, the U.S. government took part in 41 interventions in the region (meaning they directly or indirectly attempted either to change the government or suppress a popular movement). In 1973, one of these interventions led to the ousting of the democratically-elected socialist president Salvador Allende. His replacement, Augusto Pinochet, swiftly shut down trade unions and dismantled welfare provisions for his citizens. He dismantled the socialism that was seen as threatening to the liberal status quo.
The Chilean government today recognizes 40,000 victims of Pinochet’s regime; perceived political opponents who were imprisoned, tortured or killed. When liberalism and democracy came into conflict, the American establishment used violence to ensure that liberalism won out.
This trend continues today, and mainstream politicians like Biden have been largely complicit. In November 2019, after another democratically elected socialist fell to a coup d’état (this time Evo Morales of Bolivia), all Democratic Party presidential candidates—with the exception of Bernie Sanders—remained silent. Morales was forcibly replaced by Jeanine Áñez; peaceful protesters were killed and incidents of anti-Indigenous racism spiked.
Needless to say, Biden played no role in this. But the fact that he has continued to remain silent about such a recent coup leaves me with little faith that he’ll stand up for global democracy in earnest.
Biden’s own foreign policy record is not one to be proud of. Most infamously, he was a strong advocate for the war in Iraq. Since the 2003 invasion (which Biden voted in favour of—an act that many political scientists now regard as a heinous mistake), at least 185,000 civilians have been killed. Biden’s foreign policy hasn’t furthered democracy. Rather, it has been one of mass carnage and destruction.
Granted, we are still a few days away from Biden’s inauguration. Perhaps he will break from the disastrous foreign policy decisions of his past, but I wouldn’t hold my breath. Biden has already announced his pick for secretary of state: Antony Blinken, who worked with Biden in 2002 to authorize the invasion of Iraq. As deputy secretary of state under former president Barack Obama, he also advocated for American interventionism: a policy that has replaced foreign democracies with American interference.
Biden has had a long career of what he calls bi-partisanship—but I would rather call it defending the status quo. For an American president, this will mean continuing policies of meddling and warmongering based on a political ideology that prioritizes economic goals over democracy.
Yes, Biden’s presidency may be a win for liberalism. For democracy, it will be anything but.
Featured graphic from file.
