US regime change, of what significance to us?

The victory of Joe Biden, the Democrat, in the election against the hard-headed Republican Donald Trump, has brought the world to remain gazing with a sense of complacency with fingers crossed. But because of the underlying common Americanism, both candidates are ‘much of a muchness’ – hard to choose between.

Nevertheless, the American politics was dominated by two parties, Democrats and the Republicans since the American civil war period, and the world had adapted to bear with their declared policies during the periods of their governance. In a broad sense the Republicans stand for classical liberalism while the Democrats have pronounced progressive reforms opposed to imperialism.

The victorious Democratic Party was founded around 1828 by Andrew Jackson and is recognised as the world’s oldest active political party. During its history 14 Democrats have served as Presidents of the US starting with Andrew Jackson as the seventh US President elect, in 1829. The last, before Joe Biden was Barrack Obama, the 44th US President from 2009 to 2017. Now Joe Biden is in the cockpit from 7 November.

There have been seven US Presidents from the Democratic Party in the 20th Century, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry Truman, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. Of all the Democrats elected as Presidents only Frank D. Roosevelt got elected for two terms before Bill Clinton (1993-2001) after whom the Republican George W. Bush, got elected for two terms (2001 to 2009). This shows how the pendulum is swinging in American politics.

During the period after the re-election of Barrack Obama for his second term in 2010, the Democrats lost control of the House of Representatives and the State Legislatures and lost control of the American Senate in 2014. Now Democrats are back in power replacing the Republican Trump.

It is relevant to examine the policies of Democrats and the roles they have played in the international politics when they were in power. Upon foundation, the Democratic Party supported agrarianism and the Jacksonian democracy movement of President Andrew Jackson (which eliminated an elite monopoly in American politics) representing farmers and rural interests.

Historically, the party has represented farmers, labourers, labour unions and religious and ethnic minorities as it has opposed unregulated business and finance and favoured progressive income taxes. In the 1930s, the party began advocating welfare spending programs targeted at the poor. The party had a conservative and pro-business wing, supported during the latter by the Civil Rights Act 1964 after President Lyndon B Johnson. 

The major influences for liberalism were labour unions and the African American wing, which has steadily grown since the 1960s. Since the 1970s, protecting the environment and the environmental rights has been a major activity of involvement.

The Democratic platform offered to the voters before the elections by Joe Biden pronounced his policy lines regarding foreign policy and international relations. The most significant foreign policy difference between Trump and Biden that was included in his political platform was that “Trump has practiced an assertive unilateralism” while Biden has made clear he wants to return to an “international, cooperative, pro-alliance” model of diplomacy that was prominent in previous administrations.

In the same context Biden’s statement about defence and troop levels clarified the view point of the Democrats. They announced that they call for reducing military spending, a sharp contrast to Trump, who has championed an increase in defence spending and has warned that Democrats will weaken the military.

Joe Biden elaborated his stand further stating that: “We can maintain a strong defence and protect our safety and security for less.” Their policy stand is to (platform reads), call for annual audits of the Pentagon and an end to what the party sees as the department’s “waste and fraud”.

The concluding remark capitulated the position by stating: “We also call for bringing, ‘forever wars to a responsible end.’”

It is interesting to take a look at the voter preferences of the Americans expressed at this election.

While foreign policy issues became hot topics of debate between the contestants it seldom became anywhere close to be called a significant issue for the US voters.

According to critics even the Pandemic, the COVID-19 issue, appeared to be of far less impact than expected.

The Research Centres involved in analysis of voter preferences have come up with the conclusion that economy was ranked the most important issue in the poll, with 79% of registered voters saying it was very important to their vote.

The other issues in the order of preference were healthcare and Supreme Court appointments. Foreign policy issues ranked sixth on the list, with 57% of registered voters saying it was very important to their vote. It is in this context that we have to view the importance of the regime change to us.

It was a well-recognised fact that the Presidency of Trump was considered as a disruptive period in the Global politics. The Regional relationships were highly adversely impacted. In contrast Obama administration took an entire different view about the US engagements in the Asian region.

He personally visited several countries in the Asian region during his two terms and gave very high prominence to Trade promotion and facilitation agreements with the ASEAN countries. The Trans Pacific Partnership initiated during Obama leadership was considered as a strategic economic engagement of the region but Trump pulled out of these agreements unilaterally.

During the South China Sea dispute the involvement of the US was friendly although articulated as important. His approach to the problem was cautious and careful and appeared to be concerned more seriously to avoid any complicating engagement with China. He diplomatically continued the ongoing dialogues on other less controversial issues such as climate changes. Trump did not hesitate to castigate this position by openly remarking insolently that, “climate change is a myth for and by the Chinese”.

His era aggravated US-China tensions which created pressure for the countries in the region. This posed a big problem to the small countries who were seriously bent to maintain healthy relations with both powers in a cooperative manner. 

Trump branded North Korea as a state with nuclear weapons. Trump withdrew from the Trans-Pacific partnership program creating a vacuum and introduced his FOIPS free and open Indo-pacific strategy). The Trump administration converted the growing tensions between China and US from a simple trade dispute to a far-fetched protracted dispute spreading in to an expanded area of technological, geo-political and security threats. 

Countries in the region without any dispute accommodated US presence in the region as an important trading partner and as a source of advanced technology in addition to regarding it as a strong power against the spreading of terrorism in the region. It escalated to a situation of demanding allegiance apply pressure to countries to choose sides in the tussle between the two big powers. 

No country wishes to compromise its territorial integrity due to intervention of big powers. The world needs a global order where rules based on multilateral trading systems are respected and international laws and institutions are upheld. 

China and US being the two super trading partners in the world should resolve the emerging differences without any confrontation and muscle –flexing, accepting the fact that both are each other’s most important trading partners and develop a mutual interdependency to generate a high productivity and create opportunities for the humanity. 

There are serious challenges faced by human beings common to big and small states, such as environmental threats and climatic changes, health issues, terrorism, disarmament, etc., which can be resolved with the full participation of both powers. Democrats can initiate this culture and that is the significance of this regime change.