This illustration has been created by AI to use in this article only.
While the American unipolar world is largely a relic of the past, the U.S. remains the most important global actor. It continues to yield substantial influence over many countries, including its adversaries like China, due to its entrenched position in global trade and a massive consumer market. While the U.S. may be declining relative to other countries and the global community at large, its raw power continues to grow. Additionally, due to the incoming demographic bomb in China as well as a comparatively relaxed immigration policy, the U.S.’ growth into the far future (past 2100) looks bright. In short, the U.S. will not fade from the world stage anytime soon. This fact alone makes understanding the motivations of both American political parties critical to understanding what drives them on the global stage.
Understanding these differences regarding foreign policy is obviously important; and is arguably more important for organizations and policymakers that are not in the U.S. The president in particular has broad authority as both commander in chief as well as authorities granted by Congress in the form of tariffs, sanctions, etc. Each party uses these levers of power in differing ways and to varying degrees; the president will use all of these regardless of their party despite campaign rhetoric. Also, despite the preferences of a president, they may feel pressured to utilize this power for electoral reasons. For instance, President Biden has largely left the tariffs from Trump’s first term in place. Tariffs on some products, such as steel, are popular in northern rust belt states like Ohio and Michigan.
Redefining America’s Global Game
The Republican Party has not been particularly isolationist in the recent past, though they have been more associated with nationalism through history. The isolationist streak of the party really began with Trump’s takeover of the party in 2016. Other primary contenders at the time, like Marco Rubio or Jeb Bush, are more traditional in the interventionist sense; Trump’s rise in that primary was partially a response to U.S. “forever wars” like in Afghanistan and Iraq. Trump relied on limited interventions rather than large-scale actions. Examples include the assassination of Qasem Soleimani or the airstrikes against the Assad regime in Syria in 2017 and 2019. In contrast, the Reagan Administration increased the pressure on the Soviet Union and engaged in unilateral actions, both military and covert, to pursue its goals.
Invading Grenada, aid to the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, bombing of Libya, intervention in multiple Latin American countries, etc., are all examples of an interventionist foreign policy. These actions were also related to the “rollback” of communism, a shift from “containment,” which had driven U.S. foreign policy since 1945. While Trump will compete with China on the global stage, economics rather than ideology drives this. The Democratic Party has emphasized diplomacy and multilateralism in its foreign policy. While it may use military force, a Democratic president will focus on coalitions and using limited methods compared to ground invasions.
While the American unipolar world is largely a relic of the past, the U.S. remains the most important global actor. It continues to yield substantial influence over many countries, including its adversaries like China, due to its entrenched position in global trade and a massive consumer market. While the U.S. may be declining relative to other countries and the global community at large, its raw power continues to grow. Additionally, due to the incoming demographic bomb in China as well as a comparatively relaxed immigration policy, the U.S.’ growth into the far future (past 2100) looks bright. In short, the U.S. will not fade from the world stage anytime soon. This fact alone makes understanding the motivations of both American political parties critical to understanding what drives them on the global stage.
Understanding these differences regarding foreign policy is obviously important; and is arguably more important for organizations and policymakers that are not in the U.S. The president in particular has broad authority as both commander in chief as well as authorities granted by Congress in the form of tariffs, sanctions, etc. Each party uses these levers of power in differing ways and to varying degrees; the president will use all of these regardless of their party despite campaign rhetoric. Also, despite the preferences of a president, they may feel pressured to utilize this power for electoral reasons. For instance, President Biden has largely left the tariffs from Trump’s first term in place. Tariffs on some products, such as steel, are popular in northern rust belt states like Ohio and Michigan.
Redefining America’s Global Game
The Republican Party has not been particularly isolationist in the recent past, though they have been more associated with nationalism through history. The isolationist streak of the party really began with Trump’s takeover of the party in 2016. Other primary contenders at the time, like Marco Rubio or Jeb Bush, are more traditional in the interventionist sense; Trump’s rise in that primary was partially a response to U.S. “forever wars” like in Afghanistan and Iraq. Trump relied on limited interventions rather than large-scale actions. Examples include the assassination of Qasem Soleimani or the airstrikes against the Assad regime in Syria in 2017 and 2019. In contrast, the Reagan Administration increased the pressure on the Soviet Union and engaged in unilateral actions, both military and covert, to pursue its goals.
Invading Grenada, aid to the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, bombing of Libya, intervention in multiple Latin American countries, etc., are all examples of an interventionist foreign policy. These actions were also related to the “rollback” of communism, a shift from “containment,” which had driven U.S. foreign policy since 1945. While Trump will compete with China on the global stage, economics rather than ideology drives this.
The Democratic Party has emphasized diplomacy and multilateralism in its foreign policy. While it may use military force, a Democratic president will focus on coalitions and using limited methods compared to ground invasions.
Democrats tend to be more in favor of free trade than Republicans, though exceptions exist which can vary between candidates. Joe Biden, for example, has left some of Donald Trump’s tariffs in place. The root thinking of Democrats’ preference for free trade focuses on shared interest and the idea of bringing prices down in not just the U.S., but for other trading partners. They also believe that these trading relationships give the U.S. leverage to use later. However, painting Democrats as free trade advocates and Republicans as isolationist is not entirely accurate; some may describe the situation as such for understandable reasons, but there is more nuance to it which is discussed below.
Shifting Strategies in Global Defense
On security, Republicans have undergone a significant shift in policy compared to the Reagan or Bush administrations. These administrations were much more interventionist and often relied on unilateral actions. While they would engage in multilateralism, such as the NATO actions in Afghanistan, they are considered supplementary to U.S. forces rather than a self-enforcing “we must do this with help” attitude. For instance, the U.S. had fewer partners for its invasion of Iraq, though Bush went ahead regardless.
Today, the Republican Party under Trump largely believes in staying out of foreign conflicts, at least directly. Instead, they believe that partner countries should shoulder more of the burden with U.S. support being contingent on how much they contribute to their defense. Due to this, Trump has threatened U.S. support in the form of pulling U.S. troops, threatening to leave NATO, and other measures. While Democrats also believe in more burden sharing, they lack the ability to win the proverbial game of chicken needed to be effective in doing so.
Xi Jinping reshapes the CCP with historical legacy, forging a nationalist vision to redefine its global standing.
Democrats tend to be more in favor of free trade than Republicans, though exceptions exist which can vary between candidates. Joe Biden, for example, has left some of Donald Trump’s tariffs in place. The root thinking of Democrats’ preference for free trade focuses on shared interest and the idea of bringing prices down in not just the U.S., but for other trading partners. They also believe that these trading relationships give the U.S. leverage to use later. However, painting Democrats as free trade advocates and Republicans as isolationist is not entirely accurate; some may describe the situation as such for understandable reasons, but there is more nuance to it which is discussed below.
Shifting Strategies in Global Defense
On security, Republicans have undergone a significant shift in policy compared to the Reagan or Bush administrations. These administrations were much more interventionist and often relied on unilateral actions. While they would engage in multilateralism, such as the NATO actions in Afghanistan, they are considered supplementary to U.S. forces rather than a self-enforcing “we must do this with help” attitude. For instance, the U.S. had fewer partners for its invasion of Iraq, though Bush went ahead regardless.
Today, the Republican Party under Trump largely believes in staying out of foreign conflicts, at least directly. Instead, they believe that partner countries should shoulder more of the burden with U.S. support being contingent on how much they contribute to their defense. Due to this, Trump has threatened U.S. support in the form of pulling U.S. troops, threatening to leave NATO, and other measures. While Democrats also believe in more burden sharing, they lack the ability to win the proverbial game of chicken needed to be effective in doing so.
The Democratic Party overall believes in incentivizing partner countries to invest in their own defense through partnerships, etc., as well as hoping that other countries will recognize the need independently. This is especially the case since the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Almost every NATO country has increased their defense spending since 2021, many of them surpassing the spending goal of 2% of GDP.
I mentioned the influence that the U.S. gains from global trade; this thinking applies to U.S. military alliances as well. For example, the U.S. shouldering the bulk of collective defense comes with that financial cost, but it also buys goodwill and influence with partner countries that can be utilized later. If the U.S. is the far-and-away leader of the NATO alliance, it can more or less dictate what the alliance will do, especially if it maintains good relations with member countries.
The Democratic Party overall believes in incentivizing partner countries to invest in their own defense through partnerships, etc., as well as hoping that other countries will recognize the need independently. This is especially the case since the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Almost every NATO country has increased their defense spending since 2021, many of them surpassing the spending goal of 2% of GDP.
I mentioned the influence that the U.S. gains from global trade; this thinking applies to U.S. military alliances as well. For example, the U.S. shouldering the bulk of collective defense comes with that financial cost, but it also buys goodwill and influence with partner countries that can be utilized later. If the U.S. is the far-and-away leader of the NATO alliance, it can more or less dictate what the alliance will do, especially if it maintains good relations with member countries.
Republicans, in contrast, would argue that this weakens NATO as member countries can contribute more. The U.S. cannot be everywhere at once, so having allies that are independently prepared not only lessens the burden on the U.S., but also buys the U.S. more time to respond in the event of a crisis. Republicans may also argue that member countries contribute so little as it is that even significant spending increases would not reduce American influence over the alliance.
Sovereignty vs Cooperation
The Republican Party is much more skeptical of international institutions and cooperation. While individual issues may exist depending on the agreement—for example, NATO member funding or the importance of climate change—the prevailing view among Republicans is that international agreements reduce U.S. sovereignty and result in the U.S. being “ripped off.” An agreement without any enforcement mechanism will tend to be seen as useless, and an agreement with enforcement would be seen as encroaching on U.S. sovereignty.
The U.S. Constitution and historical precedent going back to George Washington also put U.S. commitment to international agencies, etc., in an awkward place. The Constitution requires that the U.S. Senate ratify treaties, making U.S. commitments made by the president constitutionally questionable. The U.S. Constitution may also preclude membership in institutions like the International Criminal Court (ICC). Because the U.S. Constitution provides certain criminal protections, like the right to a jury of one’s peers, some argue that being beholden to international enforcement bodies like the ICC would violate U.S. constitutional protections.
In comparison, Democrats are more likely to believe in international cooperation. The Paris Accords are a good example of this. Obama and Biden have both joined the accords (Biden did so to reverse Trump’s withdrawal). Democrats feel that it is not just beneficial, but rather necessary, to coordinate and cooperate on a global scale on shared issues. This applies to U.S. adversaries as well; Democrats are more likely to cooperate with adversaries like China while keeping it to a limited and mutual issue like climate change.
In contrast, Republicans are likely to point out that China is a heavy polluter and that such an arrangement would be hypocritical on China’s part and thus pointless for the U.S. to pursue. For instance, they argue that American climate actions would make minimal impact on global temperatures even if the U.S. completely dropped the use of fossil fuels; they further argue that these actions would further drive up costs for Americans.
From Free Trade to Protectionism
In the present day, Republicans and Democrats have switched positions on global trade to some extent. In the past, Democrats tended to be more isolationist on trade issues to protect unions, while Republicans (generally wealthier) favored more open trade for their businesses. However, under Democratic President Clinton, the U.S. initiated the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) — the idea was proposed by President Reagan. This promised and delivered more affordable consumer goods and dramatically reduced trade barriers.
While Trump will compete with China on the global stage, economics rather than ideology drives this.
Many larger and expensive goods today, like vehicles and appliances, are made in Mexico and then sold in the U.S., resulting in consumer savings for the U.S. and job creation for Mexico. For Canada’s part, the U.S. purchases substantial amounts of lumber and other natural resources. At the same time, American manufacturing jobs continued to decline. While it is debated whether or not NAFTA contributed to these job losses, Republicans (especially under Trump) were able to seize on this and convince many voters that the Democratic Party has lost its interest in helping working-class Americans.
The results from the 2024 election paint a picture that the Republicans have expanded on this electoral success. Trump continues to gain working-class voters and made substantial gains among demographics that Democrats have historically held. Today, many view the Democratic Party as one that represents wealthy elites. Republicans continue to make gains even among voters who are not directly impacted by manufacturing job losses. For instance, Trump made significant gains in deep blue New York City in this election, demonstrating that Republican success with the working class is not limited to rural voters.
Democrats have historically been the more protectionist party, largely to protect American union jobs from cheaper foreign labor and uncompetitive practices like steel dumping. In recent decades, this has flipped to some extent, however. While the party has a mixed record today due to Trump’s 2016 win, many Democratic thinkers believe that global integration is more beneficial to the United States than isolationism. The belief is that no country, including the U.S., can produce all of its goods at the best price.
For example, the U.S. may be able to manufacture cutting-edge medications while Colombia can produce high-quality and affordable coffee. While an oversimplistic example, Democrats would argue that both sides benefit more under this scenario than if these industries were fully domestic in each country. Like I mentioned above, there is also a belief that the U.S. gains influence under global trade. For instance, the U.S. may benefit in renegotiations of trade treaties since the other country’s economy will have become more reliant on the U.S. consumer market and high-tech U.S. products. There is also the broader belief that global interdependence reduces the risk of conflict between countries. This is for two main reasons. Firstly, closer economic and cultural ties result in closer relations overall, reducing the risk of conflict that way. The other is that this interdependence makes it mutually harmful for any country to start a conflict in the first place.
It should be noted that Republicans being protectionist and Democrats being in favor of free trade is an oversimplification of what U.S. policy will actually be. It is also an oversimplification of the views of individual policymakers. As an example, President Biden recently blocked the sale of U.S. Steel to Japanese firm Nippon Steel. Given the increasing populism in the U.S., and gains for Republicans with the working class, I expect that the Democrats will slowly shift more in the direction of protectionism as well, at least in regard to certain industries.
Jobs, Energy, and Perception
Republicans are generally opposed to climate change actions, largely to protect American workers and industries. In a global context, they tend to point to China or India as growing nations that do not follow comparable U.S. standards. They argue that following stricter standards than developing countries puts the U.S. at a disadvantage. They also argue for U.S. energy independence to reduce reliance on imported energy, especially that of Middle Eastern petroleum.
Republicans are successful in targeting voters with the idea that an environmentally conscious U.S. necessitates inconveniences to regular people’s lives. For instance, many Democratic cities and states have put bans in place on plastic straws. This results in politicians and voters making fun of the idea that drinking pop from a plastic cup and plastic lid but a paper straw is the Democrats’ idea of saving the planet. While the Democratic Party on a national level doesn’t focus on issues like that, it is a simple and effective attack along the lines of: “Democrats are too busy dealing with straws instead of real problems like we care about.”
Especially because of prior losses in U.S. manufacturing, Republicans are also able to successfully convince U.S. voters that more climate change action means sacrificing U.S. jobs. Working-class voters have seen the fallout of NAFTA and other trade agreements. Those working in oil and gas, as well as coal mining in crucial states like Pennsylvania, are likely to be hesitant at best about voting for Democrats. Republicans also have skepticism over the effectiveness of many clean energy sources. Aside from nuclear, most clean energy sources rely on the environment rather than humans to provide the fuel. For example, a low-wind, cloudy day may not provide sufficient power for a community. The idea of rolling blackouts for the sake of the environment is one that most American voters will not accept, and one that Republicans can seize as a talking point.
Democrats view climate change as both real and an existential threat to the U.S. and the planet overall. Even in the face of electoral losses, they are more likely to support climate policies. Beyond that, many Democrats view new climate technologies as an opportunity for job growth, not outsourcing. Democrats argue that industries like solar panel manufacturing can be done in the U.S., creating jobs.
There is also the belief in knock-on effects like EV battery manufacturing, domestic manufacturing of EVs, etc. There is also the potential for the U.S. to export such high-tech products, benefiting the U.S. further. While some of this has come to fruition, such as Tesla’s Gigafactories, Democrats have not adequately overcome the perception that they want to outsource jobs and that taking action on climate change is just another pathway to doing so.
The U.S. Approach Abroad
The Democratic Party’s approach is more people-focused and humanitarian. While Democrats may not want to directly intervene in a country’s internal affairs, they are more likely to view doing business with said countries as a tacit endorsement of their policies. Especially with other multilateral partnerships, etc., at the U.S.’ disposal, Democrats are more likely to condemn such countries. Despite the potential losses the U.S. would incur, Democrats view support for democracy abroad, etc., as essential to the United States’ identity.
Under this, dealing with countries that do not support human rights and democracy is seen as a betrayal of American values. The Republican Party’s approach towards anti-democratic countries like Saudi Arabia is in line with its anti-interventionist policies and “America First” policy. Republicans may still view these countries as being undemocratic, dictatorial, etc., but they don’t view it as their place to dictate how other countries should operate their domestic affairs. Additionally, since Donald Trump prefers to work bilaterally rather than multilaterally, this reduces the influence that the U.S. can exert on humanitarian issues.
Should Trump want to work with Saudi Arabia on, say, security or energy issues, the U.S. will likely do so directly rather than in a multilateral agreement. Republicans also view the United States’ interests as coming above all else. While they may not like how Saudi Arabia treats its citizens, they will still work with them as they view the sacrifice of not doing so as betraying the interests of the American people.
Immigration Debate
Republicans generally prefer keeping immigration limited, particularly for illegal immigration. Many view immigration as a way to depress U.S. wages. Especially after the decline of the working class over the last few decades, many Republican voters view this as an attack on their livelihood. Illegal immigration, in particular, gets attention because these workers often make less than minimum wage, making it impossible for American citizens to compete. Coupled with news stories about violent crimes, such as the high-profile immolation of a woman on the NYC subway by an illegal immigrant, Republicans broadly oppose letting illegal immigrants stay.
While Republicans are less opposed to legal immigration, it is still viewed as a threat by many. Even legal immigrants may be viewed as driving down wages. Additionally, many perceive legal immigrants as being future voters for Democrats, making the political viability of Republicans in the future more questionable. Many Republicans feel that the existing pathways for legal immigration are too lenient; for instance, H1B visa abuse is brought up by some Republicans on a fairly frequent basis.
Overall, Republicans are more skeptical about the world overall and have less faith in multilateral institutions and obligations.
Democrats view immigration as important and beneficial to U.S. society for multiple reasons. They tend to view immigrants as contributors to society overall, whether they are legal or illegal. For legal immigrants, Democrats tend to see them as persevering, if for no other reason than going through the difficult process to begin with. Legal immigrants may also fill in gaps in critical industries, making Democrats more in favor of them. Regarding crime, Democrats point to the fact that undocumented immigrants commit serious crimes at a lower rate than American citizens; they would argue that highlighting crimes committed by immigrants is needless as their crime rates are lower than that of citizens.
Democrats also often view illegal immigrants as still contributing to society. Many illegal immigrants work in difficult jobs that American citizens as a whole are unwilling to do. They are also likely to view current immigration laws as too restrictive to begin with, or logically inconsistent. For example, it is relatively easy to get a U.S. visa to study in the U.S., but very difficult to be approved for a work visa. In this instance, Democrats may point to a successful student who had to move back to China instead of working for an American company. Democrats are likely to view this as a net loss for the U.S.
Global Engagement: Collaboration or Control?
Overall, Republicans are more skeptical about the world overall and have less faith in multilateral institutions and obligations. There is a perception that the rest of the world has leeched off of America’s success and that the U.S. has not reaped enough of the benefits it has created. This partially explains Trump’s focus on bilateral agreements. He believes that negotiating with one country instead of multiple puts the U.S. on a stronger footing to argue for and realize its interests. It explains the isolationism overall as well. American engagements abroad are often seen as money sinks when that money could be better spent at home in the form of infrastructure spending, tax breaks, onshoring jobs, etc.
Democrats believe that working on issues multilaterally gives the U.S. more strength thanks to harnessing the collective power of all countries involved. On shared issues like climate change, this can include all countries, including adversaries like China. On issues that address adversaries, such as Russia as it relates to Ukraine, the U.S. views cooperating with NATO and the EU as beneficial, as collective pressure can be more effective and greater than the sum of its parts. When it comes to U.S. adversaries, especially smaller ones like North Korea, Democrats are more likely to work collectively to isolate them.
While the tools tend to be similar for Republicans (sanctions, etc.), Democrats are more likely to focus on bolstering existing mechanisms to keep the pressure on. Republicans like Trump tend to be more direct. This manifests in more bellicose statements like “fire and fury,” but also results in more direct diplomacy, as seen with the U.S.-DPRK summits. Republicans are more likely to view such summits as necessary and that refusal to engage, despite a poor human rights record, is doomed to fail and simply allows said adversaries to continue building weapons, preparing for conflict, etc. Democrats tend to believe that engaging with them directly acts as a sort of reward and that such countries can simply remain patient. Especially in the case of Trump, Democrats tend to be concerned that countries like the DPRK can get ahead with personal flattery rather than concrete steps like nuclear disarmament.
America First
The 2024 U.S. elections gave Trump a mandate to pursue his brand of foreign policy. He won the popular vote for Republicans for the first time since 2004, and Republicans control all branches of government (albeit by slim margins). Additionally, this will be Trump’s final term per the Constitution. As such, he will seek to leave his mark before departing in 2029. A focus on settling the Israel-Gaza conflict will be a primary focus. Pursuing policy goals that would be significant achievements, even if they are exceedingly unlikely, will continue, such as his goal to gain American control of Greenland.
Regarding Israel-Gaza, it is likely that Trump will effectively green-light just about any actions that Israel wants to take. Trump is likely to support such a strike by the IDF or even order American strikes. Beyond the U.S., other countries and organizations like the EU are likely to further focus on developing their own defense and reducing reliance on the U.S. This is especially true should Trump follow through on his threat to enact sweeping tariffs. In all, the world is likely to continue becoming more multipolar in the coming years. The combination of American hesitancy to intervene abroad, combined with an “America First” trade policy, will mean that most countries, be they U.S. allies or adversaries, will seek to reduce their exposure to U.S. policies.
Many larger and expensive goods today, like vehicles and appliances, are made in Mexico and then sold in the U.S., resulting in consumer savings for the U.S. and job creation for Mexico. For Canada’s part, the U.S. purchases substantial amounts of lumber and other natural resources. At the same
time, American manufacturing jobs continued to decline. While it is debated whether or not NAFTA contributed to these job losses, Republicans (especially under Trump) were able to seize on this and convince many voters that the Democratic Party has lost its interest in helping working-class Americans.
The results from the 2024 election paint a picture that the Republicans have expanded on this electoral success. Trump continues to gain working-class voters and made substantial gains among demographics that Democrats have historically held. Today, many view the Democratic Party as one that represents wealthy elites. Republicans continue to make gains even among voters who are not directly impacted by manufacturing job losses. For instance, Trump made significant gains in deep blue New York City in this election, demonstrating that Republican success with the working class is not limited to rural voters.
Democrats have historically been the more protectionist party, largely to protect American union jobs from cheaper foreign labor and uncompetitive practices like steel dumping. In recent decades, this has flipped to some extent, however. While the party has a mixed record today due to Trump’s 2016 win, many Democratic thinkers believe that global integration is more beneficial to the United States than isolationism. The belief is that no country, including the U.S., can produce all of its goods at the best price.
For example, the U.S. may be able to manufacture cutting-edge medications while Colombia can produce high-quality and affordable coffee. While an oversimplistic example, Democrats would argue that both sides benefit more under this scenario than if these industries were fully domestic in each country. Like I mentioned above, there is also a belief that the U.S. gains influence under global trade. For instance, the U.S. may benefit in renegotiations of trade treaties since the other country’s economy will have become more reliant on the U.S. consumer market and high-tech U.S. products. There is also the broader belief that global interdependence reduces the risk of conflict between countries. This is for two main reasons. Firstly, closer economic and cultural ties result in closer relations overall, reducing the risk of conflict that way. The other is that this interdependence makes it mutually harmful for any country to start a conflict in the first place.
It should be noted that Republicans being protectionist and Democrats being in favor of free trade is an oversimplification of what U.S. policy will actually be. It is also an oversimplification of the views of individual policymakers. As an example, President Biden recently blocked the sale of U.S. Steel to Japanese firm Nippon Steel. Given the increasing populism in the U.S., and gains for Republicans with the working class, I expect that the Democrats will slowly shift more in the direction of protectionism as well, at least in regard to certain industries.
Jobs, Energy, and Perception
Republicans are generally opposed to climate change actions, largely to protect American workers and industries. In a global context, they tend to point to China or India as growing nations that do not follow comparable U.S. standards. They argue that following stricter standards than developing countries puts the U.S. at a disadvantage. They also argue for U.S. energy independence to reduce reliance on imported energy, especially that of Middle Eastern petroleum.
Republicans are successful in targeting voters with the idea that an environmentally conscious U.S. necessitates inconveniences to regular people’s lives. For instance, many Democratic cities and states have put bans in place on plastic straws. This results in politicians and voters making fun of the idea that drinking pop from a plastic cup and plastic lid but a paper straw is the Democrats’ idea of saving the planet. While the Democratic Party on a national level doesn’t focus on issues like that, it is a simple and effective attack along the lines of: “Democrats are too busy dealing with straws instead of real problems like we care about.”
Especially because of prior losses in U.S. manufacturing, Republicans are also able to successfully convince U.S. voters that more climate change action means sacrificing U.S. jobs. Working-class voters have seen the fallout of NAFTA and other trade agreements. Those working in oil and gas, as well as coal mining in crucial states like Pennsylvania, are likely to be hesitant at best about voting for Democrats. Republicans also have skepticism over the effectiveness of many clean energy sources. Aside from nuclear, most clean energy sources rely on the environment rather than humans to provide the fuel. For example, a low-wind, cloudy day may not provide sufficient power for a community. The idea of rolling blackouts for the sake of the environment is one that most American voters will not accept, and one that Republicans can seize as a talking point.
Democrats view climate change as both real and an existential threat to the U.S. and the planet overall. Even in the face of electoral losses, they are more likely to support climate policies. Beyond that, many Democrats view new climate technologies as an opportunity for job growth, not outsourcing. Democrats argue that industries like solar panel manufacturing can be done in the U.S., creating jobs.
There is also the belief in knock-on effects like EV battery manufacturing, domestic manufacturing of EVs, etc. There is also the potential for the U.S. to export such high-tech products, benefiting the U.S. further. While some of this has come to fruition, such as Tesla’s Gigafactories, Democrats have not adequately overcome the perception that they want to outsource jobs and that taking action on climate change is just another pathway to doing so.
The U.S. Approach Abroad
The Democratic Party’s approach is more people-focused and humanitarian. While Democrats may not want to directly intervene in a country’s internal affairs, they are more likely to view doing business with said countries as a tacit endorsement of their policies. Especially with other multilateral partnerships, etc., at the U.S.’ disposal, Democrats are more likely to condemn such countries. Despite the potential losses the U.S. would incur, Democrats view support for democracy abroad, etc., as essential to the United States’ identity.
Under this, dealing with countries that do not support human rights and democracy is seen as a betrayal of American values. The Republican Party’s approach towards anti-democratic countries like Saudi Arabia is in line with its anti-interventionist policies and “America First” policy. Republicans may still view these countries as being undemocratic, dictatorial, etc., but they don’t view it as their place to dictate how other countries should operate their domestic affairs. Additionally, since Donald Trump prefers to work bilaterally rather than multilaterally, this reduces the influence that the U.S. can exert on humanitarian issues.
Should Trump want to work with Saudi Arabia on, say, security or energy issues, the U.S. will likely do so directly rather than in a multilateral agreement. Republicans also view the United States’ interests as coming above all else. While they may not like how Saudi Arabia treats its citizens, they will still work with them as they
view the sacrifice of not doing so as betraying the interests of the American people.
Immigration Debate
Republicans generally prefer keeping immigration limited, particularly for illegal immigration. Many view immigration as a way to depress U.S. wages. Especially after the decline of the working class over the last few decades, many Republican voters view this as an attack on their livelihood. Illegal immigration, in particular, gets attention because these workers often make less than minimum wage, making it impossible for American citizens to compete. Coupled with news stories about violent crimes, such as the high-profile immolation of a woman on the NYC subway by an illegal immigrant, Republicans broadly oppose letting illegal immigrants stay.
While Republicans are less opposed to legal immigration, it is still viewed as a threat by many. Even legal immigrants may be viewed as driving down wages. Additionally, many perceive legal immigrants as being future voters for Democrats, making the political viability of Republicans in the future more questionable. Many Republicans feel that the existing pathways for legal immigration are too lenient; for instance, H1B visa abuse is brought up by some Republicans on a fairly frequent basis.
Democrats view immigration as important and beneficial to U.S. society for multiple reasons. They tend to view immigrants as contributors to society overall, whether they are legal or illegal. For legal immigrants, Democrats tend to see them as persevering, if for no other reason than going through the difficult process to begin with. Legal immigrants may also fill in gaps in critical industries, making Democrats more in favor of them. Regarding crime, Democrats point to the fact that undocumented immigrants commit serious crimes at a lower rate than American citizens; they would argue that highlighting crimes committed by immigrants is needless as their crime rates are lower than that of citizens.
Democrats also often view illegal immigrants as still contributing to society. Many illegal immigrants work in difficult jobs that American citizens as a whole are unwilling to do. They are also likely to view current immigration laws as too restrictive to begin with, or logically inconsistent. For example, it is relatively easy to get a U.S. visa to study in the U.S., but very difficult to be approved for a work visa. In this instance, Democrats may point to a successful student who had to move back to China instead of working for an American company. Democrats are likely to view this as a net loss for the U.S.
Global Engagement: Collaboration or Control?
Overall, Republicans are more skeptical about the world overall and have less faith in multilateral institutions and obligations. There is a perception that the rest of the world has leeched off of America’s success and that the U.S. has not reaped enough of the benefits it has created. This partially explains Trump’s focus on bilateral agreements. He believes that negotiating with one country instead of multiple puts the U.S. on a stronger footing to argue for and realize its interests. It explains the isolationism overall as well. American engagements abroad are often seen as money sinks when that money could be better spent at home in the form of infrastructure spending, tax breaks, onshoring jobs, etc.
Democrats believe that working on issues multilaterally gives the U.S. more strength thanks to harnessing the collective power of all countries involved. On shared issues like climate change, this can include all countries, including adversaries like China. On issues that address adversaries, such as Russia as it relates to Ukraine, the U.S. views cooperating with NATO and the EU as beneficial, as collective pressure can be more effective and greater than the sum of its parts. When it comes to U.S. adversaries, especially smaller ones like North Korea, Democrats are more likely to work collectively to isolate them.
While the tools tend to be similar for Republicans (sanctions, etc.), Democrats are more likely to focus on bolstering existing mechanisms to keep the pressure on. Republicans like Trump tend to be more direct. This manifests in more bellicose statements like “fire and fury,” but also results in more direct diplomacy, as seen with the U.S.-DPRK summits. Republicans are more likely to view such summits as necessary and that refusal to engage, despite a poor human rights record, is doomed to fail and simply allows said adversaries to continue building weapons, preparing for conflict, etc. Democrats tend to believe that engaging with them directly acts as a sort of reward and that such countries can simply remain patient. Especially in the case of Trump, Democrats tend to be concerned that countries like the DPRK can get ahead with personal flattery rather than concrete steps like nuclear disarmament.
America First
The 2024 U.S. elections gave Trump a mandate to pursue his brand of foreign policy. He won the popular vote for Republicans for the first time since 2004, and Republicans control all branches of government (albeit by slim margins). Additionally, this will be Trump’s final term per the Constitution. As such, he will seek to leave his mark before departing in 2029. A focus on settling the Israel-Gaza conflict will be a primary focus. Pursuing policy goals that would be significant achievements, even if they are exceedingly unlikely, will continue, such as his goal to gain American control of Greenland.
Regarding Israel-Gaza, it is likely that Trump will effectively green-light just about any actions that Israel wants to take. Trump is likely to support such a strike by the IDF or even order American strikes. Beyond the U.S., other countries and organizations like the EU are likely to further focus on developing their own defense and reducing reliance on the U.S. This is especially true should Trump follow through on his threat to enact sweeping tariffs. In all, the world is likely to continue becoming more multipolar in the coming years. The combination of American hesitancy to intervene abroad, combined with an “America First” trade policy, will mean that most countries, be they U.S. allies or adversaries, will seek to reduce their exposure to U.S. policies.
Caleb Anderson completed his Master's degree at American University School of International Service. His areas of expertise include U.S. Foreign Policy & National Security and International Affairs.
