Biden needs to define clearer and more attainable outcomes for U.S. foreign policy

The need to transition from lofty rhetoric to actual plans and communications campaigns

It turns out that doing popular things on important issues is a political winner. President Joe Biden’s political standing remains strong in America after more than two months in office, driven by an effective coronavirus vaccine distribution effort and a popular package of economic measures to respond to the pandemic.  

One key to Biden’s early political success has been to manage public expectations on the pandemic and the economy. Biden has underpromised and overdelivered on vaccines, and he has been careful to acknowledge the deep economic pain that millions of Americans continue to experience even as he touted passing the American Rescue Plan.

Biden needs to apply this template to his ambitious foreign policy agenda and set more tangible markers for success. Otherwise, he runs the risk of repeating the mistakes of several of his predecessors by setting the bar too high on national security policy and contributing to a sense that America gets nothing right in the world.  If Biden fails to meet the high expectations he sets or continues to present a vision that is too vague or without a clear sense of priorities, he may be setting himself up for failure. 

Presidents play an important role in laying out a worldview for America’s engagement in the world. But a mistake made by every president in the post-Cold War era has been to lay out big ideas without defining intermediate steps for success or having a real plan to execute the vision. 

Bill Clinton overpromised on how drawing China into the World Trade Organization would benefit America’s economy, and the reverse happened. George W. Bush said America would defeat terrorism by supporting democracy and freedom in the world, but the global democratic recession and backsliding on freedom still underway started on his watch. As a presidential candidate and then in the first few years of his presidency, Barack Obama put forward a set of ideas on a range of issues including ending wars and engaging China to manage its rise, and things didn’t work out the way he planned.  Donald Trump’s foreign policy agenda was erratic and incoherent, and he fell short on a wide range of issues like Iran, North Korea, or achieving his hoped for “Deal of the Century” on Middle East peace.

The lesson from the experiences of the past thirty years isn’t to withdraw from the world and hope things work out for the best. Instead, the key lesson is to mix grandiose visions with more specific and realistic initiatives aimed at leaving behind tangible results and a clear legacy. 

The Biden administration came out of the gate in its first two months with a broad set of policy statements and speeches, all outlining the contours of a foreign policy agenda that would represent a break from the Trump administration on most key issues. That’s a good start, but in order to see the same momentum it has achieved on the domestic front, the Biden team should drill down and present more specific, achievable targets for its foreign policy agenda. It should avoid framing the opportunities in vague, ill-defined ways that most Americans don’t understand, like talking about the central competition in the world as one of “democracies versus autocracies.”  (A good frame for think tanks and universities but not for Main Street).

The “complete denuclearization of  North Korea” is a fine ideal, as called for in a recent statement by the United States, Australia, India, and Japan, but a more effective policy planning and public communications strategy would also set out interim goals that are achievable and practical in working towards that outcome. The same can be said for other efforts to deescalate and resolve conflicts that undermine the international system that have garnered the attention of the Biden team. 

Here are four areas where the Biden administration can drill down and offer more specifics on its emerging foreign policy agenda and communicate this to the American public and world:

1.  Set specific interim goals on the next steps to defeat the COVID-19 pandemic globally. Biden and his team have been disciplined in focusing on defeating the coronavirus at home, with an impending glut of vaccine supplies in America looming in just a few weeks. With some coronavirus cases surging in America again this spring, the country is not out of the woods yet. But the pandemic won’t be defeated until it is tackled in most corners of the world, an effort that will take up a good portion the the first years of the Biden administration. America’s successes in responding to the HIV/AIDS epidemic and Ebola crisis in the past can serve as a model for the next phase of the COVID-19 fight, which will require greater coordination with countries across the entire world.  This could involve working with specific countries to vaccinate a certain number of people by a certain time, the way the Biden team has done in the United States.

2.  Define more precise outcomes of what a “foreign policy for the middle class” does for America’s economy and jobs in particular industries. The instinct behind the phrase a “foreign policy for the middle class” is driven by a recognition that the past few decades of globalization have not been kind to America’s workers.  But the Biden administration needs to present a more specific plan linked to actual policies and programs that aims to create a specific number of jobs.  Otherwise, the phrase risks becoming yet another catch phrase or slogan like “smart power,” “economic statecraft,” or “America First” that falls into the dustbin of U.S. foreign policy propaganda.  The plan should include increased public investments in and incentives for research and development in manufacturing industries such as semiconductors that are the centerpiece of global economic and technological competition. 

3. Avoid vague phrases like “forever wars” and “endless wars” and set clearer targets such as ceasefires and power-sharing agreements.  In places like Afghanistan and Libya, there are slightly better-defined pathways toward ending conflicts than in places like Yemen and Syria.  Defining success in resolving complicated conflicts like the latter two requires more attention to diplomacy and and less fixation on troop withdrawal deadlines. 

4.  Get out of the bubbles of Washington D.C. and other large cities to talk with wider audiences affected by U.S. foreign policy.  As the coronavirus pandemic recedes in America over the next year, the Biden administration should proactively engage Americans in communications efforts outside of the usual corridors of power on foreign policy.  Farmers, centers for green energy, health, and technology research, unions, and higher education all are affected by how the United States engages the rest of the world.

The Biden administration has done a good job laying out the contours of its overall foreign policy ambitions in its first two months, much like the Obama administration did in its first year in office. But to maintain momentum and win public support at home for its initiatives abroad, it needs to define more specific targets of what it seeks to achieve on key foreign policy issues and get out of the usual bubbles to tell Americans how progress in these areas will enhance their personal lives.