Televised debates have become a major part of the American presidential campaign, but no one has really understood why they are so important. Millions of viewers watch the debates, and they seem to shape the public image of the candidates, especially when a criticism lands at the right time (Ronald Reagan’s “there you go again”) or an outrageous faux pas occurs (Gerald Ford’s “there is no Soviet dominance in Eastern Europe”).
But policy is rarely discussed in debates because time is limited and the emphasis is on articulating a simple, compelling position. Foreign policy is a particularly rare focus in debates, and much of what is said on the subject often distorts more than it illuminates. But this week’s debate between former President Donald Trump and President Joe Biden may be an exception.
Since the first televised debate between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon in 1960, presidential candidates have generally agreed on the basic tenets of American foreign policy: containment of communist opponents, commitment to a vibrant Western alliance, a dominant U.S. global presence, and open markets for American trade and investment. Candidates vied to see who could articulate these positions most eloquently, while accusing their opponents of incompetence and lack of commitment. Kennedy, for example, criticized Nixon for his role in the Eisenhower administration, which he called weak for allowing a supposed “missile gap” with the Soviet Union. Reagan similarly attacked Jimmy Carter for allegedly “coddling” Moscow while its military power grew.
Reagan and Carter, like Kennedy and Nixon, agreed that they should stand strong against the Soviet Union and strengthen American power abroad. They debated who was better able to do this, and their arguments were not about strategy, tactics, or details. Their debates, like most others, were about character and image. Who was stronger, smarter, and more determined to achieve common goals in a dangerous world? Who was more reliable and courageous in the face of danger and distraction?
These remained the basic parameters for post-Cold War debates, even when George W. Bush and John Kerry debated the Iraq War in 2004 and when Barack Obama and Mitt Romney debated the War on Terror in 2012. Each of the candidates claimed they would make the United States stronger and more effective at defeating the same adversaries. They used different words but said essentially the same thing. Their debates were about posturing, not policy analysis.
The same could be said of recent tête-à-têtes. For all the differences between Trump and Hillary Clinton in 2016 and Biden in 2020, the candidates shared an unwavering commitment to American global dominance, open markets, and key alliances. While they differed significantly on how they intended to achieve these goals, the world they envisioned remained one of U.S. military and economic hegemony. Clinton, Trump, and Biden spoke of themselves as strong leaders who rejected any suggestion of a restrained and modest U.S. international role. They disagreed, above all, on who would be stronger.
The first presidential debate of the year will be different—perhaps unlike any before it. Although restraint and modesty are anathema to Trump, he and his supporters have staked out a foreign policy position that challenges Biden’s core objectives. The current president has vigorously defended NATO and other traditional American alliances, he has condemned Russian aggression, he has supported extensive military aid to Ukraine, and he has spoken eloquently about Washington’s traditional role as a promoter of democracy around the world. These positions will be familiar to past presidents. Since 2021, Trump has espoused these positions more forcefully than any candidate (and former president) since Herbert Hoover: He has condemned American alliances, apologized for Russian aggression, rejected military aid to Ukraine, and, most astonishingly, denied that the United States should even care about spreading democracy abroad.
The contrast between Biden’s internationalism and Trump’s isolationism is greater than at any time in the history of televised presidential debates. They differ fundamentally on American interests, threats and opportunities. While the language of foreign policy debates in the past focused on who could pursue common goals with more force, the current rhetoric revolves around what those goals should be: a global America or a fortress America.
The only major foreign policy area on which the candidates agree, and whose implementation they will argue over rather than over goals, is protecting American companies from unfair foreign competition, particularly from China, through tariffs and other protectionist measures. Free trade, a cornerstone of American foreign policy until at least 2012, has been rejected by both candidates. They will argue over who can better protect U.S. industry, especially in swing states, who will not open markets, or who will work better with the widely despised World Trade Organization.
Beyond trade, and unlike most previous presidential debates, fundamental foreign policy goals are likely to be a major theme on the stage for Biden and Trump. Moderators will almost certainly ask about the wars in Ukraine and Gaza, and the candidates’ answers will reveal the depth of their differences over core concepts of American foreign policy.
Biden will defend American support for Ukraine as essential to the Western alliance and global democracy. He will condemn Trump for denying threats to American security from Russia and China, undermining U.S. credibility abroad, and abandoning the global defense of democracy. Biden will champion the restoration of American power and prestige, painting a picture of a new Cold War in which the United States can and must lead, following the model of the past 70 years.
Trump will deny all of this and condemn defenders of mainstream foreign policy goals as traitors. He will argue for American strength, but in an overtly unilateral way. He will also deny American interests in defending Ukraine, NATO, and other allies. He will point to agreements with dictators—in Russia, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, and sometimes China—that bring immediate benefits to Americans at home. And he will promise to use overwhelming military force, including nuclear weapons, when it suits the United States alone.
The fundamental differences between Biden and Trump are most apparent when asked about the war in Gaza. Biden represents the traditional American position of strong support for Israel and advocacy for Palestinian human rights through a two-state solution. Trump rejects any serious political voice for the Palestinians, and his support for Israel is more militaristic. He has no interest in acting as an honest broker in the troubled region. Trump is the first serious presidential candidate to pursue a one-state solution with little or no Palestinian representation.
No one can predict how voters will respond to these arguments in Thursday’s debate, but we can expect a very different foreign policy debate than any before. Although domestic issues will likely take up more time, foreign policy issues will be at the forefront, highlighting some key policy differences that go beyond rhetoric and posturing. The candidates represent two different foreign policies, and that should be more evident in the debate than ever before.
Biden and Trump will not reveal many details about how they will implement their different policies in the debate, but the American public should be more aware of the foreign policy options of the election. That will make all the difference.
