Clarity, Not Volatility, Should Define America’s Posture in the World

While the world has left the unipolar moment, the United States still carries enormous weight in the international system. Dramatic technological changes are looming, but it is unclear how they will play out and with what consequences. Alliances and institutions are coming under growing stress, but the results thus far have been fragmentation and diffusion rather than any clear new order. In the face of this extraordinary fluidity, the United States faces two core challenges in its 250th year that will shape its future position in the global order.

The first is whether the United States will retain its global position as a country that people want to move to, study in, and visit. For all its faults, the United States has long been a destination of choice. People around the world have wanted for themselves or for their children to be in the United States, permanently or temporarily, because of its historic cultural power, educational institutions, job opportunities, and openness to immigration.

Its desirability has given the United States an unusual form of power in the world, even among those who deeply disagree with its foreign policy choices. While there is reasonable disagreement over precisely how to preserve the country’s power of attraction, an inward-looking, xenophobic, and stagnant American society risks destroying the nation’s position as a welcoming, open, dynamic country—one that has helped America attract extraordinarily motivated and capable people and given the nation a remarkable advantage against demographic decline and economic stagnation. 

The second challenge has to do with America’s approach to policy abroad: How can the United States balance a desire to stake out reliable commitments without losing the ability to flexibly adjust to changing goals and constraints? The country has seen the perils of staking out extremes under President Joe Biden and President Donald Trump.

Biden sought to rebuild a world of tight alliances and unambiguous commitments. In doing so, he risked either committing limited American power to overly ambitious goals or being manipulated by smaller allies. While being seen as a credible and consistent nation has obvious appeals, trying to recreate the American dominance of the 1990s is a doomed effort. Washington must accept that the world is—and will continue to become—a fundamentally different place.

Since taking office, Trump has swung far in the opposite direction, creating extraordinary uncertainty about America’s commitments to ally and partner nations that is likely to be deeply counterproductive. There are no certainties under his leadership and little sense of credibility or consistency. This has proved to be a strong incentive for countries around the world to start hedging against an increasingly unstable, mercurial America—especially for powers not already dependent on American protection. While their leaders seek to maintain good ties with Washington, moving toward greater reliance on the United States appears to be a dangerous and unappealing gamble.

It is difficult to build a stable system that favors American power when no one can trust the United States to ever make meaningful commitments. While countries may buckle under American coercion in the short term, they will seek ways to reduce their vulnerability in the long run. Moving forward, American policymakers, in dialogue with the public, need to establish a more workable balance between stability and flexibility—carefully pursuing retrenchment from commitments that are no longer viable, while unambiguously identifying and protecting core interests. Clarity, rather than volatility, should define America’s posture in the world in its 250th year, and beyond.