Biden’s “Reset” Strategy Faces Critique in New Book on Global Democracy

In a comprehensive new book titled “Autocrats vs. Democrats: China, Russia, America, and the New Global Disorder,” Stanford professor Michael McFaul explores the ongoing tensions between democratic and authoritarian regimes that define today’s geopolitical landscape.

The book arrives at a critical moment when President Biden has framed international relations as a struggle between democratic and autocratic systems. This framing dates back to February 2021, when Biden told the Virtual Munich Security Conference that “we’re at an inflection point” between those who believe autocracy is the path forward and those who see democracy as essential to meeting global challenges.

McFaul, who served as U.S. Ambassador to Russia and National Security Council director for Russian and Eurasian Affairs under President Obama, has long been involved in U.S.-Russia relations. He was notably connected to the Obama administration’s 2009 “reset” policy with Russia, symbolized by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s presentation of a physical “reset” button to Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov.

That diplomatic gesture became infamous when the Russian translation on the button mistakenly read “overload” rather than “reset” – an error attributed to McFaul, though he was not a professional translator. The incident foreshadowed the unsuccessful nature of the reset policy that followed.

Critics suggest McFaul’s new book represents another failed attempt at “resetting” – this time trying to revitalize what he calls “the liberal international economic order” after three decades of post-Cold War geopolitical complications. The narrative of democracies versus autocracies has become a central justification for U.S. foreign policy under Biden, who has consistently portrayed American military support for Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan as essential to democracy’s global survival.

A significant critique of McFaul’s framework is the book’s apparent lack of clear definitions for its central concepts – democracy and autocracy. This omission allows readers to fill these terms with their own meanings while potentially obscuring contradictions in U.S. foreign policy. The United States maintains close relationships with nations that McFaul’s own criteria would classify as autocracies, including Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Kuwait – all designated as Major Non-NATO Allies.

This inconsistency reveals what some analysts call the “McFaul Doctrine” – distinguishing between autocracies willing to cooperate with U.S. interests and those that refuse. In the author’s own words, regarding Russia in the 1990s and early 2000s, “the more important question was whether Russia would consolidate democracy and remain inside our tent.”

The critique suggests the central concern isn’t about democratic values but rather about maintaining U.S. global influence. Russia and China’s refusal to accept U.S. leadership, rather than their governance systems alone, represents their primary transgression in this worldview.

At over 500 pages, “Autocrats vs. Democrats” provides a detailed examination of today’s international order from McFaul’s perspective. While avoiding the aggressive rhetoric often associated with neoconservative writers, the book presents a defense of American-led internationalism at a time when that order faces unprecedented challenges both domestically and abroad.

For readers seeking to understand the intellectual framework behind current U.S. foreign policy, McFaul’s book offers valuable insights, even as critics question whether its underlying narrative oversimplifies complex geopolitical realities in service of American strategic interests.