The Golden Rule in Crisis

Rebuilding Democracy at Home and Abroad

Most of us who have cultivated cherished relationships over fences with our neighbors have a pretty good understanding of the golden rule. We understand that they are our partners and that caring for the people in communities around us is not just morally right but also necessary for building a stronger and more resilient future. For the United States, the partnerships with our North American neighbors are not just strategic; they are foundational. Sharing borders means cooperating to share challenges and opportunities, acting both in good faith and out of concern for the sake of living in a world where our shared ideals are upheld.

However, over the course of history, these relationships have not always been managed with care. In current context, the first Trump administration’s approach to its neighbors marked a departure from neighborliness and traditional diplomacy, often relying on combative rhetoric and unilateral actions. Today, echoes of that approach remain visible with round two, particularly in decisions like the recent deployment of U.S. troops to the southern border—a move that highlights both ongoing security concerns and the fragile nature of trust in U.S.-Mexico relations. But what we’re seeing goes well beyond all that. It represents, at best, a gross misunderstanding of how the democratic ideals this country is supposed to represent are connected to just how we remain secure.

The ferocity of movement on border policy, immigration raids and destruction of practices  ensuring diversity of experience and thought in the workplace and broader culture reflects a broader trend: the prioritization of so-called “security” over humanity, fear over compassion, and short-term political expediency over long-term stability. Recent executive orders have dismantled federal Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs, with private sector firms like Meta and Target following suit by ending their own DEI initiatives. These actions have the potential to divide and marginalize communities, undermining the principles of inclusivity and equality that are fundamental to a healthy democracy. These domestic stances mirror international decisions like the 2020 Doha Agreement and the subsequent withdrawal from Afghanistan, where similar short-term thinking resulted in destabilization and human suffering. In both cases, the golden rule—acting in good faith and with mutual respect—was ignored. These actions, both at home and abroad, reveal a troubling pattern: the erosion of democratic ideals in favor of divisive, short-sighted policies. Whether it’s the dismantling of DEI initiatives or the exclusion of Afghan stakeholders in the Doha Agreement, the failure to prioritize compassion, inclusivity, and collaboration undermines the principles that should guide both domestic and international decisions. The consequences of this approach are stark, as seen in Afghanistan, where the exclusion of key voices and lack of foresight created a vacuum of governance and stability. 

The 2020 Doha Agreement, negotiated between the Trump administration and the Taliban, excluded Afghan stakeholders and set the stage for the country’s collapse. By agreeing to the release of 5,000 Taliban prisoners and outlining a timeline for U.S. troop withdrawal without enforceable guarantees for women’s rights or governmental stability, the agreement ceded significant leverage to the Taliban. The chaotic withdrawal in 2021 compounded these missteps, leaving Afghanistan’s government unsupported and its people—particularly women—vulnerable to the Taliban’s swift takeover. What followed has been nothing short of a humanitarian crisis, and now women are facing systematic exclusion from education, work, and public life.

Yet, despite these alarming developments, Afghanistan’s direct strategic importance to the U.S. is being sidelined in favor of broader regional strategies to counter China and Russia. While the administration has shown renewed interest in Central Asia through the Trans-Caspian Transport Corridor and monitoring Afghanistan via neighboring states, these actions reflect a security-first framework that fails to address the governance vacuum and human rights abuses in Afghanistan itself. This strategic myopia enables continued instability, which inevitably undermines global and domestic security.

The erosion of democratic ideals abroad is mirrored in domestic policies. Deploying troops to the U.S.-Mexico border as a solution to migration ignores the root causes—economic instability, violence, and climate change—while fostering division and dehumanization. These actions, like the exclusionary policies of the Doha Agreement, contradict the golden rule by prioritizing militarized responses over collaborative, humane solutions. Just as the U.S.’s actions in Afghanistan abandoned vulnerable populations, its treatment of both citizens and migrants at home reflects a failure to uphold democratic values and human rights.

Restoring that leadership requires bridging the divide between domestic and foreign policy. Democracy must be applied consistently, whether dealing with migrants at the border or addressing governance failures abroad. The militarized response to migration reflects a fear-driven approach that contradicts democratic values, just as abandoning Afghanistan without ensuring protections for women and vulnerable populations reveals a lack of commitment to those same values on the international stage. To regain credibility, the U.S. must lead with compassion, collaboration, and a commitment to the principles it claims to champion.

This means rethinking immigration policies to address the root causes of migration rather than merely reacting to its symptoms. It means supporting multilateral efforts like the International Criminal Court’s pursuit of justice for gender apartheid in Afghanistan, demonstrating a willingness to uphold accountability and human rights globally. And it means adopting long-term strategies that prioritize cooperation over unilateralism in both domestic and foreign policy contexts.

While it’s tempting to pray for some magic hero to ride in and fix everything, that’s a mistake we’ve made too often. Believe it or not, this isn’t a call to the center, left, or right—instead it’s a rallying cry to transcend such labels for this particularly urgent moment in time—to put our heads together over shared values before we lose the value in being able to claim such labels at all.

Ultimately, restoring America’s moral leadership starts with policies that incorporate the perspectives of those who they affect most. This means engaging with communities—both domestic and international—that bear the brunt of these decisions. It requires fostering trust not only with neighbors across fences and borders but also with allies across oceans. Policies rooted in empathy and collaboration are not just moral imperatives; they are strategic necessities in an interconnected world where instability anywhere can ripple outward. Only by bridging the gap between its democratic ideals and its policies can the United States foster the partnerships and multilateral collaborations essential to building a more just and stable world. This demands moving beyond short-sighted decisions driven by fear or expediency and embracing long-term solutions grounded in shared values. Whether across fences or continents, these solutions must reflect a commitment to justice and mutual respect—the very principles that underpin both democracy and security. The challenges we face—migration crises, governance failures, human rights abuses—are complex and interwoven. The work of restoring moral leadership begins with the work of actual leadership—not with grand gestures and platitudes, but with the hammering out of policies that are based upon principles that underpin both democracy and security. Only through such deliberate alignment can the United States foster the partnerships and multilateral collaborations essential to addressing the complex, interwoven challenges of our time.