Muslim World Report

Diverging Values: Biden vs. Trump Voters in the 2020 Election

Dr. Anthony Lindsay | Jun 9, 2025 10:14 AM | 7 min read | 1299 words

TL;DR: A recent study highlights stark differences between Biden and Trump voters, reflecting deep societal fractures in America. Biden supporters prioritize care, fairness, compassion, and justice, while Trump voters emphasize purity and personal liberty. These divergent values profoundly influence American policies and global relations, shaping the future of international interactions.

The Divided Values of America: Implications for a Global Landscape

A recent study analyzing the divergent values between voters for Joe Biden and Donald Trump during the 2020 presidential election reveals a critical and often overlooked dimension of American society. The findings are not merely academic; they reflect the undercurrents shaping contemporary political discourse, policy decisions, and, consequently, America’s role on the global stage (Feinberg & Willer, 2015). The stark contrast between Biden supporters’ prioritization of:

  • Care
  • Fairness
  • Compassion
  • Justice

against Trump supporters’ emphasis on:

  • Purity
  • Personal Liberty

signifies deep societal fractures that resonate far beyond America’s borders. This fragmentation influences global political dynamics, international relations, and the ongoing struggle against imperialism.

As the world grapples with complex challenges—such as climate change, international conflicts, and socio-economic disparities—the fragmentation of the American political landscape poses both risks and opportunities. The implications of these contrasting value systems permeate various realms, including:

  • Trade policies influenced by Trump’s worldview
  • Humanitarian efforts potentially guided by Biden’s perspectives

Insights from this study compel us to reconsider how the U.S. frames its identity and purpose, particularly concerning predominantly Muslim countries that have often borne the brunt of American foreign policies (Henrich, Heine, & Norenzayan, 2010).

What If Biden’s Values Become Dominant?

Should Biden’s values of care, fairness, compassion, and justice increasingly prevail in American policy-making, the implications for global relations could be profound. This ascendant value system emphasizes:

  • Social Equity
  • Human Rights
  • Environmental Justice

Aligning American diplomacy with a vision of international solidarity. If these ideals are fully realized, we might witness a transformative foreign policy focused on mitigating historical injustices inflicted upon countries in the Global South—especially those with substantial Muslim populations—who have often suffered under interventionist policies (Couture & Sanjur, 1982).

Such a shift would necessitate a:

  • Reevaluation of military spending
  • Redirecting resources from arms deals toward humanitarian aid

A foreign policy aligned with compassion could prioritize:

  • Educational initiatives
  • Healthcare access
  • Sustainable development

This would foster relations based on mutual respect and collaboration, rather than coercive power dynamics (Lacy, 2001). For Muslim-majority nations, this could pave the way for transformative partnerships that recognize their agency and aspirations, moving beyond historical narratives of domination (Fridkin Kahn, 1994).

However, this idealistic scenario raises profound questions about legitimacy. Would compassion translate into actionable policies, or remain mere rhetoric? If the Biden administration fails to address systemic biases and inequalities within its borders, its outreach efforts abroad may face skepticism. A consistent and genuine commitment to these values is essential; otherwise, the international community could perceive such actions as patronizing or hypocritical (Citrin & Green, 1986).

Ultimately, if America adopts a genuinely compassionate approach to foreign policy, it could reshape the global narrative surrounding Islam. This would allow for a more nuanced understanding that transcends stereotypes and fosters genuine intercultural dialogue, facilitating a renewed commitment to addressing historical grievances (Rowley & Schneider, 2004).

What If Trump’s Ideology Gains Further Ground?

The potential entrenchment of Trump supporters’ worldview—focused on purity, personal liberty, and cultural protectionism—could have alarming consequences for both American society and the global community (Hayes, 2005). This ideology, emphasizing a defensive nationalism, may lead to an increasingly isolationist stance, where America retreats within itself while attempting to shield its cultural identity against perceived external threats. Such a shift could:

  • Exacerbate existing tensions with Muslim-majority countries
  • Frame immigration from these regions as a security risk (Huddy & Terkildsen, 1993)

The narrative that paints Muslims as a monolithic threat could gain traction, resulting in heightened scrutiny and discrimination against Muslim communities both domestically and internationally. This undermines alliances and reinvigorates xenophobic sentiments worldwide. The global repercussions would extend beyond mere diplomatic relations; as America adopts a more insular posture, the vacuum left in international leadership could:

  • Embolden authoritarian regimes
  • Disrupt international norms
  • Diminish collective action on pressing issues like climate change and humanitarian crises (Paul, 2022)

Moreover, the potential hypocrisy inherent in Trump’s ideology—championing liberty while infringing upon the rights of marginalized communities—could result in increased unrest both within the U.S. and abroad. If the U.S. continues to proclaim personal liberty while suppressing voices advocating for social justice, it risks amplifying narratives that delegitimize its democracy. Such a turn could prompt a resurgence of anti-American sentiment globally, reinforcing critiques articulated by many in the Muslim world (Brennen & Hardt, 2000).

Strategic Maneuvers: Navigating the Future

In light of these diverging scenarios, a strategic approach from all stakeholders is essential to navigate the complexities of contemporary global politics. Understanding the differing values between Biden and Trump supporters provides an opportunity for broader discussions about:

  • Identity
  • Justice
  • Solidarity among nations (Kriesi et al., 2006)

For those aligned with the values of compassion and social justice, the challenge will be to ensure that American foreign policy reflects these ideals consistently.

Engaging with Muslim-majority countries through partnerships focused on:

  • Shared values such as environmental sustainability, education, and healthcare

could foster goodwill and mutual respect. Advocacy for policy reforms prioritizing humanitarian aid over military intervention will be crucial in rebuilding trust (Zimerman, Kiss, & Hossain, 2011). Conversely, those resonating with Trump’s emphasis on personal liberty and purity must critically examine how these principles manifest on the global stage. Recognizing shared human rights and promoting interfaith dialogues could facilitate a more stable global environment.

Moreover, civil society organizations, grassroots movements, and transnational networks should capitalize on moments of division. By fostering dialogue, reducing stereotypes, and building coalitions based on shared interests, they can work to bridge gaps created by opposing value systems. This will require strategic alliances transcending national borders, focusing on common struggles that unite diverse populations.

The exploration of values highlighted in the 2020 election serves as both a challenge and an opportunity. The diverging paths of American political ideologies promise to shape the future of global interactions. It falls upon all actors—governments, civil society, and individuals—to consciously navigate these narratives, seeking pathways that promote justice, equity, and understanding in an increasingly interconnected world.

References

  • Abrahamsen, R. (2005). Blair’s Africa: The Politics of Securitization and Fear. Alternatives Global Local Political.
  • Brennan, B., & Hardt, H. (2000). Picturing the past: media, history, and photography. Choice Reviews Online.
  • Citrin, J., & Green, D. P. (1986). Presidential Leadership and the Resurgence of Trust in Government. British Journal of Political Science.
  • Couture, K. A., & Sanjur, D. (1982). Social and Cultural Perspectives in Nutrition. AJN American Journal of Nursing.
  • Feinberg, M., & Willer, R. (2015). From Gulf to Bridge. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin.
  • Fridkin Kahn, K. (1994). Does Gender Make a Difference? An Experimental Examination of Sex Stereotypes and Press Patterns in Statewide Campaigns. American Journal of Political Science.
  • Hayes, D. (2005). Candidate Qualities through a Partisan Lens: A Theory of Trait Ownership. American Journal of Political Science.
  • Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences.
  • Huddy, L., & Terkildsen, N. (1993). Gender Stereotypes and the Perception of Male and Female Candidates. American Journal of Political Science.
  • Kriesi, H., Grande, E., Lachat, R., Dolezal, M., Bornschier, S., & Frey, T. (2006). Globalization and the transformation of the national political space: Six European countries compared. European Journal of Political Research.
  • Lacy, E. C. (2001). Changing Race: Latinos, the Census, and the History of Ethnicity in the United States. Hispanic American Historical Review.
  • Paul, T. V. (2022). The Specter of Deglobalization. Current History.
  • Rowley, C. K., & Schneider, F. (2004). The Encyclopedia of public choice. Choice Reviews Online.
  • Zimerman, C., Kiss, L., & Hossain, M. (2011). Migration and Health: A Framework for 21st Century Policy-Making. PLoS Medicine.
← Prev Next →