Meaning: The quote "American presidents always avoid shaking hands with brutal dictators, except when it's advantageous to do so" by Elizabeth Sherman, an educator, captures the complex and often controversial nature of diplomatic relations between the United States and authoritarian regimes. This statement reflects the delicate balance that American presidents must navigate when engaging with brutal dictators, weighing the moral and ethical considerations against strategic and diplomatic interests.

Throughout history, American presidents have grappled with the decision of whether to engage with brutal dictators. On one hand, there is a strong moral imperative to condemn and isolate leaders who commit human rights abuses and suppress democratic freedoms. Shaking hands with such leaders can be seen as a tacit endorsement of their oppressive actions, and can undermine the United States' commitment to upholding human rights and democratic values on the global stage.

However, there are also strategic and diplomatic considerations that may lead presidents to engage with brutal dictators when it is deemed advantageous. In some cases, diplomatic engagement with authoritarian regimes may be pursued in an effort to achieve specific policy goals, such as advancing peace negotiations, addressing security concerns, or promoting economic interests. Additionally, engaging with brutal dictators may be seen as a means of exerting influence and leverage to encourage reforms or mitigate human rights abuses.

The quote also points to the complexities and contradictions inherent in U.S. foreign policy. While there is a longstanding tradition of promoting democracy and human rights, American presidents have at times found it necessary to engage with authoritarian leaders for pragmatic reasons. This tension between principles and pragmatism has been a recurring theme in U.S. foreign policy, and has led to contentious debates over the ethical implications of engaging with brutal dictators.

One of the most notable examples of a U.S. president engaging with a brutal dictator is the historic meeting between President Richard Nixon and Chinese Communist leader Mao Zedong in 1972. Despite Mao's repressive regime and human rights abuses, Nixon's administration saw the opening of diplomatic relations with China as a strategic move to counter the influence of the Soviet Union and advance U.S. interests in the region. The meeting between the two leaders marked a significant shift in U.S. foreign policy and demonstrated the willingness of American presidents to engage with brutal dictators for strategic purposes.

Another example is the controversial relationship between the United States and Saudi Arabia. Despite the Saudi government's record of human rights abuses and repression, successive U.S. administrations have maintained close ties with the kingdom due to its strategic importance in the Middle East, particularly in relation to oil, counterterrorism efforts, and regional stability. This has sparked criticism and condemnation from human rights advocates and some policymakers who argue that the U.S. should take a stronger stance against Saudi Arabia's human rights violations.

In recent years, the issue of engaging with brutal dictators has come to the forefront in U.S. foreign policy, particularly in the context of relations with North Korea, Russia, and other authoritarian regimes. The approach taken by each administration towards such dictators has varied, reflecting different assessments of the benefits and risks of engagement.

In conclusion, Elizabeth Sherman's quote highlights the nuanced and challenging decisions that American presidents face when it comes to engaging with brutal dictators. The tension between upholding moral principles and pursuing strategic interests has been a recurring theme in U.S. foreign policy, and continues to shape diplomatic relations with authoritarian regimes. The quote serves as a reminder of the complex considerations that underlie diplomatic engagements with brutal dictators and the enduring debate over the ethical implications of such interactions.