"American presidents always avoid shaking hands with brutal dictators, except when it's advantageous to do so"

American presidents operate within a complex landscape of ideals, public scrutiny, and pragmatic decision-making. The assertion that they “always avoid shaking hands with brutal dictators, except when it's advantageous to do so” points to the tension between professed American values, such as democracy and human rights, and the practical realities of global politics. Publicly, U.S. leaders frequently project an image of moral leadership, distancing themselves from authoritarian regimes and using rhetoric that emphasizes principles over expediency. The handshake, a literal and symbolic gesture, becomes a powerful visual cue representing either endorsement or at least a willingness to engage.

However, historical patterns reveal that these high standards are not uniformly adhered to. When strategic, economic, or security interests are at stake, American presidents have repeatedly recalibrated their stances. Engagement can be rebranded as diplomatic necessity. Photographs of presidents meeting with authoritarian figures, from Stalin and Mao to more contemporary leaders, are emblematic of moments when national interests eclipse ethical considerations. These encounters may open diplomatic channels, foster economic agreements, or further national security objectives. They also provide leverage: sometimes, extending a hand is seen as an opportunity to influence repressive regimes, encourage reforms, or avoid greater conflicts.

Within the American political system, such actions are commonly justified by the complexity of the international environment, where refusing dialogue may lead to isolation or missed opportunities for constructive engagement. Critics often point to hypocrisy, noting a dissonance between what is preached and what is practiced. Yet, presidents, as both representatives and executors of national interests, weigh immediate gains against potential long-term costs to credibility.

Ultimately, the selective nature of these interpersonal gestures reflects an enduring feature of U.S. foreign policy: ideals serve as guiding lights, but are often bent under the weight of geopolitical necessity. American presidents, therefore, negotiate not only with fellow world leaders but also with the expectations of history and their constituents.