Kinds of Foreign Policy. Majoritarian Politics. • Most foreign policy matters involve
majoritarian politics (widespread benefits, widespread costs). Examples would ...
Kinds of Foreign Policy
Majoritarian Politics • Most foreign policy matters involve majoritarian politics (widespread benefits, widespread costs). Examples would include: war, military alliances, nuclear test-‐ban treaties, and specific events like President Kennedy’s response to the Cuban Missile Crisis or President Obama’s decision to kill Osama bin Laden (covert operations). • Whether or not you support these decisions, or they turn out well or badly, they involve (or put at stake) national security and cost all of us not only financially (defense budget) but also in terms of our national reputation. Interest Group Politics • Some foreign policy decisions involve interest group politics, with identifiable groups pitted against one another for costs and benefits. • Tariff policy would be the best example of this: a tariff placed on Japanese steel, for example, would benefit the US steel industry and certain labor unions (United Steel Workers), but would hurt other industries and labor unions (i.e., the automobile industry and the UAW) that rely on cheap steel. • The battle over such policies will remain largely unnoticed by the general public but will be fiercely fought by the involved groups. This area of foreign policy may involve Congress as much or more than the president. Client Politics • Client politics confer concentrated benefits to certain groups or countries while keeping the costs so widespread as to seem imperceptible (or at least, so widespread that they are not borne by any specific identifiable group). • Government assistance to corporations doing business abroad would be one example of client politics—the aid is targeted at those particular corporations with the costs distributed among all taxpayers. SBA
Entrepreneurial Politics • Occasionally, foreign policy involves entrepreneurial politics (widely distributed benefits, concentrated costs). Examples would include when a multinational corporation is exposed for corruption, pollution or human rights violations and Congress places sanctions on them, or when a government faces sanctions for human rights violations. • The benefits in these situations are hopefully improvements in human rights or environmental conditions, and also an improved image for the United States internationally.
The Constitutional and Legal Context
The Constitution creates an “invitation to struggle.” • Like so much else involving our system of checks and balances, foreign policy as well involves a struggle between the President and Congress. • The President is Commander-‐in-‐Chief, but Congress appropriates the defense budget. • The President appoints ambassadors, but the Senate must confirm them. • The President negotiates treaties, but the Senate must ratify them. • Despite these constitutional realities, most Americans perceive the president to be “in charge” of foreign policy, and history for the most part confirms this. The Presidential “Box Score” • Presidents are relatively stronger in foreign affairs (versus Congress) than they are in domestic politics. There are a host of examples of presidents exerting unilateral authority in international diplomacy or the deployment of American troops, from Jefferson and the Barbary Pirates or Polk deploying troops to the banks of the Rio Grande through George HW Bush sending troops to Panama in 1989 to depose dictator Manuel Noriega, Clinton ordering air strikes on Bosnian Serbs in 1999, and President Obama authorizing the assault on Osama bin Laden’s compound last year.
•
On the other hand, in an international context, presidents are comparatively weak in foreign affairs; other heads of state find it frustrating to realize the degree to which U.S. presidents are constrained. For example, Presidents Wilson and Roosevelt were unable to ally with Great Britain before we entered World Wars I and II; Wilson was unable to bring the US into the League of Nations; and Reagan faced a major scandal when his administration was discovered to be selling arms to Iran and funneling the proceeds to Nicaraguan rebels against a Congressional mandate (Iran-‐Contra scandal).
Evaluating the Power of the President • How powerful or weak a president may seem, and how you feel about the degree of power that a president exercises, often depends on whether one agrees or disagrees with his policies. • The Supreme Court has consistently granted the federal government wide powers in international affairs and has been reluctant to intervene in disputes between Congress and the President. Examples include Nixon’s enlargement of the Vietnam War; Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus during the Civil War; and, most dramatically, FDR’s Japanese relocation. Checks on Presidential Power • Checks on presidential powers are primarily political rather than constitutional. • Some examples include: Congress has the “power of the purse,” and Congressional limitations on the president’s ability to give military or economic aid to other countries (such as the ban on aid to the Contras, or the House vote to ban aid to Libyan rebels). Libya • Other attempts to rein in presidential military power, such as the War Powers Act (1973) are dubious constitutionally and have never been successfully utilized.
