American Politics &
Foreign Policy
Congressional Sources of USFP
and Societal Sources of USFP
Prof. Jaechun Kim
CONGRESS AND FOREIGN POLICY MAKING

“President proposes, Congress disposes.” President proposes an
agenda and the Congress disposes or votes on the various
proposals.

Congress has been acquiescent in early Cold War era, (Cold War
consensus) but after the Vietnam War, this has changed… Congress
has enacted a number of legislation to place limits on presidential
leadership in FP.

This was a response to the “imperial presidency” of the Vietnam era.

After the Cold War, American public is more tolerant toward
Congressional dissent to presidential foreign policy initiatives. But
after 911 this changes… toward 2008 this changes again!! 
Obama’s victory

But FP power is still vested in the hands of the P.

The problem is that the Congress lacks the will… and other
obstacles…
Obstacles to Congressional Foreign
Policy Making

Parochialism

Congressmen depend for their survival on satisfying
their constituents’ parochial interests; need to attend
more to domestic than to international concerns…

“being national-minded can be a positive hazard to a
legislative career!!!” (Sundquist 1976)

The President’s vantage point is much different.
Broader outlook…


Organizational Weaknesses

Fragmentation of power and responsibility within Congress
(decentralized Congress)

There are over half of the standing committees in both the
House and Senate that have broadly defined jurisdictions
over FP responsibilities.

Consistency and coordination is difficult cf. President
Lack of Expertise and Resources

Think of President’s bureaucratic resources!
Past Relationship bet President and Congress

The Cold War Phase (1945-1968)
•
Mostly Congressional deference to presidential leadership.
the period of the Cold War consensus.. the period of the
bipartisanship.

Accommodation (1943-51)
FDR; Cooperative Federalism; Ascendance of P Gov.

Antagonism (Truman years: 1951-1955)
McCarthyism fell within this period. Who lost China?
Congress - Not happy with limited war in Korea…

Acquiescence (1955-65)

Ambiguity (LBJ vs. Fulbright)

Post-Vietnam Phase

The period of acrimony and period of Congressional
assertiveness…

“Politics stops at the water’s edge”  no longer true after
Nixon… spirit of bipartisanship is lost..

Presidents complaining about “Imperial Congress” during
the Reagan era

“Foreign policy has become almost synonymous with
lawmaking. The result is to place a straitjacket of
legislation around the manifold complexity of our relations
with other nations.” Reagan - “We have got to get to the
point where we can run a foreign policy without a
committee of 535 telling us what we can do”


Post Cold War Phase

Similar to the patterns that developed toward the end of the post
Vietnam phase – struggle between the president and the
Congress over FP.

American public is more tolerant to legislative dissent on foreign
affairs.

While Bush and CLINTON had some success on big issues – the
Gulf War for Bush, NATO expansion and Russian aid for Clinton,
the overall pattern was sharply partisan and antagonistic…
Post 911 Phase


Return of Congressional deference?
Obama Era

After the level-headed assessment of 911, the Congress became
more assertive… still foreign policy making authority is in the
hands of the president
Societal Sources of US Foreign Policy
Political Culture &
the US Foreign Policy Revisited
* What is political culture?
* What is the core American culture or value?

Strong liberal tradition
 The mainstream American political beliefs may be
labeled as (classical) liberalism
 John Locke  Declaration of Independence and
the Constitution
 Adam Smith: invisible hand of the market


Classical democratic theory combined with capitalism
gave rise to a deeply entrenched ideology of
democratic capitalism.

Conservatives = ‘traditional liberals’
Liberal tradition and American foreign policy
behavior

To mobilize support for their (realist) actions abroad
leaders invoke self-determination, self-preservation, or
other liberal ideals and values…

Exceptional American political experience – We are
the chose ones! - Beacon light of democracy;
Americans installed capitalist liberal democracy
without bloodshed or too many conflicts.

Promotion of Democracy has been the main theme
of American foreign policy.

Americans think installing Democratic Capitalism in
other countries is also easy; Change and
developments are easy; all good things go together
(linear relationship between economic and political
development)
* American economic aid  econ develop would beget
political development…

Distributing political power is more important
than accumulating it!

On many occasions American foreign policy
behaviors have been at odds with American
liberal tradition. But they were justified in the
name of seeking loftier goal of promoting (or
protecting) liberal values…
Public Opinion and Foreign Policy

Political participation in democracies - theory and
practice

In democracies mass public does (or should) dictate
policy choices. Public has information and
constraining mechanism…

“Foreign policy does not rest on a definition of the
national interests. It rests on public opinion.”
(Schlesinger 1989)

Does this (liberal democratic) theory operate in
practice?

The nature and impact of American public opinion

Do they make informed choices? Or are they just so
ignorant?
cf. In 1985, about 30 percent of Americans thought that
the Soviet Union and the US fought each other in WWII;
44 percent did not know the two were allies at that time.

“Almond-Lippman” consensus
 The general public is disinterested in foreign policies
and the public opinions regarding foreign policies are
in general volatile and poorly organized and the public
has little impact on the making of foreign policy.
(Almond,1950, 1956; Rosenau,1961; Converse,1964;
Lippmann,1962; Cohen,1973)

“Rational Public” thesis

The public is relatively well-informed in the
matters of foreign policies policy and the public
opinions concerning foreign policies are coherent
and stably structured.

Public opinion influences foreign policy making
processes to a significant extent
(Monroe, 1979; Page & Shapiro, 1983, 1992;
Shapiro & Page, 1994; Russett, 1990; Wittkopf,
1990; Hinckley, 1992).

Normative implications of the debate – Should
public influence making of (American) foreign policy?

Advocates of the Almond-Lippmann model are
skeptical of the public's contribution to foreign
policy making processes. (Mearsheimer, 1990;
Morgenthau, 1960; Kennan, 1984)

The revisionist theories tend to claim that the public
"should" affect the foreign policy making because
of democratic norms and the sound effect of the
public's restraining influence on elite choices.
(Ninic, 1992)
* Are they (mass public) really ignorant?




They are interested in the most salient foreign policy issues of
the nation…. They are able to discriminate among issues…
They are able to hold politically relevant foreign policy beliefs…
beliefs may not be sophisticated, but coherent and relevant…
In collectivity, they are shrewd
Core belief is less susceptible to change
e,g., Contra War in Nicaragua ed.
* How decision-makers perceive and react to public opinion?
 Decision-making elites in general consider the segments of the
public world - the news media and the citizenry alike – as elements
to be ripe for the influenced.
•
Then does (should) elites lead foreign policies?
•
Then does (should) public opinion influence (American)
making of foreign policy???

American military action, casualties, and public
opinion

Mueller's analyses (1973, 1994) of American public
opinion on of the Korean, Vietnam, and Gulf Wars
show that public support for war declined as a
logarithmic function of casualty rates.

Short and decisive military actions which produce
insignificant American casualties have been very
popular…

Democracies win wars they initiate.
Media and US Foreign Policy
* Most of the public's understanding of foreign policy
issues is affected by the media coverage.
* Not only does the mass media transmit information from
decision decision-makers to the public, but it also relays
the public's opinions to its elected representatives
(Seaver, 1998).

The "agenda-reflecting" school
 The media merely reflects or relates the government’s
agenda and passively transmits it to the public
(Carpenter, 1995; Neuman, 1996; Chomsky &
Herman, 1988).

The “Agenda-building” school


Media influences the foreign policy agenda only to the extent
that the public accepts or shares the media’s agenda (Genest,
1995; Robinson, 1999).
National mood and the behavior of the American media

Early Cold War era – lap-dog not watch-dog of the
government

After Vietnam War – rise of muckraking, investigative
journalism