Long-Essay Question I. Basic Structure of Government The system of separation of powers, as defined in the Constitution, is a system in which three branches of government—the executive, legislative, and judicial—act independently of each other, a system designed to prevent abuse of power. Thanks to this system, each branch can impact foreign policy: The legislative branch is responsible for making the laws that govern foreign policy, the executive branch is responsible for enforcing and executing those laws, and the judicial branch is responsible for interpreting those laws, a power first established in Marbury v. Madison, ensuring that they are being implemented fairly and consistently. Moreover, by having multiple branches involved in the decision-making process, the separation of powers helps ensure that foreign policy is conducted with a degree of deliberation and consideration, and particularly, that it is conducted by the will of the people rather than the whims of any one individual or faction, which was a principal concern for Madison, as he expressed in Federalist No. 10. Foreign policy is thus accountable to the people and is conducted in a manner that is consistent with the values of the nation. “Checks and balances” refers to the system of accountability, where each branch can check and limit the power of the other branches so that no one branch can become too powerful. This system builds on the separation of powers as it ensures that all branches can equally participate in formulating and implementing foreign policy. Looking from the perspective of the president, many would consider him the primary decision-maker of foreign policy (see below), yet not only can people refuse to comply with the president’s orders, as Naustad argues, but other branches of government have powers to control the president’s apparent dominance in foreign policy. For instance, Congress can make laws that regulate the president’s actions in foreign policy and approve treaties that he/she has negotiated; the Supreme Court can, in turn, review the constitutionality of those laws passed by Congress or make sure directly that the president’s decisions are in line with laws and the Constitution. Additionally, the system of checks and balances ensures that foreign policy does not become too aggressive or too weak, as other branches can check the president if he/she is overly aggressive or too passive in his/her approach, thus ensuring that foreign policy is balanced. Federalism is the constitutional division of power between the federal government and the individual states. Its combination with the system of checks and balances creates a significant “double security,” first proposed by Madison in Federalist No. 51. Because states have the power to make their own laws and regulations, federalism allows them to take an independent stance on foreign policy issues, even when the federal government has a different opinion. Although this can create tension between the state and federal government, a disadvantage of federalism with which Peterson would concur, it also allows for a diversity of viewpoints that can benefit the US in foreign relations. Through the federalist system of checks and balances, the federal government cannot simply pass laws without the states’ approval, which helps ensure that any foreign policy decisions are made with consideration for all sides, as well as allowing states to take action when the federal government is unable or unwilling to do so. Moreover, through federalism, the government demonstrates a commitment to democracy, that it is not a single-minded country, which gives the US more credibility in international negotiations since other countries are more likely to trust a government that is willing to listen to all sides. II. Political Institutions & Other Influences Congress plays an integral role in shaping foreign policy, as it sets the framework for the nation’s foreign policy, within which the president and executive branch must operate. Congress has the power to set the terms and conditions of foreign relations by passing legislation and approving treaties, like approving foreign aid, imposing economic sanctions, and authorizing military force. For example, Congress approved the sale of arms to Saudi Arabia in 2017 and used economic sanctions against Russia and Iran in recent years. Congress also has the power to limit or restrict the president’s ability to conduct foreign policy, such as the passage of the War Powers Act, which required the president to seek congressional approval before deploying military forces. However, Appelbaum would argue that this lack of compromise and cooperation between the two branches would cause gridlock, which could jeopardize the success of later foreign policy. What is more, Congress holds hearings to ensure that the State Department is conducting foreign relations according to the wishes of the American people and can investigate the foreign policy decisions of the president and his/her advisors, calling for change if necessary. Still, Spalding would argue that the bureaucracy and the executive branch are still more influential in foreign policymaking since Congress has foolishly given away its law-making authority to them. Finally, Congress has the power to approve or reject presidential appointments to critical foreign policy positions, such as the secretary of state, allowing Congress to have a say in who is leading the country’s foreign policy efforts. The president holds significant sway over the country’s foreign policy, as he/she helps shape the country’s international relations and serves as the face of the US abroad. However, Jones warns that he/she is often held solely responsible for government failures like unsuccessful foreign policy, when in fact, other branches do more of the work. The president’s influence in foreign policy derives from his/her constitutional powers to negotiate treaties, appoint ambassadors, and receive foreign ambassadors. Neustadt would regard this as the president’s prime influence since it is thanks to persuasion in negotiations that foreign policy advances. Moreover, as commanderin-chief, the president can decide to escalate a foreign policy issue by deploying troops abroad and can impose economic sanctions on foreign countries or tariffs on imports from other countries through executive order. Furthermore, the president’s foreign policy agenda is largely shaped by his/her political party: A Democratic president would likely favor multilateral approaches, whereas a Republican president would prefer an approach that centers on unilateral action. Interest groups represent various groups—such as international organizations (like the UN) and labor groups—that influence foreign policy through their capacity to influence the political process, both positively and negatively. Interest groups can lobby Congress and the White House to sway policy decisions regarding various topics (trade, immigration, military intervention). Most significantly, interest groups can influence public opinion by staging protests and engaging in public discourse, either shaping a more positive view of a given policy or creating opposition to others, as well as giving the public a political outlet to express their suggestions or frustrations, as Tocqueville would point out. Additionally, they can shape the focus of US foreign policy by either pushing for policies that benefit their particular cause or advocating for more general policies that are in the best interest of the country as a whole. Finally, interest groups shape foreign policy by providing information and expertise on specific issues: Industry groups provide insight into the potential economic impacts of specific tariffs policy and legislation, while advocacy groups inform about human rights violations in other countries. The result is a more comprehensive understanding of the international implications of specific policies by decision-makers in the government. Truman would also mention that this plurality of groups is beneficial, as it keeps all the groups in check and provides different, valuable perspectives to crafting sound foreign policy. Media coverage has a powerful influence on foreign policy by providing critical information and shaping the public’s opinion of international affairs through their coverage of international events. In times of crisis, media outlets can be the first to report on the situation, which can lead to a reaction from the government, like how the media heavily covered the Syrian civil war as soon as it broke out, causing a public outcry, which in turn, forced the Obama administration to act. Additionally, media outlets often favor one side of an argument focusing on the negative aspects of a situation and providing biased coverage, which can lead to a skewed public perception, thus pressuring the government to take a particular stance that might not lead to the best solution, something which Prior would very much agree. When the US was considering a military intervention in Libya in 2011, for example, the media heavily covered the situation, focusing on the atrocities of the Gaddafi regime, which led to a public uproar, forcing the Obama administration to intervene in the conflict. That said, Slides would argue that most Americans look at different media outlets regarding some event, so the polarization effect is less prevalent. Moreover, the media can shape foreign policy agendas by setting the terms of the discussion on a particular issue. By framing the discussion in a certain way, it can influence the public discourse on a particular issue, shaping public opinion and affecting policymakers’ decisions. This is despite Levendusky’s stance that the media has little effect on most Americans, so influencing foreign policy by framing their reports would not be that effective. Finally, foreign governments can use the media to influence foreign policy decisions of the US by providing detailed and often biased coverage of international events. For instance, in the lead-up to the Iraq war, the media was heavily manipulated by the government of Saddam Hussein, who used the media to portray the US as the aggressor. This led to a public outcry at home, putting pressure on the Bush administration to reconsider its plans to invade Iraq.
