Huntingdon College: Political Science | Courses | Syllabus | SPS | What's New?
PSC 303: International Relations
McCormick, chapters 11, 12, & 13, Student Notes.
compiled by Prof. Jeremy Lewis, Revised 17 Feb. 2005.

---

Chp. 11: Political Parties, Bipartisanship, and Interest Groups
(Angela G. Dupree, 2000)

 Political Parties and the Bipartisan Tradition

• Bipartisanship- cooperation between Congress and the president in the process of policy making as well as outcome of policy, getting a majority of congressional members from both parties to support the policy.
• After World War II, the legislative and executive branches took more of a bipartisan approach to foreign affairs due to the hostile international environment.

• Early in the Cold War, there was greater bipartisanship in policymaking due to the fact that most people wanted to prevent expansion of Communism. Immediately after WWII, Democratic Pres. Truman and Republican chairman of the Senate of Foreign Relations Committee, Arthur Vandenberg collaborated in policymaking that won a majority of support from both political parties. Ex. Bretton Woods Agreement, United Nations Charter, Greek-Turkish aid program, Marshall Plan, etc.
• Both Democrats and Republicans agreed in the need for a strong national defense and active global involvement by the U.S. to prevent the spread of Communism.

Recent studies show that the Cold War years may not have been as bipartisan as believed.

• There were often partisan and ideological divisions between parties, and even inside parties. Northern Democrats were more liberal and Southern Democrats more conservative, leading to splits in the party on certain issues
• The party platforms during '68, '72, and '76 show a decrease in bipartisanship. Only 24% of the foreign policy pledges and 11% of the defense policy pledges for these platforms were bipartisan, compared to 47% of foreign policy pledges and 73% of defense policy pledges that were the same for the platforms of the Democrats and Republicans from '44 to '64.
• In the 1980's partisan divisions increased over foreign policy issues such as Central America and the Middle East.

• McCormick and Wittkopf studied congressional voting on foreign policy issues from 1947 to 1988 and found that only during the Eisenhower administration did a majority of both parties in the House and Senate support the President on policy issues. This shows that bipartisanship was not frequent. (See figures 11.1, 11.2, and 11.3, pgs. 479 to 481)

• Reagan took 2 steps to rebuild bipartisan support: 1. appointing bipartisan presidential commissions to gain support for the modernization of America's strategic nuclear arsenal and for his Central American policy, 2. giving a foreign policy address that called for a return to bipartisanship. However, partisan gaps increased during his 2nd term because of controversy over the Iran-Contra affair.
• Bush called for a return to bipartisanship during his inaugural address, but debates over defense expenditures, the amount of assistance given to Eastern Europe, Iraq's seizure of Kuwait, etc. kept levels of bipartisanship low.
• Clinton made an appeal to keep from returning to isolationism after the end of the Cold War. He also called for a return to bipartisanship, but partisan and ideological differences were sharp on issues such as the North American Free Trade Agreement and the sending of American forces abroad to Somalia, Bosnia, and Haiti.

Partisan divisions are likely to continue for several reasons: 1. divided gov't at the national level (White House controlled by one party and Congress by the other), 2. deepened ideological cleavages between the major parties, 3. the Cold War has ended, 4. an increase in foreign policy issues dealing with economics, the environment, and social-cultural concerns (instead of security issues) since the end of the Cold War.

Interest groups influence members of Congress by lobbying for or against particular policies. They may also influence foreign policy bureaucracies that lobby Congress as well.

Types of Foreign Policy Interest Groups

1. Business groups: Virtually every major corporation on the Fortune 500 list is represented in Washington. They lobby to increase foreign trade, expand their own exports, and promote a strong national defense.

2. Labor Unions: Lobby to protect American workers from importation of cheaper goods and the export of jobs by American firms that seek cheaper labor markets abroad. The most prominent labor unions are the AFL-CIO, which opposed NAFTA for fear of the loss of jobs to cheaper labor in Mexico, and UAW. Not all labor unions are strictly involved in economic issues. For example, in 1983 the National Endowment for Democracy provided the AFL-CIO with funds to promote democracy in foreign countries.

3. Agricultural Groups: support efforts to increase the export of farm products.

4. Religious Organizations: The most prominent groups are the National Council of Churches (Protestant), the American Friends Service Committee (Quaker), and the National Council of Catholic Bishops.

5. Ethnic Groups: The most active groups are those of Jewish, Irish, and East European heritage. They usually only participate in foreign affairs focusing on American policy toward the country or region of their ancestor's origin.

6. Veterans Groups: Most widely known are the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the American Legion, and the American Veterans of WWII. Vietnam Veterans Against the War lobbied to stop American involvement in Vietnam. Also, the veterans of the Persian Gulf War became involved in getting the government to seek the origin of the "Gulf War syndrome."

7. Ideological Groups: Most prominent are the Americans for Democratic Action (liberal) and the American Conservative Union. They evaluate members of Congress on policy from their particular perspectives and issue yearly voting scores for all members.

8. Think Tanks: These are organizations that analyze problems and give policy advice through testimony on Capitol Hill and publishing scholarly books and articles to influence policy making. Ex. The Heritage Foundation (conservative), the Cato Institute (conservative/libertarian), Brookings Institution (liberal)

9. Single-issue Groups: This is the biggest category of interest groups. They can form, lobby, and disband quickly. Ex. anti-Vietnam War movement was very successful in rallying support to end involvement in Vietnam.

10. Foreign Lobbies: 160 nations are represented by lobbyists in Washington who try to persuade Congress to give them favorable treatment.

• Reasons why interest groups may have trouble influencing policy decisions: 1.Foreign policy tends to be made more in the executive branch, where interest groups do not have as much influence, 2. It can be hard to draw up support or opposition on issues that are remote from the public, 3. Under crisis situations, a few members of the executive branch usually make decisions, leaving interest groups with little chance to influence these decisions, 4. Sometimes competing interest groups lobbying for a particular issue will offset each other, leaving members of Congress to make their own decisions.
• The 2 most influential types of interest groups are the economic groups, or the "military-industrial complex" (MIC), and the ethnic groups.

• MIC refers to the relationship between the major industrial firms and the Dept. of Defense. According to the theory, these industries become dependent on the Dept. of Defense for military defense contracts and they lobby for policies that ensure their economic well-being.
• The 1st assumption of this theory is that there is a group of elites working together to form policy. There is evidence of an elite group - since WWII, foreign policy officials have had more links to large Am. corporations. Thomas Dye found that many secretaries of defense, secretaries of state, and foreign policy members of the cabinet had been former presidents or board members of these corporations before being appointed to their positions.
• The 2nd assumption is that this elite's policies emphasize high military spending, interventionism abroad, and the protection of private property. Foreign policy such as the Marshall Plan in 1948, the decision not to intervene in Indochina in 1954, and the decision to cut back bombing in Vietnam in 1968 support this assumption. Also, the main military contractors are usually among the largest industrial corporations. 15 of the top 50 and 23 of the top 100 defense contractors in 1995 were ranked among the 100 largest corporations based on the Fortune 500 list.

• Until the Reagan administration, defense spending had gradually declined. Defense spending as a percentage of the GNP was below 6% and only constituted 25% of the national budget. It went up to 6.6% of the GNP and 28% of the national budget during Reagan's years, but fell afterwards to 4% of the GNP and under 19% of the national budget by the mid-90s.
• American industries may not be as dependent on defense spending for prosperity as the theory suggests. In 1968, 78 of the top 100 made less than 10% of their sales from military contracts. Only 5 made more than 50% of the sales from them.

• The Central and East European Coalition: Members seek to influence Am. policy for more rapid expansion of NATO and more aid for former Soviet republics and Eastern European nations.
• TransAfrica: Promotes the interests of African Americans in Africa and the Caribbean
• Cuban American National Foundation: The most successful of the Hispanic groups, well known for its anti-Castro lobby. This group was influential in getting Congress to pass the 1996 Helms-Burton Act, which imposed strict economic sanctions against Cuba and companies dealing with the Castro regime.
• The Jewish Lobby: It is the largest lobby. It has 55,000 members, and offices in 9 American cities. Its success is due to several factors: 1. It is well organized with good access to Capitol Hill, 2. Members are directly linked through the Internet to enable them to keep up with the issues, 3. The American public is largely sympathetic to the Jewish lobby, 4. The pro-Arab lobby is weak.

-Media and public can do and effect the shape of the U.S. foreign policy.

-The way the media covers a foreign policy issue can affect it.

-There has been a major increase in TV and radio stations and also internet to relay news to the public.

-Media plays roles in foreign policy.
 1)separate actor, advance their own views
 2)accomplice of govt.policy, supportive more often than critical
 3)media and govt. in a " mutually exploitative " relationship, both gaining from the other

-Media has biased reporterd
  -they don't reflect characteristics of American public as a whole
  -members of media are largely liberal-54% left of center, 17% right of center
  -partisan orientation was skewed in one direction as well (over 4/5's supported Democratic presidential
candidates)

-Long time media analyst Bernard Cohen made a good point in saying that the media is strongly successful
in telling its readers  what to think about.

-Members of the media are dependent on the " golden triangle "(White House, Pentagon, & State Dept.)
for gathering news.

-Studies show that the media's impact on the public, the publics views were relatively stable over time but
when the opinion change did occur in the short term, news commentators produced the most change in
public's opinion.

-The publics views on foreign policy are somewhat moodish because they are uniformed and thats why
there is a lack of interest.

-People care more about local or national news than they do about foreign affairs.

-American people have been divided with not only whether the U.S. should be involved with foreign policy
but now we should  be involved.

-Accommodationists are people who favor Cooperative Internationalism.

-Hardliners are those who favor Militant Internationalism.

-V.O. Key says that public overall views can also effect govt. action.

-Presidential elections- if public doesn't like views of the candidate on foreign policy, they can use their
votes to punish people.

-Elections for Congress are hardly ever fought on foreign policy questions.

-To Sum everything up, it is very debatable on whether the public's opinions of foreign affairs
               are relatively stable or if they are  moodish depending on leadership.

Value Differences within Elites

1. Isolationists-Tended to tilt toward the conservative end of the ideological self- identification scale.
2. Internationalists-Prefer the GOP to the Democratic Party
3. Hard-liners-Republicans, conservatives
4. Accommodationists-Democrats, liberals

1. Will a new consensus be necessary or functional for American policy?
2. Can it be developed even there’s divided leadership and a divided public?
3. What values should constitute this new consensus?

1. Political leadership is needed- it must accept the changed global reality
2. The leadership must be willing to educate the public continuously on foreign policy
3. The public evaluate its beliefs and values on what the United States should stand for in the world

(1) a neo-isolationist approach to American foreign policy;
(2) a more self-interested and unilateral approach to American involvement;
(3) an approach emphasizing more completely democratic and ethical ideals in American foreign policy;
(4) an approach emphasizing greater international cooperation in American policy.

Neo-Isolationism
—this is a policy to reduce excessive American role in world affairs emerged after Vietnam War. Efforts to reshape the international system or to expand human rights globally would no longer be core United States values.
It would better allow the United States to promote its “extrasecurity values”—such as promoting its liberal ideals and its domestic welfare—than would a strategy of “strategic internationalism.” And it is also more compatible with the various competing political cultures prevalent in American society.

Chapter 13: American Foreign Policy Values and the Future (cont’d)
Amanda Spiegel, 2005

A NEW UNILATERALISM
William Kristol and Robert Kagan: emphasized strong unilateralist approach saying US was to pursue a “benevolent global
hegemony”
-achieve this by increasing defense spending, citizen awareness of America’s international role, and harmony of moral goals and
national interests; appealed to many, including W. Bush admin.
Robert Lieber: said that American primacy would continue because there was no real challenger to American power, and that US
leadership is the “necessary catalyst” for effective global action, policy of “international collaboration”
-Russia, China, Germany, or European Union couldn’t match or challenge US dominance
Richard N. Haas: approach of the “post-post-Cold War years”, favored less hegemonic approach, proposed the use of the “doctrine
of integration” where the principal aim of US is to integrate other countries/organizations into arrangements that will promote a world
consistent with US interests/values, transition: “balance of power to pooling of power”
-with this approach, US leadership is crucial, US would work with other nations despite past tensions, and US willingness to work on
the basis of achieving results, and also that the US “can and will act alone when necessary.”
-problems with these approaches: too much unilateral involvement conflicts with a public that wants multilateral efforts and a less world
policeman approach, and too realist approaches that focus on national interests conflict with US morals <>

A DEMOCRATIC IMPERATIVE
George Quester: suggested an approach nearly 20 years ago that involved a return to America’s emphasis on domestic values in
dealing with global issues, believes US should stand for its values, but government would promote them peacefully with other nations
and organizations; Quester said that US had double standard after Vietnam, stating that US were willing to apply the standards of
political democracy in foreign policy with Western Europe and Canada, but unwilling with the developing world
-Quester’s basis of policy was a return to democratic values, believed that correcting democratic institutions at home and promoting them
abroad to make the internal and international purpose of the US not just government policy but source of national identity
-Clinton and George W. Bush embraced democratic ideals in foreign policy
-Although the promotion of democratic ideals and American values appeal to the public, questions arise…

A NEW INTERNATIONALISM
-a more multilateral approach into American foreign policy with a break from bipolarity of the Cold War
Ivo H. Daalder and James M. Lindsay: emphasize the need to use wider degree of multilateralism in US foreign policy in the era of
globalization, and that problems conflict with the unilateralist view including global warming, international terrorism, etc, and promote that
“international cooperation can extend the life of American primacy” and manage the effects of globalization
-argue that it is in the US national interest to create global order “based on democracy, human rights, and free enterprise, and then the
US will enhance its liberty, security, and prosperity
-Four Strategies of American Foreign Policy:

1) to sustain American economic and military strength,
2) US extension and adaptation to
international institutions and arrangements
3) enforcement of existing international agreements and monitor and compel compliance,
4) US take the lead in creating effective international institutions/arrangements to handle the downsides of globalization