Presidents and Forign Policy
description
Transcript of Presidents and Forign Policy
![Page 1: Presidents and Forign Policy](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062221/568145bd550346895db2c6f1/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
![Page 2: Presidents and Forign Policy](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062221/568145bd550346895db2c6f1/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Illustrate important issues and methods in the study of American politics in general: Power of presidency; two presidencies thesis Relations between presidency and Congress Partisanship, bipartisanship Measures of power and influence through
discussion of agenda setting and policy success; measures such as roll call votes
Discussions of role of WH staff and presidential leadership styles.
![Page 3: Presidents and Forign Policy](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062221/568145bd550346895db2c6f1/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Explores the power of presidents to set the agenda, versus the power of the press and the power of Congress
Argues that agenda setting: Depends on foreign policy issue Is often reciprocal among President, Congress
and press
![Page 4: Presidents and Forign Policy](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062221/568145bd550346895db2c6f1/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Agenda setting is important Literature suggests that presidents,
rather than being the originators of foreign policy agendas, may be only secondary setters: while they may set the agenda for Congress, their agenda is set by the press, which focuses the attention of elites and the public on particular international events.
![Page 5: Presidents and Forign Policy](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062221/568145bd550346895db2c6f1/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Accepts that press may be involved, but is not convinced that the press sets all agendas and is not convinced it is the choice of the press that is the key factor
Rather, assumes that it is events that are behind the power of the press, and that events are extraordinary events rather than everyday occurrences
Also assumes that events are important because they draw attention to a particular issue; in doing so, they inevitably draw attention away from other issues.
![Page 6: Presidents and Forign Policy](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062221/568145bd550346895db2c6f1/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Peake therefore wants to focus on everyday agenda.
Does so by focusing on issues that are of low salience (attract little attention and are not considered to be of high importance) and issues that are important to Congress Particular types of regional issues Issues of trade and foreign aid
![Page 7: Presidents and Forign Policy](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062221/568145bd550346895db2c6f1/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Presidents can influence media agenda on less important regional issues, foreign trade and foreign aid
Presidents can influence Congressional agenda on less important regional issues, but not trade and aid
Presidential agenda influenced by events and by Congress on trade and aid and on less important regional issues by media.
![Page 8: Presidents and Forign Policy](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062221/568145bd550346895db2c6f1/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Argues that presidential leadership styles are important to understanding president’s role in foreign policy, given The importance of foreign policy issues The increasingly complex set of actors and
institutions involved in foreign policy Thus focuses on the psychology of
presidents, in terms of orientations towards work, conflict, management and leadership goals. These have been important variables in the study of presidential leadership styles since James Barber’s The Presidential Character.
![Page 9: Presidents and Forign Policy](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062221/568145bd550346895db2c6f1/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Consolidates previous studies on presidential leadership and creates analytic categories that link those categories with Functions and Functions with Leadership Styles
![Page 10: Presidents and Forign Policy](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062221/568145bd550346895db2c6f1/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
![Page 11: Presidents and Forign Policy](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062221/568145bd550346895db2c6f1/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
![Page 12: Presidents and Forign Policy](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062221/568145bd550346895db2c6f1/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
These 2 x2 charts are common in these types of leadership studies
Also common are emphasis on degrees of hierarchy and degrees of involvement.
What is different here is the crossing of the leadership literature with that on the organization of staffs.
![Page 13: Presidents and Forign Policy](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062221/568145bd550346895db2c6f1/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Literature on staffs emphasizes Different ways in which staffs are organized
Hierarchical, military staff model, which emphasizes staffwork, chain of command and president as a leader who chooses among predetermined options
Hub and spoke models in which presidents are not at the top of a hierarchy, brainstorming is more important than staffwork, and presidents participate in the formulation of policy rather than acting as a chooser among options
Role and importance of chiefs of staff as gatekeepers
Tendency as time passes for the hierarchical model to prevail, even among presidents who initially prefer the hub and spoke model
![Page 14: Presidents and Forign Policy](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062221/568145bd550346895db2c6f1/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
![Page 15: Presidents and Forign Policy](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062221/568145bd550346895db2c6f1/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Creates a typology that cuts across the usual understanding of staff organization described above by including variations of the hierarchical and hub and spoke models
While some presidents have had variations of these (hierarchical with no chief of staff, hub and spoke with strong chief of staff) it is not clear that these models are stable.
May be a better portrait of how presidents attempt to use the two main models rather than a persuasive establishment of new model types.
![Page 16: Presidents and Forign Policy](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062221/568145bd550346895db2c6f1/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Important to understand how presidents focus on process and goals. Is a president interested in how policies are made or on whether goals are being achieved?
Also, are presidents interested in participating in the policymaking process or are they more interested in possessing workable policies even if that means deferring to experts?
Are presidents more interested in political compatibility or neutral policy competence among advisors?
![Page 17: Presidents and Forign Policy](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062221/568145bd550346895db2c6f1/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Presidents may become bogged down in process
Presidents may focus on perceived effectiveness while neglecting politically important process
Political compatibility may lead to incompetence; focus on expertise may lead to a loss of presidential confidence in staff
![Page 18: Presidents and Forign Policy](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062221/568145bd550346895db2c6f1/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Argues that there may be a causal relationship between US external environment and the strength of the presidency with regard to foreign affairs.
General approach is to examine a) the factors that might go into weakening the president and see if it still strong, b) examine domestic factors that might play into a strong presidency to see if they explain a strong foreign policy presidency, and c) examine possible external factors
![Page 19: Presidents and Forign Policy](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062221/568145bd550346895db2c6f1/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Presidency strong in terms of foreign policy despite: Strong foreign policy presidents losing elections
because of domestic problems (Bush I) Effects of Vietnam and Watergate Increasing partisanship in foreign policy Increasing importance of Congress and lobbying
groups The fact that the presidency is weak compared
to other systems because it is part of a divided government system.
![Page 20: Presidents and Forign Policy](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062221/568145bd550346895db2c6f1/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Two presidencies thesis as explanation for strong presidency: this explanation holds that many of the domestic constraints on a president that hobble him with regard to domestic policy (competition from Congress, interest from general public, competition from interest groups and think tanks, partisanship in general) are absent in the area of foreign policy; thus presidents will be stronger in foreign policy realm than in domestic policy realm.
Peterson argues that this is not the case. They are all present in the foreign policy realm and presidents are still powerful in terms of foreign policy
![Page 21: Presidents and Forign Policy](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062221/568145bd550346895db2c6f1/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
IR realists argue that the nature of the international system are such that states act as unitary actors. This means we ignore internal factors as irrelevant
Others, however, argue that the fact that states are unitary actors in the international system, while ultimately explainable by the system, must be traced through domestic systems. States act as unitary actors because the international system triggers changes in domestic systems that strengthen the role of solitary decision-makers
![Page 22: Presidents and Forign Policy](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062221/568145bd550346895db2c6f1/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
This latter explanation may hold for the US in ways that explain the power of the presidency in foreign affairs International system requires quick decision
making International system generates issues that are
of decisive importance for the survival of a country
The presidency has adopted systems and ways of doing business from the more centralized systems of Europe
![Page 23: Presidents and Forign Policy](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062221/568145bd550346895db2c6f1/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Test of characterizations of foreign policy in terms of partisanship and bipartisanship. Challenges the understanding that foreign policy was a bipartisan arena before Vietnam, and that Vietnam changed it into a partisan arena.
Identifies problems with measuring partisanship in Congress and in looking only at partisanship and bipartisanship and not ideology.
Thus partakes of important methodologies and engages research issues related to Congressional studies.
![Page 24: Presidents and Forign Policy](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062221/568145bd550346895db2c6f1/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Look at all foreign policy votes in House and Senate 1947-1988, not just select votes.
Bipartisan / partisan measures: a) whether majority of Dems and majority of Reps supported president’s position, b) percentage of each member’s agreement with the president’s position on all foreign policy positions
Ideological measures: conservative, moderate, liberal in accordance with ADA scores
![Page 25: Presidents and Forign Policy](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062221/568145bd550346895db2c6f1/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
![Page 26: Presidents and Forign Policy](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062221/568145bd550346895db2c6f1/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
![Page 27: Presidents and Forign Policy](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062221/568145bd550346895db2c6f1/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
![Page 28: Presidents and Forign Policy](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062221/568145bd550346895db2c6f1/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
Bipartisanship results: Unevenness across time; Truman era low
bipartisanship Senate more likely to be bipartisan than House, but
bipartisanship always relatively high compared with parliamentary systems
Change after Johnson Partisanship results:
Generally a large gap between support by parties except for Eisenhower and Senate for Johnson; thus partisanship always has been significant
Generally larger gap in House Lower levels of own party support in House than
Senate Still significant support by other party in both House
and Senate
![Page 29: Presidents and Forign Policy](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062221/568145bd550346895db2c6f1/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
Ideology Conservatives from both parties least likely to
support presidents up through Johnson; then support conservative Republicans and oppose all others.
Liberals most likely to support presidents up through Johnson, then oppose conservative Republicans
Overall support by opposition party of all ideological hues has fluctuated but remained depressed since Nixon
![Page 30: Presidents and Forign Policy](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062221/568145bd550346895db2c6f1/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
Dated, but probably still holds true Importance of ideological identification Variations in support Differences between Senate and House