Bureaucratic Infighting

Principle 6:

Administrative and Political Expediency and

Bureaucratic Infighting

The dispersal of decision-making power in the American system of "separation of power" and "checks and balances" makes the development of a coherent foreign policy an ordeal of considerable magnitude.

"(T)here is the fragmentation of power that the separation between the presidency and the Congress entails; there is the dispersion that results from the increasing importance of the House of Representatives in the control of foreign policy; there is the mushrooming of executive agencies that insist on participating in the definition of foreign policy-- sometimes on an equal footing with the State Department, often on behalf of particular domestic interest groups in their constituency. If one also takes into account the proliferation of experts who work as consultants for all those institutions, and the press (which is both a sounding board for the various organs and a power of its own), one gets an awe-inspiring picture of government by interagency and interbranch compacts, government by leaks and subcontracts." (Hoffman, in Ikenberry, 55-56)

Foreign policy becomes a pawn in the struggle between domestic politicians, cabinet officials, officers of the various military branches, leaders of the executive branches and congressional committees or factions within the political parties. Each of the policy choices available gives a specific power advantage to certain individual administrative agencies, cabinet secretaries and military branches associated with each of the respective policy choices. For example, policy choices emphasizing military response give a comparative power advantage to the Pentagon and to military-related congressional committees while policy choices emphasizing international development aid give a relative advantage to international development agencies and congressional committees dealing with foreign assistance. Each policy choice has its beneficiaries. It is possible foreign policy is decided more on the quest for a relative domestic power advantage than on the merits of the individual policy options. For example, a cabinet secretary may support foreign policies that reinforce the relative importance of his cabinet post, thus increasing his relative power within the administration and enhancing his potential for future elected office. The Army General supports foreign policies that enhance the importance, role and budget of the land-based armies while the Navy Admiral, the Marine General and the Air Force General each support foreign policies that will benefit their respective military services, and their own personal opportunities for advancement and promotion. Because incumbent elected officials or front-running political candidates support one particular foreign policy, the political opponents of those incumbents or front-runners may feel compelled to support alternative policies to highlight the political differences between them as they face the voters. The winner may find himself locked into a foreign policy position that is less than the best one available.

Early in American history, the leaders of the executive and legislative branches and the officers of the military services find themselves acting as much to protect and enhance their offices and branches as to further American national interests. To limit some of the infighting and permit America to speak to the world with one voice, an informal agreement develops between the executive and legislative branches to permit the President of the United States to speak as the single voice for America in international and foreign policy matters. Foreign policy, once developed and agreed upon, is not to be contradicted in the international arena by representatives of opposition political parties or by congressmen. Critics remain silent on the international scene, reserving criticism for domestic political discussions and behind-the-scenes domestic maneuverings. Domestic foreign policy discussions are permitted only up to that point at which foreign leaders begin to perceive the American public and the American leadership is divided on international issues. The perception and appearance of national solidarity is to be maintained, even if there are serious internal differences of agreement on foreign policy issues. This informal agreement is known as "bi-partisan foreign policy."

There are only a few instances in which bi-partisanism breaks down. There is serious criticism by Whigs and Republicans of military tactics and public opinion manipulations by the Democrat administration during and after the United States' war with Mexico in the early Nineteenth Century. Similar criticism is offered by Republicans concerning President Woodrow Wilson's conduct of World War I and of President Wilson's intention to involve the United States in the new League of Nations; Democrats counter in both cases by accusing their critics of treasonous, un-American behavior and violation of the agreement on bi-partisan foreign policy. Bi-partisan foreign policy suffers most, however, during the Vietnam War era when members of President Lyndon Johnson's own political party break ranks with the President, not only openly criticizing the President's foreign policy on American soil, but traveling to North Vietnam, Moscow, and Havana to voice those criticisms on the world stage and within the very camps of America's sworn enemies.

Foreign policy occasionally becomes a pawn in domestic political in-fighting. Leaders within the media, religious community, labor unions, and various cause organizations (e.g. environmental, civil rights, anti-poverty groups) occasionally use foreign policy as a means to achieve their domestic agenda, or to draw public attention to issues related to their cause. Focusing attention on foreign policy issues that mirror domestic issues is useful in promoting those issues within domestic politics. For example, focusing attention on the needs of the poor abroad is useful for developing sympathy for the poor within the United States. Focusing attention on labor abuses and "sweatshops" abroad helps promote unionization efforts within the United States. Focusing attention on moral shortcomings in foreign nations is useful for building evangelistic religious fervor within domestic religious denominations.

In addition to the intended consequences, focusing attention on specific conditions or events abroad may have significant unintended consequences. Public perceptions concerning various nations or peoples are severely impacted. For example, focusing on poverty abroad may encourage the mass of Americans to view foreign populations and individual nations as perpetually poor, helpless, and dependent and may encourage the mass of Americans to define the citizens of those nations as "inferior" peoples. Policy-makers find themselves politically prohibited from making rational foreign policy decisions concerning those peoples and nations. Policy-makers are forced to make decisions satisfactory to the public's distorted perception of those peoples and nations, or the decision-makers may suffer the domestic political consequences.

Foreign policy can, therefore, be seen as either a pawn in the play of the bureaucratic and administrative power games, or as a pawn in domestic political power games. In either case, the resulting policy is likely to be irrational, fragmented, filled with contradictions and inconsistencies.

Principle 6:

Administrative and Political Expediency and

Bureaucratic Infighting

Click Here for PAGE 9

Click Here for a Return to American Foreign Policy Principles Home Page

Click Here for a text on American Foreign Policy History