THE MULTIPLE PRESIDENCIES THESIS (A First Draft) (original) (raw)
Related papers
The Multiple Presidencies Thesis: Presidential-Congressional Foreign Policy Relations across Issues Areas and Political Time, 2008
Chapter 4 of the book published by VDM, this sample chapter lays out the empirical theory I developed in order to explain the foreign policy construction process. An inter-institutional policy making procedure shared between the president and the Congress via the component issue areas of foreign affairs across the vagaries of a politicized conception of historical time.
One of the central debates within American foreign policy scholarship revolves around the theoretical concept used in determining the “dominant force” regarding the actual construction of such policies. Two theoretical lenses have been presented to account for the above; the first emanates out of the realist paradigm and suggests a “state-centrist” orientation for policy formulation (see Morgenthau, 1993 and Alison and Zelikow, 1999). The second such lens employed by IR scholars in American foreign policy research is associated with the idealist paradigm and embodies a “domestic variables” approach to the study of policy making in foreign affairs (see Gourevitch, 1996 and again Alison and Zelikow, 1999). The statist or state-centrist formulation posits that the state is best viewed as a unitary actor projecting itself as a unified political entity onto the international system or as an agent reacting to that system (Morgenthau 1993 and Waltz 1979). Regarding foreign policy creation, this framework stresses the role of the “core foreign policy executive” in determining and enacting the “national interest” (Krasner 1987 for an economic application and Kissinger 1994 for a number of diplomatic/military applications). The domestic variables conception, on the other hand, posits that states are “conglomerations of interests” interacting with themselves and the international system of which they are a part (Gourevitch, 1978 and 1996). Under this articulation, foreign policy is the by-product of a complex system of interrelationships between a varying mix of actors under conditions approximating pluralism and emphasizing the inherent connections of the principals involved (Keohane and Nye, 1977; Fearon, 1994; Rogowski, 1989; Snyder, 1991; and Putnam, 1988 for types of applications). Accordingly, in this study, I present a theoretical-methodological alternative to the above accounts which I believe captures the inherent “nuances” of the real world conditions which foreign policy construction occurs in (at least as far as the American case is concerned). Therefore, I propose that foreign policy construction is best analyzed through an “issue areas” perspective that examines each of the “sets” of issue areas contained within foreign affairs including trade, aid, immigration and security. Furthermore, I suggest that within these “sets” of foreign policy issue areas internal categorical differences pervade like for instance various “types” of foreign aid including economic, military and humanitarian. A study of these issue areas as separate and only loosely interrelated “categories of foreign policy” will offer a truer “picture” as to how foreign policy is “actually” constructed rather than the “cookie-cutter one size fits all” statist and domestic variables applications to a single category presentation of “foreign policy.” To test my thesis I employed a roll call analysis of political determinants including partisan/ideological, popular and electoral factors on annual presidential position success rates vis-à-vis the Congress in the appropriate foreign issue area categories for the Eisenhower-W. Bush presidencies. The results reveal that the answer to the state-centrism vs. domestic variables approach “question” is found in the Aristotelian “Golden Mean.” In that, those issue areas that are of a security nature and/or successfully “securitized” as such state-centrist approaches are best for understanding the foreign policy construction process. However, in those issue areas that are of a more “domesticated” nature (meaning that they have a high level of interaction with domestic policy groups like non-security/ non-securitized aid, trade and immigration) a domestic variables perspective is most appropriately employed. Regarding the specifics inherent within the multiple presidencies of presidential-congressional relations, partisan and to a lesser extent ideological factors are more predictive of foreign affairs outcomes at least as measured by the annual presidential success rates across the main issue areas of concern. The implications of such findings are that they can tell us a lot about the “real world” of foreign policy rather than the “constructed” realm established by over simplified methods and theories. Another implication is in the employment of “synthesizing approaches” which attempt to take what is best from the existing scholarship and reject what is worst in it. Also, the marriage of two competing theoretical frameworks from competing paradigms suggests that future research in world politics could benefit from more “mixed theoretical and perhaps even paradigmatic perspectives” which conceivably could lead to a greater mutual respect for ideas that on the surface may seem irreconcilable.
This is a study of the politics of policy; in particular, it is an examination into the contours of the national level executive-legislative relationship within the United States. Political science is a discipline defined primarily by two things: a fascination with the exigencies of power and an orientation towards the employment of scientific methodology in order to understand that before-mentioned focus on power. As a contribution to this effort I will be engaging in an analysis of one place where power is manifested systematically; the policy making process shared between the American presidency and its primary interlocutor in this endeavor—the U.S. Congress.
Presidential-Congressional Relations in US Foreign Policy Decision-Making: A Theoretical Treatise
2018
The present paper aims to offer a conceptual exploration of the Presidential-Congressional relations in the US foreign policy decision-making. The US foreign policy decision-making arguably takes place within a functional synthesization of compromised bureaucratic rationality on the one hand, and the ideological, partisan and institutional interests and tendencies of individuals in possession of power on the other. In such a setting, the argument being put forth is that the Presidency is generally situated and equipped reasonably the best to deal with foreign affairs while the gamut of the Congressional authority in foreign policy varies based on the type of decisions made, playing a key role in distribution of resources to achieve particular objectives. Attempt is made to contextualize this argument within a) the domain of decision-making theoretical models presented by Allison (1967), and then b) rather practical discussions on requirements of foreign policy proposed by Hamilton (1988) followed by, c) a brief overview on actual developments affecting power relations in US foreign policy in the past decades.
The Multiple Presidencies Thesis
The Multiple Presidencies Thesis, 2008
An examination into the presidential-congressional policy construction process throughout the issue areas of foreign policy and across the periods of political time.
The Two Presidencies, 1984‐98: A Replication and Extension
Presidential Studies Quarterly, 2001
Aaron Wildavsky first proposed that presidents in the United States receive more support from Congress in foreign policy and thus can expect to wield more influence and discretion in this policy arena. Since that time, scholars have scrutinized Wildavsky's contention. A recent work by Fleisher et al., using a new measure of presidential support, argues convincingly that broad generalizations about the phenomenon of increased presidential support in foreign policy must be drawn tentatively. This article addresses the two-presidencies thesis in three ways. First, the authors replicate a portion of Edwards's research to illustrate the reliability of our results. Second, the authors extend the data collection on more traditional measures used to test this thesis. Third, to address the issue of intermestic policy, the authors employ a new measure of presidential support that more carefully defines foreign and domestic policy actions. The analyses confirm the findings of Fleishe...
Assessing Congressional Involvement in Foreign Policy: Lessons of the Post-Vietnam Period
The Review of Politics, 1984
This essay strives to counter conventional wisdom about the alleged secondary role of Congress in foreign policymaking. With the post-Vietnam era serving as the immediate backdrop, certain “lessons” are drawn regarding postwar congressional ascendency, both in terms of procedural manifestations and policy outcomes. A central conclusion is that Congress will always remain an essential component in the decision-making process, becoming involved in substantive policy on a selective basis. Some sixteen variables affecting the degree of involvement and likelihood of success are identified and rank ordered. The entire process of congressional-executive relations in foreign policymaking is ultimately viewed as highly untidy but fairly effective in maintaining some semblance of institutional balance throughout history.