It has been a long, long time since Congress has made more beneficial moves related for foreign policy than detrimental ones. One can find baleful examples going back to the interwar era and the 1950s. One of the last positive examples of Congressional activity related to foreign policy was the Nunn-Lugar legislation from the early 1990s.
Some of the problem goes back to the Constitution itself. The two-thirds requirement for ratifying treaties is a nearly impossible hill to climb in a system that for over 200 years defaults to a bipolar two-party system. And the requirement for a Declaration of War was only a majority. And the President's immediate Commander-in-Chief role has long been elastic. It is as if from the beginning, even the Framers were more worried the country would sell itself out in a bad peace treaty or alliance treaty than it would get itself into a bad war.
I would argue that partisanship as it has flowered since the Newt Gingrich Republican Congressional revolution of 1994 have effectively made American treaty-making and diplomacy by means of diplomatic agreement impossible, or at least unsustainable. America can no longer keep its promises.
America cannot keep promises made by Democratic Presidents, certainly any that involve Congressional appropriations, because whenever empowered to do so, Republicans in Congress (sometimes aided by the weakest outer centrist-conservative vulnerable fringes of the Democratic caucus, ie your Rep Gottheimers, Joe Manchins) will obstruct delivery, and succeeding Republican Presidents bind themselves to reverse Democratic pedecessors foreign policy bargains. There are even cases of Republican Administrations repudiating past bargains by Republican Administrations.
During the first Cold War (we're well into the second now) Republican partisan pressure often but not always limited Democratic Presidents' freedom to make some diplomatic moves, but Republicans could have much greater tactical diplomatic flexibility and polled well in talking to adversaries (ie, only Ike in Geneva, "Only Nixon can go to China", Reagan-Gorby, etc.). It was unfair and hypocritical that *all* Presidents didn't have the same diplomatic freedom of maneuver, because of dumb, domestic partisan reasons, but it served the country well when a Republican President judged bargaining with an adversary was properly in the national interest. We should miss that hypocrisy now.
The problem in the 21st century is that the Republican Presidents on really all fundamental questions of foreign policy drank their own kool-aid. Neither Bush nor Trump were interested in any real great power or multilateral bargaining, but US dictation, each in their own way.
Examples of the phenomena discussed above:
- 1990s - Agreed Framework with North Korea was never fully tested, or purely tested, as Congress refused to fund the energy supply commitments the Clinton Administration agreed to in return for North Korea to restrain itself from weapons development. [Example of Republican Congress breaks Democratic Administration's promise]
-2001 - [pre-9/11] To satisfy nostalgic SDI fanboys, George W. Bush repudiates the ABM Treaty [from Pres. Nixon] and START Treaty [from Bush I], and muddles American one-China rhetoric [from Nixon-Kissinger Taiwan Communique] until stung by the EP-3 incident. [Example of Republican POTUS breaking past Republican promises]
-2006 - Bush Administration forces Palestinian Authority to have elections because supposedly the PLO/Arafat crony clique is the impediment to peace, then when Hamas predictably wins the PLC elections forces the Abu Mazen clique to hold on to security executive powers, coup'ing the elected Hamas government, under threat of blockade, forcing Palestinian Civil War, and Gaza - West Bank PA partition. Not exactly the same as the other cases, but violating implicit parts of the democratization bargain. [Bush violating the spirit of his own deal]
-2011 - reversal of usual pattern: President Obama backs, supports, participates in Western European led intervention operation to depose Qadhafi to prevent him from crushing anti-regime rebellion. Not quite the same explicitness as the 1990s case, but violates the implicit reciprocity Qadhafi was expecting when he made the deal with the the Bush Administration to give up its WMD programs and get de-sanctioned, after having previously ceased supporting international terrorists and cooperated with GWOT. [Democratic President violating implicit commitments of Republican predecessor].
-2018 - Trump repudiation of JCPOA and reinstallation of secondary sanctions [Republican President repudiated a promise from a Democratic administration] before IAEA reports of any Iranian violations
Trump tariffs on Canadian and European producers [Trump repudiation of commitments under past Republican (NAFTA with Canada) and Democratic Presidents]
I would argue at this point that almost any diplomatic agreements, at least with despised countries we see as at all weaker and possible to screw over, are not sustainable, and only set the US up to further embarrass itself. Democratic administrations must assume any diplomatic agreement will be sabotaged by Republicans legislatively in contemporary times, or by subsequent Republican Presidents in future times. Thus, if America wishes to disengage or reduce its participation in any conflicts, agreements, especially any involving ongoing funding or ransoms to unpopular countries, are *not* the way to go, because they are unsustainable. Instead, only unilateral actions to reduce US involvement, or bilateral arrangements to devolve responsibility and cost from the USA on to regional allies would prove more sustainable.
As a retired small business owner, I had witnessed the loss of expertise happening as older people in every trade aged out. This is an explanation as to why it is difficult to find competent or trustworthy contractors, educators, religious 'leaders', doctors, police, and every other 'trade'. But something else has happened and I am not sure or able to wrap my head around the myriad ways that our society seems to be diminishing. It feels like a slow train wreck of fear and hatefulness, combined with wealth, entitlement, the seeking of undeserved applaud, the loss of humanities in education, greed, injustice, the loss of truthfulness in every aspect of life. There is little sense of civic duty in the everyday lives of Americans.
But the obvious problem is that we no longer trust our justice system, or our government. Members of Congress who enabled, plotted, or somehow participated in the insurrection are still in place and negatively affecting our governing, or lack thereof. Corruption and self serving is largely ignored, i.e. some in the SCOTUS. For average people, we see the powerful and wealthy getting away with all types of crimes, that average people would be severely punished for. It is impossible to stomach for any country.
It would benefit all of us if we started addressing and taking to task the elephants in the room.
Discussion of US politics would be greatly improvement by requiring that all occurrences of the word "polarization" should be replaced by "Republicans". This post is an instance
"the Democratic co-chair, Rep. Jim McGovern of Massachusetts, saw something more sinister at play and refused to permit the hearing." For some, Democracy is very sinister.
I have worked on capitol hill and I have lobbied the hill. I consider it a privilege to do so. No crying in baseball. No one forces them to run, no one forces staff to work on the hill. Yes, it is not conducive to do the hard work of legislating, it is hard work. Grandstanding is easy. What you see now is abandonment by child like GOPers, who want it all their way. McCarthy sold out in a rotten debt limit bill, and the lack of real scrutiny, sunshine of terribly bloated Fed budget is atrocious. The Dems won’t even support pre Covid levels, nor 1% reduction in Fed spending. Johnson has totally abdicated as speaker. He is out maneuvered by Biden and Schumer, throw McConnell in too.
Btw, the re acceleration of inflation is due to the combined Trump, Biden $15 plus trillion in reckless spending. The Fed govt is bringing in record revenues, with taxes reduced. It’s the inflation and the spending stupid! Period. Biden has inflation stamped upon his forehead. Enjoy.
It has been a long, long time since Congress has made more beneficial moves related for foreign policy than detrimental ones. One can find baleful examples going back to the interwar era and the 1950s. One of the last positive examples of Congressional activity related to foreign policy was the Nunn-Lugar legislation from the early 1990s.
Some of the problem goes back to the Constitution itself. The two-thirds requirement for ratifying treaties is a nearly impossible hill to climb in a system that for over 200 years defaults to a bipolar two-party system. And the requirement for a Declaration of War was only a majority. And the President's immediate Commander-in-Chief role has long been elastic. It is as if from the beginning, even the Framers were more worried the country would sell itself out in a bad peace treaty or alliance treaty than it would get itself into a bad war.
I would argue that partisanship as it has flowered since the Newt Gingrich Republican Congressional revolution of 1994 have effectively made American treaty-making and diplomacy by means of diplomatic agreement impossible, or at least unsustainable. America can no longer keep its promises.
America cannot keep promises made by Democratic Presidents, certainly any that involve Congressional appropriations, because whenever empowered to do so, Republicans in Congress (sometimes aided by the weakest outer centrist-conservative vulnerable fringes of the Democratic caucus, ie your Rep Gottheimers, Joe Manchins) will obstruct delivery, and succeeding Republican Presidents bind themselves to reverse Democratic pedecessors foreign policy bargains. There are even cases of Republican Administrations repudiating past bargains by Republican Administrations.
During the first Cold War (we're well into the second now) Republican partisan pressure often but not always limited Democratic Presidents' freedom to make some diplomatic moves, but Republicans could have much greater tactical diplomatic flexibility and polled well in talking to adversaries (ie, only Ike in Geneva, "Only Nixon can go to China", Reagan-Gorby, etc.). It was unfair and hypocritical that *all* Presidents didn't have the same diplomatic freedom of maneuver, because of dumb, domestic partisan reasons, but it served the country well when a Republican President judged bargaining with an adversary was properly in the national interest. We should miss that hypocrisy now.
The problem in the 21st century is that the Republican Presidents on really all fundamental questions of foreign policy drank their own kool-aid. Neither Bush nor Trump were interested in any real great power or multilateral bargaining, but US dictation, each in their own way.
Examples of the phenomena discussed above:
- 1990s - Agreed Framework with North Korea was never fully tested, or purely tested, as Congress refused to fund the energy supply commitments the Clinton Administration agreed to in return for North Korea to restrain itself from weapons development. [Example of Republican Congress breaks Democratic Administration's promise]
-2001 - [pre-9/11] To satisfy nostalgic SDI fanboys, George W. Bush repudiates the ABM Treaty [from Pres. Nixon] and START Treaty [from Bush I], and muddles American one-China rhetoric [from Nixon-Kissinger Taiwan Communique] until stung by the EP-3 incident. [Example of Republican POTUS breaking past Republican promises]
-2006 - Bush Administration forces Palestinian Authority to have elections because supposedly the PLO/Arafat crony clique is the impediment to peace, then when Hamas predictably wins the PLC elections forces the Abu Mazen clique to hold on to security executive powers, coup'ing the elected Hamas government, under threat of blockade, forcing Palestinian Civil War, and Gaza - West Bank PA partition. Not exactly the same as the other cases, but violating implicit parts of the democratization bargain. [Bush violating the spirit of his own deal]
-2011 - reversal of usual pattern: President Obama backs, supports, participates in Western European led intervention operation to depose Qadhafi to prevent him from crushing anti-regime rebellion. Not quite the same explicitness as the 1990s case, but violates the implicit reciprocity Qadhafi was expecting when he made the deal with the the Bush Administration to give up its WMD programs and get de-sanctioned, after having previously ceased supporting international terrorists and cooperated with GWOT. [Democratic President violating implicit commitments of Republican predecessor].
-2018 - Trump repudiation of JCPOA and reinstallation of secondary sanctions [Republican President repudiated a promise from a Democratic administration] before IAEA reports of any Iranian violations
Trump tariffs on Canadian and European producers [Trump repudiation of commitments under past Republican (NAFTA with Canada) and Democratic Presidents]
I would argue at this point that almost any diplomatic agreements, at least with despised countries we see as at all weaker and possible to screw over, are not sustainable, and only set the US up to further embarrass itself. Democratic administrations must assume any diplomatic agreement will be sabotaged by Republicans legislatively in contemporary times, or by subsequent Republican Presidents in future times. Thus, if America wishes to disengage or reduce its participation in any conflicts, agreements, especially any involving ongoing funding or ransoms to unpopular countries, are *not* the way to go, because they are unsustainable. Instead, only unilateral actions to reduce US involvement, or bilateral arrangements to devolve responsibility and cost from the USA on to regional allies would prove more sustainable.
As a retired small business owner, I had witnessed the loss of expertise happening as older people in every trade aged out. This is an explanation as to why it is difficult to find competent or trustworthy contractors, educators, religious 'leaders', doctors, police, and every other 'trade'. But something else has happened and I am not sure or able to wrap my head around the myriad ways that our society seems to be diminishing. It feels like a slow train wreck of fear and hatefulness, combined with wealth, entitlement, the seeking of undeserved applaud, the loss of humanities in education, greed, injustice, the loss of truthfulness in every aspect of life. There is little sense of civic duty in the everyday lives of Americans.
But the obvious problem is that we no longer trust our justice system, or our government. Members of Congress who enabled, plotted, or somehow participated in the insurrection are still in place and negatively affecting our governing, or lack thereof. Corruption and self serving is largely ignored, i.e. some in the SCOTUS. For average people, we see the powerful and wealthy getting away with all types of crimes, that average people would be severely punished for. It is impossible to stomach for any country.
It would benefit all of us if we started addressing and taking to task the elephants in the room.
Discussion of US politics would be greatly improvement by requiring that all occurrences of the word "polarization" should be replaced by "Republicans". This post is an instance
"the Democratic co-chair, Rep. Jim McGovern of Massachusetts, saw something more sinister at play and refused to permit the hearing." For some, Democracy is very sinister.
I have worked on capitol hill and I have lobbied the hill. I consider it a privilege to do so. No crying in baseball. No one forces them to run, no one forces staff to work on the hill. Yes, it is not conducive to do the hard work of legislating, it is hard work. Grandstanding is easy. What you see now is abandonment by child like GOPers, who want it all their way. McCarthy sold out in a rotten debt limit bill, and the lack of real scrutiny, sunshine of terribly bloated Fed budget is atrocious. The Dems won’t even support pre Covid levels, nor 1% reduction in Fed spending. Johnson has totally abdicated as speaker. He is out maneuvered by Biden and Schumer, throw McConnell in too.
Btw, the re acceleration of inflation is due to the combined Trump, Biden $15 plus trillion in reckless spending. The Fed govt is bringing in record revenues, with taxes reduced. It’s the inflation and the spending stupid! Period. Biden has inflation stamped upon his forehead. Enjoy.