The Presidency and the National Security Apparatus

Sitting at the Resolute Desk in the Oval Office of the White House, President George W. Bush will have learnt that if nothing else, one thing in life is certain; Regardless of whether he be a Democrat or a Republican, young or old, the President of the United States is more powerful in the sphere of foreign policy making than in the domestic. Why this is the case is a matter of historical interest and of political competition.

The Framers of the American Constitution originally conceived the President of the United States to be a secondary figure in American politics, yielding ultimate power to the United States Congress. That this was their intention is clear from the very manner in which they wrote the Constitution. The office of President was not dealt with until Article One had clearly outlined the overwhelming powers of the Congress. Clearly much has changed since George Washington was sworn in as the first President in 1789. Now the office of the President of the United States is not only the centre of power in America, but also arguably the world. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, the American Presidency has changed from being the leader of the western world to being the undisputed “most powerful office on earth.”[i] Whilst the character of the presidency will differ from one occupant to the next, two criteria remain; Firstly, whoever the President may be, the Constitution bestows upon him the roles of “Chief Executive, Commander-In-Chief of the Armed Forces, Chief Diplomat, Chief Recruiting Office for the Executive and the Courts, and Legislator.”[ii]

Secondly, despite the millions of people that form the Federal Government, the President, along with his Vice President, is the only national unifying force. Uniting the Head of State and the Head of Government in a single office, “The President is rightly described as a man of extraordinary powers, yet it is also true that he must wield those powers under extraordinary limitations.”[iii] For despite the power that comes with the presidential responsibilities, there comes the close eye of the United States Congress. Although the Presidency has grown out of all proportion, the United States Congress is still a formidable organisation. The President may be Commander-In-Chief, but he requires Congress to declare war. The President may be the chief recruiting officer to the Executive and the Courts, but many of his recommendations require confirmation by the Congress. The president’s problems are compounded further by the absence of a strong party system. For as Congress grows ever more fragmented, party leadership becomes all the weaker. “The coalition building that is essential for legislative success is now more difficult.”[iv]

In Federalist Paper No. 48, James Madison wrote of Congress; “Its constitutional powers being at once more extensive, it can with greater facility, mask the encroachments it makes on the co-ordinate departments.”[v]Considering the accuracy of his prophecy, it would be intriguing to speculate as to what Madison would have made of the 104the Congress. Since 1945, Congress has extended its use of appropriations and investigations, and has become increasingly involved in aspects of government, which had previously been the exclusive domain of the Executive Branch.

Relations between the Congress and the Presidency have become increasingly strained since the Watergate hearings, which brought the downfall of President Nixon. The sins of Richard Nixon, coupled with the humiliation of the Vietnam War resulted in new Congressional restrictions upon the Presidency. “As such, the Congress enhanced its own power and diminished that of the President.”[vi] The separation of the Congress from the Presidency lies at the very heart of the American political system. Over the years however, the relationship between the Presidency and the Congress appears to have been based leas upon a separation of powers and more upon a separation of political principles. For often, the ruling majority in the Senate and the House of Representatives will not be of the same party as the President. This resulting clash of political wills results in the condition known as Gridlock. With Congress and the Presidency fighting for political domination, the only true victims are the American public who fail to benefit when legislation is either vetoed by the President or filibustered by the Congress.

One inherent characteristic of any federal system of government is the formal fragmentation of power. This splintering of authority leaves the presidency as the single unifying influence in the political system. In an effort to project themselves as defenders of the public interest, the presidents will claim to see policies in terms of the national interest. “They attempt to elevate themselves above party, special interests and even ideology.”[vii] Ultimately, the President must govern effectively. The manner in which Presidents achieve this will vary, for it is not unusual for a President to be labelled either pro-foreign policy or pro-domestic policy. Interestingly, a president’s bias in this matter may be associated with his previous office. Many presidents who were previously Senators or Vice-Presidents and therefore engaged in national politics become associated with foreign policy agendas. Examples include Presidents Nixon, Kennedy and the first President Bush. By way of contrast, those presidents who were previously engaged in local state politics, in the position of State Governor for example, are often associated with domestic policy agendas. Examples include Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Bill Clinton, who came to power on the strength of his proposed domestic agenda. As he has discovered however, domestic policy proposals and Congressional implementation are two very different things.

In the domestic sphere, the President’s primary task is to manage the distribution of federal funds in an annual budget. In good times and in bad, this is never an easy task. For in his decision making process, the president will have to take into consideration a plethora of opinions. Ultimately however, “he must be willing to act, notwithstanding the express disapproval of certain constituencies.”[viii] The making of such decisions is clearly hindered in times of recession or when, even when the economy is growing, the budget deficit is rising. With tax increases now akin to political suicide, and the knowledge that spending cuts usually affect those that are already suffering, the main way to increase government spending is by borrowing. This however merely increases the budget deficit. As a result of this stalemate, the notion of a Zero Sum Society has been perpetuated. As identified by Lester Thurow, “When federal spending is constant, distributional questions become a zero sum game; when one person gains, another must lose.”[ix] No single individual has the burden of making these distributional decisions other than the president. It is he alone who is responsible for producing an annual budget amounting to over $1,400 billion. His power and responsibilities therefore, are little short of remarkable. However as President Clinton himself testified, “The president does not govern alone. I am more like the captain of a ship. I can steer it, but a storm can still come up and sink it. And the people that are supposed to be rowing can refuse to row.”[x]

Clearly the field of domestic politics is a bloody one, upon which presidents are fearful of defeat. The cultural and geographic diversity within America is a major reason for the difficulty in domestic agendas. Whatever the President’s decision may be, some will lose out. With lobby groups and political opponents waiting to make the most out of such misfortune, the president’s role in domestic affairs is one fraught with trouble. The notion that the presidency is “the most powerful office on earth”[xi]conceals the extent to which the presidency now enjoys less freedom of action than in the past. “No doubt the President could blow up the world, but at the same time he is increasingly hemmed in by the growing power of Congress.”[xii] This growing power impedes upon much of the presidential domestic policy, with Congress halting bills due to political expediency or regional disagreement.

Lack of success in the domestic sphere may well drive presidents to consider more fully the potential that can be gained from forays abroad. “In the modern presidency, every chief executive, sooner or later, no mater what his background or predilection, is drawn into a particular concern with foreign affairs.”[xiii] A clear example of this can be found in the shape of President Clinton. Whilst much of his domestic agenda has been implemented, press attention continues to dwell on issues such as resignations and policy failures. In an effort to divert coverage away from such issues, President Clinton has turned his thoughts abroad, dealing in Haiti, Northern Ireland, Japan, Eastern Europe, Bosnia, and making much of the D-Day celebrations in Western Europe. The president is the only international politician in the United States. As such it is he who represents the face of America to the world. Foreign diplomacy offers the president the opportunity to represent the United States as a single voice, free from the conflicting interruptions from Congress. Even so, foreign policy is not without its risks. As President Kennedy pointed out, “Domestic policy can only defeat us, foreign policy can kill us.”[xiv]

In an effort to reduce the likelihood of fatal foreign intervention, the National Security Council was established under the National Security Act of 1947, with that mandate to “advise the president with respect to the integration of domestic, foreign and military policies relating to the national security of the United States.”[xv] The President, the Vice-President, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defence and the National Security Advisor man this body. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency also attend. Ultimately however, “It is the president alone who must make the major decisions of foreign policy.”[xvi]

Foreign policy ventures have proven problematical for recent presidents. In America, nothing increases presidential popularity more instantly that “successful, or even unsuccessful but bold, military and diplomatic forays overseas.”[xvii] President Carter’s popularity leapt following the Camp David Accords, as did President Kennedy’s during the Cuban Missile Crisis. President Bush’s success in the Gulf War led to unprecedented approval ratings of 80% and President Clinton’s popularity rose when he bombed Iraq on June 27,1993 for attempting to assassinate his predecessor. Foreign policy missions of course can backfire; the US mission to Somalia brought President Clinton bad publicity even though President Bush had implemented it. When Americans are in danger abroad, pressure is brought to bear on the President to do something about it. “Whether the resulting actions are in the public interest or in the interests of world peace are another matter.”[xviii] When President Carter failed in his attempts to free the hostages in Iran, America was humiliated around the world. It was a mistake that his successor, Ronald Reagan was determined to avoid. “I believed it was dangerous for America to withdraw from its role as leader of the free world. The foundation of my foreign policy was to be one based on strength and realism. I wanted peace through strength, not peace through a piece of paper.”[xix]

Regardless of Reagan’s domestic shortcomings, and his budget defect policies, his foreign policy successes were his greatest triumphs, leading ultimately to the end of the Cold War. Despite claims that his foreign policies were often guided by what many believed to be a “naive faith in the efficiency of military power.”[xx]  Reagan’s foreign policy certainly went a long way to restoring American prestige and leadership in the world. By demonstrating world leadership, Reagan was able to make Americans feel better about themselves and about their place in the world. He did this to such an extent that the people were prepared to overlook his domestic shortcomings and possible complicity in the Iran-Contra Affair.

To succeed, the President of the United States must embrace both foreign and domestic policies. The price for failing to do so can be very high, as Presidents Bush and Carter discovered. Americans expect their president to embody the spirit of the nation; to be “the voice of the people.”[xxi] In 1960, the future Secretary of State, Dean Rusk discussed the Presidency as a place from which leadership in foreign policy must flow and emphasised the President’s responsibility to “influence and shape the course of events”[xxii] at home and around the world. Mastering both aspects is not easy it is hard. With power comes responsibility however, and no one ever claimed that running the world would be easy.