US Public Opinion and Foreign Policy - Coursework Example

US Public Opinion and Foreign Policy Under Discussion: Does the US public opinion facilitate or constrain US foreign policy-makers Illustrate your answer with reference to at least one country. Table of Contents Introduction....p. 2 Chapter One: The Theoretical Framework.p. 3 Chapter Two: Facilitating Foreign Policy 2.1 A Separation of Powersp. 5 2.2 Going Public and the Media Boom.p. 6 2.3 The American Divide...p. 9 Chapter Three: Constraining Foreign Policy 3.1 Elites and Polling..p. 10 3.2 Public Awareness......p. 12 3.3 Media on the Other Side...p. 13 Chapter Four: The War in Iraqp. 14 Conclusions...p. 16 References.....p. 18 Introduction Intricately tied to all forms of representative democracy is the belief that the public has a say in policy decisions made by its government. Elected officials represent the voter's opinions and desires and will be held accountable during elections. Despite this rosy eyed view of democratic policy making the reality of the situation is not so cut and dry. While many believe that public opinion can and does matter to policy makers, others contend that public opinion complicates or is of relative importance to policy making. The case of US foreign policy is no acception to the argument. Whether or not public opinion facilitates or constrains US foreign policy makers depends first and foremost on the level of importance given to the surrounding issue by the US public. If the issue is of great importance to the public and there is a common consensus as to how the problem may be resolved between a majority of the public and policy makers, policy makers are likely to be facilitated in their foreign policy aims. The most recent and significant example of this is the US incursion into Iraq in 2003. When an issue is of lesser importance, resulting in a less educated public, the policy making process can be complicated. Needless to say foreign policy making is the most difficult when it concerns issues of great importance and little common consensus. To ensure political success, presidents and other policy makers must use an understanding of public attitudes to structure their foreign policies for presentation to their constituents. Public opinion is not as malleable as some believe it to be. We only have to point to various examples of American politicians attempting to coerce public opinion on issues that are unpopular with the American public and their lack of success in doing so. Chapter One: The Theoretical Framework One of the major underpinnings of representative democracy is the belief that government policy, both foreign and domestic, is controlled by public opinion and the power of the vote. Whether or not this is a reality with regards to foreign policy has been a question of debate between various theories of international relations over the course of the twentieth century. While most students of the topic admit that public opinion can have some sort of affect on military, economic and political practices abroad, the extent of this impact is fiercely debated, most notably by the realist and liberal camps. Realist theory claims that public opinion is unpredictable and ever changing. Because foreign policy often has its affect in places that are so far removed geographically public opinion has an irrational edge to it. Although Realists do admit that public opinion can have a considerable impact on foreign policy making in democracies, it is for this reason that it is most often "erratic and incoherent" and they conclude that "a good foreign policy is incompatible with the democratic process and therefore the decision-making process should be isolated from the vagaries of public opinion." 1 Foreign policy is far too remote and complex in its issues and very often the public is not well informed enough for it to respond rationally. From the liberal point of view public opinion is seen as a positive element which could bring about a more reasonable and peaceful foreign policy. Unfortunately, for liberal thinkers, public opinion in reality has little impact on the foreign policy aims of a country. With these two beliefs in mind, Liberals call for a stronger public opinion to better guide countries in the international sphere. At the heart of the liberal argument are the Kantian ideals of liberal democracy. Inheritors of the Kantian tradition argue that it is possible to apply the democratic model to the making of foreign policy and, in fact, it is an essential component in the search for international peace and stability. Those who propose this model of international relations argue that, "the normal functioning of democratic processes is equally possible in foreign policy as in domestic affair, and that] for this reason the foreign policy making of democratic states is different from that of authoritarian and totalitarian ones."2 Essential to this argument is the thesis of the 'democratic peace' or the belief that democracies do not fight each other. This belief found new impetuous with the close of the Cold War, the triumph of democracy and all it entailed and the spread of liberal economics. In the afterglow international peace as a reality gained legitimacy. Here the belief that liberal states were far less likely to wage war on each was repeated in the highest circles of foreign policy making. Barkawi and Laffey (2001) believe, "scholars claimed to provide rigorous and scientific support for the purported relationship between democracy and peace. They argued that a zone of peace had developed among liberal democratic states, confirming long-held assumptions regarding the peaceful propensities of republics."3 In American foreign policy, the democratic peace theory has been a reoccurring theme. When they don't go too strongly against domestic aims, Americans generally support the international promotion of democracy, market-based economies, and free trade as these are "the core values of the United States, and their adoption by other societies is viewed as a positive development."4 In his 1994 State of the Union address Clinton stated, "'Ultimately, the best strategy to ensure our security and to build a durable peace is to support the advance of democracy elsewhere. Democracies don't attack each other, they make better trading partners and partners in diplomacy.'"5 Madar claims that, "This is a faithful rendition of Kant's basic concept, in which world peace is based on democracy and free trade. More generally, Clinton's statement reflects Kant's notions of universal justice and treating human beings as individuals with rule of law and democracy being paramount."6 In fact, it has been a common practice of U.S. foreign policy makers to use the democratic peace theory to justify or 'sell' foreign policy measures. Chapter Two: Facilitating Foreign Policy In order to better understand how public opinion can affect US foreign policy it is essential that we better comprehend the American system of government and how foreign policy is formed in the US. In this section the practise of a separation of powers, the role of the President and the Congress in foreign policy making and the challenges to this system brought on in the last twenty years by the information revolution will be analysed. A better understanding of the workings of the US political institutions is essential in understanding the important role public opinion has played and will continue to play in the future of US foreign policy. 2.1 A Separation of Powers Richard Nuestadt once claimed, "we have not so much a government of separated powers as a government of separated institutions sharing powers."7 Since George Washington first stepped into office, the initiatives of American presidents have been buffered by Congress. The high hopes Presidents have when they come to office can quickly be smashed by a majority of the opposing party in either house. As a result of this, Presidents have often turned to the garnering of public opinion in order to pass both domestic and international proposals. Samuel Kernel believes that this public leadership strategy has become even more of a necessity in an era where members of Congress act as "free agents, ignoring traditional institutional arrangements in favor of public pressure from constituents and interest groups."8 In addition, Congress is taking a more and more active role in an area which traditionally has been labeled as belonging in the sphere of the executive office. In the past twenty years Congress has taken on various projects of an international nature. Some of these include the measures by Congress to re-organise UN finances by holding back US funding to the organisation, the effort to alter trade relations with China due to its human rights situation and the initiation of sanctions against various countries including Cuba, Iran, Libya, India and Pakistan, as a result of their political, economic and nuclear policies.9 2.2 Going Public and the Media Boom Faced with these constitutional limits and growing congressional powers Presidents often find the need to 'go public' with their bigger foreign policy initiatives. Going public can be defined as the president making a conscious appeal for support to the nation as a whole. Major public addresses allow Presidents to speak to the American public on national primetime television and additionally can have the added bonus of driving up their popularity. In fact, with the drastic changes in media exposure in the past twenty years, 'going public,' has almost become a science with American presidents from Reagan to George W. Bush. The impact in the growth and importance of media, especially television, over the last thirty years has been essential in the importance of public opinion on foreign policies. Corrigan claims that in the information age of the new century, "presidents have new outlets to go public. Media outlets such as CNN, Fox News, and C-Span provide national coverage to even minor public addresses. Video-teleconferencing offers the president the ability to speak to groups across the country from the Oval Office."10 The growth and change in communications and the inclusion of interest groups and other non-governmental bodies in its midst is reshaping the nature of the relationship between foreign policy and public opinion. The Reagan administration was the first to fully take advantage of the media boom. Reagan was a master at video politics who used his public appeal to the fullest extent. Jacobs and Shapiro (2001) claim that, "the Reagan years are pivotal in understanding recent and future developments regarding the relationship between public opinion and presidential behaviour."11 Reagan's Cold War philosophies and most notably his Star Wars program were taken to the public in order to garner their support. Despite the importance shown by American Presidents to public opinion every once in a while a President ignores public opinion and initiates policies that do not take it fully into account. Nixon faced by a very hostile populace with the escalation of bombings in Vietnam and Cambodia, best demonstrated by the deaths at the Kent State demonstrations, persevered with his policies towards the two communist countries.12 Nixon believed that in order to retreat from the area and attain what he called an 'honorable peace', certain conditions must be met by the opposing forces first, and he believed by taking more aggressive action he could force this. Nixon believed that if he could influence US opinion he could gain support for his initiatives in Vietnam. But the war weary US public was tired of aggressive action and no amount of speeches and opinion polling was going to change their mind. Katz claims that "In several respects [then], the Vietnam War became principally a public relations problem for the Nixon administration; Nixon succeeded in the battle to buy time, but failed to build sufficient political support at home so he could fulfill his initial requirements for peace with honor in Vietnam."13 In the end, Nixon's honorable peace was given up due to the public's reluctance to further pay for what they now perceived as a losing battle. The US system of government works to augment the importance of public opinion. The executive, limited by the constitution and a Congress growing in power often finds it necessary to turn to public opinion in order to pass foreign policy initiatives. The growth and importance of the media has better allowed the President to reach the public's eyes and ears. Yet, when the public opinion is strongly set against an initiative, no number of polls and public talks may be able to sway them, leading us to believe that the US public is not as malleable as we are often think it is. 2.3 The American Divide Complicating the role of public opinion in US foreign policy making is the deepening divide amongst US citizens along party and religious lines. While in the aftermath of the Second World War US public opinion was fairly homogenous in its views of foreign policy the division between conservatives and liberals has grown in the Post Cold War years. Yankelovich claims "'The actively religious US. public tends to see the world in terms of good and evil, holds its own values in the highest moral esteem, and feels ready to make whatever sacrifices are required to combat what it perceives as evil.'"14 Asmus, Everts and Isernia (2004) claim that there are four differing sectors of public opinion when it comes to foreign policy issues: the hawks, the pragmatists, the doves and the isolationists.15 Hawks believe that war is often necessary to achieve justice in the international system and military power is more important than economic power. Pragmatists also believe that war can be a necessity but they maintain that economic power is often more important that military power. Doves obviously do not feel that war is necessary and call for a strengthening of international institutions like the UN. The last group, the isolationists, hold that war is not necessary and that economic power is not on the rise.16 The authors believe the subdivision of these groups is very important for policy makers considering foreign policy initiatives because if one directs an initiative that is pleasing to two or more of the groups he is capable of garnering a majority of public opinion. In practical terms, the authors state, "an American president can indeed seek to form a working majority, built on a coalition between Hawks and Pragmatists, for using force absent a U.N. mandate, as was the case on Iraq."17 Chapter 3: Constraining Foreign Policy The US system of democracy claims to hold its politicians responsible for their actions. Perhaps this is best shown at periodic elections which are "the most potent means to ensure the accountability of leaders to their publics."18 Seen in this light public opinion can have a devastating effect on a politician's future political life. Yet evidence leads us to believe that politicians may not pay as much attention to public opinion as we would like to believe. In addition, lack of public awareness on foreign policy issues and media influence can cause further problems for policy makers. 3.1 Elites and Polling Polling has been the primary form of gauging public opinion for policy makers. When we think of polls we may think of politicians reading over the results of polls and coming to policy decisions. Yet many theorists believe the reality is the opposite. Erikson, Mackuen and Stimson (2002) claim, "for politicians, the policy decision comes first, then the crafting of a message to sell it to the public. When politicians successfully nudge the public's policy preferences closer to their own, they improve their chances both for reelection and achieving desirable public policies." 19 Cook and Manza (2002) claim that the affect public opinion has on government is mixed. They state that, some analysts have found a strong, persisting impact of public opinion on public policy. Yet others reject the idea that the public has consistent views at all, or even if it does, that those views are independent of manipulation by elites and/or exercise much influence over policymaking. Still others view the relationship as more mixed, with public opinion having greater influence in some contexts than others.20 Jacobs and Shapiro (2001) side with those who argue that public opinion has little influence on policy decisions. In fact, they argue that the influence of public opinion is declining while politician's goals are driving important policy decisions. They claim that public opinion research, in fact, is being used to "identify the language, symbols, and arguments to "win" public support for their policy objectives. Responsiveness to public opinion and manipulation of public opinion are not mutually exclusive; politicians manipulate public opinion by tracking public thinking to select the actions and words that resonate with the public."21 In this regard some theorists claim that the gap between public opinion and the opinion of policymakers reflects a "democratic deficit" in foreign policy22 and that politicians treat opinion polls as a way to bolster there own policies thereby backing up elitist theories that foreign policy is best left to experts.23 Believers in an elitist foreign policy are in line with realist claims that public opinion is irrational and uninformed. They point to evidence that makes claims that, "public-opinion surveys consistently show that voters are not well informed about foreign policy. In addition, the premise that private information exists is much more common than is the assumption that complete information prevails."24 Other theorists claim that in reality policy makers hold a much more positive outlook of public opinion than students of realism claim exists, but that there is no consensus as to the level of input that public officials believe the public should have in the policy making process.25 In a study by Powlick (1995) he analyses the linkage model between the government and the public, taking into consideration elites, interest groups, the news media, elected officials and the public.26 He concludes that the paths least used between the public and government are interest groups and elites. Those most used are those based around the media and elected officials showing that the public and government may have amore direct connection than was previously thought.27 3.2 Public Awareness One of the most difficult issues surrounding public opinion and its influence on foreign policy is the level of awareness surrounding policy issues. For the public to play a constructive role in influencing foreign policy they would have to be interested and well informed on the issues surrounding the policy, but this is often not the case. The public is often better at making decisions of a general nature and often don't get into the significant details behind the issue. In addition, on issues of a lesser scale many policy makers prefer that the public not be informed. Baum (2004) claims, when the strategic stakes in a foreign crisis are modest, a president is likely to weigh more heavily the potential political risks associated with a given policy, thereby making public attentiveness a potential constraining factor. Unless they are quite confident of success, presidents are more likely to use force in low-stakes foreign crises when the public is inattentive.28 Hinckley (1991) concludes that in areas of lesser interest where the public needs educating; "if the public learns the lesson but still does not care, then perhaps policymakers need to reexamine the sense of importance they place on the policy they are advocating."29 The manner with which President Clinton handled US involvement in Somalia calls attention to the tendency US Presidents have of attempting to make foreign policy decisions of a low scale nature without attracting public attention. Clinton's decision to push forward foreign policy initiatives in Somalia was first taken in the absence of media attention, while the decision to end US intervention was followed by greater public and media scrutiny. Baum states that, This suggests that in an environment characterized by rising public scrutiny, the president was more concerned with the longer-term political ramifications of his policy than with contemporaneous levels of public support or opposition. Moreover, consistent with the Presidential Rhetoric Hypothesis, prior to his decision to escalate, President Clinton uttered hardly a word about Somalia.30 3.3 Media on the other side As discussed in the previous chapter the media can be a powerful ally for policy makers in their campaign to influence public opinion. Yet media involvement can also result in negative public opinion on issues of importance. The ease with which information and images can move worldwide can cause multiple problems for policy makers and negative images and stories have often been the catalyst for a turn in public opinion. The picture of a little girl running from a napalm attack had a profound impact on public opinion surrounding the Vietnam war. More recently, images from Iraq could be helping to turn public opinion of US involvement in the region. Hilsum (2004) claims that "two images the administration tried to suppress may come to symbolise America in Iraq: coffins arriving at Dover Air Force Base, and a grinning Private Lynndie England, pointing mockingly at the genitals of Iraqi captives in Abu Ghraib prison."31 Hilsum believes that these images have caused such impact that the carefully staged photo opportunities presented by the Bush administration now appear 'ironic'.32 Chapter Four: The War in Iraq When discussing the US incursion into Iraq in 2003 we must place the decision to go to war in the atmosphere surrounding foreign policy initiatives following terrorists attacks of 9/11 2001. Although international terrorism was listed as one of the top foreign policy problems in a survey on foreign relations by the Chigaco Council in 1998,33 this attitude was greatly accentuated by the attacks of 9/11. The attacks which evoked intense worldwide sympathy and condemnation of those responsible signified an important strengthening of resolve in both US public opinion and US foreign policy. Chambers and Goidel claim that, "in the year following September 11, 2001. The interest of the American public was again piqued, and the patriotism that bloomed across the country extended to the halls of Congress, where partisanship was squelched for many months to show American unity and resolve in facing this new threat.34 The Bush Administration, which had come to office campaigning on the grounds of 'compassionate conservatism', limited overseas military involvement and a caution against arrogance35 would soon take a lead in the war against terrorism. The events of September 11, 2001 "provided a unique opportunity for the Bush administration to create a relatively enduring foreign policy structure. In the wake of the terrorist attacks, U.S. citizens were more attentive to international affairs and more supportive of an activist foreign policy."36 There was an increased sense of vulnerability, especially from within America itself and fear was widespread. George W. Bush has made considerable use of public sentiments in his effort to promote the war on terrorism and the war in Iraq. Baker and Balz (2005) claim that the president's addresses to the public on the issue show a strategy that can only be based on the extensive study of public opinion.37 They claim of the war in Iraq that, The White House recently brought onto its staff one of the nation's top academic experts on public opinion during wartime, whose studies are now helping Bush craft his message two years into a war with no easy end in sight. Behind the president's speech is a conviction among White House officials that the battle for public opinion on Iraq hinges on their success in convincing Americans that, whatever their views of going to war in the first place, the conflict there must and can be won.38 Most polls about the Iraq war show a decline in optimism from the immediate postwar period. In July 2003, NBC News/Wall Street Journal pollsters asked Americans how long troops should stay in Iraq. A majority choose the response "as long as necessary to complete the process, even if it takes as long as five years." Around 20 percent wanted to withdraw troops as soon as possible, while a solid majority believed that the war would contribute to the long-term security of the United States.39 In a poll in 2004, less than a majority (48 percent) believed that the war was worth fighting, considering the costs and benefits. Most Americans continued to say that the U.S. military effort was going well in Iraq.40 Recent polls have shown a further decline in support. In a poll conducted in February of this year 36% of Americans said the war was going well and 30% thought President Bush was doing a good job of handling the conflict.41 In the same article where the findings were published the news service claimed, "Even on fighting terrorism, which has long been a strong suit for Mr. Bush, his ratings dropped lower than ever. Half of Americans say they disapprove of how he's handling the war on terror, while 43 percent approve."42 In addition, while there was great consensus to remove Saddam Hussien from power US public opinion may not show as much determination to "shoulder the burden of occupying and rebuilding Iraq without significant assistance from other nations."43 Conclusion Important lessons can be learned about US foreign policy and public opinion by analysing US involvement in Iraq over the past three years. First and foremost we may contend that public opinion best facilitates foreign policy when a majority of public opinion is in line with policy initiatives. We can also easily conclude that on issues of relative unimportance, as well as on divided issues, policy making and public opinion can come become unpredictable and complicated on both sides. In these instances if policy makers can educate the public or build a consensus between various groups within US society it is possible to garner public support. Public opinion does play an important role in American Foreign policy, but the connection between policy makers and the public needs to be reexamined to better facilitate consensus building between divided sectors of society. Works Cited Ambrose, S.E. & Douglas, G.B., (1993). Rise to Globalism New York: Penguin. Asmus, R., Everts, P.P., & Isernia, P., (2004). 'Power, War, and Public Opinion: Looking Behind the Transatlantic Divide', Policy Review, No. 123, p. 73-88. Baker, P., Balz, D. (2005, June 30). 'Bush Words Reflect Public Opinion Strategy', Washington Post, A01. Barkawi, T., & Laffey, M., (2001). Democracy, Liberalism, and War: Rethinking the Democratic Peace Debate Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner. Baum, M., (2004). 'How Public Opinion Constrains the Use of Force: The Case of Operation Restore Hope', Presidential Studies Quarterly, Vol. 34, pp. 187-212. Bowman, K., (2004). 'Iraq: U.S. Public Opinion Holds', The American Enterprise, Vol. 15, p. 60. Chambers, M.R. & Goidel, R.K., (2004). 'Beyond the Water's Edge: Public Opinion, Foreign Policy, and the Post-Cold War Presidency', White House Studies, Vol. 4, pp. 31-49 Cook, F.L., Manza, J., (2002). Navigating Public Opinion: Polls, Policy, and the Future of American Democracy New York: Oxford University Press. Corrigan, M., (2001). ' The Disconnect between "Going Public" and the Rational Public in Presidential Policy Making', White House Studies, vol.1 http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0KVD/is_1_1/ai_80605878 Erikson, R.S., Mackuen, M.B. & Stimson, J.A. (2002). 'Panderers or Shirkers Politicians and Public Opinion', Cook, F.L., Manza, J., & Page, B. (eds). Navigating Public Opinion: Polls, Policy, and the Future of American Democracy New York: Oxford University Press Everts, P. & Isernia, P., (2001). 'Introduction', Public Opinion and the International Use of Force London: Routledge, pp. 1-28. Foyle, D.C. (1997). 'Public Opinion and Foreign Policy: Elite Beliefs as a Mediating Variable', International Studies Quarterly, 41/1, March, pp. 141-170. Gershman, J., (2006). 'Democracy and the Making of Foreign Policy', Foreign Policy in Focus [accessed 2006, April 23] http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/3103 Gowa, J., (1999). Ballots and Bullets: The Elusive Democratic Peace Princeton: Princeton University Press. Hilsum, L., (2004). 'US and British Public Opinion May Be More Shocked Than Most Iraqis by the Pictures of Prisoner Abuse. in Iraq, They Merely Confirm What Most People Already Believe', New Statesman, Vol. 133 (May 17), p. 12. Hinckley, R.H., (1992). People, Polls And Policymakers New York: Lexington Books. Jacobs, L.R., Shapiro, R.Y., (2001). 'Presidents, Polling Politicians, Pandering, and the Study of Democratic Responsiveness', Presidential Studies Quarterly Vol. 31, [accessed 2006, April 26] http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.aspref=0360-4918 Katz, A.Z., (1997). 'Public Opinion and Foreign Policy: The Nixon Administration and the Pursuit of Peace with Honor in Vietnam', Presidential Studies Quarterly, Vol. 27, pp. 496-516. Langmore, J., (2004). 'The Bush Foreign Policy Revolution: Its Origins and its Alternatives', Global Policy Forum [accessed 2006, April 23] http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/analysis/2004/08revolution.pdf Madar, J.C. 'The Crafting of US Foreign Policy', University of Denver Portfolios [accessed 2006, April 23] http://www.portfolio.du.edu/portfolio/getportfoliofileuid=37825 'Poll: Bush Ratings at an all time low', (2006). CBS News, February 28 [accessed on 2006, April 23] http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/27/opinion/polls/main1350874.shtml Powlick, P.J., (1991). 'The Attitudinal Bases for Responsiveness to Public Opinion among American Foreign Policy Officials', Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 35 (4), pp. 611-641. Powlick, P.J., (1995). 'The Sources of Public Opinion for American Foreign Policy Officials', International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 39 (4), pp. 427-451 'Public Opinion at "Tipping Point" on Iraq', (2005). USA Today, Vol. 134, December, p. 14 Smith, H. (1988). The Power Game NewYork: Ballantine Books. Read More