As I'm sure everyone saw, a group of Senators recently penned an open letter to Iran revealing the political division that has formed a gulf in the middle of the US foreign policy strategy. Recently, however, the NYTimes published an opinion piece about the unanimous legislation that recently passed the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, giving Congress a powerful seat at the Iran negotiations. The Obama Administration initially threatened to veto the bill, but relented when threatened by a bi-partisan override.
In our groups and for the debate, we only spoke about political division in terms of political parties, but this article got me thinking about the growing divide between the legislative and administrative branches. Now, it was brought up in the debate that this is perhaps the essence of democracy, and I couldn't disagree more. Debate is inherent to democracy; division and disagreement for the sake of raising one's own profile and political clout is not. And that is what I keep seeing more and more between these two branches. The executive branch continues to try and expand its wartime powers, and has even far expanded the definition of war in order to accomplish that. Gone are the days where the President would address Congress to request a declaration of war. Additionally, roles normally reserved for the Administration are now being infringed. In fact, both sides of aisle can come together in agreement to increase their own political standing in this debate. It seems to me that this reshaping of the roles of the branches should be discussed more as a type of division as we seek to determine the detriment that it could present.
1. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/15/opinion/a-reckless-act-in-the-senate-on-iran.html?_r=0
One argument that I think is especially interesting within the context of your post is that assertion that the U.S. constitution needs to evolve in order to provide for the leadership roles the U.S. is expected to fill in the global system. The Iranian nuclear deal illustrates the problems of a divided system which gives both the Senate and the President the ability to negotiate foreign policy. The inability to create a coherent, united foreign policy seems to pose real obstacles to continued U.S. leadership in the global community. I think the New York Times editorial board did a great job discussing this problem yesterday:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/15/opinion/a-reckless-act-in-the-senate-on-iran.html?_r=0
I would agree with both Chelsey's and Ben's observations here. In our class debate the most popular position by far was that U.S. domestic disorganization is the greatest threat to U.S. power. But it may be that what looks like chaos is in fact evolution as the roles of the branches and players in government undergo modification in response to the international system and internal pressures alike.
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comments, guys. I think I just found it interesting to consider that the expansion of power, by both the executive and legislative branches, is what may be causing some of the political strife. I think that any time one seeks to increase their power it will be a painful process, but to have so much of that occurring at the same time is a bit unique.
ReplyDelete