Walter Lippmann's Views on Presidential Ability to Make U.S. Foreign Policy
In his book entitled Public Opinion Walter Lippmann presents some very profound arguments on how public opinion is formed and how mach value it has. He describes in great detail the decision making process and how our own stereotypes affect our perception of events. Lippmann expresses his disillusionment with mass democracy, his concerns about propaganda and how the press could not be trusted to provide unbiased information. Contrary to what one would expect form someone holding such views Lippmann also questions the trustworthiness of the chief executive to make good foreign policy, even when he has all of the "inside" information and knows the true nature of events taking place in other countries. He presents several reasons including, the President himself, the formation of a policy and intrinsic qualities of foreign policy, how foreign policy is sometimes used as a scapegoat, and the President's ability to manipulate information. In addition he also presents arguments which are not directly related to the Presidency but shortcomings in Congress and the democratic system, which contribute to the problem.
The President of the United States is after all only human. As a result he is just as susceptible to certain human shortcomings as the rest of us. The one that has the most direct effect on his policy-making abilities is that of stereotypes. On page 173 Lippmann says " Men formed their picture of the world outside from the unchallenged pictures in their heads. Their pictures came to them well stereotyped by their parents and teachers and were little corrected by their own experience." If this statement were completely true then hu...
... middle of paper ...
...ll of the shortcomings in the current system of foreign policy, there is little that can be done. He says "We find ourselves trusting certain people who constitute our means of junction with pretty nearly the whole realm of unknowable things. Complete independence in the universe is completely unthinkable." The main idea of the book was the basis of public opinion and foreign policy will only be better formed when the basis of public opinion is overhauled. This is best summarized when Walter Lippmann said, "It is because they are compelled to act without a reliable picture of the world, that governments, schools, newspapers, and churches make small headway against the more obvious failings of democracy, against violent prejudice, apathy, preference for the curious trivial as against the dull important, and the hunger for sideshows and the three legged calves"
Steven Hook and John Spanier's 2012 book titled “American foreign policy since WWII" serves as one of the most important texts that can be used in understanding the underlying complexities on American foreign policies. Like the first readings that are analyzed in class (American Diplomacy by George Kennan and Surprise, Security, and the American Experience by John Lewis Gaddis), this text also brings history into a more understandable context. Aside from being informative and concise in its historical approach, Hook and Spanier also critiques the several flaws and perspectives that occurred in the American foreign policy history since World War II.
To explain, the president has little control with regard to current events and policy making, his wishes are ignored, and his hands are tied. With such circumstances, the president’s desires are viewed as, just that, desires, rather than commands. Unless of course he holds the power of persuasion. In order to reach political power and presidential achievement, the president must persuade other political actors his interests are theirs (Howell 243). Howell counter argues Neustadt, explaining the president exerts influence not by the power of persuasion, but by his unilateral powers. “The president can make all kinds of public policies without the formal consent of Congress”. The unilateral powers emerge from institutional advantages such as the structure, resources, and location within the system of separated powers. (Howell 246-247). By that Howell means, the president’s power does not derive from persuasion, but from simply being the
The most important phase that Neustadt argues about the presidency and presidents is the persuasion power. He writes that the president cannot simply command “do this, do that”, as we all know “nothing will happen”. Different branches of the government have different constituencies and different interests. To make things happen, the president must use his bargaining skill to persuade others. Neustadt, to back his view gives a historical prove in which president Truman,
1 Walter Lippman, The Cold War: A Study in U.S. Foreign Policy (New York: Harper & Brothers Publishers, 1947) 48-52.
Since the presidential goal is to lead the public opinion, the media’s aid is needed in order to reach out for the people and persuade them with any desired adjustme...
Bill Moyer’s PBS series, Buying The War, focuses on journalist’s impact and failure to go up against the Bush administration regarding the sought war in Iraq post 9/11. This documentary portrays how powerful the media was towards the nation, and how useless it was when challenging Bush and his team about whether America should go to war or not with Iraq. We can see how Bush and his administration persuaded the media enough, and to some extent controlled them, in order for them to communicate the message that going to war was the best choice. Patriotism played a vast role because reporters could not go against Bush and reject what he was saying or it would be considered “unpatriotic”. In addition to this, the bias in the media was also a major player that can be connected to patriotism. The media post 9/11 was
The president has a significant amount of power; however, this power is not unlimited, as it is kept in check by both the judicial and legislative branches. The president is held responsible for passing legislation that will improve the lives of everyday Americans, even though he shares his legislative powers with Congress. The sharing of power acts as an impediment to the president’s ability to pass legislation quickly and in the form it was originally conceived. However, Americans do not take this into account when judging a president, as they fully expect him to fulfill all of the promises he makes during his campaign. By making promises to pass monumental legislation once elected without mentioning that Congress stands as an obstacle that must be hurdled first, the president creates unrealistic expectations of what he can fulfill during his time in office (Jenkins-Smith, Silva, and Waterman, 2005). A president is expected to have the characteristics that will allow him to efficiently and effectively lead the nation and to accomplish the goals he set during his campaign (Jenkins-Smith et al., 2005). There have been a handful of presidents that have been immortalized as the ideal person to lead the United States and if a president does not live up to these lofty expectations the American public will inevitably be disappointed. Since every president is expected to accomplish great things during his presidency, he is forced to created and project a favorable image through unrealistic promises. The combination of preconceived ideas of the perfect president and the various promises made by presidential candidates during their campaign create unrealistic expectations of the president by the American public.
Walter Lippmann begins his The Public Philosophy by expressing his concern for the state of the Western Liberal Democracies. The West, he writes, suffers from "a disorder from within." This disorder has its roots in the long peace between 1812 and 1914, and was further exascurbated by the great population increase of that era and the coinciding industrial revolution. The latter changed the nature of armed struggle, which in turn intensified the "democratic malady." The situation Lippmann describes is the "paralysis of governments," the inability of the state to make difficult and unpopular decisions.
Janis, I. L. (1972). Victims of Groupthink: a Psychological Study of Foreign-Policy Decisions and Fiascoes. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. ISBN 0-395-14002-1.
The major strengths of Theodore Roosevelt’s Foreign Policy lied in his eager and energetic global action, his desire to involve the United States in global politics, as well as in his belief in his Big Stick diplomacy. Roosevelt’s naval intervention in Panama, which led to successful retaliation against Colombian government, allowed for the construction the Panama Canal previously stymied by a lack of cooperation on the part of Colombia. The Canal uncovered a new and valuable trade route, linking the Pacific to the Atlantic, and stimulating economic growth for both the United States as well as other countries.
The book A Concise History of U.S. Foreign Policy, by Joyce Kaufman, and the essay, American Foreign Policy Legacy by Walter Mead both acknowledge the history, and the importance of American foreign policy. The two argue that American foreign policy has always been an essential aspect of the prosperity and health of the United States. After reading these writings myself, I can agree that American foreign policy in the U.S. has always been detrimental to the success of this nation. Throughout history most Americans have had very little interest in foreign affairs, nor understood the importance. This essay will address the importance of foreign policy, why Americans have little interest in foreign affairs, and what the repercussions
Political scientists have continually searched for methods that explain presidential power and success derived from using that power effectively. Five different approaches have been argued including the legal approach, presidential roles approach, Neustadtian approach, institutional approach, and presidential decision-making approach. The legal approach says that all power is derived from a legal authority (U.S. Constitution). The presidential roles approach contends that a president’s success is derived from balancing their role as head of state and head of government. The Neustadtian approach contends that “presidential power is the power to persuade“ (Neustadt, p. 11). The institutional approach contends that political climate and institutional relations are what determines presidential power. The last approach, decision-making, provides a more psychological outlook that delves into background, management styles, and psychological dispositions to determine where a president’s idea of power comes from. From all of these, it is essential to study one at a time in order to analyze the major components of each approach for major strengths and weaknesses.
The president’s accumulation of personal power can make up for his lack of institutional powers. The president must act as the “lubricant” for the other sectors of government in order to preserve order and accomplish business. Neustadt emphasizes the president’s ability to forge strong personal relationships and his or her charisma, indicating that these characteristics affect the president’s ability to persuade. According to Neustadt, a successful president persuades the public, congress, and foreign powers to align their motives and views with him. Two presidents who validate this statement are Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson. As two presidents who do not validate this statement, Neustadt cites George W. Bush and Richard Nixon.
Peterson, Paul E. "The President's Dominance in Foreign Policy Making." Political Science Quarterly 109.2 (Summer, 1994): 215-234.
Kaufman, D., Parker, J., Howell P., Doty, G., (2004). Six Principles of Political Realism. In Understanding International Relations: The Value of Alternative Lenses. Morgenthau, H. J.; New York: McGraw-Hill.