|
November 9, 2006
The 2002 National Security Strategy of the United States of America was premised on a massive increases in defense spending, the assertion of lone superpower status, the prevention of the emergence of any regional competitors, the use of preventive -- or preemptive -- force, and the idea of forsaking multilateralism if it didn't suit U.S. interests. This underpinned the neo-con conception of Pax Americana.
Pax Americana was linked to the domestic dominance of the Republican Party against all challengers for a generation or more. This was to be a domestic version of "full spectrum dominance." Hence we had -- the global Pax Americana and the domestic Pax Republicana. Isn't that unwinding now with the recent Congressional elections.
This is a good thing as the making of sound U.S. foreign policy depends on a vigorous, deliberative, and often combative process that involves both the executive and the legislative branches, as each branch has both exclusive and overlapping powers in the realm of foreign policy. The Bush administration has aggressively asserted executive prerogatives whilst congressional oversight of the executive on foreign and national security policy had virtually collapsed.
Norman J. Ornstein and Thomas E. Man, in an article entitled When Congress Checks Out in Foreign Affairs says that one of Congress' key roles is oversight: making sure that the laws it writes are faithfully executed and vetting the military and diplomatic activities of the executive. Congressional oversight is meant to keep mistakes from happening or from spiraling out of control; it helps draw out lessons from catastrophes in order to prevent them, or others like them, from recurring. Good oversight cuts waste, punishes fraud or scandal, and keeps policymakers on their toes.
Yet the Bush administration has reserved the right simply to ignore congressional dictates that it has decided intrude too much on executive branch power.The Bush administration has aggressively asserted its executive power and displayed a strong aversion to sharing information with Congress and the public. But why did Congress allow this to happen?
Ornstein and Man say that the most logical explanation for why has Congress abandoned oversight when it is most needed:
is that the body now lacks a strong institutional identity. Members of the majority party, including congressional leaders, act as field lieutenants in the president's army rather than as members of an independent branch of government. Serious oversight almost inevitably means criticism of performance, and this Republican Congress has shied away from criticizing its own White House.
Will this change with the Democratic control of Congress?
|
