Presidents and Foreign Policy

For a long period of time now the role of congress and its responsibility in foreign affairs, particularly in the area of declaring wars (often referred as police actions) has gone completely awry. Or, in other words, the congress has blatantly abdicated their responsibilities in this area; as well as many others. You may recall Regan’s invasion of Granada, which seems like complete idiocy. But worse was the whole Contra affair where congress just gave free reign to a popular president to do as he pleased. In was unconstitutional and unfortunately has continued to present times. We conveniently do not call have not called the Korean conflict, the Vietnam War, and the Iraq and Afghanistan wars even though they are. Congress does not vote to go to war which they should, they just vote funds after the fact.

It has interested me that this conservative writer talks about Democrats restoring traditional conservative values that conservatives have trampled upon since the Regan years. This mainly has to do with constitutional issues and congress doing their job rather than pushing their responsibilities onto the executive branch of government. Presidential Line vetoes being a choice example this eroding of congressional power. What he has not addressed so far however, is the purchase of the legislative branch by the financial elite.

A side thought. Is the only way back to a representative democracy, where all citizens interests are addressed rather than the ultra rich, is through a third party movement? Unfortunately, 3^rd party movements have reflected even more radical interests than the two party system.

Mickey Edwards brings up another interesting concept in his book on reclaiming conservatism. It is what he calls Factionalism, meaning “solidarity with one’s part had become more important than the obligation of Congress to act as a body separate from, and completely equal to, the presidency.” From my point of view that is why the Obama administration seems to have accomplished little. A solid, non-compromising, “get Obama” Republican dominated congress (aided by like minded Democrats) have stymied any real action for the welfare of the country. The disastrous acts of the G.W. Bush administration cannot be adequately reversed because of this factionalism, causing the gridlock we see in place. Edward’s point is that the Republicans during the Bush administration abdicated the conservative ideals and promoted this factionalism.

As I read more of Edward’s book, I am reminded of the biblical story of Jacob and Esau. You will recall old hairy Esau had been out doing his outdoor things of hunting and the like and came home famished. Jacob said he would give him a bowl of stew for his birthright. More hungry than bright, Esau agreed. The corollary is that the Republicans, seeking to overthrow Democratic domination of congress prior to Regan sold their birthright of conservatism for the hunger for power. Among others Edward’s blames Newt Gingrich as one of the prime architects of this movement. He and folk like Thompson advocated term limits which weakens congress, and giving up power to the executive branch through line item vetoes, and fiscal responsibility all worked to subvert the historical conservative agenda. Thus the fears that James Madison had for the democracy have come to fruition under this modern sloganism versus conservative principles and strict constitutional interpretation.