Hello, welcome back to 21st Century American Foreign Policy.
I'm Bruce Jentleson, your instructor for this course.
and today's session will be the last of the six in the first unit of the class.
So, just to review where we've been and where we're going.
the first session we kind of had a welcome and a course
overview and we looked at the Foreign Policy debate within the U.S..
The third session was setting up this four P's analytic framework
about the national interest.
Then we had a session on U.S., how U.S. Foreign Policy is
made, the President of Congress, our
interview with former senator, Richard Lugar.
Last time we talked about the role of the media
and had the interviews with some prominent people in media.
And so today also on how U.S. Foreign Policy is made.
We're going to talk about the role of Interest Groups and Public Opinion.
I have some summary remarks at
the end to pulling unit one together.
And I have to say that, that we'll take a glimpse at both of these
factors to give you a sense but by no means can cover all aspects of this.
but it'll give a sense about the role that, that
Interest Groups and Public Opinion plays in American Foreign Policy.
So here's our outline for today.
Really, three parts.
First, Interest Groups, and their impact on Foreign Policy.
Second, Public Opinion,
the general patterns, and some key issues.
And third is sort of a wrap up, of unit one.
So let me start with a couple of quotes here on the lower Interest Groups.
one goes back to James Madison, one of the founder's of the United States, an early
president and one of the author's of what
we'll call the Federalist Papers, way back in 1787.
this was a really interesting and quite exciting exercise.
the U.S. had tried
one form of government called the Articles
of Confederation, it didn't work very well.
And they got together to write the
Constitution, which is still with us today.
And James Madison and Alexander Hamilton and John
Jay wrote a series of really essays that
went out in the newspapers, no internet those
days, no blogs, that were called The Federalist Papers.
Laying out a lot of the issues that they were
trying to wrestle with in the design of the government.
And the one from
Federalist, Federalist Paper number 10, they have a quote here.
Comes from Madison and he was talking about the role of factions.
Factions is really something that, is similar
to what we call Interest Groups today.
And Madison wrote, the friend of popular governments never finds himself so much
alarmed for their character and fate, as
when he contemplates their propensity to faction.
And by faction he meant not just a group with particular
interests, but one who's interests, or as
he said, common impulse or passion are adverse
to the rights of other citizens, or the
permant, permanent and aggregate interests of the community.
and so his argument then, way back in 1787, long before we had a lot of money in
politics, is very much similar to the argument that
people raise about the role of Interest Groups today.
are they a positive factor?
do they push Foreign Policy in a direction that's more in the interests
of particular groups or, you know, do they work towards the national interests.
and it's fascinating to go back and think
about how this issue in its core elements has
really been with us since the founding of our
government, indeed, it's in, in other governments as well.
Madison was concerned about ways in which
you could control the effects of factions without
harming democracy.
but clearly, he was worried about them way back in, in the
late 18th century, long before America had, had a major, major global problem.
Here's another quote for you.
the conjunction of an immense military establishment, and a
large arms industry is new in the American experience.
The total influence, economic, political, even spiritual,
is felt in every stity, city, every
statehouse, every office of the federal government.
We must not fail to comprehend the grave implications.
Our toil, our resources and livelihood all are
involved; so is the very structure of our society.
In the councils of government we must guard against the acquisition
or unwarranted influence, whether sought or
unsought, by the military industrial complex.
The potential
for this disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
this is often was referred to as, as the military industrial complex.
Taking about the role that defense
contractors in industries that are involved in
defense budgets in the like may have an excessive influence on Foreign Policy.
And Clearly the person that said this, was very concerned,
that it would be an undue influence on American Foreign Policy,
not consistent with the whole national interest.
Alright, so here's a little inline quiz for you.
We want to know who said this military industrial complex quote.
I'm going to give you four choices. First, was it Karl Marx?
second, was it president Barack Obama?
Third, well, Marx came up again, but third, was it Fidel Castro?
Or fourth, was it Pres, it
was the President, former general, Dwight Eisenhower?
Who said this, military industrial complex quote that
expressed great concern about undo influence of Interest Groups.
Think about it.
figure out what the answer might be.
and the right answer is, President General Dwight Eisenhower.
a general himself, somebody who made his career in the military.
obviously had a great deal of respect for the role of
the military commanding general during World War Two, against the Nazis.
President of the United States from 1952 to 1960.
A Republican,
normally known as a friend of business.
And I think what makes the quote even more significant
than if it had been from Karl Marx or Castro.
a Marxist, a Communist, would be that this was a
commentary by, a Republican President, former General of the United States.
saying that this was a concern, he said
this in his farewell speech in January, 1961.
and indeed, over 50 years later, we can see some of the same concerns.
so again, as we think about Interest
Groups, one way of thinking about the types
of interest groups is to think about a
typology of the different types of interest groups.
and we draw this also from the book that
I've been referring to, my American Foreign Policy book.
and they're really, if you go through these
two tables, I'm going to flash different parts to you.
there're really five types of Interest
Groups that affect American Foreign Policy.
Some are Economic Groups,
that have economic interests at stake in Foreign Policy.
for example, trade unions, like the AFL-CIO, CIO, the labor movement.
businesses, like the National Association of Manufacturers.
Consumer Groups like the Consumer Federation of America.
Major multinational corporations that have interest, and if you recall, in one
of our earlier lectures we talked about how that effected the overthrow
of the government in, in Guatemala way back
in the 1950's that have been democratic elected.
Second category of Interest Groups are Identity Groups.
Groups whose interest in Foreign Policy
comes from their ethnic, religious, racial identity.
It links them to countries and peoples around the world.
Jewish Americans, and issues that relate to Israel and the Middle East.
Cuban Americans, and issues that relate to Cuba.
Greek Americans have been very involved in issues that relate to Greece, and
Turkey, and Cyprus.
African Americans, on a range of issues that
have affected U.S. relations with African countries and others.
So, the difference is these groups seek to influence
Foreign Policy because of their identity, links to, to issues.
and the first category is groups that do it because of their economic interest.
Now we have Political Issue Groups, groups that
are really less about economic interests or, or personal
identity in the concern about, about types of issues.
This goes back to like the anti-Vietnam war movement
which was very concerned, obviously, about the Vietnam War.
There was a group in the 1970's called The Committee on the Present
Danger that thought American Foreign Policy towards
the Soviet Union was not conservative enough.
Was going too soft.
Amnesty international, a group that lobbies a lot on human rights issues.
The World Wildlife Fund
is an example of an environmental group.
Refugees International, a group that works on, on refugee issues.
There's a long, long list of these groups, and I
put these out there just as different types of examples.
Fourth, and not quite an Interest Group, but I include it anyway,
are State and Local Governments that, that have their own interests at stake.
we've had a group called Local Elected Officials for Social Responsibility.
they can't really determine say,
U.S. policy on things like Nuclear Arms Control, or when
we opposed apartheid in, in South Africa in the 1980's.
but are really trying to bring to bear their own concerns as,
as its localities, and do their own version of lobbying on Foreign Policy.
California, for example, had it's own World Trade Commission, trying to
pursue the interests of California economy companies, unions and the like
as it relates to trade.
And fifth again, not quite an Interest Group like the others, but also
tries to bring their influence to bear on Foreign Policy, or foreign governments.
And here I don't mean normal diplomacy,
the role of Embassies, that's standard diplomacy.
but there have been many cases where
foreign governments hire their own Washington law firms.
public relations companies to promote the interest
of, of, of, of their governments in Washington.
so that's a basic typology to think about as you look at different issues.
What types of groups are trying to influence American Foreign Policy?
probably from, from some combination of these five categories as we go forward.
so let's move on to, to Public Opinion.
and here I want to talk about just some
general patterns and some key issues, again, just as examples.
people ask a lot what's the nature of Public Opinion?
some people have a view of the American public as very
reactive, very knee jerk, very emotional, very manipulable by their leaders.
and you'll find some elements of that, to be sure.
but frankly, to be honest with you, there's a
lot of common sense out there a, among the public.
There's a lot of people who don't know a
lot about the world, that can't find countries all
the time on maps, aren't necessarily reading all the newspapers on the issues
but when you talk to folks, sometimes there's a lot of common sense.
It's what I've called in some articles
that I've written, the pretty prudent public.
and I, and prudent means cautious on some military force issues, neither, to trigger
happy, nor to gun shy, neither to willing to use force in a trigger happy sense,
nor to gun shy when it appears to be needed to defend national interest.
but
[UNKNOWN]
or not totally like that all the time.
I don't want to give you the impression
that the public is always right, or perfectly rational.
but I do push back a little bit against people who
have this sense of it as totally manipulable, totally emotio, emotional.
tremendous amount of common sense in the average person.
I think you'd all find that in the publics
of your own countries as well, the same combination.
The relationship between Public Opinion and Foreign Policy leaders, President
and the Congress, is, is really best
thought of as an interactive in a relationship.
Each influences the other.
Does the public influence Foreign Policy?
Yes, in many instances it does.
the leaders have some shaping effect on what people think.
yes, they do too. It's an interactive relationship.
Who influences whom, more often depends upon the issue and the context.
I think it's fair to say leaders usually do influence the public more
than the reverse. But it's not infinitely elastic.
The American public has proved time and again that it, that it's
simply not totally going to take the views that it's leaders give it.
And let me give you an example of that.
We're going to use some graphs of Public Opinion in this class.
this is a graph of the question about was the Iraq war worth it.
And you can see, these are percentages who
think that all in all, considering the cost to
the United States versus the benefits of the United
States, the Iraq War was worth fighting or not.
And we'll see how the question is phrased as
benefits the United States or costs the United States, not
necessarily the rest of the world, not in any way
implying that costs or benefits to the Iraqi people or
others, doesn't matter.
But this is just a measure of how the American public was thinking.
So you can see back in 2003, when the war first started in
the sense that the United States was, was doing well, would win this war.
We had 57% of the American people saying it was worth it.
But,a year later the that was down
substantially to 53%.
even though, the President at the time George Bush, was telling the
American people it was the right thing to do, it was worth it.
The public was beginning very early on to have it's doubts.
And, if you go ahead to 2006, still the Bush Administration.
still,
[UNKNOWN]
saying the war was the right thing to do. we have only 37% of
the public saying it was worth it, and way up at 58% saying it was not worth it.
so the public, you can see, was, was not as
manipulable as the Bush administration at the time would have liked.
And by 2009, those who said it was worth it were
down to 34%, and those not worth it up to 62%.
So again an example of, of how the public
really forms, forms it's own opinion on many issues.
I'm going to give you a couple of other
graphs and they're taken from a study called Foreign
Policy in the New Millennium, by an organization called
the Chicago Counsel of Global Affairs based in Chicago, Illinois.
And this organization has done studies of American public
[UNKNOWN]
Foreign policy going way back to the 1970s.
There are many polls out there.
This one happens to bee one of the most highly regarded.
and by doing it every 4 years, they have a nice sequence over time.
And so it's the one we're going to use to give you a sense.
so here's a graph, On a question that's often take, taken
as a measure of how internationalist or isolationist the American public is.
and the question is the percentage you think
will be best for the future of the country.
If we take an active part in world affairs, if we stay out of world affairs.
So again, we actually go back to the late 1940s when others were
doing this study and you see 68% saying active part in world affairs.
And that stays fairly high, 60's and 70's, all the way
through the 50's and the 60's, through most of the cold war.
And then,
in the, in the, in the mid to late 1970s, it starts to dip down.
We start to get, get down into 54% in 1982.
This is after the Vietnam War, and a variety of other issues, where
Americans were beginning to wonder, whether
an active role was totally their interest.
the numbers saying stay out is up to 35% in 1982.
[INAUDIBLE]
But notice even there there's a pretty big gap, 19%.
There's still a majority saying that, saying
that it's, it's worth playing an active part.
You get back up in the 60's, and then after 9/11, it comes up to 71%.
And as we go forward to today, despite the economic problems the United States has,
and despite the costs and consequences of the Iraq war and the Afghanistan war,
it's still 61%.
Now the numbers staying out is up to 38% higher than
it's ever been before, but we still have a 23% gap.
and so I think while people they tell you
the American public is becoming isolationist, are missing the point.
it doesn't necessarily want to get involved in more wars, but
that's not the same thing as just stay out of international affairs.
and so this is a nice graph you can go back to that shows the pattern over time.
The another one is, is a measure of U.S. role as world leader.
And here we get the percentage who think the U.S.
should play a more, or sorry, think the U.S. plays
a more important and powerful role, or a less important
role as a world leader today compared to 10 years ago.
so in 1982, we had 44% saying more important than 10 years ago, and only 27%
saying less important. It kind of drops, through the, through,
the 90s by 1986. it's actually, my mistake.
let me let me go back, because I was looking at the graph the wrong way.
We make mistakes too.
so in 1974, let's go back, there were only 28% say more important than 10 years ago.
That was a, a sense
that, you know, the world was changing, it wasn't just about the United
States and the Soviet Union like it was early in the Cold War.
common sense judgement, I think, by the American public, even though leaders who
were still talking about the United States as, as the most important world leader.
It does go up here.
Now, it goes up to 41%, more important in the 1980s.
this is, you know, during the Cold War and the Reagan Administration.
and people are saying yeah, we are playing
a more, more important role in world affairs,
than 10 years before in the mid 1970's.
kind of follow the graphs.
after 9/11, we go way up to 55%, saying, yes,
in 2002, compared to 1992 playing a much more important role.
but then we see it drop.
pretty, pretty substantially, almost vertically between 2002 and 2010,
2012.
Only 24% are saying more important than 10 years ago and 43% saying less important.
Why?
Well, I think people are recognizing the rise of other countries.
China is a more important power.
many other countries are playing a more important role.
They're not being asked if the U.S. is the most important leader.
They might still say yes, compared to the others.
but they're saying that it's less important than 10 years ago.
Frankly, a very common-sense judgment about how the world had changed.
a couple of others just to show you a couple of other patterns.
this one, take a little bit closer look, added the
[UNKNOWN]
little small.
What do people fee, see as of 2012 as critical threats to U.S. vital interests.
and again this is in 2012.
It's before the Boston Marathon bombing and a variety of other issues.
67% are saying international terrorism. 64% Iran's
nuclear program. and a variety of others, you can go
down, you can go down the chart. our unit 2 is going to be on Asia.
development of China's world power, only 40%
say that's a threat to U.S. vital interests.
We'll come back to that when we talk about
US relations with China, in, in, in the next unit.
Islamic fundamentalism, only 39%. I think that's a very sensible sense.
People are not necessarily equating Islamic fundamentalism, with terrorism.
67% terrorism, only 39% fundamentalism. 30, only 32% climate change
which I happen to think is an example of a Public Opinion is missing the point.
we will not get a chance to talk that much about this issue in this class
but suffice to say the signs of the
dangers of climate change are all around us.
much greater than 32% saying it's a problem.
Well the question is for aces what are Foreign Policy goals?
The percentage you think each of the following should be
a very important Foreign Policy goal in the United States.
Here what we see, is a lot of people
paying attention to the domestic components of Foreign Policy.
so, the protection of the jobs of American workers.
Reducing U.S dependence on foreign oil.
Get a couple of others preventing the spread
of nuclear weapons, combating terrorism, maintaining superior military power
world wide, controlling or reducing illegal immigration.
These are all some of the domestic aspects of international missions.
there's our limiting climate change again at 33%.
I'd love to see that get much higher.
but interestingly enough, down here, the lowest one in this chart,
helping to bring a democratic form of government other nations, only 14%.
Think back to our 4 P's analytic framework and principles
and, and one of the aspects of the national interest.
and I think that, it's not that
Americans want to see dictatorships all around the world.
But I think there's a, there's a little bit of sense here,
both of how difficult it is to bring democracy to other nations.
and a sense that compared to others in the view of
Public Opinion, again, we, you may agree or disagree with this.
This is just a reading on where the public's head is at.
seeing a very low percentage there.
One last one or may actually one maybe one other before we're done.
on the use of military force, percentage you
think is a general rule when it is necessary
for the U.S. to use military force, it's
best for the United States to act as follows.
Only 24% are saying on it's own.
36% saying part of a NATO or other allied operation, 38% part of a UN operation.
You put these two together and
you get 74% saying the United States should be doing this with partners in a
multilateral role, rather than, rather than, rather than unilateral.
so, we get a sense here for American
Public Opinion on a couple of particular issues.
we get a sense for the general patterns.
We'll take up some specifics as we go along.
one more to show you,
percentage who thing the greatest threats to U.S. security in the
future will come from Asia, the Middle East or somewhere else.
this was taken in the summer of 2012, before things in Syria escalated
to the point that they did and, and, and in summer and fall of 2013.
before the the, the up, the the violence in, the violence in Egypt.
yet even then 73% were saying that the
greatest threats were going to come from the middle east.
only 19% from Asia.
And I think that reflects a sense of issues between the US
and China but not a sense that it was a threat of war.
and still a continuing concern about, about the middle East.
And we'll be spending a week on Asia, a week on the middle East as we go along.
So wrapping up.
hopefully these pieces have tied together for you.
we've had our course overview, we've had our Foreign Policy
debate sampling, but we had our nation National Interest Analytic framework.
Then these last three sessions, we've talked
about how U.S. Foreign Policy is made.
The President and Congress, role of media in Interest Groups and Public Opinion.
the goal here was to give you a framework
that we'll use in the other units of the course.
and for our next unit, the next set
of lectures will be on Asia's rising strategic importance.
U.S. relations with China, and in the Asian Pacific region.
So thanks again for joining us for this.
And in our next session, we're going to move on to a very
important region of the world, Asia, and U.S. Foreign Policy in that region.
Thanks, and see you soon.