Over the past decades, the rivalry between the Republican and Democratic parties in Congress and the Senate, despite all the fundamental and occasional differences, when important domestic and foreign policy issues were based on national interests, in most cases put aside the differences and in a process The so-called “bipartisan” Democratic and Republican parties worked together to further the interests of the United States.
Although such a practice has more or less always been considered by lawmakers and senators in recent decades, this unwritten method and law has been largely ignored since the collapse of the Soviet Union and the rapid rise to power of Donald Trump. And this trend continues in the current Congress and Senate. What is currently overshadowing American foreign policy is not the protection of national interests but the protection of partisan interests and, consequently, the demands of large corporations and lobbies and pressure groups.
In the years following the end of World Wars I and II and the outbreak of the Cold War, due to a powerful and common enemy called Communism, American parties put aside major differences and united against the spread of the “evil empire.” But after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the elimination of the external enemy, these differences quickly returned to the United States. One of the main differences between the two major American parties has been the long-standing issue of US involvement in global developments and its prominent role in the fight against isolationism, which still persists.
The campaign slogan, as well as Trump’s political and economic performance, acknowledged that the United States must look back and shift national interests based on bilateral relations and trade to interests that are likely to be achieved through future international cooperation with other nations. Preferred Trump Doctrine as “America First”; It was designed to create a global unipolar system led by the United States, based on the neutralization of multilateral interests in conventional global relations. Trump sought lucrative foreign exchange deals so that allies with the United States would pay their dues for the benefits of that cooperation. Trump and his ideas are still popular among Republicans. Because countries around the world are well aware that the United States has acted against the usual multilateral order in the last ten decades and seeks to maintain American leadership power at all costs. The great powers and even the European Union have shown by their stance and actions that they are ready to face the future tensions of the United States, which will even exist after Trump.
It reflects deep-seated divisions in the world order, political structure, and American society that will continue.
In fact, since the 1992 presidential election that ousted Bush Sr. and brought Clinton to power, the majority of the American public, without exception, has voted in every election for a candidate who wants less US intervention around the world and more attention to domestic issues. Contrary to the opinion of the voters who brought the US presidents to power and brought politicians into Congress and the Senate, they not only did not keep their word, but in some cases even increased the level of foreign intervention in an unprecedented way. Bush Jr., for example, who came to power with such promises, invaded Afghanistan and Iraq after 9/11 and occupied the two countries. Obama also agreed to go to war with Libya and overthrow Gaddafi.
Such a situation is indicative of the pendulum swing of politics in the United States, which fluctuates from party to party, and has always caused internal differences and partisan interests to overflow into foreign policy, forcing presidents to follow suit. In fact, this is one of the most fundamental differences between the United States and many parliamentary democracies in which coalition governments prevent a particular party from coming to power and each party from exercising its own influence in foreign policy.
One of the main reasons for the polarization of US foreign policy in recent years is the integration of its various aspects into the daily lives of the American people. In other words, in a situation where the children of the people are killed as soldiers abroad or they cannot use their cars due to the failure of one of the main fuel transmission lines through a foreign cyber-attack, it is natural that foreign policy in people’s daily lives And they are forced to react, which is reflected through their representatives in Congress as well as various civil society organizations in order to influence decisions in this area. But such internal pressures have not led members of Congress to legislate solely for re-election and not on the basis of larger interests. Or pressure the government to take action in the national interest.
Irresponsibility in the national interest among members of Congress has not only failed to help maintain America’s position in the world, but has further undermined America’s image and credibility in the public and international public opinion. Some countries have even been able to take advantage of differences in the US administration to infiltrate various institutions and influence their decisions to their advantage and to the detriment of the United States, or at least to tarnish American prestige. Netanyahu’s visit to the United States in 2015, at the invitation of Congress and without coordination or meeting with then-President Obama, was one of the biggest mouthpieces to US hegemony.
Another highlight of the gaps in the US foreign policy decision-making system is that in the world today, the nature of politics has changed fundamentally, and there is not necessarily a need to act through government and pressure to influence foreign policy, and pressure groups and stakeholders can easily influence these policies by forming transnational institutions. Some of the problems that not only the United States but also the rest of the world are struggling with domestically are fundamentally dual in nature. To put it more clearly, issues such as migration, trade, energy and other climate change are not just domestic issues on which disagreements have only a national dimension, but these disputes inevitably extend to the international level and have important implications for action in this area. For example, what happened in connection with the Paris Climate Agreement and Trump’s departure and Biden’s return was a reflection of the deep internal divisions between the Republican and Democratic parties. The traditional Republican support for the big oil companies and the fact that the United States is now the world’s largest oil exporter was the driving force behind the Trump administration’s unilateral withdrawal from the Paris Agreement.
Interestingly, and of course, threatening the stability of decision-making in the US foreign policy apparatus is that, based on global events, Republicans and Democrats in at least 25 foreign policy areas, most notably immigrant-related issues, are allies. US strategy, climate change, and foreign threats are deeply divided, which certainly has a serious impact on the trust of partners and allies in the United States; and the concept of continuing strategic or long-term economic cooperation with the United States has been questioned.
The partisanship of US foreign policy has had profound and unfortunate consequences that, given the nature of the US political structure and changes in the international arena, will sooner or later question the basis of US hegemony in the international community, said the Republican senator, Arthur Vandenberg, will finish “ The End of Politics on the Water’s Edge”.
BY: William Holmes