BALLOTS, BULLETS, AND BARGAINS
BALLOTS, BULLETS, AND BARGAINS
AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY AND PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS
MICHAEL H. ARMACOST
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESS NEW YORK
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESS
PUBLISHERS SINCE 1893
NEW YORK CHICHESTER, WEST SUSSEX
cup.columbia.edu
Copyright 2015 Columbia University Press
All rights reserved
E-ISBN 978-0-231-53913-5
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Armacost, Michael H.
Ballots, bullets, and bargains : American foreign policy and presidential elections / Michael H. Armacost.
pages cm
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-0-231-16992-9 (cloth : alk. paper)
ISBN 978-0-231-53913-5 (e-book)
1. PresidentsUnited StatesElectionHistory. 2. United StatesForeign relations19451989. 3. United StatesForeign relations1989 I. Title.
E183.A68 2015
324.973dc23
2014049266
A Columbia University Press E-book.
CUP would be pleased to hear about your reading experience with this e-book at .
COVER IMAGE: ALEX MAJOLI/MAGNUM PHOTOS
COVER DESIGN: CHANG JAE LEE
CONTENTS
I AM GRATEFUL TO MANY FOR THEIR HELP IN PREPARING THIS manuscript. A number of colleagues at Stanford University encouraged or indulged my commitment to work on this subject. They include Professor Gi-Wook Shin, director of the Walter H. Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center; Daniel Sneider, associate director for research at the Asia-Pacific Research Center; Professor Dave Brady, deputy director of the Hoover Institution; Professor David Kennedy, emeritus professor of history; and Professor Coit Blacker, senior fellow and former director of the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies.
Longtime friend and Foreign Service colleague Don Keyser read much of the manuscript in draft and offered a host of helpful comments. Any errors that remain, are, of course, my responsibility alone.
I have also benefited from conversations on this subject with other colleagues, including Dr. Donald Emmerson, Dr. Thomas Fingar, and Professor Henry Rowen.
Debbie Warren and Irene Bryant have provided immeasurably valuable assistance in typing the manuscript and adapting it to the stylistic requirements of Columbia University Press.
I am deeply indebted to Anne Routon, senior editor, and Irene Pavitt, senior manuscript editor, both at Columbia University Press, and to copy editor Mary Sutherland. They professionally and cheerfully guided me through the publication process.
Last but surely not least, I am grateful for the patience and encouragement of my loving wife, Bonny, to whom the book is dedicated.
FOREIGN POLICY PERIODICALLY EXERTS A DECISIVE INFLUENCE ON presidential elections in the United States. Conversely, our presidential election systemthat is, the process through which we select party nominees, choose among them in a general election, and manage a transition for the victor from the rigors of a campaign to the practicalities of governanceexercises a substantial influence on the conduct and content of American foreign policy. The interplay between our election system and the substance of foreign policy is the subject of this book.
In one respect, of course, the assertion that our presidential election system influences foreign policy merely affirms the obvious. Presidents are ultimately responsible for making foreign policy; hence elections, which determine who will occupy the Oval Office, fundamentally shape the policies that the United States pursues beyond its shores.
But the process through which we select our presidents exerts its own impact on policy. So does the manner in which our Constitution and political traditions inform the way victorious candidates get their administrations up and running. This is intuitively evident to foreign policy professionals every time a presidential election looms.
During my twenty-four years in government, I served in the State Department, Defense Department, National Security Council staff, and American embassies in Manila and Tokyo. During that time, I witnessed six presidential sweepstakes. It was always clear when an election loomed. Foreign policy issues that appealed to powerful domestic constituencies moved up on the agenda. Negotiations requiring distasteful accommodations with foreigners tended to get kicked down the road. If the United States was involved in armed conflict, presidents sought more urgently to find a formula for winning or settling. Defense budgets usually soared. Major exporters of manufactured goods and services enjoyed easier access to subsidies or protection from foreign competitors. Politically powerful ethnic groupswhether Jews, African Americans, Hispanics, Taiwanese, Greeks, Cubans, Armenians, or othersattracted special attention. The White House search for diplomatic successes intensified. So did the spinning to rationalize foreign policy setbacks or obfuscate failures.
There is nothing particularly surprising about this. Politics does not invariably trump strategy during presidential election campaigns. But elections place foreign policy choices in a context in which their domestic political consequences acquire greater weight. In that sense, foreign policy is an extension of domestic politics.
I share with many foreign policy professionals a certain disquiet about some of the effects of our electoral system on policyfor example, the simplification of complex diplomatic issues into bumper-sticker-size campaign slogans, the enhanced influence of political advisers more concerned with the appeal of foreign policy initiatives at home than their efficacy abroad, and the prolonged time outs or lulls that campaigns generally impose on the conduct of diplomacy.
Yet, throughout my career in government, I generally welcomed elections as action-forcing eventsoccasions that could have a salutary effect on our foreign policy. After all, they bring fresh blood and new ideas into the policy-making circuit. They may persuade an incumbent belatedly to tackle with urgency some issues that have been long neglected. When the country is on the wrong track, elections encourage and facilitate course corrections. When the gap between foreign policy aims and the resources devoted to their achievement becomes too wide, elections may spur efforts to find a more sustainable balance between ends and means. They can provide practical incentives to accelerate the implementation of promising projects and to wrap up or wind down policy endeavors that are costly yet ineffectual. In short, elections establish regular deadlines for revisiting campaign promises, assessing results, enforcing accountability, and selecting new management.
While serving overseas, I was reminded that our presidential elections unfold in a gigantic echo chamber. Candidates generally speak to domestic constituencies as if outsiders were not listening in. Rhetoric directed at American voters can have an unfortunateeven toxicimpact abroad as contenders pander to local prejudices, express disdain for foreign leaders, and volunteer gratuitous and often uncharitable judgments about the institutions and policies of particular foreign countries.
No countrys elections are observed by foreigners with more attentiveness and nervousness than ours. For countries that enjoy the support of powerful voting blocs in the United States, our elections offer golden opportunities to entice new commitments or solicit new subventions from Washington. For adversaries like the Soviet Union during the Cold War, or Iran now, presidential campaigns provoke predictable expressions of animosity, muscular threats, and occasional hints of a readiness to talk. Commercial rivals like Japan in the 1980s and China today associate our campaigns with demands for fair trade, embroidered with threats of retaliatory measures. Other countries attract attention for local political reasons. For decades, Republican candidates growled at Fidel Castro to rally Cuban American voters in Florida; Democratic candidates snarled at Turkey to harvest Armenian American votes in California. And contenders from both parties made the obligatory campaign swing through Israel, Ireland, and Italy.