University of Kentucky UKnowledge American Politics Political Science 1962 Senatorial Politics and Foreign Policy Malcolm E. Jewell University of Kentucky Click here to let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Thanks to the University of Kentucky Libraries and the University Press of Kentucky, this book is freely available to current faculty, students, and staff at the University of Kentucky. Find other University of Kentucky Books at uknowledge.uky.edu/upk. For more information, please contact UKnowledge at [email protected]. Recommended Citation Jewell, Malcolm E., "Senatorial Politics and Foreign Policy" (1962). American Politics. 14. https://uknowledge.uky.edu/upk_political_science_american_politics/14 SENATORIAL POLITICS AND FOREIGN POLICY SENATORIAL POLITICS & FOREIGN POLICY MALCOLM E. JEWELL UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY PRESS COPYRIGHT @ 1962 BY THE UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY PRESS COMPOSED AND PRINTED AT THE UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CATALOG CARD NUMBER: 62-19379 TO MY WIFE This page intentionally left blank ACKNOWLEDGMENTS THE MATERIAL IN THIS BOOK IS DRAWN IN CONSIDERABLE PART FROM the press (particularly the New York Times),periodicals, docu- ments, and books. But I have also relied on interviews, about sixty-five of them, with senators, staff assistants and committee staff members in the Senate, and Washington correspondents. Men in such responsible positions are naturally reluctant to be quoted, and during the interviews I committed myself not to attribute information to them individually. I have not cited them as sources in the footnotes. But I want to express my debt to them. Their comments and the factual information they sup- plied were invaluable for such a study. I deeply appreciate the time they took from always busy Washington schedules to assist me in this study. Half an hour or more in a senator's day is a valuable commodity, and those whom I interviewed were gen- erous indeed with their time. Members of the policy committee staffs of both parties were particularly helpful in supplying in- formation about a subject almost unmentioned in the printed sources. Professor Ruth C. Silva of Pennsylvania State University was a most conscientious adviser and critic in the preparation of an earlier version of this study. She never let me forget that political science writing, no less than any other, should be readable. Colleagues who contributed information and advice on specific subjects covered in the book include Ralph K. Huitt and Hugh A. Bone. viii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS My wife assisted in proofreading several versions of this study and typed an earlier version. It is customary for a writer to declare that his book could not have been written without the encouragement, patience, and assistance of his wife, and in this case it seems to me an unusually appropriate statement. I want to thank the University of Kentucky Research Fund Committee for making available funds for typing the final draft and Mrs. John B. Imredy for her conscientiousness at the type- writer. I am indebted to the Roper Public Opinion Research Center at Williams College for making available the results of public opinion polls and for permission to publish these results. The Congressional Quarterly Almanac is an invaluable research tool for political scientists, and I appreciate the permission to use the rollcall statistics therein. Portions of two chapters of this study are based on material originally published in the Journal of Politics, Vol. XXI (1959), and the Western Political Quarterly, Vol. XI1 (1959), and are used here with permission. It is always appropriate to point out that, though I have been dependent on many others for assistance, responsibility for any errors of fact or judgment is solely mine. M.E.J. CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS page vii 1. INTRODUCTION 1 2. THE DECLINE OF DEMOCRATIC INTERNATIONALISM 10 3. THE REPUBLICAN RECORD 35 4. PARTY LEADERS 53 5. THE POLICY COMMITTEES 84 6. THE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE 110 7. PRESIDENTIAL LEADERSHIP AND THE SENATE 146 8. PUBLIC OPINION 168 9. THE ROLE OF PARTIES IN THE FOREIGN POLICY PROCESS 198 INDEX 211 This page intentionally left blank It is especially in the conduct of their foreign relations that democracies appear to me decidedly inferior to other goo- ernments. Foreign politics demand scarcely any of those qualities which are peculiar to a democracy; they require, on the contrary, the perfect use of almost all those in which it is deficient.- ALE^ DE TOCQUEVILLE If, at the present time, the limitation imposed by democratic political practices makes it dificult to conduct our foreign affairs in the national interest, this dificulty will increase, and not decrease, with the years.-DEAN ACHESON INTRODUCTION THE PROBLEM RAISED A CENTURY AND A QUARTER AGO BY THE author of Democracy in America seldom troubled the American people during the many years that they enjoyed an isolation protected by two broad oceans. In our generation, however, every new foreign crisis brings increased international responsi- bilities to this country and further emphasizes the difficulties of conducting foreign relations in a democracy. Any nation, but particularly the leader of an alliance, needs to have depend- ability and continuity in its foreign policy; yet in a democracy the opposition party may overturn established policies at any time. Diplomatic moves must often be planned and executed 2 SENATORIAL POLITICS AND FOREIGN POLICY with a speed and secrecy that contradict the democratic prin- ciples of consultation and consent. For success in international power politics a nation is often dependent on a degree of domes- tic unity that seriously restricts the democratic opposition party. Perhaps most important, international problems have become too complicated for public understanding, and foreign policies have grown too costly and risky for public popularity-and yet in a democracy these policies need public understanding and approval if they are to succeed. In the United States there are additional handicaps not found in all democratic governments. The decision-making process in this country resembles John Calhoun's "concurrent majority": A large number of groups both within and outside the govern- ment must, in practice, approve any major policy. The division of authority between the American President and Congress is particularly conducive to difficulties in the field of foreign affairs. For as Professor Edward S. Corwin says, "the Constitution . is an invitation to struggle for the privilege of directing American foreign policy."' Furthermore, the United States, just now emerg- ing as a leader in international affairs, has not developed the traditions, attitudes, and political techniques that are most valu- able in adapting democratic government to the tasks of formu- lating foreign policy. In most of its postwar foreign policy decisions the United States has been spared deep-seated disagreement on funda- mentals. Before World War 11, however, the interventionalist- isolationist split was a profound one accentuated by party dif- ferences. Since the war there has been a large measure of agreement in principle on our aid and alliance policies in Europe; but the less successful Asian policies have caused deep and bitter disagreements culminating in the frustration of the dead- locked Korean war. William S. White has called the last months of the Truman administration "perhaps the most enfevered months of modern times in a nation savagely divided on foreign p01icy."~As the stakes in international relations continue to in- crease, the possibilities of political conflict and deadlock grow. 1 Edward S. Convin, The President: Ofice and Powers, 1787-1957 (4th rev. ed.; New York: New York University Press, 1957), p. 171. 2 William S. White, "Two Parties and One Foreign Policy," New York Times Magazine, Aug. 7, 1955, p. 12. INTRODUCTION 3 POLITICAL PARTIES AND BIPARTISANSHIP Political parties, scorned and feared by the founding fathers, have gradually won recognition as essential in producing both an organized majority and an effective opposition in our system of democracy. The two parties bring a measure of order and unity out of the many varied interests, regions, and viewpoints found in this nation. Furthermore, by providing a strong bond between the President and a majority or a large minority in Congress, the party system has been primarily responsible for making workable the system of divided authority between an independent executive and legislature. But the value of the party system in the realm of foreign affairs is often questioned because it produces not only a ma- jority but also a minority, often a strong and vocal one. In the words of one veteran observer of Congress, the political party "restlessly snipes at unanimity in foreign p~licy."~The need for unity in foreign policy is clear; foreign policy that must be implemented by treaty requires a two-thirds vote in the Senate. Frequently the administration lacks a party majority in one or both branches of the Congress; therefore, issues which have become sharply partisan are likely to be deadlocked. The election of a President of the opposing party can destroy the continuity so valuable in foreign policy if his party has funda- mentally opposed the programs of his predecessor. Overshadow- ing these constitutional considerations is the fact that success in foreign policy depends largely on a nation's strength; and unity is a major element of this strength. The necessity of unity in a hot war is obvious; its value in a prolonged cold war is almost as great. After World War 11, both the Truman and Eisenhower ad- ministrations sought bipartisan support for some of their foreign policies, often through consultation and collaboration with op- position leaders in Congress. The argument for a bipartisan foreign policy has always been a simple one-the need for unity. Senator Arthur H. Vandenberg emphasized that "it permits our democracy to speak with a great degree of unity at critical mo- a Ernest S.