Institutions of the political system of the United States of America are an inexhaustible source of knowledge, but also an inspiration for research endeavors, social scientists and political practitioners worldwide. With their actions, they unceasingly contributed to the progressive development of international relations. They directed the course of history with their managerial eminences, and often decisively, according to their own ideals and values, they shaped the world according to their own standards. As one of the leading bearers of political values, manifestations of cultural diversity and Bourdieuian social capitalists, they drew the legitimacy of their own and international orders, when we could recognize them in history. The central place, quite justifiably, with its architecture, history, and, finally, unquestionable governing importance, at least in terms of its place in the US legal system, is sovereignly occupied by Congress.
"Time of the Intolerant", which in the whirlwind of social processes introduces us to world and personal insecurity at breakneck speed, as if by inertia it leads us to return to the past. The search for similarities, patterns, regularities, guided by analogies, is a good recipe for description, questioning and recall. The reality of international relations has proven that the guide for future behavior is very limited. Hence my consciousness, and my conscience, that with the text that is before us, I will point the spotlight of knowledge at something that was and that cannot be repeated in an unchanged form.
At the beginning of the semester, I always ask my students for their opinion on the subject "US Foreign Policy" - how many times? Congress USA in history adopted the decision to declare war? Partly due to the importance of Aaron's understanding of the science of international relations, at the heart of which are "issues of war and peace". Dominant, because there is no better way to begin a discussion of the institutional relationship between the president and Congress.
ON THE BETWEEN CONSTITUTIONAL SUPREMATY AND IMPERIAL PRESIDENCY
The US Constitution, created in the political and intellectual context of the late 18th century, is textually short, conceptually concise, and at the same time open and subject to extensive interpretation. Such normative elasticity, often superficially understood as vagueness, enabled it to remain essentially stable despite numerous and profound social changes. Although a product of the zeitgeist, it has demonstrated an impressive ability to adapt, through amendments and court decisions, surviving as the foundational framework of American democracy and federalism. And, I emphasize, the principles of separation of powers and the "check and balance" system. Reduced to the context of foreign policy: despite the established opinion about presidential supremacy, there is no foreign policy authority that is not divided (by the Constitution), or at least balanced by the powers of Congress, or some other institution of the US political system. However, the normative barrier to the arbitrariness of individualism, individuals or institutions has not always undeniably followed the letter of the law. Accordingly, almost as a rule I discuss with students about the distinction and setting the limit up to which it is "appropriate" to tolerate the existence of a difference between the legal framework and the implementation of the policy.
One of the most important textbooks on American foreign policy, authored by James Scott and Jerrell Rosati, lists the functions that are "assigned" to Congress, and are relevant to the creation and implementation of foreign policy. If we compare the fields of action of Congress, as a key legislative body, in the areas of waging war, advising and obtaining consent (mainly regarding presidential decisions), distribution of budget funds or the power to monitor and investigate issues of public interest (primarily when it comes to the holders of executive power functions), stated in the mentioned author's work, with those codified by the Constitution, we will encounter an insurmountable discrepancy, created by the almost two and a half centuries of existence of the highest American legal act faced with social reality at the internal and international level.
If we go back to the previously presented question that I ask the students, the answer, which is quite simple, empirically confirms the stated position: Congress has adopted the decision to declare war only five times in history, and military engagement outside the US borders exceeds the number of 200. However, my intention does not lie in researching the legal-political techniques of adapting and adapting the constitutional framework, but in presenting the inevitable outcome to which the nature of the Constitution leads: continuous struggles for supremacy led by the legislative and executive powers. It is possible that this kind of institutional dynamics makes the American political arena rich and inspiring for researchers.
The thesis, which is often invoked for help and which, even in today's context, irresistibly captures the attention of the public, both because of its attractiveness and analytical foundation, originates from the pen of Arthur Schlesinger. His mid-1970s work on the "imperial presidency" relentlessly suggests that Congress has lost its battle with the president. The Cold War context seemed suitable for the concentration of (foreign) power in the White House, and along with the (personnel, financial and symbolic) growth of institutions connected and subordinated directly to the president, such as the National Security Council, cast an increasingly dark shadow on the foreign policy powers of Congress.
CONGRESS IN THE COLD WAR: THE ROAD TO THE POST-VIETNAM AWAKENING
Interwar (apparent) isolationism seemed to disappear with the beginning of the Cold War. The perceived danger of Communism, despite the initial sentiment of resistance to engagement and financial support for the reconstruction of Europe, quickly paved the way for wholehearted congressional support for the Truman Doctrine and subsequent foreign policy. With occasional and not so harmless dissonant tones on the domestic political terrain, orchestrated by McCarthyism and the search for "betrayal within our own ranks", foreign policy was created in the White House almost until the Nixon administration, ideologically and practically, with bipartisan support. The only voices coming from the Congress were "hard" conservatives that in the fight against the Soviet threat, it is necessary to do more than the existing one.
A kind of "honeymoon" of the Congress and the president, which, albeit with occasional fractures that did not significantly change the course of foreign policy, lasted almost two decades, is crowned by the surge of rebellion born in the foreign policy committee of the Senate in the early 1960s. Led by Senator William Fulbright, revolt was initially expressed over budget funds allocated for foreign aid, and then, thanks to the development of the situation on the ground (especially after the Tet Offensive), it spilled over into dissatisfaction with American participation (and performance) in the Vietnam War. It was also the period of the beginning of televised congressional hearings of high state officials, the significant inclusion of public opinion as one of the determinants in the creation of foreign policy, and, as will soon become clear, the return of Congress as an equal actor in US foreign policy processes. I think there is no better evidence of the renewed power of Congress than the passage of the War Powers Act of 1973, that is, the cessation of direct funding of American military participation in Vietnam until that moment. If we add to that the fact that the Act was adopted despite Nixon using the veto, justifying his move by saying that the adoption of the Act violates the constitutional provision on the president as the supreme commander of the armed forces, the determination of Congress to embrace "its" constitutional authority to inquire "about war and peace" was unquestionable.
At first glance, foreign policy irrelevant, but in a broader context complementary to the rise of Congress on the ladder of importance in political decision-making was also the "Watergate Affair". Coincidence with the strengthening of congressional war powers also nourished the control-supervisory function, compromising the Nixon administration and moving the legitimacy of political management to the Capitol. Followed by ideological movements towards more liberal members of both the House of Representatives and the Senate during the 1970s and 1980s, structural changes in the form of the creation of new congressional committees, improved logistics and reduced dependence on the executive branch, the end of the Cold War is greeted by Congress in a completely different position than the initial uncritical support for the executive branch: by the re-establishment of institutional self-confidence.
POST-COLD WAR PARTY POLARIZATION IN CONGRESS AND THE ERA OF EXECUTIVE AGREEMENTS
Congress as we know it today, strongly ideologically divided by party affiliation and in an increasingly frequent "cohabitation" with the president, faces significantly different challenges compared to those of the Cold War. As if the words of the former Secretary of State in Obama's second administration, John Kerry, are still echoing, that at the hearing on the Iran nuclear agreement and on the occasion of the signing of such an important document under the auspices of the executive powers of the president, he stated quite impotently that it was almost impossible to adopt an international agreement in the Senate. It was no different when the Clinton administration coexisted with the "Republican" Congress in the case of refusing to ratify the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. There are many examples, and each points to the correctness of the thesis of Clemson University professor Geoffrey Peek, according to which party polarization in Congress over time created the phenomenon of "dysfunctional diplomacy", at least when it comes to international agreements. In addition, I would say, it paved the way with executive agreements (executive agreement), which before international law have the same force as any international treaty, but also the disruption of the foreign policy balance to the detriment of the Congress.
Congress is being talked about more and more with a negative connotation. We are witnessing longer and longer suspensions of government funding (Government shutdown). However, the same processes can be approached in a different way. Congress is still able to influence the work of the executive branch with budget authority, just as it did in the 1970s. The process of impeachment remains a powerful tool in the hands of Congress, regardless of whether we are talking about the processes against Nixon, Clinton or Trump in the first term. Even when they are not completed "successfully", they significantly reduce the legitimacy and effectively embody the control-supervisory function of the Congress.
The "game of thrones" between the president and the Congress is the fate of the American political system, which in the previous nearly 250 years was held close to a state of balance by an "invisible hand". A thread that stretches from the period of Reconstruction after the Civil War and President Andrew Johnson's political conflicts with Congress, through Franklin Delano Roosevelt and efforts aimed at convincing Congress of the correctness of the program of economic and social reforms (New Deal), up to modern examples related to legislation in the field of health care (Obamacare) during the Obama administration, persistently puts the legislative and executive branches to the test by examining the limits of their power. If we accept the thesis that history does not repeat itself, but that it (at least) rhymes, then it can also be said about the institutions of the American political system that thanks to the institutional "brakes" (checks) show resistance and maintain the system in "balance" (Libra).
The author is an associate professor, FPN, University of Belgrade, Center for US Studies
This text was created as a result of the project "Freedom 250 - Celebrating 250 years of independence of the United States of America", which is conducted by the Center for United States Studies of the Faculty of Political Sciences of the University of Belgrade, and is financed by the US Embassy in the Republic of Serbia.
