Kevin Lipke and Gautam Rajpal

Political Science 160.005

February 8, 1998

World Politics: The Menu for Choice- chapter 9

Russet and Star

Most people elect officials that they feel most represent their views. These officials, thus, become representative of the beliefs of the majority . The will of the majority, though, can constrain governmental leaders, because of "the desire not to lose office, not to lose an election, or a power struggle, or to be overthrown by a revolution "(As would be in the case for non-democratic institutions) (p.195). It is this, along with other factors, according to Russet and Star, that public opinion is able to influence foreign policy on many issues The question becomes who, when, how. Who governs and what particular groups influence foreign policy. When do they do this, and how. There a couple of prevailing views about who exactly governs. One theory states that there is a small group of people that influence foreign affairs. This so called power elite is consisted of major political and societal leaders that, according to this theory, come to agreement on a particular issue which in turn become policy. A somewhat opposing view, the pluralist view, states that for every major issue, there are specialists, and that different groups fight and win different political battles. In response to the power elite view, pluralists believe that these power elites usually do not come to a general agreement on most issues, and that a certain view that comes out from the diversity of opinions is accepted. Russet and Star contend that both views are correct. Elitist groups have differences within in their groups and with other groups, but it is not that great. However, in the past few decades, there have been many instances where there have been many differing views on certain issues. For a while in the United Stare before World War II, isolationism was widespread. After the bombing of Pearl Harbor, most people held beliefs in international polices and international involvement. This consensus began to break down during the Vietnam Years, somewhat reversing itself. After the Vietnam wars, polices that supported foreign policy activism became more accepted, because of the situations between the U.S. and the Soviet Union, and in the past few years, there has been much fluctuations . But these beliefs are reflective of the American public. Right before the establishment of an elite and popular consensus, there had support brewing for a reversal or change in policy. Almost every time, the government responded in doing such that. (Public opinion appears to be the most important influence on the budget after the end of the cold war). Public opinion seemingly affects major foreign policy issues. But this does not mean the affect all foreign policy issues that the government makes. So, when does public opinion affect foreign policy. Obviously, it seems to affect policy when it comes to war. Since World War II, most Americans have initially supported the wars we have gotten involved in. This probably implies that the wars we did not get involved in were the wars the public would not have supported. Public support is critical when fighting a war. Armies are drawn from the general populace, and these people must at the very least not be against the war in order to fight effectively. Most importantly, an unpopular war near election time is likely to cost a countries leader votes. But on some of the smaller issues, the public seems not care, or is indifferent to what the government does. And it is perhaps on these issues, that the elite have more input. Recently, there has been made a classification based on this level of "indifference" in the United States. There is the general public, about 70% of the population, that consists of people who's attention moves in and out of politics.(About 20% of these people care close to nothing on foreign policy). There is the attentive public, about 25% of the population, that read newspapers, follow the news, and are so are somewhat knowledgeable and have some interest in foreign policy. The last 5% represent what are called opinion leaders, whom are politically active and who communicate their ideas. One to two percent of this represent the elite, individuals who seem to have direct influence on foreign policy. They include party politicians, business and labor executives, senior civil servants, leaders in the mass media, and leaders of economic, professional interest groups. These seem to be the people who influence foreign policy on issues the general public is indifferent or pay little attention to. People pay attention to the issue of war. War affects practically everyone. People must pay for wars. Many must send their sons and daughters to war. It is something that directly affects them. The less directly these issues affect peoples lives, the less they seem to be interested in. Mexican-Americans, some of whom normally would not pay much attention to foreign policy, are likely to pay attention to immigration laws that deal with illegal immigration from Mexico to the U.S.. But smaller issues, on things the media does not pick up on, on issues that may come and pass quickly, Americans are less likely to worry about. On these issues, people rely and the government, thinking they have some information and that they know what they are doing. And on these issues, elitists can have much influence. But it is a certain voice from these elitists that do this. Contrary to the power elite theory, all elitists do not come to a general consensus on issues, which has especially come true after the Vietnam war. It used to be that elites generally accepted the government's foreign policy. There no longer seems to an agreement "on the means by which foreign policy should be pursued or on which ends. Generally, people from this elite have formed there own groups, on issues they agree upon. It than comes which group has the most money, or which groups have the most votes People usually have a fixed set a beliefs that influence them in how they view foreign policy. That does not mean, however, these views cannot be changed. Politicians all the time try to sway votes and garner public support for their policies by the speeches they make. One popular form of this is known as rally'-round-the flag which is the term that is used to describe when a nation's leader tries to garner support for certain foreign policy initiatives. This has been used many times in the past by world leaders. Franklin Roosevelt, who was one of the first people to pay close attention to public opinion, used this technique when he was trying to gain support for the New Deal and during World War II. In Israel, when Prime minister Yitzak Shimar supported a plan that allowed Palestinians to hold elections, pubic support rose 17 points from before he did so. Leaders, though, have sometimes tried to take advantage of the effects rally-round the flag can have. Rally-round the flag seems to have the effect of boosting a leaders popularity. In 1982, Margaret Thatcher of Britain gained much popularity when she took a tough response to the Argentine seizure of the British Falklands. But this popularity is usually short lived. President's Bush popularity went up 19 percentage points during the Gulf War, but these points quickly vanished a couple of months after the war. There have been bursts of popularity during the Clinton Administration (although not that big).Examples include the air strikes against Iraq and when the U.S. was responsible for a peaceful turnover of power in the Haitian government. But, these waned quickly too, and in the case with Haiti, the popularity boost lasted only one week. Even so, rally round the flag is used extensively, especially during election times when a large although short-lived popularity burst can help. Also, it has been observed that leaders are more likely to use military force in times when the economy is in bad shape, when popularity is low. Popularity is important, even when there are no elections coming up, since a popular leader is most likely to get a piece of legislation he or she wants passed than an unpopular one. Yet, there are many constraints with rally round the flag. The public's perception of the president matters, whether the view him as a hawk that is inclined to used military action to settle disputes, or as a dove that is inclined to use peaceful methods. A president perceived as a dove gains from hawkish acts, while a president perceived as a hawk gains from dovish acts. Also, unpopular wars or military actions can backfire. This was the case in Argentina, when an unpopular Argentinean government tried to gain popularity by invading the Falklands but was overthrown when it lost. Which leads us to the question, are wars popular? The most popular answer would be they are if we win. Yet, there must be a purpose to the war. For the gulf war, the U.S. fought because of oil and to prevent Saddam Hussein from taking control of other parts of the mid-east. The Vietnam War however, was fought in part because government officials believed that America would not tolerate the loss of Vietnam to communism. But as the war dragged on, with more money being spent and more people dying for a war that seemed to go on forever, American seemed to care less about the Vietnam "domino". From this, we can see that public opinion does matter, 'whether as an immediate determinant of national willingness, or as a constraint on leaders' search for approval of particular policies and the rhetoric they use to justify their actions"(p.218). This is shown by polls which show that whenever there was a shift in public opinion, the government passed legislation that corresponded with that, and not the other way around. Pubic opinion has the ability of creating a "mood", of constraining policy election, and the public has the power of electing or choosing officials that believe what they do. Yet, these polls may tell how people feel, but not how strongly the feel. This is when interest groups come in. In the late 1940's and early 1950's, the relationship between the United States and Israel was a major concern to Jewish-Americans. Because of their large voting power, they were instrumental in President Truman's decisions that led to good relations with Israel. But other different kinds of interest groups can concert power over issues that most people concern very little about. This power elite, can shape through political ties, though money to campaigns, and through the use of media, the polices of a nation. The influence of the media itself can be powerful in shaping foreign policy, something that Russet and Star fail to mention. Media sometimes has its own agenda. It is through media that we get our news, and so determine what issues are important. In that sense, media can exert great power. They can print a story on the front page and make it seem very important, while there may be more stories that are more important. They can distort information, making certain things seem more important and other less. Many people do not look very deep into what they are reading, do not look at all the facts that are there. Too many times, people are indifferent to important issues when their lives are going well or the economy is in good shape. They allow interest groups to make decisions for us, sometimes bad. The answer to the question of who governs may be simple: whoever wants to govern. This may remain the same until more people start to become a part of that 25% of the attentive public.