So, where does this leave the President? As Congress reassumes its control over the domestic agenda, the President is left looking outward toward foreign policy. This is the area in which over the next 2 to 6 years, if re-elected, where he will enjoy the most room to manage and affect policy. He appoints the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, and the CIA director. This is his domain where he can act unfettered. Congress does have to approve the ‘extended’ use of force but in general it has been the tradition of Congress to leave foreign affairs to the executive branch. In fact, this tradition was born in the drafting the Constitution, and a partial reason for the creation of that document.
This is where the cruel irony begins. While a president can affect the most change in foreign affairs, this is the area where he is the least versed. The past 4 out of the 5
The only non-governor president in the past 5 was George H. W. Bush (Bush I), who previously served as VP and CIA director, and he was wildly successful in foreign affairs. He marshaled together an unparalleled international coalition in the first
This leads us to the cruel irony #2 about the American presidency. While the president can impact the most change abroad and the least at home, he has historically been held accountable by the
Conversely, Americans, like Congress, give the benefit of the doubt to the President concerning foreign affairs. This deference stems from the American tradition of isolationism, both sociological and geographical. I believe this is why Americans voted Bush back to office in 2004. We don’t like to change leaders in the middle of a war; at least until we are damn sure it is wrong. Unfortunately, we weren’t at that point as a nation back in 2004.
In summary, my hope is not to dissuade you (i.e. business leaders) from improving
Sincere contrition to the world for its misjudgment in
A leadership role in nuclear nonproliferation. The