The Time of Republican Rule
Tom Barry
Foreign
Policy In Focus initiates its new webpage on “The Republican Rule”
with a collection of essays examining the likely impact of a Bush presidency.
Although in many areas of global affairs there will be no dramatic shift
in policy, the projected impact of a new period of Republican rule is
nonetheless frightening. It’s likely that the new political era signals
a narrower conceptualization of U.S. interests and an increased resistance
to international norms and treaties. Don’t expect new U.S. initiatives
to address climate change, the spread of infectious diseases, impoverishment,
or the need for new international labor and environmental standards. Expect
less support for the principles of multilateralism. And expect increasing
foreign resentment of an America whose conduct in international affairs
is predicated on the narrow interests of its corporate elites and on the
projections of its own military power.
Both political parties have close ties with big business. Thus it’s always difficult to advance citizen agendas concerned with equitable, international environmental protection or demilitarization. Neither party is as responsive to grassroots concerns as they are to corporate ones. But as citizens look to advance progressive agendas in global affairs—such as cutting greenhouse emissions, fostering multilateralism, integrating labor and environmental standards into trade agreements, stopping an aggressive missile defense system, redefining security, protecting human rights, etc.—they find that there is a marked difference in the two major political parties. Citizen agendas have a history of slowly advancing through the Democratic Party, but they are instinctively blocked by GOP leaders.
It is certainly true that on most of the big issues in foreign policy, there is a bipartisan consensus running through the leadership of both parties. Support for NATO, unquestioned alliance with Israel, selective concern about human rights violations, advocacy of free trade as the engine of global development, and the U.S. right to intervene militarily to protect or foster U.S. national interests are some of the core principles of unity. These are a few of the bedrock principles of the bipartisan “liberal internationalism” that have shaped U.S. foreign policy for most of the past half-century—and will likely continue to remain central to the U.S. foreign policy of either a Democratic or Republican administration. Yet these similarities, while substantial and central to the exercise of U.S. power, should not lead one to conclude that there will be no discernible difference in impact on global affairs as U.S. leadership shifts from Democratic to Republican hands.
Perhaps the most striking and immediately evident difference will be in the reduced access of citizen movements to the policymaking process. Nongovernmental organizations, which have been advocating increased involvement in the decisionmaking of the executive branch, will likely see their access to officials at the State Department, Agency for International Development, U.S. Trade Representative Office, Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Energy, National Security Council, and other government agencies become much more restricted. On Capitol Hill, where the Republicans have maintained control of both houses, the ability of citizen groups to advance reforms will remain constricted by conservative committee chairs and Republican majorities. Democratic control over these committees would by no means guarantee that citizen agendas would be adopted by the Democratic leadership, but at least they would get a hearing.
This time of Republican rule is not a time for bipartisanship. Rather it is a time for building strong, multifaceted citizen agendas that make the necessary local and global links. With government in the hands of those who have little or no pretension of protecting the global environment, furthering equitable development, representing the interests of working people, or advancing the principles of multilateralism, citizens with reformist agendas need to make the case that these agendas for a new internationalism are the ones that Americans support. In contrast, the Republican agenda, both at home and abroad, is an unrepresentative and reactionary one. Such an agenda does not represent the will of the people. All branches of the U.S. government are currently in the hands of Republicans, but they need constant reminding that their conservatism does not reflect the view of the majority.
Tom Barry is codirector of Foreign Policy In Focus and can be reached at <tom@irc-online.org>.
Foreign Policy In Focus will be closely following the course of Republican Rule from the transition to the resulting policy initiatives, especially those that relate to global affairs. We offer three parts of this special FPIF website to help you monitor the Republican Rule. The Commentary section offers essays by prominent foreign policy analysts about the impact of the new administration on different regions and major aspects of global affairs. The Profiles section offers profiles of administration officials who direct foreign policy, and the Links sections offers a selection of links to other useful analysis and information. We welcome your comments and suggestions.
This
page was last modified on
Wednesday, March 5, 2003 5:38 PM
Contact the IRC's webmaster with inquiries regarding the functionality of this website.
Copyright © 2001 IRC and IPS. All rights reserved.