Wojtek writes:
> It is hard to disagree with the above. Yet, one can't help but notice
> that
> the US international policy seems to follow a certain predictable path
> that
> is quite independent of the political divisions within the ruling class.
> The entire cold war kept a rather steady course, regardless which faction
> held power. The policy toward Cuba seems the continuation of the same,
> whether under Clinton or Bush Jr. Likewise, the Iraq war is a reply of
> Korea and Vietnam - as if nothing was learnt from Vietnam.
==============================
Foreign policy is bipartisan, based on a consensus of the two governing
parties that the exercise of US diplomatic and economic power is a more
stable and effective instrument of imperial control than military power,
particularly if it is undertaken multilaterally. It sees military
intervention as as a last resort, and preferably restricted to naval
blockades and/or`air and missile strikes rather than the large-scale
deployment of ground forces. This has especially been the case since
Vietnam, except in regards to minor police actions in its own backyard like
Grenada and Panama.
Iraq, IMO, was an aberration. The adventurist first term Bush
administration, representing the right wing of the Republican party
exhuberant over the collapse of the Soviet Union, deviated from the
consensus, confidently opting for unilataterism and the use of ground forces
to reorder global politics, beginning with Iraq and threatening to move on
to North Korea and Iran, the other components of the axis of evil. But, as
we know and was predicted, it's fingers have since been badly burnt in Iraq
and, despite its rhetoric, it has backed away from the same policy in
relation to Iran or North Korea, reverting instead to diplomatic and
economic pressure exercised in conjunction with its allies, with whom it has
worked hard to repair relations. In other words, the bipartisan consensus
has returned to "equilibrium".
===================================
>
> I am not inclined to believe that "structural capitalism" - or whatever
> other buzzword is in fashion - is "determining" one and only policy path.
> That is too simplistic and too conspirational to my taste. Obviously,
> there
> are certain objective national interests that are relatively independent
> of
> politics, but these interests could be pursued in many different ways.
...The existence of this multitude and incoherence is highly significant,
> because is would suggest the existence of a relatively wide range of
> possible courses of action. Yet, only a very small subset of these
> possibilities surfaces in the US policies. That remarkable consistency
> over
> time requires an explanation, would not you agree?
=====================
Yes.
======================
> My favorite conjecture in this regard is grounded in the path dependency
> theory claiming that chance decisions (i.e. choices between more or less
> equally probable options) made at strategic points affect the probability
> that subsequent decisions will tend to resemble the initial choice. The
> classical illustration of this is the following game...
>.The bottom line is that certain strategic choices skew the field in favor
>of
> similar choices. The mechanism that ascertains path dependence is
> transaction cost. In real life, economic or political decisions have
> externalities...
> This, I believe, explains policy continuity despite divergent interests
> and
> political preferences. The main implication of it is that the US policy
> (especially foreign) is set on a certain policy path that is unlikely to
> change by politics alone (i.e. anything from elections to street protest).
> It does not even matter that different interest groups - even powerful
> ones
> - may prefer different set of alternatives (e.g. US companies eager to do
> business with Cuba, communist or otherwise). Once the Titanic sets its
> course, changing it is very difficult (albeit possible,) even if icebergs
> are in the plain view.
===========================
You favour game theory, which I don't understand very well, and which seems
too grounded in individual psychology rather than social and economic
conditions to suit me, but we seem to have arrived at similar conclusions.
I agree with you about the difficulty of maneuvering the Titanic; it seems to me that politicians necessarily have to act within certain parameters determined by the "system" as its interests are defined over time. Leaders who acquire power at the state or institutional level are handed the equivalent of briefing books which outline the inherited policy framework within which they're expected to operate. Any abrupt deviation which contradicts the accumulated experience and wisdom of the organization can be wrenching and risky; the Bush administration departure over Iraq is a good case in point.
So long as the system is not in crisis and demanding a course correction, the tendency towards continuity is very powerful, with left and right parties governing much the same way, regardless of their sometimes sharply divergent programs and social base. This is what James Carville had in mind when he expressed the preference to be reincarnated as the more powerful "bond market" rather than as the President of the US who is beholden to it. Of course, this presupposes that the bond market, ie. capitalism, doesn't collapse and lose its legitimacy which would set forces of discontinuity in motion. Until then, as you note, "US policy (especially foreign) is...unlikely to change by politics alone (i.e. anything from elections to street protest).
That's true of systemic change involving power and property relations, but change still happens as a result of internal or external shocks; US foreign policy, as noted above, has evolved in the Bush administration as a result of Iraq. It is hard to disentangle the various elements which have produced the change - the toll in blood and treasure exacted by the Iraqi resistance, for sure, but also shifting US public opinion registered through polls, elections, and street protests has played a part. So I don't think there is complete political stasis at all times, but neither do you, so far as I can tell.