Congress and the politics of defense and foreign policy making.

Richard Fenno Summarizes the goals of members of congress as three point plan:
 Winning reelection.
 Gaining influence in the institution.
 Making good policy.

The pursuit of Fennos three goals pushes Congress to pay more attention to defense than to foreign
policy, exacerbating a century-long shift of power over US foreign policy making away from the State
Department and other civilian capabilities, an toward the Pentagon.

Applying the lesson of the imbalance between foreign and defense policy in contemporary US practice
makes it clear that congress has no incentives to press for more balanced national security policy; the
incentives-electoral, influence building, and good policy- conspire to reinforce the imbalance.

Most members of congress derive limited electoral benefits from working on foreign affairs-unlike
defense, which is enormously helpful for members with bases and contractors in their districts.

Electoral connection and foreign and defense policy

Congress places two institutional demands on its members:
 Being a legislative body tasked with national policymaking.
 Representative body, members of the house and senate serve their particular constituents.
Which is now predominant because it helps members get reelected.

“only after reelection can a member work on influence building or long-term policy work”

The parties had become more polarized, they have sorted themselves ideologically, and without some
ability of members of both parties to work with like-minded members of the other party, It becomes
extremely difficult for the senate to find the sixty votes to move any legislation. This polarization is also
visible in American life.

Gaining influence in congress

As members of congress it is natural to look for ways to play more influential role in congress, and in
national policymaking. A better route to power is working on defense policy, not foreign policy; defense
is a vastly larger enterprise than foreign policy. Budget is policy, it is also power, and the relative power
and influence of any agency, and the legislators overseeing those agencies are strongly correlated with
the size of their slice of the budget pie.

In sum, members who want to pursue influence in congress will prefer to focus on defense topics rather
than foreign policy.

Congress and Strategic Policy

strategic policy sets the direction, purposes, and goals of US foreign and defense policy. In strategic
policy, the executive branch tends to dominate, setting the government´s broad goals and aligning US
national capacities in support of those goals.
Congress has a say in defense strategy, which they do by making policy determinations in the annual
NDAA and through oversight. Congress has been less successful in shaping foreign policy since it hhas
been unable to forge a workable consensus.

Don’t count on balance from congress

Congress faces significant incentives that militate strongly against balance in the US foreign policy
toolkit. The status quo-heavily defense-centric (with a large helping of homeland security on the side) is
unlikely to change due to any congressional actions.

Conclusions
What could congress do to produce support for a more balanced foreign policy for the US?
Congress is focuses on being a representative not a legislative body, and foreign policy simply does not
resonate with voters- so congress sees little upside to developing further expertise on the topic.

Defense is a bigger piece of the budget pie, and congress members earn electoral support for protecting
bases and defense jobs in their districts.

Congress is likely to leave things as they are, unless significant events, or a president intent on forcing a
debate, makes them change.

A president willing to use the power and prestige of the bully pulpit to force a rethinking and
rebalancing of the US approach to national security might be the only way for congress to have the
political cover to shift toward a more balanced foreign and defense policy mix.