The Internationalization of US Policy Paralysis and the Collapse of American Diplomacy
Davos, Switzerland (cc photo by World Economic Forum )
Global finance will never be fully regulated at an international level as long as sovereign states exist. At the same time, international financial flows are an important part of how the global economy works, so to be effective regulations need some measure of international coordination. Watching Barack Obama talk about financial reform at last night’s State of the Union has left Felix Salmon worried on this score:
What I’m worried about here, then, is that the Obama administration’s financial-reform proposals are being driven much more by domestic political calculus than by a coordinated international attempt to create a global financial system that is less leveraged and more stable than the one we’ve grown used to.
The thing is that this problem is perfectly general. The dysfunctional nature of the United States Congress means that essentially all diplomatic intercourse with the American government is worthless. If you were at a G8 meeting talking regulation, why would you take the Obama administration’s positions seriously? Or at a Major Economies Forum meeting talking about climate change? Or at a UN Security Council meeting talking about multilateral nuclear disarmament? Or a meeting about “global imbalances” and the need for eventual public sector deleveraging? A WTO meeting about trade in agricultural commodities? It would almost make more sense at this point for Susan Collins’ staff to represent the US in international fora, though even she can’t deliver the 67th vote needed to ratify something like the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.
Domestic political constraints at a diplomatic meeting are nothing new. And in some ways they can strengthen your hand. If you say “look, Japan, I sympathize with what you’re saying but unless you give me my way on this one point Congress will throw the whole thing out” then this is a good way of getting Japan to give in on the one point. But if the people you’re negotiating with think that anything you oppose will face unanimous opposition from a minority with the power to block bills, while your own party isn’t even disciplined enough to provide the leadership with consistent backing on procedural issues, then what is there really to negotiate about?
What’s especially troubling about this is that it’s asymmetrical. A president who “can’t get anything done” still has a wide latitude to conduct national security policy to his liking, but basically only in reactionary ways. Congress can’t or won’t stop a president from launching a war, or detaining people without trial, or surveilling them without warrants. But the progressive view on international policy isn’t merely that we shouldn’t do those things, but that we should take constructive steps to cooperate with other countries on problems of mutual concern. But if the president can’t credibly promise congressional action, then he can’t really undertake cooperative international action.
21 Responses to “The Internationalization of US Policy Paralysis and the Collapse of American Diplomacy”
Register
RSSLogin
Yglesias Tweets
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
January 28th, 2010 at 1:06 pm
When you think about it like that, it’s a wonder the US Senate has ever ratified a treaty. I really can’t imagine getting 67 votes in the Senate for anything other than tax cuts and war.
January 28th, 2010 at 1:08 pm
Shorter Matt: What we need to do is scrap the Constitution to make it easier for progressives to get their way.
You can basically substitute this for every third post.
January 28th, 2010 at 1:16 pm
“Congress can’t or won’t stop a president from launching a war, or detaining people without trial, or surveilling them without warrants. But the progressive view on international policy isn’t merely that we shouldn’t do those things, but that we should take constructive steps to cooperate with other countries on problems of mutual concern.”
Asking this as a progressive American in an Obama administration: even if I can’t have the latter (constructive cooperation with other nations on problems of mutual concern), can I at least have the *former* (not launching a war, not detaining people without trial, and not surveilling Americans without warrants)? Obama’s well within his power to give me the latter (no Congress required), but he doesn’t.
Obama should start with the man in the mirror.
“But if the president can’t credibly promise congressional action, then he can’t really undertake cooperative international action.”
If the president doesn’t utilize his own unilateral power to cease our nation’s imperial actions abroad and our own flouting of domestic law, then he can’t really undertake cooperative international action… not with any credibility, at any rate.
Patrick Meighan
Culver city, CA
January 28th, 2010 at 1:17 pm
Shorter Brad: Fucked up government is a feature, not a bug. Where’s the bathtub?
You can basically substitute this for every wingtard comment around that gets posted here.
January 28th, 2010 at 1:23 pm
DUH!!!
Is there actually a point to this post? It’s just another long whine about nothing.
January 28th, 2010 at 1:24 pm
Wow, we can’t do treaties. That’s some pretty bad stuff.
January 28th, 2010 at 1:28 pm
this is interesting. i read salmon’s post as a critique of the president and matt turns it into talk about the “dysfunctional nature of the United States Congress.”
the political calculus salmon mentions is in reference to his fear that obama is more interested in being seen socking it to the banks, and pocketing a little tax revenue in the process, than he is in crafting regulation that might actually work.
January 28th, 2010 at 1:30 pm
Good post. So what is to be done?
January 28th, 2010 at 1:39 pm
This is not a new problem. The inability of President Wilson to get America to commit to the league of nations may have led to its reduced effectiveness and contributed to the inability of the world community to deter the Italian and German nationalism that led to world war two.
January 28th, 2010 at 1:44 pm
And don’t forget about people who argue we should treat financial regulation as a throwaway issue for domestic political reasons! We hate those bastards, right Matt?
January 28th, 2010 at 2:13 pm
Wow, Brad, you completely misunderstood Matthew’s post. How embarrassing for you. Matthew is complaining about the filibuster, which is not in the Constitution.
January 28th, 2010 at 2:22 pm
walt, it’s ok cause matt completely misunderstood felix salmon’s post. we’re not really doing policy so much as a free-form jazz improvisation. i like to think of it as “Jazz Odyssey.”
January 28th, 2010 at 2:54 pm
[...] Matthew Yglesias [...]
January 28th, 2010 at 3:01 pm
Hence, my sorrowful shortened lifespan…
and no, I’d love to be kidding.
There is just no words for how bad this demostration of powerlessness is for us. I think many dc’ers think that the basic core issues (for them) like giving Bernanke a new lease on life and being able to bail out their lords and masters is enough.
I, on the other hand, think that even with that sort of anaemic functionality, the government will be facing a credibility deficit. If it’s with its own people, you know, your average joe, then all the Bernankes and bailouts and military pork won’t do a damn with the bankers come with that “Come to Jesus” message. You need cred to raise taxes effectively (so people aren’t just jumping into grey and black markets), and we *will* need to raise taxes substantially at some point.
January 28th, 2010 at 3:34 pm
We missed the fun in Davos. The fun…
January 28th, 2010 at 3:59 pm
THE ROAD OUT
[YOU GOT A BETTER PLAN]
Now, the new plan the German Foreign Minister Dr. Guido Westerwelle, is a basically well taught out plan than has been contributed to by may Netizens, [Net-Citizens], Dreamers, Thinkers, and Workers of the New [21st] Century, who like it or not will soon be behind the steering wheel, and they have control of the radio, and decide just what tunes are going to be played. But, that said, is the plan perfect, NO! The best laid plans of mice and men are often led astray, so it goes, and so it is with Dr. Westerwelle’s plan, but any plan is better than nothing at all, and the plan placed on the table by the Arrogant Richard Hal Holbrooke after his nabs, catching his [Z’s], getting that beauty rest, was no plan at all, give us troops and money and we will decide just how to make use of both, Hillary Diane Rodham-Clinton Saber Rattling, my way or the highway, gun-boat diplomacy. Now, we have the two plans on the table, if anyone has a better plan to offer, well the proposition is open for discussion.
[THE MIDDLE ROAD OUT]
In this corner we have the American-Israeli Empire, whose plan is to colonize the entire of the Islamic Crescent/Arabian Peninsula/Hindu Cush, in yet another War of Economic Stimulus, Resources and Markets, Blood for Oil, [NYSE] New York Stock Exchange carnage. On the other side we have the [IFF/IECF] Islamic Freedom Fighters/Irregular Enemy Combatant Forces, they have been there, done that, so many time’s it’s simply nothing new, we were here before the Empire came here and we will still be here after yet another Empire has left. The New Plan offered up Dr. Westerwelle’s was and is a well taught up one, and it allowed for freedom of change, here’s the clay now form your pot or vase anyway you desire, but no using it as a weapon this is government [101] and not weapons making [101]. The problem was, is and will be the American-Israeli Empire, it is there to colonize, and set up a so called Democratic Government a Democratic Puppet Government, if it were about aiding in the establishment of a stable government of whatever type, with a firm withdrawal planned date, it would in fact work, but that’s not Stan the Man’s Plan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal the Commander of the [NATO] North Atlantic Treaty Organization troops in the [Islamic Crescent/Arabian Peninsula/Hindu Cush], or Hillary Diane Rodham-Clinton’s Third Clinton Presidency.
[Germany Training [IFF/IECF]]
So, what are Germany, The German & French Alliance, and the [EU] European Union left with buy your way out! It is being screamed that Germany is only training [IFF/IECF], and the answer to that is [You Bet Ya!], it’s the only way out for the now broken [NATO] North Atlantic Treaty Organization, [EU] members, it gives political cover. Well, we were task with the job of training paramilitary, military, and police forces, task complete were going home, the other side is saying, now, were paying you to be part of our organization, and we have set up Jurga’s [Local Government] we have been there for you, now you must be here for us and yourself, we will continue to pay you, as you collect yet another paycheck from the Empire. Go receive the training they offer and bring that training back to be shared with others of your true family community, family comes first. But, were leaving behind a failed governmental structure, NO! Your leaving behind a Non-Democratic, Non-Puppet [IFF/IECF] run government, and as one Joe Black said, I wouldn’t worry these things have a way of working themselves out.
[Europe is buying its way out]
Make no mistake that in fact Germany, the German & French Alliance, and the [EU] are buying their way out of the Empires Colonization War of Economic Stimulus on the [Islamic Crescent/Arabian Peninsula/Hindu Cush] with;
* [REHABILITATION FUND]: A Rehabilitation Fund which the German Republic is putting it’s money were its mouth is in the amount of [€50M/$70.36M] Fifty-Million Euros/Seventy-Point-thirty Million Dollars, part of a [€350M/$492.5M] Three-Hundred-Fifty-Million-Euros/Four-hundred-ninety-two-million in pledges to the fund.
* [A RECONSTRUCTION FUND] for the construction of a modern infrastructure, economic and social development process vital to the peoples of the region, and in line with Step Six, of the [Self Supporting Security] approach. To which Germany has pledged [€430M/$605M] Four-Hundred-Thirty-Million-Euros/Six-Hundred-Five-Million-Dollars, Annually until [2013].
[LESSONS LEARNED]
* We have a Brilliant and Bond New European Leader in the German Foreign Minister Dr. Guido Westerwelle
* The Tea-Baggers, Netizens, [Net-Citizens], Dreamers, Thinkers, and Workers of the New [21st] Century are stepping up and beginning to make a difference.
* [NATO] is gone the way of the League of Nations, and the Dodo Bird.
* Germany was never a cowardly nation, it was and is a Dr. Bruce Banner nation, [THE HULK], don’t make us angry your not going to like us when were angry. A NEW GERMARY has been born, and will change the dynamics of Europe
* The American-Israeli Empire is just another Imperialist Colonial Power in the Graveyard of Empires, with the same end result.
* That the Empire is in yet another failing third Clinton Administration control, of Hillary Diane Rodham-Clinton and Bubba, Saber Rattling, my way or the highway, we know what’s best, gun-boat diplomacy, Wars of Economic Stimulus [21st] Century; do over of the [20th]. That the Tea-Baggers, Netizens, [Net-Citizens], Dreamers, Thinkers, and Workers of the New [21st] aren’t buying into.
HERCULE TRIATHLON SAVINIEN
January 28th, 2010 at 4:31 pm
I don’t remember the book going as far as that. Maybe you’ve learnt something over the past few years…?
January 28th, 2010 at 5:27 pm
if the people you’re negotiating with think that anything you oppose will face unanimous opposition from a minority with the power to block bills
Did you mean “anything you propose”?
January 28th, 2010 at 10:22 pm
“I have to say appears as if you completely got the literal nitty-gritty of the position at this time. While others seem to have omitted the important detail of everything, what you put forward prefatory is unconstrained and perfectly stated. I am not articulating that I harmonise on every one of the points; however, you did payed me grounds to think about many of the points that I conceived that I obtained as impetuous notions in that attentivenesses. Convincingly stated, and it is now time for someone like me to think a bit more along a few of the main items. In all I would state it is clear that you have done an excellant job.”
January 29th, 2010 at 2:57 am
[...] But all that is very general, and Matthew Yglesias is more specific in The Internationalization of US Policy Paralysis and the Collapse of American Diplomacy: [...]
February 1st, 2010 at 8:49 am
[...] Why should international partners believe that Obama can back up his pledge? As Matt Yglesias points out, the fact that Obama can’t credibly promise anything that would require Congressional [...]