At Ask Me Help Desk you can ask questions in any topic and have them
answered for free by our experts. To ask questions or participate in
answering them you must register for a free account. By registering you
will be able to:
Get free answers from experts in any of our 300+
topics.
Why so much concern over foreign policy when it is dictated by domestic policy. So if we are unhappy with foreign policy we should analyze our domestic policy.
...and the Taliban, Iran, Al Qaeda and the other clowns forcing the foreign policy to exist. Good thought, dark_crow.
XenoSapien
Yep, the foreign policy has been intervention, following the domestic policy of intervention. Maybe if the government stopped playing mother and intervening in everyone’s life, life for everyone might improve.
Yep, the foreign policy has been intervention, following the domestic policy of intervention. Maybe if the government stopped playing mother and intervening in everyone’s life, life for everyone might improve.
If you give a chimp a baseball bat, the probability is very high that he will brain you.
1) Foreign and domestic policy cannot exist independantly of each other. Foreign piolicy drives domestic policy, and vice versa. Each drives the other, which is as it should be. A desire for more Americans to be gainfully employed (a domestic issue) should be part of our decision-making process when entering or rejecting deals like NAFTA (a foreign policy issue). The desire to support foreign allies like Israel (a foreign policy issue) should drive our government's decisions regarding military-preparedness, arms-manufacture, etc. (domestic issues).
2) There are many situations where the line between foreign and domestic policy blur. The immigation/border control issue is one such, and it's a big topic now. Another case is anti-terrorism action and legislation which has a domestic and a foreign aspect.
3) A non-interventionist policy is doomed to failure and leaves us open to attack. I spoke about this in Excon's question about Ron Paul in my comments about his "citadel defense strategy". FDR found that out when we were attacked at Pearl Harbor, and Bill Clinton found it out when the WTC was attacked in 1993 and numerous other times during his presidency and he did nothing in response.
The fact is that foreign policy dictates domestic policy just as much as domestic policy dictates foreign policy. Neither exists in a bubble, nor should they. It's a two-way-street.
1) Foreign and domestic policy cannot exist independantly of each other. Foreign piolicy drives domestic policy, and vice versa. Each drives the other, which is as it should be. A desire for more Americans to be gainfully employed (a domestic issue) should be part of our decision-making process when entering or rejecting deals like NAFTA (a foreign policy issue). The desire to support foreign allies like Israel (a foreign policy issue) should drive our government's decisions regarding military-preparedness, arms-manufacture, etc. (domestic issues).
2) There are many situations where the line between foreign and domestic policy blur. The immigation/border control issue is one such, and it's a big topic now. Another case is anti-terrorism action and legislation which has a domestic and a foreign aspect.
3) A non-interventionist policy is doomed to failure and leaves us open to attack. I spoke about this in Excon's question about Ron Paul in my comments about his "citadel defense strategy". FDR found that out when we were attacked at Pearl Harbor, and Bill Clinton found it out when the WTC was attacked in 1993 and numerous other times during his presidency and he did nothing in response.
The fact is that foreign policy dictates domestic policy just as much as domestic policy dictates foreign policy. Neither exists in a bubble, nor should they. It's a two-way-street.
Elliot
I don’t believe anyone in their right mind would argue against the interplay between the two; however, what made me wonder about this was protectionism, which is exclusively a domestic issue in its origin; that is, protection of domestic industries, and yet has so much influence on foreign countries. For instance, look at the Smoot-Hawley tariff Law and its effect.
This one act had the terrible consequences of angering the industrial world to the extent that it still exists today, and at the same time ushered in the welfare state; to which in another thread I attempter a distinction between that and the welfare system.
Smoot Hawley was indeed a terrible piece of legislation. And it did have a terrible effect on the economy of the nation by driving foreign trade away and slowing our recovery fom the Great Depression. But that was during a time in our nations history when taxes (rather than monetary and interest rate policy) was used by government as a way to try to control inflation. Back then, the answer to any financial or economic problem was to raise taxes... which, of course, just made money scarcer, drove prices higher, took cash flow out of the hands of the people who needed it the most, and increased unemployment by forcing marginal businesses to fire or lay off employees in order to remain solvent and profitable. Back then, congress was very tax-happy (gee, not like today, right?) and Hoover was happy to go along with the entire mess in order to seem as if he was Doing Something. But taxes were considered the cure all for any financial situation back then. We know a bit better now... at least some of us do.
You are correct that Smoot-Hawley was a product of protectionism, and that it was a case of domestic policy and foreign policy dictating each other. I don't necessarily see that as a bad thing. This particular legislation was bad... REALLY bad. What they should have done is, instead of using tax policy to close out foreign competition, they should have loosened restrictions and taxes on domestic companies to allow them to compete in the international markets on even footing. That too would have been a case of foreign and domestic policy dictating to each other, but would have been a perfectly productive response to the situation at hand. It would have increased America's ability to compete without damaging our relationships with foreign trade partners.
So, again, I don't see the relationship between foreign and domestic policies as a bad thing. It's what we do with that relationship that makes all the difference.
Smoot Hawley was indeed a terrible piece of legislation. And it did have a terrible effect on the economy of the nation by driving foreign trade away and slowing our recovery fom the Great Depression. But that was during a time in our nations history when taxes (rather than monetary and interest rate policy) was used by government as a way to try to control inflation. Back then, the answer to any financial or economic problem was to raise taxes... which, of course, just made money scarcer, drove prices higher, took cash flow out of the hands of the people who needed it the most, and increased unemployment by forcing marginal businesses to fire or lay off employees in order to remain solvent and profitable. Back then, congress was very tax-happy (gee, not like today, right?) and Hoover was happy to go along with the entire mess in order to seem as if he was Doing Something. But taxes were considered the cure all for any financial situation back then. We know a bit better now... at least some of us do.
You are correct that Smoot-Hawley was a product of protectionism, and that it was a case of domestic policy and foreign policy dictating each other. I don't necessarily see that as a bad thing. This particular legislation was bad... REALLY bad. What they should have done is, instead of using tax policy to close out foreign competition, they should have loosened restrictions and taxes on domestic companies to allow them to compete in the international markets on even footing. That too would have been a case of foreign and domestic policy dictating to each other, but would have been a perfectly productive response to the situation at hand. It would have increased America's ability to compete without damaging our relationships with foreign trade partners.
So, again, I don't see the relationship between foreign and domestic policies as a bad thing. It's what we do with that relationship that makes all the difference.
Elliot
I agree with you; there is nothing inherently bad about the connection itself between the two.
I only wondered, and that is what philosophers do, if America’s domestic policy affected foreign policy more so than the opposite.
On a larger domestic policy what you say reflects misguided economic theory of capitalism that production must be based on demand.
First, I would ague that before 1945, our domestic policy basically drove foreign policy. After WWII, however, the USA emerged as a world power, and from that point on, it can be argued, that foreign and domestic policy began to drive each other more evenly.
As for economic theory, in the modern day of "drop-shipping" of product, companies trying to cut inventory costs as much as possible by not keeping any unneccesary inventory, and international production companies that can ship directly to the end-user, we are definitely living in a "demand economy". Demand does drive production these days. Whether that was always true or not is up for debate, but it is definitely true today.
Most of my clients only produce product based on orders received inhouse. They don't maintain inventories if they don't have to. Even the ones who do maintain inventories do so because they are basing inventory levels on expected/historical demand levels. They are definitely demand-driven businesses. That has become the widespread norn in the "global economy". Production HAS become almost completely based on demand.
The US auto industry is only just starting to figure that out. They have been losing money for for years because they have been producing too much inventory, too much of what customers don't want (SUVs are a good example), and not enough of what they do want (economic cars with high mileage per gallon). They were slow to react to public demand, and because of it, and the result has been that A) foreign car manufacturers have captured the US market, and B) US car manufacturers are losing money, laying off employees, and scrambling to retool their factories to give Americans what they really do want.
If that isn't evidence of a demand-driven economy, I don't know what is.
The only industry that may not be demand-driven is agriculture, which is more of a catch-as-catch-can industry. They produce as much as they can in as short a period as they can in order to sell as much as possible, regardless of what real demand from the public is. They can get away with that because most agricultural goods are subject to spoilage, which means that inventory levels never get too high, and demand always remains relatively constant, even when supply is relatively high. Other than that example, however, we are definitely in a demand-driven economy.
Why do you say otherwise? And can you provide examples?
Linear Mode
