The Government Politics Model
Eric Swanson
Many citizens wonder why certain decisions are made in government. Sometimes the decisions made at top level positions in government seem contrary to what an ordinary rational citizen would decide if they were put in the same situation. The only explanation for this sometimes irrational decision making of nation states is due to government politics. Governmental politics helps shape international relation. The Government Politics Model (GPM) is the best model to explain the relations between nation states. With the GPM, citizens can understand international situations such as the successful handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis as well as the mishandling of the Vietnam War.
The decisions between nation states are due to politics. The relation between states is not due to a rational decision, nor an output of an organization, but is a result of a bargaining between group members. (Allison, 255) The GPM is characterized by many actors, who focus on many issues, act on national, organizational, and personal goals, and who decide government decisions based on pushing or pulling the group in a certain direction. This can also be called politics. Of course, many people do not like to hear that when it comes to international relations officials are “playing politics with national security”. (257) But in reality, the pushing and pulling of issues is best for a nation state.
By having a group decide the nation’s interests, goals, and direction; it creates a better decision process for the issues of the nation. A group of people is known to help achieve better analysis of the issue, creation of alternative ideas or options, more accurate estimates of the cost, benefit analyses, more prone to learn from mistakes, and understanding of the risks involved. (265) Leaders of nation’s states usually understand the usefulness of this concept. That is why they hire a group or staff that can perfect the leader by extenuating the strengths of the leader and strengthening his weaknesses. (265) A powerful leader that deserves respect is the one that can master his weaknesses by allowing the staff to aid in the decision process. The group can more aptly produce “increasingly, high quality, durable judgments.” An example of this is the Constitution. This document is the result of individuals bargaining to make a product. (271)
For the group to be successful at an issue it must be made up of qualified individuals. Players are those persons able to make an impact on the decisions. There are four types of players in a group according to the book Essence of Decision which are: chiefs, which in America is usually the President, the Cabinet, and other top level directors; Staffers, those staff positions that support the chiefs; Indians, political appointees and permanent position holders in the government; and Ad Hoc Players, such as special interest groups and certain foreign diplomats. (296) These players have to bargain and negotiate to have their issue heard and decided upon within the group. The groups result is based on the player’s different intentions. (306) The stance a player takes on an issue can easily be found by where he sits. (307) Their position, organizational background, and chosen field of expertise can give clear insight into where a player will stand on an issue. (277) All of these reasons show why a group’s objectives are based on the individuals within the group and who has the most power. When power is basically bargaining advantages, skill in those advantages, and others perceptions of the first two, those players with the greatest amount of power can contribute the most to the group’s resultant decision. (300) The individuals involved within the group are reasons why a group can be successful.
The GPM helps to include all the moving parts, namely all the individuals that take part in the group to make decisions, to understand how international relations. However, this model does not take into account all factors that contribute to international relations. This model does take into account the leaders rational decision making process, nor the organizations that bind the groups decision making. However, for the situations such as the Cuban Missile Crisis and the Vietnam War, it does an excellent job in explaining the inner workings of nation states.
To understand the Cuban Missile Crisis through the eyes of the GPM, one must look at the individuals within the circle of advisors around the President. More specifically, the events the helped shaped America’s response to Soviet missiles in Cuba was not due to President Kennedy’s rational and creative decisions, nor was it a product of some organization within the government, but was a combination of many ideas over countless days worth of meetings that helped shaped America’s decision. On August 23, John McCone, director of the CIA, was the first person in the group to announce the need for a more aggressive stance toward the situation in Cuba. (332) But since he lacked power, or bargaining advantages, due to his failed mission in Operation Mongoose, which was to undermine Castro at the Bay of Pigs, his warnings went unheeded by the other players due to other more pressing issues. (330) Eventually, October 15 when the nuclear missiles were actually discovered did the group understand that they needed to take a harsher stance towards Cuba. The President, John Kennedy, was politically and personally in trouble by this news. He knew that he had to make a successful policy towards this situation to maintain his influence, trust in his administration, and to help the Democrats in their elections that were just three weeks away. (339) So, he commissioned his group to come up with an answer to this problem. Robert McNamara, Secretary of Defense, thought this was just a political move and suggested a naval blockade. (341) Dean Ruck, Secretary of State, thought that we should consult our allies. (341) The Joint Chiefs suggested an invasion of Cuba. (340) However, the Chairman of Joint Chiefs suggested just an air attack. (341)
Of these options, most of the players were for an air attack, which would be less costly and have a faster response. However, it was determined that they did not want a sort of “Pearl Harbor” upon Cuba, because that might make the Soviets have a retaliation on Berlin. (342) So, Charles Bohler and Llewellyn Thompson, two veteran foreign diplomats, suggested giving Khrushchev an ultimatum. (342) The Treasury Secretary, Douglas Dillon then suggested a blockade with an ultimatum attached. (342) When Kennedy heard these options he did not like any of these, so he sent them back to find a better idea. McNamara came out of the committee with a recommendation. This recommendation suggested a blockade with a negotiation period after.
On October 20th all the options were laid before the group. The first option was to invade Cuba with an air attack. (344) Secondly, America should use a blockade and then try to negotiate with the Soviets. (344) Thirdly, America should use a blockade but give the Soviets an ultimatum. (344) And lastly, America should use a blockade and the consult the UN to set up an observation team. (344) On October 22nd, the majority of the group had agreed upon a combination of all the options which was to have a naval blockade coupled with an ultimatum for air strikes and a promise for ever increasing force towards Cuba and the Soviets within Cuba. (345) The key thing to understand here was that the most influential member of the group was not the President but was his brother, the Attorney General Robert Kennedy, who saw all the options and was able to bring all the options together for everyone to agree on. (346) This course of events could only be explained through the GPM. What else could explain an Attorney General deciding the fate of a nation state?
This GPM can also explain the mishandling of the Vietnam War. Many individuals give credit to Kennedy for starting it, Johnson for escalating it, and Nixon for stopping it. However, that explanation does not explain the over 58 ambassadors and cabinet members that had a direct affect on the Vietnam War. (Sorley, 169) For instance, when Johnson made the public appearance for international support for the Vietnam War, it was not his rational decision making. Rather it was his administration in 1964 that tried to get support calling it the “Many Flags Campaign”. (Neu, 697) The administration’s call on the international community strained the relationships between America and her allies. (697) This further led to the disagreement over the involvement in Vietnam. This example was an unfortunate situation that got worse due to the many individuals trying to effect the situation with their own national, organizational, and personal interests. With the GPM, one can understand why there were so many people involved with and messing with Vietnam.
The Government Politics Model is a tool to understand how nations relate to one another. Through this model one can understand the decisions made during the Cuban Missile Crisis and the mishandling of the Vietnam War. Politics is the only way for citizens to understand why nation states make the decisions they make.
Bibliography
Allison, Graham, and Philip Zelikow. Essence of Decision. New York: Longman, 1999.
Neu, Charles. “Lyndon Johnson's Foreign Policy in Perspective.” American History. 24.
(1996): 695 – 700. 21 April 2002
<http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/reviews_in_american_history/v024/24.4neu.html>.
Sorley, Lewis. “Our Vietnam: The War 1954 – 1975”. Carlisle Barracks 31. (2001): 169
– 171.
|
|
|||||||||
| Who is Eric? | Economics | English | Ethics | History | Interests | Leadership | Psychology | Politics | Links |
Date this page was last updated: 12/06/2002