Presidential politics 175But there are a number of considerations that tend to enhance the power of
the president when moving from strictly domestic concerns into the field of
foreign affairs, and even more so when acting as commander-in-chief of the
armed forces rather than as chief diplomat. These considerations overlap our
first category of the nature of the sources of power, for in the area of foreign
relations the president has far more directly granted powers to conduct the
affairs of the nation. The major restriction is the requirement that treaties
must be ratified by a two-thirds majority of the Senate, but, since the refusal
of the Senate to ratify the Treaty of Versailles, presidents have resorted much
more to the use of executive agreements with foreign countries which do not
require ratification.
The major difference between the diplomatic and domestic roles of the
president is that the president is strategically in a much more powerful posi-
tion in foreign affairs in relation to internal American political forces. The role of
national leader is here most potent, and the claim to represent the whole
nation against sectional forces the most persuasive. As the president and
only the president must make the final decisions in matters of foreign policy
there is a natural tendency to allow the president to know best in this field.
It does not mean of course that decisions will not be challenged, and indeed
hotly contested in some quarters; but there is almost the presupposition in
the attitude of the general public that the president should be supported.
This attitude is buttressed by patriotic sentiments, which can be extremely
powerful in American politics, which suggest that the president should be
supported when under attack from foreigners. It is possible for the president
to move with greater freedom in foreign affairs than domestic politics, partly
because of the original constitutional powers of the office, partly because of
the initial strength given by public opinion. Furthermore, it is in the field of
foreign affairs that the institutional power of the presidency carries most
weight. In internal affairs the president must function much more as a power
broker between contending interests and the machinery of presidential deci-
sion-making is very closely bound up with the pluralist structure. There are
interest groups in foreign affairs, of course, and some are very important,
but usually their significance is less than in internal affairs. The informa-
tion and advice that the president gets from White House advisers, cabinet
members and officials will therefore be of greater significance than in the
domestic field. The overwhelming difference between external affairs and
internal politics is the potential power of the president to commit the coun-
try to a course of action, which, once embarked upon, is extremely difficult to
repudiate or reverse. The president’s powers as commander-in-chief are the
extreme example of this. By being able to order American troops to take up
positions abroad, or even to commit them to hostilities, the Congress and the
people are presented with a fait accompli, where they must choose between
repudiating their president, and so perhaps endangering their own troops,
and supporting the commander-in-chief.