The US Political System and the Power of the President

國

立 政 治 大 學

‧

N a

tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

policies.²⁴³ On the other hand, “groupthink” also rallies support and advances political will for the execution of policies, even if those policies are risky or irrational. With this in mind, one must consider how group dynamics affect both the initiating state and the target state’s degree of rationality and political will.

For deterrence to be credible, the state must have the political will to follow through on the threatened punishment. How political will is expressed is influenced by the personality and rationality of state leaders. An understanding of state leaders allows for more tailored threats, which in turn leads to more credible deterrence. Regime type may also indicate an initiating state’s level of political will. Democracies who attempt to deter a target state through public threats and actions are likely to suffer audience costs should deterrence fail. Therefore, democracies that make threats will not do so lightly, and have a strong political will to follow through on the stated threat. In contrast, autocracies are less susceptible to audience costs, making them more willing to engage in risky wars and back down in crises. Even if state leaders make irrational decisions, an understanding of the common misperceptions surrounding a leader’s decision-making process allows for a clearer understanding of that leader’s political will. Furthermore, the influence of “groupthink” may contribute to the creation and execution of irrational decisions, but also increases political will to follow through on those decisions. Thus, individual personalities and the influence of groups can strongly affect the strength and exercise of political will.

8.1. The US Political System and the Power of the President

The way a state manifests its political will depends on the structure of its main governing body. The distribution of power among individuals and groups influence government decision-making processes. This subsequently affects the level of state commitment to follow through on those decisions. In autocratic states, power is consolidated in one person who singlehandedly drives foreign policy. In cases of deterrence, if an autocratic dictator lacks the political will to follow through on a threat, then no one is in a position to force him to do so. In democratic states, separation of powers ensures that one branch of government will not overwhelm the others. Therefore, one branch that has expressed strong political will to launch a retaliatory strike

243 Dina Badie, “Groupthink, Iraq, and the War on Terror: Explaining US Policy Shift toward Iraq,”

Foreign Policy Analysis 6, no. 4 (October 2010): 277, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-8594.2010.00113.x.

‧

立 政 治 大 學

‧

N a

tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

could be tempered by other branches that are less willing to act. With this in mind, government structure and distribution of powers shapes how a state demonstrates its political will.

The United States is well-known throughout the international community for its unique form of democracy. A reaction to the tyranny experienced under British colonial rule, the US Constitution was originally framed to outline a form of government that limits the power of any single branch, or more importantly, any single person. However, as the head of the executive branch, the Constitution gives the President substantial powers within the US government. The President of the United States acts as the head of state and the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. The President is responsible for implementing and enforcing laws written by Congress and appointing the heads of federal agencies and commissions, including the Cabinet, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).²⁴⁴ On the other hand, Congress also maintains the right to confirm or reject Presidential appointments. Although the President has the power to sign or veto bills enacted by congress, Congress can override a veto with a two-thirds vote in both the House of Representative and in the Senate. As head of state, the President also has the power to negotiate and sign treaties with other countries, but those treaties must be ratified by two-thirds of the Senate.

The President has the authority to issue executive orders, “which direct executive officers or clarify and further existing laws.”²⁴⁵ In other words, executive orders are used to “instruct the government how to work within the parameters already set by Congress and the Constitution,”

allowing the President to make policy changes without requiring Congressional approval.²⁴⁶ Even though executive orders hold the same power as laws, they are also subject to judicial review through the Supreme Court and can be revoked through new legislation passed by Congress. Nevertheless, executive orders give the President broad administrative and enforcement powers to influence domestic and foreign policy in many ways.

Contrary to popular belief, the President cannot declare war. According to the

Constitution, only Congress has the authority to declare war. However, as the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, the President can send troops into battle without an official war

244 The White House, Our Government: The Executive Branch, accessed April 28, 2018, https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/the-executive-branch/.

245 Ibid.

246 NCC Staff, “Executive Orders 101: What are they and how do Presidents use them?” National

Constitution Center, January 23, 2017, accessed April 28, 2018, https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/executive-orders-101-what-are-they-and-how-do-presidents-use-them/.

‧

立 政 治 大 學

‧

N a

tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

declaration. In 1973, the War Powers Resolution was passed to limit this power by requiring the President to notify Congress within forty-eight hours of committing armed forces to military action, and forbidding armed forces from remaining overseas for over 60 days without the approval of Congress.²⁴⁷ Moreover, the resolution only permits the President to send US armed forces into action overseas following consultation with Congress and a formal declaration of war, or in special cases of national emergency. Even though the War Powers Resolution was meant to limit the President’s ability to initiate or escalate military actions abroad, many Presidents have resisted or ignored the resolution, which they perceive to be an infringement on their executive authority and role as Commander-in-Chief.²⁴⁸

Most importantly, the President has the sole authority to launch a nuclear attack. A key tenet of the US Constitution is “civilian control of the military.”²⁴⁹ By giving Congress the power to declare war and appointing the President as Commander-and-Chief, the Constitution ensures that civilian lawmakers maintain control over the military. At the height of the Cold War, when an immediate response was required in the event of a nuclear attack, a general consensus

emerged that nuclear weapons, like the military and all other weapons systems, should be placed under strict civilian control. As an extension of the President’s war powers articulated in the Constitution, it was assumed that the President would also have the exclusive right to launch a nuclear weapon. It was not until November 14, 2017 that this assumption was confirmed by the Congressional Foreign-Affairs Committee during a hearing held with the singular purpose of determining who has the authority to order the use of nuclear weapons.²⁵⁰ This hearing not only validated the President’s authority to use nuclear weapons, but also confirmed his ability to launch a preemptive strike.²⁵¹ It also revealed that once the President orders a nuclear strike, there are few measures to prevent the order from being carried out by the military. The US DoD recognizes National Command Authority, which refers to the collective power of the President

247 Encyclopedia Britannica, “War Powers Act,” accessed April 28, 2018, https://www.britannica.com/topic/War-Powers-Act.

248 Ibid.

249 William Lanouette, “Civilian Control of Nuclear Weapons,” Arms Control Today, May 8, 2009, accessed April 29, 2018, https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2009_5/Lanouette.

250 U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on Foreign Relations, Full Committee Hearing Authority to Order the Use of Nuclear Weapons, 115^th Cong., 2017.

251 Amy F. Woolf, “Defense Primer: Command and Control of Nuclear Forces,” Congressional Research Service, December 1, 2016, accessed April 29, 2018, https://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/IF10521.pdf.

‧

立 政 治 大 學

‧

N a

tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

and the Secretary of Defense.²⁵² However, as Commander-in-Chief, the President is the

military’s ultimate authority.²⁵³ The President has the prerogative to fire those who disobey, even the Secretary of Defense himself. Although top military and civilian advisors (and to a lesser extent, military personnel) may delay or expedite the execution of an order, “the president retains constitutional authority to order some military action.”²⁵⁴ Therefore, should the President decide to use nuclear weapons, he has the authority to use any means possible to ensure that it happens.

But what does all this mean for deterrence? For deterrence of North Korea to be successful, the US must have the political will to follow through on the stated threat. Based on the structure of the US government, the President plays the most important role in expressing political will. The President has the prerogative to decide when to deploy troops overseas, launch a nuclear strike, and essentially start the US down the path to war. As head of state and

Commander-in-Chief, the President must be the one to decide if and when to retaliate. Therefore, for deterrence to be successful, the President must have the political will to carry out the stated threat, which would mean launching a retaliatory nuclear strike. To help make such decisions, the President has the Cabinet, the NSC, and members of the White House staff to provide guidance and advice. Since psychologists attest that personality traits can be linked to behavior and decision-making, an understanding of President Trump’s personality may explain how he has expressed his political will towards North Korea. President Trump’s leadership style and his relationship with his Cabinet might also indicate if “groupthink” has influenced President Trump’s decisions. Since the United States is a representative democracy, Congress and other elected officials are responsible for expressing the political will of their constituencies, and use public opinion as a means of justifying military action. Finally, it is important to consider how the compatibility of President Trump and Kim Jong-un’s personalities may influence deterrence.