Rep. Tom Lantos (D-Calif.), chairman of the House Foreign Relations Committee, accompanied Speaker [tag]Pelosi[/tag] and a bi-partisan House delegation to the Middle East this week. Asked about the administration’s criticism of their trip, Lantos said, “We have an alternative Democratic [tag]foreign policy[/tag]. I view my job as beginning with restoring overseas credibility and respect for the United States.”
The notion that congressional Dems would formulate an alternative foreign policy, which runs counter to the administration’s, was not particularly well received by Democratic critics. Kim Priestap put it succinctly: “So a Democrat admits it. Pelosi and the Democrats are purposefully defying not only President Bush but the US Constitution as well.”
It’s a relatively common sentiment. The executive branch is supposed to be responsible for foreign policy, conservatives argue this week. International affairs falls under the purview of the president and the Secretary of State. Congress can conduct oversight, but not conduct policy. Mitt Romney said yesterday, “It’s a very bad idea to be carrying out a separate and independent foreign policy from the president of the United States.” Likewise, John Bolton said, “I would simply hope that people would understand that, under the Constitution, the president conducts foreign policy, not the speaker of the House.”
On a certain level, some of this sounds vaguely persuasive, but there are, it seems, at least three things wrong with the right’s argument. First, foreign policy may generally fall under the purview of the executive branch, but when the president fails at his duties, someone has to pick up the slack.
Second, Pelosi isn’t exactly conducting her own policy negotiations in the Middle East. She’s there as Speaker, but she’s not negotiating or speaking on behalf of the U.S. government.
And third, if Republicans are really concerned about a congressional majority undermining the executive branch’s foreign policy responsibilities, they ought to look in the mirror.
In 1997, Rep. Dennis Hastert (R-IL) led a delegation to Colombia at a time when U.S. officials were trying to attach human rights conditions to U.S. security assistance programs. Hastert specifically encouraged Colombian military officials to “bypass” President Clinton and “communicate directly with Congress.”
…a congressional delegation led by Rep. Dennis Hastert (R-IL) which met with Colombian military officials, promising to “remove conditions on assistance” and complaining about “leftist-dominated” U.S. congresses of years past that “used human rights as an excuse to aid the left in other countries.” Hastert said he would to correct this situation and expedite aid to countries allied in the war on drugs and also encouraged Colombian military officials to “bypass the U.S. executive branch and communicate directly with Congress.”
Subsequently, U.S. Ambassador to Colombia Myles Frechette sent a cable complaining that Hastert’s actions had undermined his leverage with the Colombian military leadership.
In other instances, Hastert actually guided congressional staff to unilaterally reach deals with Colombian officials.
As soon as the right starts whining about Hastert, I’ll be sure to take their concerns about Pelosi seriously.
And just as an aside, if Pelosi had told Syrian officials to “bypass” the Bush administration and deal directly with congressional Democrats, how quickly would Fox News and the right demand her resignation?