The War Powers Resolution and public opinion.

AuthorNoone, Gregory P.
PositionSymposium: Presidential Power and Foreign Affairs

Abstract

This essay focuses on the 1973 War Powers Resolution (WPR) and the impact of public opinion. Over the last forty years it might best be described as "political cover" for Congress. It allows Congress to abdicate its role in making decisions that might ultimately prove unpopular with voters. Congress may seek adherence to the WPR when there is disagreement among the elite. But more often than not there are few calls for a WPR. There are electoral disincentives for confronting the president over foreign policy. However, research indicates that the WPR appears to have impacted the behavior of presidents because presidents have rarely used force for more than sixty days without congressional authorization.

CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION II. THE VIETNAM EFFECT III. CONGRESS IS A DISTANT THIRD IV. THE PUBLIC WANTS CONGRESS TO APPROVE V. THE PRACTICAL EFFECT OF THE WPR VI. CONCLUSION I. INTRODUCTION

The 1973 War Powers Resolution (often alternatively referred to as the War Powers Act--its title in the Senate version of the law) has been described as constitutionally unnecessary as well as a "fraud" and "feckless." (1) But over the last forty years it might best be described as "political cover" for Congress.

Jack Goldsmith describes the phenomenon of policy approval in Washington D.C. in the political context. Such as when President George W. Bush did "soft things" like releasing detainees from Guantanamo Bay and trying suspected terrorists in civilian courts in the United States. The Democrats liked the policy and the Republicans liked the president. Whereas, when President Barack Obama does "hard things" such as using unmanned aerial vehicles (also known as "drones") for targeted killings in Yemen and Pakistan, the Republicans like the policy and the Democrats like the president. Both of these concepts are rooted in partisanship for at least one side in each scenario. With that said, playing against type has a long history in American politics. Only a hardline anti-Communist such as President Richard M. Nixon could go to China. President William J. Clinton succeeded in welfare reform, and President George W. Bush reshaped education at the local level with No Child Left Behind.

But partisanship does not necessarily hold true when the president uses force that would clearly fall under the rubric of the War Powers Resolution (WPR). The partisanship angle of this issue requires an examination of congressional support for presidential use of force. In other words, does congressional support simply follow partisan lines? Through an examination of polling data, the results indicated that congressional behavior was not based on partisanship but more on tracking the public opinion of the American people. With a few outliers on each end of the spectrum, such as Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) and Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas), most of Congress will support the president's use of force regardless of party so long as the polling data indicates strong public support.

Therefore, Congress' action is more closely linked to public opinion than party affiliation. This is not a surprise to anyone who follows politics, but use of force decisions involve sending men and women into harm's way. One would hope such decisions are made because of principled positions of leaders as opposed to followers with their fingers in the air.

Congress may seek adherence to the WPR when there is disagreement among the elite (i.e., the president, politicians, media, intellectuals, experts). But more often than not there are few calls for a WPR, and the leadership and members in both parties are happy to let the president go on his own. However, when public opinion, as demonstrated through national polls (and arguably through constituent contact, which is very difficult to measure and of which very little data is available), is opposed to the use of military force abroad the likelihood of calls for a WPR increase. This is a bit of a "chicken or an egg" issue because some researchers argue that a consensus of elite opinion forms and guides public opinion and not the other way around. (2) Unfortunately there isn't any solid evidence, but it is doubtful that the vast majority of politicians in Congress have a desire to be out of step with their constituents--especially Representatives.

In general, the more complex the issue and the more unified elites are about the appropriate policy response, the less likely public opinion will oppose and constrain the policy-making elite. But when the facts of the issue are relatively easy to grasp and elite opinion is divided, then public opinion may wield significant influence and operate as an important constraint on policy making, (3) For example, the elites and the public both supported humanitarian relief in Somalia in the summer of 1992. However, elite-level disagreement arose over the next year as the mission there evolved from easy to understand humanitarian relief to complex offensive operations against warlords. Public support for the mission eroded by October 1993 and fell by another ten points after eighteen Army Rangers were killed in Mogadishu.

Frankly, Congress is happy to let the president take singular responsibility (i.e., pay any potential electoral price) for the use of force. However, time always diminishes U.S. public support for military action overseas. No matter how popular an exercise of American power may be at the beginning, support will erode. The only question is how quickly.

The duration of the conflict and the number of...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT