Polarization's Impact on American Security Policy-Making

The consequences of political polarization for American foreign and national security policymaking are increasing gridlock in Congress which refers to limit the number of legislation passed and reduce policy inaction in the discussion during Dr. Scott’s lecture. Also, it is important fact to examine how the political preferences of the U.S. Congress have been changed and to analyze which factors have been influencing the political preferences. Persily defines the problems of polarization which are ideological convergence within parties, characteristics of “gridlock” in terms of the inability of policy-making due to obstructionist tackle, and government dysfunction. Consequently, most solutions to gridlock begin with reforms of Senate and House

of Representatives rules in the U.S. (8-13). By reducing the policymaking process, polarization lowers the quality of legislation that is passed, at the same time by polarization, decrease transparency, reduce oversight, and restrict the ability of the government to deal with long-term domestic issues. In particular, some aspects of the political environment, such as foreign policy making or national security after a national emergency, can also lead to poor legislation or destabilize on the foreign policy.
According to the book, Power Wars: Inside Obama's Post-9/11 Presidency, Savage continuously mentions that American foreign policy has become much more militarized than in the past since 9/11, particularly on two areas, which are on surveillance and the use of president’s force.
Over the years, the process adopted by Obama’s administration on national security matters remains questionable regarding to the sustenance of Bush policies and the introduction of radical changes.

In view of Guantanamo Bay, the existing population stands low. However, still open are the special military courts and camp. The Obama administration continues to retain broad programs on National Security Agency (NSA) surveillance, as well as formulating only modest reforms. On the same, the justice system shows great focus on cracking down on leakers of government secrets, while it clearly guards against court reviews of these secrets. For instance, the current administration has placed a ban on harsh interrogation, similarly to Bush administration. Conversely, the Obama administration under the arm of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) upheld the increase on drone strikes. Savage explores the process of policy continuation, with a broader insight into the underlying causes. The practical approach by the Obama administration on addressing threats, and resistance from congress and the Republican sides becomes unclear as pertains to the reasons for the current misunderstanding on policy formulations. A clear fact remains: both parties play a major role in the emergent policy frameworks under Obama administration. The current American government has created a philosophical strategy to reform that show sustenance of a variety of controversial decisions from past administrations,

and mainly that of Bush.
There is another issue political polarization on use of force in terms of the rule of law comparing with the current and past administration. Obama’s policy approach shows the dominant view adopted by current administration - the inside of Obama’s ruling. Here, it becomes clear that Obama’s administration focused on maintaining the past national security policies and decisions, at the same time, providing for better legal frameworks on the issue of “a red line” which would change his decision in Syria with armed forces (Savage 628). On this issue, Obama’s legal team has spent almost two years debating whether to send shipments of weapons and provide limited training to a moderate faction of rebels. Obama administration’s position is that the U.S. needs to determine whether its authority to launch primitive military strikes when and if Assad crossed this red line case for the use of military force (628-29). This is not the same of Romney’s campaign in September 2011(475-76). Even though the opposite side of party predicted that Obama’s approach “will hamper the fight against terrorism (476)”, Obama’s team was reviving the national security program in President’s Power. Also, without authorization by the United Nation’s Security Council, even a traditional humanitarian intervention was controversial as a legal basis for an attack under international law. This political action on foreign affairs can strengthens enemies, at the same time, discourage allies and destabilize a foreign policy’s determination.
Would US policy be any different if Congress were less polarizes?

Certainly, there is less coordination between political parties as well as between the House of Representatives and the United States Senate. This political trend in Congress and many bills are still passed with bipartisan support in the U.S. In addition, political polarization “can refer to the divergence of political attitudes to ideological extremes” (“Polarization (politics)).” It means that polarization is the similar meaning of divergence on a broad range of issues or set of beliefs. This may occur at the same time or independently of each other on the same issues within the party-in-government, party-as-organization, media, or public. Therefore, as long as judicial system is not affected by the implications of political polarization, the U.S. policy may not be big differences if Congress were less

polarizes.