Examining the policymaking process through the lens of expertise, especially at the US State Department, exposes the weaknesses of the current approach. Here are some pathways to improve.
It seems like the founders were intentional when they wanted to keep foreign policy away from the democratic process. The logic/skill set of international politics has always been quite different from internal domestic politics. Your line, “the process is more effective at achieving consensus among competing bureaucratic interests” makes me think that the pressure from the democratic process is what has been driving foreign policy in our country for some time now. When do you think consensus building > expertise became the norm in the state department?
I'd better leave arguments about Constitutional intent to the legal scholars.
But my reading of modern American diplomatic history is that two factors drove change:
1) the trauma of the McCarthy era weighed heavily on the State Department. The lesson learned by the Department seems to have been to keep your head down rather than demonstrate real leadership in the face of adversity. A lot of this played out during the debate about US policy toward China after WWII and "losing China" to the Communists -- dissenting experts were publicly attacked and fired for suggesting (correctly) that the US policy was going to fail. This is a really interesting story maybe I'll try to write about one day.
2) I've heard that there was a perverse sort of benefit to the "pale, male and Yale" network. Their social network predated their professional associations, which helped solidify trust, supported information sharing, and made policy debates much easier. When the Department opened up and became more of a meritocracy -- but didn't otherwise update its culture -- those social networks frayed. So "checking in" with desk officers via the clearance process has remained the norm, but working-level officers may otherwise have little space to engage in serious discussion, especially with high-level political leadership, who are more insulated. State's most beloved modern leader, Colin Powell, was known for calling desk officers directly to talk through the issues and invite them to meetings. What's so shocking is that this was unheard of by the generation before or since. I think this helps explain how box-checking consensus procedures have replaced more serious debate among experts. (Note: I'm not arguing that the consensus-driven clearance process is useless or devoid of expertise altogether. It can be very helpful in making sure nothing obvious is missed.)
I appreciate the detail answer. Seems like point #2 can be remedied via who is in the leadership position at state. Looking at Colin Powell as an example
It seems like the founders were intentional when they wanted to keep foreign policy away from the democratic process. The logic/skill set of international politics has always been quite different from internal domestic politics. Your line, “the process is more effective at achieving consensus among competing bureaucratic interests” makes me think that the pressure from the democratic process is what has been driving foreign policy in our country for some time now. When do you think consensus building > expertise became the norm in the state department?
I'd better leave arguments about Constitutional intent to the legal scholars.
But my reading of modern American diplomatic history is that two factors drove change:
1) the trauma of the McCarthy era weighed heavily on the State Department. The lesson learned by the Department seems to have been to keep your head down rather than demonstrate real leadership in the face of adversity. A lot of this played out during the debate about US policy toward China after WWII and "losing China" to the Communists -- dissenting experts were publicly attacked and fired for suggesting (correctly) that the US policy was going to fail. This is a really interesting story maybe I'll try to write about one day.
2) I've heard that there was a perverse sort of benefit to the "pale, male and Yale" network. Their social network predated their professional associations, which helped solidify trust, supported information sharing, and made policy debates much easier. When the Department opened up and became more of a meritocracy -- but didn't otherwise update its culture -- those social networks frayed. So "checking in" with desk officers via the clearance process has remained the norm, but working-level officers may otherwise have little space to engage in serious discussion, especially with high-level political leadership, who are more insulated. State's most beloved modern leader, Colin Powell, was known for calling desk officers directly to talk through the issues and invite them to meetings. What's so shocking is that this was unheard of by the generation before or since. I think this helps explain how box-checking consensus procedures have replaced more serious debate among experts. (Note: I'm not arguing that the consensus-driven clearance process is useless or devoid of expertise altogether. It can be very helpful in making sure nothing obvious is missed.)
I appreciate the detail answer. Seems like point #2 can be remedied via who is in the leadership position at state. Looking at Colin Powell as an example