DISADVANTAGE/BIPARTISANSHIP

UNIQUENESS: WE WILL HAVE A BIPARTISAN FOREIGN POLICY IN THE STATUS QUO

PRESSURES ARE BUILDING FOR BIPARTISAN FOREIGN POLICY

Alton Frye, Presidential Senior Fellow of the Council on Foreign Relations, 2001 Spring The Washington Quarterly SECTION: CAN FOREIGN POLICY BE BIPARTISAN?; Analyzing Politics; Vol. 24, No. 2; Pg. 107 HEADLINE: The Opportunity Is Real //VT2002acsln

Will bipartisanship prevail, or will the parties "buy partisanship" as the ticket to victory in the next contest?

The answer to that question obviously hinges on the character and sensitivity of the president and those with whom he must forge coalitions in Congress. Beyond those first-order factors, however, basic political alignments favor a period of cross-party accommodation and productive governance. Benign incentives are taking hold; few politicians can see profit in rigid ideological postures that invite blame for frustrating the electorate's demand for moderate action on the nation's business. It will not be easy for partisan warriors to curb the habitual invective of recent years, but their own colleagues are demanding it. In the telling phrase of Representative Zach Wamp (R-Tenn.), "The bomb throwers need to be caged."

FOREIGN POLICY ISSUES WILL NOT BE VICTIMS OF A LACK OF BIPARTISANSHIP

John F. Kerry, US Senator, 2001 Spring The Washington Quarterly SECTION: CAN FOREIGN POLICY BE BIPARTISAN?; Views from the Hill; Vol. 24, No. 2; Pg. 83 HEADLINE: Stopping at the Water's Edge //VT2002acsln

Pundits and pessimists argue that a slim Republican margin in the House of Representatives, an equally divided Senate, and a president elected with no clear mandate for action will bring an already gridlocked Washington to a complete standstill. These predictions may prove true on some domestic issues, but foreign policy, like time, waits for no mandate.

The president -- and the Congress -- will be forced to deal with the inevitable crises beyond our borders and our ongoing international obligations. The question is not whether but how foreign policy issues will be addressed: through a partisan tug-of-war or through bipartisan cooperation among those who believe that U.S. national security and national interests demand that politics stop at the water's edge.

0111

PROSPECTS OR FOREIGN POLICY BIPARTISANSHIP ARE BRIGHT

At the risk of challenging conventional wisdom, the prospects for cooperation are greater than one might think.

In truth, the numbers game in Washington is rarely the key to consensus on U.S. foreign policy. Throughout the Cold War, narrow partisan margins and divided government coexisted with a bipartisan consensus that the first priority for the United States was to contain the Soviet Union and prevent a nuclear holocaust. To be sure, U.S. involvement in Vietnam and the Nixon administration's new policy of detente produced cracks in the consensus. Disagreement emerged over the degree to which communism was monolithic, the lengths to which the United States should go to contain the communist threat in places such as Southeast Asia and later in Latin America, and the wisdom of trying to contain Soviet power through negotiation rather than isolation. This debate was largely over methods, not over the fundamental goal of containment.

BUSH MUST MOBILIZE SUPPORT EARLY IN CONGRESS OR ALL IS LOST

Many of these contested policy trends stem from U.S. domestic politics, including demands arising in Congress. Whatever their source, the friction generated is a warning sign that the Bush administration cannot afford to ignore. Bush has come into office at a moment when fences have to be mended abroad as well as at home. No matter how close his electoral margin, Bush will find many political colleagues willing to join him in that endeavor, but he will have to mobilize them early and often or lose the opportunity to become the unifying leader he aspires to be.

POST-CLINTON ADMINISTRATION SHOULD BE ABLE TO CREATE A BIPARTISAN FOREIGN POLICY

HENRY KISSINGER; the former secretary of state, Houston Chronicle, November 21, 1999, SECTION: OUTLOOK; Pg. 1 HEADLINE: Stop the name-calling over nukes // acs-ln-12-28-99

It is high time to put an end to this name-calling. Our allies have a stake in our credibility; they should not be encouraged to challenge it by entering our domestic debate. The Clinton administration will need bipartisan support for the remainder of its term - especially in managing China's entry into the World Trade Organization. And a successor administration should be able to develop its own approach free of bitter controversy.

BUSH NEEDS EARLY FOREIGN POLICY SUCCESS SO HE CAN PROMOTE HIS LATER AGENDA — WINNERS WIN

As the administration approaches the altered alignment of personalities and issues in Congress, it may usefully ask itself where the opportunities for early success in bipartisan foreign policy lie. House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) has pointed toward several domestic issues on which congressional majorities have already expressed themselves -- repeal of the marriage penalty tax and estate tax reform, for example -- and counseled the president to act on them at the start of his tenure. It also behooves the administration to demonstrate its coalition-building capacity by spotting and picking some "low-hanging fruit" that is now ripe in the international vineyard. In this realm, as on the domestic front, the president will probably have to build toward his more ambitious policy goals by winning approval of incremental measures. This does not mean that Bush must abandon his bolder objectives but that he will have to work toward them by first achieving lesser innovations that confirm his determination to emphasize areas of bipartisan consensus. With a 50-50 Senate division and narrow Republican control of the House, Senator John Kyl (R-Ariz.) says "a more conservative agenda is probably out of the question."