E-mail:
Jack Balkin: jackbalkin at yahoo.com
Bruce Ackerman bruce.ackerman at yale.edu
Ian Ayres ian.ayres at yale.edu
Corey Brettschneider corey_brettschneider at brown.edu
Mary Dudziak mary.l.dudziak at emory.edu
Joey Fishkin joey.fishkin at gmail.com
Heather Gerken heather.gerken at yale.edu
Abbe Gluck abbe.gluck at yale.edu
Mark Graber mgraber at law.umaryland.edu
Stephen Griffin sgriffin at tulane.edu
Jonathan Hafetz jonathan.hafetz at shu.edu
Jeremy Kessler jkessler at law.columbia.edu
Andrew Koppelman akoppelman at law.northwestern.edu
Marty Lederman msl46 at law.georgetown.edu
Sanford Levinson slevinson at law.utexas.edu
David Luban david.luban at gmail.com
Gerard Magliocca gmaglioc at iupui.edu
Jason Mazzone mazzonej at illinois.edu
Linda McClain lmcclain at bu.edu
John Mikhail mikhail at law.georgetown.edu
Frank Pasquale pasquale.frank at gmail.com
Nate Persily npersily at gmail.com
Michael Stokes Paulsen michaelstokespaulsen at gmail.com
Deborah Pearlstein dpearlst at yu.edu
Rick Pildes rick.pildes at nyu.edu
David Pozen dpozen at law.columbia.edu
Richard Primus raprimus at umich.edu
K. Sabeel Rahmansabeel.rahman at brooklaw.edu
Alice Ristroph alice.ristroph at shu.edu
Neil Siegel siegel at law.duke.edu
David Super david.super at law.georgetown.edu
Brian Tamanaha btamanaha at wulaw.wustl.edu
Nelson Tebbe nelson.tebbe at brooklaw.edu
Mark Tushnet mtushnet at law.harvard.edu
Adam Winkler winkler at ucla.edu
Can Political Regime Theory Explain National Security?
Stephen Griffin
I’ve
been puzzling over this question after completing a book on war powers.By political regime theory, I mean a theory
like Stephen Skowronek’s that locates presidencies in a special explanatory frame
of reference.Skowronek calls it
“political time,” and it has to do with the relationship of each president to
the reigning political coalition or regime.
The
trouble is, determining what regime reigns gets more difficult as we get closer
to the present.In the deep past, the
existence of the Jeffersonian and Jacksonian regimes seems clear enough.How do we tell what the current regime
is?Skowronek says the regime is
constituted by the dominant coalition of what he calls “ideology and interest.”
Let’s stipulate for the moment that the
last “reconstructive” presidency was Reagan’s.This was the time when the last old regime was overthrown and a new one
took power.
Now
how does this relate to national security?Consider the many recent authors who argue that national security policy
has been stuck in a Cold War, big-military time warp for decades – Andrew
Bacevich and Rachel Maddow come to mind and this kind of critique is clearly implicated
in Mary Dudziak’s recent interesting history of War Time as well as older works such asMichael Hogan’s A Cross of
Iron.It is related to the concept
of the persisting “Cold War constitutional order” I advance in Long Wars and the Constitution.It is also implicated in many critiques of
the “imperial presidency.”While
Skowronek pretty thoroughly dynamited the concept of the imperial presidency in
a recent critique, at least from a political (as opposed to a rule of law) point
of view, he has not engaged with the permanence of America’s general stance in
national security.
Surely
a political regime consists of both a reigning political coalition and the set
of government institutions it inherits.In
his 2008 update of his theory, Skowronek referred to the “regime-based
structure of American political history, the recurrent establishment and
disintegration of relatively durable sets of commitments across broad swaths of
time.”But for national security, there
has been a notable lack of disintegration.The post-1945 national security order outlasted the New Deal regime and,
in truth, has already outlasted the Reagan regime.Although it has hit various speed bumps, it
has never fallen out of political favor, especially in comparison with the sort
of domestic programs that were at the heart of the New Deal and Great Society.
How
did this substantial policy commitment manage to cross the boundary line
between political regimes?Historians
have shown that President Carter trod an essentially Cold War path with respect
to defense policy, even prior to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan late in his
presidency.Many of the leading defense
initiatives of the Reagan administration in fact began under Carter.Evidently, the notion that Carter was
presiding over a decaying regime does not apply to national defense.If anything, he reinvigorated the Cold War
order. What was actually decaying was
the chance that post-Vietnam, America would make meaningful changes in how it
handled national security and defense policy.So are broad areas of policy immune to the effects of regime
change?If so, what is the explanation?It is here that Skowronek’s theory begins to show
some limitations.Although Skowronek
invokes the relevance of the Constitution and the changing framework provided
by government institutions, he does not well articulate their role in his
theory.
To
overcome this problem, I contend we need the idea of a constitutional
order.In other words, we have to bring
the Constitution and the institutions created under it into the theoretical
picture in a meaningful way.A
constitutional order is a reciprocal relationship among several elements: the
text of the Constitution, the “supreme law of the land,” the political and
policy objectives of state officials, elites and the public (Skowronek’s
“ideology and interest”), and the capacities of state institutions.Reciprocity means that as one element
undergoes historical change, the other elements can change as well.So the Constitution of course influences the
capacities of state institutions.But
history shows this also works in reverse.In fact, this reverse reciprocity is particularly relevant to the
history of national security and war powers.
Another
way to develop this point is that I believe Skowronek should have stuck with
his original insight that the phenomenon of political time was waning as Reagan
took office.Skowronek tends to admit that
Reagan’s supposed “reconstruction” was only partial in nature when he describes
it directly, but he then later assimilates Reagan into the pantheon of
reconstructive presidents including Lincoln and Roosevelt.This lacks a certain amount of plausibility.Skowronek accurately described a gradual
“thickening” in the institutional order over time, making it more difficult for
presidents to be truly reconstructive.This
should have also meant that the presidents operating in Reagan’s shadow had
their own difficulties operating within his reconstruction and handling a
complex set of state institutions.This
points toward a framework for analyzing episodes like Iran-contra and the
constitutional issues that troubled the Bush II presidency that is more
fruitful than Skowronek’s.
So
take this as a partial manifesto.To analyze
the problems left to us by the Cold War constitutional order, we need to move
away from political regime theory as it has been traditionally conceived.Constitutional orders are in part
institutional orders and are thus independent of changes in regime.More emphasis is needed on the Constitution
itself as a generator of institutional order (or tension) within a historical
context.And among the contexts we need
to study further, we must deepen our understanding of the early Cold War if we
are to understand the enormous legacy it has left for what always appears to be
changing political times.