The executive arm of the government under the President wields more power as compared to the Congress. The feeling that power should be shared 50-50 between the Presidency and the Congress is a fallacy. Foreign policy involves various players, the executive arm, and the Congress being the major policy contributors (Hastedt 169).However, the Presidency has several key arms that provide a superior advantage. Considering that the Presidency is established on a purely political process, the Congress somehow becomes divisive on matters relating to foreign policy, always leaning on one side, in this case, the Presidency. Pillar (51) clearly depicts the scenario during the Republican presidential candidate’s debates in his book. The candidates make
…show more content…
For any special group to be able to influence the process of policy formulation authoritatively, it needs to have established a strong foundation. However, the United States case is quite different. Previously, special interest groups such as media houses did not influence policy administration. Rather, they played a role in supporting the already established information in the hands of the government. Common examples are cited in the way the media handled the matter relating to the killings in Somalia (Warren 174). It is reported that until 1992, only fifteen news items related to Somalia had been reported by the media houses. None of these had managed to capture atrocities that were committed in Somalia. People were being slaughtered like pigs, but the media was not there to provide substantial information required by the members of the public. The information could have readily swayed or influenced policy makers in the course of action to take in Somalia. However, this did not happen. It was not until the government decided to shift its attention to Somalia that the media saw the relevance of the story. The images of women and children suffering is what sparked public outcry on the atrocities that were being committed in Somalia. Public opinion becomes relevant if special interest groups such as the media can authoritatively report a given story. In this case, the media never set the agenda but awaited the government of the day to set the agenda (Hastedt
For any special group to be able to influence the process of policy formulation authoritatively, it needs to have established a strong foundation. However, the United States case is quite different. Previously, special interest groups such as media houses did not influence policy administration. Rather, they played a role in supporting the already established information in the hands of the government. Common examples are cited in the way the media handled the matter relating to the killings in Somalia (Warren 174). It is reported that until 1992, only fifteen news items related to Somalia had been reported by the media houses. None of these had managed to capture atrocities that were committed in Somalia. People were being slaughtered like pigs, but the media was not there to provide substantial information required by the members of the public. The information could have readily swayed or influenced policy makers in the course of action to take in Somalia. However, this did not happen. It was not until the government decided to shift its attention to Somalia that the media saw the relevance of the story. The images of women and children suffering is what sparked public outcry on the atrocities that were being committed in Somalia. Public opinion becomes relevant if special interest groups such as the media can authoritatively report a given story. In this case, the media never set the agenda but awaited the government of the day to set the agenda (Hastedt