12 The Rise of the American Security State
tertiary. They come after the status quo in terms of import. That is not to
say that the domestic sources of U.S. foreign policy (societal, governmen-
tal, individual, and role inputs) are unimportant in affecting U.S. foreign
policy. But, it is possible that they too have a tendency toward stasis. Let
us quickly consider the possibility.
Bureaucracy (government inputs) may likewise constrain change in
foreign policy objectives for multiple reasons. The bureaucracy is also
maintaining the status quo, insofar as it makes choices. The Defense De-
partment, for instance, is working to ensure the external-systemic inputs
do not adversely affect the United States’ position as a status quo power,
just as the State Department attempts to do the same thing in its own
peculiar way. (Defense is tasked with defending the United States once
engaged in war; state is tasked with diplomacy or avoiding war when
possible.) Moreover, the bureaucracy is so massive, so behemoth that it
operates according to standard operating procedures (SOPs). For the most
part, the bureaucracy slow walks change, prevents change, and even fears
change (insofar as it thinks about it at all). Bureaucracies are notorious for
constraining rapid or dramatic change.
Consider societal inputs likewise. Societal inputs have the potential to
cause change, by their very nature. However, as most of us who study for-
eign policy understand, Americans are very badly informed about foreign
policy. Many Americans consider it esoteric, arcane, and in any case, most
Americans are interested in what is best for their individual interests and
not what is in America’s interest. Americans like to criticize presidents ve-
hemently (including presidents’ foreign policy objectives, insofar as they
understand foreign policy), but survey after survey demonstrates Walter
Lippmann’s old maxim about Americans being the bewildered herd was
not too far amiss.
That Americans remain relatively ignorant of foreign policy is not a
very positive commentary of the media either. What else can be observed
about the media and foreign policy? First, there is not a lot of reporting
on foreign policy per se. In fact, the media do not do well (as a group) on
knowing the difference between foreign and domestic policy. Moreover,
the media play the role of a gadfly. They like to muck things up and play
“got you,” but they often do little serious analysis of foreign policy.
In fact, the media are like most Americans. The media may shape public
opinion in some ways, but they seldom educate or enlighten Americans
about U.S. foreign policy. If they did, Americans could not be so poorly
informed.
9
Finally, consider the average American. He or she is busy working and
taking care of his or her family. It is common to have both parents work
these days and Americans work more hours and have insufficient time to
worry about their families, much less U.S. foreign policy. Given the de-
mand on his or her time, he or she simply does not find much time to
read about foreign policy thereby relegating his or her sense of what is
