241. Editorial Note

On May 23, 1985, Secretary of State George Shultz addressed the American Bar Association in Washington. The Secretary used his address to call for a return to bipartisanship in American foreign policy: “When I began work on this speech, I used a different word—‘nonpartisanship’—to describe the American tradition of cooperation on foreign policy. But on reflection, I decided that wasn’t quite right. I prefer the term that most of us do use: ‘bipartisanship.’ Parties make [Page 1062] our system work. Our political leaders and legislators are strong-minded individuals, but our democratic process works by the contention of ideas, organized around two parties, tempering policy by the heat of debate. Bipartisanship means that our parties care about an issue, work it through by the process of compromise, and then unite behind the policy that has been formulated. From debate comes conviction and the commitment to execute the policy. Our objective is bipartisanship, and that comes out of the partisan process of competition.

“The principles and goals of American diplomacy are founded on our nation’s enduring ideals and interests; these do not change from year to year or from administration to administration. Naturally, it is easier to agree on these basic principles and goals than on the specific actions in specific situations. Our disagreements on tactics generally reflect honest differences of judgment on how best to advance our nation’s interests. Bipartisanship does not require Americans to abandon their convictions. But it does require all of us to give greater weight to the importance of national unity in meeting foreign challenges.

“Recent experience makes quite clear that without a reasonable measure of consensus—between Congress and the President and between our two parties—this nation cannot conduct an effective foreign policy. The art of foreign policy is to shape events, not just to react to them. This requires consistency, coherence, discipline, and a sense of strategy. These qualities are not easy for democracies. But to carry out our responsibilities as leader of the free world, America needs these qualities. National unity on the basics of our foreign policy is essential to international security.”

After noting several examples of bipartisanship in the post-World War II era, Shultz then discussed the current situation in Central America, specifically Nicaragua. He stated that U.S. policy toward Nicaragua had “been hindered, to some extent, by misconceptions and confusion about our policies,” in addition to political partisanship: “In truth,” Shultz continued, “our policy today toward Nicaragua and the Central American region as a whole is grounded squarely in the ideals and interests that have guided postwar American policies. We seem to have general and growing agreement that the Nicaraguan communist regime poses a threat to the security of the region. We have general and growing agreement that, rather than fulfill the democratic promises of the 1979 revolution, the Nicaraguan leaders are increasing repression. We also seem to have general and growing acceptance that their huge military buildup and the large presence of foreign communist military advisers in the country are obstacles to a peaceful settlement. The dispute in this country is about some of the tactics for addressing the problem.”

[Page 1063]

After refuting several of the domestic arguments made against U.S. policy vis-a-vis Nicaragua, Shultz outlined the obstacles to achieving a bipartisan foreign policy as applied to Central America: “Our policy to foster peace, freedom, and economic and social justice in Central America, including Nicaragua, cannot succeed in a climate of bitter partisanship here at home. Members of Congress have every right to travel to Nicaragua to review the situation, but we cannot conduct a successful policy when they take trips or write ‘Dear Comandante’ letters with the aim of negotiating as self-appointed emissaries to the communist regime.

“Bipartisanship must include the recognition that we have only one President at a time. Under the Constitution, the President alone conducts foreign negotiations. In addition, at times he has to make critical decisions quickly and decisively. Bipartisanship should mean an acknowledgment of the burden that rests on the President’s shoulders. In October 1983, after news of the Grenada rescue mission was announced, several Members of Congress took the floor to denounce our action even before I went up to Capitol Hill that day to brief them. A few even proposed impeaching the President for the mission. But when they learned the facts that the President had and saw the overwhelming support of the American—and Grenadian—people for the operation, many came to regret their criticism.

“The cynical, obstructionist brand of party politics has no rightful place in national security policy. America would do better to recover the cooperative spirit of Senator Vandenberg and the other great Americans—of both parties—who built the security and the prosperity of the postwar world.

“These great Americans who forged our bipartisan foreign policy 40 years ago set an example of patriotism and devotion to the national interest that should inspire us today. The need for such a policy is as great today as it was then. Indeed, with the growth of Soviet power, it is even greater. We—and other peoples—have paid a heavy price for past divisions in this country.

“The American people are in broad agreement on the ideas, ideals, and interests that define America’s role in the world. Naturally, there will be legitimate disagreements on specific issues. But we have made a good start on renewing a bipartisan consensus. We have more work ahead of us as we endeavor to restore fully, in principle and practice, the bipartisan conduct of foreign policy that so successfully safeguarded peace and freedom in the postwar era. The President and I are ready to play our part. We ask all Americans to join us.” (Department of State Bulletin, July 1985, pages 39, 41, 42) The full text of Shultz’s address is ibid., pages 39–42.