ABSTRACT
In this, the author argues that internal socio-political factors, rather than external context, have traditionally driven US foreign policy swings from pragmatism to ideology and back again. The tendency to compromise once in office is reinforced by the check and balance system – showing that it is effectively the evaluation stage of the policy process that compels politicians to take increasingly pragmatic approaches to policy-formulation and implementation during their time in office. The case of the Vietnam War illustrates the perpetual tension in the US system: “the paradox of Vietnam is that the foreign policy failed, but the domestic decision-making worked.” The goal of containing communism was pursued consistently; elite and mass opinions were accommodated by compromise between extreme choices, satisfying partisans of neither extreme whilst preventing the total alienation of the other; and all views and recommendations were considered.
