# Are regular elections a problem for foreign policy? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 16, 2007, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-regular-elections-a-problem-for-foreign-policy/388193 "2007-01-16T15:40:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 10\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2007, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-regular-elections-a-problem-for-foreign-policy/388193/1 "2007-01-16T15:40:35Z")
This question stands on the border between GD and GQ. I’m just wondering to what extent (and to what extent it has been noted, if it has been noted) the existence of regular elections does damage to a nation’s, so to speak, “trustworthiness” when it comes to foreign policy. I have in mind specifically the US. My uneducated impression is that Bush’s administration has a completely different foreign policy than Clinton’s did, and that probably the next administration’s policies will be again completely different than Bush’s. Doesn’t this make our nation kind of… maybe something like… moody? And doesn’t such “moodiness” make us hard to deal with, and make others less willing to play nicely with us and less able to play reasonably with us? The question exists for me on a totally theoretical level for now, but concrete exapmles illustrating the truth or falsity of the possibility I’ve raised would be more than welcome. Purely theoretical discussion is great too. -FrL- ---
**Author:** ![Burton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Burton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Burton)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2007, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-regular-elections-a-problem-for-foreign-policy/388193/2 "2007-01-16T15:59:40Z")
Change is inherent in all human systems. I don’t think its a good or bad thing. Certainly the rest of the world is looking forward to the end of the Bush era. ---
**Author:** ![Leaffan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/leaffan/32/299_2.png) [@Leaffan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaffan)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2007, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-regular-elections-a-problem-for-foreign-policy/388193/3 "2007-01-16T17:22:21Z")
What democracy doesn’t change foreign policy with a change in political parties? Canada is much different under Harper’s Conservatives than the Liberal party of Paul Martin or Jean Chretien. What I like about the US system is the fact that you **have** regular, scheduled elections. In Canada the governing party can call a federal election any time within 5 years of being elected, when it’s most suitable for them, obviously. Or, in the case of minority governments, the ruling party can be forced into an election by losing a confidence vote in the House of Commons. We might have another election this spring if the budget is voted down. ---
**Author:** ![Mops](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mops/32/16494_2.png) [@Mops](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mops)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2007, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-regular-elections-a-problem-for-foreign-policy/388193/4 "2007-01-16T19:26:28Z")
Regular changes of government are the norm for democracies, and foreign policy partners can deal with it. What’s important for a country’s trustworthyness is not a country’s government foreign policies being constant, but a country’s government not disavoving treaties and other obligations a country entered into just because the government at the time was of the other party. In this respect government change by constitutional means is clearly superior to government change by coup, because in the former case the previous executive and legislative majority is still regarded to have been legitimate at the time, which negates the main excuse for repudiating previous commitments. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2007, 12:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-regular-elections-a-problem-for-foreign-policy/388193/5 "2007-01-17T00:25:37Z")
[QUOTE=tschild] What’s important for a country’s trustworthyness is not a country’s government foreign policies being constant, but a country’s government not disavoving treaties and other obligations a country entered into just because the government at the time was of the other party. [/QUOTE] [cough]_kyoto_[cough]_abm_[cough] ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2007, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-regular-elections-a-problem-for-foreign-policy/388193/6 "2007-01-17T00:59:44Z")
[QUOTE=tschild] Regular changes of government are the norm for democracies, and foreign policy partners can deal with it. [/QUOTE] Not just democracies. Dictatorships may change government by coup or death of the leader (assisted or not), and foreign policy is just as likely to change. Consider the change from Nasser to Sadat. In general democracies might change less, but we’ve had a recent counter-example. For the most part though, a new adminstration won’t toss out the treaties of the old, because if they do they can’t expect their partners to trust their negotiating ability. We have seen that - what useful treaties have the Bushies negotiated lately? ---
**Author:** ![Aquila\_Be](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/a698b9/32.png) [@Aquila\_Be](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aquila_Be)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2007, 11:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-regular-elections-a-problem-for-foreign-policy/388193/7 "2007-01-17T11:15:10Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] [cough]_kyoto_[cough]_abm_[cough] [/QUOTE] So Clinton placed his symbolic signature on the Kyoto protocol and the Bush Admin withdrew that symbolic signature. Clinton’s signature had zero effect on the laws of the US according to this: - [inside.bard.edu](http://inside.bard.edu/politicalstudies/student/PS260Spring03/kyotocol.htm) > [@](#): > > Kyoto Dead in the Water? > It was a worthy (albeit belated) gesture by the president. However, Clinton’s commitment on paper ran into a political brick wall in the Senate. Even prior to Bush’s ultimate rejection of the protocol, legislation demanding emissions regulations was a non-starter. The Senate position was that the treaty placed an unfair burden on developing countries, particularly the United States. In order for the Senate to ratify Kyoto and agree on legislation to implement it, developing countries would need to share in reductions. Clinton’s style (signature) was not matched by substance (legislation). ---
**Author:** ![FRDE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e68b1a/32.png) [@FRDE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FRDE)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2007, 12:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-regular-elections-a-problem-for-foreign-policy/388193/8 "2007-01-17T12:29:07Z")
[quote] Kyoto Dead in the Water? It was a worthy (albeit belated) gesture by the president. However, Clinton’s commitment on paper ran into a political brick wall in the Senate. Even prior to Bush’s ultimate rejection of the protocol, legislation demanding emissions regulations was a non-starter. The Senate position was that the treaty placed an unfair burden on _ **developing** _ countries, particularly the United States. In order for the Senate to ratify Kyoto and agree on legislation to implement it, _ **developing** _ countries would need to share in reductions. [quote] I read that a couple of times, in total incomprehension, and yes, Dan Zinder wrote that. Comical. ---
**Author:** ![Lakai](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/9de0a6/32.png) [@Lakai](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lakai)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2007, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-regular-elections-a-problem-for-foreign-policy/388193/9 "2007-01-18T22:45:31Z")
[QUOTE=Frylock] Are regular elections a problem for foreign policy? -FrL- [/QUOTE] It’s a problem only if we replace an intelligent individual with a chump and it’s good if we replace a chump with an intelligent individual. Based on the recent presidential election, I’d say it is a problem. That’s democracy for you, “the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.” The point is that any alternative to regular elections is far worst than any set backs in having them. ---
**Author:** ![According\_to\_Pliny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8e7dd6/32.png) [@According\_to\_Pliny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/According_to_Pliny)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2007, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-regular-elections-a-problem-for-foreign-policy/388193/10 "2007-01-18T22:58:45Z")
The foreign offices tend to ride out each change. They have their own career staffs who are pretty isolated from US politics. To get their programs approved, they just have to reword the requests to match the vocabulary of the ins.