1986 foreign policy decision- making article by Ostrom and Job, the theory of the presidential decision-making is based on the roles; the commander-in- chief, the chief executive, and the party leader. Of these three, this paper looks into the best foreign policy approach that effectively explains the Ostrom and Job’s hypothesis and expectations.
The interest of the United States at the international scene, that focus on the U.S. expansion and influence in the world has in the past formed the basis of the U.S. politics ever since. A president’s scorecard only begins by the foreign policy approach applied during his or her regime. As the chief executive, the president is expected to respond swiftly to the domestic interests like the public’s foreign policy and economic concerns. As the party leader, the president’s decision making process must take into account of his popularity and election cycle. For these two approaches, the president uses his power as the commander-in-chief to focus on the global politics, basically being very keen on the national security and the influence abroad. Therefore, whenever the president makes a foreign policy decision, the decision must be backed by the political and the public goodwill. This policy supports the Ostrom and Job’s hypothesis.
Mitchel and Moore summary should be based on the fact that the presidential decision making for international issues is backed by his political survival and of the American interest. This conclusion does not contradict Ostrom and Job’s expectation. The theory of the cybernetic model of presidential decision making best explains Mitchel and Moore’s findings. Truly, the presidential survival in the American politics is mainly on the policies that the president applies, especially abroad. As the most powerful nation in the world, the decisions made; political, economical, or military decisions, are very critical to the American people and the