International relations... not Charlie's Angels!
Model One deals with the Rational Policy paradigm, which states that foreign policy is conceived by a course of action undertaken by the government in question. Governments therefore set the "national interest" and act upon it, both internally and externally. These expected decisions arise from consistency in policy and planning. The government abides by principles and has best courses of action laid out before it. Morgenthau stated that this method "provides for rational discipline in action and creates astounding continuity in foreign policy" (Kaufman 656).
Model Two reflects the paradigm of Organizational Process, which determines that foreign policy is determined by predetermined process or "standard operating procedure". The regular standing orders for policymakers and large bureaucratic departments and organizations cause them to act in fixed ways regarding foreign events and issues, and that rigidity is reflected in the policy output.
Model Three echoes the paradigm of Bureaucratic Politics. This model says that "bargaining along regularized channels among players positioned hierarchically within the government" (666) are the real movers and shakers within policy formation. While positions shape people, the bottom line is that people fill positions, and those people bring varying perspective to the table. Their attempts to sift through the matters that affect foreign policy shape the discourse and affect the output. As well, crucially placed bureaucrats are constantly struggling for attention and influence within the governmental system, and that jockeying for prestige, power, and influence affects foreign and domestic policy decisions.
In my estimation, I see Model Three as being the most prevalent in American political life today. As a government employee myself, I see the breadth of experience and education that my fellows bring to the table. Our collective insight allows us to find the best possible solution, especially when that insight comes from a wealth of different sources. It is only through a multitude of voices that consensus can be reached.
There is one other facet of the multiplicity of voices that we must consider. One only has to turn on the television to see some bureaucrat jockeying for position within national, regional, or civic politics. For example, a Secretary of the Interior who has designs to one day run for president may choose to address more hot-button issues that will put him or her into the media spotlight, thus fulfilling the bureaucratic political model. A Senate minority caucus tries to shape the congressional agenda by addressing issues that define their platform for an upcoming election. A lone bureaucrat or group of bureaucrats trying to make a name for him or herself will inevitably shape policy.
Sources:
Kaufman, David J., et al. Understanding International Relations: The Value of Alternative Lenses, 5th Edition. Boston: McGraw Hill, 2004.