The Domestic Politics of Contra Aid: Public Opinion, Congress, and the President

The domestic politics of contra aid during the Reagan administration is a story of both success and failure. It is a story of success in that public preferences on the issue were mirrored in congressional behavior and ultimately constrained presidential action in a manner roughly consistent with the expectations of democratic theory. It is story of failure in that the president of the United States fought a long political battle against a determined domestic opposition and came up short. That fact distinguishes this case from most other presidential foreign policy initiatives. Truman enjoyed overwhelming support for his opposition to communism in Southeastern Europe, as did Eisenhower for his posture toward the spread of communism in the Middle East, Johnson initially for the use of military force against communist forces in Indochina, and Carter for his pledge to protect the Persian Gulf region from Soviet intrusion. Even Kennedy\u27s failed efforts against Castro\u27s Cuba won him applause at the time. But Ronald Reagan failed in his attempt to persuade Congress and the American people that the threat of communism in Central American required the same determination abroad and support at home that his predecessors bad enjoyed in arguably analogous situations

Bipartisanship, Partisanship, and Ideology in Congressional-Executive Foreign Policy Relations, 1947–1988

The question we posed at the outset is whether bipartisanship or politics hold as appropriate explanations of congressional-executive relations in the historical periods to which they are typically applied, namely, the pre-Vietnam period in the case of bipartisanship, and the post-Vietnam period in the case of politics. The evidence suggests, first, that the bipartisan perspective applies best to the first two decades of the postwar era, but that it has not been replaced by the political perspective, in which partisanship and ideology are central concepts. Instead, the political perspective applies throughout the postwar era, even though it may now appear more pronounced because its most visible aspects are no longer overlaid by what is typically thought to be the moderating influence of bipartisanship. In this sense the two viewpoints are appropriately seen not as competing but as distinctly separate perspectives on the politics of policy-making that coexist simultaneously

The Cold War Consensus: Did It Exist?

A bipartisan consensus about the means and ends of American foreign policy is generally thought to have been part of the American political environment during the Cold War era. This consensus is also commonly thought to have been a casualty of the Vietnam War, when disagreements arose about the threat of communism, the use of American troops abroad, and relations with the Soviet Union. This article uses public opinion data from the decades following World War II pertaining to these areas of assumed change to measure whether a consensus ever existed and whether it eroded in the wake of Vietnam. The authors conclude that evidence of change can be found but that it is less dramatic in some respects than might be expected

Stretching the IR theoretical spectrum on Irish neutrality: a critical social constructivist framework

In a 2006 International Political Science Review article, entitled "Choosing to Go It Alone: Irish Neutrality in Theoretical and Comparative Perspective," Neal G. Jesse argues that Irish neutrality is best understood through a neoliberal rather than a neorealist international relations theory framework. This article posits an alternative "critical social constructivist" framework for understanding Irish neutrality. The first part of the article considers the differences between neoliberalism and social constructivism and argues why critical social constructivism's emphasis on beliefs, identity, and the agency of the public in foreign policy are key factors explaining Irish neutrality today. Using public opinion data, the second part of the article tests whether national identity, independence, ethnocentrism, attitudes to Northern Ireland, and efficacy are factors driving public support for Irish neutrality. The results show that public attitudes to Irish neutrality are structured along the dimensions of independence and identity, indicating empirical support for a critical social constructivist framework of understanding of Irish neutrality

American Foreign Policy: Pattern and Process

Now in its Seventh Edition, AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY has been thoroughly revised and updated to include several completely new sections, reflecting the most recent developments and scholarship related to American foreign policy. This Seventh Edition provides considerable attention to how the Bush administration sought to reshape national strategy, policies and structures; its domestic and international actions taken in the name of national security, and the immediate as well as possible long-term consequences of these developments. As in past editions, the Seventh Edition retains the book\u27s proven and pedagogically valuable analytical framework. Harnessing the conceptual, theoretical, and historical components that facilitate an analysis of American foreign policy, this text maintains five sources-international, societal, governmental, role, and individual-that collectively influence decisions about foreign policy goals, and the means chosen to realize them. Offering readers extraordinary breadth, thoughtful discussion, and in-depth of coverage of past, present, and future American foreign policy, AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY will equip readers with a solid and well-informed understanding of the full range of domestic and global sources of influence that will challenge American foreign policy-makers in the twenty-first century.https://repository.lsu.edu/facultybooks/1412/thumbnail.jp

Faces of internationalism : public opinion and American foreign policy /

Includes bibliographical references.Mode of access: Internet