scholarly journals Human or not? Political rhetoric and foreign policy attitudes

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-9
Author(s):  
Stephen M. Utych
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Political Rhetoric ◽  
The United States ◽  
Emotional Reaction ◽  
Rhetorical Strategies ◽  
Policy Attitudes ◽  
Foreign Countries ◽  
Foreign Intervention ◽  
Foreign Policy Attitudes

Abstract When the United States intervenes in foreign countries, the lives of both foreign combatants and foreign civilians are put at risk. I examine two rhetorical strategies, the use of sanitized and dehumanizing language that can influence the public's support of foreign intervention. In the context of foreign policy, sanitized language operates by obscuring casualties of war, while dehumanizing language operates by devaluing the lives of groups of individuals. Drawing on data from two experiments, I find that sanitized language operates through creating less of an emotional reaction toward casualties of war, which causes individuals to adopt more hawkish foreign policy attitudes. I find that dehumanizing language also leads to more hawkish foreign policy attitudes, but, contrary to expectations, does not lead to increased disgust or anger toward dehumanized groups.

Framing middle power foreign policy: trade, security, and human rights frames in Canadian and Australian foreign policy attitudes

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Timothy B Gravelle
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
The United States ◽  
Middle Power ◽  
Bilateral Relations ◽  
Policy Attitudes ◽  
The Pacific ◽  
Australian Case ◽  
Representative Samples ◽  
Foreign Policy Attitudes

Abstract Middle power states in the Indo-Pacific region face a challenging foreign policy environment in light of geopolitical and economic rivalry between the United States and China. In this context, what factors shape the foreign policy attitudes of middle power publics? This article presents results from a set of survey-based experiments conducted in Canada and Australia, two archetypal middle power states located on the Pacific Rim. Demographically representative samples of both publics were presented with randomized vignettes highlighting facets of bilateral relations with the United States, regional partners (Mexico in the Canadian case, and Indonesia in the Australian case), and China. Results indicate that making different aspects of a particular relationship salient as part of the vignette shapes perceptions of and preferences toward relations with the state in question. Foreign policy attitudes are thus amenable to framing effects. Still, results point to different frames having greater relevance to different bilateral relationships.

Why Wilson Matters

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tony Smith Jr.
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Cold War ◽  
American Foreign Policy ◽  
The United States ◽  
Foreign Intervention ◽  
The World ◽  
To Come ◽  
The Cold War ◽  
Invasion Of Iraq

The liberal internationalist tradition is credited with America's greatest triumphs as a world power—and also its biggest failures. Beginning in the 1940s, imbued with the spirit of Woodrow Wilson's efforts at the League of Nations to ‘make the world safe for democracy,’ the United States steered a course in world affairs that would eventually win the Cold War. Yet in the 1990s, Wilsonianism turned imperialist, contributing directly to the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the continued failures of American foreign policy. This book explains how the liberal internationalist community can regain a sense of identity and purpose following the betrayal of Wilson's vision by the brash ‘neo-Wilsonianism’ being pursued today. The book traces how Wilson's thinking about America's role in the world evolved in the years leading up to and during his presidency, and how the Wilsonian tradition went on to influence American foreign policy in the decades that followed. It traces the tradition's evolution from its ‘classic’ era with Wilson, to its ‘hegemonic’ stage during the Cold War, to its ‘imperialist’ phase today. The book calls for an end to reckless forms of U.S. foreign intervention, and a return to the prudence and ‘eternal vigilance’ of Wilson's own time. It renews hope that the United States might again become effectively liberal by returning to the sense of realism that Wilson espoused, one where the promotion of democracy around the world is balanced by the understanding that such efforts are not likely to come quickly and without costs.

scholarly journals The prejudice first model and foreign policy values: racial and religious bias among conservatives and liberals

2020 ◽  
pp. 135406612093080 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard Hanania ◽  
Robert Trager
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Racial Bias ◽  
American Foreign Policy ◽  
The United States ◽  
Policy Preferences ◽  
Moral Foundations ◽  
Religious Preference ◽  
Policy Attitudes ◽  
Hierarchy Model

Scholars who study public opinion and American foreign policy have accepted what Rathbun et al. (2016) call the “Vertical Hierarchy Model,” which says that policy attitudes are determined by more abstract moral ideas about right and wrong. This article turns this idea on its head by introducing the Prejudice First Model, arguing that foreign policy preferences and orientations are driven by attitudes toward the groups being affected by specific policies. Three experiments are used to test the utility of this framework. First, when conservatives heard about Muslims killing Christians, as opposed to the opposite scenario, they were more likely to support a humanitarian intervention and agree that the United States has a moral obligation to help those persecuted by their governments. Liberals showed no religious preference. When the relevant identity group was race, however, liberals were more likely to want to help blacks persecuted by whites, while conservatives showed no racial bias. In contrast, the degree of persecution mattered relatively little to respondents in either experiment, and the effects of moral foundations were shown to be generally weak relative to those of prejudice. In another experiment, conservatives adopted more isolationist policies after reading a text about the country becoming more liberal, as opposed to a paragraph that said the United States was a relatively conservative country. While not necessarily contradicting the Vertical Hierarchy Model, the results indicate that under most conditions the Prejudice First Model presents a better lens through which to understand how foreign policy preferences are formed.

Against Slave Power? Slavery and Runaway Slaves in Mexico-United States Relations, 1821–1857

2019 ◽  
Vol 35 (2) ◽  
pp. 143-170
Author(s):  
Gerardo Gurza-Lavalle
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
The United States ◽  
The South ◽  
Runaway Slaves ◽  
The Us ◽  
El Alto ◽  
Upper South ◽  
Lower South

This work analyses the diplomatic conflicts that slavery and the problem of runaway slaves provoked in relations between Mexico and the United States from 1821 to 1857. Slavery became a source of conflict after the colonization of Texas. Later, after the US-Mexico War, slaves ran away into Mexican territory, and therefore slaveholders and politicians in Texas wanted a treaty of extradition that included a stipulation for the return of fugitives. This article contests recent historiography that considers the South (as a region) and southern politicians as strongly influential in the design of foreign policy, putting into question the actual power not only of the South but also of the United States as a whole. The problem of slavery divided the United States and rendered the pursuit of a proslavery foreign policy increasingly difficult. In addition, the South never acted as a unified bloc; there were considerable differences between the upper South and the lower South. These differences are noticeable in the fact that southerners in Congress never sought with enough energy a treaty of extradition with Mexico. The article also argues that Mexico found the necessary leeway to defend its own interests, even with the stark differential of wealth and resources existing between the two countries. El presente trabajo analiza los conflictos diplomáticos entre México y Estados Unidos que fueron provocados por la esclavitud y el problema de los esclavos fugitivos entre 1821 y 1857. La esclavitud se convirtió en fuente de conflicto tras la colonización de Texas. Más tarde, después de la guerra Mexico-Estados Unidos, algunos esclavos se fugaron al territorio mexicano y por lo tanto dueños y políticos solicitaron un tratado de extradición que incluyera una estipulación para el retorno de los fugitivos. Este artículo disputa la idea de la historiografía reciente que considera al Sur (en cuanto región), así como a los políticos sureños, como grandes influencias en el diseño de la política exterior, y pone en tela de juicio el verdadero poder no sólo del Sur sino de Estados Unidos en su conjunto. El problema de la esclavitud dividió a Estados Unidos y dificultó cada vez más el impulso de una política exterior que favoreciera la esclavitud. Además, el Sur jamás operó como unidad: había diferencias marcadas entre el Alto Sur y el Bajo Sur. Estas diferencias se observan en el hecho de que los sureños en el Congreso jamás se esforzaron en buscar con suficiente energía un tratado de extradición con México. El artículo también sostiene que México halló el margen de maniobra necesario para defender sus propios intereses, pese a los fuertes contrastes de riqueza y recursos entre los dos países.

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE CURRENT FRENCH FOREIGN POLICY ACTIVITY

2019 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 74-79
Author(s):  
Nargiza Sodikova ◽  
◽  
◽  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
International Security ◽  
The United States ◽  
Foreign Affairs ◽  
Modern Time ◽  
The European Union ◽  
National Interests ◽  
French Foreign Policy

Important aspects of French foreign policy and national interests in the modern time,France's position in international security and the specifics of foreign affairs with the United States and the European Union are revealed in this article

Turkey’s foreign policy priorities in the Middle East and Afghanistan

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 (10-3) ◽  
pp. 228-237
Author(s):  
Marina Shpakovskaya ◽  
Oleg Barnashov ◽  
Arian Mohammad Hassan Shershah ◽  
Asadullah Noori ◽  
Mosa Ziauddin Ahmad
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Middle East ◽  
The United States ◽  
Turkish Foreign Policy ◽  
Security Issues ◽  
New Approaches ◽  
East Region ◽  
History Of ◽  
Middle East Region

The article discusses the features and main approaches of Turkish foreign policy in the Middle East. Particular attention is paid to the history of the development of Turkish-American relations. The causes of the contradictions between Turkey and the United States on the security issues of the Middle East region are analyzed. At the same time, the commonality of the approaches of both countries in countering radical terrorism in the territories adjacent to Turkey is noted. The article also discusses the priority areas of Turkish foreign policy, new approaches and technologies in the first decade of the XXI century.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document