Suchergebnisse

Investigates whether political elites adopt a liberal internationalism in creating foreign policy while the general public, subjected to vulnerable domestic issues, prefers a "pragmatic internationalism." This possible gulf in attitudes toward the US global role is studied through a contextual analysis that measures the impact of domestic issues on foreign policy attitudes. The research is based on traditions outside the normal public opinion/foreign policy domain. Issues of concern -- crime, social malaise, unemployment, Hispanic & Asian legal & illegal immigration, educational needs, gross product growth, exports as percent of their state's gross product, & per-capita income -- were measured according to the state environment of the respondents & two elite & three mass surveys on foreign policy attitudes. The hypothesis was not proved. Instead, elites & the public draw more on political symbols & socialization experiences in forming their foreign policy attitudes. L. A. Hoffman

Many analysts believe that the end of the cold war will spark greater conflict between Congress and the president on foreign issues, thus further undermining the nation's political mythology that politics stops at the water's edge. The authors test that hypothesis using House of Representatives' support of presidents' foreign policy bids on prerogative power and defense budgeting issues during the Reagan, Bush, and Clinton Congresses (1983-1996). They also examine the votes of members of Congress whose careers bridged the cold war divide, asking whether the cold war's end shocked them into new forms of behavior. The authors conclude that conflict between Congress and the president has heightened in the post-cold war era, but the impact of the cold war's end is a less important explanation of executive-congressional contestation than members' role responsibilities and ideological preferences. Thus, the agenda of foreign policy issues may have changed with the end of the cold war, but the process of policy making has not.

With particular reference to the difference between high vs. low priority issues and the impact of the Vietnam war.

This research evaluates two different perspectives on congressional-executive relations across four major foreign policy issue areas using congressional voting from 1947 to 1988. Both a bipartisan perspective and a partisan/ideological perspective are evaluated across high politics issues-national security and foreign relations votes—and low politics issues-foreign aid and trade votes. In addition, we examine the impact of the Vietnam War on voting in each issue area. In general, we find that although high politics issues elicit more bipartisanship than low politics, party and ideology seem to account better for congressional voting across all four issue areas. The effect of the Vietnam War is to lessen bipartisanship and to exacerbate partisan and ideological divisions, especially on national security votes and somewhat less so on foreign aid votes.