Public Opinion and the War in Vietnam

1967 ◽  
Vol 61 (2) ◽  
pp. 317-333 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sidney Verba ◽  
Richard A. Brody ◽  
Edwin B. Parker ◽  
Norman H. Nie ◽  
Nelson W. Polsby ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Public Opinion ◽  
Presidential Election ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Domestic Policy ◽  
Recent Experience ◽  
Public Attention ◽  
Political Leaders ◽  
National Elections ◽  
Life And Death

Foreign policy seems to command more public attention than domestic policy and yet—insofar as it has been, researched—public opinion on foreign policy seems to have less impact on governmental decisions than does opinion in most other issue areas. There are at least two reasons, one normative and one empirical, why public opinion can be regarded as pertinent to some foreign policy questions—especially those associated with “life and death.” Normatively, it is desirable for political leaders in a democracy to commit national resources in ways generally approved by the populace. Large scale military commtiments should, if at all possible, meet with the approval of public opinion. Empirically, if they do not, experience has shown there are circumstances in which public disapproval of the course of foreign policy may be registered in national elections. Specifically, our one recent experience with a situation of partial mobilization and a limited but large-scale and indefinite commitment to military action in Korea did in time produce a distribution of opinion that suggested the war was very unpopular. And though its precise impact on the 1952 presidential election is difficult to assess there is little doubt that the Korean issue contributed significantly to the Eisenhower landslide.Among the questions raised by the Korean experience is whether the American public will easily tolerate the prosecution of long drawn-out wars of partial mobilization. Therefore, it is not surprising that another such war, in Vietnam, has stimulated a concern with public opinion.

Public Opinion and Foreign Policy

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Douglas Foyle
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Public Opinion ◽  
New Media ◽  
Information Acquisition ◽  
Opinion Dynamics ◽  
Domestic Policy ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Media ◽  
New Research ◽  
Traditional Approaches

Dramatic changes in the way the public acquires information and formulates its attitudes have potentially altered the opinion and foreign policy relationship. While traditional approaches have treated public opinion on domestic and foreign matters as largely distinct, the culmination of a series of changes may eliminate the effective distinction between foreign and domestic policy, at least in terms of how the American political system operates. All the factors central to the opinion and foreign policy process, such as information acquisition, attitude formation, media effects, the effect of opinion on policy, and presidential leadership now appear to mirror the processes observed at the domestic level. This analysis reviews historical trends in the literature on public opinion and foreign policy that has focused on the rationality of the public’s opinions, the structure of its attitudes, and its influence on foreign policymaking. The traditional Almond-Lippmann consensus portrayed an emotional public with unstructured attitudes and little influence on foreign policy; however, revisionist views have described a reasonable public with largely structured views on foreign policy that can, at times, constrain and even drive those policies. More recently, the rise of “intermestic” issues, contain both domestic and international elements, such as globalization, inequality, terrorism, immigration, and climate change, have interacted to transform the domestic and international context. The bulk of this analysis highlights emerging new research directions that should be pursued in light of the changes. First, scholars should continue to evaluate the “who thinks what and why” questions with particular attention to differences between high- and low-information individuals, the effect of misinformation, and information sources. In doing so, research should build on research from non-American contexts that points to the important influences of societal and institutional factors. In addition to continued examination of traditional demographic factors such as partisanship and ideology, additional attention should turn to consider potential genetic and biological foundations of attitudes. Finally, researchers should continue to evaluate how the new media environment, including social media, affects how the public accesses information, how the media provides information, and how political elites attempt to shape both. Given these changes, scholars should consider whether it continues to make sense to treat public opinion dynamics regarding foreign policy as distinct from domestic policy and its implications.

scholarly journals Foreign Policy: Public Opinion and Political Legacy

2015 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 202-220
Author(s):  
Aaron T. Walter
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Public Opinion ◽  
Agenda Setting ◽  
Foreign Affairs ◽  
Policy Position ◽  
Theoretical Argument ◽  
Mutual Support ◽  
Political Leaders ◽  
Opinion Polling

Abstract To the degree that public opinion, as domestic variable, influences a leaders decision-making in the area of foreign affairs is significant. Political leaders use public opinion polling to support government position or in attempts to mold policy position(s) in the affirmative. The following article investigates how public opinion affects U.S. presidential foreign policy decisions and to the degree those decisions are the base for political legacy. The theoretical argument is that domestic variables and leaders decisions often act in mutual support of each others in complementary interests and when not the case, it is the leader whose agenda setting or creating a frame impacts public opinion.

scholarly journals Tadzhikistan-Russia: Geopolitical Relations at the Turn of the Century

2015 ◽  
pp. 29-34
Author(s):  
Z. S. Saidzoda
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Technical Assistance ◽  
Human Dimensions ◽  
Strategic Partnership ◽  
Open Door Policy ◽  
Political Leaders ◽  
Foreign Investments ◽  
The Government ◽  
Military Facilities

RETRACTEDIn this article the writer analyses the development peculiarities of the Tajik-Russian geopolitical relations during the establishment of Tajikistan foreign policy up to the commencement of multi-vector «open doors» policy in 2003-2004. Since the establishment of peace and stability in Tajikistan beginning from the year of 2000 the socio-economic development issues have been set as prior actions. To boost the economy, attraction of foreign investments, creation of new jobs and improvement of life standard of population were the issues to address. Political leaders of Tajikistan had no right to waste time making no headway. The country inevitably faced the issue of diversification of interstate and foreign economic relations, including outside the CIS. The article highlights that the foreign «open door» policy declared at the turn of2002-2003 implied mandatory modernization of the Tajik-Russian cooperation through strengthening its economic and human dimensions, adjusting the strategic partnership and alliance between the two states to the new global political realities. As to the geopolitical and military-political priorities, which Tajikistan had firmly adhered throughout the entire 1990th since its Independence, they actually remained unchanged even after 2002. The author points out the long-term Russian presence in the form of a large scale military base and military infrastructure on the territory of Tajikistan. The Republic is one of the most consistent, active and disciplined members of the Collective Security Treaty Organization. During the first decade of the XXI century the political leaders of Tajikistan had been receiving offers from foreign non CIS countries with regard to deployment of military facilities on a fee basis on the territory of Tajikistan which were not even considered by the Government. Thus, the multi-vector foreign policy of «open doors» has been reflected in diversification of the international relations of Tajikistan, in demonopolization of trade and economic priorities, in attraction of foreign investments and military-technical assistance from the third countries (other than CIS and CSTO countries) but completely preserving the geopolitical and military-political priorities established until 2002.

Overseas Chinese Affairs Policy of the PRC from Jiang Zemin to Xi Jinping (Part 1)

2021 ◽  
pp. 26
Author(s):  
Alina Afonasieva
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Foreign Relations ◽  
Public Diplomacy ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Domestic Policy ◽  
Chinese Diaspora ◽  
Overseas Chinese ◽  
Xi Jinping ◽  
Flexible System ◽  
Jiang Zemin

The article is devoted to the PRC's overseas Chinese affairs policy during the reign of Jiang Zemin, Hu Jintao, and Xi Jinping (1993 — present).During this period, the previously created mechanisms of foreign policy towards Overseas Chinese (huaqiao-huaren) and domestic policy towards re-emigrants and relatives of emigrants and re-emigrants (guiqiao-qiaojuan) became a flexible system, which can adapt to the Chinese and international reality, and effectively attracting the resources of the diaspora to the implementation of large-scale projects and initiatives of the PRC. The first part of the article analyzes the theoretical views and attitudes of Jiang Zemin, Hu Jintao, and Xi Jinping to work with the Chinese diaspora. It presents the theory of overseas Chinese as a unique resource and advantage for the large-scale development of the PRC; as a "three great available opportunities" for building a moderately prosperous society, combating separatism, developing public diplomacy; and as an important part of foreign relations of China and an as a supporting force for the stimulation the state's development. It outlines the guiding ideologies, key principles, and objectives of this work. It analyzes the main directions of foreign policy towards overseas Chinese. The author focuses on the issues of protecting the rights and interests of compatriots abroad, uniting the Chinese diaspora, attracting huaqiao-huazhen to the development of trade and economic cooperation of the PRC with foreign states and business, and organizing the participation of huaqiao-huazhen in the reunification of the motherland. The second part of the article is devoted to the analysis of the domestic policy towards overseas Chinese.

Legitimization of Statehood and its Impact on Foreign Policy in De Facto States: A Case Study of Abkhazia

2018 ◽  
Vol 22 (4) ◽  
pp. 382-407
Author(s):  
Tomáš Hoch
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Public Opinion ◽  
Nonprofit Organizations ◽  
Economic Impacts ◽  
International System ◽  
Field Research ◽  
Domestic Policy ◽  
De Facto States ◽  
The Church

In many respects, de facto states play a highly specific role as actors within the international system of sovereign states. The lack of international recognition has tangible political and economic impacts on the functioning of such states, and so the attempt to persuade domestic actors and the international community of the legitimacy of their claims to independence ranks among the most important components of these states’ policy—not only in foreign policy, but also in domestic policy. The aim of this text is to contribute to our understanding of how internal legitimization strategies for Abkhazian statehood are constructed and how they impact upon the foreign policy of this de facto state. Field research was carried out via interviews with important official state representatives of Abkhazia and important non-state actors—including journalists and representatives of nonprofit organizations, universities, the Church and other key institutions, which influence public opinion within and beyond this de facto state.

scholarly journals Foreign policy fatigue? Russian mass media agenda setting strategies and public opinion on the 2018 pension reforms

Slovo ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ellen N. Leafstedt
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Public Opinion ◽  
Mass Media ◽  
Agenda Setting ◽  
Pension Reform ◽  
Public Attention ◽  
Political Issue ◽  
Pension Reforms ◽  
Media Agenda ◽  
News Events

The scholarship on Russian media is beset with the assumption that the Russian public is unable to ‘vote with their remote’ in a homogenously pro-regime media environment and instead passively accepts messaging from the official mass media. This assumption is assessed here in a case study using quantitative content methods to examine the discrepancies between official mass media agenda-setting and public opinion during the period of salience of the news event of the 2018 pension reforms. The pension reform, as an obtrusive domestic political issue in contrast to the unobtrusive international news events which dominate Russian news coverage, stood out asone of the major events of the year in the view of the Russian public. This article finds that official mass media undertook agenda-setting measures to de-emphasize negative aspects of the pension reform news events, emphasize positive aspects, and distract public attention towards more sensationalist foreign policy news items. However, it also finds that public opinion priorities on news issues were incongruent with media agenda-setting, indicating that official mass media messages are not accepted uncritically by the Russian public. 

Capitalising upon Globalisation

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
David M. Webber
Keyword(s):  
Political Economy ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
International Development ◽  
Macroeconomic Policy ◽  
Domestic Policy ◽  
Policy Decisions ◽  
Gordon Brown ◽  
Development Policies ◽  
At Home

Having mapped out in the previous chapter, New Labour’s often contradictory and even ‘politically-convenient’ understanding of globalisation, chapter 3 offers analysis of three key areas of domestic policy that Gordon Brown would later transpose to the realm of international development: (i) macroeconomic policy, (ii) business, and (iii) welfare. Since, according to Brown at least, globalisation had resulted in a blurring of the previously distinct spheres of domestic and foreign policy, it made sense for those strategies and policy decisions designed for consumption at home to be transposed abroad. The focus of this chapter is the design of these three areas of domestic policy; the unmistakeable imprint of Brown in these areas and their place in building of New Labour’s political economy. Strikingly, Brown’s hand in these policies and the themes that underpinned them would again reappear in the international development policies explored in much greater detail later in the book.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document