The Presidential Political Center and Foreign Policy: A Critique of the Revisionist and Bureaucratic-Political Orientations

1974 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 87-106 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amos Perlmutter
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
National Security ◽  
Political Party ◽  
American Foreign Policy ◽  
Foreign Affairs ◽  
The Political ◽  
Political Elites ◽  
Modern Politics ◽  
Political Orientations ◽  
Political Center

Fundamental to modern politics is the fact that politics of security and diplomacy are central to society. Historically, foreign and security politics have been the main priorities of the political center, conducted primarily on that level. Since 1945, these political centers have gained predominance in die U.S. In the absence of well-integrated political elites, a highly centralized political party or parties, and powerful and permanent bureaucracies and civil service, the presidential political center has become the pivotal political center with almost exclusive control over foreign affairs and national security. The locus and degree of power widiin the American political and constitutional context, rather than elite orientations and practices, are identified to explain who dominates American foreign policy.

“The Jeffersonian Idea of National Security” Revisited

Rough Waters ◽  
2010 ◽  
pp. 161-184
Author(s):  
James R. Sofka
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
National Security ◽  
American Foreign Policy ◽  
First Century ◽  
The Political ◽  
Economic Interests ◽  
Trade Networks ◽  
British Rule ◽  
Economic Warfare ◽  
Economic Motives

This chapter is the first of two to explore United States President Thomas Jefferson’s approach to the Tripolitanian War. It argues that Jefferson sought to protect and expand American commerce whilst eroding the trade networks of England and France as means of gaining a stronger position in the international economy. It suggests that Jefferson’s use of commerce as a tool of foreign policy was not related to pacifism and diplomacy, but rather an extra arm of defence on the world stage. It provides a thorough exploration of Jefferson’s political and economic motives for the war, and in doing so compares Jefferson’s speeches to the language of Realpolitik. It also explores the advocacy of economic warfare; and details the feud between Jefferson and Hamilton concerning British rule. It concludes that the Tripolitanian War can be considered a component of a larger geopolitical strategy to defend and advance the political and economic interests of America. It also asserts that historians should treat this war within the nineteenth-century political sphere, and refrain from making comparisons to twenty-first century American foreign policy.

Sovereignty and Emergency

2002 ◽  
Vol 19 (4) ◽  
pp. 103-119 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bryan S. Turner
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Theoretical Basis ◽  
Political Theology ◽  
American Foreign Policy ◽  
Political Islam ◽  
State Sovereignty ◽  
The Political ◽  
Foreign Policy Analysis ◽  
Modern Politics ◽  
Clash Of Cultures

The Huntington thesis of the clash of cultures and American foreign policy analysis are both aspects of the legacy of Carl Schmitt's distinction between friend and foe. This article explores Schmitt's political theology as the theoretical basis of modern politics in terms of the concepts of state sovereignty and the idea of a permanent emergency. Within this Schmittian framework, the analysis of Islam as presented by writers such as Huntington, Fukuyama and Barber is critically analysed. Their analysis of fundamentalism and political Islam fails to grasp the complexity and diversity of modern Islam. The article concludes by examining a number of social and economic processes that make the political division between friend and foe untenable.

scholarly journals Turkey’s “Zero Problems with the Neighbors” Policy: Was It Realistic?

2017 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 149-167 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ali Askerov
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Policy Formulation ◽  
Foreign Affairs ◽  
The Political ◽  
Special Importance ◽  
Political Leaders ◽  
National Interests ◽  
New Approach ◽  
The Government ◽  
Economic Developments

With the advancement of power in 2002, the Justice and Development Party (AKP) has introduced revolutionary policies in Turkey in various realms, including foreign affairs. The new trend in the foreign policy focused on not having problems with neighbors. This could be possible or nearly possible theoretically but eliminating century-long and deep-rooted conflicts with some of the neighbors would not be easy in practice. The new idealistic/moralistic approach necessitated new ways of policy formulation based on mutual gains and unthinkable concessions on the part of Turkey. Ankara’s new approach had given a special importance to building bridges of trust with the neighbors, which also seemed attractive to the political leaders of the neighboring states. This idealistic/moralistic approach was vulnerable to the dynamic political and economic developments in the region and the world in general. The policy did not have a power of sustainability due to the various old, new, and emerging problems around Turkey and hence, the government had to give it up gradually and take a new course of foreign policy based on realistic approaches to defend its national interests.

From Pigmentocracy to Representocracy

2018 ◽  
pp. 203-260
Author(s):  
Vineet Thakur
Keyword(s):  
South Africa ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
South African ◽  
Political Leadership ◽  
Policy Formulation ◽  
Foreign Affairs ◽  
The Political ◽  
The South ◽  
Institutional Structures

This chapter traces the post-apartheid transformation of the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) in South Africa. It argues that in the first decade of transition, the Department remained preoccupied with the process of internal restructuring, which was successfully achieved. This caused structural pains as many of the old white diplomats left the service, robbing the Department of crucial expertise. In these years, the political leadership played a stronger role in the South African foreign policymaking. While Mandela’s foreign policy formulation was ad-hocist, Mbeki relied on institutional structures. However, rather than emphasizing on strengthening the DFA, he created new institutional structures under his integrated governance scheme which, ironically, further centralised foreign policymaking. Consequently, the DFA was further marginalized.

The first neo-conservative: James Burnham and the origins of a movement

2010 ◽  
Vol 37 (4) ◽  
pp. 1885-1902 ◽  
Author(s):  
BINOY KAMPMARK
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
American Foreign Policy ◽  
Foreign Affairs ◽  
Conservative Revolution

AbstractThis article examines the origins of American neo-conservatism by assessing the contributions of one of its less known inspirations, James Burnham. In charting Burnham's political philosophies and various contemporary reactions to them, this article examines his legacy as it relates to the movement, specifically in his approach to foreign affairs and institutions. It argues that he was more a pioneer than is often acknowledged. In so doing this article also corrects misunderstandings that have arisen in critiques of neo-conservatism, suggesting that Burnham's oeuvre may offer more instructive guidance than some of his contemporaries in understanding the neo-conservative revolution in American foreign policy.

scholarly journals The State’s Changing Role Regarding the Kurdish Question of Turkey: From Consistent Tutelage to Volatile Securitization

2019 ◽  
Vol 44 (1) ◽  
pp. 35-49 ◽  
Author(s):  
Burak Bilgehan Özpek
Keyword(s):  
National Security ◽  
Political Party ◽  
Political Elite ◽  
The Political ◽  
Equal Rights ◽  
Political Survival ◽  
Security Threat ◽  
Political Group ◽  
Systemic Crisis ◽  
Kurdish Question

Disappearance of the established security paradigm of Kemalist state has not helped to create strong institutions and legal-bureaucratic structures that are supposed to prevent a certain political elite to dominate the political system and criminalize its adversaries by security reasons. Instead, survival concerns and political will of the Justice and Development Party (AKP) has become replacement of the established paradigm. This has created a systemic crisis. On the one hand, the AKP has played the role of a regular political party, which is supposed to have equal rights and privileges with other players in the game. On the other hand, the AKP has been the tutelary actor that determines what national security is and who threatens national security. As a result of this picture, the AKP has exploited its monopoly over securitization to eliminate the criticisms of the opposition groups. Therefore, any political party or political group has not been viewed as a national security threat only if it has not threatened the political survival of the AKP. Such a crisis has also affected the AKP’s approach toward the Kurdish question. Unlike the established paradigm’s allergy toward the political demands of Kurds due to its commitment to nation-state principle, the AKP’s fluctuated policy toward the Kurds resembles to a political party’s survival strategy rather than a policy stemming from a consistent national security paradigm.

Trump-ing Foreign Affairs: Status Threat and Foreign Policy Preferences on the Right

2019 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 737-755 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rachel Marie Blum ◽  
Christopher Sebastian Parker
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Republican Party ◽  
Domestic Politics ◽  
Foreign Affairs ◽  
Policy Preferences ◽  
The Political ◽  
Threat Model ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Right ◽  
Political Right

President Trump is often at odds with the conservative establishment over a range of issues, not least of which is foreign policy. Yet it remains unclear whether supporting “Trumpism” is commensurate with coherent foreign policy views that are distinct from conventionally conservative positions. We evaluate whether the foreign policy views of Trump’s supporters, both in the voting public and among activists, differ from those of other Republicans. We use the 2016 ANES to examine Republican primary voters and the new 2016 State Convention Delegate Study to assess Republican activists. In doing so, we reveal systematic differences in foreign policy preferences between Trump supporters and more establishment conservatives. We demonstrate that the status-threat model need not be confined to domestic politics. Indeed, it may be extended to explain foreign policy preferences on the political right, that of Trump’s supporters in the present case. In doing so, we also find evidence that status threat may well be the source of fracture in the Republican Party.

Human Rights and Carter's Policy

Worldview ◽  
1978 ◽  
Vol 21 (10) ◽  
pp. 12-15
Author(s):  
Leo J. Wollemborg
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
American Foreign Policy ◽  
Carter Administration ◽  
Foreign Affairs ◽  
American People ◽  
Special Regard ◽  
The World ◽  
Active Commitment ◽  
The Way

After almost two years of the Carter administration the commitment to human rights, which represents a key aspect of its policies, has become a topic for much discussion and interest but seems still to be inadequately understood. The main reason for this failure, I feel, is that very few earnest efforts have been made to determine the actual scope and significance of the administration's approach as it emerges from the way it operates and from the way it developed out of the principles of freedom and morality that have inspired the best traditions and beliefs of the American people.Long before Mr. Carter announced his candidacy Richard N. Gardner, our present ambassador to Italy, had become one of his closest advisors on foreign affairs, with special regard to human rights. During recent conversations in Rome, Ambassador Gardner recalled that “an active commitment to the promotion of human rights everywhere in the world is not a novel feature in American foreign policy.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document