No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 13 January 2009
I wish to consider the possibility that a good part of the opposition to the main lines of American foreign policy is based on deep-seated objections to the political and economic systems of the United States. This is not to say that existing policy is necessarily wise or that there may not be good and sufficient reasons for wishing to change it. Indeed, at any time and place, the United States might well be overestimating the threat from the Soviet Union or using too much force. What I wish to suggest is that across-the-board criticism of American policy as inherently aggressive and repressive, regardless of circumstance – a litany of criticism so constant that it does not alert us to the need for explanation – has a structural basis in the rise of a political culture that is opposed to existing authority.
To the extent that this criticism is structural, that is, inherent in domestic politics, the problem of fashioning foreign policies that can obtain widespread support is much more difficult than it is commonly perceived to be. For if the objection is to American ways of life and, therefore, “to the government for which it stands,” only a transformation of power relationships at home, together with a vast redistribution of economic resources, would satisfy these critics. If the objection is not only to what we do but, more fundamentally, to who we are, looking to changes in foreign policy to shore up domestic support is radically to confuse the causal connections and, therefore, the order of priorities.
1 See Wildavsky, Aaron, “The Two Presidencies,” Transaction, vol. 4 (December 1966), pp.7–14.Google Scholar
2 International Institute for Strategic Studies, The Military Balance, 1984–1985, pp.18–19.Google Scholar
3 Harries, Owen, “Best-Case Thinking,” Commentary, vol. 77 (May 1984), pp.23–28.Google Scholar
4 See Michael P. Hornsby-Smith and Elizabeth S. Cordingley, “Catholic Elites: A Study of the Delegates to the National Pastoral Congress,” Studies in English Catholicism No. 1, Occasional Paper No. 3, Dept. of Sociology, University of Surrey; Walzer, Michael, The Revolution of the Saints: A Study in the Origins of Radical Politics (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1965Google Scholar); Kuklinski, James H., Metlay, Daniel S., and Kay, W.D., “Citizen Knowledge and Choices on the Complex Issue of Nuclear Energy,” American Journal of Political Science, vol. 26 (November 1982), pp.615–642CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Rothman, Stanley and Lichter, S. Robert, “The Nuclear Energy Debate: Scientists, the Media, and the Public,” Public Opinion (August/September 1982), pp.47–52Google Scholar; Putnam, Robert, “Two Types of Democrats,” Joel, D. Aberbach, Robert, D. Putnam, and Bert, A. Rochman, eds., Bureaucrats and Politicians in Western Democracies (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1981Google Scholar); Lipset, Seymour Martin, “Why No Socialism in the United States?”, Seweryn, Bialer and Sophia, Sluzar, eds., Sources of Contemporary Radicalism (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1977Google Scholar); Hollander, Paul, “Reflections on Anti-Americanism in our Times,” Hollander, , eds., The Many Faces of Socialism (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books, 1983Google Scholar); and Walker, Jack L., “The Origins and Maintenance of Interest Groups in America,” The American Political Science Review, vol. 77 (June 1983), pp.390–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5 Donahue, William A., The Politics of the ACLU (New Brunswick, NJ. Transaction Press, 1984Google Scholar); and Wildavsky, Aaron, “The ‘Reverse Sequence’ in Civil Liberties,” The Public Interest, number 78 (Winter 1985), pp.32–42.Google Scholar
6 Schultze, George, “Power and Diplomacy,” address to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Chicago, August 20, 1984Google Scholar (U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Public Affairs, Current Policy No.606).
7 See Geuss, Raymond, The Idea of a Critical Theory: Habermas and the Frankfurt School (New York: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1982).Google Scholar
8 Rummel, Rudolph J., “Libertarianism and International Violence”, The Journal of Conflict Resolution, vol. 27 (March 1983), pp.27–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9 Rudolph, J. Rummel, conflict and War (Beverly, CA: Sage Publications, 1975).Google Scholar
10 James L. Payne, “Marxism and Militarism”, forthcoming in Polity.
11 ibid.
12 See my “The Soviet System”, in Wildavsky, , ed. Beyond Containment: Alternative American Policies Toward the Soviet Union (San Francisco, CA: Institute for Contemporary Studies Press, 1983), pp.25–38.Google Scholar
13 Richard Falk, “Nuclear Weapons and the End of Democracy,” The Swedish Institute of International Affairs Research Report.
14 Wallace Earl Walker and Andrew F. Krepinevich, “No First Use and Conventional Deterrence: The Politics of Defense Policymaking”. A version of this article entitled “Domestic Coalitions and Defense Policymaking” is published in Col. James R. Golden, LTC Asa A. Clark, IV, and Cpt. Bruce, E. Arlinghaus, eds., Conventional Deterrence in NATO: Alternatives for European Defense (Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath, 1984).Google Scholar
15 “The Great Nuclear Debate”, The New Republic (January 17, 1983), p. 14.
16 See my “Containment Plus Pluralization”, in Beyond Containment, pp.125–46.