Foreign Policy of the United States
PLIR7400, Fall Term 2009
W 2-4:30, New Cabell 130
v.9-23-09
Professor Jeffrey W. Legro
Office Hours:
232 Cabell Hall
Th3:00-4:30 and
924-3958
by appointment.
legro@virginia.edu
Class Web Page: Go to https://collab.itc.virginia.edu/portal
I. Course Overview and Objectives:
The United States today occupies a central place in the world arena. In almost
every important issue in global politics, the United States will be involved (for better or
worse) and will affect what happens. Why does the United States think and act as it
does in foreign affairs?
This is a Ph.D. level seminar that examines an array of different analytical
approaches that explain American foreign policy. The primary focus of the course will be
on causes because understanding why the United States acts the way it does is a
complicated matter and the focus of heated debate. Your answer to “why”” affects how
you think the America should act as well as how other countries should act towards the
United States. That said we will at several points also discuss consequences. Modern
history also appears prominently as theories make no sense without “facts”. Thus we
will cover episodes across the history of the United States, but especially since the end
of the Cold War, both as an illustration of explanations and as way of providing a
historical narrative for the development of U.S. foreign policy overtime.
Participants are required to develop an understanding of how different
approaches explain American foreign policy. This task often has no single simple "right"
method or answer and the issues leave wide room for debate. Nonetheless, each
approach has its own logic and corresponding strengths and weaknesses. Everyone
must learn what these are and how they compare. Participants should also know the
basic history covered in the readings.
II. Course Requirements:
1. Class Preparation and Participation (40%) – you are required to do the
readings ahead of each sessions and come to class prepared to contribute.
You will be assessed on both the quantity and quality of your contribution to
class discussion. The seminar rises and falls based on what we bring to the
table so this is very important.
2
2. Seminar Paper (45%) – Each student is required to write a research paper
that answers a question on American foreign policy. I am less concerned
about the length of the paper but anticipate they will be in the range of 4,000
to 6,000 words (they may NOT exceed 7,000 words). Length does not equal
quality. Please include a word count at the top of your paper. More important
is that you apply at least two alternative theories to answer the question and
marshal evidence and logic in favor of one of the arguments.
3. Paper Prep Assignments (15%) – You will be required to do two
assignments that feed the seminar paper. One asks you to formulate a
research question and defend its policy or scholarly importance as well as
give an initial guess at the alternative arguments you will consider to answer
the question. The second assignment asks for a more developed statement
of your project, the alternative arguments, and its methods.
IV. Class Policies:
All work is due on the dates scheduled. Incompletes will not be granted except
when very unusual circumstances dictate and only if arrangements have made with the
instructor ahead of time. Deadlines are absolute.
You should complete all graded work independently. Any outside materials or
sources should be explicitly referenced. Any work that is based on other sources without
citation will be failed. If you have any questions on this or any other course related
matter please do contact me.
V. Class Materials
The readings with an asterik below are available for purchase at the university
bookstore. Other works can be found on the class web page (UVaCollab), or links are
embedded in the syllabus. Rec = works that are recommended but not required.
For a good on line guide to various types of documents and statistics on U.S.
foreign policy, see http://www.columbia.edu/cu/lweb/indiv/lehman/guides/foreign.html.
Also see Benjamin Fordham’s website for data he has used.
http://bingweb.binghamton.edu/~bfordham/data.html
3
Reading
Critical reading is a fundamental skill necessary to academic success. Everyone
at this level knows how to read, but critical reading is a completely different endeavor -as different as walking to the store and running a marathon. It demands energy and
activity as you interrogate the text you confront with the following questions:
1) What is being explained?
2) How does the author explain it? That is, what is being “caused” and what is
doing the causing? (You should be able to chart this with an arrow diagram).
What are the critical concepts?
3) How are cause and effect observed? What kind of research design is
employed?
4) From what theoretical perspective does the argument originate? With whom
are the authors engaged in debate?
This type of active reading will lead you to see more clearly what the author is trying to
say (and allow you to distinguish poor from good writing). It will raise such questions as:
1) Is the thesis convincing? Is there a sound account that links cause to effect?
2) Does the author accurately present hypotheses from a broader body of
theory or evidence?
3) Has the author pursued a reliable research strategy? How might s/he have
been more convincing?
4) Has the author asked the right question?
I strongly recommend that you keep a notebook that devotes one page for each
argument encountered that includes a causal diagram and short abstract that
summarizes the argument and method and includes a few of your critical reflections.
This will be an invaluable tool in studying for your final exam, in studying for your
general exams, and in preparing future scholarship and courses. I would also
encourage you to divy up the readings so that every 1-2 sessions each individual will
take responsibility to provide more in-depth notes (3-4pp) on an assigned article or book
(e.g., that review the empirical content) that will be shared with the class.
4
Research Design Assignment
PLIR 7400
REQUIREMENTS. Research designs must be no longer than 1500 words. They
should be faithful to the steps described on this sheet.
PURPOSE. The purpose of this assignment is to better develop your ability to pose
and convincingly answer questions about international relations.
Step 1. Identify the puzzle that you wish to address. Redefine your puzzle in terms
of a question. This is your research question. Begin your research design by
stating the question clearly and discussing why it is interesting. What is puzzling
about the topic? What do you want to explain?
Step 2. Next, develop a hypothesis -- a plausible argument -- to explain or solve
the puzzle. Your hypothesis should consist of a clearly defined dependent variable
and one or more clearly defined independent variables. Identify these variables
directly. Link your hypothesis to theory. How does existing theory help explain the
puzzle? How does your hypothesis relate to existing theory?
Step 3. Give two strong alternative hypotheses (arguments), which also answer
your questions. These should be plausible arguments someone might think are
right, but which you believe are not as good as your own.
Step 4: Develop a test that determines whether your argument is correct. How
you will show that your argument is right and better than the alternative? What is
the empirical universe to which the argument applies? Justify the cases/data that
would serve as the focus of your research. Explain how you will "measure" each
of the variables (explanations) so that they accurately reflect the logic of the
arguments.
Step 5: Preview an initial examination of a case/cases/data from the sample to
illustrate the utility of the argument.
Step 6: Briefly summarize why your argument is important if it is right.
5
Class Schedule: Topics and Assignments*
(*These are preliminary readings:
they will change and actual assignments will be more limited.)
1. Introduction: Posing Questions and Thinking about Answers (8/26)
Please come with some focused questions on U.S. foreign policy that you want to
investigate. We will discuss these and research design. Please read:
1) Syllabus
2) Van Evera, Guide to Methodology, chpt 1 (see Collab)
3) SSRC memo on writing proposals
http://web.wm.edu/grants/PROP/ssrc%20art%20of%20proposal%20writing.pdf?svr=
www
2. Problematique I: After the Cold War (9/2)
Derek Chollet and James Goldgeier, America Between the Wars: From 11/9 to 9/11
(Public Affairs, 2008).
Hal Brands, From Berlin to Baghdad: America’s Search for Purpose in the PostCold War World (Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 2008), pp. 263-301 skim 302334 on line http://books.google.com/books?id=eoKC5GS4AsC&printsec=frontcover&dq=brands,+hal#v=onepage&q=&f=false
3. Problematique II: Unipolarity (9/9)
Special issue “International Relations Theory and the Consequences of Unipolarity,”
World Politics (January 2009). Read entire: intro and articles by Wohlforth, Finnemore,
Walt, Mastanduno, Snyder, and Jervis. Articles should be available thru the UVA library
on Project Muse. http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/world_politics/toc/wp.61.1.html
Rec:
Daniel H. Nexon and Thomas Wright, “What’s at Stake in the American Empire Debate,”
American Political Science Review Vol. 101, No. 2 (2007).
4. More on Power (9/16)
Norman Graebner, “The Pursuit of Interests and a Balance of Power,” in Dennis Merrill
and Thomas G. Paterson, eds., Major Problems in American Foreign Policy, vol. 2, Since
1914, 5th ed. (Houghton Mifflin 2000), 23-26.
Fred Anderson and Andrew Cayton, “American Wars for Liberty and Power,” Chronicle of
Higher Education, December 3, 2004, B6-B9.
John Braeman's "Power and Diplomacy: The 1920s Reappraised," Review of Politics, 44
(1982), 342-69. (Skim and compare with Morgenthau on interwar period)
Reinhold Niehbuhr, The Irony of American History (1962) 17-42, 130-150 (chapters 2 and
7).
6
Hans J. Morgenthau, "The Mainsprings of American Foreign Policy," American Political
Science Review 44:833-854.
John Mearsheimer, The Tragedy of Great Power Politics (Norton 2001), 234-261, 386392.
Fordham, Benjamin O. 2008. "Power or Plenty? Economic Interests, Security Concerns,
and American Intervention." International Studies Quarterly 52 (4), December: 737-58.
Rec:
Ido Oren, “The Subjectivity of the ‘Democratic’ Peace: Changing U.S. Perceptions of
Imperial Germany,” International Security 20/2 (Fall 1995), pp. 147-184.
5. Culture and Identity (9/23)
** Due: One page summary of research question, two alternative explanations, and
proposed evidence to judge the two explanations.
Louis Hartz, The Liberal Tradition in America (1955), 3-32, 284-309 (Ch 1,11).
George Kennan, American Diplomacy 1900-1950 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
1984), v-4, 88-103.
Alexis de Tocqueville, "How American Democracy Conducts the External Affairs of the
State," in J. P. Mayer (ed), Democracy in America (New York: Anchor Books, 1969), pp.
226-30 or see bottom of http://www.nalanda.nitc.ac.in/resources/english/etextproject/history/democracy1/chapter26.htm
Aaron L. Friedberg, “Why Didn’t the United States Become a Garrison State?”
International Security, Spring 1992, pp. 109-42.
Michael Hunt, Ideology and U.S. Foreign Policy (New Haven: Yale University Press,
1987), pp. 1-18, 125-70.
Michael C. Desch. “America’s Liberal Illiberalism: The Ideological Origins of Overreaction
in U.S. Foreign Policy.” International Security 32 (Winter 2007/8), 7-43.
Rec:
Tony Smith, “Making the World Safe for Democracy,” Diplomatic History 23 (Spring
1999), pp. 189-218
David Campbell, Writing Security: United States Foreign Policy and the Politics of Identity
(Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1992), pp. 1-40.
6. Domestic Institutions (9/30)
Scott Silverstone, Divided Union: The Politics of War in the Early American Republic
(Cornell University Press, 2004), 1-68 (chapters 1-2). (skim)
Fareed Zakaria, From Wealth to Power: The Unusual Origins of America’s World Role
(Princeton University Press 1998), 3-44. Read pp. 3-12 on line
http://books.google.com/books?id=YtuiLT4T76EC&dq=fareed+zakaria+from+wealth+to+p
ower&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=nwq_qIfcdP&sig=WP_QHf2A5ysleV4KNGEF7t
AA1Hs&hl=en&ei=9AWPSpeBAtPQlAeditW_DA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnu
m=6#v=onepage&q=&f=false
7
Michael A. Bailey, Judith Goldstein, and Barry R. Weingast, “The Institutional Roots of
American Trade Policy: Politics, Coalitions and International Trade,” World Politics 49:3,
(April 1997), pp. 309-338 (skim)
William G. Howell & Jon C. Pevehouse, “Presidents, Congress, and the Use of Force.”
International Organization. Winter 2004-5.
Lisa L. Martin, Democratic Commitments : Legislatures & International Cooperation.
Ewing, NJ, USA: Princeton University Press, 2000, 1-20
http://site.ebrary.com/lib/uvalib/Doc?id=10032004&ppg=8
Milner, Helen and Dustin H. Tingley. 2008. "Explaining the Internationalist Coalition in
American Foreign Economic Policy: Theories of Legislative Coalitions in Trade and Aid
Policy." Draft ms.
Rec:
The Federalist Papers nos. 2-5, 8-11, 14-16, 23-31, 34, 74-75.
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/federal/fed.htm
Gordon Silverstein Imbalance of Powers: Constitutional Interpretation and the Making of
American Foreign Policy (Oxford University Press 1997), 3-17, 213-224 (intro and
conclusion).
Andrew Bennett, “Who Rules the Roost?: Congressional-Executive Relations on Foreign
Policy After the Cold War,” in Robert Lieber, ed. Eagle Rules? Foreign Policy and
American Primacy in the 21st Century (Prentice Hall 2002), 47-69.
7. Mid Course Research Due for Discussion (**Needs to be scheduled)
Research Designs must be circulated to the class e-mail list by TBA and earlier if
possible.
8. Domestic Politics and Interest Groups I (10/14)
Peter Trubowitz, Defending the National Interest (University of Chicago 1998), 1-30, skim
236-248 on line
http://books.google.com/books?id=q3J1_1E5vgMC&printsec=frontcover&dq=peter+trubo
witz#v=onepage&q=&f=false
Peter Trubowitz, “Sectionalism and American Foreign Policy: The Political
Geography of Consensus and Conflict,” International Studies Quarterly 36 (June
1992): 173–90.
.
Jeff Frieden, "Sectoral Conflict and Foreign Economic Policy, 1914-1940," International
Organization 42(1), Winter 1988, pp. 59-90.
Benjamin O. Fordham and Timothy J. McKeown, “Selection and Influence: Interest
Groups and Congressional Voting on Trade Policy.” International Organization 57
(3)(2003): 519–549.
Larry Jacobs and Benjamin Page, “Who Influences U.S. Foreign Policy?” American
8
Political Science Review 99/1 (February 2005): 107–23.
Rec:
Kevin Narizny, “Rational Idealism: The Political Economy of Internationalism in the United
States and Great Britain 1870-1945,” Security Studies 12:3 (2003): 1-39.
Tony Smith, Foreign Attachments: Ethnic Groups and The Making of American Foreign
Policy (Harvard University Press, 2002), 85-129 (ch3).
Rutherford, Kenneth R. 2000. “The Evolving Arms Control Agenda: Implications of the
Role of NGOs in Banning Antipersonnel Landmines.” World Politics 53 (October): 74–
114.
9. Domestic Politics and Interest Groups II (10/21)
Thomas Christensen, Useful Adversaries: Grand Strategy, Domestic Mobilization, and
Sino-American Conflict (Princeton, NJ 1996): 3-31.
Jack Snyder, Myths of Empire (Cornell 1991): 255-304.
John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, “The Israel Lobby,” London Review of Books 28
(2006), No. 6.
Benjamin O. Fordham, "Economic Interests and Public Support for American Global
Activism." International Organization 62, 1 (January 2008): 163-182.
Rec:
Thomas Ferguson, "From Normalcy to New Deal: Industrial Structure, Party Competition,
and American Public Policy in the Great Depression," International Organization, 38
(1984), pp. 59-85;
10. Public Opinion (10/28)
Douglas C. Foyle, Counting the Public In: Presidents, Public Opinion, and Foreign Policy
(NY: Columbia University Press 1999), 1-29
Sobel, Richard. 2001. The Impact of Public Opinion on U.S. Foreign Policy Since
Vietnam: Constraining the Colossus. (NY: Oxford University Press, 3-26) (chs 1-2).
Benjamin I. Page and Jason Barabas, “Foreign Policy Gaps Between Citizens and
Leaders,” International Studies Quarterly 44 (September 2000): 339-64.
Robert Y. Shapiro and Lawrence R. Jacobs, “Source Material: Presidents and Polling:
Politicians, Pandering, and the Study of Democratic Responsiveness,” Presidential
Studies Quarterly 31 (March 2001): 150-67.
Holsti, Ole R. 1992. “Public Opinion and Foreign Policy: Challenges to the AlmondLippmann Consensus.” International Studies Quarterly 36 (December): 439–466.
APSA Task Force Report on US Standing in the World (2009)
9
11. Bureaucracies (11/4)
The 9/11 Commission Report: Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist
Attacks Upon the United States (Norton 2004)
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm
Graham T. Allison, “Conceptual Models and the Cuban Missile Crisis,” American
Political Science Review 63:3 (September 1969), 689-718.
David Welch. 1992. "The Organizational Process and Bureaucratic Politics Paradigms:
Retrospect and Prospect." International Security 17: 112-146.
Amy Zegart, “9/11, the CIA, and the Organizational Roots of Failure,” The International
Journal of Intelligence and Counterintelligence, Vol. 20, No. 1 (Spring 2007), 18-49.
12. Individuals and Elites (11/11)
David G. Winter, Margaret G. Hermann, Walter Weintraub, and Stephen G. Walker, “The
Personalities of Bush and Gorbachev Measured at a Distance: Procedures, Portraits and
Policy’, Political Psychology 12 (1991): 215-245.
Stephen G. Walker, Mark Schafer and Michael Young, “Presidential Operational Codes
and Foreign Policy Conflicts in the Post-Cold War Period,” Journal of Conflict Resolution
43/5 (1999): 610-25.
C. Wright Mills, The Power Elite (Oxford University Press 1956), 3-29, 269-297.
Bruce Cummings, “The American Century and the Third World,” Diplomatic History
Spring 1999).
Yuen Foong Khong, Analogies at War (Princeton University Press 1992). 3-46. 3-18 can
be read on line at
http://books.google.com/books?id=0irZ8O6jJt4C&pg=PP1&dq=yuen+foong+khong#v=on
epage&q=&f=false
Rec:
Alexander L. George and Juliette L. George, Woodrow Wilson and Colonel House (Dover,
1964), tba.
13. Discussion of First Drafts (11/18)
Email first drafts to me by 11:59 pm Saturday November 15. I will circulate on 11/16 so all
can read and be ready to comment on classmate drafts on 11/18. These will of course be
rough, preliminary drafts.
14. Change (12/2)
Samuel Huntington, American Politics: The Promise of Disharmony (1981).
10
Frank Klinberg, “The Historical Alternation of Moods in American Foreign Policy,” World
Politics 4(1952): 239-273.
Michael Roskin, "From Pearl Harbor to Vietnam: Shifting Generational Paradigms and
Foreign Policy," Political Science Quarterly 89 (1974): 563-588
Jeffrey W. Legro, “Whence American Internationalism,” International Organization 54:2
(2000) 253-289 or book chapters.
Charles A. Kupchan and Peter L. Trubowitz, “Dead Center: The Demise of Liberal
Internationalism in the United States,” International Security (Fall 2007), 7-44
Busby, Joshua W. and Jonathan Monten. 2008. Without Heirs? Assessing the Decline of
Establishment Internationalism in U.S. Foreign Policy. Perspectives on Politics
6(September): 451-472.
Wednesday December 9 –Final Paper (hard copy) due by 12:00 noon in Room 232.