MOD 7: The American Public and U.S. Foreign Policy
The American Public and U.S. Foreign Policy
Core Questions in Understanding US Foreign Policy
What are the components of a domestic model of international politics?
What domestic factors shape the making of US foreign policy?
How does the two-level game model help understand the influence of domestic political factors on US foreign policy content?
Which domestic nonstate groups influence US foreign policy, and what are their interests?
How do domestic institutions influence foreign policy by mediating conflict and bargaining among groups?
What are the "rally around the flag" effect, "war fatigue," and what does it mean to be "casualty-phobic"?
How can we differentiate foreign policy interests among US voters?
What factors explain which nonstate actors are most effective in shaping US government foreign policy choices?
Levels of Analysis in International Relations (Kenneth Waltz, Man, the State, and War, 1959)
First Image: Focuses on variables associated with individual differences, such as personal preferences, psychological factors (emotions, information processing), and gender.
Second Image: Focuses on variables internal and particular to states, reflecting their domestic political order and attributes.
Third Image: Focuses on variation in factors and relationships within the international system, external to individual states.
Waltz argues that the systemic (Third) level is the most effective for explaining war.
Domestic Models of International Politics and US Foreign Policy
These models focus on political attributes of states and their domestic political order to understand international outcomes.
Variables that matter can include:
Distribution of political interests within society: e.g., the relative number of Republicans or Democrats.
Regime type: Institutional rules determining which domestic groups select leaders and influence policymaking.
Economic factors: e.g., income distribution, level of economic development, or inflation rates.
Domestic variables can be organized by emphasis on:
Interests: What nonstate actors and political officials (agents of the state) desire as policy goals.
This module specifically explores the role of the public in U.S. foreign policy.
Institutions: The rules that determine how domestic actors resolve policy- and political-based conflicts stemming from interest-based differences (i.e., who wins).
Future modules on the Presidency and Congress will examine how power allocation to these branches dictates interactions with the public and bargaining between branches to define national interest, secure resources, and execute foreign policy.
In the United States, and democracies generally, elections are the primary mechanism for settling these conflicts and determining which groups (parties) hold influence over public policy for a limited period.
Analytical Separation in Domestic Models
These models assume an analytical separation:
Between states.
Between states and the larger international order.
The domestic political order of states is considered to exist independently of the larger system of states.
Domestic political orders are internally constituted by the internal distribution of power and interests held by citizens or state members.
Domestic politics is frequently modeled by focusing on domestic distributional conflict.
Domestic Politics and Institutionalized Distributional Conflict
Domestic politics differs from international politics due to institutionalized enforcement mechanisms:
Domestic: Relies on institutionalized third-party enforcement.
International: Relies on self-enforcement of contracts, often through the threat of war.
Domestic groups typically fight over:
Distribution of political power: e.g., between Republican and Democratic parties.
Distribution of income: e.g., through tax and spending policy.
Distribution of coercive/military power: e.g., which groups possess arms, and which enforce domestic laws/foreign policies.
Outcomes of these domestic conflicts significantly influence international political outcomes (how the U.S. interacts with other states) through:
Public goods provision: The level of US spending on areas like military, education, and healthcare.
Composition of national interests: And the degree to which these interests conflict with those of other states.
State administrative capacity: Which affects public officials' ability to sustain policy costs and remain in power.
These concepts will be further explored in the context of two-level games.
The Two-Level Game Concept
This model illustrates how foreign policy decisions are made simultaneously at two levels:
Level I (International Game): Bargaining between national delegations (states).
Level II (Domestic Game): Interactions between the national government and domestic interest groups, legislatures, and public opinion.
Domestic Factors Shaping International Bargaining
Divergent foreign policy interests among domestic groups: Competition (often resolved through elections in democracies) helps define the national interest.
Provision of resources for foreign policy: Domestic groups provide resources, such as tax revenues for military spending.
Implementation of foreign policies: Depends on presidential leadership over the bureaucracy.
Sustaining domestic costs: Managing opposition and costs arising from foreign policy decisions.
Domestic State and Nonstate Actors Influencing Foreign Policy
Domestic State Actors:
Political Leadership
State Bureaucracy
Military Organizations
Economics Ministries (Finance, Trade)
Foreign Ministry
Intelligence Organizations
Domestic Nonstate Actors:
Interest groups
Economic firms
Media
Political Parties
Individuals
Public Opinion and US Foreign Policy
A key question for democracies is whether U.S. politicians consider public opinion in foreign policy decisions.
Ignoring public opinion would have troubling implications for democratic legitimacy.
However, substantial evidence suggests politicians do consider public opinion, primarily through mechanisms of responsiveness and selection.
The Principal-Agent Problem in Democracies
Voters (Principals) delegate authority to or "hire" politicians (Agents) to make important policy decisions.
The core problem is whether politicians implement policies that fulfill voter interests or whether they "shirk" (act on their own preferences and ignore voters).
Elections assist in mitigating this problem.
Solving the Principal-Agent Problem Through Responsiveness
Politicians follow the will of voters because they fear electoral punishment or a decline in political influence if they do not.
Empirical evidence: A survey of 87 former and current members of the Israeli parliament (Knesset) found:
Politicians were more likely to support the use of military force after a hypothetical terrorist attack if they believed the public also supported it.
This is driven by a fear of electoral punishment: 61\% of politicians believed they would face some political punishment for ignoring public opinion.
Source: Michael Tomz, Jessica L.P. Weeks, and Keren Yarhi-Milo. 2020. Public Opinion and Decisions About Military Force in Democracies. International Organization 74: 119-143.
Solving the Principal-Agent Problem Through Selection
Voters can also solve the Principal-Agent problem by selecting politicians who already share their foreign policy views.
Once in office, these elected officials are intrinsically motivated to align with voter preferences, reducing the need for constant oversight or punishment.
Empirical evidence: Surveys of voters in the US and Israel confirm:
The foreign policy views of hypothetical candidates are considered just as important as their views on economic policy, religious policy, or candidate characteristics (e.g., race, gender, political experience).
Source: Michael Tomz, Jessica L.P. Weeks, and Keren Yarhi-Milo. 2020. Public Opinion and Decisions About Military Force in Democracies. International Organization 74: 119-143.
Rally Around the Flag Effect
Definition: The tendency for the public to rally behind the president and the cause of war during times of perceived crisis.
Reasons for this effect:
Nationalism: A surge in patriotic sentiment.
Lack of interest/information: Public may defer to leadership due to limited engagement or knowledge.
Dramatic impact of foreign crises: Crises capture public attention and create a sense of unity.
The Problem of Sustaining Public Support for War: War Fatigue
Definition: The tendency for public support for American military intervention to decline over time.
The American Public as "Casualty-Phobic"
Concept: "American public opinion became a key factor in all three wars, and in each one there has been a simple association: as casualties mount, support decreases." - John Mueller, The Iraq Syndrome.
Characteristics:
Historical trend: Observed consistently in the Korean, Vietnam, and Iraq Wars.
Immune to "damage control": This trend is difficult to reverse through public relations efforts.
Long-term apprehension: Leads to a lasting caution among the public regarding the future use of American military force.
Nonstate Actor Interests and US Foreign Policy
In democracies, governments are responsive to the policy goals and interests of voters.
Interests are constituted by:
Material concerns: Such as the desire to maximize income. This is evident in debates over trade policy, where globalization has differential income effects (some groups gain, others lose).
Ideational sources rooted in:
Collective identity (ethnicity, race, religion, party affiliation).
Ideas about the virtues of internationalism (versus skepticism towards isolationism or nationalism).
Ideological goals associated with classical liberalism (democracy, freedom, open markets).
In foreign policy, interests are frequently expressed along the following dimensions:
Globalization and trade policy.
Use of military force abroad.
Support for internationalism.
Support for or opposition to foreign groups (e.g., containment policy was organized around opposition to the Soviet Union and its foreign policies).
Domestic Politics as Interest-Based Political Competition
In democracies, nonstate actors compete to have their interests reflected in the selection of political leaders and the policies implemented.
The outcomes of this competition are structured by:
Institutions: Such as elections, campaign finance laws, and the media as an intermediary.
The relative balance of power among groups of nonstate actors:
The number of people who share those interests.
The effectiveness of these groups in coordinating their pressure campaigns on public officials.
The challenges of collective action problems.
The ability to coordinate around a common enemy.
Access to social media for mobilization and communication.
Access to financial resources that enable lobbying of public officials (e.g., through campaign contributions or hiring lobbyists).