Citation
Democracy promotion and U.S. foreign policy

Material Information

Title:
Democracy promotion and U.S. foreign policy the role of domestic norms
Creator:
Nisley, Thomas Jay
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
vii, 207 leaves : ill. ; 29 cm.

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
African Americans ( jstor )
Civil rights ( jstor )
Democracy ( jstor )
Foreign policy ( jstor )
Normativity ( jstor )
Political change ( jstor )
Public opinion ( jstor )
Public policy ( jstor )
War ( jstor )
World wars ( jstor )
Dissertations, Academic -- Political Science -- UF ( lcsh )
Political Science thesis, Ph.D ( lcsh )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Thesis:
Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2002.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references (leaves 182-206).
General Note:
Printout.
General Note:
Vita.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Thomas Jay Nisley.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
Copyright [name of dissertation author]. Permission granted to the University of Florida to digitize, archive and distribute this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.
Resource Identifier:
029222842 ( ALEPH )
51024004 ( OCLC )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text










DEMOCRACY PROMOTION AND U.S. FOREIGN POLICY:
THE ROLE OF DOMESTIC NORMS














By

THOMAS JAY NISLEY


A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


2002






























Copyright 2002

by

Thomas Jay Nisley














ACKNOWLEDGMENTS


This study is a product of many years of classroom work, beginning at the

undergraduate level, and three years of intense research and writing. I thank all my

professors who helped shape my understanding of politics and world affairs. Thanks go to

my dissertation committee who helped guide me in the dissertation process. I extend a

particular heartfelt thanks to my committee chair, Dr. M. Leann Brown, and to Dr. Ido

Oren for their thoughtful attention, comments, and suggestions for each of the draft

chapters.

I thank the Department of Political Science, which gave me the opportunity to

work as a teaching assistant while at the University of Florida. Acknowledgment and

appreciation go to the College of Liberal Arts, Gibson Dissertation Fellowship, for funding

a phase of the dissertation project. Acknowledgment goes to the U.S. Federal

government's student loan program. Without such a program, I never would have

financed my first year of study at the University of Florida.

Lifelong thanks go to my father, Kermit, and my mother, Joanne, whose

encouragement and support over the many years have helped me to achieve what I have.

Finally, the deepest thanks go to my wife, Clara, for her love and understanding

throughout the entire process.














TABLE OF CONTENTS



ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .............................................. iii

AB STRA CT ........................................................ vi

CHAPTERS

1 FOREIGN POLICY AND SOCIETAL CHANGE ...................... 1

2 THEORY OF FOREIGN POLICY AND DEMOCRACY PROMOTION .... 12

Introduction ................................................... 12
Theoretical Approach ........................................... 12
Domestic Norms in Foreign Policy .................................. 18
Explanations for U.S. Efforts to Promote Democracy and Human Rights ..... 25
Domestic Theories of Foreign Policy ................................ 33
Public Opinion and Foreign Policy .................................. 36
Causal Hypothesis .............................................. 41

3 NORMS AND THE GROWTH OF TOLERANCE .................... 45
Introduction ................................................... 45
Social Sciences, Norms and Explanation ............................. 46
Norms and a State's Identity ...................................... 51
American Identity ............................................... 54
Changing American Identity ....................................... 56
Social Movements and Identity Change ........................... 63
Multicultural and Tolerant America ................................. 71
Conclusion .................................................... 89

4 HUMAN RIGHTS IN U.S. FOREIGN POLICY ...................... 91
Introduction ................................................... 91
Presidential Rhetoric ............................................ 92
Human Rights in U.S. Foreign Policy ................................ 97
Uncertain Support 1945-1953 ............................... 98
Overt Neglect 1953-1976 .................................. 101









Support and Promotion 1977-2000 ........................... 107
Quantitative Analyses of U.S. Support for Human Rights ............... 111
Conclusion ................................................... 115

5 CONGRESS AND THE TRANSMISSION OF NORMS TO FOREIGN POLICY
S.......................................................... 118


Introduction ..................................
Constitutional Power and Foreign Policy ............
The Two Presidencies ..........................
Two Presidencies: Fact or Artifact ...........
A Resurgent Congress ....................
Constituent Influence on Congress ................
Congressional Influence .........................
Congress, Human Rights and Democracy Promotion ...
Conclusion ...................................

6 CONGRESS AND FOREIGN POLICY: CONTRA AID
AFRICAN SANCTIONS ........................
Introduction ..................................
Contra Aid ...................................
South African Sanctions .........................
Conclusion ...................................


118
119
122
124
127
130
133
136
152


AND SOUTH
. . . .


7 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION ................


.... 154
.... 154
.... 155
.... 161
.... 168

.... 170


REFERENCES ....................

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ...........


182

207














Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

DEMOCRACY PROMOTION AND U.S. FOREIGN POLICY:
THE ROLE OF DOMESTIC NORMS


By

Thomas Jay Nisley

August 2002


Chairperson: Dr. M. Leann Brown
Major Department: Political Science

Although the United States (U.S.) has generally emphasized democracy in its

international relations, the evidence suggests that in the post World War II era U.S. policy

increasingly displayed a tendency to promote actively the spread of democracy globally. I

contend that the primary source of policy change originates from changing domestic

norms regarding political and civil rights. As the commitment to political and civil rights

increased in the domestic arena, the commitment to political and civil rights internationally

increased. Before the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and other accomplishments of the Civil

Rights Movement, U.S. foreign policy decision makers cared little for regime type in their

policy orientations. After the social upheavals of 1960s, I have found a greater sensitivity

in U.S. policy toward democracy promotion. The early 1970s is a transition period in the








prevailing norms regarding civil and political rights in the United States and U.S. foreign

policy toward the promotion of human rights and democracy. The changes in norms led

to a change in identity. In the early 1970s, we find the basic U.S. identity shifting from a

Euro-American identity to a multicultural identity.

Theoretically my analysis originates from a constructivist approach to the study of

world politics. The constructivist approach emphasizes the impact of ideas, rather than

material considerations. This research specifically analyzes the changing normative

structure in the United States and the concurrent change in identity. This study links these

transformations to changes in foreign policy. The actions of the U.S. Congress regarding

human rights and democracy promotion are specifically analyzed. Congress represents the

link between domestic norms and foreign policy orientations.

The findings suggest that we must consider domestic level factors in our

explanations of international behavior and foreign policy. Particularly for the United

States, a human rights agenda and a policy of democracy promotion are associated with

domestic societal changes regarding political and civil rights and a general growth in

tolerance.














CHAPTER 1
FOREIGN POLICY AND SOCIETAL CHANGE


This study seeks to explain the sources of democracy promotion in U.S. foreign

policy. Although the United States has generally emphasized democracy in its

international relations, the evidence suggests that in the post World War II era U.S. policy

increasingly displayed a greater involvement in advancing the spread of democracy

globally. I contend that the primary source of policy change originates from changing

domestic norms regarding political and civil rights. As the commitment to political and

civil rights increased in the domestic arena, the commitment to political and civil rights

internationally increased. Before the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and other

accomplishments of the Civil Rights Movement, U.S. foreign policy decision makers cared

little for regime type in their policy orientations. After the social upheavals of 1960s, I

have found a greater sensitivity in U.S. policy toward democracy promotion. The early

1970s is a transition period in the prevailing norms regarding civil and political rights in

the United States. It is during this period that U.S. foreign policy toward the promotion

of human rights and democracy changes. The change in norms leads to changes in

identity.1 In the early 1970s we find the basic U.S. ethnic/racial identity shifting from a



'Identity is a multifaceted concept covering notions of the relation of the individual
to society, politics, and general world views such as fatalism or optimism. In this study
the change in identity is limited to that of racial/ethnic classification.

I








2

Euro-American identity to a multicultural identity. The multicultural identity includes not

only the acceptance of multiple racial and ethnic groups, but is also generally tolerant of all

forms of diversity. How the United States sees itself impacts on how it relates to the rest

of the world.

This study is important in how it analyzes domestic level factors on foreign policy.

Other works have examined the relationship between racism in the United States and U.S.

foreign policy (Hunt 1987, DeConde 1992). These works, for the most part, have shown

the deleterious effects of American racism in U.S. foreign relations. Recent research has

shown how advances in civil rights are related to the level of threat the United States

faced in the world system (Klinker and Smith 1999, Dudziak 2000). For the most part,

these works have neglected to examine the impact of declining domestic levels of racism

and U.S. foreign policy.

Some detractors will decry that the view of declining prejudices and increasing

tolerance presented in this study is pollyannaish. They will say that racism is alive and

well in the U.S. Others will claim that U.S. foreign policy does not consider human rights

and consistently violates human concerns for the larger "national interest." I am not at all

suggesting that racism or discrimination no longer plagues the United States. Neither am I

intimating that American foreign policy consistently supports democracy and human

rights. What I do suggest is that there have been changes in the U.S. domestic norms.

These changes have brought about an increase in respect for political and civil rights and a

tolerance for diversity at the domestic level. Moreover, U.S. foreign policy reflects these

changes.








3

To what extent has the United States changed? As a brief illustration we need only

to look at the United States and the actions of U.S. presidents during two different periods

of wartime. The actions of President Woodrow Wilson during World War I and George

W. Bush in the present "War against Terrorism" provide a study in contrast. As the

United States mobilized for war against Germany and the Central Powers, extensive

attacks occurred against German culture and German-Americans. German foods were

stripped of their names. Hamburgers became liberty sandwiches. Attacks on German-

Americans were prevalent.

Unique forms of violence were often devised by mobs to punish those charged
with disloyalty or pro-Germanism. For instance, in San Rafael, California, a man
had his hair clipped in the form of a cross, after which he was tied to a tree on the
courthouse lawn. A person of German birth in Salt Lake City was thrown into a
bin of dough where he almost suffocated. In Pennsylvania a man was taken from a
hotel room, "severely beaten, made to walk up and down the street with a dog
chain around his neck, forced to kiss the flag and doused into a large watering
trough" (Peterson and Fite 1957, 197).

In one case, near St. Louis in 1918, a mob bound a man in an American flag before they

lynched him (Kennedy 1980, 68). President Wilson remained mute to the attack on

German-Americans by Americans. David Kennedy (1980, 88) relates that Wilson

"persistently ignored pleas to speak out against attacks on German-Americans."

The actions of President George W. Bush after the attack of September 11, 2001

by Islamic extremists on the United States are in sharp contrast to the actions of Wilson.

The first hint of retaliatory attacks on Arab-Americans or Americans of the Islamic faith

brought a sharp and quick condemnation from the President. Standing barefoot in a tiled

prayer alcove in the Washington Islamic Center, President Bush declared that those "who










feel like they can intimidate our fellow citizens to take out their anger don't represent the

best of America. They represent the worst of humankind" (Lewis 2001, A5). Instead of

fanning the flames of bigotry and hatred, Bush declared that Islam is a religion of peace

and that the war was against terrorism, not Islam.

Cases of violence against Muslims did occur in the weeks after the attacks of 11

September. The American Islamic Council reports more than 625 complaints of violence

and harassment against Muslims and Islamic places of worship, and gunmen murdered two

individuals because they were Muslim or perceived as Muslim.2 Agents of the Federal

Bureau of Investigation were directed to investigate more than 40 potential hate crimes

including the two homicides. Nevertheless, the cases of violence were isolated and

usually solitary acts. The absence of any case of mob killing of Muslim Americans

represents a positive contrast to the actions of Americans in 1917. Professor Amitai

Etzioni of George Washington University, writing in the Christian Science Monitor.

declared that among the "many reasons these days to be proud to be American... is the

concerted effort to suppress expressions of anger against the terrorists from spilling over

to the religious group from which they hail" (Etzioni 2001, 9)

No American leader or journalist sought to excuse the attacks on Muslim

Americans as products of a thirst for revenge. In contrast, comments made by the

Washington Post in response to the killings of German-Americans at the onset of the U.S.

involvement in World War I were clearly exculpatory. Regarding the violent nationalism



2In Mesa, Arizona, a gunman murdered a Sikh owner of a gas station and in
Dallas, Texas, a Pakistani Muslim was gunned down in his grocery store.










of the time, the Washington Post declared: "In spite of the excess such as lynching, it is

healthful and wholesome awakening in the interior of the country" (quoted in Kennedy

1980, 68).

Woodrow Wilson was a bigot and a racist; George W. Bush cannot be so

considered.3 With that understood we can explain the differing responses of these two

men. Most apologists for historical figures with racist dispositions argue that we must

understand these individuals in the context of their times. The societal norms of the time

in which Wilson lived supported his world view. George W. Bush's outlook reflects the

American society today.

How are the domestic norms of a country reflected in its foreign policy? As I will

argue in the next chapter, we cannot separate state-level factors from the external policy

of a state. Individuals are shaped by the society in which they live. Norms that govern

and shape domestic behavior influence decision makers as they direct foreign policy.

Again we must turn to President Wilson. Wilson disliked the idea of hyphenated

Americanisms. He viciously attacked the foreign-born as "creatures of passion,

disloyalty, and anarchy" (quoted in Kennedy 1980, 67). In his third annual message to

Congress, Wilson proclaimed that those "born under other flags but welcomed under

generous naturalization laws to the full freedom and opportunity of America... have

poured the poison of disloyalty into the very arteries of our national life... [T]he hand of



3Wilson did not object to the Postmaster General widening the practice of
segregation among federal employees in 1913. "He had screened the film The Birth of a
Nation in the White House, and had endorsed its pro-Ku Klux Klan interpretation of post-
Civil War Reconstruction as 'history written with lightning'" (Kennedy 1980, 281).








6

our power should close over them at once" (quoted in Kennedy 1980, 24). Wilson viewed

the United States as one nation with one racial/ethnic identity, that is, white, Anglo-Saxon,

and Protestant.4 Holding to the view that all nations should have their own state, it is

understandable that Wilson promoted a policy of national self-determination and a break

up of the multiethnic state of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. From the early twentieth

century to the late twentieth century the American identity changes from a monocultural

identity to a multicultural identity. American policy toward the break up of Yugoslavia

did not reflect a Wilsonian view of national self-determination. Instead, policy makers

pursued a multiethnic solution. From the Vance-Owen plan to the Dayton Accords, U.S.

policy makers consistently aspired to develop a state composed of multiple ethnic groups

in war ravaged Bosnia. In the summer of 2001, ethnic conflict between Albanians and

Macedonians suggested a break up of Macedonia. The United States under the aegis of

the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) refused to support the ethnic Albanian

claims to sovereignty and committed troops in the peaceful settlement of the ethnic

conflict.

In this study, the foreign policy area investigated is that of the promotion of

democracy. Most of the literature on democracy promotion suggests it to be a long-

standing U.S. policy. Gregory Fossedal (1989) in The Democratic Imperative argues that

the U.S. promotes democracy abroad as an embodiment of its democratic nature.



'Similar sentiment of this can still be found today in the works of writers like
Patrick Buchanan. These sentiments also exist in academia. Samuel Huntington (1997)
calls for immigrants to accept English as the national language and commit "to the
Principles of the American creed and the Protestant work ethic."










According to Joshua Muravchik (1992) in Exporting Democracy, a foreign policy that

links an American identity with the cause of democracy finds deep roots in American

history. In America's Mission, Tony Smith (1994) ties the promotion of democracy with

U.S. security interests and traces its origins to the U.S. Civil War. Most scholars attribute

the absence of democracy promotion to the absence of strong domestic political leadership

or to international security factors. Domestic and societal normative changes in the

United States are for the most part ignored in the literature on democracy promotion.

One attempt to develop a nuanced explanation for U.S. democracy promotion and

account for an evolution and change in policy can be found in William Robinson's (1996)

Promoting Polyarchy. Robinson suggests that with a globalized world economy the core

countries led by the United States can no longer use coercive measures to control the poor

states in the periphery. To limit calls for greater economic participation in the developing

world, the United States promotes "low intensity democracy" or polyarchy as a way to

relieve pressure from subordinate groups for more fundamental political, social, and

economic change. "Low intensity democracy" or polyarchy is political democracy under

capitalism which maintains "elite minority rule and socioeconomic inequalities alongside

formal political freedom and elections involving universal suffrage" (Robinson 1996, 356).

Whereas most scholars view democracy promotion as a long-standing tradition in U.S.

policy, Robinson correctly understands that it is a recent phenomenon. This study agrees

with Robinson's contention that the U.S. promotes polyarchy. The U.S. political system

is best characterized as a polyarchy. Therefore, it makes sense that U.S. policy makers

would seek to promote the form of democracy that characterizes their own political










structure. Where he claims that policy change is a product ofglobalization and

transnational forces, my research suggests that we must turn to domestic sources in the

United States.

I argue that change in U.S. norms regarding domestic political and civil rights

translates into changes in foreign policy regarding the promotion of political and civil

rights externally (i.e., democracy promotion). The independent variable is the domestic

normative structure. Norms are culturally defined rules of conduct that specify what is

appropriate and what is proper or necessary behavior within groups, organizations and

institutions. Changes in this variable are considered permanent or at least not readily

reversible. The intervening variables are the avenues of transmission of domestic norms to

the policymaking apparatus. Domestic norms on foreign policy (here democracy

promotion) affect the policy making apparatus from many sources including the polls, the

media and interest groups. An examination of these sources is incorporated in the

following analysis. However, this study concentrates on policy changes originating from

the U.S. Congress as the primary indicator of change in domestic norms. The assumption

is that the legislative branch is closest to the electorate and thus will be the first to reflect

changes in the broader society. By examining the activities of Congress we can link

change at the domestic level to changes in foreign policy. The dependent or outcome

variable is democracy promotion. The conception of democracy embraced in this study is

compatible with the conception of polyarchy. Promoting democracy encompasses the

promotion of regular, free, and fair elections and universal suffrage, informational

pluralism, civil liberties and human rights, functional autonomy for legislative, executive










and judicial branches, and effective power and accountability for elected officials (Dahl

1971).

The temporal domain of the study covers the post World War II era, 1945-2000.

This study is composed of seven chapters. After this brief introduction, chapter 2

provides the theoretical background for the dissertation. Theoretically my analysis

originates from a constructivist approach to the study of world politics. The constructivist

approach emphasizes the impact of ideas, rather than material considerations. A

constructivist theory suggests that norms are a constitutive component of a state's

interests. My approach differs from standard constructivism regarding where norms come

from and how they emerge to influence world politics. The tendency among

constructivist scholars is to suggest that states are socialized to accept new norms and

perceptions of interests through international interactions. This study takes a state level

view to the constructivist approach. Instead of norms being the sole product of

international interaction, change in the domestic normative structure is offered as the

origin of international behavior.

In chapter 3,1 discuss the importance of norms for the social sciences and examine

how norms constitute identity. This leads to a discussion of changes in the normative

structure in the United States and the changes in the American identity. Although norms

often change gradually, the data suggest that the early 1970s mark the point at which

domestic norms change. The context in which change occurs is through the presence of

protest movements organized with respect to issues of political and civil rights. I use data

from the National Elections Studies and national survey groups such as Gallup to show a










change over time in the American public's attitudes toward political and civil rights.

Also, I analyze cultural and political changes during the period.

Beginning with a focus on the presidency, Chapter 4 examines changes in U.S.

foreign policy toward the promotion of human rights and democracy. Through contextual

evidence and the use of the last twenty-five years of quantitative research, I assess the

relationship between U.S. foreign assistance and the violation of human rights by recipient

countries. The evidence suggests that U.S. foreign policy has changed with that change

taking place in the 1970s. This change occurs concurrently with the change in domestic

norms that has produced a multicultural American identity identified in the previous

chapter.

In chapter 5,1 flesh out the indicator variable of Congress and show how the

change in domestic norms influences changes in foreign policy. This leads to a discussion

of the role of constituent influence on members of Congress. More than any other branch

of government, the Congress most accurately reflects the norms of the United States.

With members facing reelection every two years, the House of Representatives most

immediately reveals changes at the domestic level in the governing structure.

Congress exerts significant power over foreign policy through legislative and

nonlegislative tools such as public hearings. Taking a cue from the "new institutionalist"

literature on American government, I address the mechanisms beyond the legislative

process by which Congress can influence foreign policy. I show how the civil rights

movement influenced members of Congress in their thinking toward foreign policy.








11

Finally, I confront the legislative and procedural changes that Congress has undertaken to

incorporate the promotion of democracy and human rights into U.S. foreign policy. I

integrate my findings on the change in domestic norms into the analysis of Congressional

activity.

In Chapter 6 I discuss two cases, South African sanctions and the Contra aid

debates, where the President and Congress differed over promoting human rights and

democracy and the Congress actually constrained presidential action. Chapter 7 of the

dissertation summarizes my findings and draws conclusions from the study. I find a

significant change in the domestic normative structure regarding political and civil rights

over the duration of the period studied. U.S. foreign policy has reflected this change in

public norms in the direction of greater concern for political and civil rights. In the next

chapter I discuss the importance of locating an understanding of foreign policy at the

domestic level and address the relevance of norms to foreign policy.














CHAPTER 2
THEORY OF FOREIGN POLICY AND DEMOCRACY PROMOTION

Introduction

Although the United States has generally emphasized democracy in its

international relations, the evidence suggests that in the post World War II era U.S. policy

increasingly emphasized good relations with democratic states and a greater involvement

in advancing the spread of democracy globally. The primary source of policy change

emanates from changing domestic norms regarding political and civil rights. As the

commitment to political and civil rights increases in the domestic arena, the commitment

to political and civil rights internationally increases. The basic puzzle of my research is to

what extent do changes in domestic norms result in changes in foreign policy?

In this chapter, I present my theoretical approach in understanding this question.

The study is grounded in a constructivist perspective. I also address the relevance of

norms in the study of foreign policy. Second, I review the literature addressing democracy

promotion and U.S. foreign policy. Third, I discuss the importance of locating this

analysis at the domestic level and in doing so consider the relationship of domestic norms

to the formation of foreign policy.

Theoretical Approach

Theoretically my analysis originates from a constructivist approach to the study of

world politics. The constructivist approach emphasizes the impact of ideas, rather than










material considerations. Primarily, constructivism is a way of studying social relations.

Human beings are social beings and would not be human but for social relations. Social

relations and individual identities are mutually constitutive. Norms of behavior link

individuals to society and society to individuals (Onuf 1998). This study defines a norm as

a standard of behavior taken to be proper and acceptable. A norm is a principle of right

action binding on the members of a group. In societal relations, norms guide the behavior

of actors and set regularities of action. Society is a system made up of the interaction of

human individuals in which "each member is both actor (having goals, ideas, attitudes,

etc.) and object of orientation for both other actors and himself." With this assumption,

we may understand how the system behaves based on broadly shared goals, ideas, and

attitudes of the individuals. These goals, ideas and attitudes constitute norms of behavior.

"The core of a society, as a system, is the patterned normative order through which life of

a population is collectively organized" (Parsons 1966, 8-10).

The state is the political expression of the society. From a social contract theory

of the origins of the state, we can understand the state as a product of the society.

Thomas Hobbes, one of the first social contract theorists, argued that individuals gave up

some of their freedoms and agreed to be bound by the rule of the King. In return, the

King provided order, thus removing the individual from the state of nature in which

Hobbes described life as "nasty, brutish and short" (quoted in Coulter 1984, 35). Jean

Jacques Rousseau's version of the social contract further connects society to the state.

With his notion of the 'general will' Rousseau makes this connection explicit: "So long as

several men together consider themselves to be a single body, they have but a single will,










which is concerned with their common preservation and the general well-being"

(Rousseau 1992, 966). The norms that bind the individuals together in a single body

shape their collective perceptions regarding the necessities for preservation and what

constitutes the general well-being. We can understand many behaviors of the state by

reflecting on the basic construction of a particular state's society.

A constructivist approach to foreign policy is better understood when juxtaposed

to its theoretical antithesis, rational-materialism. A rational-materialist theory of foreign

policy such as Classical Realism suggests that a state be understood as a rational unitary

actor seeking to maximize its own interests or national objectives in world politics. For

Realism, a state's foreign policy is a response to changes in relative capabilities of other

states. Realism contends that states do and must respond to the outside world without

moral consideration. Realism proposes an amoral foreign policy with material power

being the immediate concern (Morgenthau 1985). A rationalist-materialist approach can

explain many state behaviors. However, we cannot account some aspects of state

behavior for based on material interests. Conversely, I do not claim that we can explain all

state behaviors through an examination of norms and state identities. Nevertheless, a

focus on norms best accounts some behaviors such as the promotion of democracy for

through a constructivist approach. A theory of foreign policy from a constructivist

approach posits that a state's national interests derive from a collective understanding

within a state and an intersubjective understanding among states, rather than an

understanding derived from the distribution of material capabilities. A state's interest is

closely tied with its identity and the societal norms shape that identity. Whereas Realism










assumes that all actors in global politics have one meaningful identity, that of a self-

interested actor, "constructivism treats identity as an empirical question to be theorized

within a historical context... "(Hopf 1998, 175).

The constructivist approach to the study of world politics emphasizes the process

of interaction that leads to state identity and interest formation. The model of behavior is

one of rule-governed action. Instead of a calculus of rational action based on ends and

means, actors' (i.e., states) behavior is based on the situation and the designated

appropriate behavior for the given situation. Norms produce guidelines that shape the

actors' understanding of their interests. A constructivist theory suggests that norms are a

constitutive component of a state's interests.

Norms are relevant, to some extent, in all schools of international relations theory;

however, only the constructivist approach views norms as fundamental. Jeffrey Checkel

(1998, 327-328) informs that:

While realists see norms as lacking causal force, neoliberal regime theory argues
that they play an influential rule in certain issue areas. However, even for
neoliberals, norms are still a superstructure built upon a material base: they serve a
regulative function, helping actors with given interests maximizing utility. Agents
(states) create structures (norms and institutions). For constmructivists, by contrast,
norms are collective understandings that make behavior claims on actors. Their
efforts reach deeper: they constitute actor identities and interest and do not simply
regulate behavior.

From the constructivist perspective the building blocks of reality are not only material but

ideational. State interaction creates the normative base that forms the social milieu. For

most constructivists, the level of analysis is the system. State and nonstate interaction

creates intersubjective understandings and frames identity.








16

The approach taken in this study differs from standard constructivism in regards to

where norms come from and how they emerge to influence world politics. Most

constructivist scholars assume that states are socialized to accept new norms and

perceptions of interests through international interactions. Alexander Wendt (1996,48)

offers constructivism as a structural theory of world politics. The core claims of a

structural constructivism are the following: (1) states are the principal actors in the

system; (2) the key structures in the system are intersubjective not material; and (3) those

structures construct interests and identities, rather than determined by exogenous factors

to the system such as human nature or domestic politics. This follows in an identification

of world politics as a larger society in which values are mutually given (Bull 1977). A

society of states exists when a group of states is conscious of and maintains certain

common interests and common values. A common set of norms binds these states in their

relations with each other. States maintain certain norms and construct norms through

interaction with other states creating larger societal norms that reconstitute state level

norms.

Some scholars argue that international norms appear when they are welcomed and

championed by a hegemon (Ikenberry and Kupchan 1990). Other scholars argue that

agents for global normative change are not states, but nonstate actors. These scholars

have focused on the role of international institutions (Finnemore 1996) or transnational

groups (Sikkink 1993, Klotz 1995) in the diffusion of norms. Along with a focus on

transnational actors the origin of new norms of behavior is often linked to principled ideas

held by individuals (Finnemore and Sikkink 1998). Ethan Nadleman (1990) has










emphasized the influence of individuals, with firmly held beliefs of right and wrong and a

desire to convert others to those ideas, who act as transnational moral entrepreneurs. I

contend that these scholars do not place enough emphasis on state level factors in the

development of norms. Individuals are important, but how can we explain why some gain

legitimacy in their views while others do not? Of course transnational organizations help

diffuse norms throughout an international society; however, a hegemon enhances this

diffusion when it embraces the same norms. This study takes a state level view to the

constructivist approach. Instead of norms being the sole product of international

interaction, changes in the domestic normative structure will be offered as the origin of

international behavior.

Scholars in the constructivist vein suggest that the international normative

environment alters the character of states and state behavior (Jepperson et al. 1996).

Nevertheless, these scholars have failed to indicate the origin of the normative structure

other than being produced by the intersubjective understandings of the states. Thomas

Rise-Kappen reminds us that norms do not "float freely" and are at a minimum mediated

through the individual state's domestic structure (Risse-Kappen 1994). Stephen Krasner

further argues that the domestic structures of states determine the international

environment, particularly the domestic structures of the most powerful states "In the

contemporary world transnational fascist and racist organizations are weak; this would

hardly be the case if Germany had won the Second World War" (Krasner 1995, 266). The

same line of reasoning would lead to the assumption that the supremacy of market

solutions to economic problems and the dominance of multinational corporations in the








18
global economy would not exist if the United States had collapsed in 1991 rather than the

Soviet Union. Therefore, we must examine the domestic normative structure of a state to

understand its external behavior. Moreover, if the state is a powerful one, it has the

capacity to shape the general international normative environment. U.S. foreign policy

behavior is more influenced by domestic norms than by the norms propagated by less

powerful states or institutionalized in systemic bodies.

Domestic Norms in Foreign Policy

A state's foreign policy decisions emerge from three levels of influence: (1)

external or international influences; (2) internal or state influences; and (3) individual

influences (Kegley and Wittkopf 1996). At the first level we find the external sources of

foreign policy, or international influences. This includes systemic factors, such as the

prevalence of conflict, the extent of trade interdependence, or the intersubjective

understandings states develop through the process of interaction. The second level of

internal influences brings in the domestic sources of foreign policy. The broadest category

includes the state's societal environment, which contains the values, beliefs, norms, and

self-images widely shared by the broader culture. These factors in the state's societal

environment compose its identity. A second category at the internal level is the

institutional setting. This includes the governmental structures, the division of authority,

and the decision-making process. The third level represents the characteristics of

individual decision makers. This level focuses on how individual personality

characteristics explain how decision makers choose to conduct foreign policy.










All three levels can account for variations in a state's foreign policy. At the

systemic level, a state's foreign policy options are directly related to the global distribution

of power (Waltz 1979). Some states, based on their relative power capabilities, have

greater leeway in their choices. Nevertheless, as the extant literature on the democratic

peace suggests, the type of political regime is an important predictor of a state's foreign

policy (see Chan 1997 for an excellent review). The type of political regime circumscribes

a state's options irrespective of power capabilities. The institutional structure of the

foreign policy making process and organizational procedures shape foreign policy

outcomes (Allison and Zelikow 1999, Nisley 1999). At the individual level psychological

and personality differences account for variance in decision making behavior (Jervis 1976,

McDermott 1998). This study argues that the prevailing domestic norms at the societal

level will provide a robust account of a state's foreign policy behavior regarding the

promotion of democracy. Norms set boundaries on behavior, restricting some and

mandating others.

Societal norms structure all three levels of influence in some way. Societal norms

dictate how a state will respond to systemic constraints. Although the structure of the

system limits choices, choices do remain. State institutions and organizational structure

are derived from and influenced by larger societal norms. Democratic institutions are

legitimate through democratic norms. Individual decision makers are products of the

societies to which they are born. For example, AdolfHilter's anti-Semitism and

xenophobia were not far removed from the rural Austro-German culture in which he was

reared and were widely embraced by the broader German culture.








120

As a factor in a state's foreign policy, norms are fundamental. Societal norms and

ideas held by individuals help shape a state's foreign policy. Judith Goldstein and Robert

Keohane (1993) provide a framework that explains how ideas (beliefs held by individuals)

explain policy outcomes. Although Goldstein and Keohane emphasize ideas, their

framework is relevant for this study since norms are in essence the collective ideas of

proper and improper behavior held by the larger society. Goldstein and Keohane offer

three types of ideas: world views, principled beliefs, and causal beliefs. World views

address the concept of what is possible and "are embedded in the symbolism of a culture

and deeply affect modes of thought and discourse" (Goldstein and Keohane 1993, 8).

Principled beliefs specify the criteria of right and wrong and are often justified in terms of

world views (Goldstein and Keohane 1993, 9). The third category of ideas, causal beliefs

"are beliefs about cause-effect relationships which derive authority from the shared

consensus of recognized elites..." (Goldstein and Keohane 1993, 10).

Goldstein and Keohane identify three causal pathways through which ideas

influence policy. Ideas may serve as road maps assisting individuals in the determination

of their own preferences or to understand relationships (Goldstein and Keohane 1993, 13).

Ideas serve as focal points and help individuals choose from among multiple outcomes

(Goldstein and Keohane 1993, 17). Finally, ideas influence policy as they become

"institutionalized" (Goldstein and Keohane 1993, 20). Ideas influence organization design

and the development of political institutions, administrative agencies, legal structures and

operating procedures, that mediate between ideas and outcomes.








21
John Ruggie suggests that the Goldstein and Keohane typology does not advance

us far from the neo-utilitarian precepts of neoliberal regime theory (Ruggie 1998, 17).

Goldstein and Keohane seek to use ideas to account for unexplained variance in their

rationalist models. Beliefs are not independent variables, they are intervening variables

that explain anomalies in a rational-materialistic account. Goldstein and Keohane (1993,

7) declare that "we do not seek to explain the sources of these ideas; we focus on their

effects." The Goldstein and Keohane typology provides a starting point, but we must

move further and account for norms as independent causal variables. Individual ideas are

translated through intersubjective beliefs into social facts. This is what the philosopher

Searle calls collective intentionality. Intentionality remains an individual event, "[bl]ut

within those individual heads it exists in the form 'we intend' and 'I intend only as part of

our intending'" (quoted in Ruggie 1998, 20). Broad societal norms are important

explanatory variables in the study of world politics.

Domestic norms are the most important part of the explanation of the democratic

peace. In matters of war and peace, the empirical evidence strongly suggests that

democracies are more peaceful in their relations with other democracies (Maoz and

Abdolali 1989, Russett 1993, Ray 1995). Some scholars have found evidence to suggest

that democracies are more peaceful in international relations overall. Stuart Bremer finds

that democratic states are less likely than nondemocratic states to engage in militarized

interstate disputes (Bremer 1992). David Rousseau and his colleagues (1996, 527)

present evidence suggesting that "democracies are less likely to initiate crisis with all other

types of states." R. J. Rummel (1983) has gone far as to assert that democracies are less








22
warlike than other types of regimes. Moreover, he concludes that the more democratic a

regime the less severe will be its foreign violence (Rummel 1996, 71). Rummel further

extends the pacific benefits of democracy to a state's internal relations. Democracies are

the most internally peaceful regimes, or as Rummel declares "democracies don't murder

their citizens" (Rummel 1996, 91).

The question we must ask is why do democracies appear to be more pacific in all

of their relations? Zeev Maoz and Bruce Russett (1993) offer two alternative explanations

for the democratic peace: a structural/linstitutional account that suggests that bellicose

executives in democracies are constrained by elected representative institutions and a

normative account that emphasizes certain aspects of liberal democracy market

economies, nonviolent resolution of differences, the rule of law as guiding relations

between democratic states. Scholars differ about which factors are more important.

Bruce Bueno de Mesquita and David Lalman (1992, 156) dismiss the normative account

since democracies will still fight nondemocratic countries; beingig a liberal democracy

does not guarantee that a nation behaves like a dove, just as failing to be a liberal

democracy does not guarantee that a nation is hawk like." Christopher Layne (1994) also

makes this argument. Maoz and Russett (1993) demonstrate that both the

structural/institutional and normative accounts offer explanations of the democratic peace,

however, democratic norms are even more positively correlated with low conflict than

democratic institutions.

The division of the explanation into a structural and a normative account is a false

dichotomy. Even Bruce Russett (1993,40) recognizes that the two models are not neatly








23
separable and that institutionsos depend on norms and procedures." John Owen (1994)

argues that liberal ideas (norms) produce both democratic ideology and institutions, which

work together to constraint government and produce the democratic peace. Liberal states

"trust those states they consider fellow liberal democracies and see no reason to fight

them" (Owen 1996, 153). The problem with the broader normative argument is that most

scholars researching the democratic peace assume that domestic norms are static rather

than dynamic. Any state that meets the scholar's definition of democracy is considered

imbued with democratic norms. However, our conceptions of democracy have changed

over time so why should we not consider that democratic norms have changed also?'

In quantitative studies on the democratic peace, the indicators for norms have a

limited capacity to capture the dynamic concept of domestic norms. For example, in his

test of the democratic peace in the post World War U era, Russett (1993) uses two proxy

variables to capture domestic norms: the persistence of a political regime and the level of

domestic political violence measured by the number of violent political deaths and the

number of political executions. Russett proposes that a society with strong democratic

norms would be characterized by a political regime of some duration and with little or no


'For a tightly reasoned argument to the changing nature of democracy see C.H.
Macpherson (1977), The Life and Times of Liberal Democracy. Macpherson argues that
Western liberal democracy did not emerge until the nineteenth century when liberal
theorists came to believe that one man one vote would not be dangerous to private
property. Democracy has moved through four identifiable phases: (1) Protective
Democracy that only protected the governed from abuses of the government; (2)
Developmental Democracy that brought a moral dimension to democracy seeing
democracy as a means to individual self-development; (3) Equilibrium Democracy that
rejects individual self-development and instead provides a justification for a competition
between elites, and finally (4) Participatory Democracy that is an emerging phase of
democratic life with more extensive individual inputs into the governing process.










political violence.

Both are behavioral indicators that cannot capture the concept of democratic

norms. One can easily imagine a society in which a thoroughgoing anti-democratic

attitude dominates the culture, such a religious community. This may be a long-standing

regime in which political violence need not exist. The Puritan colony of early America

comes to mind as an example, as well the Kingdom of Bhutan today. Although the

absolute monarchy in Bhutan was changed to a form of democratic monarchy in 1969,

democratic norms do not characterize the society. Rather, a subservience to traditional

culture and Buddhism characterize Bhutan. No political violence is necessary to maintain

order.

A further problem with democratic norms is the potential for a subjective bias. Ido

Oren (1995) contends that the democratic peace is subjective and the United States over

the years has redefined its definition of democracy "to keep our self-image consistent with

our friends' attributes and inconsistent with those of our adversaries" (Oren 1996, 263).

Although Oren does recognized internal changes to the U.S.'s definition of democracy, he

puts more emphasis on external influences of foreign policy. According to Oren, President

Woodrow Wilson's image of Imperial Germany changed as a function of the foreign

policy process. Wilson once considered Germany an ideal democracy with an advanced

and effective political system. It is only when relations turned bellicose in 1917 that

Wilson developed a negative perception of Germany. Oren's argument is compatible with

Owen's. For a democratic peace to be maintained liberal states must perceive other states

as liberal. External threats do appear to play role, nevertheless, the prevailing domestic








25

normative structure energizes the linkages of perception. Domestic norms change, often

profoundly over time. To illustrate such deep changes one only has to think of President

Wilson. IfWoodrow Wilson were a politician today, given his Anglo-Saxonist views and

racist disposition, he would not be considered a mainstream, viable candidate for national

office.

Norms are important explanatory variables. Clearly, a state's foreign policy

emerges from multiple levels of influence and multiple variables. All social phenomena

derive from plural causes (Mill 1846). However, if we embrace the idea that the state is a

product, a reflection, and the expression of society, we can understand state behavior by

understanding the norms held by that society. Broad societal norms stimulate actions at

all levels of influence. Norms change over time and with a change in norms we find

changes in state policies and actions. The next section considers the literature about a

particular U.S. policy, the promotion of democracy and human rights abroad.

Explanations for U.S. Efforts to Promote Democracy and Human Rights

The preponderance of the literature on democracy promotion by the United States

has tended toward a normative policy approach. Exemplars of this type are Transitions

from Authoritarian Rule: Prospects for Democracy a four-volume collection edited by

Guillermo O'Donnell, Philip C. Schimitter and Laurence Whitehead, and Democracy in

Developing Countries, another four volume series, edited by Larry Diamond, Juan J. Linz

and Seymor Martin Lipset. Both volumes were commissioned by organizations funded by










the U.S. Congress.2 This type of literature is less an academic explanation and more a

policy handbook. Larry Diamond's (1995) report to the Carnegie Commission on

Preventing Deadly Conflict, Promoting Democracy in the 1990s: Actors and Instruments.

Issues and Imperative is the ultimate guide for the policymaker seeking to promote

democracy. The report provides a justification for promoting democracy (as a means to

global order and U.S. national security) and presents all of the actors and instruments

needed to promote democracy.3 In seeking to understand U.S. foreign policy this type of

literature provides no explanation except as objects of inquiry themselves.

A body of literature on U.S. democracy promotion that seeks to explain the

phenomenon does exist. Some of this literature perceives the policy as a natural

manifestation of a democracy. For example, Gregory Fossedal (1989) argues that the

U.S. promotes democracy abroad as an embodiment of its democratic nature. Contrary to

the perception of isolationism within the American public, Fossedal contends that public

opinion since the end of World War II has consistently remained interventionist. The

promotion of democracy aboard is a necessary product of a democratic state. Fossedal

(1989, 220) declares that "to argue against a foreign policy to promote the rights of man,

then, is to argue against the rights themselves, and thus against our own institutions."





2 The Diamond et al. volumes were commissioned by the National Endowment for
Democracy and the O'Donnell et al. series were funded by the Woodrow Wilson Center.

'For the latest policy and strategic assessment on democracy promotion published
by the Carnegie Endowment see Thomas Carothers (1999) Aiding Democracy Abroad:
The Learning Curve.










Joshua Muravchik (1992), much like Francis Fukuyama (1992), sees the triumph

of the U.S. in the Cold War as a victory of democratic ideology over other ideologies.

According to Muravchik, democratic ideas have been indefatigably connected with the

United States since its inception and a foreign policy that emphasizes an American identity

with the cause of democracy finds deep roots in American history. Muravchik explains

the absence of a policy toward democracy promotion to the absence of strong domestic

leadership. The spirit of democracy has always existed in the American soul, all it needed

was a leader to revive it. Muravchik links the rekindled spirit of democracy to President

Ronald Reagan. Therefore, democracy promotion is a product of America's spirit and the

general elan of democracy. The absence of democracy promotion is attributed to currents

of isolationism in U.S. foreign policy that have obviated the natural tendency of the

democracy spirit. It is isolationism that Muravchik decries and instead exhorts a policy of

"democratic internationalism" in which the U.S. pursues peace by making more countries

democratic and actively shapes the international climate to one that is congenial to the

United States.

Tony Smith (1994) also ties the promotion of democracy with U.S. security

interests. Smith chronicles the U.S. efforts to promote democracy beginning with the

reconstruction of the South after the Civil War. For Smith, the progenitor of a global

policy of democracy promotion is President Wilson. It is Wilson who lays the ground

work for U.S. security policy for the twentieth century with the tenets developed in his

Fourteen Points: that nationalism should be respected; that democracy is the only

legitimate form of government; that the United States has an interest and an obligation to










further democracy abroad; that democracy and capitalism are mutually reenforcing

systems; and that in a world of many states there is a need for international law

encouraged by multilateral institutional arrangements.4

Smith characterizes U.S. policy to promote democracy as one that waxes and

wanes depending on the individual presidential administration. F.D. Roosevelt is said to

have backed away from Wilson's ambition to promote democracy in the Western

Hemisphere. After the Second World War, the democratization of the conquered Axis

states and the general support for democracy in Europe through the Marshall plan is hailed

as a Wilsonian triumph. However, Eisenhower is regarded as stepping back from

democracy and even overthrowing democratically elected governments. Although

characterized as an abysmal failure, Kennedy's Alliance for Progress is lauded as an

exemplary program in the Wilsonian vein. Surprisingly, Smith leaves a gapping hole in his

analysis and fails to address an entire decade with the Johnson and Nixon administrations.

The only discussion of these two administrations is to conclude that they were a

reassertion of realism from the Eisenhower years. Smith portrays Carter as naively

promoting human rights but failing to understand the deeper significance of Wilsonianism

as a means to establish U.S. security through the promotion of democracy. It is Ronald



4 In contrast to Smith's claim that Wilson established the paradigm for U.S. foreign
policy that is still applicable today, Frank Ninkovich (1999) in The Wilsonian Century
suggests that Wilsonian internationalism was only a response to crisis in world politics.
Wilsonian internationalism was based on the assumption that the world had stumbled into
a new and dangerous phase which obliged U.S. policy makers to abandon traditional
diplomacy. With the end of the Cold War, Ninmkovich predicts that U.S. policy will revert
to a normal internationalism based less on ideological orientations and more traditional
notions of national interests.










Wilson Reagan whom Smith crowns as the heir to the true liberal internationalism of

Wilson. "Reagan emerges as the direct descendent of Wilson, for to an extent unmatched

since Wilson's days, the promotion of democracy was both a means and an end in

Reagan's foreign policy" (Smith 1994, 269).

A significant weakness of Smith's analysis is his privileging the individual level of

analysis. The foundation of Smith's analysis rests on the differences between particular

presidents and their abilities to perceive correctly Wilson's notions of U.S. security and

the promotion of democracy. Smith fails to address adequately why the exigencies of the

Cold War compelled Eisenhower to work with and support authoritarian allies and come

to an understanding with the Soviet Union, while for Reagan the same conflict obligated

him to promote a democratic revolution and confront the "evil empire" ruled from

Moscow.

Domestic level changes in the United States are for the most part ignored in the

literature on democracy promotion. This failure on Smith's part is puzzling since he

advocates injecting a comparative politics approach to the study of the spread of

democracy globally. Smith wants us to understand the international origins of democracy

by systematically analyzing the impact of U.S. foreign policy on other state's domestic

structure. Nevertheless, changes in U.S. domestic structure are not accounted for in U.S.

policy changes.

G. John Ikenberry (2000) sees the promotion of democracy by the United States,

particularly in the post World War H era, as a learned strategy to maintain a congenial

security environment. This is a recognition by U.S. policy makers of the democratic










peace. To his credit, Ikenberry does not suggest democracy promotion to be long-

standing U.S. policy. The recent U.S. preoccupation with democracy and human rights "is

part of a larger liberal view about the sources of a stable, legitimate, secure, and

remunerative international order" (Ikenberry 2000, 104). Like Smith, Ikenberry links U.S.

policy to issues of security and grand strategy. Both of their arguments are compatible

with the neoclassic realist position that posits that intentions as well as capabilities shape a

state's foreign policy (Walt 1987). As Randall Schweller informs us, "according to this

realist school, threat does not inhere in power alone, the relative distribution of capabilities

among states is less important than assessments of others' intentions in determining how

states interact with each other" (Schweller 2000,42). Associated with the grand strategy

of democracy is the promotion of economic openness and market economies. As

Ikenberry states in the U.S. system of democracy enlargement internationalol business is a

coalition partner" (Ikenberry 2000, 126). The association with economic issues raises

questions of economic motivations for democracy promotion by the United States.

William Robinson's (1996) provides a nuanced explanation for U.S. democracy

promotion and accounts for an evolution and change in policy. Arguing from a Gramscian

perspective of politics and a Wisconsin School of diplomatic history, Robinson suggests

that the core countries led by the United States have realized that in a globalized world

economy successful control of the periphery is not possible through coercive measures. In

an attempt to limit calls for greater participation and high intensity democracy by countries

in the developing world, the United States has promoted low intensity democracy or

polyarchy. Polyarchy is "a way to relieve pressure from subordinate groups for more








31

fundamental political, social and economic change" (Robinson 1996, 6). The democracy

agenda by the United States is a cover for more basic economic objectives.

Whereas most of the other scholars discussed above view democracy promotion as

a long-standing tradition in U.S. policy, Robinson correctly understands that it is a recent

phenomenon. However, one has to remain skeptical of his thesis that a transnational

managerial class has appeared at the pinnacle of a global class structure. According to

Robinson, the power of globalization has reduced the power of states to control and

regulate economic activity within national borders, nevertheless, a transnational elite has

set out to create a global civil society to further its own interests. Globalization

deconcentrates power and limits the ability of any single actor state or nonstate from

dominating political and economic activities. Nevertheless, Robinson would have us

believe that the transnational managerial class, which has penetrated civil society and

gained command over popular mobilization and mass movements, is now controlling the

global order (Robinson 1996, 69).

As with most Marxists' analyses, which focus on material forces, control over

those forces is linked to a nameless and faceless elite. Robinson's real problem is with the

failure of socialism as an economic system and the developing acceptance that markets are

natural occurring products of human interaction. Robinson concludes that capitalism is

dangerous for democracy and a "democratic socialism founded on a popular democracy

may be humanity's 'last best,' and perhaps only hope" (Robinson 1996, 384). Robinson's

conclusions are suspect, however, he does accurately point to a significant change in U.S.

policy toward the promotion of democracy abroad beginning in the 1970s. Where he








32

claims that policy change is a product of globalization and transnational forces, this study

suggests that we must turn to domestic sources within the United States.

Before we turn to domestic sources, we must deal with a basic Realist explanation

for the change in U.S. foreign policy toward the promotion of democracy and human

rights.5 From a Realist perspective with a focus on relative power capabilities one may

explain the variance U.S. foreign policy toward the promotion of human rights and

democracy by examining the distribution of power between the U.S. and Soviet Union.

Immediately after the Second World War, the United States had a preponderance of

power in the global system. Allied aircraft had bombed Europe and Japan to ruins.

Although the Soviet Union had significant military capabilities, its ability to project power

was limited. Clearly Soviet military capabilities did not threaten the U.S. homeland. The

United States had the luxury to promote human rights and democracy. The United States

helped establish democratic regimes in Japan and Western Germany.

By 1949 the Soviet Union ended the U.S. atomic monopoly. Furthermore, the

development of long range missiles by the Soviets in the late 1950s clearly put the U.S.

homeland in striking distance. With this high level of threat and a balance of power tilting

away from the United States, the luxury to promote human rights and democracy ended.

Detente and the stability of mutual assured destruction in the early 1970s allowed the

United Stated to reinstate a luxury policy such as human rights.

As we will see in a later chapter, the U.S. policy toward human rights and the

promotion of democracy does not match the ebbs and flows of the Cold War hostilities


'I want to thank Christopher Gelpi for suggesting this argument.










with the Soviet Union. In the early phase of the Cold War when the U.S. maintained a

preponderance of power over the Soviet Union, U.S. support for democracy and human

rights was uncertain. This uncertain support rapidly evolved into overt neglect and

outright support for authoritarian regimes long before the Soviet developed the capability

to strike the United States. The period of detente was transitory and quickly emerged into

renewed Cold War tensions with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the election of

President Reagan. Nevertheless, increased support for human rights and a formal program

of democracy promotion developed in U.S. foreign policy during the Reagan

administration. Clearly, we must examine other sources for policy change in the United

States. In the next section we turn to domestic theories of foreign policy.

Domestic Theories of Foreign Policy

The idea that domestic activities are a source of foreign policy is one that has a

long tradition in the study of world politics. Thucydides (1903) reports how the internal

activities of the Greek city states shaped their external behavior. In addition to the growth

of Athenian power and the fear that it caused Sparta, the domestic political machinations

of Pericles also cause war. Niccolo Machiavelli (1910) located state behavior with the

behavior of political leaders and Immanuel Kant (1795) distinguished a difference in the

behavior of monarchies from republics. In the twentieth century, prior to Kenneth Waltz's

(1979) revision of realism, many realist explanations for international outcomes relied on

national or subnational attributes. Henry Kissinger's (1964) theory of international

relations linked the domestic political structure of the state to the nature of international

politics, either stable or revolutionary. George Kennan attributed Soviet behavior to










factors rooted deep within Russian society (Gaddis 1982,48). The work on decision

making in foreign policy, such as Irving Janis (1972) and Robert Jervis (1976) clearly

locate their causal analysis at the domestic level. Janis examines the links of social

pressure to the enforcement of conformity and consensus in decision making. Jervis

investigates the impact of historical learning on individual decision makers. The events

that political leaders experience shape their particular image of the world and the

particular lessons learned from history. The diversionary theory of war suggests the

importance of domestic factors. This hypothesis posits that leaders with domestic

problems undertake risky foreign policies they otherwise would not attempt (Levy 1989;

Smith 1996). Robert Putnam (1988) suggests that political leaders have two audiences,

one domestic and one foreign, and find themselves compelled to play "two-level games."6

The concept of two-level games assumes that leaders are trying to do two things at once,

that is, manipulate domestic and international politics. Despite the dominance of systemic

approaches, encompassed in the neorealist/neoliberal debate, a tradition exists that

emphasizes state-level factors in the study of world politics.

We can divide domestic theories of foreign policy into three broad categories: (1)

society-centered domestic theories, which stress the influence of domestic interest groups,

elections and public opinion; (2) state-centered domestic theories where the source of

foreign policy behavior is within the administrative and decision making apparatus of the

executive branch; and (3) state-society domestic theories where foreign policy behavior



6 For an extensive application of Putnam's two-level games see Evans et al. (1993)
Double-Edged Diplomacy: International Bargaining and Domestic Politics.










originates from an interaction of institutions of representation, education, and

administration linking society and the state (Moravcsik 1993). Which type of theory is

most appropriate depends on the state's domestic structure.

States vary in their type of domestic structure. Thomas Risse-Kappen (1994,240)

informs us that the "notion of domestic structure refers to the institutional characteristics

of the state, to societal structures, and to the policy networks linking state and society."

Society-dominated domestic structures exist in countries with strong societal

organizations, a high degree of mobilization of interest groups, and decentralized and

fragmented political institutions. State dominated domestic structures embrace centralized

political institutions with strong national executives able to manipulate the political

process.

The United States is an example of a society-dominated domestic structure. The

U.S. Constitution provides the environment for a society-dominated structure. Its

provisions of free speech, association, and the right to petition the government are basic to

the strong society structure. Compared to many states, the United States has a

decentralized foreign policy decision making process. The U.S. Congress has more

authority over foreign policy than other legislative bodies. Congress influences policy

through its general legislative, budgetary and oversight powers. Although Congress relies

on blunt foreign policy tools that are essentially negative, they are still formidable tools

nonetheless (Hastedt 2000, 198). The decentralized nature of the U.S. Congress provides








36

multiple access points for mobilized groups and as conduits of societal influences.7 Given

the openness of the U.S. political system we can expect that societal demands, including

public attitudes, should reach decision makers in the Congress and the executive.

Moreover, we should assume that the political leaders monitored public sentiments and

patterns of attitude formation.

Public Opinion and Foreign Policy

The influence of public opinion in matters of foreign policy has relevance for

democratic polities. The masses can revolt under any governmental structure, but it is

only in a democratic polity, where political leaders need the consent of the governed that

public opinion has relevance, or even be worth studying. One causal factor identified for

the pacific nature of democracies (at least with other democracies) is the need to mobilize

public opinion to move a state to war. In his essay "Perpetual Peace," Kant (1795)

reasoned that states founded on a republican constitution must gain the consent of the

citizenry to decide if there will be war.

In the twentieth century, we can view President Wilson as propagating the view

that infuses the necessary aspect of public opinion into a state's conduct of foreign policy.

The first of Wilson's Fourteen Points argues for open negotiations among states with no

private international understandings. Wilson forcefully asserts that "diplomacy shall

proceed always franidy and in the public view." The implication of this statement is that


7Traditionally, Congressional work was done in committees, however, in the 1970s
the focus of decision making changed from the full committee to the subcommittee. This
has resulted in a greater decentralization of the Congress. Furthermore, the 1970s
witnessed a weakening of party discipline, an erosion of the seniority system, and the
growth in congressional staff. See Davidson and Oleszek (1977) Congress Against Itself








37

the public is a part of a government's policy formation. In a democracy, not only should

policy proceed with the consent of the governed, but the governed themselves will form an

opinion on policy to the extent that matters affect their personal lives.

Whereas Wilson assigned an imperative to the common man, the journalist Walter

Lippmann saw only the opprobrium of public opinion in policy making. Lippmann (1922)

maintained that people are too fully engaged in the day to day requirements of earning a

living to pay much attention to what is going on around them. According to Ole Holsti

(1992,441), Lippmann doubted the ability of the media to inform the public and to serve

as a valid source of information about the world. People are too busy to be engaged in

foreign policy issues, and if they wanted to be engaged the avenues for information are

inadequate. The outbreak of World War II appeared to offer evidence for Lippmann's

position, an inattentive American public refused to engage in world politics, allowing the

rise of predator states in the system.

Following World War H, a consensus emerged on public opinion and foreign

policy. Gabriel Almond's (1950) The American People and Foreign Policy help to solidify

the perception of the American public that Lippmann had developed. Almond depicted

public opinion as an erratic and mood driven constraint on foreign policy. For the most

part, the public's "characteristic response to questions of foreign policy was one of

indifference" (Almond 1960, 53). Moreover, the public's attitude toward foreign policy

was often volatile to the point that it provided no foundation for policy formation.

Almond went as far as suggesting that public opinion, besides being erratic, provided the

wrong advice for policy makers. "Often the public is apathetic when it should be










concerned, and panicky when it should be calm" (quoted in Holsti 1992,442). The

scholarly consensus on the Wilsonian idealization of the American public was far from

sanguine.

The behavioralist scholarship emerging out of the University of Michigan further

buttressed the Lippmann-Almond consensus on public opinion. Philip Converse's (1964)

"The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics" suggested that the public lacked any real

structure or coherence to their political beliefs. From panel studies in which surveyors

asked the same people the same questions about public policy repeatedly in 1956, 1958,

and 1960, Converse found that the answers varied from survey to survey without a

predictable pattern. He concluded that "large portions of the electorate do not have

meaningful beliefs, even on issues that have formed the basis of intense political

controversy among elites for substantial period of time" (Converse 1993, 60). According

to Converse, the mass public's attitudes toward foreign policy issues are in essence

"nonattitudes."

Converse's study and others that support his conclusion (Erskine 1963, Converse

and Markus 1979) have lead to a tripartite view of the American public when it comes to

foreign policy. The idea of multiple publics was first expounded by James Rosenau

(1961), in which he conceived of the foreign policy publics as occupying a concentric

circle with a pinpoint representing the core decision makers. Outside the core decision

makers are the elite public that directly influences the core and compose about 5 percent

of the overall population. Next on the rings of the circle are the informed public, which

includes ten to 20 percent of the population. The informed public as the name implies










seeks out information on international affairs. Their contact with the foreign policy

process is indirect and they have limited or no contact with the policy process. Outside

the informed public are the "great unwashed" of the uninformed public. This is the 80

percent of the public that knows little or nothing about foreign affairs and never reads

stories about international affairs. It is within this domain that Converse's nonattitudes of

the mass public develop.

The hegemony of the Converse model of the mass public fades with the Vietnam

war. Increasing opposition to the war was seen as a response to the rising number of

causalities and the polarization of elites (Mueller 1973). In a reassessment of the influence

of public opinion, Benjamin Page and Robert Shapiro (1992,284) find that public opinion

is not only rational but an autonomous force that can have a substantial impact on policy.'

John Aldrich, John Sullivan and Eugene Borgida (1989) found that citizens were equally

as able to identify their policy positions on foreign and domestic policy issues, suggesting

that Converse's characterization of public attitudes as unstructured was misinformed.

These works challenge the assumption that foreign policy attitudes of the general public

are random and disorganized without any consideration of ideological orientation (such as

a liberal/conservative frame) in their formation and structure.

Jon Hurwitz and Mark Peffley (1987) challenge Converse by drawing from the

theoretical literature on schemata, which suggests a structure to foreign policy political

attitudes. The structure must be uncovered by focusing on domain specific information



"Page and Shapiro's findings include not only the post-Vietnam era, but extend
back to 1935.








40
and how the domain shapes the relationship between general and specific attitudes toward

policy. The foreign policy domain cannot be studied in the same fashion as a domestic

policy domain. Other studies suggest that foreign policy attitudes may be more stable than

previously believed (see Maggiotto and Wittkopf 1981, Wittkopf 1981). The evidence

suggests that foreign policy attitudes are structured not unidimensionally along the

liberal/conservative continuum on which attitudes in other domains fall, but on domain

specific dimensions of foreign policy.

According to Hurwitz and Peffley, people employ cognitive heuristics (shortcuts)

to process foreign policy information and to decide foreign policy issues. People cope

with uncertainty in foreign policy decisions by relying on their own store of general

knowledge to help process information. We can imagine foreign policy attitudes as

shaped by a hierarchical structure where abstract ideas inform and shape more specific and

concrete ones. At the bottom level of the structure we find preferences referring to

specific policy attitudes such as defense spending, international trade, etc. The middle

level contains attitudes of a more abstract nature such as the appropriate role of the

government in handling foreign affairs. Normative belief postures denote the general

position the individual would like the government to take in foreign relations, such as

aggressive versus accommodating postures in policy or internationalist versus isolationist

positions. People rely on these general postures to render specific decisions about policy.

At the uppermost part of the hierarchy are the individual's core values such as

ethnocentrism or the morality of warfare, which then guide the direction of all the other

relations within the structure. It is the change in the uppermost part of the hierarchy, the










core values or norms of behavior, that guide the interests of this study.

In contrast to the image of an uninformed public, Catherine Kelleher (quoted in

Hastedt 2000, 127) finds "almost every general foreign policy survey ... [now] shows

that the American public is increasingly well-informed about global issues. ." Page and

Shapiro (1992,45) find "a remarkable degree of stability in Americans' collective policy

preferences"during the last fifty years. If public opinion on issues of foreign policy is

structured and coherent as recent studies suggest, we must account for the influence of

public attitudes on foreign policy. Furthermore, stability in public opinion allows for the

possibility of a coherent change in attitudes and orientation toward policy issues. If as

Hurwitz and Peffley suggest, that people employ cognitive shortcuts of general normative

beliefs to process information and to make decisions, we can link changes in the normative

beliefs to changes in policy.

Causal Hypothesis

The theoretical causal relationship posited in this study is that a state's domestic

normative structure 'causes' its foreign policy behavior. The independent variable in this

theory is the collectively held domestic norms in a state and the dependent variable is the

foreign policy behavior. I argue that change in U.S. domestic norms regarding domestic

political and civil rights translates into changes in foreign policy regarding the promotion

of political and civil rights externally (i.e., democracy promotion).9


9 This type of argument follows Lumsdaine's (1993) Moral Vision in International
Politics. Lumsdaine argues that political or economic interests cannot explain economic
foreign aid. Instead, humanitarian concerns and a systematic transfer of domestic
conceptions ofjustice provide a better explanation. The change of attitudes toward
poverty in the developed world and the creation of the social welfare state paved the way










Change in the domestic normative structure does not arise spontaneously and

without cause. Change emerges from domestic disturbances and social protests agitating

for a transformation in the normative status quo. These social protests may not be

directed at foreign policy, although they can be, nevertheless, their impact and the changes

wrought are felt at all policy levels. For example, the civil rights movement in the United

States sought political and civil rights for African-American in the domestic realm. We

see success of the movement in the passage of legislation guaranteeing access to political

participation and the legal prevention of discrimination. Changes in the normative

structure condition the successful operation of the legislation at multiple levels of society

from political elites to the general public. Changes in the general normative structure of

society have spillover effects for other areas of policy. For example, as the domestic

normative structure changes from considering it correct behavior to disenfranchise a

segment of the population (African-Americans) to one that accepts only universal

enfranchisement, we will find in the foreign policy realm a shift in policy from maintaining

it proper policy to support authoritarian dictatorships to one that embraces political

regimes that reflect and respect the political wishes of a state's population. The change in

the normative structure induces a change in general public opinion, and it influences elite

opinion and the behavior of policymakers. 0


for economic assistance to developing countries. For an explanation accounting for
difference in aid levels based on domestic factors see Noel and Therien (1995). They
suggest that the values (nonmarket income distribution) embedded in a state's social
democratic institutions have a clear impact on the foreign aid regime.

'"For a reversal in this causal argument see Klinker and Smith (1999) The
Unsteady March. Klinker and Smith argue that the exigencies of foreign affairs prompted










The specific model for this theory is as follows: social movements -- domestic

norms -- transmission of societal norms (Congress) --* Foreign Policy (democracy

promotion). In this model, the antecedent phenomenon that activates the independent

variable is the presence of protest and social movements. The independent variable

represents the domestic normative structure. The normative structure is measured by

attitudes toward civil and political rights and issues of tolerance and respect for diversity.

This variable is considered progressive with changes in the normative structure being

permanent or at least not readily changeable. For example, if a social movement creates

through social protest, a new norm that a certain group should have an equal role in

society, society will maintain the norm even without a continued organized movement. A

counter social movement must develop for the norm to return to an earlier position. The

intervening variable represents the avenues of transmission of public attitudes to foreign

policy. This study concentrates on the Congress as the indicator of domestic norms. The

dependent or outcome variable is democracy promotion. Promoting democracy

encompasses the promotion of regular, free, and fair elections and universal suffrage,

informational pluralism, civil liberties and human rights, functional autonomy for



domestic elites to allow progress toward racial equality. As the United States needed to
mobilize African-Americans for war and justify such wars and the sacrifices incurred in the
name of freedom, progress in racial equality occurred. They further argue that as the
dangers of the Cold War have receded, the commitment to "racial progress" has also
declined. This, according to Klinker and Smith is exemplified by the erosion of the
commitment to affirmative action. This dissertation will demonstrate that this conclusion
is wrong. There have been long term and significant change in Americans' attitudes
toward civil rights and racial equality. We should not necessarily see the opposition to
affirmative action as opposition to equal rights. Rather, we can view it as a greater
commitment to individual rights over group rights.








44
legislative, executive and judicial branches, and effective power and accountability for

elected officials.

In this chapter, I have discussed the importance of locating an understanding of

U.S. foreign policy at the domestic level. I have shown, regarding the policy of

democracy promotion, the existing literature is lacking a sound causal explanation. In the

next chapter, I present the changing normative structure in the United States and discuss

how norms are tied with the American identity.














CHAPTER 3
NORMS AND THE GROWTH OF TOLERANCE

Introduction

Norms are important in the explanation of social phenomena. Norms are culturally

defined rules of conduct. They specify how people should behave and what they should

do. They indicate what is proper or necessary behavior within groups, organizations and

institutions. Norms are the fundamental building blocs of social order (Newman 2000,

34). They govern much of our political and social lives. In politics, norms contribute to

the protection of civil rights and liberties as much as the formal legal system (Axelrod

1986, 1095).

I begin this chapter with an explanation of the importance of norms for the social

sciences. Next, I present the changing normative structure in the United States and

discuss how norms constitute the American identity. Specifically, I am concerned with

norms regarding political and civil rights and tolerance for diversity. As the American

identity expands, the range of groups incorporated into the political process concurrently

expands. As we will see in later chapters, these changes lead to changes in U.S. foreign

policy. The expanding U.S. democracy leads to the promotion of democratic forms of

government in countries that contained groups and cultures once considered incapable of

democratic practices. Finally, I present empirical data showing how the American identity

has changed with the elevated acceptance for diversity and increased tolerance within the










United States. What we find with the increased respect for diversity is a changed

American identity. The exclusive male-dominated, white, Christian/Protestant identity of

America has changed to what is often call a multicultural American identity. A

multicultural identity does not necessarily lead to fragmentation and "cultural wars" as

some have claimed (Royal 1995, Huntington 1997). Instead, a multicultural identity

allows for diversity under the liberal framework that protects individual rights.

Social Sciences, Norms and Explanation

Mark Risjord (1998) informs us that norms play a pivotal role in the philosophy of

social science. The role of norms makes humans a distinct subject of study and any

attempt to understand and explain human behavior must take into account the normative

aspects of human life. Models of explanation drawn from the natural sciences do not

assign a role to norms and thus are not appropriate for the social scientist.

Not all agree. Carl Hempel (1963) and David Henderson (1993), for example,

deny that norms have an explanatory role. For these scholars explanations must be causal.

Henderson asserts that explanations are answers to why-questions. "[I]n asking a why-

question (regarding a particular event or state) we seek responses that allow us to

appreciate what it was in or about the antecedent course of events that brought about (or

helped to bring about) some particular aspect of certain subsequent events" (Henderson

1993, 168-169). The antecedent event needs to be present in terms of its causally fitting

features. For Henderson, appeals to norms are only useful if we understood them to be

causally relevant to the action and thus translated into a causal disposition. This is a

psychologically oriented explanation. In this orientation, we collapse norms into the










dispositions of the agent and therefore norms qua norms will not be found among the

agent's reasons. Risjord (1998, 235) suggests that we must understand norms along a

second dimension, a sociological one. The psychological-orientation attributes intentional

actions to the goals of the agent. This is what motivates the agent. Therefore, the agent

heeds such motives to be sufficient reasons for action. Nevertheless, we must recognize

that the agent acts in accordance with some norm by which some reasons are good in and

of themselves

What I have described above is the old cleavage in social science between Adam

Smith's conception of humans as economic creatures and Emile Durkheim's idea of social

humans. Instrumental rationality guides the former with the promise of reward. The

forces of proscribed behavior pushes the latter. Neither view is totally wrong nor

completely right. Some behaviors maybe explained on the basis of human rationality.

Nevertheless, social forces construct the milieus in which the rational actor must operate.

Moreover, norms are subject to change creating evolving environments in which rational

action has different meanings.

Cultural norms shape the behavior of the overwhelming majority of a given

population. Philip Pettit (1993, 336) gives us the formal definition of norms.

A regularity, R, in the behaviour [sic] of members of a population, P, is a cultural

norm if and only if, in any instance of a certain situation S among members P:

1. Nearly everyone conforms to R.

2. Nearly everyone approves of nearly anyone else's conforming and disapproves

of the deviating.








48
3. The fact that nearly everyone approves and disapproves on this pattern helps

ensure that nearly everyone conforms.

In this definition of a norm we find that most of the population has accepted the behavior

and practices it widely. Therefore, norms are social in that other people help to enforce

them by expressing their approval or disapproval. Norms are real and autonomous. They

possess independent motivating power. "Norms are not merely ex post rationalizations of

self-interest, although they can certainly be that sometimes. They are capable of being ex

ante sources of action" (Elster 1989, 125).

Norms are more than shared beliefs of appropriate behavior. This definition is

overly broad and includes beliefs that no one takes seriously and does not affect action.

Not all norms are treated with equal seriousness. One should get six to eight hours of

sleep a night and mothers need to care for their babies are both norms of behavior. The

former is often violated, the latter rarely. Norms are connected to beliefs related to some

sort of sanction (Cancian 1975, 7). A mother who neglects her child will receive the

reproach of society, not to mention possible criminal sanctions. The person who does not

get enough sleep will only suffer the individual consequence of sleep deprivation.

Society supports norms through multiple mechanisms.1 The first mechanism for

supporting norms is dominance. Dominance simply means that one group has power over

another and the violation of a norm invites some sort of punishment. Power can be

exerted through economic and political means. The majority often imposes its norms

upon the society as a whole. Within society, norms often become individually internalized.


'The following is largely derived from Axelrod (1986).










Internalization means that the violation of an established norm creates psychological

uneasiness within individuals. Therefore, even if the individual has accrued material

benefits, the violation of the norm elicits pain. Another psychological principle supporting

norms is known as social validation. As Robert Cialdini (1984, 117) explains, "we view a

behavior as more correct in a given situation to the degree that we see others performing

it." Therefore, the more people practice the act the more is it considered correct. Social

validation applies simply to what people decide is correct behavior. Finally, norms are

supported through legal structures. Norms usually precede laws, but laws can maintain

and extend them. We can understand laws as the institutionalization of cultural norms.

Norms are subject to change. When a critical mass of people change their values

and behavior, what was once normal becomes deviant. The history of human civilization

is replete with examples of social institutions that have passed from normality to deviance.

Even single events can lead to the reversal of normal practices. In the early days of the

United States dueling was an accepted, if not often practiced, institution. Alexander

Hamilton felt compelled to take up Aaron Burr's challenge to duel. Early in the morning

of July 11, 1804, Hamilton and Burr faced on the New Jersey shore of the Hudson River.

Burr's first shot mortally wounded Hamilton, and he died the next day (see Flemming

1999). The event itself and the negative public reaction it generated toward Burr helped

change the norms that supported the institution of dueling in the United States.








50
Slavery is an example of another human practice that has passed from normality to

deviance.2 Human slavery existed as an institution dating back to times of antiquity. With

the fall of the Roman Empire and the rise of the feudal system, slavery fell into disuse in

Europe. However, slavery was revitalized in the 15th century when Europeans first came

into close and continued contact with the peoples of Africa. Slavery continued as a

practice in the Western world well into the 19th century. Strong evidence suggests that

slavery's demise originated from changing societal norms. James Lee Ray (1989) finds

that the abolition of slavery did not come from an economic imperative.3 We can trace

the abolition of slavery to "moral progress" and changes in ideas about ethics and morality.

In a large part to domestic abolitionist movements led by the Quakers on both sides of the

Atlantic, England (1807) and the United States (1808) abolished the slave trade. At the

Congress of Vienna (1814) through the influence of England, the assembled powers

agreed that the slave trade should be abolished when possible (Thomas 1997, 584-586).

The Webster-Ashburton Treaty of 1842, obligated Great Britain and the United States to

keep a naval squadron on the African coast to prevent shipment of slaves (Thomas 1997,

671). By 1862, international treaties allowing the right to search ocean vessels had been


2Slavery continues to exist in various parts of the world despite the change in
global norms.

3For example, Ray (1989, 411) cites the case that sugar production in the British
West Indies, which dropped by a third overall after the abolition of slavery. As for slavery
in the United States, Temperley (1977, 101-2) reminds us that northernen cotton
manufactures were dependent on Southern plantation agriculture for their raw materials.
New York finance houses gave Southerners much of their capital and reaped their reward
in interest." In contrast to the claims the slavery as an economic system was declining in
the South prior to the Civil War, Fogel and Engerman (1974) claim that the Southern
economy was robust and growing.









51

signed by most Western nations, including the United States. Within a few years the slave

trade was destroyed. None of this could have been possible without a change in domestic

societal norms. In fact, we cannot understand societal changes without taking to account

the changes in the underlying norms that govern society.

Norms and a State's Identity

A state's identity may be fluid and multidimensional. It is a product of the social

environment and the nature of power relations. We must understand a states identity in

these terms of environment and power. On one level, the environment determines the

broader cultural identity, that is, the characteristics of the state's population. However, the

norms of behavior held by the population also constitute the broader identity of a state.

Elites also determine the identity within the state. For example, Jordan as a state identifies

itself as Jordanian, although two-thirds of the population is Palestinian.4 After the 1948

Arab-Israeli War, many Palestinian refugees "found employment -- and middle-class status

-- as civil servants in the Jordanian government" (Cleveland 1994, 327). Nevertheless,

Jordan is not the homeland for Palestinians and the state's identity is not Palestinian. This

reflects the power status of the Hashemite rulers and the lack of popular control. If

Jordan were to democratize and shift power to the people and away from the Hashemite

king, it may suffer an identity crisis. This leads to discussion of identity in a social and

cultural context.




4Over halfa million refugees arrived on Jordanian soil after the 1948 Arab-Israeli
war. The annexation of the West Bank in 1948 by King Abbdallah added another half a
million Palestinians to the population of Jordan.


U_








52
Social identity theory, which has recently been popular in the study of international

relations (Hermann and Kegley 1995, Mercer 1995, Geva and Hanson 1999, and Schafer

1999), can help us understand how and why individuals develop larger identities. Social

identity theory developed out of the psychological study of group behavior and had its

origins in the early work by Henri Tajfel on social factors in perception (Tajfel 1959).

Tajfel further explicated the theory with his colleagues at Bristol University in the late

1970s (Tajfel 1978, 1982; Tajfel and Turner 1979; Turner 1982). The core idea of the

theory is that a self-inclusive social category provides a category dependent self-definition

that comprises an element of the self-concept (Hogg 1996,66). This means that

individuals try to achieve a positive sense of social identity in a way that makes their group

favorably distinct from other groups on valued dimensions. For Tajfel, the "social identity

of individuals is linked to their awareness of membership of certain social groups, and to

the emotional and evaluative significance of that membership" (quoted in Deschamps

1982, 86).

The social group exists in a system of mutual dependence and acquires a reality

defined through group interdependence. "The social group is both a psychological

process and a social product" (Turner and Giles 1981, 26). Individuals within groups may

attempt a redefinition of the existing social situation to achieve a more positive social

identity. The group identification may be based on a common set of traditions or may

stimulate the creation of a unique set of traditions. John Turner's (1985) self-

categorization component of social identity theory suggests that categorization

"accentuates both similarities among stimuli (physical, social, or aspects of the self)










belonging to the same category and differences belonging to different categories..."

(Hogg 1996, 68). This creates a perceptual bias that leads to an evaluative preference for

individuals and groups that are similar to themselves. If individuals share common

objective elements (such as physical characteristics, common language, and historical

experiences) they can transform these elements into a common subjective identification

facilitating in-group creation. Language is an important aspect of group identification,

more salient than inherited physical characteristic (see Giles and Johnson 1981). Social

identity theory allows us to understand that an individual's identity is not static, locked into

a primordial pattern. The individual's group identity often forms based on relatively

enduring factors (physical characteristics and language), but it does not have to be. A

process of interaction can produce new common elements that lead to the formation of a

new common social identity.

A state's identity, as with an individual's identity, is constructed. It is open to

contestation and negotiation. One can think of nationality as another term for a state's

identity. This conception of nationalism is not the ideological version of nationalism that

"holds that humanity is naturally divided into nations, that nations are know by their

characteristics... and that the only legitimate type of government is a national (emphasis

in the original) self-government" (Kedourie quoted in Macridis 1992, 192). Nations are,

as Benedict Anderson (1991) suggests, "imagined communities" propelled by the state

claiming to be the legitimate guardian of the nation. National identities are constructed

and reconstructed in connection to the transforming social context (Renwich 1999, 5). As

Ernest Gellner (1964, 169) argues, nationalismim is not the awakening of the nation to










self consciousness: it invents nations where they do not exist." For example, the French

Revolution (1792) asserted the sovereignty of the people, and for the first time linked the

identity of the people to the state. As French nationalism turned aggressive with the rule

of Napoleon, other peoples in Europe constructed their own national identities in response

to the victories of the French nation and for self-defense.

The norms of society tell us much about the nation and define who is part of the

nation and has claim to the national identity. Norms set the collective expectation for a

given identity and thus constitute the state's identity. "Actors conform to norms in order

to validate social identities, and it is in the process of validating identities that interests are

constituted" (Price and Tannenwald 1996, 125). Furthermore, norms regulate behavior

for a constituted identity (see Cancian 1975, 137-138). These norms may be socially

accepted patterns of behavior or law may sanction them. What is important to understand

is that norms set the confines of the imagined community. As with all social constructs,

norms are subject to change, and with change the confines of the imagined community are

thus subject to rearrangement.

American Identity

If all states are "imagined communities," then the United States is the perfect

example of an "imagined community" (Campbell 1996, 166). Social forces and time have

reconstructed this imagined community often. The confines of the U.S. identity is not

static. As I discuss below, the borders of his community are often changed to incorporate

different groups of people.










In contrast to this image of a changing identity other scholars contend that the

U.S. has a fixed identity. From a geopolitical perspective, America's relative isolation has

lead to an identity defined through its uniqueness from the rest of the world. This

uniqueness often expresses itself as exceptionalism. "The United States is exceptional in

starting from a revolutionary event, in being 'the first new nation,' the first colony, other

than Iceland to become independent." (Lipset 1992, 18). Seymour Martin Lipset defines

American identity ideologically in terms of liberty, egalitarianism, individualism, populism,

and laissez-faire. Concurring, John Gerard Ruggie argues that U.S. identity is a fixed

identity following the principles of liberalism. American identity is embodied through "a

set of inclusive core values: intrinsic individual as opposed to group rights, equality of

opportunity for all, antistatism, the rule of law, and a revolutionary legacy which holds

that human betterment can be achieved by means of deliberate human actions... (Ruggie

1997, 110). In one sense these scholars are correct in their definitions of U.S. identity.

What they miss is the identification of who has had access to that identity. Today, Richard

J. Payne correctly argues: despiteie America's ethnic, religious, and racial diversity, and

its plethora of subcultures, there is widespread agreement that an American culture exists,

and there is consensus on its fundamental attributes (Payne 1995, 8).' This

accommodation of diversity to the cultural identity of the U.S. is one that has developed

over the years. We can say that the United States moved through three phases of identity,

and changes in the norms that govern the identity, an Anglo-American, Euro-American,


'Payne defines culture as a set of shared learned values, beliefs, perceptions,
attitudes, modes of living, customs, and symbols (Payne 1995, 7). This definition is
compatible with my definition of norms.










and a Multicultural identity (Lind 1995).

Changing American Identity

The United States for the most part has always contained peoples of multiple

ethnic and racial groups. The English were far from the only people in colonial America.

Other groups included the Dutch, French, Germans, Irish, Spanish, Swedes, blacks from

Africa, and of course the native population. The first Africans arrived as slaves in the

Jamestown colony in 1619. Slavery continued to expand in North America and by the

time of the first census in 1790, one out of six Americans was a slave (Perkins 1993, 14).

Mass immigration of German-speaking people into the Pennsylvania colony so concerned

Benjamin Franklin that he supported measures to keep them out. In 1751, Franklin wrote

that Pennsylvania "will in a few Years [sic] become a German Colony: Instead of their

learning our Language, we must learn their's or live as in a foreign Country [sic]" (Franklin

([1751] 1961, 120 ). He further declared that the Germans "will never adopt our

Language or Customs, any more than they can acquire our Complexion [sic]" (Franklin

papers quoted in DeConde 1992, 12). After the Germans, the Irish constituted the next

largest group and between 1789 and 1800 they composed 55 percent of all aliens

naturalized (DeConde 1992,21).

This does not mean that the U.S. has always had a multicultural identity.

Following the American revolution the American population was multiethnic and

multiracial, which set it apart from the generally homogeneous countries of Europe. "No

ethnic group in the United States could claim a clear majority, but among whites almost

sixty percent were of English origin" (DeConde 1992, 16). These Anglo-Americans set










the standard for the American identity that governed political behavior and defined the

United States after independence and well into the 19th century (Hunt 1987, 46-91).

Despite the empirical realities of a diverse population in the new American state, John Jay

in the Federalist Papers number 2, shows the perceived American identity by many in

leadership positions. He writes:

I have as often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one
connected country to one united people a people descended from the same
ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to
the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and
who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a
long and bloody war, have nobly established their general liberty and
independence.

However, the construct of the Anglo-American identity remained under constant attack

from non-English immigrates, particularly Irish and German immigrants.

Between 1846 and 1855, more than a million Germans entered the United States.

Many fled political upheaval and revolution in Europe, and many who had been

revolutionaries, gravitated to political activity in their new country. "This reaching out for

political power hardened whatever antagonism the old-stock nativists felt toward the

German-Americans" (DeConde 1992, 36). One of the most prominent anti-immigrant

groups during the period was the American Party, or better known as the Know Nothings.

According to Michael Holt (1973, 311), betweenen 1853 and 1856 the fastest growing

political force in many parts of the United States was not the anti-slavery Republican

party, but the secret anti-Catholic and anti-foreign Know Nothing movement." This group








58
defined itself in nativist terms of being anti-immigrant and particularly anti-Catholic.6 The

American party achieved some electoral success in 1854 when it elected eight governors

and more than one hundred members of Congress (Lind 1995, 50).7

In the mid-nineteenth century America the "cult of Anglo-Saxonism" developed

along with "scientific racism" used to justify American expansionism (Hietala 1999, 171).

According to Michael Hunt (1987, 78), the arrival of many foreign immigrants increased

the sensitivity among the Anglo elites in the United States. Ethnic Anglos sought to

preserve their cultural hegemony against the Irish and German immigrants. The anxiety of

the Anglo elites sharpened as more immigrants came from other parts of Europe at the

close of the century. Hierarchical racial thinking influenced foreign policy:

The elite's preoccupation with differences among whites carried over to into the
fabric of thinking on world affairs. Anglo-Saxons clearly dominated the
international stage. The Germans came next. They had the same qualities as their
racial cousins save one they had lost their love of liberty. This single serious
defect set Germans just beyond the Anglo-Saxon pale and made this still-
formidable people into a threatening global competitor... The Slavs, half
European and half Asiatic, were also formidable racial competitors on the
international stage... Lower down in the hierarchy were the Latin peoples of
Europe, defined to include the French as well as the Italians and Spaniards...
Still farther back among the ranks of the unworthy appeared the Jews...
Predictably, farthest back were the people of Africa. (Hunt 1987, 78-79)




'The Whig party lost support among the American nativists with the nomination of
Winfield Scot in 1852. Many perceived Scott as actively pro-Catholic. Nativists within
and without the Whig party were alienated by Scott's lenient policy toward Catholic
churches during the Mexican War and by his willingness to educate his daughters in
convents (Holt 1973, 315).
7 The American party also gained popular support from its anti-slavery position. Its
electoral strengthen waned with the rise of the Republican party, which captured the anti-
slavery position without the anti-immigrant trappings.










The change from a United States with an Anglo-American identity to a Euro-

American one began with the American Civil War. A third of the Union Army was

composed of foreign-born troops with large German and Irish contingents. Michael Lind

(1995, 54) argues that the Civil War "can be described without much exaggeration as a

conflict between the Anglo-American South and a new Euro-American society emerging

in the north." After the Civil War, immigration from Europe continued apace. Some four

million people immigrated from Italy alone between 1880 and 1920 (Aguiree and Turner

1998,213).

In 1891, the U.S. Congress passed legislation that created a permanent

administrative structure to control immigration. The statute also placed immigration

under the control of the federal government (Higham 1971, 99). During the same period,

the U.S. Congress curtailed immigration from non-European parts of the world (see

McKenzie 1928; Miller 1969). The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 suspended

immigration of Chinese laborers for ten years and prevented persons of Chinese ancestry

residing in the U.S. from acquiring citizenship. Congress extended the act for ten years in

1892, for two years in 1902, and finally extended indefinitely in 1904 ( Aguirre and Turner

1998, 180).8 In the early part of the 20th century the Congress took further action to

prevent immigration from Asia. The 1917 Immigration Act stopped Japanese immigration

and immigration from other parts of Asia (Matthews 1964).





'The act was not repealed by Congress until 1943 when it was replaced by a quota
system for Chinese immigrants.










In the late 1800s, immigrants of Irish and German origin began to assert their

influence at the voting booth. Many members of Congress from Western states owned

their position to the support of German immigrants. The Irish Catholic vote in Eastern

cities also had to be considered by politicians when they formulated immigration policy.

In 1891, Senator Henry Cabot Lodge took up a proposal that would restrict the

immigration of all males who could not read or write in their own language. German-

American lobby groups were able to thwart these restrictive legislative efforts. The

Senate passed the legislation, but the House of Representatives kept postponing

consideration of it (Higham 1971, 106-107).

The eugenic movement and scientific racism at the dawn of the 20th century

sought to recast the distinctions among the immigrants of Europe origin. William J.

Ripley, who taught economics at Massachusetts Institute of Technology and lectured at

Columbia University on the role of geography in human affairs, wrote a weighty tome in

1899 titled The Races of Europe. His analysis linked physiological traits to geographical

and social conditions. John Higham relates in his classic text Strangers in the Land:

For the first time, American readers learned that Europe was not the land of
"Aryans" or Goths subdivided into vaguely national races such as the Anglo-
Saxons, but rather the seat of three races discernable by physical measurements: a
northern race of tall, blond longheads which Ripley called Teutonic; a central race
of stocky roundheads which he called Alpine; and a southern race of slender, dark,
longheads which he called Mediterranean. (Higham 1971, 154)9


'The absurdity of Ripplys classification system is apparent when one understands
that Europe is the polyglot par excellence. The people of Europe have been associating
for thousands of years to an extent that would disallow any type tripartite evolution.
Mediterranean peoples called Romans conquered lands as far north as the British Isles.
Norsemen or Vikings journeyed as far east as modern Russia and as far south as modem
Italy and Spain.








61
Ripley's tripartite classification allowed for the distinction between new and old immigrant

groups. Irish and German immigrants were reclassified as Teutonic along with the Anglo-

Saxon English. New Italian and Eastern European immigrants were reclassified as

"others" with the labels of Alpine and Mediterranean. Nevertheless, this classification was

not an enduring structure in the United States and instead a new type of identity

developed. Toward the end of the 19th century we find in the United States the

development of the Euro-American identity or White America. This is an identity

constructed in contrast to the hyphenation of Americans of immigrant origin. Early in the

20th century we find the development of the melting pot idea of American identity.

Frederick Jackson Turner, in his famous 1893 essay on the importance of the

frontier in U.S. history, saw the formation of a composite nationality of American people.

Turner declared, "In the crucible of the frontier the immigrants were Americanized,

liberated, and fused into a mixed race, English in neither nationality nor characteristics"

(Turner 1947,23). A new type of identity, an American, was formed in the crucible of the

melting pot. However, this identity extended only to those who could easily be

incorporated under the Euro-American identity."0 The melting pot idea did not apply to

peoples who originated from continents other than Europe. Legal restrictions on

immigrants from non-European parts of the world were enforced and state governments

restricted nonwhites in most parts of the United States from participation in the civil

society, such as the Jimun Crow laws applied to African-Americans in the South.


'OIt should be noted that Israel Zangwill's 1909 play The Melting Pot from which
the term was derived, was about the amalgamation of European ethnic groups in the
United States.










Typical of the sentiments of the time, Henry Pratt Fairchild in The Melting Pot

Mistake (1926) argued for the inevitability of a homogenous community given his belief in

the biological origins of racial hatred." Fairchild ([1926] 1977, 239) declared that "Racial

discrimination is inherent in biological fact and in human nature." Fairchild's work

provides a snapshot of the broader normative structure in the U.S. at the time. He argued

that assimilation, or the idea of the melting pot, worked but only for those peoples of the

"White Race." Fairchild writes:

At the present time, the average American, whatever his origin, has become
habituated to representatives of almost every variety of the white race that it is
very doubtful whether there is more than an infinitesimal amount of true race
antipathy felt toward any branches of the white race in this country... If we see a
tall, blue-eyed, blond giant leading up to the altar a sparkling brunette with dusky
hair and darkly glowing cheeks we do not ordinarily bewail the horrible case of
race miscegenation, but exclaim, "What a stunning couple!" (Fairchild [1926]
1977, 72-73)

For Fairchild, the mixing of peoples from different "racial" backgrounds is analogous to

"pouring together various chemically inert liquids water, milk, wine, ink, ect." (Fairchild

[1926] 1977, 119). This creates a mixture but not a new substance. The inclusion of a

mixed racial structure in the U.S. (i.e., non European) diluted the "typical American

mixture" (Fairchild [1926] 1977, 130). Thus, Fairchild argued not only for a reduction of

immigration, but for a reapportionment of immigration to "leave the racial proportion of

American people intact" (Fairchild [1926] 1977, 131). Writing in the early 20th century,

Fairchild argued for a Euro-American identity. "There can be no doubt that if America is

to remain a stable nation it must continue a white man's country for an indefinite period to


"Fairchild graduated from Yale where he studied under William Graham Sumner
and later achieved the presidency of the American Sociological Society.










come" (Fairchild [1926] 1977, 240). Fairchild applauded the permanent exclusion of

Asian immigration to the United States.

Fairchild's argument viewed from the position of the early 21st century appears

alien and atavistic. The United States has experienced a massive shift in norms regarding

political and civil rights and a reshaping of its identity. The United States has rid itself of

the notion that the American identity synonymous with White European, or the Euro-

American identity that characterized American society for much of the 20th century. A

steady growth of tolerance has developed in the United States since the end of the Second

World War. This growth of tolerance and acceptance of others extends not only to ethnic

and racial groups, but it also included the expanded acceptance of the equality of women

with men. What has emerged is a multicultural American identity.

Social Movements and Identity Change

Social movements are pivotal in identity change. A social movement refers to a

relational network of actors who are collectively involved in broader purposes and/or

conflicts (Diani 1992; Tarrow 1994). These continuous, large-scale, organized, collective

actions can lead to transformed state structures (Quadagno 1992) or to broader societal

change (d'Anjou 1996). If we describe human history as a concurrence of events, as Max

Weber maintained, we must remain sensitive to social movements as they shape the

direction of events. Human actions shape the direction of history. According to Weber,

"frequently the 'world images' that have been created by ideas have, like switchmen [at

railroad junctions], determined the tracks along which action has been pushed by the

dynamic of interest" (quoted in Hall 1993, 48). Social movements may serve as a decisive










moment in the process of changing norms. We can view social movements as Weber's

switchmen operating the "switch in the 'choice' between reproducing or transforming the

extant cultural and social system" (d'Anjou 1996, 35).

The Civil Rights movement has had a significant impact on the normative structure

in the United States. The American Civil War ended the institution of slavery, but did not

end institutional racism. With the close of reconstruction in 1877 and the withdrawal of

federal troops from the South, whites regained power and established racial segregation

and laws that denied African-American's their civil and political rights. In Plessy v.

Ferguson (1896) the U.S. Supreme Court gave its endorsement to the system of American

Apartheid.

Meanwhile, African-American leaders began to emerge and organize for civil

rights. At a meeting in Niagara Falls, in 1905, W.E.B. Du Bois and other civil rights

leaders founded the Niagara Movement. Members of the Niagara group connected with

concerned liberal and radical whites to establish the National Association for the

Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) in 1910. The NAACP journal Crisis. edited

by Du Bois, became an effective organ of communication for African-American rights.

The NAACP pursued a strategy of litigation "as a way of testing and shaping public

opinion which could facilitate policy change. "(Stewart 1991, 169). The NAACP won

its first major legal case in 1915, when the United States Supreme Court outlawed the

"grandfather clause," a constitutional device used in the South to disfranchise blacks.

The battle for civil rights went forward in the 1940s and 1950s in determined and

deliberate steps. In the courts the NAACP successfully attacked racially restrictive








65

covenants in housing, segregation in interstate transportation, and discrimination in public

recreational facilities (see Bell 1987).12 In 1954, the Supreme Court issued one of its most

significant rulings. With Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, the court overturned

the "separate but equal" ruling of 1896 and outlawed segregation in the country's school

systems.

After, Brown v. Board of Education the struggle for civil rights became a political

movement. African-Americans organized nonviolent action and the movement achieved

its first major success in the Montgomery, Alabama bus boycott of 1955-56. The

Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) was established in 1957 under Martin

Luther King Jr's leadership. Other groups organized to fight for civil rights included the

Congress for Racial Equality (CORE) and the Student Nonviolent Coordinating

Committee (SNCC). Together these groups held demonstrations, led boycotts, and

undertook voter registration drives (see Morris 1984). Public opinion turned against

segregation as the national attention focused on Birmingham, Alabama in the Spring of

1963. The Birmingham authorities used dogs and fire hoses on a peaceful march of civil

rights demonstrators. Police officers shown attacking peaceful protesters with dogs and

cattle prods provoked horror and disbelief across the country.

Civil rights activities in 1963 peaked with a march on Washington where King

addressed a gathering of 250,000 demonstrators. The march helped galvanize public

opinion that civil rights were the most important problem facing the country and helped


"2The Supreme Court dealt a blow to perpetrators of racially segregated housing
areas when it held in Shelley v Kramer (334 U.S. 1, 1948) and Hurd V Hodge (334 U.S.
24, 1948) that privately executed restrictive covenants were unenforceable in the courts.










secure the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Survey data indicate that the

percentage of Americans saying that the issue of civil rights was the most important

problem facing the country rose more than forty-five percentage points from 1963 to 1964

(Fiorina and Peterson 1998, 560). The Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbade discrimination in

voting, public accommodations, and employment and permitted the attorney general of the

United States to deny federal funds to local agencies that practiced discrimination The

ratification of the 24th Amendment to the Constitution in 1964, which banned the poll tax,

helped efforts to increase African-American voter turnouts. Attacks against civil rights

demonstrators continued by police who used tear gas and clubs, however, the cause

garnered national support. Congress passed the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which

abolished all discriminatory qualifying tests for voter registrants and provided for the

appointment of federal registrars.

The narrative provided above suggests progress toward equality for

African-Anmericans in the United States. Some scholars contend that such a portrayal

suggests an inevitability of progress toward equality in the United States (Klinker and

Smith 1999). Mary Dudziak (2000) argues that the Cold War, and necessity of the United

States to maintain a positive image in the world to claim its leadership in the "free world,"

compelled political leaders to advance civil rights. "The need to address international

criticism gave the federal government an incentive to promote social change at home"

(Dudziak 2000, 12). The implication of this argument is that with the end of the Cold

War no incentive to promote civil rights exists, possibly leading to a retraction of hard-

fought gains.








67

This argument comports with Philip Klinker and Rogers Smith's (1999) important

work The Unsteady March. The authors contend that racial equality in the United States

has moved at an unstable pace, at times moving forward and other filling back. Like

Dudziak, Klinker and Smith emphasize the importance of external threats to the

advancement of civil rights. Progress in racial equality has come only

1. in the wake of a large scale war requiring extensive economic and military

mobilization of African-Americans for success:

2. when the nature of America's enemies has prompted American leaders tojustify

such wars and their attendant sacrifices by emphasizing the nations inclusive,

egalitarian, and democratic traditions; and

3. when the nation has possessed domestic political protest movements willing

and able to bring pressure upon national leaders to live up to that justificatory

rhetoric by instituting domestic reform (Klinker and Smith 1999,3-4).

Following these criteria, we find only three eras of significant progress. The first era

followed the Revolutionary War that saw slavery in the northern states put on a path of

extinction. The second era was the reconstruction period after the Civil War. The third

era of reform occurred following World War II and during the Cold War. The years 1941

to 1968 marked an extraordinarily prolonged period in which all three factors were

present. Following the first and second eras the authors document extended periods of

retraction of civil rights for African-Americans. "Hence the normal experience of the

typical black person in U.S. history has been to live in a time of stagnation and decline in

progress toward racial equality" (Klinker and Smith 1999, 5).










Like Dudziak, Klinker and Smith pessimistically expect a retrenchment now that

the Cold War has ended. Granted, more can be done for racial equality in the United

States, but it is impossible, given the changes that have occurred, for any regression in

civil and political rights. As I will show below the basic normative structure has changed

and today Americans no longer think and feel the same. The civil rights movement of the

1950s and 1960s helped foster an increased respect for the political and civil rights of not

only African-Americans but of other groups such as Latinos and Asian-Americans.

Legislative, judicial and constitutional advancement made by the civil rights movements

applies to all groups including women

One major problem with Klinker and Smith's analysis is a singular focus on

African-Americans. Opposition to affirmative action programs as they are now

constructed does not necessarily suggest an opposition to civil and political rights or

opposition to racial equality. For example, in California recent referendums ending

affirmative action and bilingual education had wide support among Hispanics. Hispanic

residents of California saw these referendums as attempts to dismantle obstacles to

assimilation into America (Economist April 7, 2001, U.S. Edition). Also, the California

affirmative action programs in higher education adversely affected many Asian-Americans.

According the most recent census, the United States is becoming a majority

minority country. This means that no single group represents the majority of the

population. Those who categorize themselves as "white" will eventually represent less

than half the country's population. Hispanics have already achieved parity with








69
African-Americans as the largest minority group in the United States (Schmitt 2001, 20).13

The 2000 census for the first time allowed for the category of multiracial. Nearly seven

million people, or 2.4 percent of the total population described themselves as multiracial

marking a trend that suggests that a single group identification may be losing importance.

The 1960s and early 1970s marked a period of intense social change in the United

States that reconstructed American society. James Gilbert (1981) in Another Chance

argues that the postwar period between 1945 and 1968 represents a distinct period in U.S.

social and political history. The period witnessed changes in the family structure and

social mores. The development of television changed the role of the media and the impact

of advertising. These changes led to the development of mass culture, which changed the

nature of social and political relations. In the early 1960s the major television networks

produced the first half hour evening news programs (White 1982, 172-173). The

development of the national news program gave large audiences access to stories across

the country, exposing events and forcing politicians to deal with issues that they would not

have chosen to handle. "More importantly, shifts in attitudes of women, blacks, and other

minorities toward their own rights, and the general acceptance of these claims by the rest

of society, allowed a minority of black Americans to enter the middle strata of

employment and freed the vast majority from restrictions that had bound them since the



"3The Hispanic population grew 58 percent to 35.3 million people since 1990. The
non-Hispanic white population dropped to 69 percent from 76 percent a decade ago. This
trend is expected to continue. Non-Hispanic whites are now a minority in California and
may soon be in Texas.










beginning of the century" (Gilbert 1981, 5).

I have discussed the importance of the Civil Rights Movement. Other groups were

active during this period including Latinos and native Americans and women. In 1969, the

Stonewall riots in New York launched the Gay rights movement. Against the backdrop of

these social movements, the Antiwar movement grew starting in 1965 when President

Johnson escalated the war in Vietnam by sending in the 9th Marine Expeditionary Brigade

to defend the air bases at Da Nang. U.S. troop levels rose from 23,000 in 1964 to more

than 180,000 in 1965. U.S. military strength peaked in 1968 with more than 500,000

personnel in South Vietnam (Bonds 1979, 12-13).

Both the SNCC and CORE opposed U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War as

early as 1966. In 1967, Martin Luther King publically voiced his opposition to the war in

Vietnam and in some sense linked the civil rights and antiwar movements together. On

February 25, 1967, with speech at a fund-raising dinner, King began to make the

connection between the civil rights and antiwar movement. King declared that "we are

engaged in a war that seeks to turn the clock of history back and perpetuate white

colonialism." He further implored that "we must combine the fervor of the civil rights

movement with the peace movement. We must demonstrate, teach and preach until the

very foundations of our nation shake" (quoted in Levy 1999, 318).

In no sense should we assume that the social movements of the 1960s and early

1970s were integrated and coordinated in a collective desire to change the American

identity. Some groups were hostile to each other, such as some civil rights groups and










women's groups."4 Hardly did these movements achieve all the goals they set for

themselves. Nevertheless, these multiple social movements created a period of societal

change that shifted the normative structure of the United States and ushered in a growth

of tolerance for religious, cultural, and ethnic diversity.

Multicultural and Tolerant America

In this chapter, I argue that social movements have led to changes in the general

normative structure of the United States regarding political and civil rights. In the

following section I provide some evidence to support this assertion. I use polling date

measuring public opinion on issues regarding race, religion and gender."5 I draw the data

from the Gallup Organization and from the American National Election Studies, which

measure mass opinion.16 For the most part, shifts in mass opinion have mirrored shifts in


4"In 1964 SNCC leader Stokely Carmichael joked the "the only position for women
in SNCC is prone" (Evans 1989, 282). The women's movement, made up predominately
of white women, was viewed with suspicion by those in the Civil Rights movement

"For the most part, I have focused on the issue of racial ethnic and gender norms
regarding civil and political rights. I choose to include the questions regarding religion
since religion has been used to define groups as separate and distinct. A long tradition of
anti-Catholicism and anti-Semitism existed in the United States (see Higham 1971).
However, it appears that with the development of the Euro-American identity these
distinctions are less important. Jews and Catholics are grouped with the Protestant sects
as followers of a Judeo-Christian tradition.

"6Gallup provides polling result extending back to 1935. The Gallup Organization
published most of these results in The Gallup Poll: Public Opinion 1935-1971, 3 vols. The
accuracy of the data in these volumes has been confirmed from the original surveys by
William G. Mayer in The Changing American Mind (1992). Gallup data after 1971 is
drawn from the annual updates through 1999. The University of Michigan conducts the
American National Election Studies (NES). These surveys are based on representative
samples of citizens of voting age, living in private homes. Interviewing for this series was
first done after the election of 1948 and has been conducted before and after every
presidential election since 1952. NES data used in this study can be found at








72
elites' attitudes (Zaller 1992, 11). Since I am trying to gauge changes in societal norms, I

have chosen to rely on measures of mass opinion. The data that I present represents the

same questions asked repeatedly over the years. This allows for an estimation in long-

term changes and general trends.

We are trying to understand societal norms. Recall, that norms are culturally

defined rules of conduct and specify appropriate behavior. The Pettit (1993) definition

stated above suggests that a regular behavior becomes a norm when an overwhelming

majority of the population approves of the behavior. How do we define an overwhelming

majority? In an assessment of the public opinion's impact of public policy, Thomas

Graham (1994) finds that the magnitude of public support determines the degree of public

influence.7 Attitudes held by less than 50 percent of the public rarely influences public

policy. A majority opinion (50-59 percent) can shape public policy, but only with strong

policy leadership. At this level of support fertile ground exists for counter attacks by

political opposition.

Consensus level public opinion (60-69 percent) successfully influences the policy
process even if powerful bureaucratic interests have to be overruled. Preponderant
level public opinion (70 to 79 percent) not only "causes" the political system to act
according to its dictates but also deters political opposition from challenging a
specific decision. Nearly unanimous opinion (80 + percent) sweeps all political
opposition away, dominating the entire political system so that decision appear to
be automatic (Graham 1994, 196).




http://www.umich. edu/-nes/nesguide.

7 Graham develops his divisions based on a review of data from more than five
hundred national surveys and an examination of primary documents from seven
presidential administrations.










Using Graham's finding on public opinion and public policy, in analyzing the

following data when a response to a question surpasses 60 percent we can consider it as

an indicator of a societal norm. When opposition to a position drops below 30 percent,

we assume that society generally accept the norm. Some contend that people lie on public

opinion surveys. This does not influence our understanding of the societal norm. The

pressure is on individuals to conform to the societal norms. If an individual knew that

his/her personal opinion did not reflect the broader societal norm they would be inclined to

make their response match the societal norm. For example, one might contend that all

men are misogynists and chauvinists, however, if the broader societal norms say that

women should have an equal role we will find the preponderance of men responding that

women should have an equal role despite their immediate beliefs. The same applies for

issues of race or religion."

The survey data strongly suggest that it has become less acceptable for Americans

overly to take in to account characteristics of race, gender or religious preferences in their

electoral decisions. In 1937, the Gallup Organization began asking Americans their

willingness to vote for a presidential candidate with various demographic and religious

characteristics. Over the years the question has taken the following form: Ifyourparty


'%My discussion of religious tolerance has been limited. The United States is said
to have been founded on religious freedom. However, one must recall that dissenting
religious groups that immigrated to colonial America came only for their own religious
freedom and not to promote tolerance for all religions. For most of U.S. history the
Protestant forms of Christianity have been the accepted form for the American identity.
Some scholars such as Samuel Huntington still consider it to be the prevailing religious
form structuring the American identity (see Huntington 1997). Nevertheless, with the
development of the Euro-American identity Catholicism and the Jewish faith have
constituted the American identity with the so-called, Judeo-Christian tradition.










nominated a generally well-qualified person for President and he happened to be

______ wouldyou vote for him? The willingness to vote for a candidate for

president of a certain demographic background provides a strong indicator of prejudice in

the United States. The Presidency is the top elected post in the United States and with the

role as head of state provides the symbolic representation of the United States. Who

Americans feel comfortable within that office can provide an indicator of how the broader

society views itself. When an individual from a certain background is elected president,

conventional wisdom suggests that the general population feel comfortable with that

individual's background. For example, when Ronald Regan was elected president in 1980,

pundits and commentators said that the American public had fully accepted the idea of

divorces. Although Reagan had been married to his second wife Nancy for many years by

the time of the campaign, some questioned the willingness of the electorate to vote for

someone who had been married more than once. The issue turned out to be irrelevant to

the election. This being the case, we can use the willingness to vote for an individual for

president for a certain background as a barometer for societal norms regarding that

characteristic.

Figure 1 shows support for a Catholic presidential candidate. Alfred E. Smith was

the first Catholic who ran for the office of president. In the election of 1928 Smith

received 41 percent of the popular vote and lost the election to Herbert Hoover, however,

by 1937, 60 percent of those polled said that they would vote for a Catholic presidential

candidate. In 1960, with the election of the first Catholic President, John F. Kennedy,

opposition had fallen below 30 percent making it socially acceptable to vote for a Catholic








75
for President. These trends have continued to the point where Catholicism is no longer an

issue for the American electorate.

Much media excitement occurred in 2000 with Senator Lieberman's nomination for

vice-president as the first Jewish candidate for that office. However, from figure 2 we see

that by 1960, 70 percent of those surveyed said they would have support a Jewish

presidential candidate. This trend continues through the 1960s reaching a peak of 92

percent in 1999. Figure 1 and 2 suggest that by 1960 a candidate's religious association

was not a major issue.19 U.S. society inculcated a tolerance for religious diversity.

Although religious diversity appears acceptable for Americans, societal norms still strongly

insist that a presidential candidate hold some type of religious belief In 1958, only 18

percent of those polled said they would vote for an atheist for president, while 75 percent

said they would not. By 1978 this disparity had decreased to 40 percent saying yes and 53

percent saying no. In the latest survey in 1999, only 49 percent of those polled said that
















"The absence of a question of the Islamic faith suggests a bias against that
religion. An area for further study is to what extent does an anti-Islamic bias shape U.S.
relation with Muslim countries?



















Would you support a Catholic for president?











- --------- ,M w

0 IIP I I I go I

37 40 55 56 58 59 60 61 63 65 67 69 78 83 99
year


- Yes


Source: Gallup
- No


Support for a Catholic Presidential Candidate


Figure 1


100
90
80
70
60
S50
40
30
20
10
0


,IIIII no opinion




















Would you support a Jewish candidate for President?


37 58 59 61 63 65 67 69 78 83 87 99
year


- Yes


Source: Gallup
- No


IIIiIii noopinion


Support for a Jewish Presidential Candidate


Figure 2


100
90
80
70
60
S50
40
30
20
10
0









78
they would vote for a well-qualified person from their party if that person happened to be

an atheist, while 48 percent said they would not. This falls short of the 60 percent support

or less than 30 percent voicing resistance to an issue for it to be considered a norm. In

the United States it is no longer considered correct behavior to discriminate against

someone for their religious belief, but doing it is acceptable if an individual does not hold a

religious belief

When it comes to political choices and the growth of tolerance for African-

Americans, the civil rights movement clearly shows its influence. Figure 3 confirms these

dramatic results. The Gallup organization did not even consider asking whether anyone

would be inclined to vote for a well-qualified black candidate until 1958. In that year only

37 percent said yes, while 53 percent responded no. The dramatic changes in 40 years

show that by 1999,95 percent said that they would vote for an African-American for

president. As the 20th century closes only 4 percent of those polled said that they would

not vote for an African-American for president. Examining figure 3 we see that those

responding that they would support an African-American for president passes the 60

percent point by 1969. Resistance to an African-American candidate also drops below the

30 percent level in the same year. Following 1969 those responding yes only increases,

while negative responses continue to decline. For African-Americans, 1969 clearly marks

the point at which the societal norms change and that prejudice against African-Americans

in one's political choice is no longer acceptable.

The decline in prejudice against women has followed a similar pattern to African-

Americans (see figure 4). In 1937, only 37 percent of those polled said that they would










vote for a well-qualified female candidate for president. It is not until 1955 that support

rises above resistance, yet still below the level needed to make it normatively acceptable.

Figure 4 suggests that 1971 is a key year with support rising above the 60 percent

threshold and opposition falling below the 30 percent level. As with the willingness to

support an African-American presidential candidate, the willingness to support a woman

follows the turbulence of the 1960s with the civil rights and woman's liberation movement.

Over the next 30 years, support for a woman presidential candidate climbs steadily,

reaching more than 90 percent by 1999.

Homosexuals as a group lag far behind others in societal acceptance. In 1978,

when the question was first asked by Gallup, only 26 percent of those polled said that they

would vote for a well-qualified homosexual for president. In 1999, the percentage

responding yes had risen to 59 percent, however, 37 percent said that they would not vote

for a homosexual. This level of resistance strongly suggests that Americans do not accept

homosexuals in the broader society. Interestingly, with 59 percent saying that they would

vote for a homosexual for president, homosexuals stand roughly in the same position that

African-Americans did in the United States in 1965.



















Would You Support a Black Presidential Candidate?








1f ,



585961 6365676971 788384879799
_______________In
Il-----------ll --l---------1111-titll-l----l-ch


58 59 61 63 65 67 69 71 78 83 84 87 97 99
Year

Source: Gallup


i Yes


i i No


1.11111 noopinion


Support for a Black Presidential Candidate


Figure 3


100
90
80
70
60
S50
40
30
20
10
0






















Would you support a woman presidential candidate? ___


37 49 58


- Yes


63 69 75 83
Source: Gallup
-- No '""3', no opinion


Support for a Woman Presidential Candidate


Figure 4


100
90
80
70
60
S50
[ 40
30
20
10
0


a








82

To display this general growth of tolerance in American society, we need to look

to other indicators. In figure 5, we see a continued growth since 1972 in the percentage

of those who believe that women should have an equal role in society.' In figure 6, when

questioned on school integration we find that by 1968, more than 70 percent believed that

white students and black students should go to the same schools. By 1972, resistance to

school integration had dropped to 14 percent. Figure 7 graphs the responses of those who

approve or disapprove of marriage between whites and non whites. In the period from

1958 to 1991, the percentage of those who said they disapprove drops 52 percentage

points. Finally in figure 8, when surveyors asked whites if they would move if blacks

came to live in their neighborhood, 50 percent said yes in 1958. In 1967, those

















2The text of the question asked is as follows: "Some people feel that women
should have an equal role with men in running business, industry and government. Others
feel that a woman's place is in the home. Where would you place yourself on this scale or
haven't you thought much about this?" Respondents were asked to rate their answers on a
7-points scale with I being an equal role and 7 indicating that a woman's place is in the
home. For figure 5, I coded a response of 1,2,or 3 as equal role and 5, 6, or 7 as Women's
place is in the home. I did not graph a response of 4, which consistently ranged between
11 and 21 percent or a response ofdon't know, which averaged 6.3 percent over the
years.








83










Should women have an equal role in society with men?
100
90
80
70-
60-
50
40
30
2 0 fft .O.M-.
10-
0 1 TT 1
72 74 76 78 80 82 84 88 90 92 94 96 98


year
Source: NES
--- Equal Role
Woman's Place in the Home




Support for an Equal Role for Women


Figure 5

















Do you think white students and black students should go to the same schools?


Ma -f -f N-o-,
....s ft in f


I I I I I I 1 1
42 56 63 64 65 68 70 72 76 77 80 82 84 85
year


- same


Source: NORC in (Mayer 1992, 369)
separate 11''11 don't know


Support for Integrated Schools

Figure 6


100
90
80
70
60
S50
40
30
20
10
A


u


-ONNOW
IN


mo -- _















Do you approve or disapprove of marriage between whites and non-whites?


1968 1972 1978 1983
year


- Approve


Source: Gallup
S- Disapprove


1ii11'1 Noopinion


Support for "Mixed" Marriage


Figure 7


100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0


1958


1991













Would you move if black people came to live in your neighborhood?


100--
90--
80
70-
60--
50-
40
30-"
20-"
10-
0
1958


1963 1965 1966 1967 1978 1990


- yes


Source: Gallup
=,,a' might ,11.11 no


Support for Integrated Neighborhoods


Figure 8










responding positively had dropped to 40 percent. By 1990, 68 percent said that they

would not move if blacks came to live in their neighborhood in significant numbers.

From the survey data reviewed above we can suggest that since the early 1970s,

America is reaching a multicultural identity. Multiculturalism is an empirical and social

reality, not some elite conspiracy as some have claimed.21 The survey evidence supports

the thesis that the American identity has changed, becoming more inclusive of groups once

shunned from the mainstream political and social culture. To support this finding further,

I briefly provide evidence from two very different venues, presidential cabinets and

television.

The composition of presidential cabinets also serves as an indicator for changing

norms regarding diversity and the development of a multicultural identity. When

President Clinton first took office in 1993, he wanted a Cabinet that looked like America.

That is, he stated that he wanted a Cabinet made-up of more than white men. Clinton

followed a pattern that had begun with President Johnson. Johnson appointed Robert C.

Weaver, the first African-American to hold a cabinet level post, as Secretary of Housing

and Urban Development in 1966. The administration of George W. Bush has continued

and expanded this practice to such an extent that it goes without question that a


2Michael Lind (1995) argues that it is a mistake to assume that multiracial is
synonymous with multicultural. For Lind, the United States can be multiracial without
being multicultural. Lind maintains that the white overclass perpetuate the multicultural
idea and buy social peace through affirmative action and tokenism. Lind further argues
that the white overclass have pitted the white underclass against minority groups to
maintain their position. Lind argues for something he calls a Liberal Nationalism that is "a
cultural melting pot, and ultimately a racial melting pot" (1995,298). Nevertheless, his
insistence on American English leads one to suspect his idea is some reformation of White
Euro-America.








88

presidential cabinet will be diverse. In fact, the entire Bush administration is more racially

diverse and contains more women than the Clinton administration.

In the post World War II era television has had a strong impact on the American

society. The content of television programs can also help gauge societal norms regarding

political and civil rights and a tolerance for diversity. Henry J. Perkinson in Getting

Better: Television and Moral Progress, argues that the content of television programs has

lead to social progress. It is likely that the causal relationship is reversed and television

programming reflects progress in society. If this is the case, changes in television serve as

an indicator of normative change.22

One of the first television shows to feature African-Americans was Amos and

Ad which first premiered on June 28, 1951 (Blum 1959, 98). The program aired as

radio show for 20 years in which white actors portrayed African-Americans in a

stereotypical fashion. On the TV version African-Americans played the roles, but still in

the stereotypical fashion. Television programs portrayed African-Americans as lazy,

dumb, and dishonest (Lichter et al. 1994, 336).

In the mid-1960s the portrayal of racial minorities underwent major changes and

the "proportion of non-northern European roles doubled over the next decade" (Lichter et

al. 1994, 339). African-Americans moved into starring roles playing strong and

competent characters in such shows as I Sy and Mission Impossible. By the 1970s,

shows featuring African-Americans were numerous and varied from comedies like Sanford


nThere is also the possibility of reciprocal causation in which the values of the
explanatory variable are determined, at least in part, by the dependent variable (see King,
Keohane, and Verba 1994).










and Son and The Jeffersons to the epic drama and history of one family's tribulations

through slavery, Roots. By the 1980s, television portrayed African-Americans on The

Cosby Show as successful with the father as a medical doctor and the mother a lawyer.

The portrayal of African-Americans has changed dramatically over the years. Today,

imagining a show like Amos and Andy on a network's prime time lineup is difficult. Other

minority groups such as Hispanics and Asian Americans show up in television programs in

ever increasing numbers and with non-stereotypical portrayals.

Conclusion

Today, Americans generally tolerate diversity and understand that the United

States is not a homogeneous society racially or ethnically. The overwhelming majority of

the American people accept gender equality. More women attend college than men. Even

conservative Christian groups like the Southern Baptists, who claim male leadership as a

tenant of faith, are finding dissent among their ranks.' Despite some latent prejudice,

racism, and chauvinism, overt discrimination is not widely accepted. In a multicultural

America acceptance of diversity is what all Americans share. Globalization or the

expansion of economic, political, social and cultural relations across borders is an idea that

has gained widespread endorsement among academics and policymakers. This



'In October 2000 the largest single component, the Baptist organization in Texas,
declared financial independence from the Southern Baptist Conference (SBC). Arguing
that the convention had become authoritarian, the Texans decided that the more than $5
million they had been sending to Southern Baptist seminaries would be better spent on
projects in Texas. The primary issue of divergence was the SBCs recent stands calling on
women to be submissive to their husbands and forbidding women pastors (Lampman
2000,15).










intensification of interaction is not only a global phenomenon, but it has been national as

well. Regional cultures exist in the United States, however, the United States has seen an

infusion of various cultures throughout the broader society. American society is more

tolerant and respectful of this diversity. The violation of an individual's civil or political

rights due to their racial or ethnic background is no longer socially acceptable. The norms

have changed. Norms that govern domestic policy are the same norms that direct foreign

policy. The next chapter begins an investigation of the promotion of human rights in U.S.

foreign policy. We will see that the changes in domestic norms translates into changes in

foreign policy.













CHAPTER 4
HUMAN RIGHTS IN U.S. FOREIGN POLICY

Introduction

In the previous chapter, I tried to establish that norms regarding political and civil

rights in the United States have changed. In this chapter it is my task to show that these

changes correspond to changes in U.S. foreign policy. The foreign policy issue I examine

is U.S. policy toward human rights. Recall that this study looks at the promotion of

democracy as U.S. foreign policy. Changing support for human rights represents a

changing perception of the nature of democracy. First, I begin with an analysis of

presidential rhetoric, drawn for the most part from inaugural addresses, and show the

changing status of democracy and human rights in presidential speeches.' An analysis of

presidential rhetoric provides us an understanding of the general U.S. foreign policy

orientation. As we will see, it does not provide the indicator for change in policy

orientation toward the promotion of democracy and human rights. The executive branch

lags behind the legislative branch in reflecting the change in domestic norms. Next, I

examine the changing position of human rights in U.S. foreign policy in the post World

War I period. I use contextual evidence and I utilize the last twenty five years of

quantitative scientific research on the relationship between U.S. foreign assistance and the


'Since the inaugural is the first speech a president makes, it can provide the
touchstone of that president's term in office.

91










violation of human rights by recipient countries. Researchers have not integrated or

assessed this literature longitudinally through any theoretical lense. The evidence suggests

that U.S. foreign policy has changed with that change taking place in 1970s. This change

occurs concurrently with the change in domestic norms that produced the new

multicultural American identity identified in the previous chapter.

Presidential Rhetoric

Presidents of the United States have for the most part conformed to the rhetoric of

idealism in their foreign policy principles. Words like democracy and freedom often adorn

their public speeches. American exceptionalism, the idea that the United States represents

a special phenomenon in the history of the world, clearly resounds in presidential inaugural

addresses. This has caused Henry Kissinger to lament the triumph of Wilsonian idealism

in America's singular approach to international affairs. Kissinger relates that duringig the

course of the twentieth century, one president after another proclaimed that America had

no 'selfish' interests [the only goal] was universal peace and progress" (Kissinger 1994,

621). However, a detectable shift in the presidential rhetoric exists. From Truman to

Nixon, when presidents spoke of governance in other parts of the world, they judge it as

each individual country's choice. Like Wilson before them, these presidents appear

dedicated to the principle of self-determination. In this line of reasoning, democratic

governance is often limited to particular groups of states. Beginning with President Carter

and continuing through to the current administration, human rights and democracy is

couched in universal terms and available to all. In the following section, I analyze

presidential inaugural addresses from Truman to George W. Bush and show how the










rhetoric has changed.

In his inaugural address of January 20, 1949 Harry Truman declared that in the

U.S. "we believe that all men have a right to equal justice under law... "(Truman 1949,

112). For Truman, the American people wanted a world "in which all nations and peoples

are free to govern themselves as they see fit..." Despite the argument for

self-determination, Truman argued that the United States and other "like-minded nations"

find themselves opposed to the "false philosophy" of communism. He assured the world

that the U.S. would strengthen "freedom-loving nations" against aggression and provide

technical and economic assistance to "peace-loving peoples" (Truman 1949, 112).

Granted, Truman made his speech in the context of the Cold War with the world divided

into camps of good and evil, however, more can be drawn from the rhetoric. Clearly,

Truman implied that some countries are peace and freedom loving while others are not.

Eisenhower's inaugural address of 1953 follows this structure with freedom viewed as not

universally desired. He declared that the United States holds "all continents and peoples in

equal regard and honor" (Eisenhower 1953, 6). Nevertheless, Eisenhower marked as a

fixed principle that the U.S. will never use its strength to "impress upon another people

our own cherished political and economic institutions" (Eisenhower 1953, 5). The

implication is that some peoples may not want democracy or be capable of it.

John F. Kennedy offered a slight twist on America idealism. In his inaugural

address, Kennedy forthrightly declared that the U.S. was "unwilling to witness or permit

the slow undoing of those human rights to which this nation has always been

committed "(Kennedy 1961, 1). To America's "old allies whose cultural and spiritual




Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID EJ175U4Z6_YVGR9S INGEST_TIME 2014-05-23T23:46:34Z PACKAGE AA00020508_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES



PAGE 1

DEMOCRACY PROMOTION AND U S FOREIGN POLICY : THE ROLE OF DOMESTIC NORMS By THOMAS JAY NISLEY A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2002

PAGE 2

Copyright 2002 by Thomas Jay Nisley

PAGE 3

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This study is a product of many years of classroom work, beginning at the undergraduate level and three years of intense research and writing I thank all my professors who helped shape my understanding of politics and world affairs Thanks go to my dissertation committee who helped guide me in the dissertation process I extend a particular heartfelt thanks to my committee chair Dr M. Leann Brown and to Dr Ido Oren for their thoughtful attention, comments and suggestions for each of the draft chapters. I thank the Department of Political Science which gave me the opportunity to work as a teaching assistant while at the University of Florida Acknowledgment and appreciation go to the College of Liberal Arts Gibson Dissertation Fellowship for funding a phase of the dissertation project Acknowledgment goes to the U.S. Federal government s student loan program Without such a program, I never would have financed my first year of study at the University of Florida. Lifelong thanks go to my father Kermit and my mother Joanne whose encouragement and support over the many years have helped me to achieve what I have Finally the deepest thanks go to my wife Clara for her love and understanding throughout the entire process. lll

PAGE 4

TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . m ABSTRACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vt CHAPTERS I FOREIGN POLICY AND SOCIETAL CHANGE . . . . . . . . . . . I 2 THEORY OF FOREIGN POLICY AND DEMOCRACY PROMOTION .... 12 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Theoretical Approach ......................... ......... .. ...... 12 Domestic Norms in Foreign Policy .................................. 18 Explanations for U.S. Efforts to Promote Democracy and Human Rights ..... 25 Domestic Theories of Foreign Policy ................................ 33 Public Opinion and Foreign Policy .................................. 36 Causal Hypothesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 3 NORMS AND THE GROWTH OF TOLERANCE ..................... 45 Introduction ..... ............................................. 45 Social Sciences, Norms and Explanation ............................. 46 Norms and a State's Identity ...................................... 51 American Identity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 Changing American Identity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 Social Movements and Identity Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Multicultural and Tolerant America ................................. 71 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 4 HUMAN RIGHTS INU.S FOREIGN POLICY .. ..................... 91 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 Presidential Rhetoric . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 Human Rights in U.S Foreign Policy ................................ 97 Uncertain Support 1945-1953 ............................... 98 Overt Neglect 1953-1976 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 O 1 lV

PAGE 5

Support and Promotion 1977-2000 ........ .... ............. 107 Quantitative Analyses of U.S Support for Human Rights ................ 111 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 5 CONGRESS AND THE TRANSMISSION OF NORMS TO FOREIGN POLICY . .... . .. . ... .. ... . ................. .. 118 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118 Constitutional Power and Foreign Policy ..... .... ................. 119 The Two Presidencies . ... ... .. .. .. . .... .......... .... .. . 122 Two Presidencies : Fact or Artifact . ...... .. ....... ......... 124 A Resurgent Congress ....... .. . ............... ....... 127 Constituent Influence on Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130 Congressional Influence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 3 Congress Human Rights and Democracy Promotion . . . . . . . . . 136 Conclusion .... . .... .................... ............ .... 152 6 CONGRESS AND FOREIGN POLICY: CONTRA AID AND SOUTH AFRICAN SANCTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154 Contra Aid . . .. .. ... ... .. . ... ... . .. .. ........... ... .. 155 South African Sanctions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168 7 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION ................... 170 REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .. . .. . .. ........................ ....... 207 V

PAGE 6

Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy DEMOCRACY PROMOTION AND U S. FOREIGN POLICY : THE ROLE OF DOMESTIC NORMS By Thomas Jay Nisley August 2002 Chairperson : Dr M Leann Brown Major Department : Political Science Although the United States (U.S ) has generally emphasized democracy in its international relations the evidence suggests that in the post World War II era U.S policy increasingly displayed a tendency to promote actively the spread of democracy globally I contend that the primary source of policy change originates from changing domestic norms regarding political and civil rights. As the commitment to political and civil rights increased in the domestic arena the commitment to political and civil rights internationally increased Before the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and other accomplishments of the Civil Rights Movement U.S foreign policy decision makers cared little for regime type in their policy orientations After the social upheavals of 1960s I have found a greater sensitivity in U.S policy toward democracy promotion The early 1970s is a transition period in the V1

PAGE 7

prevailing norms regarding civil and political rights in the United States and U.S foreign policy toward the promotion of human rights and democracy The changes in norms led to a change in identity In the early 1970s we find the basic U.S identity shifting from a Euro-American identity to a multicultural identity Theoretically my analysis originates from a constructivist approach to the study of world politics The constructivist approach emphasizes the impact of ideas rather than material considerations. This research specifically analyzes the changing normative structure in the United States and the concurrent change in identity This study links these transformations to changes in foreign policy. The actions of the U.S Congress regarding human rights and democracy promotion are specifically analyzed Congress represents the link between domestic norms and foreign policy orientations. The findings suggest that we must consider domestic level factors in our explanations of international behavior and foreign policy Particularly for the United States a human rights agenda and a policy of democracy promotion are associated with domestic societal changes regarding political and civil rights and a general growth in tolerance Vil

PAGE 8

CHAPTER 1 FOREIGN POLICY AND SOCIETAL CHANGE This study seeks to explain the sources of democracy promotion in U.S foreign policy. Although the United States has generally emphasized democracy in its international relations the evidence suggests that in the post World War II era U.S policy increasingly displayed a greater involvement in advancing the spread of democracy globally I contend that the primary source of policy change originates from changing domestic norms regarding political and civil rights As the commitment to political and civil rights increased in the domestic arena the commitment to political and civil rights internationally increased Before the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and other accomplishments of the Civil Rights Movement U S foreign policy decision makers cared little for regime type in their policy orientations After the social upheavals of 1960s I have found a greater sensitivity in U.S policy toward democracy promotion. The early 1970s is a transition period in the prevailing norms regarding civil and political rights in the United States It is during this period that U S. foreign policy toward the promotion of human rights and democracy changes The change in norms leads to changes in identity 1 In the early 1970s we find the basic U.S ethnic/racial identity shifting from a 1 Identity is a multifaceted concept covering notions of the relation of the individual to society politics and general world views such as fatalism or optimism In this study the change in identity is limited to that of racial/ethnic classification 1

PAGE 9

2 Euro-American identity to a multicultural identity The multicultural identity includes not only the acceptance of multiple racial and ethnic groups but is also generally tolerant of all forms of diversity How the United States sees itself impacts on how it relates to the rest of the world This study is important in bow it analyzes domestic level factors on foreign policy Other works have examined the relationship between racism in the United States and U.S. foreign policy (Hunt 1987 DeConde 1992) These works for the most part have shown the deleterious effects of American racism in U.S. foreign relations. Recent research has shown how advances in civil rights are related to the level of threat the United States faced in the world system (Klinker and Smith 1999 Dudziak 2000) For the most part these works have neglected to examine the impact of declining domestic levels of rac i sm and U.S foreign policy Some detractors will decry that the view of declining prejudices and increasing tolerance presented in this study is pollyannaish They will say that racism is alive and well in the U.S Others will claim that U.S foreign policy does not consider human rights and consistently violates human concerns for the larger "national interest. I am not at all suggesting that racism or discrimination no longer plagues the United States Neither am I intimating that American foreign policy consistently supports democracy and human rights What I do suggest is that there have been changes in the U.S domestic norms These changes have brought about an increase in respect for political and civil rights and a tolerance for diversity at the domestic level. Moreover U.S foreign policy reflects these changes.

PAGE 10

3 To what extent has the United States changed? As a brief illustration we need only to look at the United States and the actions of U.S presidents during two different periods of wartime The actions of President Woodrow Wilson during World War I and George W Bush in the present War against Terrorism" provide a study in contrast As the United States mobilized for war against Gennany and the Central Powers extensive attacks occurred against German culture and Gennan-Americans Gennan foods were stripped of their names Hamburgers became liberty sandwiches Attacks on German Americans were prevalent. Unique forms of violence were often devised by mobs to punish those charged with disloyalty or pro-Germanism For instance in San Rafael California a man had his hair clipped in the form of a cross after which he was tied to a tree on the courthouse lawn A person of German birth in Salt Lake City was thrown into a bin of dough where he almost suffocated. In Pennsylvania a man was taken from a hotel room, severely beaten, made to walk up and down the street with a dog chain around his neck, forced to kiss the flag and doused into a large watering trough (Peterson and Fite 1957 197) In one case near St Louis in 1918 a mob bound a man in an American flag before they lynched him (Kennedy 1980 68). President Wilson remained mute to the attack on German-Americans by Americans David Kennedy (1980 88) relates that Wilson persistently ignored pleas to speak out against attacks on German-Americans ." The actions of President George W Bush after the attack of September 11 2001 by Islamic extremists on the United States are in sharp contrast to the actions of Wilson The first hint of retaliatory attacks on Arab-Americans or Americans of the Islamic faith brought a sharp and quick condemnation from the President. Standing barefoot in a tiled prayer alcove in the Washington Islamic Center President Bush declared that those who

PAGE 11

feel like they can intimidate our fellow citizens to take out their anger don t represent the best of America. They represent the worst of humankind" (Lewis 2001 AS). Instead of fanning the flames of bigotry and hatred Bush declared that Islam is a religion of peace and that the war was against terrorism, not Islam 4 Cases of violence against Muslims did occur in the weeks after the attacks of 11 September The American Islamic Council reports more than 625 complaints of violence and harassment against Muslims and Islamic places of worship and gunmen murdered two individuals because they were Muslim or perceived as Muslim 2 Agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation were directed to investigate more than 40 potential hate crimes including the two homicides Nevertheless the cases of violence were isolated and usually solitary acts The absence of any case of mob killing of Muslim Americans represents a positive contrast to the actions of Americans in 1917 Professor Amitai Etzioni of George Washington University writing in the Christian Science Monitor declared that among the many reasons these days to be proud to be American . i s the concerted effort to suppress expressions of anger against the terrorists from spilling over to the religious group from which they hail (Etzioni 2001 9) No American leader or journalist sought to excuse the attacks on Muslim Americans as products of a thirst for revenge In contrast comments made by the Washington Post in response to the killings of German-Americans at the onset of the U S involvement in World War I were clearly exculpatory Regarding the violent nationalism 2In Mesa, Arizona a gunman murdered a Sikh owner of a gas station and in Dallas Texas a Pakistani Muslim was gunned down in his grocery store

PAGE 12

of the time, the Washington Post declared : "In spite of the excess such as lynching, it is healthful and wholesome awakening in the interior of the country" ( quoted in Kennedy 1980, 68). Woodrow Wilson was a bigot and a racist~ George W Bush cannot be so considered 3 With that understood we can explain the differing responses of these two men. Most apologists for historical figures with racist dispositions argue that we must understand these individuals in the context of their times. The societal norms of the time in which Wilson lived supported his world view George W. Bush's outlook reflects the American society today How are the domestic norms of a country reflected in its foreign policy? As I will argue in the next chapter, we cannot separate state-level factors from the external policy of a state Individuals are shaped by the society in which they live. Norms that govern and shape domestic behavior influence decision makers as they direct foreign policy Again we must turn to President Wilson. Wilson disliked the idea of hyphenated Americanisms He viciously attacked the foreign-born as "creatures of passion, 5 disloyalty, and anarchy" (quoted in Kennedy 1980, 67) In his third annual message to Congress, Wilson proclaimed that those "born under other flags but welcomed under generous naturalization laws to the full freedom and opportunity of America . have poured the poison of disloyalty into the very arteries of our national life . [T]he hand of 3 Wilson did not object to the Postmaster General widening the practice of segregation among federal employees in 1913 "He had screened the film The Birth of a Nation in the White House and had endorsed its pro-Ku Klux Klan interpretation of post Civil War Reconstruction as 'history written with lightning"' (Kennedy 1980, 281)

PAGE 13

6 our power should close over them at once ( quoted in Kennedy 1980 24) Wilson viewed the United States as one nation with one racial/ethnic identity that is white Anglo-Saxon and Protestant. 4 Holding to the view that all nations should have their own state it i s understandable that Wilson promoted a policy of national self-determination and a break up of the multiethnic state of the Austro-Hungarian Empire From the early twentieth century to the late twentieth century the American identity changes from a monocultural identity to a multicultural identity American policy toward the break up of Yugoslavia did not reflect a Wilsonian view of national self-determination. Instead policy makers pursued a multiethnic solution From the Vance-Owen plan to the Dayton Accords U. S policy makers consistently aspired to develop a state composed of multiple ethnic groups in war ravaged Bosnia In the summer of 2001 ethnic conflict between Albanians and Macedonians suggested a break up of Macedonia The United States under the aegis of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) refused to support the ethnic Albanian claims to sovereignty and committed troops in the peaceful settlement of the ethnic conflict. In this study the foreign policy area investigated is that of the promotion of democracy Most of the literature on democracy promotion suggests it to be a long standing U S policy Gregory Fossedal (1989) in The Democratic Imperative argues that the U.S promotes democracy abroad as an embodiment of its democratic nature 4 Similar sentiment of this can still be found today in the works of writers like Patrick Buchanan These sentiments also exist in academia Samuel Huntington (1997) calls for immigrants to accept English as the national language and commit to the Principles of the American creed and the Protestant work ethic

PAGE 14

7 According to Joshua Muravchik ( 1992) in Exporting Democracy. a foreign policy that links an American identity with the cause of democracy finds deep roots in American history In America s Mission Tony Smith (1994) ties the promotion of democracy with U.S security interests and traces its origins to the U.S Civil War. Most scholars attribute the absence of democracy promotion to the absence of strong domestic political leadership or to international security factors Domestic and societal normative changes in the United States are for the most part ignored in the literature on democracy promotion One attempt to develop a nuanced explanation for U.S democracy promotion and account for an evolution and change in policy can be found in William Robinson s (1996) Promoting Polyarchy Robinson suggests that with a globalized world economy the core countries led by the United States can no longer use coercive measures to control the poor states in the periphery To limit calls for greater economic participation in the developing world the United States promotes low intensity democracy or polyarchy as a way t o relieve pressure from subordinate groups for more fundamental political social and economic change Low intensity democracy or polyarchy is political democracy under capitalism which maintains elite minority rule and socioeconomic inequalities alongs i de formal political freedom and elections involving universal suffrage (Robinson 1996 356) Whereas most scholars view democracy promotion as a long-standing tradition in U.S policy Robinson correctly understands that it is a recent phenomenon This study agrees with Robinson s contention that the U.S promotes polyarchy The U.S political system is best characterized as a polyarchy Therefore it makes sense that U.S policy makers would seek to promote the form of democracy that characterizes their own political

PAGE 15

structure Where he claims that policy change is a product of globalization and transnational forces my research suggests that we must tum to domestic sources in the United States 8 I argue that change in U.S norms regarding domestic political and civil rights translates into changes in foreign policy regarding the promotion of political and civil rights externally (i.e ., democracy promotion). The independent variable is the domestic normative structure Norms are culturally defined rules of conduct that specify what is appropriate and what is proper or necessary behavior within groups organizations and institutions. Changes in this variable are considered permanent or at least not readily reversible The intervening variables are the avenues of transmission of domestic norms to the policymaking apparatus. Domestic norms on foreign policy (here democracy promotion) affect the policy making apparatus from many sources including the polls the media and interest groups An examination of these sources is incorporated in the following analysis However this study concentrates on policy changes originating from the U S Congress as the primary indicator of change in domestic norms. The assumption is that the legislative branch is closest to the electorate and thus will be the first to reflect changes in the broader society By examining the activities of Congress we can link change at the domestic level to changes in foreign policy The dependent or outcome variable is democracy promotion. The conception of democracy embraced in this study is compatible with the conception of polyarchy Promoting democracy encompasses the promotion of regular free and fair elections and universal suffrage informational pluralism, civil liberties and human rights, functional autonomy for legislative executive

PAGE 16

and judicial branches and effective power and accountability for elected officials (Dahl 1971) The temporal domain of the study covers the post World War II era, 1945-2000 9 This study is composed of seven chapters After this brief introduction chapter 2 provides the theoretical background for the dissertation. Theoretically my analysis originates from a constructivist approach to the study of world politics The constructivist approach emphasizes the impact of ideas rather than material considerations A constructivist theory suggests that norms are a constitutive component of a state s interests My approach differs from standard constructivism regarding where norms come from and how they emerge to influence world politics The tendency among constructivist scholars is to suggest that states are socialized to accept new norms and perceptions of interests through international interactions This study takes a state level view to the constructivist approach Instead of norms being the sole product of international interaction, change in the domestic normative structure is offered as the origin of international behavior In chapter 3 I discuss the importance of norms for the social sciences and examine how norms constitute identity This leads to a discussion of changes in the normative structure in the United States and the changes in the American identity Although norms often change gradually the data suggest that the early 1970s mark the point at which domestic norms change The context in which change occurs is through the presence of protest movements organized with respect to issues of political and civil rights. I use data from the National Elections Studies and national survey groups such as Gallup to show a

PAGE 17

change over time in the American public s attitudes toward political and civil rights Also I analyze cultural and political changes during the period. 10 Beginning with a focus on the presidency Chapter 4 examines changes in U S foreign policy toward the promotion of human rights and democracy Through contextual evidence and the use of the last twenty-five years of quantitative research, I assess the relationship between U.S foreign assistance and the violation of human rights by recipient countries The evidence suggests that U.S foreign policy has changed with that change taking place in the 1970s This change occurs concurrently with the change in domestic norms that has produced a multicultural American identity identified in the previous chapter In chapter 5 I flesh out the indicator variable of Congress and show how the change in domestic norms influences changes in foreign policy This leads to a discussion of the role of constituent influence on members of Congress More than any other branch of government the Congress most accurately reflects the norms of the United States With members facing reelection every two years the House of Representatives most immediately reveals changes at the domestic level in the governing structure Congress exerts significant power over foreign policy through legislative and nonlegislative tools such as public hearings Taking a cue from the new institutionalist literature on American government I address the mechanisms beyond the legislative process by which Congress can influence foreign policy I show how the civil rights movement influenced members of Congress in their thinking toward foreign policy

PAGE 18

11 Finally, I confront the legislative and procedural changes that Congress has undertaken to incorporate the promotion of democracy and human rights into U.S. foreign policy I integrate my findings on the change in domestic norms into the analysis of Congressional activity In Chapter 6 I discuss two cases South African sanctions and the Contra aid debates where the President and Congress differed over promoting human rights and democracy and the Congress actually constrained presidential action Chapter 7 of the dissertation summarizes my findings and draws conclusions from the study I find a significant change in the domestic normative structure regarding political and civil rights over the duration of the period studied U.S foreign policy has reflected this change in public norms in the direction of greater concern for political and civil rights In the next chapter I discuss the importance of locating an understanding of foreign policy at the domestic level and address the relevance of norms to foreign policy

PAGE 19

CHAPTER2 THEORY OF FOREIGN POLICY AND DEMOCRACY PROMOTION Introduction Although the United States has generally emphasized democracy in its international relations the evidence suggests that in the post World War II era U.S policy increasingly emphasized good relations with democratic states and a greater involvement in advancing the spread of democracy globally The primary source of policy change emanates from changing domestic norms regarding political and civil rights As the commitment to political and civil rights increases in the domestic arena the commitment to political and civil rights internationally increases The basic puzzle of my research i s to what extent do changes in domestic norms result in changes in foreign policy? In this chapter I present my theoretical approach in understanding this question. The study is grounded in a constructivist perspective I also address the relevance of norms in the stud y of foreign policy Second I review the literature addressing democracy promotion and U S foreign policy Third I discuss the importance oflocating this analysis at the domestic level and in doing so consider the relationship of domestic norms to the formation of foreign policy Theoretical Approach Theoretically my analysis originates from a constructivist approach to the study of world politics The constructivist approach emphasizes the impact of ideas rather than 12

PAGE 20

13 material considerations Primarily constructivism is a way of studying social relations Human beings are social beings and would not be human but for social relations Social relations and individual identities are mutually constitutive Norms of behavior link individuals to society and society to individuals (Onuf 1998) This study defines a norm as a standard of behavior taken to be proper and acceptable A norm is a principle of right action binding on the members of a group In societal relations norms guide the behavior of actors and set regularities of action Society is a system made up of the i nteraction of human individuals in which each member is both actor (having goals ideas attitudes etc ) and object of orientation for both other actors and himself ." With this assumption, we may understand how the system behaves based on broadly shared goals ideas and attitudes of the individuals These goals ideas and attitudes constitute norms of behavior The core of a society as a system, is the patterned normative order through which life of a population is collectively organized (Parsons 1966 8-10) The state is the political expression of the society From a social contract theory of the origins of the state we can understand the state as a product of the society Thomas Hobbes one of the first social contract theorists argued that individuals gave up some of their freedoms and agreed to be bound by the rule of the King. In return, the King provided order thus removing the individual from the state of nature in which Hobbes described life as nasty brutish and short (quoted in Coulter 1984 35) Jean Jacques Rousseau s version of the social contract further connects society to the state With his notion of the general will' Rousseau makes this connection explicit : So long as several men together consider themselves to be a single body they have but a single will,

PAGE 21

which is concerned with their common preservation and the general well-being (Rousseau 1992 966) The norms that bind the individuals together in a single body shape their collective perceptions regarding the necessities for preservation and what constitutes the general well-being. We can understand many behaviors of the state by reflecting on the basic construction of a particular state s society 14 A constructivist approach to foreign policy is better understood when juxtaposed to its theoretical antithesis rational-materialism A rational-materialist theory of foreign policy such as Classical Realism suggests that a state be understood as a rational unitary actor seeking to maximize its own interests or national objectives in world politics For Realism, a state s foreign policy is a response to changes in relative capabilities of other states Realism contends that states do and must respond to the outside world without moral consideration Realism proposes an amoral foreign policy with material power being the immediate concern (Morgenthau 1985) A rationalist-materialist approach can explain many state behaviors However we cannot account some aspects of state behavior for based on material interests Conversely I do not claim that we can explain all state behaviors through an examination of norms and state identities Nevertheless, a focus on norms best accounts some behaviors such as the promotion of democracy for through a constructivist approach. A theory of foreign policy from a constructivist approach posits that a state's national interests derive from a collective understanding within a state and an intersubjective understanding among states rather than an understanding derived from the distribution of material capabilities A state s interest is closely tied with its identity and the societal norms shape that identity. Whereas Realism

PAGE 22

assumes that all actors in global politics have one meaningful identity that of a self interested actor constructivism treats identity as an empirical question to be theorized within a historical context ... (Hopf 1998, 175). 15 The constructivist approach to the study of world politics emphasizes the process of interaction that leads to state identity and interest fonnation The model of behavior is one of rule-governed action Instead of a calculus of rational action based on ends and means actors (i e ., states) behavior is based on the situation and the designated appropriate behavior for the given situation Norms produce guidelines that shape the actors understanding of their interests A constructivist theory suggests that nonns are a constitutive component of a state s interests Nonns are relevant to some extent in all schools of international relations theory ~ however only the constructivist approach views nonns as fundamental Jeffrey Checkel (1998 327-328) infonns that: While realists see nonns as lacking causal force neoliberal regime theory argues that they play an influential rule in certain issue areas However even for neoliberals nonns are still a superstructure built upon a material base : they serve a regulative function, helping actors with given interests maximizing utility Agents (states) create structures (nonns and institutions) For constructivists by contrast nonns are collective understandings that make behavior claims on actors Their efforts reach deeper : they constitute actor identities and interest and do not simply regulate behavior From the constructivist perspective the building blocks of reality are not only material but ideational. State interaction creates the nonnative base that fonns the social milieu For most constructivists the level of analysis is the system State and nonstate interaction creates intersubjective understandings and frames identity

PAGE 23

16 The approach taken in this study differs from standard constructivism in regards to where norms come from and how they emerge to influence world politics Most constructivist scholars assume that states are socialized to accept new norms and perceptions of interests through international interactions Alexander Wendt (1996 48) offers constructivism as a structural theory of world politics. The core claims of a structural constructivism are the following : (1) states are the principal actors in the system ; (2) the key structures in the system are intersubjective not material ; and (3) those structures construct interests and identities rather than determined by exogenous factors to the system such as human nature or domestic politics This follows in an identification of world politics as a larger society in which values are mutually given (Bull 1977) A society of states exists when a group of states is conscious of and maintains certain common interests and common values A common set of norms binds these states in their relations with each other. States maintain certain norms and construct norms through interaction with other states creating larger societal norms that reconstitute state level norms Some scholars argue that international norms appear when they are welcomed and championed by a hegemon (Ikenberry and Kupchan 1990) Other scholars argue that agents for global normative change are not states but nonstate actors These scholars have focused on the role of international institutions (Finnemore 1996) or transnational groups (Sikkink 1993 Klotz 1995) in the diffusion of norms Along with a focus on transnational actors the origin of new norms of behavior is often linked to principled i deas held by individuals (Finnemore and Sikkink 1998) Ethan Nadleman (1990) has

PAGE 24

17 emphasized the influence of individuals with firmly held beliefs of right and wrong and a desire to convert others to those ideas who act as transnational moral entrepreneurs I contend that these scholars do not place enough emphasis on state level factors in the development of norms Individuals are important but how can we explain why some gain legitimacy in their views while others do not? Of course transnational organizations help diffuse norms throughout an international society ; however, a hegemon enhances this diffusion when it embraces the same norms This study takes a state level view to the constructivist approach Instead of norms being the sole product of international interaction, changes in the domestic normative structure will be offered as the origin of international behavior. Scholars in the constructivist vein suggest that the international normative environment alters the character of states and state behavior (Jepperson et al 1996) Nevertheless these scholars have failed to indicate the origin of the normative structure other than being produced by the intersubjective understandings of the states Thomas Rise-Kappen reminds us that norms do not float freely and are at a minimum mediated through the individual state s domestic structure (Risse-Kappen 1994) Stephen Krasner further argues that the domestic structures of states determine the international environment, particularly the domestic structures of the most powerful states In the contemporary world transnational fascist and racist organizations are weak ; this would hardly be the case if Germany had won the Second World War" (Krasner 1995 266) The same line of reasoning would lead to the assumption that the supremacy of market solutions to economic problems and the dominance of multinational corporations in the

PAGE 25

18 global economy would not exist if the United States had collapsed in 1991 rather than the Soviet Union Therefore we must examine the domestic normative structure of a state to understand its external behavior Moreover if the state is a powerful one it has the capacity to shape the general international normative environment. U S foreign policy behavior is more influenced by domestic norms than by the norms propagated by less powerful states or institutionalized in systemic bodies Domestic Norms in Foreign Policy A state s foreign policy decisions emerge from three levels of influence : (1) external or international influences ; (2) internal or state influences ; and (3) individual influences (Kegley and Wittkopf 1996) At the first level we find the external sources of foreign policy or international influences This includes systemic factors such as the prevalence of conflict the extent of trade interdependence or the intersubjective understandings states develop through the process of interaction The second level of internal influences brings in the domestic sources of foreign policy The broadest category includes the state s societal environment which contains the values beliefs norms and self-images widely shared by the broader culture These factors in the state s societal environment compose its identity A second category at the internal level is the institutional setting This includes the governmental structures the division of authority and the decision-making process The third level represents the characteristics of individual decision makers This level focuses on how individual personality characteristics explain how decision makers choose to conduct foreign policy

PAGE 26

19 All three le v els can account for variations in a state s foreign policy At the systemic level a state s foreign policy options are directly related to the global distribution of power (Waltz 1979) Some states based on their relative power capabilities have greater leeway in their choices Nevertheless as the extant literature on the democratic peace suggests the type of political regime is an important predictor of a state s foreign policy (see Chan 1997 for an excellent review) The type of political regime circumscribes a state s options irrespective of power capabilities The institutional structure of the foreign policy making process and organizational procedures shape foreign policy outcomes (Allison and Zelikow 1999 Nisley 1999) At the individual level psychological and personality differences account for variance in decision making behavior (Jervis 1976 McDermott 1998) This study argues that the prevailing domestic norms at the societal level will provide a robust account of a state s foreign policy behavior regarding the promotion of democracy Norms set boundaries on behavior restricting some and mandating others Societal norms structure all three levels of influence in some way Societal norms dictate how a state will respond to systemic constraints Although the structure of the system limits choices choices do remain. State institutions and organizational structure are derived from and influenced by larger societal norms Democratic institutions are legitimated through democratic norms Individual decision makers are products of the societies to which they are born For example AdolfHilter s anti-Semitism and xenophobia were not far removed from the rural Austro-German culture in which he was reared and were widely embraced by the broader German culture

PAGE 27

20 As a factor in a state s foreign policy norms are fundamental Societal norms and ideas held by individuals help shape a state s foreign policy Judith Goldstein and Robert Keohane (1993) provide a framework that explains how ideas (beliefs held by individuals) explain policy outcomes Although Goldstein and Keohane emphasize ideas their framework is relevant for this study since norms are in essence the collective ideas of proper and improper behavior held by the larger society Goldstein and Keohane offer three types of ideas : world views principled beliefs and causal beliefs World views address the concept of what is possible and are embedded in the symbolism of a culture and deeply affect modes of thought and discourse (Goldstein and Keohane 1993 8) Principled beliefs specify the criteria of right and wrong and are often justified in terms of world views (Goldstein and Keohane 1993 9) The third category of ideas causal beliefs are beliefs about cause-effect relationships which derive authority from the shared consensus of recognized elites ... (Goldstein and Keohane 1993 10) Goldstein and Keohane identify three causal pathways through which ideas influence policy Ideas may serve as road maps assisting individuals in the determination of their own preferences or to understand relationships (Goldstein and Keohane 1993 13). Ideas serve as focal points and help individuals choose from among multiple outcomes (Goldstein and Keohane 1993 17) Finally ideas influence policy as they become institutionalized (Goldstein and Keohane 1993 20). Ideas influence organization design and the development of political institutions administrative agencies legal structures and operating procedures that mediate between ideas and outcomes

PAGE 28

21 John Ruggie suggests that the Goldstein and Keohane typology does not advance us far from the neo-utilitarian precepts of neoliberal regime theory (Ruggie 1998 17 ) Goldstein and Keohane seek to use ideas to account for unexplained variance in their rationalist models Beliefs are not independent variables they are intervening variables that explain anomalies in a rational-materialistic account. Goldstein and Keohane (1993 7) declare that we do not seek to explain the sources of these ideas ; we focus on their effects ." The Goldstein and Keohane typology provides a starting point but we must move further and account for norms as independent causal variables Individual ideas are translated through intersubjective beliefs into social facts This is what the philosopher Searle calls collective intentionality Intentionality remains an individual event [b ]ut within those individual heads it exists in the form we intend and I intend only as part of our intending "' (quoted in Ruggie 1998 20) Broad societal norms are important explanatory variables in the study of world politics Domestic norms are the most important part of the explanation of the democratic peace In matters of war and peace the empirical evidence strongly suggests that democracies are more peaceful in their relations with other democracies (Maoz and Abdolali 1989 Russett 1993 Ray 1995). Some scholars have found evidence to suggest that democracies are more peaceful in international relations overall Stuart Bremer finds that democratic states are less likely than nondemocratic states to engage in militarized interstate disputes (Bremer 1992) David Rousseau and his colleagues (1996 527) present evidence suggesting that democracies are less likely to initiate crisis with all other types of states ." R J. Rummel ( 1983) has gone far as to assert that democracies are less

PAGE 29

22 warlike than other types of regimes Moreover, he concludes that the more democratic a regime the less severe will be its foreign violence (Rummel 1996 71) Rummel further extends the pacific benefits of democracy to a state s internal relations Democracies are the most internally peaceful regimes or as Rummel declares "democracies don t murder their citizens (Rummel 1996 91) The question we must ask is why do democracies appear to be more pacific in all of their relations? Zeev Maoz and Bruce Russett (1993) offer two alternative explanations for the democratic peace : a structural/institutional account that suggests that bellicose executives in democracies are constrained by elected representative institutions and a normative account that emphasizes certain aspects of liberal democracy market economies nonviolent resolution of differences the rule of law as guiding relations between democratic states Scholars differ about which factors are more important. Bruce Bueno de Mesquita and David Lalman (1992 156) dismiss the normative account since democracies will still fight nondemocratic countries ; [b ]eing a liberal democracy does not guarantee that a nation behaves like a dove just as failing to be a liberal democracy does not guarantee that a nation is hawk like ." Christopher Layne (1994) also makes this argument. Maoz and Russett (1993) demonstrate that both the structural/institutional and normative accounts offer explanations of the democratic peace however democratic norms are even more positively correlated with low conflict than democratic institutions The division of the explanation into a structural and a normative account is a false dichotomy Even Bruce Russett (1993 40) recognizes that the two models are not neatly

PAGE 30

23 separable and that "[i]nstitutions depend on norms and procedures. John Owen (1994) argues that liberal ideas (norms) produce both democratic ideology and institutions which work together to constraint government and produce the democratic peace Liberal states "trust those states they consider fellow liberal democracies and see no reason to fight them" (Owen 1996 153) The problem with the broader normative argument is that most scholars researching the democratic peace assume that domestic norms are static rather than dynamic Any state that meets the scholar's definition of democracy is considered imbued with democratic norms However our conceptions of democracy have changed over time so why should we not consider that democratic norms have changed also ? 1 In quantitative studies on the democratic peace, the indicators for norms have a limited capacity to capture the dynamic concept of domestic norms. For example in his test of the democratic peace in the post World War II era, Russett (1993) uses two proxy variables to capture domestic norms : the persistence of a political regime and the level of domestic political violence measured by the number of violent political deaths and the number of political executions Russett proposes that a society with strong democratic norms would be characterized by a political regime of some duration and with little or no 1 For a tightly reasoned argument to the changing nature of democracy see C H. Macpherson (1977) The Life and Times of Liberal Democracy Macpherson argues that Western liberal democracy did not emerge until the nineteenth century when liberal theorists came to believe that one man one vote would not be dangerous to private property Democracy has moved through four identifiable phases: (I) Protective Democracy that only protected the governed from abuses of the government ; (2) Developmental Democracy that brought a moral dimension to democracy seeing democracy as a means to individual self-development ; (3) Equilibrium Democracy that rejects individual self-development and instead provides a justification for a competition between elites and finally (4) Participatory Democracy that is an emerging phase of democratic life with more extensive individual inputs into the governing process

PAGE 31

24 political violence Both are behavioral indicators that cannot capture the concept of democratic norms One can easily imagine a society in which a thoroughgoing anti-democratic attitude dominates the culture such a religious community This may be a long-standing regime in which political violence need not exist. The Puritan colony of early America comes to mind as an example as well the Kingdom of Bhutan today Although the absolute monarchy in Bhutan was changed to a form of democratic monarchy in 196 9, democratic norms do not characterize the society Rather a subservience to traditional culture and Buddhism characterize Bhutan No political violence is necessary to maintain order. A further problem with democratic norms is the potential for a subjective bias Ido Oren (1995) contends that the democratic peace is subjective and the United States o v er the years has redefined its definition of democracy to keep our self-image consistent with our friends attributes and inconsistent with those of our adversaries (Oren 1996 263) Although Oren does recognized internal changes to the U.S .' s definition of democracy he puts more emphasis on external influences of foreign policy According to Oren, President Woodrow Wilson s image of Imperial Germany changed as a function of the foreign policy process Wilson once considered Germany an ideal democracy with an advanced and effective political system. It is only when relations turned bellicose in 1917 that Wtlson developed a negative perception of Germany Oren s argument is compatible with Owen s. For a democratic peace to be maintained liberal states must perceive other states as liberal External threats do appear to play role nevertheless the prevailing domest i c

PAGE 32

25 normative structure energizes the linkages of perception Domestic norms change often profoundly over time To illustrate such deep changes one only has to think of President Wilson If Woodrow Wilson were a politician today given his Anglo-Saxonist views and racist disposition, he would not be considered a mainstream, viable candidate for national office Norms are important explanatory variables Clearly a state s foreign policy emerges from multiple levels of influence and multiple variables All social phenomena derive from plural causes (Mill 1846). However ifwe embrace the idea that the state is a product a reflection, and the expression of society we can understand state behavior by understanding the norms held by that society Broad societal norms stimulate actions at all levels of influence Norms change over time and with a change in norms we find changes in state policies and actions The next section considers the literature about a particular U.S policy the promotion of democracy and human rights abroad Explanations for U.S. Efforts to Promote Democracy and Human Rights The preponderance of the literature on democracy promotion by the United States has tended toward a normative policy approach Exemplars of this type are Transitions from Authoritarian Rule : Prospects for Democracy a four-volume collection edited by Guillermo O Donnell, Philip C Schimitter and Laurence Whitehead and Democracy in Developing Countries another four volume series, edited by Larry Diamond Juan J. Linz and Seymor Martin Lipset. Both volumes were commissioned by organizations funded by

PAGE 33

26 the U.S Congress .2 This type ofliterature is less an academic explanation and more a policy handbook Larry Diamond's (1995) report to the Carnegie Commission on Preventing Deadly Conflict Promoting Democracy in the 1990s : Actors and Instruments, Issues and Imperative is the ultimate guide for the policymaker seeking to promote democracy. The report provides a justification for promoting democracy (as a means to global order and U.S national security) and presents all of the actors and instruments needed to promote democracy 3 In seeking to understand U S foreign policy this type of literature provides no explanation except as objects of inquiry themselves A body of literature on U.S democracy promotion that seeks to explain the phenomenon does exist. Some of this literature perceives the policy as a natural manifestation of a democracy For example Gregory Fossedal (1989) argues that the U.S. promotes democracy abroad as an embodiment of its democratic nature Contrary to the perception of isolationism within the American public Fossedal contends that public opinion since the end of World War II has consistently remained interventionist. The promotion of democracy aboard is a necessary product of a democratic state Fossedal (1989 220) declares that to argue against a foreign policy to promote the rights of man, then, is to argue against the rights themselves and thus against our own institutions. 2 The Diamond et al volumes were commissioned by the National Endowment for Democracy and the O Donnell et al. series were funded by the Woodrow Wilson Center. 3 For the latest policy and strategic assessment on democracy promotion published by the Carnegie Endowment see Thomas Carothers (1999) Aiding Democracy Abroad : The Learning Curve

PAGE 34

27 Joshua Muravchik (I 992), much like Francis Fukuyama (1992) sees the triumph of the U.S in the Cold War as a victory of democratic ideology over other ideologies According to Muravchik, democratic ideas have been indefatigably connected with the United States since its inception and a foreign policy that emphasizes an American identity with the cause of democracy finds deep roots in American history Muravchik explains the absence of a policy toward democracy promotion to the absence of strong domestic leadership The spirit of democracy has always existed in the American soul, all it needed was a leader to revive it Muravchik links the rekindled spirit of democracy to President Ronald Reagan Therefore democracy promotion is a product of America s spirit and the general elan of democracy The absence of democracy promotion is attributed to currents of isolationism in U. S foreign policy that have obviated the natural tendency of the democracy spirit. It is isolationism that Muravchik decries and instead exhorts a policy of democratic internationalism in which the U.S pursues peace by making more countries democratic and actively shapes the international climate to one that is congenial to the United States Tony Smith (1994) also ties the promotion of democracy with U.S security interests Smith chronicles the U.S efforts to promote democracy beginning with the reconstruction of the South after the Civil War For Smith, the progenitor of a global policy of democracy promotion is President Wilson It is Wtlson who lays the ground work for U.S security policy for the twentieth century with the tenets developed in his Fourteen Points : that nationalism should be respected ; that democracy is the only legitimate form of government ; that the United States has an interest and an obligation to

PAGE 35

further democracy abroad ; that democracy and capitalism are mutually reenforcing systems ; and that in a world of many states there is a need for international law encouraged by multilateral institutional arrangements 4 28 Smith characterizes U.S policy to promote democracy as one that waxes and wanes depending on the individual presidential administration F D Roosevelt is said to have backed awa y from Wilson s ambition to promote democracy in the Western Hemisphere After the Second World War the democratization of the conquered Axis states and the general support for democracy in Europe through the Marshall plan is hailed as a Wilsonian triumph However Eisenhower is regarded as stepping back from democracy and even overthrowing democratically elected governments. Although characterized as an abysmal failure Kennedy s Alliance for Progress is lauded as an exemplary program in the Wilsonian vein Surprisingly Smith leaves a gapping hole in his analysis and fails to address an entire decade with the Johnson and Nixon administrat i ons. The only discussion of these two administrations is to conclude that they were a reassertion of realism from the Eisenhower years Smith portrays Carter as naively promoting human rights but failing to understand the deeper significance ofWilsonianism as a means to establish U.S security through the promotion of democracy It is Ronald 4 In contrast to Smith s claim that Wilson established the paradigm for U.S foreign policy that is still applicable today Frank Ninkovich (1999) in The Wilsonian Century suggests that Wilsonian internationalism was only a response to crisis in world politics Wilsonian internat i onalism was based on the assumption that the world had stumbled into a new and dangerous phase which obliged U S policy makers to abandon traditional diplomacy With the end of the Cold War, Ninkovich predicts that U.S. policy will revert to a normal internationalism based less on ideological orientations and more traditional notions of national interests

PAGE 36

29 Wilson Reagan whom Smith crowns as the heir to the true liberal internationalism of Wilson. Reagan emerges as the direct descendent of Wilson, for to an extent unmatched since Wilson s days the promotion of democracy was both a means and an end in Reagan's foreign policy (Smith 1994 269) A significant weakness of Smith s analysis is his privileging the individual level of analysis The foundation of Smith s analysis rests on the differences between particular presidents and their abilities to perceive correctly Wilson s notions of U.S security and the promotion of democracy Smith fails to address adequately why the exigencies of the Cold War compelled Eisenhower to work with and support authoritarian allies and come to an understanding with the Soviet Union, while for Reagan the same conflict obligated him to promote a democratic revolution and confront the evil empire ruled from Moscow Domestic level changes in the United States are for the most part ignored in the literature on democracy promotion This failure on Smith's part is puzzling since he advocates injecting a comparative politics approach to the study of the spread of democracy globall y. Smith wants us to understand the international origins of democ r acy by systematically analyzing the impact of U.S foreign policy on other state s domestic structure Nevertheless changes in U.S domestic structure are not accounted for in U.S policy changes G John Ikenberry (2000) sees the promotion of democracy by the United States particularly in the post World War II era as a learned strategy to maintain a congenial security environment. This is a recognition by U.S policy makers of the democratic

PAGE 37

30 peace To his credit Ikenberry does not suggest democracy promotion to be long standing U.S policy The recent U S preoccupation with democracy and human rights "is part of a larger liberal view about the sources of a stable legitimate secure and remunerative international order (Ikenberry 2000 104). Like Smith, Ikenberry links U.S policy to issues of security and grand strategy Both of their arguments are compatible with the neoclassic realist position that posits that intentions as well as capabilities shape a state's foreign policy (Walt 1987). As Randall Schweller informs us according to this realist school threat does not inhere in power alone the relative distribution of capabilities among states is less important than assessments of others intentions in determining how states interact with each other'' (Schweller 2000 42) Associated with the grand strategy of democracy is the promotion of economic openness and market economies As Ikenberry states in the U.S system of democracy enlargement "[i]nternational business is a coalition partner' (Ikenberry 2000 126) The association with economic issues raises questions of economic motivations for democracy promotion by the United States William Robinson s (1996) provides a nuanced explanation for U.S democracy promotion and accounts for an evolution and change in policy Arguing from a Gramscian perspective of politics and a Wisconsin School of diplomatic history Robinson suggests that the core countries led by the United States have realized that in a globalized world economy successful control of the periphery is not possible through coercive measures. In an attempt to limit calls for greater participation and high intensity democracy by countries in the developing world the United States has promoted low intensity democracy or polyarchy Polyarchy is a way to relieve pressure from subordinate groups for more

PAGE 38

31 fundamental political social and economic change (Robinson 1996 6) The democracy agenda by the United States is a cover for more basic economic objectives Whereas most of the other scholars discussed above view democracy promotion as a long-standing tradition in U S policy Robinson correctly understands that it is a recent phenomenon However one has to remain skeptical of his thesis that a transnational managerial class has appeared at the pinnacle of a global class structure According to Robinson, the power of globalization has reduced the power of states to control and regulate economic activity within national borders nevertheless a transnational elite has set out to create a global civil society to further its own interests Globalization deconcentrates power and limits the ability of any single actor state or nonstate from dominating political and economic activities Nevertheless Robinson would have us believe that the transnational managerial class which has penetrated civil society and gained command over popular mobilization and mass movements is now controlling the global order (Robinson 1996 69). As with most Marxists analyses which focus on material forces, control over those forces is linked to a nameless and faceless elite Robinson s real problem is with the failure of socialism as an economic system and the developing acceptance that markets are natural occurring products of human interaction Robinson concludes that capitalism is dangerous for democracy and a democratic socialism founded on a popular democracy may be humanity s last best ,' and perhaps only hope" (Robinson 1996 384). Robinson s conclusions are suspect however he does accurately point to a significant change in U.S policy toward the promotion of democracy abroad beginning in the 1970s Where he

PAGE 39

32 claims that policy change is a product of globalization and transnational forces this study suggests that we must tum to domestic sources within the United States Before we tum to domestic sources we must deal with a basic Realist explanation for the change in U S fore i gn policy toward the promotion of democracy and human rights 5 From a Realist perspective with a focus on relative power capabilities one may explain the variance U.S foreign policy toward the promotion of human rights and democracy by examining the distribution of power between the U.S and Soviet Union Immediately after the Second World War the United States had a preponderance of power in the global system Allied aircraft had bombed Europe and Japan to ruins Although the Soviet Union had significant military capabilities its ability to project power was limited Clearly Soviet military capabilities did not threaten the U.S homeland The United States had the luxury to promote human rights and democracy The United States helped establish democratic regimes in Japan and Western Germany By 1949 the Soviet Union ended the U.S atomic monopoly Furthermore the development oflong range missiles by the Soviets in the late 1950s clearly put the U.S homeland in striking distance With this high level of threat and a balance of power tilting away from the United States the luxury to promote human rights and democrac y ended Detente and the stability of mutual assured destruction in the early 1970s allowed the United Stated to reinstate a luxury policy such as human rights. As we will see in a later chapter the U.S policy toward human rights and the promotion of democracy does not match the ebbs and flows of the Cold War hostilities 5 1 want to thank Christopher Gelpi for suggesting this argument.

PAGE 40

33 with the Soviet Union In the early phase of the Cold War when the U.S maintained a preponderance of power over the Soviet Union U.S support for democracy and human rights was uncertain This uncertain support rapidly evolved into overt neglect and outright support for authoritarian regimes long before the Soviet developed the capability to strike the United States The period of detente was transitory and quickly emerged into renewed Cold War tensions with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the election of President Reagan Nevertheless increased support for human rights and a formal program of democracy promotion developed in U S. foreign policy during the Reagan administration Clearly we must examine other sources for policy change in the United States In the next section we turn to domestic theories of foreign policy Domestic Theories of Foreign Policy The idea that domestic activities are a source of foreign policy is one that has a long tradition in the study of world politics Thucydides {1903) reports how the internal activities of the Greek city states shaped their external behavior. In addition to the growth of Athenian power and the fear that it caused Sparta, the domestic political machinations of Pericles also cause war Niccolo Machiavelli (1910) located state behavior with the behavior of political leaders and Immanuel Kant (1795) distinguished a difference in the behavior of monarchies from republics In the twentieth century prior to Kenneth Waltz s (1979) revision of realism, many realist explanations for international outcomes relied on national or subnational attributes Henry Kissinger s (1964) theory of international relations linked the domestic political structure of the state to the nature of international politics, either stable or revolutionary George Kennan attributed Soviet behavior to

PAGE 41

34 factors rooted deep within Russian society (Gaddis 1982 48). The work on decisio n making in foreign policy such as Irving Janis (1972) and Robert Jervis (1976) clearl y locate their causal analysis at the domestic level. Janis examines the links of social pressure to the enforcement of conformity and consensus in decision making Jervis investigates the impact of historical learning on individual decision makers The events that political leaders experience shape their particular image of the world and the particular lessons learned from history The diversionary theory of war suggests the importance of domestic factors This hypothesis posits that leaders with domestic problems undertake risky foreign policies they otherwise would not attempt (Levy 1 989 ; Smith 1996) Robert Putnam (1988) suggests that political leaders have two audiences one domestic and one foreign and find themselves compelled to play "two-level games 6 The concept of two-level games assumes that leaders are trying to do two things at once that is manipulate domestic and international politics Despite the dominance of systemic approaches encompassed in the neorealist/neoliberal debate a tradition exists that emphasizes state-level factors in the study of world politics We can divide domestic theories of foreign policy into three broad categories : (1) society-centered domestic theories which stress the influence of domestic interest groups elections and public opinion ; (2) state-centered domestic theories where the source o f foreign policy behavior is within the administrative and decision making apparatus o f the executive branch ; and (3) state-society domestic theories where foreign policy beha vi or 6 For an e xt ensive application of Putnam s two-level games see Evans et al (1993) Double-Edged Diplomacy : International Bargaining and Domestic Politics

PAGE 42

originates from an interaction of institutions of representation, education, and administration linking society and the state (Moravcsik 1993) Which type of theory is most appropriate depends on the state s domestic structure 35 States vary in their type of domestic structure Thomas Risse-Kappen (1994 240) informs us that the notion of domestic structure refers to the institutional characteristics of the state to societal structures and to the policy networks linking state and society Society-dominated domestic structures exist in countries with strong societal organizations a high degree of mobilization of interest groups and decentralized and fragmented political institutions State dominated domestic structures embrace centralized political institutions with strong national executives able to manipulate the political process The United States is an example of a society-dominated domestic structure The U.S Constitution provides the environment for a society-dominated structure Its provisions of free speech association, and the right to petition the government are basic to the strong society structure Compared to many states the United States has a decentralized foreign policy decision making process The U.S. Congress has more authority over foreign policy than other legislative bodies Congress influences policy through its general legislative budgetary and oversight powers Although Congress relies on blunt foreign policy tools that are essentially negative they are still formidable tools nonetheless (Hastedt 2000 198) The decentralized nature of the U.S Congress provides

PAGE 43

36 multiple access points for mobilized groups and as conduits of societal influences 7 Given the openness of the U.S. political system we can expect that societal demands including public attitudes should reach decision makers in the Congress and the executive Moreover we should assume that the political leaders monitored public sentiments and patterns of attitude formation Public Opinion and Foreign Policy The influence of public opinion in matters of foreign policy has relevance for democratic polities The masses can revolt under any governmental structure but it is only in a democratic polity where political leaders need the consent of the governed that public opinion has relevance or even be worth studying. One causal factor identified for the pacific nature of democracies ( at least with other democracies) is the need to mobilize public opinion to move a state to war In his essay "Perpetual Peace Kant (1795) reasoned that states founded on a republican constitution must gain the consent of the citizenry to decide if there will be war In the twentieth century we can view President Wilson as propagating the view that infuses the necessary aspect of public opinion into a state's conduct of foreign policy The first of Wilson's Fourteen Points argues for open negotiations among states with no private international understandings. Wilson forcefully asserts that "diplomacy shall proceed always frankly and in the public view 11 The implication of this statement is that 7 Traditionally Congressional work was done in committees however in the 1970s the focus of decision making changed from the full committee to the subcommittee This has resulted in a greater decentralization of the Congress Furthermore the 1970s witnessed a weakening of party discipline an erosion of the seniority system, and the growth in congressional staff See Davidson and Oleszek ( 1977) Congress Against Itself

PAGE 44

37 the public is a part of a government s policy formation. In a democracy not only should policy proceed with the consent of the governed but the governed themselves will form an opinion on policy to the extent that matters affect their personal lives Whereas Wilson assigned an imperative to the common man, the journalist Walter Lippmann saw only the opprobrium of public opinion in policy making Lippmann ( 1 922) maintained that people are too fully engaged in the day to day requirements of earning a living to pay much attention to what is going on around them According to Ole Ho l sti (1992 441) Lippmann doubted the ability of the media to inform the public and to serve as a valid source of information about the world People are too busy to be engaged in foreign policy i ssues and if they wanted to be engaged the avenues for information are inadequate The outbreak of World War II appeared to offer evidence for Lippmann s position, an inattentive American public refused to engage in world politics allowing the rise of predator states in the system Following World War II a consensus emerged on public opinion and foreign policy Gabriel Almond's (1950) The American People and Foreign Policy help to solidify the perception of the American public that Lippmann had developed Almond depicted public opinion as an erratic and mood driven constraint on foreign policy For the most part the public's "characteristic response to questions of foreign policy was one of indifference" (Almond 1960 53) Moreover the public's attitude toward foreign policy was often volatile to the point that it provided no foundation for policy formation Almond went as far as suggesting that public opinion besides being erratic provided the wrong advice for policy makers "Often the public is apathetic when it should be

PAGE 45

38 concerned, and panicky when it should be calm" (quoted in Holsti 1992 442). The scholarly consensus on the Wilsonian idealization of the American public was far from sangume The behavioralist scholarship emerging out of the University of Michigan further buttressed the Lippmann-Almond consensus on public opinion. Philip Converse s (1964) "The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics" suggested that the public lacked any real structure or coherence to their political beliefs From panel studies in which surveyors asked the same people the same questions about public policy repeatedly in 1956 1958 and 1960 Converse found that the answers varied from survey to survey without a predictable pattern He concluded that "large portions of the electorate do not have meaningful beliefs even on issues that have formed the basis of intense political controversy among elites for substantial period of time" (Converse 1993 60) According to Converse the mass public's attitudes toward foreign policy issues are in essence "nonattitudes Converse's study and others that support his conclusion (Erskine 1963 Converse and Markus 1979) have lead to a tripartite view of the American public when it comes to foreign policy The idea of multiple publics was first expounded by James Rosenau (1961) in which he conceived of the foreign policy publics as occupying a concentric circle with a pinpoint representing the core decision makers Outside the core decision makers are the elite public that directly influences the core and compose about 5 percent of the overall population Next on the rings of the circle are the informed public which includes ten to 20 percent of the population The informed public as the name implies

PAGE 46

39 seeks out infonnation on international affairs Their contact with the foreign policy process is indirect and they have limited or no contact with the policy process Outside the infonned public are the "great unwashed" of the uninfonned public This is the 80 percent of the public that knows little or nothing about foreign affairs and never reads stories about international affairs It is within this domain that Converse's nonattitudes of the mass public develop The hegemony of the Converse model of the mass public fades with the Vietnam war Increasing opposition to the war was seen as a response to the rising number of causalities and the polarization of elites (Mueller 1973) In a reassessment of the influence of public opinion, Benjamin Page and Robert Shapiro (1992 284) find that public opinion is not only rational but an autonomous force that can have a substantial impact on policy. 8 John Aldrich, John Sullivan and Eugene Borgida (1989) found that citizens were equally as able to identify their policy positions on foreign and domestic policy issues suggesting that Converse's characterization of public attitudes as unstructured was misinfonned These works challenge the assumption that foreign policy attitudes of the general public are random and disorganized without any consideration of ideological orientation ( such as a liberal/conservative frame) in their formation and structure Jon Hurwitz and Mark Peffley (1987) challenge Converse by drawing from the theoretical literature on schemata, which suggests a structure to foreign policy political attitudes The structure must be uncovered by focusing on domain specific infonnation 8 Page and Shapiro s findings include not only the post-Vietnam era, but extend back to 1935

PAGE 47

40 and how the domain shapes the relationship between general and specific attitudes toward policy The foreign policy domain cannot be studied in the same fashion as a domest i c policy domain. Other studies suggest that foreign policy attitudes may be more stable than previously believed (see Maggiotto and Wittkopf 1981 Wittkopf 1981) The evidence suggests that foreign policy attitudes are structured not unidimensionally along the liberal/conservative continuum on which attitudes in other domains fall but on domain specific dimensions of foreign policy According to Hurwitz and Peffley people employ cognitive heuristics (shortcuts) to process foreign policy information and to decide foreign policy issues People cope with uncertainty in foreign policy decisions by relying on their own store of general knowledge to help process information We can imagine foreign policy attitudes as shaped by a hierarchical structure where abstract ideas inform and shape more specific and concrete ones At the bottom level of the structure we find preferences referring to specific policy attitudes such as defense spending international trade etc The middle level contains attitudes of a more abstract nature such as the appropriate role of the government in handling foreign affairs Normative belief postures denote the general position the individual would like the government to take in foreign relations such as aggressive versus accommodating postures in policy or internationalist versus isolationist positions People rely on these general postures to render specific decisions about policy At the uppermost part of the hierarchy are the individual's core values such as ethnocentrism or the morality of warfare which then guide the direction of all the other relations within the structure It is the change in the uppermost part of the hierarchy t he

PAGE 48

41 core values or norms of behavior that guide the interests ofthis study In contrast to the image of an uninformed public Catherine Kelleher ( quoted in Hastedt 2000 127) finds almost every general foreign policy survey ... [now] sho w s that the American public is increasingly well-informed about global issues ... Page and Shapiro (I 992 45) find "a remarkable degree of stability in Americans collective policy preferences during the last fifty years If public opinion on issues of foreign policy is structured and coherent as recent studies suggest we must account for the influence of public attitudes on foreign policy Furthermore stability in public opinion allows for the possibility of a coherent change in attitudes and orientation toward policy issues If as Hurwitz and Peffle y suggest that people employ cognitive shortcuts of general normative beliefs to process information and to make decisions we can link changes in the normative beliefs to changes in policy Causal Hypothesis The theoretical causal relationship posited in this study is that a state s domestic normative structure causes its foreign policy behavior. The independent variable in this theory is the collectively held domestic norms in a state and the dependent variable is the foreign policy behavior. I argue that change in U.S domestic norms regarding domestic political and civil rights translates into changes in foreign policy regarding the promot i on of political and civil rights externally (i e democracy promotion). 9 9 This type of argument follows Lumsdaine s ( 1993) Moral Vision in International Politics Lumsdaine argues that political or economic interests cannot explain economic foreign aid Instead, humanitarian concerns and a systematic transfer of domestic conceptions of justice provide a better explanation The change of attitudes toward poverty in the developed world and the creation of the social welfare state paved the way

PAGE 49

42 Change in the domestic normative structure does not arise spontaneously and without cause Change emerges from domestic disturbances and social protests agitating for a transformation in the normative status quo These social protests may not be directed at foreign policy although they can be, nevertheless, their impact and the changes wrought are felt at all policy levels. For example the civil rights movement in the United States sought political and civil rights for African-American in the domestic realm. We see success of the movement in the passage of legislation guaranteeing access to political participation and the legal prevention of discrimination. Changes in the normative structure condition the successful operation of the legislation at multiple levels of society from political elites to the general public Changes in the general normative structure of society have spillover effects for other areas of policy For example as the domestic normative structure changes from considering it correct behavior to disenfranchise a segment of the population (African-Americans) to one that accepts only universal enfranchisement, we will find in the foreign policy realm a shift in policy from maintaining it proper policy to support authoritarian dictatorships to one that embraces political regimes that reflect and respect the political wishes of a state s population The change in the normative structure induces a change in general public opinion, and it influences elite opinion and the behavior of policymakers. 10 for economic assistance to developing countries For an explanation accounting for difference in aid levels based on domestic factors see Noel and Therien (1995) They suggest that the values (nonmarket income distribution) embedded in a state s social democratic institutions have a clear impact on the foreign aid regime 1 For a reversal in this causal argument see Klinker and Smith (1999) The Unsteady March Klinker and Smith argue that the exigencies of foreign affairs prompted

PAGE 50

43 The specific model for this theory is as follows : social movements -+ domestic norms -+ transmission of societal norms (Congress) -+ Foreign Policy ( democracy promotion). In this mode4 the antecedent phenomenon that activates the independent variable is the presence of protest and social movements The independent variable represents the domestic normative structure. The normative structure is measured b y attitudes toward civil and political rights and issues of tolerance and respect for diversity This variable is considered progressive with changes in the normative structure being permanent or at least not readily changeable. For example, if a social movement creates through social protest, a new norm that a certain group should have an equal role in society society will maintain the norm even without a continued organized movement A counter social movement must develop for the norm to return to an earlier position The intervening variable represents the avenues of transmission of public attitudes to foreign policy This study concentrates on the Congress as the indicator of domestic norms The dependent or outcome variable is democracy promotion Promoting democracy encompasses the promotion of regular free and fair elections and universal suffrage informational pluralism, civil liberties and human rights functional autonomy for domestic elites to allow progress toward racial equality As the United States needed to mobilize African-Americans for war and justify such wars and the sacrifices incurred in the name of freedom, progress in racial equality occurred They further argue that as the dangers of the Cold War have receded the commitment to racial progress has also declined This according to Klinker and Smith is exemplified by the erosion of the commitment to affirmative action This dissertation will demonstrate that this conclusion is wrong There have been long term and significant change in Americans attitudes toward civil rights and racial equality We should not necessarily see the opposition to affirmative action as opposition to equal rights Rather we can view it as a greater commitment to individual rights over group rights

PAGE 51

legislative executive and judicial branches and effective power and accountability fo r elected officials 44 In this chapter I have discussed the importance oflocating an understanding of U.S foreign polic y at the domestic level. I have shown, regarding the polic y of democracy promotion, the existing literature is lacking a sound causal explanation In the next chapter I present the changing normative structure in the United States and discuss how norms are tied with the American identity

PAGE 52

CHAPTER3 NORMS AND THE GROWTH OF TOLERANCE Introduction Norms are important in the explanation of social phenomena Norms are culturally defined rules of conduct. They specify how people should behave and what they should do They indicate what is proper or necessary behavior within groups, organizations and institutions Norms are the fundamental building blocs of social order (Newman 2000 34) They govern much of our political and social lives In politics norms contribute to the protection of civil rights and liberties as much as the formal legal system (Axelrod 1986 1095) I begin this chapter with an explanation of the importance of norms for the social sciences Next I present the changing normative structure in the United States and discuss how norms constitute the American identity Specifically I am concerned with norms regarding political and civil rights and tolerance for diversity As the American identity expands the range of groups incorporated into the political process concurrently expands As we will see in later chapters these changes lead to changes in U.S foreign policy The expanding U S democracy leads to the promotion of democratic forms of government in countries that contained groups and cultures once considered incapable of democratic practices Finally I present empirical data showing how the American identity has changed with the elevated acceptance for diversity and increased tolerance within the 45

PAGE 53

46 United States What we find with the increased respect for diversity is a changed American identity The exclusive male-dominated white Christian/Protestant identity of America has changed to what is often call a multicultural American identity A multicultural identity does not necessarily lead to fragmentation and cultural wars as some have claimed (Royal 1995 Huntington 1997) Instead, a multicultural identity allows for diversity under the liberal framework that protects individual rights Social Sciences, Norms and Explanation Mark Risjord (1998) informs us that norms play a pivotal role in the philosophy of social science The role of norms makes humans a distinct subject of study and any attempt to understand and explain human behavior must take into account the normative aspects of human life Models of explanation drawn from the natural sciences do not assign a role to norms and thus are not appropriate for the social scientist. Not all agree Carl Hempel (1963) and David Henderson (1993) for example deny that norms have an explanatory role For these scholars explanations must be causal. Henderson asserts that explanations are answers to why-questions. (I]n asking a why question (regarding a particular event or state) we seek responses that allow us to appreciate what it was in or about the antecedent course of events that brought about ( or helped to bring about) some particular aspect of certain subsequent events" (Henderson 1993, 168-169) The antecedent event needs to be present in terms ofits causally fitting features For Henderson, appeals to norms are only useful ifwe understood them to be causally relevant to the action and thus translated into a causal disposition This is a psychologically oriented explanation In this orientation, we collapse norms into the

PAGE 54

47 dispositions of the agent and therefore norms qua norms will not be found among the agent s reasons Risjord (1998 235) suggests that we must understand norms along a second dimension, a sociological one The psychological-orientation attributes intentional actions to the goals of the agent. This is what motivates the agent. Therefore the agent heeds such motives to be sufficient reasons for action Nevertheless we must recognize that the agent acts in accordance with some norm by which some reasons are good in and of themselves. What I have described above is the old cleavage in social science between Adam Smith s conception of humans as economic creatures and Emile Durkheim s idea of social humans. Instrumental rationality guides the former with the promise of reward. The forces of proscribed behavior pushes the latter Neither view is totally wrong nor completely right. Some behaviors maybe explained on the basis of human rationality Nevertheless social forces construct the milieus in which the rational actor must operate Moreover norms are subject to change creating evolving environments in which rational action has different meanings Cultural norms shape the behavior of the overwhelming majority of a given population Philip Pettit (1993 336) gives us the formal definition of norms A regularity R, in the behaviour [sic] of members of a population, P is a cultural norm if and only if, in any instance of a certain situation S among members P : 1 Nearly everyone conforms to R. 2 Nearly everyone approves of nearly anyone else s conforming and disapproves of the deviating

PAGE 55

48 3 The fact that nearly everyone approves and disapproves on this pattern helps ensure that nearly everyone conforms In this definition of a norm we find that most of the population has accepted the behavior and practices it widely Therefore norms are social in that other people help to enforce them by expressing their approval or disapproval Norms are real and autonomous They possess independent motivating power "Norms are not merely ex post rationalizations of self-interest although they can certainly be that sometimes They are capable of being ex ante sources of action (Elster 1989 125) Norms are more than shared beliefs of appropriate behavior This definition is overly broad and includes beliefs that no one takes seriously and does not affect action Not all norms are treated with equal seriousness One should get six to eight hours of sleep a night and mothers need to care for their babies are both norms of behavior. The former is often violated the latter rarely Norms are connected to beliefs related to some sort of sanction (Cancian 1975 7) A mother who neglects her child will receive the reproach of society not to mention possible criminal sanctions The person who does not get enough sleep will only suffer the individual consequence of sleep deprivation Society supports norms through multiple mechanisms 1 The first mechanism for supporting norms is dominance Dominance simply means that one group has power over another and the violation of a norm invites some sort of punishment. Power can be exerted through economic and political means The majority often imposes its norms upon the society as a whole. Within society norms often become individually internalized 1 The following is largely derived from Axelrod (I 986)

PAGE 56

49 Internalization means that the violation of an established norm creates psychological uneasiness within individuals Therefore, even if the individual has accrued material benefits the violation of the norm elicits pain Another psychological principle supporting norms is known as social validation As Robert Cialdini ( 1984 117) explains we view a behavior as more correct in a given situation to the degree that we see others performing it. Therefore the more people practice the act the more is it considered correct Social validation applies simply to what people decide is correct behavior Finally norms are supported through legal structures. Norms usually precede laws but laws can maintain and extend them We can understand laws as the institutionalization of cultural norms. Norms are subject to change When a critical mass of people change their values and behavior what was once normal becomes deviant The history of human civilization is replete with examples of social institutions that have passed from normality to deviance Even single events can lead to the reversal of normal practices In the early days of the United States dueling was an accepted if not often practiced institution Alexande r Hamilton felt compelled to take up Aaron Burr s challenge to duel. Early in the morning of July 11 1804 Hamilton and Burr faced on the New Jersey shore of the Hudson Ri v er Burr's first shot mortally wounded Hamilton and he died the next day ( see Flemming 1999) The event i tself and the negative public reaction it generated toward Burr helped change the norms that supported the institution of dueling in the United States

PAGE 57

50 Slavery is an example of another human practice that has passed from normality to deviance 2 Human slavery existed as an institution dating back to times of antiquity With the fall of the Roman Empire and the rise of the feudal system, slavery fell into disuse in Europe. However slavery was revitalized in the 15th century when Europeans first came into close and continued contact with the peoples of Africa Slavery continued as a practice in the Western world well into the 19th century Strong evidence suggests that slavery's demise originated from changing societal norms James Lee Ray (1989) finds that the abolition of slavery did not come from an economic imperative. 3 We can trace the abolition of slavery to "moral progress" and changes in ideas about ethics and morality In a large part to domestic abolitionist movements led by the Quakers on both sides of the Atlantic England (1807) and the United States (1808) abolished the slave trade At the Congress of Vienna (1814) through the influence of England the assembled powers agreed that the slave trade should be abolished when possible (Thomas 1997 584-586) The Webster-Ashburton Treaty of 1842 obligated Great Britain and the United States to keep a naval squadron on the African coast to prevent shipment of slaves (Thomas 1997 671). By 1862 international treaties allowing the right to search ocean vessels had been 2 Slavery continues to exist in various parts of the world despite the change in global norms 3 For example Ray (1989 411) cites the case that sugar production in the British West Indies which dropped by a third overall after the abolition of slavery As for slavery in the United States Temperley (1977 101-2) reminds us that "[n]orthem cotton manufactures were dependent on Southern plantation agriculture for their raw materials New York finance houses gave Southerners much of their capital and reaped their reward in interest." In contrast to the claims the slavery as an economic system was declining in the South prior to the Civil War Fogel and Engerman (1974) claim that the Southern economy was robust and growing

PAGE 58

51 signed by most Western nations including the United States Within a few years the slave trade was destroyed None of this could have been possible without a change in domestic societal norms. In fact we cannot understand societal changes without talcing to account the changes in the underlying norms that govern society Norms and a State's Identity A state's identity may be fluid and multidimensional It is a product of the social environment and the nature of power relations We must understand a state's identity in these terms of environment and power On one level, the environment determines the broader cultural identity, that is the characteristics of the state's population However, the norms of behavior held by the population also constitute the broader identity of a state Elites also determine the identity within the state. For example, Jordan as a state identifies itself as Jordanian, although two-thirds of the population is Palestinian 4 After the 1948 Arab-Israeli War many Palestinian refugees "found employment -and middle-class status -as civil servants in the Jordanian government" (Cleveland 1994 327) evertheless Jordan is not the homeland for Palestinians and the state's identity is not Palestinian This reflects the power status of the Hashemite rulers and the lack of popular control. If Jordan were to democratize and shift power to the people and away from the Hashemite king, it may suffer an identity crisis This leads to discussion of identity in a social and cultural context 4 0ver half a million refugees arrived on Jordanian soil after the 1948 Arab-Israeli war The annexation of the West Bank in 1948 by King Abbdallah added another half a million Palestinians to the population of Jordan

PAGE 59

52 Social identity theory which has recently been popular in the study of international relations (Hermann and Kegley 1995 Mercer 1995 Geva and Hanson 1999 and Schafer 1999), can help us understand how and why individuals develop larger identities Social identity theory developed out of the psychological study of group behavior and had its origins in the early work by Henri Tajfel on social factors in perception (Tajfel 1959) Tajfel further explicated the theory with his colleagues at Bristol University in the late 1970s (Tajfel 1978 1982 ; Tajfel and Turner 1979 ; Turner 1982) The core idea of the theory is that a self-inclusive social category provides a category dependent self-definition that comprises an element of the self-concept (Hogg 1996 66) This means that individuals try to achieve a positive sense of social identity in a way that makes their group favorably distinct from other groups on valued dimensions. For Tajfe~ the social identity of individuals is linked to their awareness of membership of certain social groups and to the emotional and evaluative significance of that membership" ( quoted in Deschamps 1982 86) The social group exists in a system of mutual dependence and acquires a reality defined through group interdependence. The social group is both a psychological process and a social product (Turner and Giles 1981 26) Individuals within groups may attempt a redefinition of the existing social situation to achieve a more positive social identity The group identification may be based on a common set of traditions or may stimulate the creation of a unique set of traditions John Turner's (1985) self categorization component of social identity theory suggests that categorization accentuates both similarities among stimuli (physical social, or aspects of the self)

PAGE 60

53 belonging to the same category and differences belonging to different categories . (Hogg 1996 68) This creates a perceptual bias that leads to an evaluative preference for individuals and groups that are similar to themselves If individuals share common objective elements (such as physical characteristics common language, and historical experiences) they can transform these elements into a common subjective identification facilitating in-group creation Language is an important aspect of group identification, more salient than inherited physical characteristic (see Giles and Johnson 1981) Social identity theory allows us to understand that an individual's identity is not static locked into a primordial pattern The individual's group identity often forms based on relatively enduring factors (physical characteristics and language) but it does not have to be A process of interaction can produce new common elements that lead to the formation of a new common social identity A state's identity as with an individual's identity is constructed It is open to contestation and negotiation One can think of nationality as another term for a state s identity This conception of nationalism is not the ideological version of nationalism that "holds that humanity is naturally divided into nations that nations are know by their characteristics . and that the only legitimate type of government is a national ( emphasis in the original) self government" (Kedourie quoted in Macridis 1992 192) Nations are as Benedict Anderson (1991) suggests "imagined communities" propelled by the state claiming to be the legitimate guardian of the nation National identities are constructed and reconstructed in connection to the transforming social context (Renwich 1999 5 ). As Ernest Gellner (1964 169) argues "[n]ationalism is not the awakening of the nation to

PAGE 61

54 self consciousness : it invents nations where they do not exist." For example the French Revolution (1792) asserted the sovereignty of the people and for the first time linked the identity of the people to the state As French nationalism turned aggressive with the rule of Napoleon, other peoples in Europe constructed their own national identities in response to the victories of the French nation and for self-defense The norms of society tell us much about the nation and define who is part of the nation and has claim to the national identity Norms set the collective expectation for a given identity and thus constitute the state's identity. "Actors conform to norms in order to validate social identities and it is in the process of validating identities that interests are constituted" (Price and Tannenwald 1996, 125) Furthermore norms regulate behavior for a constituted identity (see Cancian 1975 137-138) These norms may be sociall y accepted patterns of behavior or law may sanction them What is important to understand i s that norms set the confines of the imagined community As with all social constructs norms are subject to change and with change the confines of the imagined community are thus subject to rearrangement. American Identity If all states are "imagined communities then the United States is the perfect example of an "imagined community" (Campbell 1996 166) Social forces and time have reconstructed this imagined community often The confines of the U.S identity is not static. As I discuss below the borders of his community are often changed to incorporate different groups of people

PAGE 62

55 In contrast to this image of a changing identity other scholars contend that the U.S has a fixed identity From a geopolitical perspective America's relative isolation has lead to an identity defined through its uniqueness from the rest of the world This uniqueness often expresses itself as exceptionalism "The United States is exceptional in starting from a revolutionary event in being 'the first new nation the first colony other than Iceland to become independent." (Lipset 1992 18) Seymour Martin Lipset defines American identity ideologically in terms of liberty egalitarianism individualism populism, and laissez-faire Concurring, John Gerard Ruggie argues that U.S identity is a fixed identity following the principles of liberalism American identity is embodied through "a set of inclusive core values : intrinsic individual as opposed to group rights equality of opportunity for all antistatism, the rule oflaw and a revolutionary legacy which holds that human betterment can be achieved by means of deliberate human actions . (Ruggie 1997 110) In one sense these scholars are correct in their definitions of U.S identi ty What they miss is the identification of who has had access to that identity Today Richard J. Payne correctly argues : "[d]espite America's ethnic religious and racial diversity and its plethora of subcultures there is widespread agreement that an American culture exists and there is consensus on its fundamental attributes (Payne 1995 8) 5 This accommodation of diversity to the cultural identity of the U S is one that has developed over the years We can say that the United States moved through three phases of identity and changes in the norms that govern the identity an Anglo-American, Euro-American, 5 Payne defines culture as a set of shared learned values beliefs perceptions attitudes modes ofliving, customs and symbols (Payne 1995 7) This definition is compatible with m y definition of norms

PAGE 63

56 and a Multicultural identity (Lind 1995) Changing American Identity The United States for the most part has always contained peoples of multiple ethnic and racial groups The English were far from the only people in colonial America Other groups included the Dutch, French, Germans Irish, Spanish Swedes blacks from Africa, and of course the native population. The first Africans arrived as slaves in the Jamestown colony in 1619 Slavery continued to expand in North America and by the time of the first census in 1790 one out of six Americans was a slave (Perkins 1993 1 4) Mass immigration of German-speaking people into the Pennsylvania colony so concerned Benjamin Franklin that he supported measures to keep them out. In 1751 Franklin wrote that Pennsylvania will in a few Years [sic] become a German Colony : Instead of the ir learning our Language we must learn their's or live as in a foreign Country [sic] (Franklin ([1751] 1961 120 ). He further declared that the Germans "will never adopt our Language or Customs any more than they can acquire our Complexion [sic]" (Franklin papers quoted in DeConde 1992 12) After the Germans the Irish constituted the next l argest group and between 1789 and 1800 they composed 55 percent of all aliens naturalized (DeConde 1992 21 ) This does not mean that the U.S has always had a multicultural identity Following the American revolution the American population was multiethnic and multiracial, which set it apart from the generally homogeneous countries of Europe "N o ethnic group in the United States could claim a clear majority but among whites almost sixty percent were of English origin" (DeConde 1992 16) These Anglo-Americans set

PAGE 64

57 the standard for the American identity that governed political behavior and defined the United States after independence and well into the 19th century (Hunt 1987 46-9 1 ) Despite the empirical realities of a diverse population in the new American state John Jay in the Federalist Papers number 2 shows the perceived American identity by many in leadership positions He writes : I have as often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people -a people descended from the same ancestors speaking the same language professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government very similar in their manners and customs and who by their joint counsels arms and efforts fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war have nobly established their general liberty and independence However, the construct of the Anglo-American identity remained under constant attack from non-English immigrates particularly Irish and German immigrants. Between 1846 and 1855 more than a million Germans entered the United States Many fled political upheaval and revolution in Europe and many who had been revolutionaries gravitated to political activity in their new country "This reaching out for political power hardened whatever antagonism the old-stock nativists felt toward the German-Americans" (DeConde 1992 36) One of the most prominent anti-immigrant groups during the period was the American Party or better known as the Know Nothings According to Michael Holt (1973 311) "[b]etween 1853 and 1856 the fastest growing political force in many parts of the United States was not the anti-slavery Republican party but the secret anti-Catholic and anti-foreign Know Nothing movement." This group

PAGE 65

58 defined itself in nativist terms of being anti-immigrant and particularly anti-Catholic 6 The American party achieved some electoral success in 1854 when it elected eight governors and more than one hundred members of Congress (Lind 1995 50) 7 In the mid-nineteenth century America the cult of Anglo-Saxonism developed along with scientific racism used to justify American expansionism (Hietala 1999 1 71) According to Michael Hunt (1987 78) the arrival of many foreign immigrants increased the sensitivity among the Anglo elites in the United States Ethnic Anglos sought to preserve their cultural hegemony against the Irish and German immigrants The anxiety of the Anglo elites sharpened as more immigrants came from other parts of Europe at the close of the century Hierarchical racial thinking influenced foreign policy : The elite s preoccupation with differences among whites carried over to into the fabric of thinking on world affairs. Anglo-Saxons clearly dominated the international stage The Germans came next They had the same qualities as their racial cousins save one they had lost their love of liberty This single serious defect set Germans just beyond the Anglo-Saxon pale and made this still formidable people into a threatening global competitor . The Slavs half European and half Asiatic were also formidable racial competitors on the international stage . Lower down in the hierarchy were the Latin peoples of Europe defined to include the French as well as the Italians and Spaniards . Still farther back among the ranks of the unworthy appeared the Jews ... Predictably farthest back were the people of Africa (Hunt 1987 78-79) 6The Whig party lost support among the American nativists with the nomination of Winfield Scot in 1852 Many perceived Scott as actively pro-Catholic. Nativists within and without the Whig party were alienated by Scott s lenient policy toward Catholic churches during the Mexican War and by his willingness to educate his daughters in convents (Holt 1973 315) 7 The American party also gained popular support from its anti-slavery position Its electoral strengthen waned with the rise of the Republican party which captured the anti slavery position without the anti-immigrant trappings

PAGE 66

59 The change from a United States with an Anglo-American identity to a Euro American one began with the American Civil War A third of the Union Army was composed of foreign-born troops with large German and Irish contingents Michael Lind (1995 54) argues that the Civil War "can be described without much exaggeration as a conflict between the Anglo-American South and a new Euro-American society emerging in the north After the Civil War immigration from Europe continued apace Some four million people immigrated from Italy alone between 1880 and 1920 (Aguiree and Turner 1998 213) In 1891 the U.S Congress passed legislation that created a permanent administrative structure to control immigration The statute also placed immigration under the control of the federal government (Higham 1971 99) During the same period the U.S Congress curtailed immigration from non-European parts of the world (see McKenzie 1928 ; Miller 1969) The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 suspended immigration of Chinese laborers for ten years and prevented persons of Chinese ancestry residing in the U.S from acquiring citizenship Congress extended the act for ten years in 1892 for two years in 1902 and finally extended indefinitely in 1904 ( Aguirre and Turner 1998, 180) 8 In the early part of the 20th century the Congress took further action to prevent immigration from Asia The 1917 Immigration Act stopped Japanese immigration and immigration from other parts of Asia (Matthews 1964) 8 The act was not repealed by Congress until 1943 when it was replaced by a quota system for Chinese immigrants

PAGE 67

In the late 1800s immigrants of Irish and German origin began to assert their influence at the voting booth Many members of Congress from Western states owned their position to the support of German immigrants. The Irish Catholic vote in Eastern cities also had to be considered by politicians when they formulated immigration policy In 1891 Senator Henry Cabot Lodge took up a proposal that would restrict the immigration of all males who could not read or write in their own language German American lobby groups were able to thwart these restrictive legislative efforts The Senate passed the legislation, but the House of Representatives kept postponing consideration of it (Higham 1971 106-107) 60 The eugenic movement and scientific racism at the dawn of the 20th century sought to recast the distinctions among the immigrants of Europe origin William J. Ripley who taught economics at Massachusetts Institute of Technology and lectured at Columbia University on the role of geography in human affairs wrote a weighty tome in 1899 titled The Races of Europe His analysis linked physiological traits to geographical and social conditions John Higham relates in his classic text Strangers in the Land : For the first time American readers learned that Europe was not the land of "Aryans" or Goths subdivided into vaguely national races such as the Anglo Saxons, but rather the seat of three races discernable by physical measurements : a northern race of tall blond longheads which Ripley called Teutonic ; a central race of stocky roundheads which he called Alpine ; and a southern race of slender dark, longheads which he called Mediterranean (Higham 1971 154)9 9The absurdity ofRipply's classification system is apparent when one understands that Europe is the polyglot par excellence The people of Europe have been associating for thousands of years to an extent that would disallow any type tripartite evolution Mediterranean peoples called Romans conquered lands as far north as the British Isles Norsemen or Vikings journeyed as far east as modem Russia and as far south as modem Italy and Spain

PAGE 68

61 Ripley s tripartite classification allowed for the distinction between new and old immigrant groups Irish and German immigrants were reclassified as Teutonic along with the Anglo Saxon English New Italian and Eastern European immigrants were reclassified as "others" with the labels of Alpine and Mediterranean Nevertheless this classification was not an enduring structure in the United States and instead a new type of identity developed Toward the end of the 19th century we find in the United States the development of the Euro-American identity or White America This is an identity constructed in contrast to the hyphenation of Americans of immigrant origin. Early in the 20th century we find the development of the melting pot idea of American identity Frederick Jackson Turner in his famous 1893 essay on the importance of the frontier in U.S history saw the formation of a composite nationality of American people Turner declared In the crucible of the frontier the immigrants were Americanized, liberated, and fused into a mixed race English in neither nationality nor characteristics (Turner 1947 23) A new type ofidentity an American, was formed in the crucible of the melting pot However this identity extended only to those who could easily be incorporated under the Euro-American identity 10 The melting pot idea did not apply to peoples who originated from continents other than Europe Legal restrictions on immigrants from non-European parts of the world were enforced and state governments restricted nonwhites in most parts of the United States from participation in the civil society such as the fan Crow laws applied to African-Americans in the South 1 .It should be noted that Israel Zangwill's 1909 play The Melting Pot from which the term was derived was about the amalgamation of European ethnic groups in the United States

PAGE 69

62 Typical of the sentiments of the time Henry Pratt Fairchild in The Melting Pot Mistake ( 1926) argued for the inevitability of a homogenous community given his belief in the biological origins of racial hatred 11 Fairchild ([1926] 1977 239) declared that "Racial discrimination is inherent in biological fact and in human nature Fairchild's work provides a snapshot of the broader normative structure in the U.S at the time. He argued that assimilation, or the idea of the melting pot, worked but only for those peoples of the "White Race Fairchild writes : At the present time, the average American, whatever his origin, has become habituated to representatives of almost every variety of the white race that it is very doubtful whether there is more than an infinitesimal amount of true race antipathy fe l t toward any branches of the white race in this country . If we see a tall, blue-eyed blond giant leading up to the altar a sparkling brunette with dusky hair and darkly glowing cheeks we do not ordinarily bewail the horrible case of race miscegenation, but exclaim "What a stunning couple!" (Fairchild [1926] 1977 72-73) For Fairchild, the mixing of peoples from different "racial" backgrounds is analogous to "pouring together various chemically inert liquids -water milk, wine ink, ect." (Fairchild [1926] 1977 119) This creates a mixture but not a new substance The inclusion of a mixed racial structure in the U.S (i e. non European) diluted the "typical American mixture" (Fairchild [ 1926] 1977 130). Thus Fairchild argued not only for a reduction of immigration, but for a reapportionment of immigration to "leave the racial proportion of American people intact" (Fairchild [1926] 1977 131) Writing in the early 20th century Fairchild argued for a Euro-American identity "There can be no doubt that if America is to remain a stable nation it must continue a white man's country for an indefinite period to 11 Fairchild graduated from Yale where he studied under William Graham Sumner and later achieved the presidency of the American Sociological Society

PAGE 70

63 come" (Fairchild [1926] 1977 240) Fairchild applauded the permanent exclusion of Asian immigration to the United States. Fairchild's argument viewed from the position of the early 21st century appears alien and atavistic The United States has experienced a massive shift in norms regarding political and civil rights and a reshaping of its identity The United States has rid itself of the notion that the American identity synonymous with White European, or the Euro American identity that characterized American society for much of the 20th century. A steady growth of tolerance has developed in the United States since the end of the Second World War This growth of tolerance and acceptance of others extends not only to ethnic and racial groups but it also included the expanded acceptance of the equality of women with men What has emerged is a multicultural American identity Social Movements and Identity Change Social movements are pivotal in identity change A social movement refers to a relational network of actors who are collectively involved in broader purposes and/or conflicts (Diani 1992 ; Tarrow 1994) These continuous large-scale organized, collective actions can lead to transformed state structures (Quadagno 1992) or to broader societal change (d'Anjou 1996) If we describe human history as a concurrence of events, as Max Weber maintained we must remain sensitive to social movements as they shape the direction of events Human actions shape the direction of history According to Weber "frequently the world images' that have been created by ideas have like switchmen [ at railroad junctions] determined the tracks along which action has been pushed by the dynamic of interest (quoted in Hall 1993 48). Social movements may serve as a decisive

PAGE 71

64 moment in the process of changing norms We can view social movements as Weber s switchmen operating the "switch in the 'choice' between reproducing or transforming the extant cultural and social system" (d'Anjou 1996 35) The Civil Rights movement has had a significant impact on the normative structure in the United States The American Civil War ended the institution of slavery but did not end institutional racism With the close of reconstruction in 1877 and the withdrawal of federal troops from the South, whites regained power and established racial segregation and laws that denied African-American's their civil and political rights In Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) the U.S Supreme Court gave its endorsement to the system of American Apartheid. Meanwhile African-American leaders began to emerge and organize for civil rights At a meeting in Niagara Falls in 1905 W E B. Du Bois and other civil rights leaders founded the Niagara Movement. Members of the Niagara group connected with concerned liberal and radical whites to establish the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) in 1910 The NAACP journal Crisis. edited by Du Bois, became an effective organ of communication for African-American rights The NAACP pursued a strategy of litigation "as a way of testing and shaping public opinion which could facilitate policy change ... "(Stewart 1991 169) The NAACP won its first major legal case in 1915 when the United States Supreme Court outlawed the "grandfather clause a constitutional device used in the South to disfranchise blacks. The battle for civil rights went forward in the 1940s and 1950s in determined and deliberate steps In the courts the NAACP successfully attacked racially restrictive

PAGE 72

65 covenants in hous i ng segregation in interstate transportation, and discrimination in public recreational facilities (see Bell 1987) 1 2 In 1954 the Supreme Court issued one of its most significant rulings With Brown v Board of Education of Topeka the court overturned the "separate but equal" ruling of 1896 and outlawed segregation in the country's school systems After Brown v. Board of Education the struggle for civil rights became a political movement. African-Americans organized nonviolent action and the movement achie v ed its first major success in the Montgomery Alabama bus boycott of 1955-56 The Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) was established in 1957 under Martin Luther King Jr's leadership. Other groups organized to fight for civil rights included the Congress for Racial Equality (CORE) and the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) Together these groups held demonstrations led boycotts and undertook voter registration drives (see Morris 1984) Public opinion turned against segregation as the national attention focused on Birmingham, Alabama in the Spring of 1963 The Birmingham authorities used dogs and fire hoses on a peaceful march of c i vil rights demonstrators Police officers shown attacking peaceful protesters with dogs and cattle prods provoked horror and disbelief across the country Civil rights activities in 1963 peaked with a march on Washington where King addressed a gathering of250 000 demonstrators The march helped galvanize public opinion that civil rights were the most important problem facing the country and helped 1 2 The Supreme Court dealt a blow to perpetrators of racially segregated housing areas when it held in Shelley v Kramer (334 U.S. 1 1948) and Hurd V. Hodge (334 U. S 24 1948) that privately executed restrictive covenants were unenforceable in the courts

PAGE 73

66 secure the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 Survey data indicate that the percentage of Americans saying that the issue of civil rights was the most important problem facing the country rose more than forty-five percentage points from 1963 to 1964 (Fiorina and Peterson 1998 560) The Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbade discrimination in voting public accommodations and employment and permitted the attorney general of the United States to deny federal funds to local agencies that practiced discrimination The ratification of the 24th Amendment to the Constitution in 1964 which banned the poll tax, helped efforts to increase African-American voter turnouts Attacks against civil rights demonstrators continued by police who used tear gas and clubs, however the cause garnered national support Congress passed the Voting Rights Act of 1965 which abolished all discriminatory qualifying tests for voter registrants and provided for the appointment of federal registrars The narrati v e provided above suggests progress toward equality for African-Americans in the United States Some scholars contend that such a portrayal suggests an inevitability of progress toward equality in the United States (Klinker and Smith 1999) Mary Dudziak (2000) argues that the Cold War, and necessity of the United States to maintain a positive image in the world to claim its leadership in the "free world compelled political leaders to advance civil rights "The need to address international criticism gave the federal government an incentive to promote social change at home" (Dudziak 2000 12) The implication ofthis argument is that with the end of the Cold War no incentive to promote civil rights exists, possibly leading to a retraction ofhard fought gains

PAGE 74

67 This argument comports with Philip Klinker and Rogers Smith's (1999) important work The Unsteady March The authors contend that racial equality in the United States has moved at an unstable pace at times moving forward and other falling back Like Dudziak, Klinker and Smith emphasize the importance of external threats to the advancement of civil rights Progress in racial equality has come only 1 in the wake of a large scale war requiring extensive economic and military mobilization of African-Americans for success : 2 when the nature of America's enemies has prompted American leaders to justify such wars and their attendant sacrifices by emphasizing the nations inclusive egalitarian, and democratic traditions ; and 3 when the nation has possessed domestic political protest movements willing and able to bring pressure upon national leaders to live up to that justificatory rhetoric by instituting domestic reform (Klinker and Smith 1999 3-4) Following these criteria, we find only three eras of significant progress The first era followed the Revolutionary War that saw slavery in the northern states put on a path of extinction The second era was the reconstruction period after the Civil War The third era of reform occurred following World War II and during the Cold War The years 1941 to 1968 marked an extraordinarily prolonged period in which all three factors were present. Following the first and second eras the authors document extended periods of retraction of civil rights for African-Americans "Hence the normal experience of the typical black person in U.S history has been to live in a time of stagnation and decline in progress toward racial equality" (Klinker and Smith 1999 5)

PAGE 75

68 Like Dudziak, Klinker and Smith pessimistically expect a retrenchment now that the Cold War has ended Granted more can be done for racial equality in the United States but it is impossible given the changes that have occurred for any regression in civil and political rights As I will show below the basic normative structure has changed and today Americans no longer think and feel the same The civil rights movement o f the 1950s and 1960s helped foster an increased respect for the political and civil rights of not only African-Americans but of other groups such as Latinos and Asian-Americans Legislative judicial and constitutional advancement made by the civil rights movements applies to all groups including women One major problem with Klinker and Smith's analysis is a singular focus on African-Americans Opposition to affirmative action programs as they are now constructed does not necessarily suggest an opposition to civil and political rights or opposition to racial equality For example in California recent referendums ending affirmative action and bilingual education had wide support among Hispanics Hispanic residents of California saw these referendums as attempts to dismantle obstacles to assimilation into America (Economist April 7 2001 U.S Edition) Also the California affirmative action programs in higher education adversely affected many Asian-Americans According the most recent census the United States is becoming a majority minority country This means that no single group represents the majority of the population Those who categorize themselves as "white" will eventually represent less than half the country's population Hispanics have already achieved parity with

PAGE 76

69 African-Americans as the largest minority group in the United States (Schmitt 2001 20) 13 The 2000 census for the first time allowed for the category of multiracial Nearly seven million people or 2.4 percent of the total population described themselves as multiracial marking a trend that suggests that a single group identification may be losing importance The 1960s and early 1970s marked a period of intense social change in the United States that reconstructed American society. James Gilbert (1981) in Another Chance argues that the postwar period between 1945 and 1968 represents a distinct period in U.S social and political history The period witnessed changes in the family structure and social mores The development of television changed the role of the media and the impact of advertising These changes led to the development of mass culture which changed the nature of social and political relations In the early 1960s the major television networks produced the first half hour evening news programs (White 1982 172-173) The development of the national news program gave large audiences access to stories across the country exposing events and forcing politicians to deal with issues that they would not have chosen to handle More importantly shifts in attitudes of women, blacks and other minorities toward their own rights and the general acceptance of these claims by the rest of society allowed a minority of black Americans to enter the middle strata of employment and freed the vast majority from restrictions that had bound them since the 1 3 The Hispanic population grew 58 percent to 35 3 million people since 1990 The non-Hispanic white population dropped to 69 percent from 76 percent a decade ago This trend is expected to continue Non-Hispanic whites are now a minority in California and may soon be in Texas

PAGE 77

70 beginning of the century" (Gilbert 1981 5) I have discussed the importance of the Civil Rights Movement. Other groups were active during this period including Latinos and native Americans and women In 1969 the Stonewall riots in New York launched the Gay rights movement. Against the backdrop of these social movements the Antiwar movement grew starting in 1965 when President Johnson escalated the war in Vietnam by sending in the 9th Marine Expeditionary Brigade to defend the air bases at Da Nang U.S troop levels rose from 23,000 in 1964 to more than 180 000 in 1965 U.S military strength peaked in 1968 with more than 500 000 personnel in South Vietnam (Bonds 1979 12-13) Both the SNCC and CORE opposed U.S involvement in the Vietnam War as early as 1966 In 1967 Martin Luther King publically voiced his opposition to the war in Vietnam and in some sense linked the civil rights and antiwar movements together On February 25 1967 with speech at a fund-raising dinner King began to make the connection between the civil rights and antiwar movement. King declared that "we are engaged in a war that seeks to tum the clock of history back and perpetuate white colonialism 11 He further implored that "we must combine the fervor of the civil rights movement with the peace movement. We must demonstrate teach and preach until the very foundations of our nation shake" (quoted in Levy 1999 318) In no sense should we assume that the social movements of the 1960s and earl y 1970s were integrated and coordinated in a collective desire to change the American identity Some groups were hostile to each other such as some civil rights groups and

PAGE 78

women's groups 14 Hardly did these movements achieve all the goals they set for themselves Nevertheless these multiple social movements created a period of societal change that shifted the normative structure of the United States and ushered in a growth of tolerance for religious cultural and ethnic diversity Multicultural and Tolerant America 71 In this chapter I argue that social movements have led to changes in the general normative structure of the United States regarding political and civil rights In the following section I provide some evidence to support this assertion I use polling date measuring public opinion on issues regarding race religion and gender 15 I draw the data from the Gallup Organization and from the American National Election Studies, which measure mass opinion 16 For the most part shifts in mass opinion have mirrored shifts in 1 4 1n 1964 SNCC leader Stokely Carmichael joked the "the only position for women in SNCC is prone" (Evans 1989 282) The women's movement made up predominately of white women, was viewed with suspicion by those in the Civil Rights movement. 15 For the most part I have focused on the issue of racial ethnic and gender norms regarding civil and political rights I choose to include the questions regarding religion since religion has been used to define groups as separate and distinct A long tradition of anti-Catholicism and anti-Semitism existed in the United States (see Higham 1971). However it appears that with the development of the Euro-American identity these distinctions are less important. Jews and Catholics are grouped with the Protestant sects as followers of a Judeo-Christian tradition 1 6 Gallup provides polling result extending back to 193 5 The Gallup Organization published most of these results in The Gallup Poll : Public Opinion 1935-1971 3 vols The accuracy of the data in these volumes has been confirmed from the original surveys by William G Mayer in The Changing American Mind (1992) Gallup data after 1971 is drawn from the annual updates through 1999 The University of Michigan conducts the American National Election Studies (NES). These surveys are based on representative samples of citizens of voting age living in private homes Interviewing for this series was first done after the election of 1948 and has been conducted before and after every presidential election since 1952 NES data used in this study can be found at

PAGE 79

72 elites' attitudes (Zaller 1992 11) Since I am trying to gauge changes in societal norms, I have chosen to rely on measures of mass opinion. The data that I present represents the same questions asked repeatedly over the years. This allows for an estimation in long term changes and general trends We are trying to understand societal norms Recall, that norms are culturally defined rules of conduct and specify appropriate behavior. The Pettit (1993) definition stated above suggests that a regular behavior becomes a norm when an overwhelming majority of the population approves of the behavior How do we define an overwhelming majority? In an assessment of the public opinion's impact of public policy, Thomas Graham (1994) finds that the magnitude of public support determines the degree of public influence 17 Attitudes held by less than 50 percent of the public rarely influences public policy A majority opinion (50-59 percent) can shape public policy but only with strong policy leadership At this level of support fertile ground exists for counter attacks by political opposition Consensus level public opinion (60-69 percent) successfully influences the policy process even if powerful bureaucratic interests have to be overruled Preponderant level public opinion (70 to 79 percent) not only "causes" the political system to act according to its dictates but also deters political opposition from challenging a specific decision Nearly unanimous opinion (80 + percent) sweeps all political opposition away dominating the entire political system so that decision appear to be automatic (Graham 1994 196) http :// www umich edu/ ~ nes/nesguide. 1 7 Graham develops his divisions based on a review of data from more than five hundred national surveys and an examination of primary documents from seven presidential administrations

PAGE 80

73 Using Graham s finding on public opinion and public policy in analyzing the following data when a response to a question surpasses 60 percent we can consider i t as an indicator of a societal norm When opposition to a position drops below 30 percent we assume that society generally accept the norm Some contend that people lie on public opinion surveys This does not influence our understanding of the societal norm The pressure is on individuals to conform to the societal norms. If an individual knew that his/her personal opinion did not reflect the broader societal norm they would be inclined to make their response match the societal norm For example, one might contend that all men are misogynists and chauvinists however if the broader societal norms say that women should have an equal role we will find the preponderance of men responding that women should have an equal role despite their immediate beliefs The same applies for issues of race or religion 18 The survey data strongly suggest that it has become less acceptable for Americans overly to take in to account characteristics of race gender or religious preferences in their electoral decisions In 1937 the Gallup Organization began asking Americans their willingness to vote for a presidential candidate with various demographic and religious characteristics Over the years the question has taken the following form : If your party 18 My discussion of religious tolerance has been limited. The United States is said to have been founded on religious freedom However one must recall that dissenting religious groups that immigrated to colonial America came only for their own religious freedom and not to promote tolerance for all religions For most of U S history the Protestant forms of Christianity have been the accepted form for the American identity Some scholars such as Samuel Huntington still consider it to be the prevailing religious form structuring the American identity (see Huntington 1997) Nevertheless with the development of the Euro-American identity Catholicism and the Jewish faith have constituted the American identity with the so-called Judeo-Christian tradition

PAGE 81

74 nominated a generally well-qualified person for President and he happened to be ____ __, would you vote for him? The willingness to vote for a candidate for president of a certain demographic background provides a strong indicator of prejudice in the United States The Presidency is the top elected post in the United States and with the role as head of state provides the symbolic representation of the United States Who Americans feel comfortable within that office can provide an indicator of how the broader society views itself When an individual from a certain background is elected president conventional wisdom suggests that the general population feel comfortable with that individual's background For example when Ronald Regan was elected president in 1980, pundits and commentators said that the American public had fully accepted the idea of divorces Although Reagan had been married to his second wife Nancy for many years by the time of the campaign, some questioned the willingness of the electorate to vote for someone who had been married more than once The issue turned out to be irrelevant to the election This being the case we can use the willingness to vote for an individual for president for a certain background as a barometer for societal norms regarding that characteristic Figure 1 shows support for a Catholic presidential candidate Alfred E Smith was the first Catholic who ran for the office of president. In the election of 1928 Smith received 41 percent of the popular vote and lost the election to Herbert Hoover however by 193 7, 60 percent of those polled said that they would vote for a Catholic presidential candidate In 1960 with the election of the first Catholic President John F Kennedy opposition had fallen below 30 percent making it socially acceptable to vote for a Catholic

PAGE 82

75 for President These trends have continued to the point where Catholicism is no longer an issue for the American electorate Much media excitement occurred in 2000 with Senator Lieberman's nomination for vice-president as the first Jewish candidate for that office However from figure 2 we see that by 1960 70 percent of those surveyed said they would have support a Jewish presidential candidate This trend continues through the 1960s reaching a peak of 92 percent in 1999 Figure 1 and 2 suggest that by 1960 a candidate's religious association was not a major issue 1 9 U.S society inculcated a tolerance for religious diversity Although religious diversity appears acceptable for Americans societal norms still strongly insist that a presidential candidate hold some type of religious belief In 1958 only 18 percent of those polled said they would vote for an atheist for president while 75 percent said they would not. By 1978 this disparity had decreased to 40 percent saying yes and 53 percent saying no In the latest survey in 1999 only 49 percent of those polled said that 1 9The absence of a question of the Islamic faith suggests a bias against that religion. An area for further study is to what extent does an anti-Islamic bias shape U. S. relation with Muslim countries ?

PAGE 83

76 Would you support a Catholic for pres i dent? 100 -,----------------90 +-----------:::::;;.---~---~~ 80 -1---------~ ---------70 -+----:;a, ..-~-----' ~ --------c 60--~ :___ ______________ 50 -+-----------------8. 40 ----------------30--= =----------------, __ 20 -t-----= =-= =--.!!!------. .c-------------10 --+-r -:------:-: ----..-,--.---.-,-:------= ,_._ __ ,-____ ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,11 --,,,, ,,_.....,_ 1 111 ......-,1ffl 0 -~~~~-~---.----~~~~----r--~ 37 40 55 56 58 59 60 61 63 65 67 69 78 83 99 year Yes Source : Gallup -No Support for a Catho li c Presidential Candidate Figure 1 , 1 1 no opinion

PAGE 84

C 77 Would you support a Jewish candidate for President? 70 -+--~~ ...... ~ ------------60 ----------------50 ---------------! 40 -+---------------------30 -,-------------------, __ 20 -+--------==---~ ,---------------10 -t--:-.r -,+,-,-:-------:.-,,=--------C....allllr-;~--=_......---:---' I / / I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I t I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ,,,.. ...... ,,,.,., I I I I 0 --+-~-~~--~--~~~-~~ 37 58 59 61 63 65 67 69 78 83 87 99 year Yes Source : Gallup -No Support for a Jewish Presidential Candidate Figure 2 I I I I I I I no opinion

PAGE 85

78 they would vote for a well-qualified person from their party if that person happened to be an atheist, while 48 percent said they would not. This falls short of the 60 percent support or less than 30 percent voicing resistance to an issue for it to be considered a norm In the United States it is no longer considered correct behavior to discriminate against someone for their religious belie( but doing it is acceptable if an individual does not hold a religious belief When it comes to political choices and the growth of tolerance for African Americans the civil rights movement clearly shows its influence Figure 3 confirms these dramatic results The Gallup organization did not even consider asking whether anyone would be inclined to vote for a well-qualified black candidate until 1958. In that year only 37 percent said yes while 53 percent responded no The dramatic changes in 40 years show that by 1999 95 percent said that they would vote for an African-American for president. As the 20th century closes only 4 percent of those polled said that they would not vote for an African-American for president. Examining figure 3 we see that those responding that they would support an African-American for president passes the 60 percent point by 1969 Resistance to an African-American candidate also drops below the 30 percent level in the same year Following 1969 those responding yes only increases while negative responses continue to decline For African-Americans 1969 clearly marks the point at which the societal norms change and that prejudice against African-Americans in one's political choice is no longer acceptable The decline in prejudice against women has followed a similar pattern to African Americans (see figure 4) In 1937 only 37 percent of those polled said that they would

PAGE 86

79 vote for a well-qualified female candidate for president. It is not until 1955 that support rises above resistance yet still below the level needed to make it normatively acceptable Figure 4 suggests that 1971 is a key year with support rising above the 60 percent threshold and opposition falling below the 30 percent level. As with the willingness to support an African-American presidential candidate the willingness to support a woman follows the turbulence of the 1960s with the civil rights and woman's liberation movement. Over the next 30 years support for a woman presidential candidate climbs steadily reaching more than 90 percent by 1999 Homosexuals as a group lag far behind others in societal acceptance In 1978 when the question was first asked by Gallup only 26 percent of those polled said that they would vote for a well-qualified homosexual for president. In 1999 the percentage responding yes had risen to 59 percent however 37 percent said that they would not vote for a homosexual This level of resistance strongly suggests that Americans do not accept homosexuals in the broader society Interestingly with 59 percent saying that they would vote for a homosexual for president homosexuals stand roughly in the same position that African-Americans did in the United States in 1965

PAGE 87

80 Would You Support a Black Presidential Candidate? 100 ~--------------90 ~--------------80 1 -----------:::; __. ....... ..~ 10 -+--------------==--r c__-------_ 60 -t-----~ --..11~ ---------c 50 ~,...,. __ ,_ ___________ 8. 40 ~ L..--=--=---'---., ----k------------30 ---------------"20 -+--------------"""'--=-------------10 -h--~~----.-+------..-----~ ~-1 t 1 11 \ \ \ \ 111 11 I I I 11 I I I I 1 \II 11 11 I I I I\ I I I I I I 111 I I 11 t ,1111,,,. 'J't 1"'7 I 58 59 61 63 65 67 69 71 78 83 84 87 97 99 Year Yes Source : Gallup -No Support for a Black Presidential Candidate Figure 3 I I I I I I I no opin i on

PAGE 88

81 100 Would you sup ort a woman presidential candidate? 90 80 70 60 c 50 8.. 40 30 20 ----, 10 ,, 0 ,, ,,,,,,, 1111 '111111111t111,111111111a'' ,,,,,,111ti11,,,,,,, 1 1 ,,, 45 55 59 67 71 78 84 99 37 49 58 63 69 75 83 87 Source : Gallup Yes No 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 no opinion Support for a Woman Presidential Candidate Figure 4

PAGE 89

82 To display this general growth of tolerance in American society we need to look to other indicators In figure 5 we see a continued growth since 1972 in the percentage of those who believe that women should have an equal role in society 2 0 In figure 6 when questioned on school integration we find that by 1968, more than 70 percent believed that white students and black students should go to the same schools By 1972 resistance to school integration had dropped to 14 percent. Figure 7 graphs the responses of those who approve or disapprove of marriage between whites and non whites In the period from 1958 to 1991 the percentage of those who said they disapprove drops 52 percentage points Finally in figure 8 when surveyors asked whites if they would move if blacks came to live in their neighborhood 50 percent said yes in 1958 In 1967 those 2 The text of the question asked is as follows : "Some people feel that women should have an equal role with men in running business, industry and government. Others feel that a woman's place is in the home. Where would you place yourself on this scale or haven't you thought much about this?" Respondents were asked to rate their answers on a 7-points scale with 1 being an equal role and 7 indicating that a woman s place is in the home For figure 5 I coded a response of 1,2,or 3 as equal role and 5 6, or 7 as Women's place is in the home I did not graph a response of 4 which consistently ranged between 11 and 21 percent or a response of don't know which averaged 6 3 percent over the years.

PAGE 90

c 83 Should women have an equal role in society with men? 100 ---r-----------------90 -+---------------80 -+---------------70 -+---------------;JI""""""" ,---~ <--60 -r------:: ::;;;;..;;.--iiiiiiiiii~~~ ------50 --1:::;....-----~ -------------! 40 -----------------30 ---==-----------------________ 20 -t--------~ ---------------------10 -1------------------=--_:::,~ 0 -+----,--.-----r---~~-~~~-~~~~ 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 88 90 92 94 96 98 year Source: NES Equal Role Woman's Place in the Home Support for an Equal Role for Women Figure 5

PAGE 91

84 Do you th i nk white students and black students should go to the same schools? 100 ~--------------90 1===========: -;;:;:~~~~~~::::_: 80 -----70 -+----------:::._,.,,., ==----------_ 60 C 50 -----------------& 40 -t--, -----------------30 ~ ------= =-------= =-------------, 20 ------------------.... 10 -+-----------------------"""'-----= =---, 0 ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, , 42 56 63 64 65 68 70 72 76 77 80 82 84 85 year Source : NORC in (Mayer 1992 369) same Support for Integrated Schools Figure 6 seperate , , , don't know

PAGE 92

Do you approve or disapprove of marriage between whites and non-whites? 100 90 80 70 c 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1958 1968 Approve Support for "Mixed" Marriage Figure 7 ,, ---... ... I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1972 1978 1983 year Source : Gallup -Disapprove I I I I I I I No opinion 85 1991

PAGE 93

Would you move if black people came to live in your neighborhood? 100 90 80 70 60 C 50 8. 40 30 20 10 0 Y a 1958 1963 1965 1966 1967 Source : Gallup yes might , , , no Support for Integrated Neighborhoods Figure 8 \ \ \ \ \ 1978 \ \ \ \ 86 1990

PAGE 94

responding positively had dropped to 40 percent. By 1990 68 percent said that they would not move if blacks came to live in their neighborhood in significant numbers 87 From the survey data reviewed above we can suggest that since the early 1970s America is reaching a multicultural identity Multiculturalism is an empirical and social reality not some elite conspiracy as some have claimed 2 1 The survey evidence supports the thesis that the American identity has changed becoming more inclusive of groups once shunned from the mainstream political and social culture To support this finding further I briefly provide evidence from two very different venues presidential cabinets and television The composition of presidential cabinets also serves as an indicator for changing norms regarding diversity and the development of a multicultural identity When President Clinton first took office in 1993 he wanted a Cabinet that looked like America That is he stated that he wanted a Cabinet made-up of more than white men. Clinton followed a pattern that had begun with President Johnson Johnson appointed Robert C Weaver the first African-American to hold a cabinet level post as Secretary of Housing and Urban Development in 1966 The administration of George W Bush has continued and expanded this practice to such an extent that it goes without question that a 2 1 Michael Lind (1995) argues that it is a mistake to assume that multiracial is synonymous with multicultural. For Lind the United States can be multiracial without being multicultural Lind maintains that the white overclass perpetuate the multicultural idea and buy social peace through affirmative action and tokenism. Lind further argues that the white overclass have pitted the white underclass against minority groups to maintain their position Lind argues for something he calls a Liberal Nationalism that i s "a cultural melting pot and ultimately a racial melting pot" (1995 298) Nevertheless his insistence on American English leads one to suspect his idea is some reformation of White Euro-America

PAGE 95

88 presidential cabinet will be diverse. In fact, the entire Bush administration is more racially diverse and contains more women than the Clinton administration. In the post World War Il era television has had a strong impact on the American society The content of television programs can also help gauge societal norms regarding political and civil rights and a tolerance for diversity. Henry J. Perkinson in Getting Better: Television and Moral Progress, argues that the content of television programs has lead to social progress It is likely that the causal relationship is reversed and television programming reflects progress in society If this is the case, changes in televison serve as an indicator of normative change. 22 One of the first television shows to feature African-Americans was Amos and Andy, which first premiered on June 28, 1951 (Blum 1959, 98) The program aired as radio show for 20 years in which white actors portrayed African-Americans in a stereotypical fashion. On the TV version African-Americans played the roles, but still in the stereotypical fashion Television programs portrayed African-Americans as lazy, dumb, and dishonest (Lichter et al 1994 336) In the midl 960s the portrayal of racial minorities underwent major changes and the "proportion of non-northern European roles doubled over the next decade" (Lichter et al. 1994, 339). African-Americans moved into starring roles playing strong and competent characters in such shows as and Mission Impossible By the 1970s shows featuring African-Americans were numerous and varied from comedies like Sanford 22 There is also the possibility of reciprocal causation in which the values of the explanatory variable are determined, at least in part, by the dependent variable (see King, Keohane, and Verba 1994)

PAGE 96

89 and Son and The Jeffersons to the epic drama and history of one family's tribulations through slavery Roots By the 1980s televison portrayed African-Americans on The Cosby Show as successful with the father as a medical doctor and the mother a lawye r. The portrayal of African-Americans has changed dramatically over the years. Today imagining a show like Amos and Andy on a network's prime time lineup is difficult. Other minority groups such as Hispanics and Asian Americans show up in television programs in ever increasing numbers and with non-stereotypical portrayals Conclusion Today Americans generally tolerate diversity and understand that the United States is not a homogeneous society racially or ethnically The overwhelming majority of the American people accept gender equality More women attend college than men Even conservative Christian groups like the Southern Baptists who claim male leadership as a tenant of faith, are finding dissent among their ranks. 23 Despite some latent prejudice racism, and chauvinism, overt discrimination is not widely accepted In a multicultural America acceptance of diversity is what all Americans share. Globalization or the expansion of economic political social and cultural relations across borders is an idea that has gained widespread endorsement among academics and policymakers This 2 3 1n October 2000 the largest single component the Baptist organization in Texas declared financial independence from the Southern Baptist Conference (SBC) Arguing that the convention had become authoritarian the Texans decided that the more than $5 million they had been sending to Southern Baptist seminaries would be better spent on projects in Texas The primary issue of divergence was the SBC's recent stands calling on women to be submissive to their husbands and forbidding women pastors (Lampman 2000 15)

PAGE 97

90 intensification of interaction is not only a global phenomenon, but it has been national as well Regional cultures exist in the United States, however the United States has seen an infusion of various cultures throughout the broader society American society is more tolerant and respectful of this diversity The violation of an individual's civil or political rights due to their racial or ethnic background is no longer socially acceptable. The norms have changed Norms that govern domestic policy are the same norms that direct foreign policy The next chapter begins an investigation of the promotion of human rights in U.S foreign policy We will see that the changes in domestic norms translates into changes in foreign policy

PAGE 98

CHAPTER4 HUMAN RIGHTS IN U S. FOREIGN POLICY Introduction In the previous chapter I tried to establish that norms regarding political and civil rights in the United States have changed In this chapter it is my task to show that these changes correspond to changes in U.S foreign policy The foreign policy issue I examine is U.S policy toward human rights Recall that this study looks at the promotion of democracy as U.S foreign policy Changing support for human rights represents a changing perception of the nature of democracy. First I begin with an analysis of presidential rhetoric drawn for the most part from inaugural addresses and show the changing status of democracy and human rights in presidential speeches 1 An analysis of presidential rhetoric provides us an understanding of the general U.S foreign policy orientation. As we will see it does not provide the indicator for change in policy orientation toward the promotion of democracy and human rights The executive branch lags behind the legislative branch in reflecting the change in domestic norms. Next I examine the changing position of human rights in U.S foreign policy in the post World War II period I use contextual evidence and I utilize the last twenty five years of quantitative scientific research on the relationship between U.S foreign assistance and the 1 Since the inaugural is the first speech a president makes it can provide the touchstone of that president's term in office. 91

PAGE 99

92 violation of human rights by recipient countries Researchers have not integrated or assessed this literature longitudinally through any theoretical lense The evidence suggests that U.S foreign policy has changed with that change taking place in 1970s This change occurs concurrently with the change in domestic norms that produced the new multicultural American identity identified in the previous chapter. Presidential Rhetoric Presidents of the United States have for the most part conformed to the rhetoric of i dealism in their foreign policy principles Words like democracy and freedom often adorn t heir public speeches American exceptionalism the idea that the United States represents a special phenomenon in the history of the world clearly resounds in presidential inaugural addresses This has caused Henry Kissinger to lament the triumph of Wilsonian idealism in America's singular approach to international affairs Kissinger relates that "[d]uring the course of the twentieth century one president after another proclaimed that America had no selfish' interests [the only goal] was universal peace and progress" (Kissinger 1994 621) However a detectable shift in the presidential rhetoric exists From Truman to Nixon, when presidents spoke of governance in other parts of the world, they judge it as each individual country s choice Like Wilson before them, these presidents appear dedicated to the principle of self-determination In this line of reasoning, democratic governance is often limited to particular groups of states Beginning with President Carter and continuing through to the current administration, human rights and democracy is couched in universal terms and available to all. In the following section, I analyze presidential inaugural addresses from Truman to George W Bush and show how the

PAGE 100

93 rhetoric has changed In his inaugural address of January 20 1949 Harry Truman declared that in the U.S "we believe that all men have a right to equal justice under law ... "(Truman 1949 112) For Truman, the American people wanted a world "in which all nations and peoples are free to govern themselves as they see fit . 11 Despite the argument for self-determination, Truman argued that the United States and other "like-minded nations" find themselves opposed to the "false philosophy" of communism He assured the world that the U.S would strengthen "freedom-loving nations" against aggression and provide technical and economic assistance to "peace-loving peoples" (Truman 1949 112) Granted, Truman made his speech in the context of the Cold War with the world divided into camps of good and evil however more can be drawn from the rhetoric Clearly Truman implied that some countries are peace and freedom loving while others are not. Eisenhower's inaugural address of 1953 follows this structure with freedom viewed as not universally desired He declared that the United States holds "all continents and peoples in equal regard and honor (Eisenhower 1953 6) Nevertheless, Eisenhower marked as a fixed principle that the U.S will never use its strength to "impress upon another people our own cherished political and economic institutions" (Eisenhower 1953 5). The implication is that some peoples may not want democracy or be capable of it. John F Kennedy offered a slight twist on America idealism In his inaugural address Kennedy forthrightly declared that the U.S was "unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this nation has always been committed .. "(Kennedy 1961 1) To America's "old allies whose cultural and spiritual

PAGE 101

94 origins" the United States shared Kennedy declared undying loyalty To the new states, Kennedy promised not to impose control on them, but warned them to maintain their freedom. Nevertheless the freedom he spoke of is not the freedom of democratic governance but freedom from Soviet control. He warned the recently independent states t o be wary of the Soviet Union, which he equated to a tiger ready to devour them Kennedy said nothing about the self destruction of internal repression In one aspect of his speech, Kennedy appears to proclaim the universality of democracy but he only extends it to those of our cultural kind (Kennedy 1961 1) In President Lyndon Johnson s inaugural address we find sweeping language calling for domestic tolerance and a quest for justice with a force that no prior president had used For Johnson, justice required Americans not to deny any citizen their rights no matter their race or belief In America Johnson declared children must not go hungry, . [and] neighbors must not suffer and die untended ... (Johnson 1965 72) In foreign policy Johnson s rhetoric applied the same principles abroad in very aggressive terms He wanted to eradicate tyranny and misery' in the world (Johnson 1965 73) Sounding much like Pope Urban II when he called for the First Crusade Johnson declared that [i]f American lives must end . in countries that we barely know then that is the price ... of our enduring covenant (Johnson 1965 72) The position of democracy and human rights in Johnson s crusade is not clear The crusade in Vietnam was not a crusade for democracy Although the United States fought against a communist and nondemocratic regime in the North that had an abysmally poor human rights record it supported a regime

PAGE 102

95 with only a minimally better record (Morris 1982) 2 Richard M Nixon left no ambiguity in his inaugural address when it came to foreign policy He declared that he wanted negotiation and not confrontation. Nixon favored a world open to ideas in which "no people live in angry isolation" (Nixon 1969, 3) He did not praise democracy nor did he condemn tyranny Nixon put forward an amoral foreign policy. He said "[ w ]e cannot expect to make everyone our friend but we can try to make no one our enemy ." Ntxon launched a realist foreign policy devoid of concerns of human rights His rhetoric inferred that all political regimes are morally equivalent. Although the first American president to speak openly of realpolitik foreign policy Nixon was in fact the last in a line of post World War II presidents. From Truman to Nixon, U.S. Presidents argued for freedom, but freedom only defined in terms of an absence of Soviet control. For the most part these presidents saw democratic governance and human rights as a unique product of a certain group of states When fanmy Carter took the oath of office on January 22 1977 he became the first American president openly to declare human rights as a component of U.S foreign policy Carter proclaimed that "our commitment to human rights must be absolute [and] we must not behave in foreign places so as to violate our rules and standards here at home .. (Carter 1977 2) In contrast to Nixon, who declared that the United States had 2Morris (1982) argues that U.S intervention in Vietnam does have some moral standing when comparing the human rights violations of the North and the South For Morris, although South Vietnam may have been authoritarian and imprisoned people who had committed no crimes it did not reach the totalitarian scale of the North The North Vietnamese engaged in mass executions and interned hundreds of thousands in reeducation camps

PAGE 103

96 no enemies and only interests Carter sharply delineated a clearcut [sic] preference for those societies which share an abiding respect for individual human rights (Carter 1977 3) Ronald Reagan in his inaugural address appeared to harken back to an earlier time when he stated that United States would not use our friendship to impose on their [ other states] sovereignty' (Reagan 1981 3) Unlike Nixon, Reagan did not hesitate to proclaim some states as enemies To the enemies of freedom, he warned that the American people may be reluctant to fight but they should never misunderstand our forbearance" (Reagan 1981 3) Many pundits and commentators voiced concern about Reagan s commitment to human rights. 3 The president responded in an interview with Walter Cronkite in March of 1981 that he though human rights were very much a part of American idealism He suggested that the United States ought to be more sincere about [its] position of human rights ." For Reagan, seeking better relations with states like the Soviet Union and Cuba while punishing others was hypocritical Reagan flatly declared that the Soviet Union was the greatest violator of human rights (Reagan 1981 196) By the end of Reagan s first year in office he had proclaimed December 10 Human Rights Day (Reagan 1981 1143) As his rhetoric suggested Reagan continued with human rights as a part of U. S foreign policy 3 See William Raspberry Single-Minded Anti-Communism The Washington Post F ebruary 27 1981 A15 ; Don Bonker Human rights : will Reagan learn from Congress ?" The Christian Science Monitor February 25 1981, Pg. 23 ; Jeanne Seymour Whitaker Rights and Realpolitik" The New York Times February 24 1981 Pg 19 and Leslie H. Gelb Memorandum to the President The New York Times January 18 1981 Pg 15

PAGE 104

97 Presid i ng o v er the West's victory of the Cold War George H. W Bush declared in his inaugural address that the countries of the world were moving toward democrac y through the door of freedom (Bush 1989 1) Proclaiming the universalism of human rights and democracy President Bush stated that for the first time in history man does not have to invent a system by which to live (Bush 1989 1). Democracy and freedom have triumphed for post Cold War presidents William J. Clinton emphasized the interdependence of the world with no clear division between the foreign and the domestic Clinton presented America as a leader and a model for the world The cause of democracy was America s cause He asserted that [ o ]ur hopes, our hearts our hands are with those on every continent who are building democracy and freedom" (Clinton 1993 2) George W Bush 4 continued the rhetoric of his predecessors when he said the story of America was that of friend and liberator Democracy once the providence of the United States was taking root in many nations President Bush assigned a large role for the United States in foreign policy He stated that [i]f our country does not lead the cause of freedom, it will not be led . And to all nations we will speak for the values that gave our nation birth ." Human Rights and U.S. Foreign Policy Changing support for human rights represents a changing perception of the nature of democracy Since the end of World War Il U S policy has evolved becoming more sensitive to the content and quality of political regimes with which it interacts As with the 4The text of President George W Bush's inaugural address was found at http :// www whitehouse gov / new s/ inaugural-address html and accessed on March 25 2001.

PAGE 105

98 expansion of tolerance domestically we find that American foreign policy becomes more sensitive and concerned with political and civil rights specifically around the period o f the 1970s As an analytic device I break down the post World War II era into successive periods characterized by their policy orientation toward human rights Uncertain Support 1945-1953 The massive scale of human atrocities that flowed from the Second World War provoked a global concern for human rights The drafting of the United Nations charter at the San Francisco conference in 1945 saw the inclusion of human rights as a legitimate concern of international action. No fewer than seven references to human rights are found in the UN Charter (Riggs and Plano 1994 204). Although the Charter did not develop specific legal obligations it did assert an international interest in the rights of individuals The U.S foreign policy position on human rights was ambiguous. The United States record on human rights at San Francisco was mixed ," writes Kathryn Sikkink The United States supported efforts to include human rights language in the Charter yet expressed concern of possible U. infringement on domestic jurisdiction (Sikkink 1993 147) 5 The United States supported the nonbinding Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) However it also worked to prevent the development of international regimes on human rights and authorized a self-denying ordinance of the U.N Human Rights Commission ruling out specific review of state s human rights policies (Forsythe 1990 437) 5 The other major powers including both the Soviet Union and the United Kingdom expressed this concern

PAGE 106

99 Public policy from the State Department further illustrates this lack of concern for human rights and democracy As a member of the U.S State Department and director of the policy planning staff, George Kennan in 1950 espoused his disdain for Latin America In a memorandum to the Secretary of State Kennan characterized Latin America as a region like no other in which nature and human behavior could have combined to produce a more unhappy and hopeless background for the conduct of human life . (Kennan 1976 600) His description of the Spanish settlers reads as ifhe lifted from the British propaganda of the 1700s. Kennan teaches the Secretary of State Dean Acheson, that the Spaniards came to Latin America as the bearers of a national and cultural development which was itself nearing its end ; a development in which many of the more hopeful origins had already died and little was left but religious fanaticism, a burning frustrated energy and an addiction to the most merciless cruelty (Kennan 1976 601) One has to think that Kennan is equating fanaticism with Catholicism Kennan speaks as if the English colonists in North America were not religious fanatics The colonists in New England exhibited deep devotion to their religious convictions Even more disturbing than Kennan s apparent religious bias is his boldfaced, unashamed racism Kennan blames the modem problems of Latin American on the interbreeding between the Spanish and the native peoples of in the colonial period Here is the true illustration of the crimes of the fathers being visited on their progeny ; for as the Spanish intermarried with these native peoples the course of whose history had so ruthlessly been interrupted they came to share the scares and weaknesses which they themselves had inflicted (Kennan 1976 601) For Kennan, the problem of racial mixing

PAGE 107

100 also extended to Afiicans [I]n Latin America, the large scale importation of egro slave elements into considerable parts of the Spanish and other colonial empires [Portugal Brazil] and the extensive intermarriage of all these elements produced other unfortunate results which seemed to have weighed scarcely less heavily on the chances for human progress (Kennan 1976 601) Kennan s racism is striking when viewed from the perspective of the early twenty first century In the 1950s however his views still represented major segments throughout the American society. Change was underway but it had not permeated though the broader society or the ruling elites It would be difficult today imagining any secretary of state much less Colin Powell decrying racial amalgamation as a culprit in the region s problems Kennan s racial and cultural bias extended to his analysis of government for the region Lesser peoples may need repressive governments Democratic governments for Latin America would be nice [b ]ut where they do not exist and where concepts and traditions of popular government are too weak to absorb successfully the intensity of communist attack, then we must concede that harsh governmental measures of repression may be the only answer ; that these measures may have to proceed from regimes whose origins and methods would not stand the test of American concepts .. (Kennan 19 7 6 607) George Kennan s ideas in the late 1940s and early 1950s directly shaped U S policy Democracy promotion in non-western non-European states was not part of the agenda American foreign aid to many countries was not directed at liberalizing political structures but modernizing economically backward countries The U. S Congress role in /

PAGE 108

foreign policy supported this agenda. Overt Neglect 1953-1976 101 The issue of human rights dropped from the U.S. foreign policy agenda between t he 1950s and the early the 1970s As we saw from the presidential rhetoric the Cold War and fear of communism dominated foreign policy concerns Reference to human rights in the Congressional Record are non existent. United Nations efforts to promote human rights through covenants and treaties received dedicated disregard from the United States 6 In four cases over this period the United States assisted into power regimes that acted as gross violators of human rights In 1953 in Iran, the American Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) orchestrated an operation to overthrow the democratically-elected government of Dr Muhammad Musaddiq Musaddiq's nationalization of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company in 1951 struck a chord of Western defiance However Musaddiq's flirtations with the communist Tudeh party not only raised the concern of the United States, but also agitated Iran s religious leaders (Munson 1988 53) Musaddiq's attempts at reform created chaos in the country On August 16 1953 crowds ofTudeh supporters rioted in Tehran and thwarted a coup attempted by troops loyal to the Shah Three days later royalist forces struck again Military forces captured the prime minister and returned the Shah to consolidate his monarchy The Shah dealt harshly with groups who opposed his rule. Between 1953 and 6The Genocide Treaty a response to the fascist atrocities in World War TI was adopted by the UN on December 9 1948 and entered into force on January 12 1951. Nevertheless the treaty wasted away in the Senate until 1986 The International Covenant on Civil and Political rights was opened for ratification in 1966 but it was not submitted to the Senate until 1977

PAGE 109

102 1963 the United States gave Iran $500 million in military aid The United States helped organize an internal security organization, SA V AK, notorious for its brutal treatment of political prisoners (Cleveland 1994 276) In 1954 a CIA-sponsored military force overthrew the democratically-elected government in Guatemala Jacobo Arbenz, elected in 1951 lost power when a military force led by Castillo Armas forced him to resign Arbenz' s aggressive posture toward the United Fruit Company (UFCO) with the nationalization of land belonging to the company his legalization of the communist Guatemalan Labor party and his promotion of agrarian reform raised the specter of communism in the perception of American officials Although U.S officials had little evidence that communism was gaining ground in Guatemala, the perceived threat was enough to spark a reaction (Schoultz 1998 342) The American ambassador to Guatemala said of Arbenz, ''the man thought like a Communist and talked like a Communist and if not actually one would do until one came along ( quoted in Dallek 1983 211) The CIA assisted a disloyal army faction and provided limited air support Other military forces refused to defend the government and Arbenz had to resign (Immerman 1982). Castillo Armas assumed the presidency backed by the United States He dismantled labor and peasant movements, jailing and killing thousands in the process repressed political parties and rolled back agrarian reform (Booth and Walker 1993 43) Guatemala was locked into an extended period of political repression and internal violence that was not to see respite until the 1990s In April 1965 rebel military forces and civilian groups ostensibly loyal to Juan Bosch moved to seize power from a civilian junta in the Dominican Republic. The civilian

PAGE 110

103 j unta had come to power two years earlier when the military overthrew the democratically-elected Bosch After the rebel forces battled the regular army troops out of the capital city of Santo Domingo the American Ambassador reported to officials in Washington on possible Communist infiltration in the rebel forces (Wiarda and Kryzanek 1992 43) Fears of a Communist takeover prompted President Johnson to order troops into the Dominican Republic. The U S intervention allowed the regular military troops to regroup and snatch a decisive victory away from the rebel forces 7 Eventually in 1966 under U.S occupation the Organization of American States sponsored elections In the elections Joaquin Balaguer defeated Juan Bosch Balaguer once a puppet president under the dictator Rafael Leonidas Trujillo presented himself as the candidate of order and stability Bosch, fearing assassination, ran a minimal campaign, rarely venturing out into the public (Wiarda and Kryzanek 1992 47) Economic expansion and political repression characterized Balaguer' s first presidential era, 19661978 A paramilitary death squad La Banda operated openly and with tacit support of the National Police More than a thousand political assassinations took place between 1966 and 1971 In 1970 Amnesty International alleged that one death or disappearance occurred every thirty-four hours (Chomsky and Herman 1979 243). Chile marks a final case in this period of U.S. policy supporting oppression The United States strongly influenced the rise to power of the military regime led by Augusto 7 For a balanced assessment of the intervention see Abraham F Lowenthal (1971) The Dominican Intervention. Piero Gleijeses (1978) The Dominican Crisis : The 1965 Constitutional Revolt and the American Intervention provides the best study from the rebel perspective

PAGE 111

104 Pinochet. Recentl y declassified information on CIA activities in Chile clearly shows U. S complicity 8 As we saw from the analysis of presidential rhetoric above the Ntxon administration represents the final stage of an American foreign policy in which considerations of human rights and democracy receive minimal considerations The left-wing politician Salvador Allende had for years drawn the concern of U. S policymakers who feared the spread of communism In the early 1960s, President Kennedy and Johnson had authorized almost $4 000 000 in expenditures by the CIA to prevent Allende and a left wing coalition from gaining power in Chile (Dallek, 1983 277). By the late 1960s the CIA developed a propaganda mechanism that placed stories in the media to discredit Allende They also provided funding to moderate candidates running for office Despite CIA efforts Allende won a plurality in the presidential election of September 4 1970 On September 15 1970 President Ntxon authorized the CIA to prevent Allende from taking office Although the CIA-instigated coup failed, it led to the death of Army Commander Rene Schneider Schneider had been an obstacle to a military takeover since he believed deeply that the Constitution required the Army to allow Allende to assume the office of the president. 8 Unless otherwise noted information on CIA activities in Chile is drawn from the Hinchey Report September 18 2000 Under Section 311 of the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 the Intelligence Community led by the National Intelligence Council was required to answer questions regarding the role of the United States in the assassination of President Allende the accession of General Augusto Pinochet to the Presidency and the violation of human rights by offices and agents of General Pinochet The report can be found at http//foia state gov/HincheyReport htm It was accessed on February 24 2001 at 9 : 47 a m

PAGE 112

105 The CIA continued to funnel money to opposition parties and provided assistance to right-wing militant groups They also continued their disinformation campaign to discredit Allende According to the Hinchey report [t]he CIA was instructed to put the U.S Government in a position to take future advantage of either a political or military solution to the Chilean dilemma, depending on how developments unfolded ." Finally on September 11 1973 the military launched a successful coup Allende took his own life while the President i al palace was under attack. The CIA did not instigate the coup but American officials were aware of the plotting and did nothing to discourage the plotters activities After the coup the military junta led by General Pinochet arrested many people suspected of being leftists Many of those arrested were tortured and some 3 000 were killed Beyond these four cases researchers have provided evidence supporting the thesis that U.S foreign policy from the early 1950s to the early 1970s overtly neglected human rights and supported regimes abusive to the rights of their own people Writing in 1974 Steven J. Rosen (1974 117) argued that both liberal and radical critics of American foreign policy agree in their criticism of U.S support for reactionary regimes Little debate occurred about whether the U.S supported countries with repressive political regimes Research questions sought to investigate if U S policies were a product of errors in judgement and an exaggerated fear of communism, or a logical outgrowth of the capitalist socioeconomic system Rosen s 1974 empirical study found evidence that in the period from 1954 to 1972 a rightward political shift in a country correlated with an increase in U.S investment trade and aid In an early study on the relationship between military aid and economic interest John S Odell (1974) found a

PAGE 113

106 strong covariance between military assistance and economic interests In contrast R. D. McKinlay and R. Little {1977) in a longitudinal study of the allocation of aid over the years 1960-1970 found that U.S security interests had an important influence in U S aid commitments Minimal support was found to suggest that the aid was allocated based on a country s economic performance or to promote U.S economic interests Interestingly in some years it was found that countries least likely to restrict political activity received the greatest absolute commitment in foreign aid. However this finding was countered by the evidence that the U.S supported states that repressed political activity if they were military regimes During the period studied military regimes often arose in response to civil disturbances and political unrest usually viewed as communist inspired. In a study on economic interests and U.S foreign policy in Latin America from1960 to 1969 John Peterson (1976) found no evidence that support for democracy or opposition to military regimes were factors in the distribution of foreign policy resources 9 Much research during the 1970s concluded that the distribution of U.S aid supported nefarious outcomes and stemmed for self-interested motivations by U.S policy makers (Pearson, 1976 Chomsky and Herman, 1979 Schoultz 1980). Human rights and democracy did not appear to influence foreign policy decisions by the United States. 9I>eterson defined foreign policy resources as the level of economic assistance military assistance and the number of diplomatic personnel.

PAGE 114

107 Support and Promotion 1977-2000 10 As will be more fully explicated in the next chapter the U.S Congress began to assert its influence on foreign policy and human rights in the early 1970s In 1973 Minnesota Congressman Donald Fraser (D ., Minnesota) began a series of hearings on human rights Under his leadership the Subcommittee on International Organizations of the House Committee on International Relations produced a report entitled Human Rights in the World Community : A Call for U.S Leadership Following the Fraser hearings Congress expressed its belief that the United States should link security assistance to human rights concerns Unlike security assistance Congress legally linked the provision of development assistance and human rights (Forsythe 1988 9-10) The election of Jimmy Carter enlisted the executive branch into the Congress lead drive to make human rights part of U.S foreign policy As we saw above President Carter was the first U.S president to speak openly of human rights in foreign relations By 1977 Congress created a new position of assistant secretary of state for human rights and humanitarian affairs 11 The Carter administration took some dramatic moves by cutting off aid to some significant countries for human rights abuses The administrat i on 10 Some scholars divide this period in two with one period covering the Carter Administration, and another beginning with Reagan (See Forsythe 1990 and Sikkink 1993) The enforcement of human rights in foreign policy was not perfect in either administration, nevertheless human rights never left the agenda The division by these scholars is based on the expectation that Reagan should have been different from Carter. 11 Congress created the Human Rights Office in 1975 as the Office of the Coordinator for Human Rights and Human Affairs In 1976 Congress elevated the position to assistant secretary of state Carter appointed the person to hold that position when he selected Patricia Derian, a fonner civil rights activist to the post

PAGE 115

108 ended military aid to Argentina, Ethiopia and Uruguay and successfully sought a repeal of the Byrd Amendment which allowed imports of chrome from Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) Critics of Carter s human rights policy argued that his policy was inconsistent and represented a double standard Although the Carter administration cut off military assistance to countries like Argentina, Chile and Ethiopia for human rights violations he continued such assistance to Iran, the Philippines and the Republic of Korea despite their human rights violations (Wilson 1983 188-189) Other critics complained that a human rights policy was ineffective The heterogenous nature of the world some claimed made common expectations of human rights impossible Ernst Haas reacting to Carter s human rights policy declared that international politics is not the politics of the American civil rights movement (quoted in Wilson 1983 189). Therefore standards practiced domestically could not be applied to an international venue Ronald Reagan came to office with a different set of ideas regarding the relationship between human rights and foreign policy Before becoming president Reagan s first Ambassador to the United Nations Jean Kirkpatrick wrote a scathing critique of the Carter s human rights policy in an article titled Dictatorships and Double Standards ." In the article she criticized the Carter administration for treating communist countries differentl y than traditional autocracies She accused the Carter administration of preferring Soviet/Chinese/Cuban socialism over traditional autocracy She argued that the politics of traditional autocracy is nearly antithetical to our own at both the symbolic and operational level the rhetoric of progressive revolutionaries sound much better to us ... The reason modem Americans prefer socialist to traditional autocracies is t hat

PAGE 116

109 the former have embraced modernity and have adopted modem modes and perspecti v es (Kirkpatrick 1979 42) For Kirkpatrick, this constituted a double standard in U S foreign policy that needed to be rectified She counseled that U.S foreign policy needed to take a harder line with the communist countries while being more understanding toward the traditional autocracies Traditional autocracies were less intrusive and less brutal than the revolutionary autocracies like the Soviet Union More important for Kirkpatrick, the believer in realpol i tik traditional autocracies readily conformed to the interests of the United States Reagan began his administration by ending some double standards regarding the Soviet Union and its allies and by removing some sanctions from allies in the Cold War The Reagan administration altered the definition of human rights established under the Carter administration Carter had established three categories : freedom from torture civil and political liberties and economic rights to food and shelter Reagan homogenized the definition and eliminated the economic component of the human rights definition, a move consistent with his conservative ideology (Drezner 2000 745) In May 1982 with National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) number 37 the Reagan administration overturned the Carter ban on military equipment for Guatemala and authorized the transfer ofup to $10 million worth of U.S origin military equipment for fiscal year 1983 (Simpson 1995 128) The Reagan Administration also modified foreign policy toward the USSR and Eastern Europe NSDD number 75 stated that the primary U.S objective in Eastern Europe is to loosen Moscow s hold on the region while promoting the cause of human rights in individual Eastern European Countries (Simpson 1995 258) In response

PAGE 117

llO to the House of Representatives passing the Boland-Zablocki Amendments barring the CIA from continued funding of the Nicaraguan Contras Reagan issued NSDD number 100, in July of 1983 The directive charged that the military efforts in Central America be linked with the ability to support democracy Furthermore an accompanying CIA memo dated September 19 1983 directed funding not only for paramilitary activities in support of the Nicaraguan Contras, but assistance to used to promote pluralism, human rights freedom of the press free elections and democratic process inside Nicaragua and throughout the region (Simpson, 1995 316) Reagan overturned some of Carter s decisions to cut military assistance to a few countries Alexander Haig Reagan s first Secretary of State publically declared that combating terrorism would take priority over human rights (Dberdorfer 1981 Al) Nevertheless human rights in foreign policy had originated in the U.S Congress and that institution did not relinquish its influence Congress rejected the nomination of Ernest Lefever to the post of assistant secretary for human rights and humanitarian affairs Lefever had publically advocated overturing human rights legislation Moreover he had received money from the Republic of South Africa to publish views favorable to that regime (Forsythe 1988 121) The issue of human rights in American foreign policy would not be easily dismissed from the agenda The evidence suggests that Reagan did not want to eviscerate the policy as a component of U S. foreign policy Double standards continued to exist. Much as Carter was reluctant to cutoff aid to Iran despite it human rights violations Reagan increased aid to El Salvador while ignoring blatant human rights violations What is important to understand is that human rights as an issue was

PAGE 118

111 becoming an institutionalized component ofU S foreign policy In 1981 Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick wrote not only should human rights play a central role in U.S foreign policy, no U.S foreign policy can possibly succeed that does not accord them a major role (Kirkpatrick 1981 42) Picking up on an idea introduced by Congress in the early 1970s Reagan proposed Project Democracy (later to evolve into the National Endowment for Democracy) to promote democracy abroad A democratic regime becomes a necessary factor to protect human rights Human rights concerns have been subordinated to other foreign policy concerns at times but have never left the agenda since the Carter administration By the Clinton administration human rights have become a relatively uncontroversial part of U S foreign policy' (Donnelly 1999 242) In the following section I examine the systematic research covering the period I have identified as one in which the U.S supports human rights abroad In the assessment of U.S foreign policy the provision of bilateral aid is often used as an indicator for general orientation of policy Aid provision establishes commitment and dependency used to realize certain foreign policy utilities (McKinlay 1979) Conversely the withholding or denial of aid can signal a change in policy orientation Quantitative Analyses of U.S. Support for Human Rights David Cingranello and Thomas Pasquarello (1985) investigated the impact of legislation passed by the Congress between 1976 and 1979 explicitly linking human rights practices of foreign nations to U.S foreign policy The authors conducted a study of human rights practices and the distribution of aid to Latin American countries in fiscal year

PAGE 119

112 1982 Their findings suggested an increased importance for human rights in bilateral aid considerations The authors found a significant relationship between military aid and human rights Nations with poor human rights records tended to be excluded from the military aid recipient group while those which had recently improved their human rights practices tended to be included (Cigranello and Pasquarello 1985 554) When policymakers made decisions on economic assistance, they provided higher levels of assistance to nations with enlightened human rights practices" (Cigranello and Pasquarello 560) 12 Despite some early rhetoric to overturn Carter s emphasis on human rights the Reagan administration continued the policy lines of the previous administration, and often the policy was more consistently applied Daniel J.B. Hofrenning (1990) found that human rights remained a significant factor in aid allocation during the Reagan administration Steven C Poe in an analysis of military aid to 26 Latin American states and a sample of 40 states in the world, concluded that the Carter administration in 1980 and the Reagan administration in 1984 tended not allocated aid to countries with poor human rights records (Poe 1991 ) In a study of economic aid to Africa from 1983 to 1988 12 S ome researchers have criticized Cingranelli and Pasquarello s finding based on methodological concerns Cingranelli and Pasquarello excluded El Salvador from their study since it received more than 27 percent of U.S bilateral aid and thus considered a nonroutine case Critics argue that the inclusion of El Salvador would wash out the significance of their findings (see Carleton and Stohl 1987). Nevertheless Cingranelli and Pasquarello excluded Cuba from the analysis since U S. policymakers did not define it as a potential recipient of aid In the rating system of countries developed by Cingranelli and Pasquarello Cuba received the second worst overall human rights score and the worst on civil and political rights One would suspect that an inclusion of Cuba would buttress t he evidence that U S aid levels vary with the level of human rights abuses

PAGE 120

113 Steven Poe and Rangsima Sirrangsi (1993) found evidence that human rights were one of many considerations entering into aid allocations. Their findings show that for every point increase on a five-point ordinal human rights abuse scale a country was appropriated three million dollars less in economic aid Other studies have continued to find that respect for human rights have been considered by U.S policymakers but even in the waning years of the Cold War strategic interests still had the strongest impact on aid allocation (Poe et al 1994 Blanton 1994) Of course immediate security matters will still trump all other concerns In the war against Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, 2001-2002 the United States developed a working relationship with an oppressive regime in Uzbekistan Nevertheless denying that concerns with human rights has entered the equation of decision making is difficult. During the Reagan administration, the development of democracy building programs allowed engagement with human rights violators like El Salvador The Reagan administration perceived human rights violations as a systematic problem rooted in the lack of democratic structures According to Secretary of State George Shultz, the U.S had "a duty not only to react to specific cases but also to understand and seek to shape the basic structural conditions in which human rights are more likely to flourish" (Schultz 1984 4) Moreover, military analysts are coming to understand the importance of human rights to security concerns In a study of the Salvadorian civil war, Ernest Evans (1997 44) concluded that the El Salvadoran civil war demonstrated that in counterinsurgency campaigns allowing the foreign and local military and security personnel to engage in systematic human rights

PAGE 121

114 violations such as the torture and killing of prisoners is totally counterproductive ." Tortured and killed prisoners provided poor intelligence information and are less likely to cooperate in the future Abused citizens as less likely to cooperate with the government that is abusing them and more likely to support insurgency Therefore American military advisors worked to curtail human rights abuses by the Salvadorian military. The United States also sought to promote and support democratically elected governments in El Salvador even when the U.S did not particularly agree with that government's ideology 13 Evans (1997) argues that U.S decision makers have learned from Ernesto Che" Guevara in dealing with counter insurgency operations Guevara insisted that when a government comes to power through some sort of popular vote, revolutionaries cannot promote a guerrilla outbreak, since the possibilities of a peaceful struggle have not been exhausted In a recent study of US foreign policy and foreign aid (Meernik et al. 1998) found that with the passing of the Cold War era security-driven goals in foreign aid have become less critical while ideological goals (i.e ., human rights and democracy) have become more important. Shannon Lindsey Blanton (2000) focusing on U.S arms exports to developing countries for the years 1990 through 1994 found that both human rights and democracy were very important in the initial decision making stage Finally in the one of 13 For example when Jose Napoleon Duarte won the presidency in El Salvador in 1984 the Reagan administration cooperated closely with him despite the annoyance of many in Reagan's own party over Duarte's nationalization of the banking industry When Alfredo Cristiani was elected president in 1989 the Bush administration strove to establish a working relationship with his government despite the hostility by many in the U.S Congress to Cristiani's ARENA party

PAGE 122

115 the most comprehensive and statistically sophisticated analysis of the relationship between U.S human rights policy and foreign assistance Clair Apodaca and Michael Stohl (1999) find that human rights were a determining factor in the decision to grant economic aid 14 Conclusion To argue that the United States is concerned with human rights and democrac y may sound trivial to some However as we have seen this has not always been the case Presidential rhetoric has changed with concepts of democracy recast from particular to universal Some may argue that President Carter s idealism was something unique to the man, a product of his religious upbringing However his successor Reagan was very similar in his idealism in foreign policy Reagan continued and expanded idealism in foreign policy Perhaps we can argue the demands of the Cold War shaped the rhetoric and actions of the presidents before Carter However both Carter and Reagan operated under the Cold War system It is not until the Bush Administration that a president made foreign policy decisions in a post Cold War world The empirical evidence strongly suggests that from the 1950 though the mid 1970s the U S supported anti-democratic regimes and practiced policies antithetical to human rights Furthermore the empirical evidence suggests that in late 1970s human rights 1 4 Apodaca and Stohl s analysis covered the period 1976-1995 The Clinton administration is an exception to this finding The authors contend that the Clinton administration was more concerned the U.S economic interests Samuel Huntington ( 1 997 37) argues that in Clinton s foreign policy we find that the dictates of commercialism have prevailed over other purposes including human rights democracy alliance relationships maintaining the balance of power technology export controls and other strategic and political considerations . . A full statistical analysis of his two terms has yet to be conducted Clinton did continue the democracy program established under Reagan

PAGE 123

116 became a component of American foreign policy Many studies have found a relationship between foreign aid and human rights This is significant when one understands that for years researchers were bent on disproving the relationship between human rights and foreign policy Understandably most researchers held the belief that America supported oppression The relationship is not perfect and sometimes other motives trump human rights The U.S relationship with China is one example Today democracy and the respect for human rights are considered in the realm of the possible for China In the 1950s few would have thought it to be true I have shown that U.S foreign policy regarding human rights has changed How do we account for this change? It is not a change in political parties. Before the 1970s both Republicans and Democrats often supported authoritarian regimes Carter a Democrat and Reagan, a Republican, both pushed a foreign policy with a focus on freedom Carter began with human rights promotion and Reagan expanded that to include the promotion of democracy We cannot blame it on the end of Cold War since the policy predates that event. Clearly something changed within American In the previous chapter I presented evidence suggesting the American identity has changed and that people are more tolerant of diversity and respectful of others' political and civil rights This being the case we can understand that this respect for political and civil rights would bleed over to foreign policy Recall, that the human rights issue originated in the U.S Congress the b r anch of government that is nearest to the people Congress has a role in foreign policy if it chooses to act. Members of Congress such as Donald Fraser (D ., Minnesota) Tom Harkin (D ., Iowa), and Don Bonker (D ., Washington) acted with the conviction that their

PAGE 124

117 constituents supported a policy of human rights When members of Congress v oted t o pass legislation tying foreign aid to the support for human rights they reflected the general norms held by the American people This connection is explored in more detail in chapter 6 Given the societal changes we can better understand President Carter s emphasis on human rights Moreover we can understand why Reagan did not abandon idealism in foreign policy True Reagan modified Carter's human rights policy but his world view the mood of the Congress and the norms of the American people would not allow the abandonment of the promotion of freedom, human rights and democracy In the next chapter I will attempt flesh out the linkages between domestic norms and foreign policy This will be done through an examination of Congressional action toward the promotion of democracy

PAGE 125

CHAPTERS CONGRESS AND THE TRANSMISSION OF NORMS TO FOREIGN POLICY Introduction In the United States the transfer of domestic norms from the civil society to public policy is most clearly evidenced through the actions of Congress This does not mean that other branches of the federal government are immune to changes at the domestic leve l. Nevertheless it is the elected assembly in democratic governments that usually first shows the changes in society Recall that we are discussing changes in societal norms regarding political and civil rights Changes in norms have led to a growth in tolerance and a change in the U.S identity This change in the domestic normative structure leads to changed policy orientations In this chapter I will illustrate the transmission of the changed domestic norms regarding civil and political rights to the change in foreign policy regarding the promotion of human rights and democracy abroad via congressional action First I discuss the process of foreign policy making in the United States as traditionally and constitutionally understood. Next I will address the two presidencies thesis ." As originally constructed Aaron Wildavsky s two presidencies thesis suggests that presidents have leeway in matters of foreign policy In subsequent examinations of Wildavsksy s thesis the concept of the "two presidencies has not held up Third I consider the role of the resurgent Congress in the United States and end of the two presidencies which corresponds to the changing normative patterns in the United States. 118

PAGE 126

119 This leads to a discussion of the role of constituent influence on members of Congress Taking a cue from the "new institutionalist literature on American Government I address t he mechanisms in addition to the legislative process by which Congress can influence foreign policy Finally I confront the legislative and procedural changes that Congress has undertaken to incorporate the promotion of democracy and human rights into U.S foreign policy While the president was important in foreign policy action, Congress exerted more influence regarding human rights and democracy promotion Congress more immediately transmitted societal norms to foreign policy ConstitutionaJ Power and Foreign Policy The U.S national government is based on a division of powers with three separate branches. Howeve r, separate institutions sharing power better describes the American system of governance This constitutional sharing of power creates what Edward Corwin (1957 171) called an invitation to struggle The U S Constitution endows both the president and Congress with significant foreign policy responsibilities The judicial branch has less influence in foreign policy and traditionally has followed a self-denying ordinance Particularly in times of crisis the Court has allowed both branches to act more extensively in foreign policy than it has permitted in domestic policy The Court has declared foreign policy matters political issues and not amenable to resolution by the judicial system and has upheld the authority of the executive branch (Crabb and Holt 1992 1) The president holds the primary position in foreign policy Constitutional powers granted to the president in this realm are extensive and by tradition presidents have sought to gather power regarding foreign policy The Constitution (Article II Section 2)

PAGE 127

120 designates the president as Commander in Chief of the Army and avy of the United States and of the Militia of the several States." The conduct of military forces is an i mportant tool of foreign policy and one that U.S presidents have used to great effect The Constitution grants to the Congress the power to declare war but the president s role as commander in chief gives the executive much latitude Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers number 70 argued for "energy in the executive ." For Hamilton an energetic executive was essential to the protection of the country against foreign attacks . . Although Hamilton argued that only a surprise attack on the U S provided j ustification for war by presidential action he nevertheless argued in the Federalist Papers, number 75 that an energetic executive in the conduct of war was the bulwark of national security (Krarnnick 1987). U.S presidents have used their power to direct troops into action to shape U.S foreign policy Thomas Jefferson commanded military action against the Barbary pirates without congressional authorization President James K. Polk ordered U.S military forces in Texas into disputed territory with Mexico provoking a military reaction and providing the president with a justification for war (see Perkins 1993, 188-191). Since the founding of the republic U S presidents have sent military forces into action more than 200 times. 1 When a president can frame a policy decision in terms of security the president s liberty in action is initially extensive The United States fought only five declared wars that is where the Congress has issued a formal declaration of war These include the War of 1 From 1928 to 1980 the United States engaged in 228 militarized interstate disputes (Bremer 1996)

PAGE 128

121 1812, the Mexican War of 1846 the Spanish American War of 1898 World War I declared in 1917 and World War II declared in 1941. The United States has engaged in many extended military actions that might be considered undeclared wars These include the Undeclared Naval War with France from 1798 to 1800 the First Barbary War from 1801 to 1805 the Second Barbary War of 1815 the Korean War of 1950-53 the Vietnam War from 1964 to 1973 and the Persian Gulf War of 1991 With the Persian Gulf War against Iraq Congress authorized the military action although it did not declare war After the terrorist attacks of September 11 2001 the president has used extensive military force in the war against terrorism without a Congressional declaration ofwar 2 These presidential wars illustrate the power inherent in the role of commander in chief Presidential power in foreign affairs exists in the power to recognize foreign states and to make treaties with them The president has the power to negotiate with other countries and make binding agreements with the advice and consent of the Senate In the twentieth century presidents have found a means to circumvent the provision of Senatorial consent the executive agreement. This tool allows the president to enter into agreements with others states while bypassing the Congress The Supreme Court in United States v Be/mount (1937) ruled that an executive agreement carries the same legal force as a treaty .3 In a thirty-year period after the end of the Second World War U S 2 On September 14 2001 both houses of Congress did pass resolutions supporting the president's use of force in response to the terrorist acts of September 11 2001 3 The Soviet government nationalized the Petrograde Metal Works in 1918 and confiscated its properties and assets Some of theses assets were on deposit in Belmount s bank in New York. In 1933 President Roosevelt recognized the Soviet government and concluded the Litvinov Assignments This agreement was a final settlement of all claims

PAGE 129

122 presidents entered 7 200 executive agreements compared to 451 treaties (Hastedt 2000, 165) The modern president is primus inter pares in the foreign policy realm, or so it seems Presidential power in foreign policy led Aaron Wtldavsky in 1966 to declare that the United States has two presidents one for foreign policy and another for domestic policy The foreign policy president is usually victorious on policy matters while the domestic president must struggle with Congress This apparent dichotomy in presidential power disappears in the 1970s suggesting a resurgent Congress In the next section, I will further explore the two presidencies thesis The Two Presidencies In a 1966 issue ofTrans-Action, Wildavsky proposed that the United States may have one president but it has two presidencies ; one presidency is for domestic affairs and the other for defense and foreign policy (Wildavsky 1991 11) In an examination of Congressional action on presidential proposals from 1948-1964 Wtldavsky found that presidents had significantly better records in matters of foreign and defense policy than in domestic policy issues On average presidents prevailed in more than 70 percent of their foreign policy requests compared to 40 percent of their domestic policy requests For Wildavsky the evidence pointed to a presidential preponderance in matters of foreign policy Beyond the constitutional prerogatives of the president, Wildavsky found that increased presidential power in foreign policy resided in the changes in world politics in and counterclaims between the two countries It included the deposits in Belmont's bank Belmount challenged the constitutionality of such an agreement made without the advice and consent of the U.S Senate

PAGE 130

123 the post-World War II era (Wildavsky 1991 13) Wildavsky identifies six possible competitors for control of foreign policy : the public special interest groups the Congress the military the military-industrial complex, and the State Department. He found that none matched the president in the potential of control. The public is more "dependent on presidents in foreign affairs than in domestic matters" (Wildavsky 1991 15) The public knows little about foreign affairs and usually defers to the president unless the action involves large numbers of troops engaged in hostile actions In domestic affairs special interest groups are strong and influential ~ however in matters of foreign affairs except for a few ethnic groups little organized activity exists around issues concerning foreign policy (Wildavsky 1991 16) According to Wildavsky Congress has the ability to act in foreign policy yet most often follows a self-denying ordinance In his 1966 study Wildavsky found that when a foreign policy issue involved the use or threat of force Congress overwhelmingly supported the president s position (Wtldavsky 1991, 17) Wildavsky also found that the military and the military-industrial complex were surprisingly ineffectual in policy formation Wildavsky also concludes that the State department carries no threat to a president's control over policy. Modem presidents replace Secretaries of State that do not follow through on policy decisions Furthermore, given the growth of the presidential staff and the development of the National Security Council the president is no longer dependent on the State Department for policy information (Wildavsky 1991 23) If knowledge is power than presidents are well place to be powerful. Wtldavsky s description of presidential power in foreign policy laid the foundations

PAGE 131

124 for the conception of what Arthur Schlesinger Jr (1973) called the Imperial Presidency ." In the post World War II period and prior the 1970s, the axiomatic expression for American politics was that "politics ends at the water's edge ." In matters of foreign policy the country would unite behind the head of state and head of government the president. The country spoke with one voice and only the president could make those vocalizations. This axiom is no longer valid and accepted Therefore our understanding of the process of action in American foreign policy has changed Two Presidencies: Fact or Artifact In 1975 Donald Peppers reexamined Wildavsky's thesis and found it overstated and no longer applicable The strength of Wildavsky's original proposition lost some of it vitality as a result of the Johnson and Nixon presidencies and the events of Vietnam and Watergate (Peppers 1991 26) Peppers concedes that the president has more leeway in matters of foreign policy than in domestic issues ~ nonetheless, he finds the dichotomous division of the office of the president an exaggeration Peppers argues that the rise of non-defense issues in foreign policy such as trade issues attracts greater attention of domestic interest groups The deference in foreign policy matters that the president once received from the Congress and the public did not manifest in the post Vietnam and Watergate era After the betrayal of the public trust one the pillars of the "two presidencies thesis, the obeisance to the president on foreign policy issues, no longer existed (Peppers 1991 28-29) Lance LeLoup and Steven Shull (1991) reexamined Wildavsky's "two presidencies" thesis for the period 1965-1975. Like the earlier period that Wildavsky

PAGE 132

125 examined (1948-1964) they found that the president does receive a higher approval rate of policy initiative in matters of foreign policy than in domestic policy however for the latter period they discovered that the difference between the two had narrowed In Wildavsky's study Congress approved about 40 percent of the president's domestic initiatives while approving 70 percent of his foreign policy initiatives In the latter period of study on the domestic side the approval rate increased to 46 percent while approvals of foreign policy matters declined to about 55 percent (LeLoup and Shull 1991 38) 4 The "two presidencies" thesis as originally developed by Wildavsky in 1966 has not withstood empirical testing over time It does appear that the phenomena that Wildavsky measured represented an artifact of a particular period in United States history 4 0ther significant studies regarding the "two presidencies" thesis includes Richard Fleisher and Jon Bond (1991) who found that the two presidencies was not time bound to the period ofWildavsky study However they did find the phenomena only appeared with Republican presidents (Fleisher and Bond 1991 138-139) Russell Renka and Bradford Jones found that the phenomena did not appear in the first Reagan administration When the Democrats regained control of the Senate in 1987 the phenomenon reappeared Interestingly Renka and Jones consider the phenomena of the "two presidencies" as a signal of presidential weakness that suggests the marginality of presidential leadership in the Congress "Leadership and influence are exercised within a set of enabling conditions ~ when those conditions change so does presidential program success" (Renka and Jones : 1991 174) Therefore, the two presidencies phenomenon does not represent the increased success in foreign policy but only a weakness of a particular president's capabilities in the setting of a domestic agenda In an analysis o f President Clinton's first two years of office Richard Conley fails to confirm the "two presidencies" effect. Clinton's success on purely domestic policy issues was higher than his success on foreign policy issues 82 6 percent for domestic policy and 75 9 percent for foreign policy issues (Conley 1997 233) Conley also included an interrnestic category in which the president gathers roughly the same support (77 7 percent) Conley does find that the two presidencies surfaces among Republicans but not among Democrats Republican support for the Democratic president is 15 percent higher on foreign policy than on domestic issues The phenomenon, according to Conley is not a product of a bipartisan consensus rather a product of GOP . distaste for Clinton's domestic policy .... (Conley 1997 234)

PAGE 133

126 Analysis from Peppers (1975) to Conley (1997) have not produced evidence to support Wildavsky's original thesis By 1989 Wildavsky himself agreed with his critics Wildavsky concluded that : "The two presidencies" is time and culture bound It succeeds in showing that the Eisenhower administration had greater support in foreign and defense than in domestic policy and in explaining why It fails in that both the patterns of behavior and the reasons for their maintenance did not exist in the decades before or after the 1950s (Oldfield and Wildavsky 1991 183) This reduction of presidential power coincides with the changing domestic norms in the United States Presidential foreign policy was out of line with the dominant societal context The long conflict in Vietnam engendered a loss of trust between the American public and the government. The U S position toward Vietnam had always been paternalist yet condescending In 1956 the then Senator Kennedy in a speech about Vietnam made this point. If we are not the parents of little Vietnam . then surely we are the godparents ... this is our offspring (quoted in McNamara, et al 1999 28) The increasing use of violence and force in the prosecution of the war and the revelations in the Pentagon Papers printed in the New York Times in June 1971 made it clear to the American people that the American government had not been forthright in what was being done in their name in Indochina John Spanier writes : [M]any Americans perceived the war to be morally ambiguous if not downright immoral ." Moreover he argues that the undemocratic Saigon government and its apparent lack of popularity gave the perception that the civil war was against Saigon s repression. The massive and sometimes indiscriminate use of American firepower that led to widespread destruction of civilian life pricked the conscience of many Americans concerned with their nation's historic image as

PAGE 134

127 a compassionate and humane country" (Spanier 1992 179) By the late 1960s U.S. foreign policy was out of line with the prevailing domestic norms. Through the Congress we find a reconnecting of foreign policy with domestic norms therefore the phenomena of the resurgent Congress A Resurgent Congress The analysis above strongly suggests that presidential power has diminished in relation to Congress Research on the "two presidencies" has been based on roll-call votes and there are difficulties with this type of data Lindsay and Steger assert that the entire two presidencies debate is misspecified "The two presidencies literature presumes to assess the power of the president on foreign versus domestic policy but because scholars have examined roll-call votes it actually addresses the narrower issue of presidential success in Congress" (Lindsay and Steger 1993 103) This methodological problem casts doubt on the entire thesis By focusing on roll-call votes scholars have failed to capture the full power of the president in foreign policy Presidents often act without congressional approval in matters of foreign policy Furthermore many foreign policy statutes empower the president to waive the law if he believes it to be a matter of national security Moreover the use of the roll-call vote does not consider what happens to the proposal after it leaves the Congress. Some scholars contend that the Congressional assertiveness has been overstated and so has its traditional subservience According to John Rourke (1983 xiv) Congress was never as weak as it was usually portrayed in the past nor is it as powerful as contemporary commentary often pictures it. During periods of crisis the Congress is

PAGE 135

128 reluctant to challenge presidential authority in foreign policy After the September 1 1, 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center in New York City the U S Congress quickly rallied behind the president. However when the administration s policy is out of sync with the public or the president refuses to modify policy in the face of opposition, Congress will become more assertive (Blechman 1990) The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution featured the U.S Congress at its acquiescent best With that 1964 resolution Congress handed President Johnson a blank check to use military force in the conduct of operations of Vietnam After years of combat and growing domestic protest and an antiwar movement in the United States the U.S Congress reasserted itself and changed its position on supporting military efforts in Vietnam The original resolution passed the House by a vote of 416 in favor and none opposed In the Senate 89 members voted to pass the resolution with only two senators opposed (Wiarda 1996 266) By the early 1970s, the Congress used its most powerful policy tool the power to spend and scaled back funding for the war effort The Constitution grants the power of the purse to the Congress This power i s essentially twofold Congress has power over revenue raised by the federal government and the power to decided how the revenue is spent. Policy is what gets funded (Snow and Brown 1997 168-169). Congress enacted eight prohibitions on the use of funds for military operations in Indochina between 1970 and 1974 (Crabb and Holt 1992 144) Funding for operations in Vietnam dropped precipitously in the early 1970s Congressional action reflected the public s mood about the war Despite the Nixon Administration s attempts to gather some type of victory for the United States by

PAGE 136

129 transferring fighting capabilities to the South Vietnamese with its Vietnamization program, Congress refused to acquiesce. Henry Kissinger relates that even "economic assistance to South Vietnam was being throttled In 1972 the Congress had voted $2 billion in aid ~ in 1973 the amount was reduced to $1.4 billion, and in 1974 it was cut in half, even though oil prices had quadrupled (Kissinger 1994 697). In his book No More Vietnams. President Nocon indicts the U.S Congress for the collapse of South Vietnam We won the war declares Nocon, but we lost the peace All that we had achieved in twelve years of fighting was thrown away in a spasm of congressional irresponsibility (Nixon 1990 278) In April 1975 President Ford wen t before a joint session of Congress and requested emergency assistance for the South Vietnamese to stave off a North Vietnamese victory He requested $722 in military aid and $250 in economic and humanitarian aid The president s request died in committee By this time both the Congress and the American public had soured on warfare in Southeast Asia A Gallup poll conducted March 1975 revealed that 78 percent of those polled opposed any further assistance to Southeast Asian countries (Bowes 1979 232 ) The spasm of congressional irresponsibility as Nocon called it illustrates two things First Congress can be very powerful and the ultimate power in foreign policy if it chooses Second when the overwhelming public mood differs from policy that is when the societal norms are at odds with public policy Congress will be the first to show the disharmony in norms and seek to bring policy in line with the public. Congress was responsible and was not reacting to short-term changes in public sentiment. By the 1970s U.S society had changed generally

PAGE 137

130 Constituent Influence on Congress Constituency opinion plays a role in the behavior of members of the U S. Congress Constituency influence reaches members of Congress and shapes their behavior in many ways First, the Congress is a representative body and candidates who run for elected office usually share the values and beliefs of their local electorates Residency requirements exist for members of the House and Senate. Most often, members of Congress were born and raised in the district or the state that they represent. 5 Second in the election process a candidate's position on issues and the candidate's party affiliation provide cues for the voting public in their selection Finally, once elected, the representative would presumably continue to give preference to district interests when casting their votes (Erikson 1978, 511) The professionalization of the Congress provides further assistance to the influence of constituents According to Morris Fiorina, the professionalization of Congress is a twentieth-century phenomenon During the nineteenth-century the congressional turnover rate amounted to 40 or 50 percent of the membership at each election (Fiorina 1989 7). As professionals, members of Congress are concerned with preserving their livelihoods The primary way that they do this is by matching their voting behavior with the interests of 5 Of course there are exceptions but these are usually limited to political "superstars Robert Kennedy served as the Senator from New York despite his limited residency in the state His election was significantly helped by his status as the former U.S Attorney General and brother of an assassinated president. Hillary Clinton, born in Illinois was competitive in the 2000 New York Senatorial campaign largely due to her status as First Lady

PAGE 138

131 their constituents or at least by not voting contrary to their interests Some scholars have argued that constituent opinion does not determine congressional behavior In the now classic study Constituency Influence in Congress Warren Miller and Donald Stokes (1963) purported to show empirically that constituent opinion did not matter much in Congressional roll-call voting Using path analysis in an examination of three issue areas Miller and Stokes reported a high correlation between constituency opinion and civil rights a low correlation on social issues and a negative correlation between constituency opinion and foreign policy They concluded that constituency opinion was not a major factor in roll-call voting and congressional behavior. Nevertheless Robert Erikson (1978) clearly showed that the Miller and Stokes study suffered from measurement error and a biased sampling procedure Erikson s alternative study found considerable increases in the observed correlations between constituency opinion and congressional behavior The relevance of the correlations was apparent when Erikson measured constituent opinion against the issue positions of candidates for political office As one would expect winners of elections matched their constituents more closely than losers (C]onstituencies control their Representatives attitudes via their electoral behavior . (Erikson 1978 532) Elections bring about much higher levels of policy representation than expected Professional politicians eager to attain and remain in office give the voters what they want. Although legislators may have a bit more leeway in developing their own approach to foreign policy legislators do not like to be too far ahead of their constituents (see Erikson and Wright 1997) As discussed in an earlier chapter the old folklore in

PAGE 139

132 political science that the public is irrational and has no impact on foreign policy belongs to the dustbin of history In a reassessment of the influence of public opinion, Benjamin Page and Robert Shapiro (1992 284) find that public opinion is not only rational but an autonomous force that can have a substantial impact on policy Page and Shapiro (1992 45) find that there has been a remarkable degree of stability in Americans' collective policy preferences during the last fifty years. Other studies have found that citizens are equally able to identify their policy positions on foreign and domestic policy issues (Aldrich Sullivan and Borgida, 1989) Members of Congress do respond to societal changes and the demands of the electorate (Clausen and Van Home 1977) It makes sense that Eillen Burgin (1993) finds that in foreign policy members of Congress are motivated to involve themselves in issues that are of interest to their constituents Conversely she finds that representatives do not generally involve themselves in issues that are not salient to their constituents even if the individual member has a personal interest in the subject. "'[M]inimal supporter interest inhibits activities regarding a foreign or defense policy issue because of the belief that involvement would trigger adverse political consequences (Burgin 1993 73) With this understood we can look to the U.S Congress as an indicator of societal attitudes toward policy issues More than any other branch of government the Congress most accurately reflects the norms of the United States The next section explores ways other than direct legislation that the Congress can influence and shape foreign policy.

PAGE 140

133 Congressional Influence Beyond the direct power of the purse and the ability to control and regulate spending, Congress has other tools at its disposal to influence and shape foreign policy. Through procedural changes and other innovations Congress puts its indelible mark on U.S. international affairs. The "new institutionalists" literature in the study of American government suggests that we cannot understand policy separate from process Institutions matter as they contribute or impede particular policy capabilities (Rockman 1994, 149) The ability of the Congress to dictate structures and procedures gives members the ability to interject their preferences into the policy making process without passing substantive legislation on how the executive will conduct U.S foreign relations. "Alterations in procedures will change the expected policy outcome of administrative agencies by affecting the relative influence of people who are affected by the policy" (McCubbins et al 1987, 254) James Lindsay (1992-93 1994) has identified five types of procedural changes Congress uses to influence foreign policy The first is the creation of new institutions within the executive branch Congress creates posts in the established bureaucracy which may be sympathetic to its policy positions and preferences This strategy "proceeds from the simple assumption about bureaucratic life: policies that don't [sic] have champions in the bureaucracy are doomed .. "(Lindsay 1994 286) The second procedural innovation available to Congress is the legislative veto. Beginning in the 1930s, Congress gave the president the authority to propose shifts in the

PAGE 141

134 organization of the bureaucracy Changes could go into effect if the Congress did no t subsequently pass a resolution disallowing the president's initiative (Rourke 1993 689) Congress could veto or block the executive s actions by passing a simple (one-house ) or concurrent (two-house) resolution Neither type of resolution was subject to a presidential veto In 1983 the Supreme Court limited the use of the legislative veto in LN.S. v Chadha In response to the Supreme Court s decision, Congress added man y report-and-wait requirements giving Congress time to pass blocking resolutions to specific policies The Supreme Court did not disallow all legislative vetoes. The Court's ruling still permitted legislative vetoes that affect congressional procedures rather than policies (see Franck and Bob 1985) A third procedural innovation involves the enfranchisement of new groups into the decision process For example Congress may require one agency to solicit recommendations from another agency before it enacts new policy The assumption i s that the newly enfranchised groups will push policy in the direction Congress prefers (Lindsay 1994 286) The fourth procedural type entails the specification of new procedures for the executive branch to follow Congress allows the executive branch t o proceed as it sees fit but under the constraint of certain conditions The fifth and final procedural innovation is the reporting requirement. These include notification provisions which require the executive to notify the Congress if it takes certain actions Congress can mandate that the executive make reports to the Congress on the status of policy or programs These may be one-time reports or periodic reports where Congress requires the executive to report the status of given programs at

PAGE 142

135 specified intervals Congress has many tools at its disposal to shape and direct policy Binding legislation as we have seen is the traditional mechanism In 1986 Congress imposed trade sanctions on South Africa overriding a presidential veto (see Klotz 1995) Congress can withhold or take away funding for programs shaping policy through a process of affirmation or negation As discussed above Congress's ability to shape policy is far more subtle Through procedural innovations Congress can steer policy development and implementation Congress can pass non binding legislation in the form of resolutions Resolutions have no force of law and do not require presidential action They instead provide for a public declaration of the mood of the Congress and allow the legislature to make a statement on an issue without incurring obligation Individual members of Congress also provide advice to the president through informal measures such as breakfast meetings or personal phone calls or through formal consulting requirements (Burgin 1997 300) In the age of mass communication the president is the not the only politician with the capability of going public 6 The development of televised communication and news programs such as Meet the Press provide members of Congress a forum to make public statements on policy issues to a wider audience Congress can hold hearings on issues 6 According to Samuel Kernell going public is a strategy for presidential leadership It includes a class of activities that presidents use to promote themselves and their policies before the American public Some examples of going public are a televised press conference a special prime-time address to the nation, a speech before a business convention on the West Coast a visit to a day care center and a White House ceremony to decorate a local hero that is broadcast via satellite to the hometown television station (Kernell 1997 ix)

PAGE 143

136 ostensibly for fact finding, but also as a means to shape policy perception through congressional selection of specific experts to testify before the committee Floor statements and speeches in the House and the Senate by the members provide a forum to criticism or support of policy Congress has a wide range of powers and capabilities Congress, Human Rights and Democracy Promotion U.S. foreign policy on human rights and democracy originated from and to a large extent was promulgated by the Congress Various presidents picked up on these issues as relevant for U.S foreign policy such as Carter's crusade for human rights and Reagan s democracy mission Nevertheless these presidents followed initiatives begun by the U. S Congress. The following section explores Congressional action in shaping U.S foreign policy toward the promotion of human rights and democracy We find that the Congressional activities mirror the changes within American society The process of normative change in the United States regarding political and civil rights coincides with changes in foreign policy The growth of domestic tolerance produced tolerance abroad As discussed above Congress is the branch of government closest the people and therefore the one that most closely matches the patterns of beliefs of the American people Human rights and democracy only became embedded in foreign policy after the normative change in U.S society that is in the period of the 1970s Following World War II, U.S. military victory translated into a program of democratization for the vanquished enemy states of Germany Japan, Austria and Italy However most of these states had experienced a period of embryonic democratic governance in the decades before World War II In 1925 the Japanese government lifted

PAGE 144

137 tax qualifications for voting and established universal suffrage (Reischauer 1970 221 ) Following World War I the Weimar system in Germany gave Germans an extensive structure of democratic government. Germany s democratization far exceeded Japan s liberalization (Muravchik 1992 108) Austria like Germany had also experienced a period of democratic government before the Nazis seized power The Italian government before the fascist s take-over resembles that of Japan with both authoritarian and democratic characteristics The U S and Allied occupation of these countries and resulted in the reestablishment of democratic structures U.S occupation forces purged individuals associated with the former authoritarian regimes from public life Much as the Marshall plan was successful because it reconstructed formerly developed economies the democratization programs in the former Axis countries succeeded in reinstating democratic government. Except Japan, all of the former Axis countries were Western in cultural orientation and of a European racial identity The United State s enthusiasm for democracy did not extend beyond these countries U.S policy makers quickly accepted less than democratic regimes in its relations with other states particularly in the newly independent states and former colonies One may argue that the necessities of the Cold War drove U.S policy choices However one has to think that populations identified as non western were considered not developed modern, or capable of acting democratically The U.S Congress in this period lacked enthusiasm for human rights in U.S foreign policy Many in the Congress feared that if the spotlight of concern for human rights were fully lit it would reflect back unfavorable on the United States (Van Dyke

PAGE 145

138 1970) As discussed above Congressional sentiments match constituency expectations From 1950 to 1955 the junior Senator from Ohio, John Bricker (R. Ohio) led a movement to amend the U.S Constitution to make it impossible for the United States to adhere to human rights treaties The bill listed forty-five of the forty-eight Republican Senators as sponsors, but only nineteen Democrats signed the resolution Thirteen of those Democratic Senators were from Southern states (Schubert 1954 256) Anti-civil-rights forces feared that an international treaty could end racial discrimination and segregation in the United States (Henkin 1995 348) Senator Bricker first introduced his resolution in September 1951 He sought to amend the Supremacy Clause (Article VI clause 2) of the Constitution The Bricker Amendment sought to limit the scope of the treaty making power and the use of executive agreements (Schubert 1954 260) Many Senators feared that U.S courts would interpret treaties to which the United States became a party in a way that would find segregation practices of some states unlawful. Section 2 of the proposed amendment specifically stated A treaty shall become effective as internal law in the United States only through legislation which would be valid in the absence of the treaty' (U S Senate 1953 1). The amendment also subjected all executive agreements to approval by the Congress Support for the amendment continued to grow through 1953 Groups such as the American Medical Association the Daughters of the American Revolution, and the American Bar Association actively promoted the passage of the Bricker Amendment. Stephen Garrett relates that one particularly vocal organization, called the Vigilant Women for the Bricker Amendment managed to collect some 200 000 petitions in

PAGE 146

support of Senator Bricker these being presented to him on January 25 1954 in a melodramatic ceremony' ( Garrett 1972 196) 139 The Eisenhower Administration, although slow to mobilize against the Congressional attempt to take-away executive power came out against the amendment in 1953 During a press conference in March 1953 President Eisenhower observed that the Bricker Amendment would restrict his conduct of foreign affairs and clearly stated his opposition to it (Schubert 1954 273) The Eisenhower Administration s opposition to the Bricker Amendment was only due to its restriction of executive power Shortly after the president s declared opposition to the Amendment Secretary of State John Foster Dulles testified before Congress and promised that the United States would not sign the draft covenants on Human Rights or on the Political Rights of Women The Secretary also pledged that the Administration would not press for the ratification of the Genocide Convention pending before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (Schubert 1954 273) This promise was enough to sway support against the Bricker Amendment. When the final version of the Amendment came to a vote in the Senate it was defeated by a vote of 50 to 42 (Congressional Record 1954 2262). The Bricker Amendment had broad implications for Congressional/ Presidential relations and for the future conduct on foreign policy However the driving factor for the proposed amendment was to prevent the United States from being subjected to international norms on civil rights In the 1950s Congress declined to support internat i onal norms on human right for fear that it would impinge on the ability of the U S legally to violate the rights of its own citizens These Congressional attitudes reflected the broader

PAGE 147

140 American societal attitudes toward civil rights and human rights. Recall from chapter 3 that approximately to 60 percent of white Americans thought that white students and black students should go to separate schools (Mayer 1992 369). In 1958 more than half the people polled would refuse to vote for a Black for president even if their own party nominated that person In that same year half of White Americans polled indicated they would move if Black people came to live in their neighborhood Given this level of societal resistance to have the United Nations condemn the United States for Ku Klu x Klan activities in North Carolina or segregated housing in Detroit was not tolerable for many in Congress Resistance to change was still strong Many mainstream American interest groups supported the amendment. Some groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union and the American Federation of Labor opposed the Bricker Amendment yet their power did not defeat the amendment. Only the Eisenhower Administration s promise not to sign any of the covenants on human rights prevented the passage of the amendment. When it came to non Western/European/White people, the executive branch, like the Congress and the American society, was not much concerned for human rights and the exercise of democracy at the domestic or international levels As we have seen in chapter 3 the U.S. domestic structure was under going extensive change in the post World War II era, with the civil rights movement followed by the women s rights movement and the broad-based growth of tolerance in the United States As expected from the earlier discussion, evidence of this societal change in foreign policy first emerged from the U.S Congress In the 1950s and 1960s the driving force in U S foreign aid was security concerns

PAGE 148

141 States opposed to the Soviet Union and friendly to the U.S. were likely to receive military and economic aid regardless of their human rights records or political structure Regarding aid the focus ofU S programs was economic and not political The operational paradigm of U.S policy was the idea of modernization Modernization theory conceives of development as a linear process with societies moving through stages until they reach a final stage of a high mass consumption society. At this final stage states would resemble the U S both politically and economically with democracy joined to capitalism (see Rostow 1960) According to the theory before states could achieve democracy economic development must occur. Although democracy might have been the future goal, it was not seriously considered in aid policy. The Kennedy administration s aid programs such as the Alliance for Progress for Latin America did little to foster democracy Instead the focus was on economic development and the strengthening of public administration (Carothers 1999 22) In the mid-1960s a nascent movement emerged from the U.S House of Representatives seeking to give political development priority over economic development in the allocation of U S aid Donald Fraser (D Minnesota) and Bradford Morse (D ., Massachusetts) members of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, became leading advocates of this new orientation They sought a reorientation in U S policy putting social and political evolution as the first concern of the U S foreign assistance program In 1966 twenty five members of the House of Representatives entered a statement in the Congressional Record calling for New Direction and New Emphasis in Foreign Aid ." Led by Bradford Morse the statement was a product of a six-month Congressional study

PAGE 149

142 The group argued that prosperity political stability and political freedom are the surest path to peace (Congressional Record 1966 5852) They conceded that the United States could not insist on carbon copies of western institutions ." Nevertheless the group recommended that no U. S aid should be extended to any country that shows no interest in holding popular elections establishing broad suffrage or creating a civil service system based on merit (Congressional Record 1966 5853) Fraser Morse and their supporters were at the vanguard of foreign policy change as domestic norms regarding political and civil right were changing The same change in norms that prompted the Congress to pass the 1964 Civil Rights Act and 1965 Voting Rights Act also allowed the Congress in 1966 to add Title IX to the Foreign Ass i stance Act of 1961 Title IX provided a legislative directive to the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) stating that [i]n carrying out programs authorized by this chapter emphasis shall be placed on assuring maximum participation in the task of economic development on the part of the people of developing countries through the encouragement of democratic private and local government institutions (quoted in Carothers 1999 25) Despite the language of Title IX, USAID chose to continue with its prioritization of economic development over democracy According to Thomas Carothers (1999 26) Title IX went against the grain of deeply held beliefs and well-established practices in the U.S foreign aid bureaucracy ." USAID interpreted Title IX as directing them to foster greater popular participation in economic development projects not to promote democracy per se Societal changes which by 1966 were evident in the Congress had not

PAGE 150

143 yet transferred to the executive branch and the bureaucracy. With the election of Richard Nixon in 1968 Title IX faded from sight. The realpolitik of Nixon and Kissinger advanced a strategy arguing that the external behavior of states and not their internal character should be the focus of foreign policy Efforts to seek detente with the Soviet Union and closer ties with China led the Nixon administration to ignore human rights violations in those countries Nevertheless the Congress had a different agenda. Members of Congress thrust human rights issues into the agenda much to the consternation of the Nixon and Kissinger Beginning in the early 1970s Congressman Donald Fraser (D ., Minnesota) led an assault on U.S foreign policy and the U.S stand on human rights from his position on the Subcommittee on International Organizations and Movements of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs Fraser relates that the Vietnam war motivated members of Congress and the American public to take a fresh look at the role the United States played in the human rights field (Fraser 1979 176) In addition to the war in Vietnam, Fraser relates that the realization the United States had been actively involved in supporting repressive regimes did not sit well with American values "American foreign policy has to reflect basic American values" argued Fraser Linking the domestic to the international Fraser pronounced that [i]f our foreign policy is incompatible with the way we treat people here at home it lessens the impact of that example" (Fraser 1979 182) In testimony before the House Subcommittee on International Organization Fraser warned that the United States could not be self-righteous about human rights violations given the U.S .' s past history of arbitrary detention of Americans of Japanese decent during World War II and

PAGE 151

144 the legal segregation of schools ( see House 1979, 298-317) Fraser held multiple hearings on U S. human rights policy The 1973 military coup and the subsequent mass arrests in Chile sparked a reaction from the U S Congress Although the prevention of the ascension to power by Salvador Allende had been a priority of U.S presidents since the Kennedy Administration, by 1973 the mood had changed in Congress Two provisions of Foreign Assistance Act of 1973 dealt with the general issue of political prisoners and the particular issue of human rights in Chile In 1974 Congress passed a resolution expressing its belief that security assistance be linked to human rights concerns Congress also directed that human rights concerns should be linked to development assistance Congressman Tom Harken (D ., Iowa) offered an amendment to the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 that stipulated that [n]o assistance may be provided . to the government of any country which engages in a pattern of gross violations of international recognized human rights ... (quoted in Forsythe 1988 10) This provision was legally binding on the executive. On the Senate side of Congress recently elected members began the push for human rights in U.S foreign policy James G. Abourezk (R. South Dakota), first elected in 1972 introduced an amendment to the Foreign Aid Bill of 1973 that would deny aid to any country that violated the human rights of its citizens The Senate defeated the amendment however the following year Abourezk introduced the same amendment and was joined by Senator Alan Cranston (D ., California)7 with a similar amendment 7 Cranston was elected to the Senate in 1969

PAGE 152

145 (Abourezk 1989 131-132) 8 Senator Henry Jackson (D Washington) and Representative Charles Yanik (D Ohio) championed a provision on human rights which caused the Ntxon administration much discomfort This provision amended the Trade Act of 1974 and prohibited the granting of most-favored-nation-treatment to a nonmarket economy country that denies its citizen the right to emigrate The Jackson-Yanik Amendment was aimed directly at the Soviet Union which had placed restrictions on the emigration of Soviet Jews The Jackson Amendment ran counter to the policy of detente as practiced by the Nixon Administration which sought to moderate Soviet foreign policy by developing more normal relations between the superpowers Henry Kissinger claims that the Nixon Administration was seeking human rights through quiet diplomacy However Jackso n and his supporters demanded that America commitment to human rights be publically affirmed 9 Congress imposed restrictions on loans to the Soviet Union (Kissinger 1994 754). 8 The Senate defeated both Abourezk and Cranston's amendments The amendment offered by Tom Harkin in 1974 in the House of Representatives effectively incorporated Abourezk and Cranston s position in the final bill. 9w e cannot see the Jackson-Yanik Amendment only in terms public normative concerns over human rights Henry Jackson had presidential ambitions From a polit i cal standpoint Jackson sought to build a support from both Labor and Jewish-Americans by tying most-favor-nation status for the Soviet Union to the ability for Jews to emigrate (Rourke 1983 268) Henry Kissinger (1994 747) who characterizes Jackson as a serious student of intentional affairs especially the Soviet Union," regards Jackson efforts as an attempt to scuttle Nixon s pursuit of detente between the Soviet Union and the United States

PAGE 153

146 The influence of the U.S Civil Rights movement was also apparent in the many Congressional hearings on human rights A report prepared for the Subcommittee on International Organizations acknowledges the domestic level changes on the foreign policy of the U.S World War TI marked the start of a revolution in the development of new approaches to human rights issues Today international legal practice accepts the protection of human rights as a matter of international concern The 1969 report of the Special Committee of Lawyers for the President's Commission for the Observance of Human Rights Year 1968 confirmed the acceptance in the United States of human rights as a proper subject of U.S treaty making In addition the enactment of substantial civil rights and welfare legislation at the national level has nullified the view that human rights are matters exclusively within the purview of the State within the U.S federal system (House 1977 1) Furthermore we can see influence on the members of Congress of the American Civil Rights movement in one of the early proposals for incorporating human rights in U S foreign policy A 1974 subcommittee report "Human Rights in the World Community : A Call for U.S Leadership proposed to extend the legal functions of the U.S Civil Rights Commission to include international human rights The proposal was to have the Commission to "observe and comment upon the attention given to human rights by U.S foreign policy and comment on conditions in other countries" (House 1974 4) These functions would later be picked up by the State Department and private organizations such as Freedom House By the end of the Nixon Administration the Congress had made significant strides on incorporating human rights into U.S foreign policy In 1976 with P.L 94-302 Congress charged U S directors of Inter-American Bank and the African De v elopmen t Fund "' to vote against any loan, any extension of financial assistance or any technical

PAGE 154

147 assistance to any country which engages in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights . unless such assistance will directly benefit the needy people in such country' (quoted in Crabb and Holt 1992 236) The Congress also restructured the executive branch by creating a Bureau of Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs within the State Department With human rights a priority of his foreign policy the newly-elected president Jimmy Carter appointed people with civil rights backgrounds to the newly created portions in the Bureau Carter appointed Patricia Derian, founder of the Mississippi Civil Liberties Union, as the first assistant secretary of state for human rights and humanitarian affairs (Drezner 2000 744) Although an ally of the new normative trend in U.S foreign policy as we have seen President Carter was not the originator of the trend At times Congress still had divisions based on ideology Congress developed a series of specific country prohibitions on aid to human rights violators Donald Fraser relates that conservatives and liberals went after each others favorite violator Conservative members of Congress pushed legislation to cut off aid to leftist countries such as Angola Cambodia, Laos Mozambique Tanzania, and Vietnam Liberal members sought to cut aid to rightist countries such as Argentina, Chile Brazil and the Philippines Whatever the country s position on the ideological spectrum, by the late 1970s a stance against human rights violations was a popular one by members of Congress This political position was strong enough that Congress was able to make a stand against the newly-elected president Ronald Reagan when he nominated Ernest Lefever to the post of assistant secretary for human rights and humanitarian affairs Congress

PAGE 155

148 rejected Lefever who had publically advocated overturing human rights legislation After a brief period of hostility toward human rights the Reagan Administration began applying a human rights criterion to foreign policy, in fact more consistently than the Carter Administration (Hofrenning 1990) Concerning human rights the Reagan administration with its heightened role of anticommunism, began pushing for democracy assistance and programs to promote democracy. Many of these programs reflected back to Congressman Fraser s Title IX initiative. Democracy as a form of government has transformed from a moral prescription to a legal obligation Democracy has emerged as a fundamental right (Franck 1992) The battle for democracy and civil rights in the United States readily transferred to a battle for democracy abroad American political leadership regarded democracy not as a right of the few but an emergent universal right. By the second Reagan administration, the American government and the preponderance of the American people had rejected communist state socialism" and modernization as counter options to democratic governance The doctrine of state socialism argued that the state should control all aspects of the economy with all workers functioning as employees of the state Modernization sought to suppress backward tribal and clan relations and suspend imported democrat i c values which Modernizers saw as meaningless to rural and illiterate societies. The goal for modernization is nation building and the creation of economies of scale The Reagan administration opposed state socialism Nevertheless the Reagan administration implemented a policy which ran counter to the modernization perspective and in the 1980s pulled support for friendly tyrants in Chile Haiti, Paraguay the Philippines and South

PAGE 156

149 Korea Thomas Franck makes the following argument. Since the middle of the 1980s both [ state socialism] . and the theory of modernization have collapsed under the weight of their evident failure Throughout socialist Eastern Europe and in most of the dictatorships of Africa and Asia, the people have rejected both theories together with the espousing governments . Instead people almost everywhere now demand that government be validated by western-style parliamentary multiparty democratic process (Franck 1992 49) The Reagan administration promoted this belief in the universality of democracy with the support of the Congress This universal right to democracy coincided with the universal acceptance for democratic rights for all groups in the United States The Voting Rights Act of 1970 and the Equal Employment Opportunity Enforcement Act of 1972 followed the Voting Rights Act of 1965 By the early nineteen eighties many debates continued over issues such as forced busing for school integration and legitimacy of affirmative action programs in employment. However no one argued that groups should be democratic rights or equal treatment before the law based on their racial/ethnic characteristics This normative perspective applied to Americans' view of democracy abroad The peoples of Asia, Africa, and Latin America were equally capable of developing democratic governing structures as the people of Europe In 1981 President Reagan offered his Project Democracy as a form of public diplomacy and cultural outreach program on American democracy During this period a bill that Dante Fascell (D ., Florida) had originally introduced in Congress in 1969 gained new life This bill proposed a publicly funded privately operated foundation to promote democracy abroad, which would become the National Endowment for Democracy (Carothers 1999 30) Congress appropriated limited funding for Project Democracy

PAGE 157

150 The Reagan administration sought an initial $65 million budget authorization but many members of Congress were uneasy with the strong ideological component in Reagan s proposal (Muravich 1992 207) However Congress did authorize $18 million for the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) which has continued in operation since then The Reagan administration d i d not give up on democracy assistance despite the loss of Project Democracy As part of its foreign aid program, the Reagan administration sponsored electoral assistance and judicial reform measures in Latin America 10 Democracy promotion was brought within the purview USAID With the collapse o f the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War USAID took its democracy program to other regions of the world Except a brief period from 1995 to 1997, USAID funding for democracy assistance has expanded 11 Thomas Carothers a longtime witness of U S democracy assistance has noted a change in policy from the time when the U S sponsored anticommunist demonstration elections in the 1950s and 60s. He observers that [d]emocracy promotion is now linked to some strategic ideas such as democratic peace theory but democracy is now very much a foreign policy goal in and of itself, not merely a means to or a cover for underlying anticommunist ends (Carothers 1999 55) Writing in the journal Foreign Affairs Deputy Secretary of State in the Clinton Administration Strobe Talbott clearly connected domestic norms to norms in foreign 1 USAID and NED sponsored electoral assistance programs in Guatemala and Honduras in 1985 Haiti in 1987 Chile in 1988 Paraguay in 1989 and Nicaragua in 1 990 (See Carothers 1999 for detailed discussions of these projects) 11 Budgeted expenditures for democracy assistance in 1991 amounted to $165 2 million In 1999 this figured reached $63 7 1 million

PAGE 158

151 policy. He argued that to "sustain the support of the American Public for international leadership American foreign policy must continue to be based on the nature of our society and on our character as a people as well as on our interests as a state (Talbott 1996 63) While some critics have derided the practice of U.S foreign policy as social work (see Mandelbaum 1996) certain aspects of American foreign policy must be shaped by the changes in domestic norms and the growth of tolerance and respect for civil and political rights in the U.S Although disorganized at times U.S foreign policy toward the former Yugoslavia always focused on multiethnic solutions to the political problems of the region The easy solution would have been to allow the strong to devour the weak Although this was once the policy of the United States in its relations with the indigenous peoples in North America, after the vast societal change within the U.S ., the American people could not tolerate such a policy As the administration of George W Bush prepares for the rebuilding of Afghanistan, it has already pushed for multiethnic solutions Matching the change in domestic norms regarding women, recent democracy programs have factored in empowerment of women in political solutions In Nepal USAID developed bottom-up programs giving training to rural women in basic legal rights and rights advocacy In Eastern Europe US aid officials have sought to stimulate the greater incorporation of women into political party activities Similar programs exist in Guatemala Although much more needs to be done to incorporate women in the democracy agenda, Thomas Carothers says that U.S aid does include a growing number of undertakings directly related to women ... (Carothers 199 345) After destroying the Taliban regime which persecuted women the Bush administration is pushing for the

PAGE 159

inclusion of women in the future government of Afghanistan 1 2 We might expect these developments given the advances of women in the United States Conclusion 152 As the United States entered the 1990s the U S. Congress systematically began to ratify many multilateral conventions on human rights that Senator Bricker and the American people of the 1950s so loathed In 1989 the U S ratified the Genocide Convention, and three years later the International Convention of Civil Rights In 1994 the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and the Convention against Torture received Congressional approval 13 Human rights and the promotion of democracy have become normal procedures in U S foreign policy As we have seen, the U S Congress was in the vanguard of polic y change This chapter has shown that the Congress can be very powerful in foreign policy it chooses to be The Congress becomes most active when current policy is out of line with public norms on the conduct of policy Members of Congress reflect the positions of their constituents and thus Congressional action most accurately serves as the indicator of societal norms The pattern of normative change outlined in chapter 2 mirrors the changes in foreign policy and congressional action in the realm of human rights and 1 2I>resident Bush has continually emphasized the untoward treatment of women by the Taliban regime to rally the American people to fight in Afghanistan The First Lady Laura Bush, gave a nationally broadcast speech about the cruel treatment of women by the Taliban regime The fight against terrorism is also a fight for the rights and dignity of women" declared the First Lady (Allen 2001 Al4) 13 The Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women is still pending before the Senate May 2002

PAGE 160

153 democracy This suggests that domestic norms apply to foreign policy The late Congressman Donald Fraser demanded that foreign policy reflect domestic values Throughout history U.S foreign policy to a large extent has reflected domestic values When political leaders denied human rights and political rights to certain domestic groups based on racial/ethnic characteristics, U S foreign policy makers saw no need to extend these rights other peoples in the world Foreign policy matched domestic policy Only as sweeping changes came at the domestic level did we see changes in foreign policy. In the next chapter I also discuss two cases, South African sanctions and the Contra aid debates where the President and Congress differed over promoting human rights and the Congress actually constrained presidential action.

PAGE 161

CHAPTER6 CONGRESS AND FOREIGN POLICY : CONTRA AID AND SOUTH AFRICAN SANCTIONS Introduction This chapter confirms the Congress' role as the primary transmitter of societal norms to foreign policy I discuss two cases occurring after the change in domestic norms regarding political and civil rights These cases include the Contra aid and South African sanction debates where the President and Congress differed over promoting human rights and the Congress actually constrained presidential action The influence of Congress with the changed perception of its members as the proper policy the United States should follow gives the best explanation for the outcome in these cases The influence of public opinion is also a factor in the outcome of these cases. This again is an indicator of the changed norms Both of the cases take place in the context of the reinvigorated Cold War In this heightened security environment one would expect a greater deference to the president in matters of foreign policy Moreover one would expect that security issues would triumph over human rights concerns We do find calls by opponents to the pro-human rights position indicating the need for national security considerations to take precedent. In Nicaragua, the Sandinista regime clearly positioned itself in the Soviet camp. In the South African case the African National Congress (ANC) has its foundation in Marxist ideology 154

PAGE 162

155 Despite this members of Congress from both political parties found the issues of human rights consideration to take precedence. In both cases, I will discuss the background to the cases including a discussion of the security implications I will then analyze the steps taken by the Congress to restrain presidential action and promote the interests of human rights I will also discuss the influence of public opinion in shaping the outcome of each case Although both cases take place in the context of divided government we cannot assume that congressional actions were a purely partisan pretense to embarrass the president. Members of the president's own party were active in constraining and redirecting the original course of the executive's foreign policy First I will examine the Contra aid debate Contra Aid The struggle over foreign policy in Central America in the 1980s was the archetype of the interbranch rivalry that occurs in American government (Scott 1997) Nevertheless, this struggle was more than a struggle for institutional power Congressional limitation on military aid to the Contra rebels seeking to overthrow the Nicaraguan government represents one of the first cases in which the Congress redirects an executive out of line with the new norms that emerged in the 1970s The Sandinistas came to power in Nicaragua in July 1979 after a brutal war that killed more than 50 000 people (Booth and Walker 1993 68) A key event in the Sandinista success came when the Carter administration cut foreign aid including the preventing the delivery of arms to the Nicaraguan government of Anastasio Somoza Debayle Somoza, a long time benefactor of U.S good will including an education at

PAGE 163

156 West Point had ruled Nicaragua had since 1967 (Skidmore and Smith 1992 327) 1 The Carter administration at first welcomed the change in government and the new Sandinista regime The United States sent $8 million in emergency aid and authorized $75 million in economic aid Nevertheless the Marxist ideology of the Sandinistas and the arrival of more than 2000 Cubans including medical, engineering military police and intelligence advisors distressed U.S officials In late 1980 the Sandinista government decided to provide military support to the Salvadoran rebels. This action provoked the Cater administration which suspended all aid to Nicaragua (Roth and Sobel 1993) The Reagan administration came to office with a new agenda concerning Nicaragua to overthrow the Sandinista government. This initiates a series of struggles between the president and the Congress over aid to the Contras the military force seeking to overthrow the Sandinista government. The struggle included a battle for public opinion The Reagan administration would lose this battle and eventually resort to illegal means to supply the Contras The Congress consistently refused to authorize the use of U.S foreign aid to overthrow a sitting government. In the zero-sum context of the Cold War with the focus on security issues Nicaragua represented another country fallen into the enemy's camp The Cuban presence in Nicaragua further exacerbated fears that Nicaragua would be used as a base from which to launch further Marxist revolutions The Reagan administration's worst case scenario viewed all the countries of Central America falling under Soviet influence with Mexico 1 The Somoza family had ruled in Nicaragua since 1937 when Anastasio's father Anastasio Somoza Garcia took power The presidency was transferred to Anastasio's o l der brother Luis in 1956 when an assassin's bullet killed the elder Anastasio

PAGE 164

157 eventually succumbing thus placing the enemy on the border with the United States Ronald Reagan ran on a platform that condemned the Sandinista takeover of Nicaragua and pledged to support efforts of the Nicaragua people to establish a free government (Scott 1997 239) Beginning in March of 1981 the Reagan administration developed a plan to support domestic opposition groups in Nicaragua By mid-1982 U.S covert support had transformed the Contras into a well-equipped army of 4 000 (LeoGrande 1 993 30) Congress i onal endorsement for the covert aid came with the condition that the operation would be limited to the interdiction of Sandinista arms going to guerrillas fighting the government of El Salvador. In December 1982 the Congress allowed for covert aid to the Contras but stipulated that aid could not be used to overthrow the Nicaraguan government. As the evidence mounted that the Reagan administration's goal was indeed to overthrow the Sandinista government support for aid to the Contras declined in the Congress In 1984 when the CIA mined Nicaraguan harbors without congressional consultation and in defiance of congressional restrictions support for Contra aid diminished The CIA's actions incensed members of the president's political party The Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman, Barry Goldwater (R Arizona) called the CIA's actions a violation of international law and act of war (Scott 1997 248) Both the House and the Senate passed resolutions condemning the mining of Nicaraguan harbors Moreover in May 1984 the House passed a bill suspending aid to the Contras The

PAGE 165

158 Senate after much political negotiation accepted the ban 2 The Contras were kept solvent through funds from third party countries and private donors co-ordinated by National Security Council staff member Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North 3 North's illegal activities would later erupt into the Iran-Contra scandal After his reelection for a second term of office President Reagan worked assiduously to win Congressional funding for the Contras The administration sought to rejuvenate the Contra image by portraying them as "freedom fighters" and the equivalent of the U.S 's own founding fathers Attempts to portray Nicaragua as a battlefield in the Cold War was buttressed by the actions of Nicaraguan president Daniel Ortega In April 1985, Ortega visited Moscow substantiating the Reagan administration's view of the Sandinistas Congress passed an aid proposal for $27 million in nonlethal aid for the Contras Nevertheless the Congress tried to direct the use of the aid for a political solution to the problem Congress prohibited CIA or Defense Department involvement in the distribution of aid (Scott 1997 250) In 1986 the Reagan administration sought to restore Contra aid with a request for $100 million in military and support aid to be administered by the CIA However in testimony before the Senate Secretary of State George Schultz had to couch his argument justifying support for Contra aid as giving the "Sandinistas an incentive to negotiate seriously ... "(Schultz 1986, 39) After much 2Members of the Senate accepted the ban in order save a popular summer jobs bill which was attached to the ban on Contra aid 3 1n total third parties gave the Contras about $54 million with Saudi Arabia providing $3 2 million of the sum in a series of donations ( see Stobel 1995 for a complete breakdown on funding sources and suppliers )

PAGE 166

159 acrimonious debate and many defeated proposals for aid the Congress passed an aid package for the Contras The cross border raid by the Sandinistas into Honduras to attack Contra military camps was pivotal in swaying Congress to support the administration 's position. Reagan s victory was short lived with the capture of the CIA contract worker Eugene Hasenfus by the Sandinistas The capture of Hasenfus led to the revelation o f the secret assistance provided by the White House during the congressional ban on aid 4 Despite his reputation as the "great communicator President Reagan could never convince the American public that the U.S should overthrow the Sandinista government. Congressional initiatives to counter the president reflected the sentiments of the American public The rhetoric of the Cold War and the security arguments expounded by the Reagan administration did little to convince the public that they should overthrow the government of Nicaragua An ABC/WP poll which asked "Should the United States be involved in trying to overthrow the government of Nicaragua, or not?" consistently found the American public responding negatively Those responding "no" never dropped below 62 percent from 1983 to 1987 (Sobel 1993 62) Notwithstanding Reagan's efforts to portray them as "freedom fighters the Contras maintained a tainted image and were associated with Somoza's National Guard Energized by human rights issues many church groups organized against the Reagan administration's policies These included Baptists Lutherans Methodist Presbyterian s, 4 Congress provided $100 million in aid ($70 million in military and $30 million in humanitarian aid) to the Contras This was the last time that Congress authorized military aid for the Contras Limited funding in humanitarian and nonlethal aid was provided in 1987 and 1988

PAGE 167

160 Mennonites Unitarians and numerous Catholic orders bishops and national organizations Civil rights and humanitarian organization like the American Civil Liberty Union, Common Cause and OXF AM America sought to organize constituents and l obbied Congress against Contra aid (Amson and Brenner 1993 195-197) The mobilizations of these human rights groups and their ability to cast the argument in terms of human rights helped shape the debate over Contra aid If it were not for the actions of the Sandinista government with the state visit to Moscow and the cross border incurs i on into Honduras, the Reagan administration would not have won the aid victories that it did. Moreover we must also consider that the administration violated legal statutes with it s clandestine program to fund the Contras The lobbying activities of human rights groups against Contra aid forced the Reagan administration to assert that Contra aid supported human rights Falling dominos heading to the Texas border could not provide the rationalization for Contra aid The Reagan administration developed a litany of human rights offensives by the Sandinistas which included doing away with human rights generally committing genocide against the Miskito Indians and driving the Jewish community into exile with antisemitic pogroms (LeoGrande 1993 44) In the milieu of changed domestic norms the Reagan administration had a difficult time conducting a policy of intervention in the affairs of a country within the U S sphere of influence Prior to the normative change this avenue of policy would have been largely uncontroversial. The prospect of another Vietnam-like quagmire restrained U.S action Nevertheless public opinion never demonstrated any will to overthrow the Sandinista government. Despite the expenditure of large amounts of political capital with addresses

PAGE 168

161 t o Congress and the American people Reagan could never reconfigure public opinion 5 In the next section, I examine a second case which clearly shows the influence of the changed domestic normative structure and the role of Congress as transmitter of norms over the executive the case of South African sanctions South African Sanctions The enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 were a monumental first step toward pushing the United States toward racial justice The Voting Rights Act with its enfranchisement of southern blacks did much to increase the policy influence of African-Americans in the United States In a ten-year period between 1 970 and 1980 the number of black elected officials more than tripled (Clark 1993 17) 6 Black members of Congress formed the Congressional Black Caucus in 1971 to coordinated its members' efforts on not only domestic issues but also on issues of foreign policy particularly the of issue of apartheid Apartheid an Afrikaans word for "separateness is the name that South Africa's white government gave to its policy of discrimination against the country's nonwhite majority In 1948 the Afrikaner ational Party came to power in South Africa and legally enshrined the longstanding practice of racial discrimination Domestic opposition to the 5 President Reagan conducted an extensive public campaign for Contra aid During the peak of the early Contra debate from February to June 1985, Reagan made four separate radio speeches on Nicaragua and one about Nicaragua and the federal budge t. (see Storrs and Serafino 1993). 6 1n 1970 there were 1469 black elected officials ; in 1980 there were 4912

PAGE 169

162 Afrikaner government periodically erupted with some demonstrations turning bloody 6 Initially the United States viewed the South African government not as a moral degenerate but as a resource rich ally in the Cold War According to Audie Klotz (1995 455) "U.S policy makers generally considered South Africa's ruling whites who shared their concern about communist expansion, as natural allies for maintaining stability within South Africa Policy makers changed this support for the South African government as the domestic norms regarding political and civil rights changed in the United States. As early as 1962 Dr Martin Luther King called for the imposition of international sanctions against South Africa (Magubane 1987 216) 7 The struggle for civil rights in the United States was a naturally associated with the movement against apartheid in South Africa The anti-apartheid movement has always been closely connected to the civil rights struggle Many of the early leaders of the anti-apartheid movement participated in desegregation, and even those who were not actively involved were inspired by the civil rights struggle (Metz 1986 382) African-American members of Congress exerted influence concerning the issue of sanctions against the apartheid regime of South Africa The presence of African Americans in the Congress was a direct result of the civil rights movement. In 1969 Charles Diggs (D ., Michigan) became the first African-American chair of the House Subcommittee on Africa (Culverson 1996 134) Expanding black participation in the electorate increased black congressional representation In 1971 thirteen black members 6 ln 1960 a wave of anti-apartheid protests climaxed with the Sharpesville massacre in which 69 protestors were killed by the police The African National Congress (ANC) was banned and two years later its leader Nelson Mandela was jailed 7 In 1963 during the Kennedy Administration the U.S imposed an anns embargo on South Africa

PAGE 170

163 of the Houses fonned the Congressional Black Caucus According to Ronald Dellums ( D ., California) : Most relationships between legislative colleagues as important as they are remain informal and largely centered on friendship or mutual respect. In 1971 the thirteen black members of the House decided to make our particular relationship more formal. Bound together by race -and the experience of race in America we believed that we needed to work with each other [sic] to more forcefully advance our common agenda, and we announced the birth of the Congressional Black Caucus know as the CBC (Dellums 2000 94) One of the CBC's first actions in U.S foreign policy toward South Africa came when representatives of the CBC met with workers of a U.S. based camera and film company Polaroid Polaroid workers had demanded an end to their company's sales of photographic equipment to the South African government. Polaroid cameras were used to take the photographs for the controversial pass books utilized for the control and oppression of millions ofblack South Africans (Dellums 2000 123) Thus began a program with members of Congress workers activists church groups and progressive companies to divest economic interests with South Africa The Sullivan principles propagated by the Reverend Leon Sullivan attempted an alternative path to divestment and sought to compel U.S enterprises doing business in South Africa to adopt a code of conduct very similar to the principles advance during the U S civil rights struggle According to Dellums (2000 124) companies "signing on to abide by the principle would agree to end work place segregation, adopt fair employment practices pay equal wages for similar work, provide job training and advancement opportunities and set out to improve the squalid conditions in which workers lived often separated from their families

PAGE 171

164 because of the pass laws 118 President Carter underscored the need to incorporate African-Americans in the foreign policy process particularly regarding South Africa Carter appointed the civil rights activist Andrew Young to be the ambassador to the United Nations Under Carter t he United States joined in the UN arms embargo and in 1978 the U.S barred export to South African military policy or apartheid enforcing agencies of the South African government. Nevertheless Congress and activist continued to push the executive on tougher policies toward the South Africa In 1977, TransAfrica was formed as a permanent foreign policy organization designed to pressure U.S foreign policy on issues of concern to African-Americans (Culverson 1996, 141) The consensus in the United States was that the system of apartheid in South Africa was morally repugnant. The overall normative change with the American public s belief in racial equality undergirded increasing support for sanctions against South Africa (see Hill 1993) However President Reagan's election to office brought a different orientation toward South Africa The U S Congress with popular support would dramatically overturn Reagan's policy President Reagan adopted a policy called "constructive engagement." Constructive engagement was the brain child of Undersecretary of State Chester Crocker Crocker believed that the United States should stop excoriating the South African government and instead establish friendly relations with the white Afrikaner government 8 Some in the anti-apartheid movement criticized the Sullivan principles as insufficient and argued for complete corporate withdraw

PAGE 172

165 and use quiet diplomacy to influence change The Reagan policy did not have success in ending apartheid The South African government did not understand the extent of disapproval in the U.S of apartheid and interpreted the U.S policy of"constructive engagement" as tacit approval (Lugar 1988 209) Moreover many domestic observers perceived Reagan s policy as blatantly supporting white-minority government. Despite his landside victory in 1984, Reagan's policy toward South Africa came under direct attack New waves of protest in South Africa were met by violence from the South African government. The violence in South Africa sparked protest in the U.S with the first major demonstration at the South African embassy coming on Thanksgiving day 1984 These protest were organized by TransAfrica's Randall Robinson. The Congressional Black Caucus moved the issue of South Africa to the top of their agenda (Dellums 2000 126-127) The Congressional Black Caucus's influence in setting the agenda on South Africa was noteworthy By 1985 many of its members had gained seniority and leadership positions in the Congress However public concern over the issue of apartheid also transformed the policy position of others in the Congress, including members of the president's own party "Rising public concern over apartheid as an issue that could trigger domestic racial conflict even led many Republicans and conservative Democrats to distance themselves from and openly criticize the president's policy" (Culverson 1996 144-145) In late 1984 35 House Republicans publically criticized the president's policy on South Africa and signed an open letter to the South Africa ambassador threatening to impose sanctions unless certain economic and civil rights were put in place for all people

PAGE 173

in South Africa These "young turk" Republicans included Robert S Walker (R Pennsylvania) Vin Weber (R. Minnesota) and the future Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (R. Georgia) Recognizing a change in the United States Congressman Vin Weber (R 166 Pennsylvania) warned the South African government that they could no longer rely on the support of conservatives as racists Weber declared that "South Africa has been able to depend on conservatives in the United States . to treat them with benign neglect." He continued that "[W]e served notice that with the emerging generation of conservative l eadership that is not going to be the case" (Evans and Cannon 1984 Al) Newt Gingrich (R. Georgia) another of the Republicans advancing the idea of sanctions against South Africa clearly understood the normative changes within the U.S regarding political and civil rights When asked if his party was using the issue of sanction against South Africa as a way to get more African-American votes Gingrich replied that "I think one of the great challenges to the Republican Party for the rest of the decade is to prove unequivocally that it is opposed to racism . Although Gingrich did not expect to "convert black voters" to the Republican Party he wanted "to maintain independent minded white constituencies" because as he saw it "[m]ost of the white middle class and most of the younger generation are opposed to racism of any kind He further added that "[t]here's a broad consensus for individual freedom without regard to race" (Shogan 1985 1 ) Throughout the spring of 1985, both the Senate and the House conducted hearings to discuss U.S policy toward South Africa In context of the Cold War opponents of

PAGE 174

167 sanctions against South Africa, such as Senator Jesse Helms (R ., North Carolina) argued that sanctions could jeopardize the U.S alliance with South Africa This could cause the forfeit of access to valuable minerals and open the door for communist inroads to southern Africa. The White-minority government was a bulwark against communism, while the African National Congress (ANC) the lead group opposing white rule clearly contained many individuals with Marxist inclinations In 1985 the House passed sanctions legislation by a vote of295 to 127 with the support of fifty-six Republicans (Klotz 1995 473) In the Senate Richard Lugar (R ., Indiana) sought to overcome delaying tactics of Senator Helms According to Lugar We succeeded in one long and contentious day of debate on July 11 1985 in gaining an 80-12 vote for final passage A few conservative Republicans simply did not want any legislation but found it difficult to oppose a bill which encouraged American business to maintain and to increase a hands-on relationship in South Africa Our bill imposed sanctions that were real for the first time and sent significant messages to the South African government and to other nations (Lugar 1988 218) The Reagan Administration responded to the actions of the House and Senate by issuing an executive order placing restrictions on government loans military and police equipment computers and nuclear related technologies Moreover the executive order encouraged corporations to follow principles similar to those expounded by the Reverend Sullivan. The President's executive order temporary arrested efforts by the Congress to impose tougher sanctions on South Africa The South African government continued i ts suppression of black dissent with 875 lives lost in 1985 and a doubling of that casualty

PAGE 175

168 r ate in 1986 (Lugar 1988 223) On June 12 1986 the South Afiican government imposed a nationwide state of emergency The House passed a new bill calling for more extensive sanctions in May 1986 The Senate followed suit. House leaders agreed to bypass conference committee negotiation and accept the Senate bill based on Senator Lugar's commitment to by the bill even if faced with a presidential veto As expected President Reagan vetoed the bill For the first time since 1973 the U.S Congress overrode a presidential veto on a foreign policy issues The House overrode the veto 31383 with 81 Republicans voting to override (Lugar 1988 238) In the Senate 78 members stood against the President. The overriding of the President's veto reflected the public opinion on the issues A Gallup poll taken in September of 1986 asked : "Do you think that the South Afiican government has or has not made significant progress during the last year in trying to resolve it racial problems?" Seventy-two percent responded that the South Afiican government "has not" made progress In the same poll fifty-five percent indicated that the United State should put more pressure on the South Afiican government to end its apartheid racial system Conclusion Both cases show the increased concern for the promotion of human rights and democracy by the United States The U S public consistently opposed the violent overthrow of the Sandinista government. Eventually the Sandinistas would be removed through democratic elections with the opposition receiving support from the United States Reagan had insisted that the Sandinistas would never follow through on elections if the Congress did not provide the Contras military assistance After his election in 1988

PAGE 176

169 George Bush decided to find a common policy on Nicaragua with the Congress which ended in a commitment to support the planned elections in Nicaragua The peaceful resolution to the Nicaragua civil war with a democratic outcome represented the will of the Congress and by extension the norms of the American public In South Africa, President Reagan could not sustain support for a racist government in the new normative environment regarding political and civil rights in the United States The weak efforts of "constructive engagement" by the Reagan administration sought to change the South Africa's system of apartheid while not endangering U.S ./ South African relations. Nevertheless in the new normative environment in the United States the distance between South African apartheid norms and U.S norms were so great as to compel members of the president's own party to break with his policy stance One must recall that the "Jim Crow" laws of segregation in the American south before the 1970s were akin to South Africa's system of apartheid It i s significant that Newt Gingrich, a Republican representing a southern state would be one of the leaders against the president's policy Reactionaries like Senator Jesse Helms cou l d not withstand the onslaught of change that permeated the Congress. Moreover overriding a presidential veto is a monumental event. Support that cut across party lines for a U.S foreign policy that placed sanctions against South Africa demonstrates Congress as the more effective transmitter of societal norms than the executive Regarding sanctions against South Africa the Congress and not the President reflected the position of the American people.

PAGE 177

CHAPTER 7 SUMMARY OF FINDlNGS AND CONCLUSION We can understand the change in U.S foreign policy toward democracy promotion by understanding the change in the domestic normative structure A state's domestic norms influence its international behavior. When the United States embraced a Euro American identity and maintained a normative structure that allowed the negation of political and civil rights for those that did not match that identity U.S foreign policy did not promote democracy or human rights particularly in the non Western/European world Domestic level factors are important to understand a state's foreign policy The findings of this study concur with the appeals of Bruce Bueno de Mesquita (2002 1) who has suggested the urgency of refocusing our efforts on leaders and domestic affairs as the centerpiece for understanding the world of international relations ." We better understand the change in U S foreign policy toward democracy promotion and human rights when we consider the context of changing domestic norms regarding political and civil rights As we have seen, the expansion U.S democracy and political and civil rights to groups once excluded from the political process witnessed a concurrent expansion of human rights and democracy promotion in U.S. foreign policy to parts of the world once considered incapable of maintaining any form of democratic governance The changes in domestic nonns in the post World War II era, have led to a change in the American identity from a White Euro-American identity to a multicultural identity This change in 170

PAGE 178

171 i dentity has altered the pattern of U S foreign policy in many parts of the world The U.S foreign policy orientation toward democracy promotion differs when it had a Euro American identity as opposed to a multicultural identity With a Euro-American identity only other states with a similar identity were considered capable of respecting human rights and developing democratic governing structures As the American identity changed the applicability of human rights and democracy to other societies became pervasive in U.S foreign policy This study is important for many reasons First given U.S hegemony in world affairs its foreign policy behavior matters a great deal for everyone on the planet. Understanding the sources ofU S foreign policy can help us understand the broader trends in world affairs Second for American citizens understanding how changes in domestic norms have influenced the direction of U.S foreign policy punctuates the impact that they contribute to development of U.S foreign policy Norms of behavior that direct domestic affairs also influence foreign affairs Theoretically this study has advanced a constructivist approach to understanding U.S foreign policy Constructivism focuses on the impact of ideas rather than material forces on policy outcomes Constructivism seeks to understand the formation of state's in t erests and identity as molded by norms and culture rather than material conditions What I have attempted to do in this study is support the constructivist position of a state s identity which suggests that a state's identity is socially constructed and subject to change. Changes at the domestic level produce changes in a state s identity The assumption is that humans are not creatures of constant behavior We learn, we adapt we

PAGE 179

172 evolve The analytic model for this study suggested that changes in foreign policy orientation are associated with changes in the domestic normative structure Norms that guide behavior on the domestic level also guide behavior in foreign policy The catalyst for change on the domestic level is through social movements organized to change specific societal norms The explanation of the formation of social movements was beyond the scope of this study The model also suggested that policy change would originate from the legislative branch The argument is that legislative branch is closer to the people and would be more sensitive to domestic change My study found this to be a valid claim However, this does not mean that the legislative branch is always more progressive than the executive As I showed the executive branch quickly adapted to the domestic changes and supported a foreign policy consistent with the change in domestic norms. What makes this study important is also the contrasting stand it takes to the traditional approach to understanding foreign policy The central paradigm in the study of international affairs for the last fifty years, Classical realism treats a state's identity as a constant. It also attributes consistency to human behavior. The assumption is that humans are selfish and power seeking creatures. From this perspective we can understand state behavior based on a power seeking behavior and single-minded pursuit of self preservation Neorealism, the systemic variant of realism, enshrines this view of state identity in its theoretical structure. The neoliberal response challenges neorealism on its own grounds and seeks to explain state behavior through the construction of incentives In the contemporary debate between neorealism and neoliberalism scholars have agreed on

PAGE 180

173 much so as to give the appearance of scientific progress in theoretical development ( see Baldwin 1993) Nevertheless as Alexander Wendt astutely points out about the neorealist / neoliberal debate it seems to come down to no more than a discussion about the frequency with which states pursue relative rather than absolute gains (Wendt 1999 3) Both theoretical approaches follow a rational/materialist orientation In contrast to these recent systemic level debates in International Relations I have tried to show the importance of domestic level factors in understanding state behavior As shown in chapter 2 a focus on domestic level factors has deep roots in the study of international affairs Nevertheless this is an area that has received little investigation in recent decades in the discipline of International Relations Students of International Relations have conducted the neorealism/neoliberalism debate exclusively at the systemic level. I have not dismissed systemic level factors The system does constrain the options that a state has available nevertheless choice remains What choice a state accepts relates to its identity How decision makers perceive themselves as members of a particular state and the norms of behavior that guide their actions are important factors in the selection of choices. Societal norms of behavior shape the construction of a state's identity The findings in this study have implications for the democratic peace the well known claim that democratic states do not fight wars against one another Domestic norms are the most important part of the explanation of the democratic peace 9 As I 9F or an argument supporting the institutional variant of the democratic peace see Bueno de Mesquita et al. 1999

PAGE 181

discussed in chapter 2 most scholars researching the democratic peace have treated domestic norms as a constant. Clearly the findings in this study suggest that we must understand norms within a historical context ldo Oren (1995) suggests that the democratic peace is subjective and that the United States continually redefines its definition of democracy to keep its self-image consistent with its allies and inconsistent with the image of its adversaries The findings of my study suggest that we must understand how a state's changing self-image produces changes in its foreign policy. 174 What I ha v e sought to do is to suggest that the norms held by a society are important for public policy including foreign policy In the era of globalization man y students of international affairs speak of intermestic issues i.e. issues which have both international and domestic content This study contends that many responses to fore i gn policy issues are reflections of the domestic society What decision makers consider correct behavior will influence the construction of foreign policy This study is limited to one foreign policy issue (the promotion of democracy) and changes on a specific domestic normative belief(political and civil rights) As the U.S domestic society has become more t olerant of diversity and has expanded political and civil rights to more members of society we find an associated change in the foreign policy orientation toward the promotion of democracy to more societies abroad As I discussed earlier most of the literature on democracy promotion suggests it to be a long-standing U.S policy The findings in this study discredit that claim The evidence shows that in the decades before the 1970s the United States clearly subverted democracy and rewarded those who abused human rights William Robinson s (1996) Promoting Polyarchy does recognize that

PAGE 182

175 democracy promotion is a recent phenomenon in U.S. foreign policy However Robinson's work places no importance on domestic level factors Instead, Robinson suggests that democracy promotion is a product of a globalized transnational elite seeking to limit greater calls for participation through the promotion oflow-intensity democracy Although, this study does not directly overturn Robinson's thesis, it does call into question the singular emphasis on a transnational elite as the source of policy change Domestic change must be considered In chapter 3 I discussed the importance of norms, which are culturally defined rules of correct behavior. The role of norms makes humans a distinct subject of study and any attempt to understand and explain human behavior must take into account the normative aspects of human life This study links a state's identity to the norms of behavior which governs the individual members that constitute the state The construction of the U.S. identity has changed through the years In chapter 3 I attempted to provide evidence of a change in norms and a change identity In a broad sweep of U.S history I reviewed the evolution of the American identity from the Anglo-Saxon variant to the Euro-American fo~ to the current multicultural identity The third change in the U.S identity was the one of concern for the foreign policy question of democracy promotion. My theoretical model suggested that change occurred due to the actions of social movements organized around issues of political and civil rights The cause for change was found in the domestic social moments. These movements have facilitated not only legal changes but societal normative changes in tolerance and respect for diversity I illustrated this through an exploration of broad

PAGE 183

176 cultural changes and through survey data which suggested that since the end of World War II Americans have become less likely to base political decisions on factors of race or gender. The use of the survey data provides striking evidence to support the thesis that norms regarding political and civil rights changed in the 1970s In the early 1970s those who said that they would support a qualified black candidate from their political party rose above the 60 percent level. By the late 1970s, this percentage approached the 80 percent mark. 10 Similarly changes were found in the support level for women as presidential candidates I used the survey data as empirical indicators for the changing domestic norms A shared norm that someone other than a non white male could serve as President of the United States suggests a broader change in the norm of who is worthy of participating in a democratic society Clearly white America is no longer the America" and the U.S identity has been opened up to people of various racial/ethnic origins The survey data and the contextual evidence suggest that this change occurred sometime in the 1970s The extensive social protest movements of the 1950s and 1960s stand as a catalyst of that change Certain behaviors once regarded as proper are not allowed. Certain actions once inconceivable are now essential Although I can never show direct cause between the change in domestic norms and the change in foreign policy amply evidence exists to suggest that we can connect the two changes Many have observed a change in the 10 According to Thomas W Graham {1994) when public opinion reaches 60 percent it is enough to overcome entrenched bureaucratic opposition. When 79 percent of the American people are of one mind the influence of public opinion will be nearly automatic

PAGE 184

177 American society around the 1970s although not all have applauded the change Groups once considered outside the American identity have now been incorporated and extended political and civil rights Acts of intolerance remain, and bigotry and prejudice exist in all groups in the United States Nevertheless the U.S society is vastly more accepting of diversity today To what extent has U.S foreign policy changed? In chapter 4 I illustrated some of those changes In chapter 4 I reviewed the existing research on the linkage between human rights and U.S foreign aid The promotion of human rights is a necessary component to the promotion of democracy Although debate continues as to what extent the U.S links its foreign aid with human rights there is evidence that a state s position on human rights does influence the level of aid it receives 11 What is striking for the thes i s of this study is that no dispute exists among scholars whether the U.S linked aid to human rights before the 1970s The answer is resoundingly no We can account for this foreign policy change through an examination of the domestic norms Why would one expect the U.S foreign policy to promote human rights in the non White developing world when the normative structure systematically denied human rights for non White Americans? The normative structure that allowed segregation allowed the negation of human rights in the developing world 11 Many large N quantitative studies on foreign aid and human rights remove the two largest aid recipients from the calculations Forty percent of U S foreign aid goes to Israel and Egypt. Egypt's record on human rights is abysmal. Israel the only democracy in the middle east has been slowly losing its democratic nature as it seeks to suppres s the Palestinian uprisings in the occupied territories U.S foreign aid can be used for many purposes In the case of Egypt and Israel the $5 1 billion that the U.S. sends to these two countries is a way to maintain peace between these former belligerent states

PAGE 185

178 Making direct links to changes in domestic norms to norms in foreign policy i s difficult. In chapter 5 I tried to make this connection In the United States the transfer of domestic norms from the civil society to public policy is most clearly evidenced through the actions of Congress We saw a sharp contrast in Congressional policy development to the promotion of democracy and human rights in the pre and post normative period In the 1950s Congress though the Bricker Amendment pushed to keep the U.S from supporting human rights internationally By the 1970s, Congress was on the forefront of policy change through the linkage of human rights to foreign aid Moreover the notion of promoting democracy in U S foreign policy originated with the U.S Congress President Carter grasped the Congressional initiative and made human rights a central focus of his foreign policy Although he did not embrace human rights with the rhetorical clarity that Carter made, President Reagan did not remove human rights from the foreign policy agenda However Reagan embraced the democracy promotion agenda that first originated in the Congress One way to prove that U S norms have changed regarding the promotion of democracy and human rights would be to ask the American people directly Pollsters have undertaken such surveys however not until 1974 was the first one conducted The absence of survey questions before the period of normative change that I have identified supports my contention that the American normative structure did not place importance on promoting human rights or democracy Most Americans did not think that democracy and human rights were compatible with non Western societies The normative structure did not support such a notion, much as Gallup did not ask the American people if they

PAGE 186

179 would support an African-American candidate for president before 1958 Supporting an African-American as the leader of the United States was not correct or proper behavior Survey data questioning whether the U.S should promote human rights and democracy does exist for post normative period of change Only since 1974 has the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations (CCFR) asked survey question regarding democracy promotion and only since 1978 for the promotion and defense of human rights Ole Holsti (2000) using this data has tried to show that the American people no longer care much about promoting or defending human rights In 1978 39 percent of those surveyed rated promoting and defending human rights in other countries as very important" goal in U.S foreign policy At the end of the Cold War this number increased to 58 percent. However in 1994 this number dropped to 34 percent leading Holsti to declare that the post-cold war period has witnessed a precipitous decline in the priority accorded to human rights in American foreign policy (Holsti 2000 160) Holsti overstates his position In 1996 those who said that they considered promoting and defending human rights in other countries as "very important goal in U.S foreign policy increased to 39 percent. Moreover Holsti fails to note that throughout the period a very small minority said that human rights were not an important foreign policy goal 12 In a 1995 PIPA survey 67 percent agreed that foreign aid to newly democratic countries is a good investment for the United States and that democracies have better human rights records 1 2 See http : // www americans-world org Accessed on February 19 2002

PAGE 187

180 In chapter 6 I made a further connection between the change in domestic norms and foreign policy through the examination of South African sanctions and Contra aid In both cases Congress opposed and redirected the executive's policies in a direction that supported human rights and promoted democracy Moreover the Congress acted in response to organized domestic interests and reflected the position of public opinion Although my research has shown a general tend in the expansion of democracy promotion by the United States the United States has not displayed this trend with equal vigor to all regions of the world U.S foreign policy toward the promotion of democracy in the Muslim world has been flaccid Instead U.S policy has supported repressive regimes (Saudi Arabia) and remained mute when democracy is subverted (Algeria, Turkey) The Muslim world lacks any vibrant democratic regime I have argued that a growth of tolerance and an expansion of the American identity has lead to foreign policy changes that have expanded the group of peoples judged capable of maintaining democratic governments Future research should investigate how domestic U.S. perceptions of the Islamic religion shape U S. policymakers attitudes toward democracy in the Muslim world The events of 11 September have dramatically reoriented the foreign policy of the United States To what extent have these acts changed the focus of U.S foreign policy regarding democracy in Islamic countries? One way to understand how the United States will respond is to understand the domestic level factors Of course external factors to a state are important in shaping that state s foreign policy In international affairs security issues often take precedence over all other issues Nevertheless this study has suggested that domestic level facts are also important. ot all

PAGE 188

181 states will respond identically to the same external stimulants Moreover the same state can change internally and thus change its foreign policy responses When we seek to understand state behavior we must understand the norms held by the citizens of that state

PAGE 189

REFERENCES Abourezk, James G 1989 Advise and Dissent: Memoirs of South Dakota and the U.S Senate Chicago IL : Lawrence Hill Books Aguirre Jr ., Adalberto and Jonathan H. Turner 1998 American Ethnicity : the Dynamics and Conseguences of Discrimination Second edition. Boston MA : McGraw Hill Aguilar Eloy 0 2001 Yielding to International Pressure Haiti Pledges New Elections ." Associated Press June 3 Aldrich, John H ., John L. Sullivan, and Eugene Borgida. 1989 Foreign Affairs and Issue Voting : Do Presidential Candidates Waltz Before A Blind Audience?" American Political Science Review 83 : 123-141. Allen, Mike 2001 Laura Bush Gives Radio Address ; First Lady Says Fight Is for Dignity of Afghan Women Children The Washington Post. November 18 : p Al4 Allison, Graham and Philip Zelikow 1999. Essence of Decision : Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis New York: Longman Almond Gabriel A. 1950 The American People and Foreign Policy. New York: Harcourt Anderson, Benedict. 1991. Imagined Communities London : Verso Apodaca, Clair and Michael Stohl 1999 "United States Human Rights Policy and Foreign Assistance ." International Studies Quarterly 43 : 185-198 Amson, Cynthia J. and Philip Brenner 1993 The Limits of Lobbying : Interest Groups Congress and Aid to the Contras In Public Opinion in U.S Foreign Policy : The Controversy over Contra Aid. R Sobel ed 191-120 Lanham, MD : Rowman & Littlefield Axelrod Robert 1986 "An Evolutionary Approach to Norms" American Political Science Review 80 : 1095-1111. 182

PAGE 190

183 Ayer, Alfred J. 1936 Language, Truth, and Logic New York : Dover Publications Inc Baldwin, David ed 1993 Neorealism and Neoliberalism New York : Columbia University Press Belchman, Barry M 1990. "The New Congressional Role in Arms Control. In A Question of Balance : The President, the Congress, and Foreign Policy. T Mann ed 109-145 Washington, D C. : The Brookings Institution Bell Derrick. 1987 And We Are Not Saved : The Elusive Quest for Racial Justice New York: Basic Books Betances Emelio 1995. State and Society in the Dominican Republic Boulder CO : Westview Press Blanton, Shannon Lindsey. 1994 Impact of Human Rights on U S Foreign Assistance to Latin America International Interactions 19 : 339-358 Blanton, Shannon Lindsey 2000 Promoting Human Rights and Democracy in the Developing World : U.S Rhetoric versus U.S Arms Exports American Journal of Political Science 44 : 123-131 Blum, Daniel. 1959. Pictorial History of Television New York : Chilton Company Bond Ray (ed ) 1979 "Chronology of Main Events In The Vietnam War. R. Bonds ed 12-16 New York : Crown Publishers Inc Booth, John A. and Thomas W Walker 1993 Understanding Central America Boulder CO : Westview Press Bowers, Ray L 1979 Defeat and Retaliation : the Communist Triumph In The Vietnam War. R. Bonds ed 228-237 New York : Crown Publishers Bremer Stuart A. 1992. Dangerous Dyads ," Journal of Conflict Resolution 36 : 309341. Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce 2002 Domestic Politics and International Relations ." International Studies Quarterly 46 : 1-9 Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce and David Lalman 1992 War and Reason : Domestic and International Imperatives New Haven CN : Yale University Press

PAGE 191

184 Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce James D Morrow Randolph M Siverson, and Alastair Smith 1999. 11 An Institutional Theory of the Democratic Peace 11 American Political Science Review 93 : 791-808 Bull, Hedley 1977 The Anarchical Society New York : Columbia University Press Burgin, Eileen 1993 The Influence of Constituents : Congressional Decision Making on Issues of Foreign and Defense Policy. In Congress Resurgent : Foreign and Defense Policy Capital Hill R. Ripley and J. Lindsay eds 67-88 Ann Arbor MI : University Michigan Press Burgin, Eileen 1997 Assessing Congress's Role in the Making of Foreign Policy' In Congress Reconsidered 6 th edition L. Dodd and B Oppenheimer eds 29332 4 Washington D C .: CQ Press Bush, George 1990 Inaugural Address January 20 1989. Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States, 1989 Washington, D C .: Government Printing Office Bush, George W 2001. "President George W Bush s Inaugural Address January 20 2001. 11 http :// www whitehouse gov / news f maugural-address html accessed on March 25 2001. Campbell David 1996 "Violent Performances : Identity Sovereignty Responsibility 11 In The Return of Culture and Identity in IR Theory Y. Lapid and F Kratochwil eds 163-180 Boulder CO : Lynne Rienner Cancian, Francesca M 1975. What are Norms? A Study of Beliefs and Action in a Maya Community New York : Cambridge University Press Carleton David and Michael Stohl 1987 "The Role of Human Rights in U.S Foreign Assistance Policy ." American Journal of Political Science 31 : 1002-1018 Carothers, Thomas 1999 Aiding Democracy Abroad : The Learning Curve Washington, D.C .: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace Carter Jmuny 1977 Inaugural Address of President Jimmy Carter January 20 1977 11 Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States, 1977. Washington, D C .: Government Printing Office Chamberlain, Greg 1991. Poor man's profit. The Guardian (London) June 29 p 1.

PAGE 192

185 Chan, Steve 1997 "In Search of Democratic Peace : Problems and Promise Mershon International Studies Review 41: 59-91. Checkel, Jeffrey T. 1998 "The Constructivist Turn in International Relations Theory World Politics 50 : 324-48 Cialdini Robert H. 1984. Influence : How and Why People Agree to Things. ew York : Morrow Cingranelli, David L. and Thomas E. Pasquarello 1985 "Human Rights Practices and the Distribution of Foreign Aid to Latin American Countries ." American Journal of Political Science. 29: 539-63 Chomsky, Noam and Edward S Herman 1979 The Washington Connection and Third World Fascism Boston, MA : South End Press Clark, Kenneth B. 1993. "Racial Progress and Retreat : A Personal Memoir In Race in America : The Struggle for Equality H. Hill and J. Jones eds 3-18 Madison, WS : The University of Wisconsin Press Clausen, Aage R. and Carl E. Van Horn 1977 "The Congressional Response to a Decade of Change: 1963-1972 ." The Journal of Politics 39 : 624-666 Cleveland, William L 1994 A History of the Modern Middle East. Boulder CO : Westview Press Clinton, William J. 1994 "Inaugural Address January 20, 1993 ." Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States, 1993 Washington, D.C : Government Printing Office Congressional Record 1954 Eighty-Third Congress, Second Session Washington D C .: Government Printing Office Congressional Record 1966 Eighty-Ninth Congress, Second Session Washington, D.C .: Government Printing Office Conley, Richard S 1997 "Unified Government the Two Presidencies Thesis, and Presidential Support in the Senate : An Analysis of President Clinton's First Two Years." Presidential Studies Quarterly 27 : 229-249 Converse Phillip 1964 "The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics In Ideology and Discontent. D E Apter ed. 206-261. New York: Free Press

PAGE 193

186 Converse Philip 1993 "The Stability of Belief Elements Over Time. In Classics in Voting Behavior R.G Niemi and H.F Weisberg eds 54-61. WashingtonD .C.: CQPress Converse Philip and Gregory B Markus 1979 "Plus ca change ... : The New CPS Election Study Panel. American Political Science Review 73 : 32-49 Corwin Edward S 1957. The President : Office and Powers, 1787-1957. 4 th re v. ed New York : N ew York University Press Coulter Edwin M 1984 Principles of Politics and Government 2 nd edition Bosto n, MA : Allyn and Bacon Inc Crabb Jr Cecil V. and Pat M Holt. 1992 Invitation to Struggle : Congress, The President, and Foreign Policy 4 th edition. Washington D C .: Congressional Quarterly Press Culverson, Donald R. 1996 "The Politics of the Anti-Apartheid Movement." Political Science Quarterly 111 : 127149 Dahl Robert A. 1 971. Polyarchy : Participation and Opposition New Haven CT : Yale University Press Dallek, Robert 1983 The American Style of Foreign Policy : Cultural Politics and Foreign Affairs New York : Oxford University Press d'Anjou Leo 1996 Social Movements and Cultural Change : The First Abolition Campaign Revisited. New York : Aldine De Gruyter Davidson, Roger H. and Walter J. Oleszek 1977 Congress Against Itself Bloomingto n, IN : Indiana University Press Dberdorfer Don 1981. Haig Calls Terrorism Top Priority. The Washington Post. January 29 F inal Edition : Al DeConde Alexander 1992 Ethnicity, Race, and American Foreign Policy : A History Boston : Northeastern University Press Dellums Ronald V and H. Lee Halterman. 2000. Lying Down With the Lions : A Public Life from the Streets of Oakland to the Halls of Power Boston, MA : Beacon Press

PAGE 194

187 Deschamps Jean-Claude 1982 Social Identity and Relations of Power Between Groups ." In Social Identity and Intergroup Relations H. Tajfel ed 85-98 New York : Cambridge University Press Diamond Larry 1992 Economic Development and Democracy Reconsidered ." American Behavioral Scientist. 15 : 450-499 Diamond Larry 1995 Promoting Democracy in the 1990s : Actors and Instruments, Issues and Imperatives Washington D C .: Carnegie Commission Diamond Larry Juan J. Linz and Seymor Martin Lipset. 1989 Democracy in Developing Countries 4 vols. Boulder CO : Lynne Rienner and the ational Endowment for Democracy Diani Mario 1992 "The Concept of Social Movement." Sociological Review 40 : 1 25 Donnelly Jack. 1999 Post-Cold War Reflections on the Study of International Human Rights ." In Ethics & International Affairs : A Reader, Second Edition J. Rosenthal ed 242-270 Washington, D C .: Georgetown University Press Drezner Daniel W 2000 Ideas Bureaucratic Politics and the Crafting of Foreign Policy ." American Journal of Political Science 44 : 733-749 Dudziak, Mary L. 2000 Cold War Civil Rights : Race and the Image of American Democracy Princeton, NJ : Princeton University Press. Eisenhower Dwight D 1960 Inaugural Address January 20 1953 ." Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States, 1953 Washington, D C .: Government Printing Office E l ster Jon 1989 The Cement of Society : A Study of Social Order New York : Cambridge University Press Erikson, Robert S 1978 "Constituency Opinion and Congressional Behavior : A Reexamination of the Miller-Stokes Representation Data ." American Journal of Political Science 22 : 511535 Erikson, Robert S and Gerald C Wright. 1997 Voters Candidates and Issues in Congressional Elections ," In Congress Reconsidered 6 th edition L. Dodd and B Oppenheimer eds 132-161. Washington D C .: CQ Press

PAGE 195

Erskine Hazel G 1963 "The Polls : Atomic Weapons and Nuclear Energy Public Opinion Quarterly 24 : 155-190 188 Etzioni Amitai 2001. A Proud American Moment. The Christian Science Monitor October 11 p 9 Evans Ernest. 1997 El Salvador's Lessons for Future U.S Interventions ." World Affairs 160 : 43-48 Evans Peter B. Harold K. Jacobson and Robert D Putnam (ed ) 1993 Double-Edged Diplomacy Los Angeles CA : University of California Press Evans, Sandra and Lou Cannon 1984 "President Will Meet With Tutu ; Hill Conservatives Warn S Africa of Possible Sanctions." Washington Post December 6 p A 1. Fairchild Henry Pratt 1977 The Melting Pot Mistake Boston : Little Brown and Company ; 1926 reprint Boston : Little Brown Ferguson, James 1987 Papa Doc, Baby Doc: Haiti and the Duvaliers Oxford UK : Basil Blackwell Finnemore, Martha 1996 National Interests in International Society Ithaca, NY : Cornell University Press Finnemore, Martha and Kathryn Sikkink 1998. International Norm Dynamics and Political Change ." International Organization 52 : 887-917 Fiorina, Morris P 1989 Congress : Keystone of the Washington Establishment. 2 nd edition New Haven, CN : Yale University Press. Fiorina, Morris P and Paul E Peterson 1998 The New American Democracy Boston: Allyn and Bacon Fleisher Richard and Jon R Bond 1991. "Are There Two Presidencies? Yes But Only for Republicans In The Two Presidencies : A Quarter Century Assessment. S Shull eds 119-142 Chicago : Nelson-Hall Publishers Fleming Thomas 1999 Duel : Alexander Hamilton, Aaron Burr and the Future of America New York : Basic Books Fogel Robert W and Stanley L. Engerman 1974 Time on the Cross Boston : Little Brown

PAGE 196

Forsythe, David P 1990. "Human Rights in U.S Foreign Policy: Retrospect and Prospect ." Political Science Quarterly 105: 435-454. Forsythe, David P 1988 Human Rights and U.S Foreign Policy : Congress Reconsidered. Gainesville, FL: University of Florida Press Fossedal, Gregory A. 1989 The Democracy Imperative : Exporting the American Revolution New York : Basic Books. Franck, Thomas M and Clifford A. Bob. 1985. "The Return of Humpty-Dumpty : 189 Foreign Relations Law After the Chadha Case ." American Journal oflnternational Law 79 : 912-960 Franklin, Benjamin 1961 The Papers of Benjamin Franklin: Vol. 4 July 1, 1750, through June 30, 1753 Leonard W. Labaree et al. eds New Haven : Yale University Press Fraser, Donald M. 1979 "Human Rights and U.S. Foreign Policy ." International Studies Quarterly. 23 : 174-185 Fukuyama, Francis. 1992 The End of History and the Last Man New York : Free Press Gaddis, John Lewis. 1982. Strategies of Containment. New York: Oxford University Press. Garrett, Stephen A. 1972. "Foreign Policy and the American Constitution : The Bricker Amendment in Contemporary Perspective ." International Studies Quarterly. 16: 187-220. Gellner, Ernest. 1964 Though and Change London : Weidenfeld & Nicholson George, Alexander L. 1979 "Case Studies and Theory Development : The Method of Structured, Focused Comparison." In Diplomacy: New Approaches in History, Theory, and Policy P. Lauren ed 43-68. New York: Free Press Geva, Nehemia and D Christopher Hanson 1999 "Cultural Similarity, Foreign Policy Actions, and Regime Perception: An Experimental Study of International Cues and Democratic Peace ." Political Psychology 20 : 803-827 Gilbert James 1981. Another Chance : Postwar America, 1945-1968 Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press

PAGE 197

Giles Howard and Patricia Johnson 1981 The Role of Language in Ethnic Group Relations ." In Intergroup Behavior J. Turner and H Giles eds 199-243 Chicago : University of Chicago Press Gleijeses Piero 1978 The Dominican Crisis : The 1965 Constitutionalist Revolt and American Intervention trans L. Lipson Baltimore MD : John Hopkins University Press "Golden State Turns Brown 2001 Economist. April 7 190 Goldstein, Judith and Robert 0 Keohane (ed). 1993. Ideas & Foreign Policy Ithaca NY : Cornell University Press Graham, Thomas W 1994 "Public Opinion and U S Foreign Policy Decision Making In The New Politics of American Foreign Policy D Deese ed 190-215 ew York : St. Martin's Haass Richard N 1994 Intervention : The Use of American Military Force in the Post Cold War World Washington, D. C. : Carnegie Endowment for International Peace Hall John A. 1993 "Ideas and the Social Science." In Ideas and Foreign Policy : Beliefs, Institutions, and Political Change J. Goldstein and R. Keohane ed. 31-54 Ithaca, NY : Cornell University Press Hastedt Glenn P 2000 American Foreign Policy : Past, Present, Future 4 th edition Upper Saddle River NJ : Prentice Hall Hempel C. G 1963 "Reason and Covering Laws in Historical Explanation In Philosophy and History : A Symposium S Hook ed 143-163 New York : New York University Press Henderson, David K. 1993 Interpretation and Explanation in the Human Sciences ew York: State University of New York Press Henkin, Louis 1995 U S. Ratification of Human Rights Conventions : The Ghost of Senator Bricker ." American Journal of International Law 89 : 341-350 Herman Edward S and Frank Brodhead 1984 Demonstration Elections : U.S Staged Elections in the Dominican Republic, Vietnam, and El Salvador. Boston : South End Press

PAGE 198

191 Hermann, Margaret G and Charles W Kegley Jr. 1995 Rethinking Democracy and International Peace : Perspectives from Political Psychology ." International Studies Quarterly 39 : 511-533 Hietala, Thomas R. 1999 Continentalism and the Color Line ." In The Impact of Race on U.S Foreign Policy : A Reader M Krenn ed 48-172 New York : Garland Publishing Higham, John 1971. Strangers in the Land : Patterns of American Nationalism 18601925 New York : Atheneum Hill Kevin A 1993 "The Domestic Sources of Foreign Policymaking : Congressional Voting and American Mass Attitudes Toward South Africa 11 International Studies Quarterly 37: 195-214 Hofrenning Daniel J.B. 1990. Human Rights and Foreign Aid : A Comparison of the Reagan and Carter Administration ." American Politics Quarterly 18 : 514-526 Hogg Michael A 1996 Intragroup Processes Group Structure and Social Identity ." In Social Groups and Identities: Developing the Legacy of Henri Tajfel. W Robinson ed 65-93 Cornwall, Great Britain : Butterworth Heiinemann Hogg Michael A and Dominic Abrams 1988 Social Identifications: A Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations and Group Processes. New York : Routledge Holsti Ole R. 1992 "Public Opinion and Foreign Policy : Challenges to the Almond-Lippmann Consensus International Studies Quarterly 36 : 439-466 Holst~ Ole R. 2000 Promotion of Democracy as Popular Demand? In American Democracy Promotion : Impulses, Strategies, and Impacts M Cox, G J. Ikenberry and Taskashi Inoguchi eds 151-180 Oxford GB : Oxford University Press Holt Michael F 1973 "The Politics of Impatience : The Origins of Know Nothingism 11 The Journal of American History 60 : 309-331. Hopf, Ted 1998 The Promise of Constructivism in International Relations Theory ." International Security 23 : 171-200 House Committee on Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on International Organizations and Movements 1974. Human Rights In The World Community: A Call for U.S Leadership Report 93d Cong ., 2d sess ., March 27

PAGE 199

192 House Committee on Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on International Organizations and Movements prepared by the Congressional Research Service 1977 Human Rights in the International Community and in U.S Foreign Policy, 1945-76 Committee Print 95th Cong ., 1st sess ., July 24 House Committee on Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on International Organizations and Movements 1979 Human Rights and U.S Foreign Hearings 96th Cong ., 1 st sess. May 2 10 ; June 21 ; July 12 ; and August 2 Hunt Michael H. 1987 Ideology and U.S. Foreign Policy New Haven, CN : Yale University Press Huntington, Samuel P 1968 Political Order in Changing Societies New Haven, C N: Yale University Press Huntington, Samuel P 1991. The Third Wave : Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press Huntington, Samuel. 1997 "The Erosion of American National Interests Foreign Affairs 76 (5) : 28-50 Hurwitz Jon and Mark Peffley 1987 "How are Foreign Policy Attitudes Structured ? A Hierarchical Model." American Political Science Review 81: 1099-1119 Ikenberry G John 2000 "America's Liberal Grand Strategy : Democracy and National Security in the Post-War Era In American Democracy Promotion : Impulses, Strategies, and Impacts M Cox G Ikenberry and T Inoguchi eds 103-126 New York : Oxford University Press Ikenberry G John and Charles A. Kupchan 1990 Socialization and Hegemonic Power ." International Organization 44 : 283-315. Immerman Richard H. 1982. The CIA in Guatemala : The Foreign Policy of Intervention Austin, TX : University of Texas Press Jaggers Keith and Ted Robert Gurr 1995 Tracking Democracy s Third Wave with the Polity m Data ." Journal of Peace Research 32 : 469-482 Janis Irving L. 1972 Victims of Groupthink : A Psychological Study of Foreign Policy Decisions and Fiascoes Boston, MA : Houghton Mifflin.

PAGE 200

193 Jepperson, Ronald L ., Alexander Wendt, and Peter Katzenstein 1996 Norms Identity and Culture in National Security In The Culture of National Security : Norms and Identity in World Politics P Katzenstein ed 33-75 New York : Columbia University Press Jervis Robert 1976 Perception and Misperception in World Politics Princeton, NJ : Princeton University Press Johnson, Lyndon. 1966 "The President s Inaugural Address January 20 1965 Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States, 1965 Washington, D C .: Government Printing Office. Joseph Edward P 2001. A Chance To Prevent the Partition ofMacedonia ." New York Times August 31 p 19 Kant Immanuel. 1795 [1983]. "To Perpetual Peace : A Philosophical Sketch" In Perpetual Peace and Other Essays trans T. Humphrey Indianapolis : Hackett Kegley Charles W Jr ., and Eugene R. Wittkopf 1996 American Foreign Policy : Pattern and Process 5 th edition New York: St. Martin s Press Kennan, George. 1976 "Memorandum by the Counselor of the Department (Kennan)to the Secretary of State [Secret]. March 29, 1950 598-624 Foreign Relations of the United States 1950 : Vol. II The United Nations: The Western Hemisphere Washington, D C .: Government Printing Office Kennedy David M 1980 Over Here : The First World War and American Society N ew York: Oxford University Press Kennedy John F 1962. Inaugural Address January 20 1961. Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States, 1961. Washington, D C .: Government Printing Office Kernell Samuel. 1997 Going Public : New Strategies of Presidential Leadership 3 rd edition Washington, D C .: CQ Press Kirkpatrick., Jeane 1979 Dictatorships and Double Standards ." Commentary 68 : 3445 Kirkpatrick., Jeane 1981. "Human Rights and American Foreign Policy ." Commentary 72 : 42-45

PAGE 201

Klinker Philip A. and Rogers M Smith 1999 The Unsteady March : The Rise and Decline of Racial Equality in America Chicago : University of Chicago Press Klotz Audie 1995 'Norms Reconstituting Interests : Global Racial Equality and U.S Sanctions Against South Africa ." International Organization. 49 : 45178 King, Gary Robert 0 Keohane and Sidney Verba 1994 Designing Social Inguiry Princeton : Princeton University Press Kissinger Henry A. 1964 A World Restored New York: Grosset & Dunlap Kissinger Henry 1994 Diplomacy New York : Simon & Schuster Kramnick, Isaac (ed) 1987 The Federalist Papers Suffolk, GB : Penguin 194 Krasner Stephen D 1995 Power Politics Institutions and Transnational Relations ." In Bringing Transnational Relations Back In T Risse-Kappen ed 257-279 Cambridge GB : Cambridge University Press Lampman, Jane 2000 "Baptists on the Brink Christian Science Monitor November 16, p 15 Layne Christopher 1994 Kant or Cant : The Myth of the Democratic Peace ." International Security 19 : 5-49 LeLoup, Lance T. and Steven A. Shull 1991. "Congress Versus the Executive : The T wo Presidencies Reconsidered ." In The Two Presidencies : A Quarter Century Assessment. S Shull ed 36-52 Chicago : Nelson-Hall Publishers LeoGrande William M 1993 "The Controversy Over Contra Aid 1981-90 : A Historical Narrative In Public Opinion in U.S Foreign Policy : The Controversy over Contra Aid. R. Sobel ed. 29-48 Lanham, MD : Rowman & Littlefield Levy Jack 1989 The Diversionary Theory of War : A Critique ." In Handbook of War Studies ed M Midlarsky Boston MA : Unwin Hyman Levy Peter B. 1999 "Blacks and the Vietnam War In The Impact ofRace on U.S Foreign Policy : A Reader M Krenn ed 309-332 New York : Garland Publishing Lewis Finlay 2001 Civil Liberties ; President Urges Respect '; Attack on Muslims Rebuked as FBI Looks Into Alleged Hate Crimes ." The San Diego Union Tribune September 18 p AS

PAGE 202

195 Lichter S Robert Linda S Lichter and Stanley Rothman 1994 Prime Time : How T V Portrays American Culture Washington, D C .: Regency Publishing Inc Lind Michael. 1995 The Next American Nation : The New Nationalism and the Fourth American Revolution New York : The Free Press Lindsay James M 1992-93 Congress and Foreign Policy : Why the Hill Matters ." Political Science Quarterly 107 : 607-628 Lindsay James M 1994 Congress Foreign Policy and the New Institutionalism ." International Studies Quarterly 38 : 281-304 Lindsay James M and Wayne P Steger 1993 "The Two Presidencies' in Future Research : Moving Beyond Roll-Call Analysis Congress and The Presidency 20 : 103-117 Lippmann, Walter 1922 Public Opinion New York : Macmillan Lipset Seymour Martin 1959 Some Social Requisites of Democracy : Economic Development and Political Legitimacy American Political Science Review 53 : 69-105 Lipset Seymour Martin 1996 American Exceptionalism: A Double-Edged Sword New York : W W Norton & Company Lowenthal Abraham F (ed) 1991. Exporting Democracy : The United States and Latin America Baltimore MD : The John Hopkins University Press Lowenthal, Abraham F 1995 The Dominican Intervention Baltimore MD : The John Hopkins University Press Lugar, Richard 1988 Letters To The Next President. New York : Simon and Schuster Lumsdaine David H 1993 Moral Vision in International Politics : The Foreign Aid Regime, 1949-1989 Princeton, NJ : Princeton University Press Machiavelli Niccolo 1910 The Prince trans N H. Thompson, New York : P F Collier & Son Macpherson, C B 1977 The Life and Times of Liberal Democracy New York : Oxford University Press

PAGE 203

Macridis Roy C 1992 Contemporary Political Ideologies : Movements and Regimes. New York: HarperCollins Maggiotto, Michael A. and Eugene R. Wittkopf 1981 "American Public Attitudes toward Foreign Policy International Studies Quarterly 25 : 601-31. Magubane Bernard Makhosezwe 1987 The Ties That Bind : African American Consciousness of Africa Trenton, N J. : Africa World Press 196 Mandelbaum, Michael. 1996 Foreign Policy as Social Work. Foreign Affairs 75 (1) : 16-32 Maoz Zeev and Nasrin Abdolali 1989 "Regime Types and International Conflict. Journal of Conflict Resolution 33 : 3-35 Maoz Zeev and Bruce Russett. 1993 'Normative and Structural Causes of Democratic Peace ." American Political Science Review 87 : 624-638 Matthews Fred H 1964 "White Community and Yellow Peril."' The Mississippi Valley Historical Review 50 : 612-633 Mayer William G 1992 The Changing American Mind Ann Arbor : The Uni v ersi ty of Michigan Press McCubbins Matthew Roger Noll and Barry Weingast. 1987 Administrative Procedures as Instruments of Political Control. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 3 : 243-277 McDermott Rose 1998 Risk-Taking in International Politics : Prospect Theory in American Foreign Policy Ann Arbor MI : University of Michigan Press McKinlay, RD. 1979 The Aid Relationship : A Foreign Policy Model and Interpretation of the Distributions of Official Bilateral Economic Aid of the United States the United Kingdom, France and Germany Comparative Political Studies 11 : 411463 McKinlay RD and R Little 1977 A Foreign Policy Model of U.S Bilateral Aid Allocation ." World Politics 30 : 58-86 McKenzie R. 1928 Oriental Exclusion Chicago : University of Chicago Press

PAGE 204

197 McNamara, Robert S ., James G Blight and Robert K. Brigham 1999 Argument Without End : In Search of Answers to the Vietnam Tragedy New York : Public Affairs Meernik, James Eric L. Krueger and Steven C Poe 1998 ' Testing Models of U.S Foreign Policy : Foreign Aid during and after the Cold War ." Journal of Polit i cs 60 : 63-85 Metz Steven 1986 "The Anti-Apartheid Movement and the Populist Instinct in American Politics 11 Political Science Quarterly 101 : 379-395 Mill John Stuart 1846 A System ofLogic, Ratiocinative and Inductive : Being a Connective View of the Principles of Evidence and the Methods of Scientific Investigation New York: Harper. Miller Stuart 1969 The Unwelcome Immigrant: The American Image of the Chinese, 1785-1882 Berkeley ~ University of California Press. Miller Warren E and Donald E. Stokes 1963 Constituency Influence in Congress ." American Political Science Review 57 : 45-56 Moravcsik, Andrew 1993 Introduction : Integrating International and Domestic Theories of International Bargaining In Double-Edged Diplomacy P Evans P H. Jacobson and R Putnam eds Los Angeles CA: University of California Press Morgan, Michael L. (ed) 1992 Classics of Moral and Political Theory Indianapolis : Hackett Publishing Company Morgenthau Hans J 1985 [1948]. Politics Among Nations 6 th edition Revised by Kenneth W Thompson New York : Knopf Morris, AD. 1984 Origins of the Civil Rights Movement: Black Communities Organizing for Change New York : Free Press Morris Stephen J. 1982 Human Rights in Vietnam under Two Regimes : A Cases Study with Implications for American Foreign Policy ." In Human Rights and American Foreign Policy F Baumann ed 137-179 Gambier Ohio : Public Affairs Conference Center Kenyon College Mueller John E. 1973 War, Presidents and Public Opinion New York : Wiley

PAGE 205

198 Munson, Henry Jr 1988 Islam and Revolution in the Middle East. New Haven, CN : Yale University Press Muravchik, Joshua 1992. Exporting Democracy : Fulfilling America s Destiny Washington, D C .: The AEI Press Nadelmann, Ethan A 1990 Global Prohibition Regimes : The Evolution ofNorms in International Society International Organization 44 : 479-526 Newman David M 2000 Sociology : Exploring the Architecture of Everyday Life. Thousand Oaks CA: Pine Forge Press Ninkovich, Frank 1999 The Wilsonian Century : U.S Foreign Policy since 1900 Chicago : University of Chicago Press Nisley Thomas J. 1999 "Presidential Decision-making and the Use of Force in the Gulf War : An Analysis Through Models Presented at the Southern Political Science Association Savannah November 3-7. Nixon, Richard 1971. Inaugural Address January 20 1969 Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States, 1969 Washington, D C .: Government Printing Office Ntxon, Richard 1990 Real Peace/ No More Vietnams. New York : Simon & Schuster Noel Alain and Jean-Philippe Therien 1995 From Domestic to International Justice : The Welfare State and Foreign Aid International Organization 49 : 523-553 Odell John S 1974 Correlates of U.S Military Assistance and Military Intervention ." In Testing Theories of Economic Imperialism S Rosen and J. Kurth eds 143161 Lexington, MA : Heath O'Donnell Guillermo Philip C. Schimitter and Laurence Whitehead 1986. Transitions from Authoritarian Rule : Prospects for Democracy 4 vols Baltimore Maryland : John Hopkins University Press Oldfield Duane M and Aaron Wildavsky 1991 "Reconsidering the Two Presidencies In The Two Presidencies : A Quarter Century Assessment. S Shull ed 181-190 Chicago : Nelson-Hall Publishers Onuf, Nicholas 1998 Constructivism : A User s Manual ." In International Relations in a Constructed World V Kuba'lkova', N Onuf and P Kowert eds 58-78 New York : M E. Sharpe

PAGE 206

199 Oren, Ido 1995 The Subjectivity of the 'Democratic Peace : Changing U S Perceptions of Imperial Germany International Security 20 : 147-184 Oren, Ido 1996 The Subjectivity of the Democratic Peace : Changing U.S Perceptions of Imperial Germany ." In Debating the Democratic Peace M Brown, S Lynn-Jones and S Miller eds 263-300 Cambridge, MA : MIT Press Owen, John M. 1994 "How Liberalism Produces Democratic Peace International Security 19 : 87-125 Owen, John 1996 How Liberalism Produces Democratic Peace." In Debating the Democratic Peace M Brown, S Lynn-Jones and S Miller eds 116-154 Cambridge MA : MIT Press Page Benjamin I and Robert Y. Shapiro 1992 The Rational Public : Fifty Years of Trends in Americas' Policy Preferences Chicago : University of Chicago Press Parsons Talcott 1966 Societies: Evolutionary and Comparative Perspectives Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prentice-Hall Inc Payne Richard J. 1995 The Clash with Distant Cultures : Values, Interests, and Force in American Foreign Policy Albany NY : State University of New York Press Pearson, Frederic S 1976 American Military Intervention Abroad : A Test of Economic and Noneconomic Explanations ." In The Politics of Aid, Trade and Investment. S Raichur and C. Liske eds. 37-62 New York : Sage Publications Peppers Donald A. 1991. The 'Two Presidencies" Thesis : Eight Years Later In The Two Presidencies : A Quarter Century Assessment. S Shull ed 26-35 Chicago : Nelson-Hall Publishers Perkins Bradford 1993 The Cambridge History of American Foreign Relations, Vol. I : The Creation of a Republican Empire, 1776-1865 New York : Cambridge University Press Perkinson, Henry J. 1990 Getting Better : Television and Moral Progress. London, UK : Transaction Publishers. Peterson, H. C and Gilbert C Fite 1957 Opponents ofWar, 1917-1918 Madison, WI : The University of Wisconsin Press

PAGE 207

200 Peterson, John H. 1976. Economic Interests and U.S Foreign policy in Latin America : An Empirical Approach ." In The Politics of Aid, Trade and Investment. S Raichur and C Liske eds 63-86 New York: Sage Publications Pettit Philip 1993 The Common Mind : An Essay on Psychology, Society, and Politics. New York : Oxford University Press Poe Steven. 1991 Human Rights and the Allocation of US Military Assistance ." Journal of Peace Research 28 : 205-216 Poe Steven and Rangsima Sirirangsi 1993 Human Rights and U S Economic Aid to Africa ." International Interactions 18 : 309-322 Poe Steven, et al. 1994 Human Rights and US Foreign Aid Revisited : The Latin American Region Human rights Quarterly 16 : 539-558 Price, Richard and Nina Tannenwald 1996 "Norms and Deterrence : The Nuclear and Chemical Weapons Taboo In The Culture of National Security P Katzenstein ed 114-143 New York : Columbia University Press. Przeworski Adam, Michael Alvarez, Jose Antonio Cheibub and Fernando Limongi 1996 What Makes Democracies Endure?" Journal of Democracy 7 : 39-55 Putnam, Robert D 1988 "Diplomacy and Domestic Politics : The Logic of Two-level Games International Organization. 42 : 427-61. Quadangno Jill 1992 "Social Movements and State Transformations : Labor Unions and Racial Conflict in The War on Poverty American Sociological Review 57 : 616-634 Ray James Lee 1989 "The Abolition of Slavery and the End of International War ." International Organization 43 : 405-439 Ray James Lee 1995 Democracy and International Conflict : An Evaluation of the Democratic Peace Proposition Columbia : University of South Carolina Press Reagan, Ronald 1982 "Inaugural Address January 20 1981." Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States, 1981. Washington, D C .: Government Printing Office. Reagan, Ronald 1982 "Excerpts From an Interview with Walter Cronkite of CBS News, March 3 1981." Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States, 1981. Washington, D C .: Government Printing Office

PAGE 208

201 Reagan, Ronald 1982 "Proclamation 4885 Bill of Rights Day Human Rights Da y and Week, December 4 1981." Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States, 1981. Washington, D C .: Government Printing Office. Reischauer Edwin 0 1970 Japan : The Story of a Nation 3rc1 edition. New York : Knoft. Renka Russell D and Bradford S Jones 1991. "The 'Two Presidencies in the Reagan and Bush Administrations In The Two Presidencies : A Quarter Century Assessment. S Shull ed 158-180 Chicago : Nelson-Hall Publishers Renwick, Neil. 2000 America s World Identity : The Politics of Exclusion New York : St. Martin's Press Riggs Robert E and Jack C Plano 1994 The United Nations : International Organizations and World Politics Belmont CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company Risjord Mark 1998 ''Norms and Explanation in the Social Sciences ." Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 29 : 223-237 Risse-Kappen, Thomas 1994 Masses and Leaders : Public Opinion, Domestic Structures and Foreign Policy ." In The New Politics of American Foreign Policy David A Deese ed 190-215 New York: St. Martin s Press. Robinson, William I. 1996 Promoting Polyarchy : Globalization, US Intervention and Hegemony Cambridge : Cambridge University Press Rockman, Bert A 1994 The New Institutionalism and the Old Institutions ." In Ne w Perspectives in American Politics L. Dodd and C Jillson ed 143-161. Washington, D C .: Congressional Quarterly Press Rosen, Stephen J. 1974 The Open Door Imperative and U.S Foreign Policy ." In Testing Theories of Economic Imperialism S Rosen and J. Kurth eds 1171 42 Lexington, MA : Heath Rosenau James N 1961. Public Opinion and Foreign Policy New York: Random House Roth Kathryn and Richard Sobel. "Chronology of Events and Public Opinion In Public Opinion in U.S Foreign Policy : The Controversy over Contra Aid R. Sobel ed 21-28 Lanham, MD : Rowman & Littlefield

PAGE 209

Rourke John 1983 Congress and the Presidency in U.S. Foreign Policymaking : A Study of Interaction and Influence, 1945-1982 Boulder CO : Westview Press Rourke Francis E 1993. The 1993 John Gaus Lecture : Whose Bureaucracy Is This Anyway? Congress the President and Public Administration 11 PS : Political Science and Politics. 26 : 687-691. 202 Rousseau, David L ., Christopher Gelpi Dan Reiter and Paul K. Huth 1996 Assessing the Dyadic Nature of the Democratic Peace 1918-1988 American Political Science Review 90 : 512-533 Rousseau Jean Jacques 1992 On the Social Contract or Principles of Political Right. In Classics of Moral and Political Theory M. Morgan ed. 913-987 Indianapolis IN : Hackett Publishing Company Rostow W W 1960 The Stages of Economic Growth : A Non-Communist Manifesto Cambridge Eng. : Cambridge University Press Royal Robert (ed) 1995 Reinventing The American People : Unity and Diversity Today Grand Rapids MI : William B. Eerdman's Publishing Company. Rueschemeyer Dietrich, Evelyne Huber Stephens, and John D Stephens 1992 Capitalist Development & Democracy Chicago : University of Chicago Press Ruggie John Gerard 1997 "The Past as Prologue? 11 International Security 21: 89-125 Ruggie John G 1998. Constructing the World Polity New York : Routledge Rumme~ R. J. 1983 "Libertarianism and International Violence ." Journal of Conflict Resolution 27 : 27-71. Rummel R. J. 1997 Power Kills : Democracy as a Method of Nonviolence New Brunswick J : Transaction Publishers Russett Bruce. 1993 Grasping the Democratic Peace : Principles for a Post-Cold War World Princeton, N J. : Princeton University Press Schafer, Mark 1999 Cooperative and Conflictual Policy Preferences : The Effect of Identity, Security and Image of the Other." Political Psychology 20 : 829-844 Schlesinger Arthur M Jr 1973 The Imperial Presidency Boston, MA : Houghton Mifflin

PAGE 210

Schmitt Eric 2001. "U.S Now More Diverse Ethnically and Racially New York Times April 1 p.20 203 Schmitz, David. 1999 Thank God They're on Our Side : The United States and Right Wing Dictatorships, 1921-1965 Chapel Hill NC : The University of North Carolina Press Schoultz Lars 1980 U.S Foreign Policy and Human Rights ." Comparative Politics 13 : 149-70 Schoultz, Lars. 1998 Beneath the United States : A History ofU. S Policy Toward Latin America. Cambridge MA : Harvard University Press Schubert Glendon Austin Jr 1954 Politics and the Constitution : The Bricker Amendment During 1953 The Journal of Politics 16 : 257-298 Schweller Randall 2000. "US Democracy Promotion : Realist Reflections In American Democracy Promotion : Impulses, Strategies, and Impacts M. Cox, G Ikenberry and T. Inoguchi eds 41-62 New York: Oxford University Press Scott James M. 1 997 "Interbranch Rivalry and the Reagan Doctrine in Nicaragua ." Political Science Quarterly 112 : 237-260 Shogan, Robert 1985 "Both Parties See An Opportunity ; Apartheid Generates Hea t as Political Issue in U.S Los Angeles Times September 16 p l. Shultz George 1984 "Human Rights and the Moral Dimension of U.S Foreign Policy Current Policy 551 : 4 Shultz, George 1986 Nicaragua : Will Democracy Prevail? Statement before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee February 27 1986 Department of State Bulletin April : 39 Sikkink Kathryn 1 993 The Power of Principled Ideas : Human Rights Policies in the United States and Western Europe ." In Ideas and Foreign Policy J. Goldstein and R. Keohane eds 139-170 Ithaca NY : Cornell University Press Simpson, Christopher 1995 National Security Directives of the Reagan and Bush Administration : The Declassified History of U.S Political and Military Policy, 1981-1991. Boulder CO : Westview Press Skidmore Thomas E and Peter H Smith 1992 Modem Latin America New York: Oxford Uni v ersity Press

PAGE 211

204 Skocpol Theda 1992 Protecting Soldiers and Mothers : The Political Origins of Social Policy in the United States Cambridge MA : Harvard University Press Small Melvin 1991 Public Opinion ." In Explaining the History of American Foreign Relations M Hogan and T Patterson eds 165-176 New York : Cambridge University Press Smith, Alastair 1996 Diversionary Foreign Policy In Democratic Systems International Studies Quarterly 40 : 133-153 Smith Tony 1994 America s Mission : The United States and the World wide Struggle for Democracy in the Twentieth Century Princeton, NJ: Twentieth Century Fund Book. Snow Donald M and Eugene Brown 1997 Beyond the Water s Edge : An Introduction to U.S Foreign Policy New York : St. Martin s Press Sobel Richard 1993 "Public Opinion about U S Intervention in Nicaragua : A polling Addendum u In Public Opinion in U.S. Foreign Policy : The Controversy over Contra Aid R. Sobel ed 59-70 Lanham, MD : Rowman & Littlefield Sobel Richard 1995 "Contra Aid Fundamentals : Exploring the Intricacies and the Issues Political Science Quarterly 110 : 287-306 Spanier John 1992 American Foreign Policy Since World War II 12 th edition revised Washington, D C .: CQ Press Stewart Joseph 1991. "Policy Models and Equal Education Opportunity PS : Political Science and Politics 24 : 167-173 Storrs, K. Larry and Nina Serafino 1993 "The Reagan Administration s Efforts to Gain Support for Contra Aid In Public Opinion in U.S. Foreign Policy : The Controversy over Contra Aid R. Sobel ed 123-150 Lanham, MD : Rowman & Littlefield Tajfel, Henri 1959 Quantitative Judgement in Social Perception. British Journal of Psychology 50 : 16-29 Tajfel, Henri (ed ) 1978 Differentiation Between Social Groups London : Academic Press Tajfel Henri (ed ) 1982 Social Identity and Intergroup Relations Cambridge : Cambridge University Press

PAGE 212

205 Tajfel Henri and John C Turner 1979 An Integrative Theory of Intergroup Conflict In The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations. W G. Austin and S Worchel eds 33-47 Monterey CA: Brooks-Cole Talbott Strobe 1996 "Democracy and the National Interest." Foreign Affairs 75 (6) : 47-63 Tarrow Sidney 1994 Power in Movement: Social Movements, Collective Action and Politics Cambridge : Cambridge University Press. Truman, Harry S 1964 Inaugural Address January 20 1949." Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States, 1949 Washington, D.C .: Government Printing Office Temperley Howard 1977 "Capitalism Slavery and Ideology." Past and Present. 75 : 94-118 Thomas Hugh 1997 The Slave Trade: The Story of the Atlantic Slave Trade, 14401870. New York : Simon & Schuster Thucydides 1903 History of the Peloponnesian War trans Rex Warner. Baltimore MD : Penguin Books Turner Frederick Jackson 1947 The Frontier in American History New York : Henry Holt and Company Turner, John C 1982 "Towards a Cognitive Redefinition of the Social Group ." In Social Identity and Intergroup Relations H. Tajfel. Cambridge ed 15-40 Cambridge University Press Turner John C 1985 "Social Categorization and the Self-Concept: A Social Cognitive Theory of Group Behavior." In Advances in Group Process : Theory and Research Vol. 2. Greenwich, CT : JAi Press. Pp 77-122 Turner John C and Howard Giles ( ed) 1981. Intergroup Behavior. Chicago : University of Chicago Press U.S. Senate 1953 Senate Report 412 Washington, D C .: Government Printing Office Van Dyke Vernon 1970. Human Rights, the United States, and World Community New York : Oxford University Press Walt Stephen 1987 The Origins of Alliances Ithaca NY : Cornell University Press

PAGE 213

206 Waltz Kenneth 1979 Theory of International Politics Reading, MA : Addison Wesley Wendt Alexander 1996 Identity and Structural Change in International Politics ," In The Return of Culture and Identity in IR Theory Y. Lapid and F Kratochwil eds 47-64 Boulder CO : Lynne Rienner Wendt, Alexander 1999 Social Theory of International Politics Cambridge GB : Cambridge University Press White Theodore H. 1982 America in Search ofltself : The Making of the President. New York : Harper & Row Wittkopf Eugene R 1981. "The Structure of Foreign Policy Attitudes : An Alternative View Social Science Quarterly 62 : 108-23 Wiarda, Howard J. 1996 American Foreign Policy : Actors and Processes. New York : HarperCollins Wiarda Howard J. and Michael J. Kryzanek. 1992 The Dominican Republic : A Caribbean Crucible Boulder CO: Westview Press Wildavsky, Arron, 1991. "The Two Presidencies." In The Two Presidencies : A Quarter Century Assessment. S. Shull ed 11-25 Chicago : Nelson-Hall Publishers Wilson, Larman C 1983 "Human Rights in United States Foreign Policy : The Rhetoric and the Practice In Interaction : Foreign Policy and Public Policy D Piper and R Terchek eds 178-208 Washington D C : American Enterprise Institute Zaller John R 1992 The ature and Origins of Mass Opinion New York : Cambridge University Press

PAGE 214

207 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Thomas Nisley completed his undergraduate studies at Christopher Newport College in Newport News Virginia After graduating with departmental honors in Criminal Justice Administration, Thomas joined the United States Peace Corps He served as a Peace Corps Volunteer in the Dominican Republic from 1989 to 1991 Assigned to a small rural village called Vallejuelo he worked in reforestation projects with the Dominican Secretary of Agriculture developed a demonstration vegetable garden program, and organized a community youth group that conducted community i mprovement projects Following his Peace Corps service he entered graduate studies at Old Dominion University where he earned an M A. in International Studies in 1993 After teaching for a year as a substitute High School Spanish teacher Thomas accepted a position at his alma mater Christopher Newport He held the position oflnstructor in Government and Public Affairs :from 1994 to 1996 In 1996 Thomas Nisley began his doctoral studies in political science at the University of Florida His primary field of study is International Relations and his secondary field is American Government. He has presented papers at many academic conferences and has published an article in the Political C hronicle

PAGE 215

I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate in scope and qual i ty as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Asso Professor of Political Science M L~ Brown, Chair I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms t o acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate in scope and qua li ty as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philo~sop y ---: I~di:o-;O~e==n===:::::::===::: 5 s----Assistant Professor of Political Science I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy 1=~ htc~ Terry McCoy Professor of Latin American Studies and Political Science I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate in scope and quality as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Richard Conley Assistant Professor of Political Science I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate in scope and quality as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Robert McMahon Professor of History

PAGE 216

This dissertation was submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Department of Political Science in the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences and to the Graduate School and was accepted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy August 2002 Dean, Graduate School

PAGE 217

J LO 1780 20 ....... Q~. r01 5 UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA \\ 1 11 \111\ 1 1111 1 \ \\ I \\ \ I \\\ I \ 1 11 1 111 1 1 1 111 1 111 1 1\ I \\\ 1\ 1 1 \\ I \\\ I 3 1262 08557 1866