Stuck on the Left with You: The Limits of Partisanship in US Foreign Policy

IF 2.2 2区 社会学 Q1 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS Security Studies Pub Date : 2023-03-15 DOI:10.1080/09636412.2023.2200971
Emma Ashford
{"title":"Stuck on the Left with You: The Limits of Partisanship in US Foreign Policy","authors":"Emma Ashford","doi":"10.1080/09636412.2023.2200971","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Van Jackson’s “Left of Liberal Internationalism” is a wonderfully clear effort to construct an intellectual scaffolding around the various forms of progressive thinking on foreign policy. This kind of exercise is valuable, as policy-relevant battles about US foreign policy typically take place in disparate venues and media: speeches, panels, magazines, and even across social media; this makes it difficult to build a comprehensive picture of how America’s major political parties are evolving on foreign policy over time. And while similar studies have been done in the past, particularly on the varieties of conservative foreign policy found in the Republican Party,1 Jackson’s article is the first to really explore the increasingly influential progressive wing of the Democratic Party in the context of foreign policy. Likewise, the article does a service in translating often-quixotic political debates over foreign policy into more scholarly language and concepts, allowing researchers to better situate these emerging debates in the canon of existing grand strategic debates.2 Even as an active participant in the policy debates over US foreign policy,3 I found Jackson’s article to be extremely helpful in clearly delineating the different arguments within the progressive movement, outlining how far debate has come, and showing where it still needs progress. With that in mind, however, I think the","PeriodicalId":47478,"journal":{"name":"Security Studies","volume":"32 1","pages":"382 - 388"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Security Studies","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09636412.2023.2200971","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Van Jackson’s “Left of Liberal Internationalism” is a wonderfully clear effort to construct an intellectual scaffolding around the various forms of progressive thinking on foreign policy. This kind of exercise is valuable, as policy-relevant battles about US foreign policy typically take place in disparate venues and media: speeches, panels, magazines, and even across social media; this makes it difficult to build a comprehensive picture of how America’s major political parties are evolving on foreign policy over time. And while similar studies have been done in the past, particularly on the varieties of conservative foreign policy found in the Republican Party,1 Jackson’s article is the first to really explore the increasingly influential progressive wing of the Democratic Party in the context of foreign policy. Likewise, the article does a service in translating often-quixotic political debates over foreign policy into more scholarly language and concepts, allowing researchers to better situate these emerging debates in the canon of existing grand strategic debates.2 Even as an active participant in the policy debates over US foreign policy,3 I found Jackson’s article to be extremely helpful in clearly delineating the different arguments within the progressive movement, outlining how far debate has come, and showing where it still needs progress. With that in mind, however, I think the
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
与你一起被困在左翼:美国外交政策中的党派界限
范·杰克逊的《自由国际主义左派》是一部非常清晰的作品,旨在围绕外交政策上各种形式的进步思想构建一个知识框架。这种演习很有价值,因为与美国外交政策相关的战斗通常发生在不同的场所和媒体上:演讲、小组讨论、杂志,甚至社交媒体;这使得我们很难全面了解美国主要政党在外交政策上的演变。尽管过去也进行过类似的研究,特别是对共和党保守派外交政策的各种研究,1杰克逊的文章是第一篇真正探讨外交政策背景下民主党越来越有影响力的进步派的文章。同样,这篇文章也有助于将关于外交政策的经常不切实际的政治辩论转化为更具学术性的语言和概念,使研究人员能够更好地将这些新兴的辩论置于现有大战略辩论的经典中。2即使是美国外交政策政策辩论的积极参与者,3我发现杰克逊的文章非常有助于清楚地描述进步运动中的不同论点,概述辩论已经走了多远,并表明它还需要进步。然而,考虑到这一点,我认为
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Security Studies
Security Studies INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS-
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
16.70%
发文量
27
期刊介绍: Security Studies publishes innovative scholarly manuscripts that make a significant contribution – whether theoretical, empirical, or both – to our understanding of international security. Studies that do not emphasize the causes and consequences of war or the sources and conditions of peace fall outside the journal’s domain. Security Studies features articles that develop, test, and debate theories of international security – that is, articles that address an important research question, display innovation in research, contribute in a novel way to a body of knowledge, and (as appropriate) demonstrate theoretical development with state-of-the art use of appropriate methodological tools. While we encourage authors to discuss the policy implications of their work, articles that are primarily policy-oriented do not fit the journal’s mission. The journal publishes articles that challenge the conventional wisdom in the area of international security studies. Security Studies includes a wide range of topics ranging from nuclear proliferation and deterrence, civil-military relations, strategic culture, ethnic conflicts and their resolution, epidemics and national security, democracy and foreign-policy decision making, developments in qualitative and multi-method research, and the future of security studies.
期刊最新文献
Buying Survival: Why Do Leaders Hire Mercenaries? The Market for Foreign Bases Is multi-method research more convincing than single-method research? An analysis of International Relations journal articles, 1980–2018 International Security and Black Politics: A Biographical Note Toward an Institutional Critique How Central is Race to International Relations?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1