Advertisement

The Domestic Setting of American Approaches to Europe

  • Daniel S. Hamilton
Chapter
  • 682 Downloads
Part of the Palgrave Studies in European Union Politics book series (PSEUP)

Abstract

Hamilton’s chapter reviews four American historical-ideational traditions that have significantly influenced the conduct of US foreign policy and influenced American attitudes towards Europe and the world. Avoiding simplistic liberal-conservative or internationalist-isolationist explanations, he considers the deeper American domestic roots and traditions that inform and guide US foreign policy. The chapter also surveys American public and elite attitudes towards Europe. While each of these movements approaches Europe from very different perspectives, US public and leadership opinion has tended to coalesce around a core set of American interests and values that will continue to inform US approaches to Europe in the twenty-first century.

Keywords

US foreign policy US public and elite opinion Transatlantic relations 

References

  1. Adams, J. Q. (1821). Speech before the U.S. House of Representatives in honor of Independence Day in 1821. http://www.uiowa.edu/~c030162/Common/Handouts/Other/JQ-ADAMS.html
  2. Baime, A. J. (2014). The arsenal of democracy: FDR, Detroit, and an epic quest to arm an America at war. New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.Google Scholar
  3. Barnett, R. (1983). The alliance: America, Europe, Japan, makers of the postwar world. New York: Simon and Shuster.Google Scholar
  4. Bell, D. (1989). ‘American exceptionalism’ revisited: The role of civil society. The Public Interest, 95, 38–56.Google Scholar
  5. Corwin, E. S. (1984). The president. Office and powers 1787–1984. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Fisher, D. H. (1989). Albion’s seed: Four British folkways in America. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Gould, J. (1940). The Broadway stage has its first war play. New York Times.Google Scholar
  8. Hamilton, D. S., & Foster, N. (2009). The Obama administration and Europe. In A. de Vasconcelos & M. Zaborowski (Eds.), The Obama moment: European and American perspectives. Paris: EU ISS.Google Scholar
  9. Herman, A. (2013). The arsenal of democracy: How Detroit turned industrial might into military power during World War II. The Detroit News. http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20130103/OPINION01/301030336
  10. Houston, H. (1918). Blocking new wars. The Furniture Worker, p. 364.Google Scholar
  11. Ignatieff, M. (2003, January 5). The burden. New York Times Magazine. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/05/magazine/05EMPIRE.html?pagewanted=all
  12. Ikenberry, G. J. (2012). Liberal Leviathan: The origins, crisis, and transformation of the American world order. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Kissinger, H. (1994). Diplomacy. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
  14. Kloppenberg, J. T. (2011). Reading Obama: Dreams, hope, and the American political tradition. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Lepgold, J., & McKeown, T. (1995). Is American foreign policy exceptional? An empirical analysis. Political Science Quarterly, 110(3), 369–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lind, M. (2007). The US foreign-policy future: A progressive-realist union? http://www.opendemocracy.net/article/democracy_power/US_world/US_foreign_policy
  17. Mead, W. R. (2002). Special providence: American foreign policy and how it changed the world. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  18. Mead, W. R. (2011). The Tea Party and American foreign policy. What populism means for globalism. Foreign Affairs, 90(3). https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2011-03-01/tea-party-and-american-foreign-policy
  19. Simmons, K., Stokes, B., & Poushter, J. (2015, June 10). NATO publics blame Russia for Ukrainian crisis, but reluctant to provide military aid. Pew Research Center. http://www.pewglobal.org/2015/06/10/nato-publics-blame-russia-for-ukrainian-crisis-but-reluctant-to-provide-military-aid/
  20. Smeltz, D., Busby, J., Holyk, G., Kafura, C., Monten, J., & Tama, J. (2015). United in goals, divided on means. Opinion leaders survey results and partisan breakdowns from the 2014 Chicago Council survey of American opinion on US foreign policy. Chicago: Chicago Council on Global Affairs.Google Scholar
  21. Smeltz, D., Daalder, I., Friedhoff, K., & Kafura, C. (2015). America divided: Political partisanship and US foreign policy. Results of the 2015 Chicago Council survey of American public opinion and US foreign policy. Chicago: Chicago Council on Global Affairs.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniel S. Hamilton
    • 1
  1. 1.Center for Transatlantic Relations, Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International StudiesJohns Hopkins UniversityWashingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations