Power, Politics & Persuasion in Foreign Policy Decision

WHO ADVISES? POWER, POLITICS & PERSUASION IN FOREIGN POLICY DECISION-MAKING DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Brent A. Strathman, B.A., M.A. ***** The Ohio State University 2005 Dissertation Committee: Approved by Associate Professor Donald Sylvan, Adviser Professor Richard K. Herrmann ___________________________ Professor Kathleen McGraw Adviser Graduate Program in Political Science ABSTRACT In a complex foreign policy system, involving myriad bureaucracies, advisors, and political entrepreneurs, who advises? What advice is heeded, and which advisor is followed? While most scholars tacitly acknowledge the importance of advisors in international relations, few attempt to answer the question of how advisors impact the decision making process, and the limits to successful advising. Importantly, the question of ‘who advises?’ is often crucial in explaining war and peace, since advisors often impact leader opinions and dictate the course of foreign policy. My dissertation blends insights from psychology and foreign policy to create a comprehensive framework describing foreign policy advising. In my framework, advisors compete against each other in a ‘marketplace of ideas.’ Successful advisors are those who draw from four bases of power (access, expertise, experience, and rhetoric) to posit salient appeals. However, these appeals are constrained by leader dispositions (such as militant assertiveness and political knowledge) and the strategic situation (the foreign policy problem a decision maker faces). I construct a set of hypotheses that combines bases of power, leader predispositions, strategic situation, and advisory technique to predict when advisors matter. I use experiments and comparative case studies to empirically explore these hypotheses. Experiments engage the psychological dimension of advising by exploring the impact of advice across personality types. Insights from the experiment are combined with the theoretical model, and applied to four cases of Presidential decision-making: the ii capture of the USS Pueblo, the capture of the USS Mayaguez, the decision to send troops to Lebanon, and the decision to not send troops to Rwanda. I trace the decision-making process using primary and secondary sources, and discover the influence wielded by Presidential advisors. Results suggest important paradoxes; for example, Presidents often ignore the advice of their expert military advisors. My dissertation is the first systematic study of advisory influence in Presidential decision-making, drawing from numerous fields of inquiry to construct a novel framework to examine foreign policy. Initial findings suggest new, counterintuitive hypotheses for future study. iii Dedicated to Biddy & Peanut iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Studying political science was an accident for me. As a wide-eyed undergraduate at the University of Kansas, I studied physics and astronomy; the study of politics was a hobby of mine, an amusement. If a roommate had not convinced me to take a comparative politics course to fulfill a GEC requirement (though the probable reason was to meet female undergraduates – a rare commodity in the science curriculum), I would not have discovered the intellectual pursuit of politics. What a long, strange trip it has been. Like many others, this dissertation was not a lonely enterprise, but a product of generous help and advice. Without the introduction to the discipline I received at Kansas, the initial enthusiasm would have been subsumed by secondary pursuits. Scholars – such as Paul D’Anieri, Ryan Beasley, Juliet Kaarbo, and Leonardo Villalon – piqued my interest, providing background and encouragement. At Ohio State, a number of graduate student colleagues provided thoughts, comments, suggestions, and often a partner at the bar. I thank Ray Block, Eileen Braman, Paul Fritz, Natalie Kistner, Greg Miller, and Kevin Sweeney for their insight, wit, and fellowship. Further, the input and suggestions of the dissertation committee immeasurably improved the text. Kathleen McGraw provided sorely needed advice on data analysis and interpretations of the experimental data. Indeed, without her help, the experimental chapter would continue to be a warren of analyses without a consistent focus. More v generally, Richard Herrmann’s insight and commentary throughout the project centered the theoretical and empirical analysis of the project. Again, without Rick’s suggestions and input, the following text would be incomplete and rife with errors. I want to give a special thanks to my chair, Don Sylvan. I first met Don during graduate school recruitment. After the initial pleasantries were exchanged, our conversation quickly devolved to more important matters – college basketball and the Cubs. I knew from that moment Ohio State was the place for me. Don has been a constant inspiration and font of insight and advice throughout my graduate career. Without his patience and understanding, this project would not be in its finished form today. Finally, I want to thank my family for their support and encouragement. A running joke in the Strathman family is to call me ‘Doctor.’ Of course, the unstated subtext of the ribbing focused on the mismatch between the status of the title, and the unfinished nature of the dissertation. The joke is (finally) on them. vi VITA February 25, 1975 . .Born – Seneca, Kansas 1998 . .B.A. Political Science & Astronomy University of Kansas 2000 . .M.A. Political Science University of Kansas 2003 . .M.A. Political Science The Ohio State University 2000 - present . Graduate Teaching & Research Assistant Department of Political Science The Ohio State University PUBLICATIONS 1. Don Sylvan and Brent Strathman, “Political Psychology and the Study of Foreign Policy Decision Making” in The State of Research in Political Psychology at the Dawn of a New Century, Linda O. Valenty,ed. Opladen, Germany : Leske and Budrich, 2004. FIELDS OF STUDY Major Field: Political Science Minor Fields: International Relations, Political Psychology vii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Abstract .…………………………………………………………………………………..ii Dedication .……………………………………………………………………………….iv Acknowledgments ……………………………………………………………………….vi Vita ……………………………………………………………………………………...vii List of Tables …………………………………………………………………………….xi Chapters: 1. Who Advises? Dynamics of the Inner Circle ..................................................... 1 1.1 Introduction ................................................................................................... 1 1.2 The Advisory System .................................................................................... 4 1.3 The Political Advisor .................................................................................... 9 1.4 Plan of the Dissertation .................................................................................14 2. A Theoretical Framework of Advising ................................................................20 2.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................20 2.2 Politics & Structure of the Foreign Policy Hierarchy ...................................24 2.3 Power ............................................................................................................32 2.4 Persuasion .....................................................................................................41 2.4.1 Bureaucratic Politics ......................................................................43 2.4.2 Cognitive Representation Approach ..............................................46 2.4.3 Bargaining, or Strategic Signaling .................................................51 2.4.4 Access ............................................................................................52 2.5 A Framework of Advisory Influence ............................................................53 2.6 Methodology .................................................................................................60 2.7 Conclusion ....................................................................................................64 3. The Psychology of Persuasion & Limits to Advice .............................................72 3.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................72 3.2 Leader Dispositions and Decision Making ...................................................74 3.2.1 Completeness of the Mental Image ................................................78 3.2.2 Content of the Mental Picture & Content of the prescription ........79 3.2.3 Advisory Strategies ........................................................................81 3.2.4 Control variable: the motivation to process information ...............84 3.3 Experimental Protocol and Hypotheses ........................................................86 viii 3.3.1 Method ...........................................................................................86 3.3.2 Procedures ......................................................................................86 3.3.3 Measurement of the Dependent Variable ......................................87 3.3.4 Hypotheses .....................................................................................88 3.3.4.1 Invoking expertise ...........................................................88 3.3.4.2 Simplification & embellishment .....................................90

Load more