COURSE SYLLABUS

U.S. Politics and Foreign Policy in the 21st Century

Central European University Fall 2016 4 Credits (8 ECTS Credits)

Co-Instructors

Erin Jenne, PhD Associate Professor, IRES Dept.

Levente Littvay, PhD Assistant Professor, Political Science Dept.

Course Description

While most courses focus on either the domestic or the foreign policy aspect of U.S. politics, our starting assumption is that it is impossible to have a sound grasp of either without also taking the other into account. By integrating domestic politics and foreign policy, the course seeks to achieve a more holistic understanding of America’s role in the world since the end of the Cold War, while plotting out its future trajectories - with a special focus on the outcome of the 2012 U.S. presidential election. With this in mind, this course is divided into three main parts. We begin with a brief review of the different traditions or schools of thought concerning American foreign policy. We then go into America’s political institutions on the domestic level—focusing in particular on the major institutional debates (federalism versus states’ rights; separation of powers within the American government) as well as the major Supreme Court cases that have shaped U.S. politics over the course of its history. The second (largest) part examines how U.S. politics plays out in elections and voter choice, political participation, electoral irregularities, political parties, and election campaigning. We also look at the broader context of U.S. domestic politics, including religion and culture; economic inequality; race, gender, and age; and changing American demographics—we examine how these features of society have changed moving into the 21st Century and with what impact on the political landscape. The final seminar will be spent reflecting on what all of these elements (both those that have changed and those that remain the same) mean for the future of U.S. politics and America’s role in global politics. Students are encouraged to reflect on the extent to which, and why (or why not), the U.S. stands apart from previous (and future) global hegemons in its politics and foreign policy. Throughout, the course will emphasize the backward and forward linkages between U.S. domestic politics and foreign policy, highlighting the ways in which these shape the outcome of this very important event for the U.S. society and the world at large.

Aims

1

The course’s main aim is to provide students with a sound understanding of: 1. The main political debates that animate contemporary U.S. politics and foreign policy; 2. The main theoretical frameworks in social science used to explain U.S. politics and foreign policy; 3. How to test these competing explanations using evidence; 4. The policy ramifications of these different explanations; 5. The principal trends in U.S. politics and foreign policy.

Learning Outcomes

By the end of this course, students will be able to:  Make reasoned and informed arguments about events in U.S. politics and foreign policy and critically evaluate them;  Distinguish between political debates and social science debates concerning U.S. politics and foreign policy;  Identify what is unique about American politics versus what is common to all major countries or great powers;  Make an informed estimate of future trends in U.S. politics and/or foreign policy based on existing theories and evidence;  Argue convincingly for different sides of each major political debate in U.S. politics;  Identify interconnections between U.S. politics and foreign policy;  Conduct informed political analysis of U.S. elections and discuss the impact of elections on U.S. domestic and foreign policy;  Evaluate the relative effects of public opinion, demographic trends, geopolitical pressures, the media, and special interests and/or campaign finance on U.S. domestic and foreign policy.

Course Requirements:

Team Projects (40%). Details TBA.

Final Exam (40%). At the end of the course, there will be a final exam that tests students on their understanding of the topics, theories, and debates discussed in class. It will not test the students’ skills in rote memorization, but rather broad theories, ideas and problems facing the U.S. in the 21st century in both domestic and foreign policy. Therefore, the exam will be made up of two essay questions, weighted equally, asking broad questions that students will be asked to reflect on

2 critically, make an argument, and integrate the readings and theories from class into their answer. The exam is intended to take one hour and forty minutes, but students will be allowed extra time to finish the exam should they require it. Class Participation (20% ). This is a small graduate seminar that is intended to be highly interactive. Students will be expected to attend all the seminars and contribute to (without dominating) class discussions. Throughout the semester, students are strongly encouraged to attend, wherever possible, a series of films (held in the evenings on Thursday or Friday) that relate to contemporary U.S. politics and foreign policy. In the event that attendance is not possible, students are asked to view the films or debates on their own time. Throughout the course, students will be expected to read online newspapers and other sources so as to keep up with current events that relate to U.S. politics and foreign policy, with a particular focus on the upcoming presidential election in November. Good sources include , Financial Times, , The Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, The Chicago Sun-Times, The Boston Globe, The Guardian, The Independent, and others. Additional sources (including both right and left) include Harper’s, Mother Jones, The Nation, The New Republic, The American Spectator, The American Prospect, Foreign Policy, Foreign Affairs, The National Interest, Policy Review, The Cato Journal, , and The Weekly Standard. (V/B)logs include The Huffington Post, Daily Kos, The Red State, Newsmax, Crooks and Liars, Democracy Now, and Media Matters. See OpenSecrets.org and Source Watch for information on campaign finance and lobby dollars. FactCheck.org is particularly useful in assessing the truth of claims by politicians and pundits on either side of the aisle. Nate Silver’s fivethirtyeight blog on the New York Times website offers invaluable polling data on upcoming elections.

Before the first course

 Read the Declaration of Independence. Available at: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html;  Read Peltason, J. W. 2004. About America: The Constitution of the of America with Explanatory Notes. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of State, Bureau of International Information Programs. Available at: http://photos.state.gov/libraries/amgov/30145/publications-english/constitution.pdf (Skip pages 19-43);  Read the Federalist Papers #10, #39, #51, #64, #69, #75. Available at: http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fedpapers.html;  Review the basics of the following court cases: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0101289.html;

3 COURSE SCHEDULE

AMERICAN POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS

Historical Background (Week 1)

September 20, Tuesday ORIGINS AND THEMES OF AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY (Erin K. Jenne)

Mandatory readings: US Constitution (specifically Articles I:7-10; II:2-3, III:2, VI). The Federalist Papers, #64 (The Powers of the Senate, by John Jay), #69 (The Real Character of the Executive, by Alexander Hamilton), #75 (The Treaty Making Power of the Executive, by Alexander Hamilton).1 U.S. National Security Strategy, 2015.

Optional readings: Mead, Walter Russell. 1999/2000. “The Jacksonian Tradition and American Foreign Policy.” The National Interest 58: 5-29. Mead, Walter Russell. 2011. “The Tea Party and American Foreign Policy.” Foreign Affairs 90(2): 28-44. Nau, Henry R. 2008. “Conservative Internationalism: Jefferson to Polk to Truman to Reagan.” Policy Review 150(July 30).

September 22, Thursday ORIGINS AND THEMES OF AMERICAN POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS (Levente Littvay)

Mandatory readings: US Constitution (all of it, including the amendments). Federalist Papers #10 (The Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection, by James Madison), #39 (The Conformity of the Plan to Republican Principles, by James Madison), and #51(The Structure of the Government Must Furnish the Proper Checks and Balances Between the Different Departments, by Alexander Hamilton or James Madison). Watts, Ronald L. 1998. “Federalism, Federal Political Systems, and Federations.” Annual Review of Political Science 1: 117-137.

1 http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fedpapers.html

4 Barnes, Jeb. 2007. “Bringing the Courts Back In: Interbranch Perspectives on the Role of Courts in American Politics and Policy Making.” Annual Review of Political Science 10: 25-43.

Optional readings: Hartz, Louis. 1955. The Liberal Tradition in America: An Interpretation of American Political Thought since the Revolution. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Chapter 1. [CEU Library Call Number: 320.5/109/73 HAR; will be placed on reserve for the class] Smith, Rogers M. 1988. “The ‘American Creed’ and American Identity: The Limits of Liberal Citizenship in the United States.” Western Political Quarterly 41(2): 225-251. Smith, Rogers M. 1993. “Beyond Tocqueville, Myrdal and Hartz: The Multiple Traditions in America.” American Political Science Review 87(3): 549-565.

INSTITUTIONS, POLITICAL CLEAVAGES, AND ELECTIONS

Political Parties and Voter Realignment (Week 2)

September 27, Tuesday POLITICAL PARTIES TODAY (Levente Littvay)

Mandatory readings: Hayes, Danny, and Seth C. McKee. 2008. “Toward a One-Party South?” American Politics Research 36(1): 3-32. McKee, Seth C. 2008. “Rural Voters and the Polarization of American Presidential Elections.” PS: Political Science & Politics 41(1): 101-108. Jones, Bradford and Danielle Joesten Martin (2016) “Path-to-Citizenship or Deportation? How Elite Cues Shaped Opinion on Immigration in the 2010 U.S. House Elections” Political Behavior July 8. 2016 prerelease

Optional readings: Mayhew, David R. 2000. “Electoral Realignments.” Annual Review of Political Science 3: 449-474. Saunders, Kyle L., and Alan I. Abramowitz. 2004. “Ideological Realignment and Active Partisans in the American Electorate.” American Politics Research 32(3): 285-309. Merrill III, Samuel, Bernard Grofman, and Thomas L. Brunell. 2008. “Cycles in American National Electoral Politics, 1854-2006: Statistical Evidence and an Explanatory Model.” American Political Science Review 102(1): 1-17.

5 Caraley, Demetrios James. 2009. “Three Trends Over Eight Presidential Elections, 1980-2008: Toward the Emergence of a Democratic Majority Realignment?” Political Science Quarterly 124(3): 423-442.

September 29, Thursday RACE, GENDER, AND DEMOGRAPHICS IN AMERICAN POLITICS (Levente Littvay)

Mandatory readings: Mariani , Mack, Bryan W. Marshall, and A. Lanethea Mathews-Schultz (2015) “See , Nancy Pelosi, and Sarah Palin Run? Party, Ideology, and the Influence of Female Role Models on Young Women” Political Research Quarterly, September 22, 2015, Prerelease Moss-Racusin, Corinne, Julie Phelan, and Laurie Rudman. 2010. “’I’m Not Prejudiced, but . . .’: Compensatory Egalitarianism in the 2008 Democratic Presidential Primary.” Political Psychology 31(4): 543–561. Fisher, Patrick. 2008. “Is There an Emerging Age Gap in US Politics?” Society 45(6): 504-511.

Optional readings: Lewis-Beck, Michael S., and Charles Tien. 2009. “Race Blunts the Economic Effect? The 2008 Obama Forecast.” PS: Political Science & Politics 42(1): 21-21. Campbell, Angus, Philip E. Converse, Warren E. Miller, and Donald E. Stokes. 1980[1960]. The American Voter. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. [CEU Library Call Number: 324./9/73 CAM; will be placed on reserve for the class] Lewis-Beck, Michael S., William G. Jacoby, Helmut Norpoth, and Herbert F. Weisberg (eds). 2008. The American Voter Revisited. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. [CEU Library Call Number: 324./9/73 LEW; will be placed on reserve for the class] Bartels, Larry M. 2000. “Partisanship and Voting Behavior, 1952-1996.” American Journal of Political Science 44(1): 35-50.

6 Campaigns and Political Participation (Week 3)

October 4, Tuesday MEDIA AND CAMPAIGNS (Levente Littvay)

Mandatory readings: Lau, Richard R., and Ivy Brown Rovner. 2009. “Negative Campaigning.” Annual Review of Political Science 12: 285-306. Mutz, Diana C. 2007. “Effects of ‘In-Your-Face’ Television Discourse on Perceptions of a Legitimate Opposition.” American Political Science Review 101(4): 621-635. Prior, Markus (2013) “Media and Political Polarization” Annual Review of Political Science 16:101- 127

Optional readings: Stolle, Dietlind, and Elisabeth Gidengil. 2010. “What do Women Really Know? A Gendered Analysis of Varieties of Political Knowledge.” Perspectives on Politics 8(1): 93-109.

October 6, Thursday POLITICAL PARTICIPATION AND VOTING (Levente Littvay)

Mandatory readings: Fisher, Dana R. 2012. “Youth Political Participation: Bridging Activism and Electoral Politics.” Annual Review of Sociology 38: 119-137. Grofman, Bernard. 2004. “Downs and Two-Party Convergence.” Annual Review of Political Science 7: 25-46. Rogowski, Jon C. (2014) “Electoral Choice, Ideological Conflict, and Political Participation” American Journal of Political Science 58:2 479-494

Optional readings: Pateman, Carole. 2012. “Participatory Democracy Revisited - American Political Science Association 2011 Presidential Address.” Perspectives on Politics 10(1): 7-19. Gronke, Paul, Eva Galanes-Rosenbaum, and Peter A. Miller. 2007. “Symposium: Early Voting and Turnout.” PS: Political Science & Politics 40(4): 639-645. Addonizio, Elizabeth M., Donald P. Green, and James M. Glaser. 2007. “Putting the Party Back into Politics: An Experiment Testing Whether Election Day Festivals Increase Voter Turnout.” PS: Political Science & Politics 40(4): 721-727.

7 Gerber, Alan S., and Donald P. Green. 2000. “The Effects of Canvassing, Telephone Calls, and Direct Mail on Voter Turnout: A Field Experiment.” American Political Science Review 94(3): 653- 663.

Congress and Elections (Week 4)

October 11, Tuesday Voter Disenfranchisement (Levente Littvay)

Mandatory readings: Katzenstein, Mary Fainsod, Leila Mohsen Ibrahim, and Katherine D. Rubin. 2010. “The Dark Side of American Liberalism and Felony Disenfranchisement.” Perspectives on Politics 8(4): 1035-1054. Wilson, David C. and Paul R. Brewer (2013) “The Foundations of Public Opinion on Voter ID Laws. Political Predispositions, Racial Resentment, and Information Effects” Public Opinion Quarterly 77(4): 962-984. Rocha, Rene R. and Tetsuya Matsubayashi (2014) “The Politics of Race and Voter ID Laws in the States. The Return of Jim Crow?” Political Research Quarterly 67(3): 666-679.

Optional readings: Jack , Citrin, Green Donald P., and Levy Morris. (2014) “The Effects of Voter ID Notification on Voter Turnout: Results from a Large-Scale Field Experiment” Election Law Journal: Rules, Politics, and Policy 13(2): 228-242.

October 13, Thursday CONGRESS AND POLITICAL POLARIZATION (Levente Littvay)

Mandatory readings: Marc J. Hetherington (2009) “Putting Polarization in Perspective” British Journal of Political Science 39(2): 413-448. Medzihorsky, Juraj, Levente Littvay and Erin Jenne (2014) “Has the Tea Party Era Radicalized the Republican Party? Evidence from Text Analysis of the 2008 and 2012 Republican Primary Debates” PS: Political Science 47(4):806-812 Unpublished Manuscript by the same team of authors (and Federico Vegetti)

Optional readings: Layman, Geoffrey C., Thomas M. Carsey, and Juliana Menasce Horowitz. 2006. “Party Polarization in American Politics: Characteristics, Causes, and Consequences.” Annual Review of Political Science 9: 83-110.

8 Fiorina, Morris P., and Samuel J. Abrams. 2008. “Political Polarization in the American Public.” Annual Review of Political Science 11: 563-588. Whittington, Keith E., and Daniel P. Carpenter. 2003. “Executive Power in American Institutional Development.” Perspectives on Politics 1(3): 495-513. Gervais, Bryan T., and Irwin L. Morris. 2012. “Reading the Tea Leaves: Understanding Tea Party Caucus Membership in the US House of Representatives.” PS: Political Science & Politics 45(2): 245-250. Nicholson, Stephen P. 2012. “Polarizing Cues.” American Journal of Political Science 56(1):52-66. Stoker, Laura, and M. Kent Jennings. 2008. “Of Time and the Development of Partisan Polarization.” American Journal of Political Science 52(3): 619-635. Abramowitz, Alan I. 2010. “Transformation and Polarization: The 2008 Presidential Election and Electorate.” Electoral Studies 29(4): 594-603.

Money in Politics (Week 5)

October 18, Tuesday CAMPAIGN FINANCE (Levente Littvay)

Mandatory readings: Mann, Thomas E. 2003. “Linking Knowledge and Action: Political Science and Campaign Finance Reform.” Perspectives on Politics 1(1): 69-83. Smith, Rodney A. 2006. Money, Power, and Elections: How Campaign Finance Reform Subverts American Democracy. Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University Press. Chapter 1, Chapters 11-13. Toobin, Jeffrey. 2012. “Money Unlimited: How Chief Justice John Roberts Orchestrated the Citizens United Decision.” The New Yorker. May 21.2

Optional readings: Koger, Gregory, and Jennifer Nicoll Victor. 2009. “Polarized Agents: Campaign Contributions by Lobbyists.” PS: Political Science & Politics 42(3): 485-488.

2 This is subject to change if a scholarly political science article appears on the topic. Students will be notified of the potential change well in advance of the class.

9 October 20, Thursday SPECIAL INTERESTS (Levente Littvay)3

Mandatory readings: Gerrity, Jessica C., Nancy S. Hardt, and Kathryn C. Lavelle. 2008. “The Interest Group - Staff Connection in Congress: Access and Influence in Personal, Committee, and Leadership Offices.” PS: Political Science & Politics 41(4): 913-917. Dorsch, Michael. forthcoming. “Bailout for Sale? The Vote to Save Wall Street.” Public Choice, DOI: 10.1007/s11127-011-9888-6. Kalla, Joshua L. and Jason Broockman (2016) “Campaign Contributions Facilitate Access to Congressional Officials: A Randomized Field Experiment” American Journal of Political Science 60(3): 545-558.

Culture and Religion (Week 6)

October 25, Tuesday4 CLASS AND CULTURE (Erin K. Jenne and Levente Littvay)

Mandatory readings: Skocpol, Theda, and Vanessa Williamson. 2012. The Tea Party and the Remaking of Republican Conservatism. New York: Oxford University Press. Introduction and Chapters 1-2, pp. 3- 82. Larry Bartels (2006) “What’s the Matter with What’s the Matter with Kansas?” Quarterly Journal of Political Science 1(2): 201–226

Optional readings: Frank, Thomas. 2004. What’s the Matter with Kansas: How Conservatives Won the Heart of America. New York: Henry Holt and Co. (excerpts)5 Williamson, Vanessa, Theda Skocpol, and John Coggin. 2011. “The Tea Party and the Remaking of Republican Conservatism.” Perspectives on Politics 9(1): 25-43.

3 A mandatory reading might be added on the topic of the Occupy Wall Street movement, should an article be published in a scholarly journal in the meantime (as of August 2012). Students will be notified well in advance of any change in this respect. 4 This class will be rescheduled to another day. CEU will be closed. 5 Precise chapters/pages will be communicated to students in advance of this session.

10 October 27, Thursday RELIGION AND CULTURE (Erin K. Jenne)

Mandatory readings: Wald, Kenneth D., and Allison Calhoun-Brown. 2011. Religion and Politics in the United States. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield. Chapters 8-10, pp. 201-307. [A 1992 edition is available from the CEU Library, with the Call Number 322.1/09/73 WAL]

Optional readings: Wilcox, Clyde, and Carin Larson. 2006. Onward Christian Soldiers: The Christian Right in American Politics. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Chapter 3, pp. 67-122. Wald, Kenneth D., Richard K. Scher, Matthew DeSantis, and Susan Orr. 2006. “Florida: So Close and Yet So Far.” In John C. Green, Mark J. Rozell, and Clyde Wilcox, eds. The Values Campaign: The Christian Right and the 2004 Elections. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, pp. 158-178. Mead, Walter Russell. 2006. “God’s Country?” Foreign Affairs 85(5): 24-45. Wolfe, Alan. 2006. “Religious Diversity: The American Experiment that Worked.” In Michael Kazin and Joseph A. McCartin, eds. Americanism: New Perspectives on the History of an Ideal. Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press, pp. 153-166.

AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY

Neo-Realism, American Hegemony and Empire (Week 7)

November 1, Tuesday6

STUDENT PRESENTATIONS

November 3, Thursday REALISM AND AMERICAN HEGEMONY (Erin K. Jenne)

Mandatory readings: Waltz, Kenneth N. 2000. “Structural Realism after the Cold War.” International Security 25(1): 5- 41

6 This class will be rescheduled for student project presentations.

11 Christopher Layne. 2012. “This time It’s Real: The End of Unipolarity and the Pax Americana,” International Studies Quarterly, 203-13. (in dropbox folder)

Robert G. Kaufman. 2014. “Prudence and the Obama Doctrine,” Orbis 58 (3): 441-459. (in dropbox folder)

Optional readings: Walt, Stephen M. 2005. “In the National Interest: A New Grand Strategy for American Foreign Policy.” Boston Review (February/March). Falk, Richard, Joseph S. Nye Jr., Ervand Abrahamian, Khalil Shikaki, Naomi Chazan, Robert Vickers Jr., Mahmoud Mandani, John Tirman, Ivo Daalder, James Lindsay, Mary Kaldor, and Anne- Marie Slaughter. 2005. “Responses to Stephen M. Walt’s In the National Interest: A New Grand Strategy for American Foreign Policy.” Boston Review (February/March). Waltz, Kenneth N. 1979. Theory of International Politics. Reading, MA: Addison–Wesley. [CEU Library Call Number 327./1/01 WALT] Mearsheimer, John J. 2001. The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. New York: W. W. Norton & Company. Chapter 2. [CEU Library Call Number 327./09/04 MEA] Pashakhanlou, Arash Heydarian. 2009. “Comparing and Contrasting Classical Realism and Neorealism: A Re-examination of Hans Morgenthau’s and Kenneth Waltz’s Theories of International Relations”.

Neo-Realism, American Hegemony and Empire (Week 8, continued from previous week)

November 8, Tuesday

EXCEPTIONALISM AND AMERICAN EMPIRE (Erin K. Jenne)

Jason Gilmore, Penelope Sheets & Charles Rowling. 2016. “Make No Exception, Save One: American Exceptionalism, the American Presidency, and the Age of Obama,” Communication Monographs. (in Dropbox folder) Holsti, K. J. 2011. “Exceptionalism in American Foreign Policy: Is It Exceptional?” European Journal of International Relations 17(3): 381-404. Lake, David A. 2008. “The New American Empire?” International Studies Perspectives 9(3): 281- 289. Spruyt, Hendrik. 2008. “‘American Empire’ as an Analytic Question or a Rhetorical Move?”International Studies Perspectives 9(3): 290-299.

Optional readings: Nexon, Daniel H., and Thomas Wright. 2007. “What’s at Stake in the American Empire Debate.” American Political Science Review 101(2): 253-271.

12 Hardt, Michael, and Antonio Negri. 2000. Empire. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. [CEU Library Call Number 325.3/2 HAR] Betts, Richard K. 2005. “The Political Support System for American Primacy.” International Affairs 81(1): 1-14. Kegley Jr., Charles W., and Gregory A. Raymond. 2007. After Iraq: The Imperiled American Imperium. New York: Oxford University Press. Krasner, Stephen. 1978. Defending the National Interest: Raw Materials Investments and U.S. Foreign Policy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Chapter 9, pp. 333-347. [CEU Library Call Number 332.6/73/73 KRA] Fukuyama, Francis. 2004. “The Neoconservative Moment.” The National Interest 76: 57-68. Krauthammer, Charles. 2004. “In Defense of Democratic Realism.” The National Interest 77: 15- 25. Snyder, Jack. 1991. Myths of Empire: Domestic Politics and International Ambition. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Chapter 1 (1-20) and Chapter 7 (255-304). Barkawi, Tarak. 2010. “Empire and Order in International Relations and Security Studies.” In Robert A. Denemark, ed. The International Studies Encyclopedia, Vol. III. Chichester: Wiley- Blackwell, pp. 1360-1379.

NOVEMBER 8 ELECTION NIGHT

November 10, Thursday

DISCUSSION OF ELECTION RESULTS (Erin K. Jenne and Levente Littvay)

Neo-Liberalism, International Organizations and US Leadership (Week 9)

November 15, Tuesday UNITED STATES AND THE GLOBAL ECONOMY (Erin K. Jenne)

Mandatory readings: Garrett, Geoffrey. 2010. “G2 in G20: China, the United States and the World after the Global Financial Crisis.” Global Policy 1(1): 29-39. Legro, Jeffrey W. 2012. “The Politics of the New Global Architecture: The United States and India.” Strategic Analysis 36(4): 640-644.

13 Ben Dolven, Susan V. Lawrence, Michael F. Martin, Ronald O'Rourke, Bruce Vaughn. March 28, 2012. Pivot to the Pacific? The Obama Administration’s “Rebalancing” Toward Asia, Congressional Service Research Report, 1-34. (in Dropbox folder)

Optional readings: Phillips, Kevin. 2002. Wealth and Democracy: A Political History of the American Rich. New York: Broadway Books. Chapter 4, pp. 171-200. [CEU Library Call Number 305.5/23409/73 PHI] Ruggie, John Gerard. 1982. “International Regimes, Transactions, and Change: Embedded Liberalism in the Postwar Economic Order.” International Organization 36(2): 379-415. Mattoo, Aaditya, and Arvind Subramanian. 2009. “From Doha to the Next Bretton Woods: A New Multilateral Trade Agenda.” Foreign Affairs 88(1): 15-26. Drezner, Daniel W. 2010. “Will Currency Follow the Flag?” International Relations of the Asia- Pacific 10(3): 389-414.

November 17, Thursday INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS, MULTILATERALISM AND U.S. LEADERSHIP (Erin K. Jenne)

Mandatory readings: Kupchan, Charles A., and Peter L. Trubowitz. 2007. “Dead Center: The Demise of Liberal Internationalism in the United States.” International Security 32(2): 7-44. Chaudoin, Stephen, Helen V. Milner, and Dustin H. Tingley. 2010. “The Center Still Holds: Liberal Internationalism Survives.” International Security 35(1): 75-94. Kupchan, Charles A., and Peter L. Trubowitz. 2010. “The Illusion of Liberal Internationalism’s Revival.” International Security 35(1): 95-109.

Optional readings: Nye Jr., Joseph S. 2002. The Paradox of American Power: Why the World’s Only Superpower Can’t Go It Alone. New York: Oxford University Press, 2002. [CEU Library Call Number 327./73 NYE] Smith, Tony. 1994. America’s Mission: The United States and the Worldwide Struggle for Democracy in the Twentieth Century. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Chapter 1, pp. 3-33. Desch, Michael C. 2008. “America’s Liberal Illiberalism: The Ideological Origins of Overreaction in U.S. Foreign Policy.” International Security 32(3): 7-43. Bolton, John R. 2001. “The Risks and Weaknesses of the International Criminal Court from America’s Perspective.” Law and Contemporary Problems 64(1): 167-180. Bolton, John R. 1999. “The Global Prosecutors: Hunting War Criminals in the Name of Utopia.” Foreign Affairs 78(1): 157-164.

14 Wedgwood, Ruth, and Kenneth Roth. 2004. “Combatants or Criminals? How Washington Should Handle Terrorists.” Foreign Affairs 83(3): 126-129. Dorf, Michael C. 2007. “The Detention and Trial of Enemy Combatants: A Drama in Three Branches.” Political Science Quarterly 122(1): 47-58. De Nevers, Renée. 2006. “The Geneva Conventions and New Wars.” Political Science Quarterly 121(1): 369-395. Bradley, Curtis A. 2008. “Terror and the Law: The Limits of Judicial Reasoning in the post 9/11 World.” Foreign Affairs 87(4): 132-137. Chertoff, Michael. 2009. “The Responsibility to Contain: Protecting Sovereignty Under International Law.” Foreign Affairs 88(1): 130-147. [Available in HTML format through EBSCO]

Diasporas, Special Interests and American Foreign Policy (Week 10)

November 22, Tuesday ETHNIC GROUPS AND DIASPORAS (Erin K. Jenne)

Mandatory readings: Newhouse, John. 2009. “Diplomacy, Inc.: The Influence of Lobbies on U.S. Foreign Policy.” Foreign Affairs 88(3): 73-92. Kirk, Jason A. 2008. “Indian-Americans and the U.S.-India Nuclear Agreement: Consolidation of an Ethnic Lobby?” Foreign Policy Analysis 4(3): 275-300. Amit Gupta. 2016. “Demographic Change and US Foreign Policy,” Orbis 60(3): 353-65. (in Dropbox folder)

Optional readings: Uslaner Eric M. 2007. “American Interests in the Balance? Do Ethnic Groups Dominate Foreign Policy Making?” In Allan J. Cigler and Burdette A. Loomis, eds. Interest Group Politics, 7th edition. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, pp. 301-322. Mearsheimer, John J., and Stephen M. Walt. 2006. “The Israel Lobby.” The London Review of Books 28(6): 3-12. Lieberman, Robert C. 2009. “The ‘Israel Lobby’ and American Politics.” Perspectives on Politics 7(2): 235-257. Mearsheimer, John J., and Stephen M. Walt. 2009. “The Blind Man and the Elephant in the Room: Robert Lieberman and the Israel Lobby.” Perspectives on Politics 7(2): 259-273. Lieberman, Robert C. 2009. “Rejoinder to Mearsheimer and Walt.” Perspectives on Politics 7(2): 275-281.

15 Mearsheimer, John J. 2011. “Imperial by Design.” The National Interest 111: 16-34. Wald, Kenneth D., and Bryan D. Williams. 2006. “American Jews and Israel: The Sources of Politicized Ethnic Identity.” Nationalism and Ethnic Politics 12(2): 205-237. Smith, Tony. 2000. Foreign Attachments: The Power of Ethnic Groups in the Making of American Foreign Policy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. [CEU Library Call Number 327./73 SMI]

November 24, Thursday INTEREST GROUPS, LOBBYISTS AND U.S. FOREIGN POLICY (Erin K. Jenne)

Mandatory readings: Halperin, Sandra. 2011. “The Political Economy of Anglo-American War: The Case of Iraq.” International Politics 48(2/3): 207–228. Milner, Helen V., and Dustin H. Tingley. 2011. “Who Supports Global Economic Engagement? The Sources of Preferences in American Foreign Economic Policy.” International Organization 65(1): 37-68. TBD – Reading on the Trans-Pacific Partnership

Optional readings: Lieberman, Robert C. 2009. “What to Read on Lobbying.” Foreign Affairs (May 26). Mastanduno, Michael. 2008. “Economic Statecraft.” In Steve Smith, Amelia Hadfield, Tim Dunne, eds. Foreign Policy: Theories, Actors, Cases. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 171- 188. [CEU Library Call Number 327./1/01 SMIT] Rothgeb Jr., John M. 2001. U.S. Trade Policy: Balancing Economic Dreams and Political Realities. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press. Fordham, Benjamin O., and Katja B. Kleinberg. 2011. “International Trade and US Relations with China.” Foreign Policy Analysis 7(3): 217-236. McCormick, James M. 2011. “Interest Groups and Foreign Policy Decision Making.” In Allan J. Cigler and Burdette A. Loomis, eds. Interest Group Politics, 8th Edition. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press. [The 7th edition can be found under the CEU Library Call Number 324./409/73 CIG]

16 Bureaucracies, the Presidency and American Foreign Policy (Week 11)

November 29, Tuesday AGENCIES, ADVISORS AND AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY (Erin K. Jenne)

Mandatory readings: Rife, (Lt. Col.) Rickey L. 1998. “Defense is from Mars, State is from Venus”. Carlisle, PA: U.S. Army War College. Mitchell, David, and Tansa George Massoud. 2009. “Anatomy of Failure: Bush’s Decision-making Process and the .” Foreign Policy Analysis 5(3): 265-286. Alex Mintz and Herzliya Carly Wayne. 2016. “The Polythink Syndrome and Elite Group Decision- Making,”Advances in Political Psychology, Vol. 37, Suppl. 1. (in dropbox folder)

Optional readings: Daalder, Ivo H., and I. M. Destler. 2009. “In the Shadow of the Oval Office: The Next National Security Advisor.” Foreign Affairs 88(1): 114-129. Gates, Robert M. 2009. “A Balanced Strategy: Reprogramming the Pentagon for a New Age.” Foreign Affairs 88(1): 28-40. Betts, Richard K. 1978. “Analysis, War, and Decision: Why Intelligence Failures Are Inevitable.” World Politics 31(1): 61-89. Zegart, Amy. 2006. “An Empirical Analysis of Failed Intelligence Reforms Before September 11.” Political Science Quarterly 121(1): 33-60.

December 1, Thursday THE PRESIDENT, LEADER PSYCHOLOGY, AND AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY (Erin K. Jenne)

Mandatory readings: Howell, William G., and Jon C. Pevehouse. 2005. “Presidents, Congress, and the Use of Force.” International Organization 59(1): 209-232. Stevenson, Jonathan. 2011. “Owned by the Army: Has the President Lost Control of His Generals?” Harper’s (May). Martin S. Indyk, Kenneth G. Lieberthal and Michael E. O'Hanlon. May/June 2012. “Scoring Obama's Foreign Policy: A Progressive Pragmatist Tries to Bend History,” Foreign Affairs 91(3): 29-43 (in Dropbox folder)

17 Optional readings: Levy, Jack S. 2003. “Political Psychology and Foreign Policy.” In David O. Sears, Leonie Huddy, and Robert Jervis, eds. The Oxford Handbook of Political Psychology. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 253–284.

18 Wrap-Up and Final Exam (Week 12)

December 6, Tuesday FORECASTING U.S. POLITICS AND FOREIGN POLICY (Erin K. Jenne and Levente Littvay)

Mandatory readings: Quinn, Adam. 2011. “The Art of Declining Politely: Obama’s Prudent Presidency and the Waning of American Power.” International Affairs 87(4): 803–824. Campbell, James E., Alan I. Abramowitz, Joseph Bafumi, Robert S. Erikson, Christopher Wlezien, Michael S. Lewis-Beck, Charles Tien, Alfred G. Cuzán, and Carl Klarner. 2010. “Symposium: Forecasts of the 2010 Midterm Elections.” PS: Political Science & Politics 43(4): 625-648.7 Campbell, James E., Joseph Bafumi, Robert S. Erikson, Christopher Wlezien, Michael S. Lewis-Beck, Charles Tien, Alfred G. Cuzán, Carl Klarner, and Fred I. Greenstein. 2011. “Symposium: Postmortems of the 2010 Midterm Election Forecasts.” PS: Political Science & Politics 44(1): 1-11.

Optional readings: Schweller, Randall L., and Xiaoyu Pu. 2011. “After Unipolarity: China’s Visions of International Order in an Era of U.S. Decline.” International Security 36(1): 41-72.

December 8, Thursday FINAL EXAM!!! (Erin K. Jenne and Levente Littvay)

7 Please ignore page 642.

19