William O. Chittick

A Three-Dimensional Model of American Foreign Policy Beliefs

The authors employ a theoretic model that identifies three basic goals of foreign policy—identity, security, and prosperity. Many scholars limit themselves by using a two-dimensional model of foreign policy beliefs which ignores the goal of identity. This research note demonstrates that standard factor analysis of extant data on foreign policy goals over time consistently supports a three-dimensional model which gives prominence to the multilateral—unilateral dimension of identity. The research also shows that this three-dimensional model is superior to one- or two-dimensional models in providing explanation and prediction of more specific foreign policy stances.

The Structure of Elite Foreign Policy Beliefs

T he opinions and policy preferences of American elites play a unique role in the public opinion-foreign policy process (Almond 1950). They both structure public debate on foreign policy and influence the decisions of top foreign policy officials. Given the crucial role that these elites play in the opinion-policy process, it is not surprising that a lack of consensus among the elites on foreign policy since the Vietnam War has triggered special interest in their foreign policy beliefs. Two quadrennial surveys stand out among the many studies that have been conducted since the end of the Vietnam War. One series

The Politicization of Security Policy

This article compares differences in militarism among government and nongovernment elites. It is based on a mail questionnaire sent to representative samples of both government and nongovernment officials with foreign affairs responsibilities as well as to four more specialized populations of nongovernment leaders in 1984. The study finds that although military officers consistently rank higher on militarism than other groups, they are not significantly more militaristic than either civilian officials in security positions or businessmen. The politicization of security policy within the government manifests itself both in the militarism among all groups that deal directly with security policy and in the disproportionate number of Republicans and Independents in security positions. The article concludes that we cannot depend on civilians, partisanship, bipartisanship, or even professionalism to check or balance excesses in the use, or threat, of force. In the end there is no substitute for sound judgment and constant vigilance.

Writing Policy Memoranda.

Abstract The standard term paper is an excellent vehicle for improving writing skills, but there are, other valuable and in some ways more practical pedagogic instruments available. In this essay I discuss the use of memoranda in policy courses. On the basis of class experience, I am convinced that students are as able as practitioners to learn about policy and policy-making by writing memoranda. This essay describes four types of policy memoranda suitable for class use, provides guidelines and formats for writing each, and makes suggestions for incorporating any or all of them into relevant policy courses.

American Foreign Policy Elites: Attitudes Toward Secrecy and Publicity

,The conflicting demands of democracy and foreign policy are believed to be reflected in the attitudes of those playing key roles in the public opinion forming and foreign policy-making processes. The press and pressure groups are believed to stress the need for publicity because they are respoasible for informing the public. State Department officials are believed to stress the need for secrecy because they are responsible for the conduct of foreign relations. Despite frequent reference to these role conflicts in the literature on the opinion-policy process, few attempts have been made to study systematically attitudinal differences between these groups.1 The purpose of this research note is to provide some empirical basis for inferences about the attitudes of State Department policy officers, State Dopartment information officers, foreign affairs reporters, and pressure group leaders toward the withholding and releasing of information on foreign policy.