在两极分化的美国,两党在中国问题上合作

IF 1.5 3区 社会学 Q2 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
Christopher Carothers, Taiyi Sun
{"title":"在两极分化的美国,两党在中国问题上合作","authors":"Christopher Carothers, Taiyi Sun","doi":"10.1177/00471178231201484","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In recent years, the need for the United States to compete with and counter an increasingly assertive China has become a rare point of agreement between Democrats and Republicans, leading to a boom in China-related legislation with bipartisan support. This study asks two questions: first, whether this new China consensus is substantive or, as some analysts argue, superficial; and second, why bipartisan cooperation on China has emerged despite America’s intense political polarization. We address these two questions through a systematic analysis of China-related legislation and U.S. legislators’ messaging about China on social media. We find that the new consensus is substantive, with many bipartisan bills mandating meaningful action on trade, technology, diplomatic and military affairs, and human rights issues. Moreover, we argue that the new consensus emerged largely in 2017–2018, in response to several developments indicating China’s growing threat—geopolitical, economic, and ideological—to U.S. predominance in the international order. This study provides fresh insights on U.S.-China relations and contributes theoretically to the study of when external threats induce bipartisanship and when they do not.","PeriodicalId":47031,"journal":{"name":"International Relations","volume":"90 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Bipartisanship on China in a polarized America\",\"authors\":\"Christopher Carothers, Taiyi Sun\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/00471178231201484\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In recent years, the need for the United States to compete with and counter an increasingly assertive China has become a rare point of agreement between Democrats and Republicans, leading to a boom in China-related legislation with bipartisan support. This study asks two questions: first, whether this new China consensus is substantive or, as some analysts argue, superficial; and second, why bipartisan cooperation on China has emerged despite America’s intense political polarization. We address these two questions through a systematic analysis of China-related legislation and U.S. legislators’ messaging about China on social media. We find that the new consensus is substantive, with many bipartisan bills mandating meaningful action on trade, technology, diplomatic and military affairs, and human rights issues. Moreover, we argue that the new consensus emerged largely in 2017–2018, in response to several developments indicating China’s growing threat—geopolitical, economic, and ideological—to U.S. predominance in the international order. This study provides fresh insights on U.S.-China relations and contributes theoretically to the study of when external threats induce bipartisanship and when they do not.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47031,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Relations\",\"volume\":\"90 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Relations\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/00471178231201484\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Relations","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00471178231201484","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

近年来,美国需要与日益自信的中国竞争和抗衡,这已经成为民主党和共和党之间罕见的共识,导致与中国有关的立法在两党的支持下蓬勃发展。这项研究提出了两个问题:第一,这种新的中国共识是实质性的,还是像一些分析人士所说的那样,是肤浅的;第二,为什么在美国政治两极分化严重的情况下,两党在中国问题上的合作出现了。我们通过对中国相关立法和美国立法者在社交媒体上关于中国的信息的系统分析来解决这两个问题。我们发现新的共识是实质性的,许多两党法案要求在贸易、技术、外交和军事事务以及人权问题上采取有意义的行动。此外,我们认为新的共识主要是在2017-2018年出现的,这是对一些事态发展的回应,这些事态发展表明中国在地缘政治、经济和意识形态方面对美国在国际秩序中的主导地位构成了越来越大的威胁。这项研究为中美关系提供了新的见解,并为研究外部威胁何时会导致两党合作以及何时不会做出理论贡献。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Bipartisanship on China in a polarized America
In recent years, the need for the United States to compete with and counter an increasingly assertive China has become a rare point of agreement between Democrats and Republicans, leading to a boom in China-related legislation with bipartisan support. This study asks two questions: first, whether this new China consensus is substantive or, as some analysts argue, superficial; and second, why bipartisan cooperation on China has emerged despite America’s intense political polarization. We address these two questions through a systematic analysis of China-related legislation and U.S. legislators’ messaging about China on social media. We find that the new consensus is substantive, with many bipartisan bills mandating meaningful action on trade, technology, diplomatic and military affairs, and human rights issues. Moreover, we argue that the new consensus emerged largely in 2017–2018, in response to several developments indicating China’s growing threat—geopolitical, economic, and ideological—to U.S. predominance in the international order. This study provides fresh insights on U.S.-China relations and contributes theoretically to the study of when external threats induce bipartisanship and when they do not.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
International Relations
International Relations INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS-
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
6.20%
发文量
35
期刊介绍: International Relations is explicitly pluralist in outlook. Editorial policy favours variety in both subject-matter and method, at a time when so many academic journals are increasingly specialised in scope, and sectarian in approach. We welcome articles or proposals from all perspectives and on all subjects pertaining to international relations: law, economics, ethics, strategy, philosophy, culture, environment, and so on, in addition to more mainstream conceptual work and policy analysis. We believe that such pluralism is in great demand by the academic and policy communities and the interested public.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信