{"title":"与你一起被困在左翼:美国外交政策中的党派界限","authors":"Emma Ashford","doi":"10.1080/09636412.2023.2200971","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Van Jackson’s “Left of Liberal Internationalism” is a wonderfully clear effort to construct an intellectual scaffolding around the various forms of progressive thinking on foreign policy. This kind of exercise is valuable, as policy-relevant battles about US foreign policy typically take place in disparate venues and media: speeches, panels, magazines, and even across social media; this makes it difficult to build a comprehensive picture of how America’s major political parties are evolving on foreign policy over time. And while similar studies have been done in the past, particularly on the varieties of conservative foreign policy found in the Republican Party,1 Jackson’s article is the first to really explore the increasingly influential progressive wing of the Democratic Party in the context of foreign policy. Likewise, the article does a service in translating often-quixotic political debates over foreign policy into more scholarly language and concepts, allowing researchers to better situate these emerging debates in the canon of existing grand strategic debates.2 Even as an active participant in the policy debates over US foreign policy,3 I found Jackson’s article to be extremely helpful in clearly delineating the different arguments within the progressive movement, outlining how far debate has come, and showing where it still needs progress. With that in mind, however, I think the","PeriodicalId":47478,"journal":{"name":"Security Studies","volume":"32 1","pages":"382 - 388"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Stuck on the Left with You: The Limits of Partisanship in US Foreign Policy\",\"authors\":\"Emma Ashford\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/09636412.2023.2200971\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Van Jackson’s “Left of Liberal Internationalism” is a wonderfully clear effort to construct an intellectual scaffolding around the various forms of progressive thinking on foreign policy. This kind of exercise is valuable, as policy-relevant battles about US foreign policy typically take place in disparate venues and media: speeches, panels, magazines, and even across social media; this makes it difficult to build a comprehensive picture of how America’s major political parties are evolving on foreign policy over time. And while similar studies have been done in the past, particularly on the varieties of conservative foreign policy found in the Republican Party,1 Jackson’s article is the first to really explore the increasingly influential progressive wing of the Democratic Party in the context of foreign policy. Likewise, the article does a service in translating often-quixotic political debates over foreign policy into more scholarly language and concepts, allowing researchers to better situate these emerging debates in the canon of existing grand strategic debates.2 Even as an active participant in the policy debates over US foreign policy,3 I found Jackson’s article to be extremely helpful in clearly delineating the different arguments within the progressive movement, outlining how far debate has come, and showing where it still needs progress. With that in mind, however, I think the\",\"PeriodicalId\":47478,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Security Studies\",\"volume\":\"32 1\",\"pages\":\"382 - 388\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Security Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/09636412.2023.2200971\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Security Studies","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09636412.2023.2200971","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Stuck on the Left with You: The Limits of Partisanship in US Foreign Policy
Van Jackson’s “Left of Liberal Internationalism” is a wonderfully clear effort to construct an intellectual scaffolding around the various forms of progressive thinking on foreign policy. This kind of exercise is valuable, as policy-relevant battles about US foreign policy typically take place in disparate venues and media: speeches, panels, magazines, and even across social media; this makes it difficult to build a comprehensive picture of how America’s major political parties are evolving on foreign policy over time. And while similar studies have been done in the past, particularly on the varieties of conservative foreign policy found in the Republican Party,1 Jackson’s article is the first to really explore the increasingly influential progressive wing of the Democratic Party in the context of foreign policy. Likewise, the article does a service in translating often-quixotic political debates over foreign policy into more scholarly language and concepts, allowing researchers to better situate these emerging debates in the canon of existing grand strategic debates.2 Even as an active participant in the policy debates over US foreign policy,3 I found Jackson’s article to be extremely helpful in clearly delineating the different arguments within the progressive movement, outlining how far debate has come, and showing where it still needs progress. With that in mind, however, I think the
期刊介绍:
Security Studies publishes innovative scholarly manuscripts that make a significant contribution – whether theoretical, empirical, or both – to our understanding of international security. Studies that do not emphasize the causes and consequences of war or the sources and conditions of peace fall outside the journal’s domain. Security Studies features articles that develop, test, and debate theories of international security – that is, articles that address an important research question, display innovation in research, contribute in a novel way to a body of knowledge, and (as appropriate) demonstrate theoretical development with state-of-the art use of appropriate methodological tools. While we encourage authors to discuss the policy implications of their work, articles that are primarily policy-oriented do not fit the journal’s mission. The journal publishes articles that challenge the conventional wisdom in the area of international security studies. Security Studies includes a wide range of topics ranging from nuclear proliferation and deterrence, civil-military relations, strategic culture, ethnic conflicts and their resolution, epidemics and national security, democracy and foreign-policy decision making, developments in qualitative and multi-method research, and the future of security studies.