国外和国内的宪政:美国参议院和进步联盟,1961-1967

IF 0.5 2区 历史学 Q1 HISTORY
R. Johnson
{"title":"国外和国内的宪政:美国参议院和进步联盟,1961-1967","authors":"R. Johnson","doi":"10.1080/07075332.1999.9640865","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"assistant secretary of state for interAmerican affairs in John F. Kennedy's administration, Edwin Martin, testified on 3 October 1963 before a closed session of the senate's Foreign Relations Committee to defend the administration's handling of a military coup in the Dominican Republic. While the administration privately conceded the coup to be a grave setback, committee Republicans generally supported the restrained welcome given to the military regime which had replaced Juan Bosch's democratically elected government, whereas most committee Democrats were sharply critical. Wayne Morse (D-Oregon) attributed the disagreement to Kennedy's failure elsewhere in the Americas to promote 'constitutionalism' with enough vigour.1 Morse's testiness was more remarkable given that, three years earlier, both the executive and legislative branches had thought generous economic aid combined with rhetorical support for democracy the best way to wage the cold war in Latin America. But they soon parted company. Support for the Alliance for Progress waned not only because the administration rarely achieved its stated goals in Latin America; it also fell victim to ideological differences between the president and various senate factions which coloured other disputes over how much freedom of action the executive branch should be allowed in its conduct of foreign affairs. In this sense, the fate of the Alliance illustrates not only the difficulty of promoting democracy during the cold war, but also how differently the executive and legislative branches approach foreign affairs. Latin America provides some of the earliest evidence of the emergence of an empowered congressional perspective on US foreign policy, fuelled by the reaction against executive power caused by the war in Vietnam.","PeriodicalId":46534,"journal":{"name":"INTERNATIONAL HISTORY REVIEW","volume":"21 1","pages":"414-442"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"1999-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/07075332.1999.9640865","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Constitutionalism Abroad and At Home: The United States Senate and the Alliance for Progress, 1961–1967\",\"authors\":\"R. Johnson\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/07075332.1999.9640865\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"assistant secretary of state for interAmerican affairs in John F. Kennedy's administration, Edwin Martin, testified on 3 October 1963 before a closed session of the senate's Foreign Relations Committee to defend the administration's handling of a military coup in the Dominican Republic. While the administration privately conceded the coup to be a grave setback, committee Republicans generally supported the restrained welcome given to the military regime which had replaced Juan Bosch's democratically elected government, whereas most committee Democrats were sharply critical. Wayne Morse (D-Oregon) attributed the disagreement to Kennedy's failure elsewhere in the Americas to promote 'constitutionalism' with enough vigour.1 Morse's testiness was more remarkable given that, three years earlier, both the executive and legislative branches had thought generous economic aid combined with rhetorical support for democracy the best way to wage the cold war in Latin America. But they soon parted company. Support for the Alliance for Progress waned not only because the administration rarely achieved its stated goals in Latin America; it also fell victim to ideological differences between the president and various senate factions which coloured other disputes over how much freedom of action the executive branch should be allowed in its conduct of foreign affairs. In this sense, the fate of the Alliance illustrates not only the difficulty of promoting democracy during the cold war, but also how differently the executive and legislative branches approach foreign affairs. Latin America provides some of the earliest evidence of the emergence of an empowered congressional perspective on US foreign policy, fuelled by the reaction against executive power caused by the war in Vietnam.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46534,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"INTERNATIONAL HISTORY REVIEW\",\"volume\":\"21 1\",\"pages\":\"414-442\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"1999-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/07075332.1999.9640865\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"INTERNATIONAL HISTORY REVIEW\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/07075332.1999.9640865\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"历史学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HISTORY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"INTERNATIONAL HISTORY REVIEW","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/07075332.1999.9640865","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

1963年10月3日,约翰·f·肯尼迪政府负责美洲事务的助理国务卿埃德温·马丁在参议院外交关系委员会的闭门会议上作证,为政府对多米尼加共和国军事政变的处理进行辩护。虽然政府私下承认政变是一个严重的挫折,但委员会的共和党人普遍支持对取代胡安·博什民主选举政府的军事政权的克制欢迎,而大多数委员会的民主党人则严厉批评。韦恩·莫尔斯(俄勒冈州民主党人)将这种分歧归因于肯尼迪在美洲其他地方未能以足够的力度推动“宪政”考虑到三年前,行政和立法部门都认为慷慨的经济援助加上口头上对民主的支持是在拉丁美洲发动冷战的最佳方式,莫尔斯的愤怒更加引人注目。但他们很快就分手了。对进步联盟的支持减弱,不仅是因为奥巴马政府很少实现其在拉丁美洲的既定目标;它还成为总统和参议院各派之间意识形态分歧的牺牲品,这种分歧影响了行政部门在处理外交事务时应允许多少行动自由的其他争议。从这个意义上说,联盟的命运不仅说明了在冷战期间促进民主的困难,而且也说明了行政部门和立法部门处理外交事务的方式有多么不同。拉丁美洲提供了一些最早的证据,表明国会对美国外交政策的看法得到了授权,越南战争引发的反对行政权力的反应助长了这种观点。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Constitutionalism Abroad and At Home: The United States Senate and the Alliance for Progress, 1961–1967
assistant secretary of state for interAmerican affairs in John F. Kennedy's administration, Edwin Martin, testified on 3 October 1963 before a closed session of the senate's Foreign Relations Committee to defend the administration's handling of a military coup in the Dominican Republic. While the administration privately conceded the coup to be a grave setback, committee Republicans generally supported the restrained welcome given to the military regime which had replaced Juan Bosch's democratically elected government, whereas most committee Democrats were sharply critical. Wayne Morse (D-Oregon) attributed the disagreement to Kennedy's failure elsewhere in the Americas to promote 'constitutionalism' with enough vigour.1 Morse's testiness was more remarkable given that, three years earlier, both the executive and legislative branches had thought generous economic aid combined with rhetorical support for democracy the best way to wage the cold war in Latin America. But they soon parted company. Support for the Alliance for Progress waned not only because the administration rarely achieved its stated goals in Latin America; it also fell victim to ideological differences between the president and various senate factions which coloured other disputes over how much freedom of action the executive branch should be allowed in its conduct of foreign affairs. In this sense, the fate of the Alliance illustrates not only the difficulty of promoting democracy during the cold war, but also how differently the executive and legislative branches approach foreign affairs. Latin America provides some of the earliest evidence of the emergence of an empowered congressional perspective on US foreign policy, fuelled by the reaction against executive power caused by the war in Vietnam.
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
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
44
期刊介绍: The International History Review is the only English-language quarterly devoted entirely to the history of international relations and the history of international thought. Since 1979 the Review has established itself as one of the premier History journals in the world, read and regularly cited by both political scientists and historians. The Review serves as a bridge between historical research and the study of international relations. The Review publishes articles exploring the history of international relations and the history of international thought. The editors particularly welcome submissions that explore the history of current conflicts and conflicts of current interest; the development of international thought; diplomatic history.
×
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