Conservative opinions on U.S. foreign policy

Orbis

Volumn 43, Issue 4, 1999, Pages 621-632

  Noonan, Michael P ^a,b,c  

^a Foreign Policy Research Institute   (United States)

^b LOYOLA UNIVERSITY CHICAGO   (United States)

^c Foreign Policy Research Institute Program on American Defense   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 17644363404     PISSN: 00304387     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/s0030-4387(99)80010-6     Document Type: Article

References (11)

1. William Kristol and Robert Kagan, "Toward a Neo-Reaganite Foreign Policy," Foreign Affairs, July/Aug. 1996, pp. 18-32;
2. and Kim R. Holmes and John Hillen, "Misreading Reagan's Legacy," Foreign Affairs, Sept./Oct. 1996, pp. 162-67.
3. See, for example, Walter A. McDougall, "Editor's Column," Orbis, Winter 1998, pp. 2-6;
4. Lawrence F. Kaplan, "Leftism on the Right," The Weekly Standard, Feb. 9, 1998, pp. 27-29;
5. Harvey Sicherman, "Correspondence: On American Power," The Weekly Standard, Feb. 16, 1998, p. 7;
6. and Gary Bauer, "A Conservative View of American Foreign Policy," Institute of Politics Forum, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass., Apr. 13, 1998.
7. For a brief summary of this debate, see Fareed Zakaria, "Conservative Confusion on Kosovo," Wall Street Journal, Apr. 14, 1999.
8. The premier example of this type of survey remains John E. Rielly, ed., American Public Opinion and U.S. Foreign Policy 1999 (Chicago: Chicago Council on Foreign Relations, 1999). The Chicago Council releases this survey every four years, and its findings include the opinions of both the public and elites.
9. Thomas C. Atwood, ed., The Guide to Public Policy Experts, 1997-1998 (Washington, D.C.: The Heritage Foundation, 1997).
10. See, for example, Rielly, American Public Opinion and U.S. Foreign Policy 1999.
11. For these questions the author weight-measured the responses so that they yielded a weighted percentage of what individuals felt were the greatest threats. For each threat that was assessed as a "1" a numerical value of 5 was assigned, for a "2" 4 points, for a "3" 3 points, for a "4" 2 points, and for a "5" 1 point. The cumulative totals for each threat were then tallied and divided by 2460 (the total possible number of points).