Foreign Policy Approaches in the US Political Parties Platforms in the XXI Century: Similarities and Differences
https://doi.org/10.24975/2313-8920-2023-10-3-265-280
Abstract
The article examines such a phenomenon of American politics as the party platform. The article reflects its features in comparison with European interpretations of the concept of “party program”. The author’s definition of the concept “party platform” is given, which is based on a consideration of the definitions of domestic and foreign policy researchers of the concept “party program”. The article focuses on the foreign policy parts of the platforms of the main US political parties. The ideological approaches and conditions that influence the formation of the foreign policy part of the party platform are considered (from factors such as political expediency to the personal views of US presidential candidates). An example of a comparative analysis of the foreign policy parts of the platforms of the US Republican and Democratic parties is given. Based on a comparative analysis of the foreign policy parts of the platforms of the main US political parties, the author proposes his own methodology for determining the similarities and differences of party platforms. This methodology allowed the author of the article to plot the similarities and differences in the foreign policy approaches of the US Republican and Democratic parties from 2000 to 2020. The comparative analysis carried out by the author allows us to say that the platforms of the main US political parties can be used to analyze the foreign policy course of different US administrations and make forecasts on Washington’s foreign policy.
About the Author
K. K. SukhoverkhovRussian Federation
Konstantin K. Sukhoverkhov
bld. 76, Prospect Vernadskogo, Moscow, 119454
References
1. Duverger M. Les partis politiques. Paris: Libraire Armand Colin; 1951. P. 476. (In French).
2. Thomson R., Royed T., Naurin E., etc. The Fulfillment of Parties’ Election Pledges: A Comparative Study on the Impact of Power Sharing. American Journal of Political Science. 2016;61(3):527-542.
3. Voitolovsky F.G. Unity and disunity of the West. Ideological reflection in the consciousness of the USA and Western Europe elites of transformations of the political world order in the 1940s 2000s. Moscow: Kraft+; 2007. 454 p. (In Russ.).
4. Sushentsov A.A. Foreign Policy Platforms of the United States Republican Party: Isolationists, Realists, Neo-Conservatives. Notebooks on conservatism. 2016;1:47-55. (In Russ.).
5. Pechatnov V.O. Polarized America. MGIMO Review of International Relations. 2010;2(11):282-293. DOI: 10.24833/2071-8160-2010-2-11-282-293. (In Russ.).
6. Pechatnov V.O. From Jefferson to Clinton: US Democratic Party in the fight for voters. Institute of World History of the Russian Academy of Sciences; MGIMO (University). Moscow: Nauka$ 2008. P. 503. (In Russ.).
7. Kislitsin S.V. Peace through force: foreign policy ideology and practice of American neoconservatism. IMEMO RAS. Moscow: Ves Mir$ 2020. P. 216. (In Russ.).
8. Olasky M. Compassionate Conservatism: What It Is, What It Does, and How It Can Transform America. NY: Simon and Schuster; 2000. P. 240.
9. Rice C. Promoting National Interest. Foreign Affairs. 2000;79(1):45–62.
10. Rogov S. M., Rogova N. V. U.S. Elections of 2016: Results and Perspectives (Part I). USA & Canada Journal. 2017;1(565):17-31. (In Russ.).
11. Pool K., Rosenthal H. Ideology in Congress. New Brunswick: Transaction Press; 2012. P. 361.
Review
For citations:
Sukhoverkhov K.K. Foreign Policy Approaches in the US Political Parties Platforms in the XXI Century: Similarities and Differences. Post-Soviet Issues. 2023;10(3):265-280. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.24975/2313-8920-2023-10-3-265-280