A Manchurian Candidate? The GOP’s Discourse on the Russian War in Ukraine
Datos Bibliográficos
| ID | 10383632 |
|---|---|
| Autores | Eva Rieger (0000-0002-9218-7620, autor de correspondencia) |
| Año | 2024 |
| Volumen | 66 |
| Número | 1 |
| Páginas | 77-99 |
| Fecha de publicación | 2024-08-20 |
| Peer Reviewed | Sí |
| Open Access | Sí |
| Tipo | ARTICLE |
| Revista | Politische Vierteljahresschrift. Sonderheft (JOURNAL) |
| Identificadores de la revista | ISSN: 0720-4809 • E-ISSN: 1862-2860 |
| Editorial | Springer VS (PUBLISHER • DE) |
| DOI | 10.1007/s11615-024-00558-7 |
| OpenAlex | W4401975830 |
| Idioma | EN |
| Citas recibidas | 1 |
| Referencias citadas | 20 |
The United States has a longstanding tradition regarding its overall foreign policy, in the form of a bipartisan consensus. This includes—among other things—maintaining alliances and curbing the influence of rivals (e.g., Russia). Since this consensus has been in place, traditionally the Republican Party (GOP) has been especially intent on a less cooperative and more containing or deterring stance towards Russia. With former U.S. President Donald Trump, we can see a turning point in this behaviour by the GOP. Trump’s obvious admiration for Russian president Putin and his statements about Putin being overly favourable, while simultaneously questioning NATO and the United States’ commitment to defend Eastern European partners, show a distinctive shift in the GOP’s discourse. This renunciation has subsequently been picked up by parts of the Republican Party, rendering the bipartisan consensus a contested issue. The full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 now constitutes an important external shock influencing said discursive shift. By drawing on discourse-bound identity theory and discourse analysis, the GOP’s discourse regarding Russia and NATO is expected to have (substantially) changed in a kind of Zeitenwende —back towards the bipartisan consensus. This article will, therefore, analyse the statements of prominent Republicans after the Russian invasion, compare them to Trump’s positions on these issues, and identify whether the invasion serves as a formative event that creates an overall shift in rhetoric and positions
Art · Humanities · Political science · European and Russian Geopolitical Military Strategies · International Relations and Foreign Policy · Post-Soviet Geopolitical Dynamics
The prevalence of bipartisanship in U.S. foreign policy
Congressional polarization and limitation riders in foreign aid appropriations
Brakeman or booster? Presidents, ideological polarization, reciprocity, and the politics of US arms control
Foreign policy free agents
Are we drowning at the water’s edge? Foreign policy polarization among the US Public
Polarization and US foreign policy
Beyond party
Finding the water’s edge
Trump’s foreign policy and Nato
Vandenberg Vanished
The Myth of Responsibility
The Study of Discourse in International Relations
| Obras citantes distintas | 1 |
|---|---|
| Citas por año | 1 |
| Intervalo de citas | 2026 - 2026 (1) |
| Velocidad de citación | current |
| Altamente citado | No |
| Tipos de cita | Neutras: 1 |