James M Lindsay
Biographic Data
| ID | 271287 |
|---|---|
| NAME | James M Lindsay |
| GIVEN NAMES | James M |
| FAMILY NAME | Lindsay |
| SIGNATURE | LINDSAY J M |
| AFFILIATIONS | University of Iowa |
| VERIFIED | No |
| TOTAL WORKS | 32 |
| TOTAL CITATIONS | 251 |
| AUTHOR COUNT | 32 |
| EDITOR COUNT | 0 |
| FIRST PUBLICATION YEAR | 1975 |
| LATEST PUBLICATION YEAR | 2011 |
| H-INDEX | 8 |
George W. Bush, Barack Obama and the future of US global leadership
The foreign policy world views of George W. Bush and Barack Obama differ dramatically. Bush made terrorism the focal point of his foreign policy and dismissed the idea that either allies or international institutions should constrain America's freedom of action. Obama sees terrorism as one of many transnational problems that require the cooperation of other countries to combat and, as a result, the United States must invest more in diplomatic eff…
The Case for a Concert of Democracies
An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content
America Unbound: The Bush Revolution in Foreign Policy
Bush's Revolution
At heart, Bush is a revolutionary. Everything he has done in his first 32 months as president shows that he is committed to challenging the existing order. He has been audacious rather than cautious, proactive rather than reactive, risk-prone rather than risk-averse. In his actions as well as his doctrines, he has changed the course of American foreign policy
Deference and Defiance: The Shifting Rhythms of Executive‐Legislative Relations in Foreign Policy
The return of the deferential Congress after September 11 was another chapter in the fluctuating balance of power in executive‐legislative relations on foreign policy. The reason for this ebb and flow lies not in the Constitution but in politics. How aggressively Congress exercises its formal foreign policy powers turns foremost on whether the country sees itself as threatened or secure and to a lesser extent on how well the president handles for…
Remaking the World: Bush and the Neoconservatives
Getting Uncle Sam's Ear: Will Ethnic Lobbies Cramp America's Foreign Policy Style?
Hard Choices: National Security and the War on Terrorism
The administration's National Security Strategy forthrightly commits to ‘fighting terrorists and tyrants’ and ‘encouraging free and open societies on every continent.’ What it ignores is that these two goals often conflict. ... Which should take priority: America's commitment to its ideals, or a concern for its safety? ... The strategy offers no advice on how to answer these questions
Missile defense after the ABM treaty
As of mid‐June, the U.S. is free to develop, test, and deploy missile defenses in any fashion it sees fit. Yet, the administration has been short on details about the kind of defense it would build. What system is Washington likely to deploy? What should it
Limited National and Allied Missile Defense
International Security - Volume 26, Number 4, Spring 2002
Nasty, Brutish, and Long: America's War on Terrorism
A critical question as the United States enters this new ‘cold war’ is whether it has learned the lessons of the last—or whether it is destined to repeat its mistakes
Lame‐duck diplomacy
The election of a president from another party should not constrain sitting presidents from pursuing foreign policy as they deem best. Here is a set of rules, however, to govern these transitions for both outgoing and incoming administrations
Defending America: The Case for Limited National Missile Defense
Arms control and missile defense are once again at the forefront of the American national security agenda. Not surprisingly, the debate has broken down along well-worn lines. Arms control advocates dismiss the idea of missile defense as a dangerous and costly folly. Missile defense advocates argue that the U.S. should move aggressively to defend itself against missile attack. With clear and lively prose free of partisan rhetoric, Defending Americ…
The New Apathy: How an Uninterested Public Is Reshaping Foreign Policy
Congress and the Politics of U.S. Foreign Policy
Congress and the Politics of U.S. Foreign Policy
Congress and the Politics of U.S. Foreign Policy
How Congress Influences Foreign and Defense Policy
Congress, Foreign Policy, and the New Institutionalism
Journal Article Congress, Foreign Policy, and the New Institutionalism Get access James M. Lindsay James M. Lindsay The University of Iowa Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar International Studies Quarterly, Volume 38, Issue 2, June 1994, Pages 281–304, https://doi.org/10.2307/2600978 Published: 01 June 1994
Reinventing the Pentagon: The Political Economy of Post-Cold War Defense
The "Two Presidencies" in Future Research: Moving Beyond Roll-Call Analysis
The two presidencies literature ostensibly seeks to determine whether presidents exercise more power over foreign policy than over domestic policy. In a laudable effort to be rigorous, scholars have sought to answer the question by examining roll-call voting in Congress. Doing so, however, changes the question from the power of the president versus Congress to the success of the president in Congress. Because presidents act without the approval o…
United States
Foreign and Defense Policy in Congress: A Research Agenda for the 1990s
Congress and Foreign Policy: Why the Hill Matters
There is a marked deficiency in serious study on how the executive and Congress interact in an era when the range of issues requiring congressional approval has expanded way beyond the classic cases of treaties and foreign trade, when consensus on foreign policy has disappeared perhaps beyond recall, and when the practical need for congressional understanding and acceptance extends to almost every important step, however labeled or described
Americans and Their Forests: A Historical Geography
Trade Sanctions As Policy Instruments: A Re-Examination
Most studies of trade sanctions examine the success of sanctions at forcing the target country to change its policies. This article analyzes the success of sanctions in terms of a broader set of goals: compliance, subversion, deterrence, international symbolism, and domestic symbolism. I examine 19 sanctions cases using different evaluatory criteria for each goal. Three results emerge from the analysis. First, sanctions generally fail when the go…
Parochialism, Policy, and Constituency Constraints: Congressional Voting on Strategic Weapons Systems
Conventional wisdom holds that parochialism shapes how Congress decides defense issues. Yet most statistical analyses point to ideology as the key variable in congressional voting on defense policy. This study examines Senate and House votes on several strategic weapons systems and corroborates previous findings; members of Congress generally vote in accordance with their policy views and not their constituency's economic interests. This departs …
Congress, Foreign Policy, and the New Institutionalism
Journal Article Congress, Foreign Policy, and the New Institutionalism Get access James M. Lindsay James M. Lindsay The University of Iowa Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar International Studies Quarterly, Volume 38, Issue 2, June 1994, Pages 281–304, https://doi.org/10.2307/2600978 Published: 01 June 1994
Foreign and Defense Policy in Congress: A Research Agenda for the 1990s
Testing the Parochial Hypothesis: Congress and the Strategic Defense Initiative
Conventional wisdom holds that members of Congress vote the economic interests of their constituencies on defense issues. Previous studies for the most part have failed to find evidence of parochial voting, but these studies are open to a variety of methodological criticisms. This paper reexamines the parochial hypothesis by analyzing congressional voting on the Strategic Defense Initiative. Even though the methodological problems of earlier stud…
Deference and Defiance: The Shifting Rhythms of Executive‐Legislative Relations in Foreign Policy
The return of the deferential Congress after September 11 was another chapter in the fluctuating balance of power in executive‐legislative relations on foreign policy. The reason for this ebb and flow lies not in the Constitution but in politics. How aggressively Congress exercises its formal foreign policy powers turns foremost on whether the country sees itself as threatened or secure and to a lesser extent on how well the president handles for…
Congress and Foreign Policy: Why the Hill Matters
There is a marked deficiency in serious study on how the executive and Congress interact in an era when the range of issues requiring congressional approval has expanded way beyond the classic cases of treaties and foreign trade, when consensus on foreign policy has disappeared perhaps beyond recall, and when the practical need for congressional understanding and acceptance extends to almost every important step, however labeled or described
The "Two Presidencies" in Future Research: Moving Beyond Roll-Call Analysis
The two presidencies literature ostensibly seeks to determine whether presidents exercise more power over foreign policy than over domestic policy. In a laudable effort to be rigorous, scholars have sought to answer the question by examining roll-call voting in Congress. Doing so, however, changes the question from the power of the president versus Congress to the success of the president in Congress. Because presidents act without the approval o…
George W. Bush, Barack Obama and the future of US global leadership
The foreign policy world views of George W. Bush and Barack Obama differ dramatically. Bush made terrorism the focal point of his foreign policy and dismissed the idea that either allies or international institutions should constrain America's freedom of action. Obama sees terrorism as one of many transnational problems that require the cooperation of other countries to combat and, as a result, the United States must invest more in diplomatic eff…
The New Apathy: How an Uninterested Public Is Reshaping Foreign Policy
Charcoal iron smelting and its fuel supply; the example of Lorn furnace, Argyllshire, 1753–1876
Defending America: The Case for Limited National Missile Defense
Arms control and missile defense are once again at the forefront of the American national security agenda. Not surprisingly, the debate has broken down along well-worn lines. Arms control advocates dismiss the idea of missile defense as a dangerous and costly folly. Missile defense advocates argue that the U.S. should move aggressively to defend itself against missile attack. With clear and lively prose free of partisan rhetoric, Defending Americ…
The Case for a Concert of Democracies
An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content
Congressional Oversight of the Department of Defense: Reconsidering the Conventional Wisdom
Observers often complain that Congress slights defense oversight. Their conclusions, however, are typically based on the assumption that the House and Senate will act like bureaucracies capable of comprehensive, systematic, and dispassionate oversight. Yet Congress is a political institution, and its ability to oversee defense issues is limited by its institutional makeup and by the nature of defense policy. As a result, the tendency to treat Con…
Remaking the World: Bush and the Neoconservatives
Congress and the Politics of U.S. Foreign Policy
Congress and Defense Policy: 1961 To 1986
Congressional decision making on defense policy has evolved through three distinctive styles since 1961 because of changes in the opportunities, incentives, and freedom for lawmakers to address defense issues. In the 1960s, decision making in Congress was an 'inside game': the most senior members of the defense committees-the two Armed Services committees and the two Appropriations Defense subcommittees-dominated the debate. In the 1970s, the con…
Charcoal iron smelting and its fuel supply; the example of Lorn furnace, Argyllshire, 1753–1876
Trade Sanctions As Policy Instruments: A Re-Examination
Most studies of trade sanctions examine the success of sanctions at forcing the target country to change its policies. This article analyzes the success of sanctions in terms of a broader set of goals: compliance, subversion, deterrence, international symbolism, and domestic symbolism. I examine 19 sanctions cases using different evaluatory criteria for each goal. Three results emerge from the analysis. First, sanctions generally fail when the go…
Congress and Defense Policy: 1961 To 1986
Congressional decision making on defense policy has evolved through three distinctive styles since 1961 because of changes in the opportunities, incentives, and freedom for lawmakers to address defense issues. In the 1960s, decision making in Congress was an 'inside game': the most senior members of the defense committees-the two Armed Services committees and the two Appropriations Defense subcommittees-dominated the debate. In the 1970s, the con…
Congress and the Defense Budget
Parochialism, Policy, and Constituency Constraints: Congressional Voting on Strategic Weapons Systems
Conventional wisdom holds that parochialism shapes how Congress decides defense issues. Yet most statistical analyses point to ideology as the key variable in congressional voting on defense policy. This study examines Senate and House votes on several strategic weapons systems and corroborates previous findings; members of Congress generally vote in accordance with their policy views and not their constituency's economic interests. This departs …
Congressional Oversight of the Department of Defense: Reconsidering the Conventional Wisdom
Observers often complain that Congress slights defense oversight. Their conclusions, however, are typically based on the assumption that the House and Senate will act like bureaucracies capable of comprehensive, systematic, and dispassionate oversight. Yet Congress is a political institution, and its ability to oversee defense issues is limited by its institutional makeup and by the nature of defense policy. As a result, the tendency to treat Con…
Americans and Their Forests: A Historical Geography
Testing the Parochial Hypothesis: Congress and the Strategic Defense Initiative
Conventional wisdom holds that members of Congress vote the economic interests of their constituencies on defense issues. Previous studies for the most part have failed to find evidence of parochial voting, but these studies are open to a variety of methodological criticisms. This paper reexamines the parochial hypothesis by analyzing congressional voting on the Strategic Defense Initiative. Even though the methodological problems of earlier stud…
United States
Foreign and Defense Policy in Congress: A Research Agenda for the 1990s
Congress and Foreign Policy: Why the Hill Matters
There is a marked deficiency in serious study on how the executive and Congress interact in an era when the range of issues requiring congressional approval has expanded way beyond the classic cases of treaties and foreign trade, when consensus on foreign policy has disappeared perhaps beyond recall, and when the practical need for congressional understanding and acceptance extends to almost every important step, however labeled or described
Reinventing the Pentagon: The Political Economy of Post-Cold War Defense
The "Two Presidencies" in Future Research: Moving Beyond Roll-Call Analysis
The two presidencies literature ostensibly seeks to determine whether presidents exercise more power over foreign policy than over domestic policy. In a laudable effort to be rigorous, scholars have sought to answer the question by examining roll-call voting in Congress. Doing so, however, changes the question from the power of the president versus Congress to the success of the president in Congress. Because presidents act without the approval o…
Congress and the Politics of U.S. Foreign Policy
How Congress Influences Foreign and Defense Policy
Congress, Foreign Policy, and the New Institutionalism
Journal Article Congress, Foreign Policy, and the New Institutionalism Get access James M. Lindsay James M. Lindsay The University of Iowa Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar International Studies Quarterly, Volume 38, Issue 2, June 1994, Pages 281–304, https://doi.org/10.2307/2600978 Published: 01 June 1994
Congress and the Politics of U.S. Foreign Policy
Congress and the Politics of U.S. Foreign Policy
The New Apathy: How an Uninterested Public Is Reshaping Foreign Policy
Nasty, Brutish, and Long: America's War on Terrorism
A critical question as the United States enters this new ‘cold war’ is whether it has learned the lessons of the last—or whether it is destined to repeat its mistakes
Lame‐duck diplomacy
The election of a president from another party should not constrain sitting presidents from pursuing foreign policy as they deem best. Here is a set of rules, however, to govern these transitions for both outgoing and incoming administrations
Defending America: The Case for Limited National Missile Defense
Arms control and missile defense are once again at the forefront of the American national security agenda. Not surprisingly, the debate has broken down along well-worn lines. Arms control advocates dismiss the idea of missile defense as a dangerous and costly folly. Missile defense advocates argue that the U.S. should move aggressively to defend itself against missile attack. With clear and lively prose free of partisan rhetoric, Defending Americ…
Getting Uncle Sam's Ear: Will Ethnic Lobbies Cramp America's Foreign Policy Style?
Hard Choices: National Security and the War on Terrorism
The administration's National Security Strategy forthrightly commits to ‘fighting terrorists and tyrants’ and ‘encouraging free and open societies on every continent.’ What it ignores is that these two goals often conflict. ... Which should take priority: America's commitment to its ideals, or a concern for its safety? ... The strategy offers no advice on how to answer these questions
Missile defense after the ABM treaty
As of mid‐June, the U.S. is free to develop, test, and deploy missile defenses in any fashion it sees fit. Yet, the administration has been short on details about the kind of defense it would build. What system is Washington likely to deploy? What should it
Political science (30 works) · Law (23 works) · Politics (18 works) · Public Administration (16 works) · Foreign policy (14 works) · Economics (13 works) · Law (13 works) · Sociology (13 works) · International Relations and Foreign Policy (12 works) · Political economy (12 works)