So you are looking for female researchers on American foreign policy. In honor of #WomensDay I make your life easier by listing a few of my favorite ones, based on my imperfect memory and in no particular order:
The esteemed @Prof_Borg seems a great place to start. I remember reading her great book, "A New Deal for the World" in grad school, and partly disagreeing with it in a way that helped me write my dissertation. artsci.wustl.edu/faculty-staff/…
Want to understand the foreign policy decision making process better? Then look no further than to @ProfSaunders and her insightful work: profsaunders.wordpress.com
I'm suddenly acutely aware of the collegial risks of my flawed memory, so I'm hoping others will join in and tag great scholars I've momentarily forgotten about! And perhaps I will get to know someone I didn't know from before. In other words: don't hate me if I left you out.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
My department at Bjørknes College hosting world-renowned #fascism scholar Roger Griffin today, who is giving a three-part zoom-lecture to our students from his office in the UK on the term, its history, and how we should/should not define it. brookes.ac.uk/templates/page…
Some highlights from today's inaugural lecture: Marxists early on saw fascism as a child of capitalism, a symptom of its crisis. Seen as an authoritarian anti-left wing movement to suppress socialism. But early research was hampered by lack of a consensus on a definition.
In 1990s, Griffin was part of a research community that was able to make progress on the question of a consensus definition: Fascism is something revolutionary, attempting to make a new reality/a new man/a new society. "A revolution to get rid of decadence"/national decline.
First, what is #AmericanExceptionalism? It is helpful to view it as a national identity or narrative (which says that the US is inherently morally superior to other nations, and therefore will rise but not fall like previous great powers, and therefore should lead others).
I write about how this narrative has influenced US foreign policy through history in this book: routledge.com/American-Excep…
I am very excited to share my new article on the Big U.S. Foreign Policy Debate that is currently happening. In short, rather than a policy debate, I suggest we approach it as a battle of master narratives, tnsr.org/2019/12/whithe…
pitting 'American exceptionalism' against Jacksonian ethno-nationalism. For the first time since 1941, a U.S. president is promoting fundamentally different grand strategy ('America First') that builds on an anti-exceptionalist narrative (Jacksonian nationalism).
The article lays out the two competing narratives and their attendant grand strategies, and asks: given the drastic break with the postwar U.S. foreign policy consensus that Trump in fact represents, is it possible to reverse course once a new president is elected?
I think people need to define "identity politics" a bit better before they are allowed to write articles on it. I think it's fair to say, according to Fukuyama, "politics" is what used to happen, whereas "identity politics" is what happens now. foreignaffairs.com/articles/ameri…
For instance, he writes, "For the most part, twentieth-century politics was defined by economic issues." I think an Americanist would tell you, 20th C Am politics was rife with "identity politics" in that it was about the rights of various marginalized groups in Am politics.
For instance, the Democratic Party's eventual embrace of civil rights as an important part of their party platform in the 1960s would cause a fundamental reshuffling in the American political parties and who voted for them, a profound development that we are still seeing