George W. Bush's City on a Hill

This paper explores the various and sometimes contradictory meanings of the metaphor of A City on a Hill, with an emphasis on how such an investigation can contribute to an understanding of the foreign policy of George W. Bush, especially in terms of the War on Terrorism in general and the war in Iraq in particular. The strands within the metaphor include religious, political, economic, and technological dimensions which too often exacerbate the confusions about national self-image many Americans have about our role in the world and about what has been called the right-wing Wilsonianism of the Bush White House. Greater clarity about the role of this metaphor in our history might help in minimizing what can fittingly be called the law of unintended consequences.     

Visual Persuasion in George W. Bush's Presidency: Cowboy Imagery in Public Discourse

Discussion of George W. Bush's rhetoric typically focuses on his spoken address, yet his use of cowboy visuals also qualifies as public communication. By visually identifying himself as a cowboy Bush associated his presidency with the story of the mythic cowboy, a powerful concept in American culture. While visual images are typically not considered a substantive and rational form of political communication, Bush's cowboy persona, emphasized visually, prompted widespread debate about his leadership style and approach to national problems, particularly terrorism. While many did not agree with his policies, the simplicity of the visual message and the foundational nature of the cowboy story provided a narrative that prompted a national debate on substantive issues of the day. Language is still considered the critical element of political debate, but as Bush's experience demonstrates, rhetoric includes visual communication as well.     

Reporting on Two Presidencies: News Coverage of George W. Bush's First Year in Office

Personal coverage of President Bush during 2001 on network television and in six U.S. newspapers became far more positive after September 11, 2001, with the largest gains found in network television coverage. Coverage of the rest of the Bush administration, in contrast, became distinctly more negative after the terrorist attacks. The vast majority of the executive branch coverage both before and after the terrorist attacks in all media outlets focused on job performance, not the questions of character, ethics and political conduct that often dominate presidential campaign coverage.     

George W. Bush, Idealist

There is much anger and confused grumbling these days outside the United States—and in Europe in particular—about the character of the Bush administration's foreign policy. Perceived American unilateralism is raising hackles and questions. This article contends that current trends in US foreign policy can be better understood by realizing that many senior Bush administration officials are not 'realists', at least as that philosophy of world politics is classically understood. Many of the resulting views—that, for example, threats to security often originate in ideology rather than material strength—are demonstrably correct and even hopeful in their faith in long-term historical trends. But there may be no getting around the essential contradictions required of US foreign policy in an age when America is the leading power, when a new global community of trading democracies is emerging, and yet when a number of distinctly old-style threats to the peace remain very much in evidence. Washington could do more to smooth the edges of those contradictions in order to point up the idealism and hopefulness of US policy.     

Just War and Terrorism: A New Policy Perspective

The idea of terrorism as policy in any policy discussion is abhorrent in most academic circles. The fact is, however, if one removes the emotion attached to the use of terrorism and approaches it as a tool it can be placed in several models used by policymakers today. For many centuries the concept of “just war” has been discussed by philosophers, policymakers, and warriors. When standards have been established that those engaged in conflict can use to determine whether or not an action is considered “just.” How did Christianity in particular move from emphasizing love (agapē, caritas) to the acceptance of waging war? This problem was dealt with when the law of war was included in discussion of natural law theory.     

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 efforts to build partnerships. Despite these differences, both presidents share one common conviction: that other countries long for US leadership. Bush believed that friends and allies would eventually rally to the side of the United States, even if they bristled at its actions, because they shared America's goals and had faith in its motives. Obama believed that a United States that listened more to others, stressed common interests and favored multinational action would command followers. In practice, however, both visions of American global leadership faltered. Bush discovered that many countries rejected his style of leadership as well as his strategies. Obama discovered that in a globalized world, where power has been more widely dispersed, many countries are not looking to Washington for direction. The future success of US foreign policy depends on the ability of policy‐makers to recognize and adapt to a changing geopolitical environment in which the US remains the most significant military, diplomatic and economic power but finds it, nonetheless, increasingly difficult to drive the global agenda.     

The Supreme Court in Times of Hot and Cold War: Learning from the Sounds of Silence for a War on Terrorism

Justice William J. Brennan once remarked that the Court has never fully developed a jurisprudence of national security. It is simply too episodic, he said. ¹ Our present Chief Justice would, it would seem, largely agree, though his own research shows some greater willingness for the Court to superintend—at least after the fact ² —the actions of the executive in times of war or similar crisis. My assignment in this essay was to ask the question slightly differently; namely, has the posture of the Court differed in times of hot or cold war, and if so, how has it differed? As will be evident momentarily, that question is less helpful to our present circumstance than it might seem. Why? Because, frankly, we are in neither a hot nor cold war, but something quite different ³ —something that has the potential to be not only hot, but blistering, and something which will likely never be fully appreciated as having gone truly cold.     

坎宁、伯克对格拉斯顿早期政治观和政治归属的影响

受家庭尤其是父亲的影响,格拉斯顿从小即成为十足的“坎宁派”。出于对坎宁的崇拜,早年的格拉斯顿在一切政治问题上几乎无一例外地追随坎宁,坎宁的内外政策实践与伯克的政治思想,启迪并引导着青少年时期的格拉斯顿,成为他汲取政治智慧的主要源泉;相应地,它们也在一定程度上规定了格拉斯顿早期的政治态度与倾向,使他的早期经历打上了鲜明的保守主义印记。     

Terrorism and Counter-Terrorism: Situating al-Qaeda and the Global War on Terror within Geopolitical Trends and Structures

Two North American political geographers situate contemporary terrorism in the world within broad historical trends and geopolitical structures. They employ Rapoport's "four waves of terrorism" to illustrate the changing geography of terrorism (from an intrastate to an international phenomenon) and place it within the context of broad historical shifts in modes of warfare that envisages terrorism as a form of war stemming from imperialism and state-building. The authors broaden the structural setting of terrorism to include geoeconomics and the concept of relative deprivation, using empirical analysis to argue that contemporary terrorism is primarily a feature of the semi-periphery of the world-economy (middle-income countries). Specific characteristics of the Global War on Terror are interpreted by relating processes of imperialism and state-building to a situation in which the U.S. is facing geopolitical challenges and a possible decline in global-power status. Journal of Economic Literature, Classification Numbers: I390, O100, Y900. 3 figures, 1 table, 52 references.