Analyzing Ideology through Intervention:
An Analysis of the Influence of Ideology on American Intervention, 2002-2015
Alexa Leigh Lewis
Dr. Scott Watson
March 7, 2018
Introduction:
This project attempts to understand the influence of regime ideology on foreign policy regarding intervention. This question was investigated through utilization of content analysis to code former Presidents George W. Bush and Barrack Obama’s National Security Strategies [NSSs] for
ideological indicators. Once each regime’s ideology was evaluated through content analysis, these findings were contrasted by an analysis of interventions (and noninterventions) undertaken by
each administration. This analysis was informed by consultation of quantitative data on American aid, trade, and Middle Eastern human rights violations.
Definitions and Methodology: Ideological Indicators
What is ideology? It is “any systematic and all-encompassing political doctrine, which claims to give a complete and universally applicable theory of man and society, and to derive therefrom a programme of political action”.
Content analysis allows a researcher to code the content of a document using indicators, and
develop conclusions from the repetition of these indicators. To code the NSSs produced by each regime, political theory has been utilized to develop indicators for the two most predominant
ideologies of international relations, realism and liberalism. The essence of both ideologies are captured by writings of their most influential scholars, referred to as the ‘fathers’ of each
respective tradition: Stephen Walt for realism, and Immanuel Kant for liberalism.
Coding the National Security Strategies
Each NSS produced by George W. Bush and Barrack Obama was coded using the indicators of each ideological tradition.
George W. Bush, “NSS” 2002. Total indicators: 27 Liberal indicators: 20 Realist indicators: 7 George W. Bush, “NSS” 2006. Total indicators: 51 Liberal indicators: 37 Realist indicators: 14
Total liberal indicators: 57 Total realist indicators: 21
Barrack Obama, “NSS” 2010. Total indicators: 66 Liberal indicators: 31 Realist indicators: 35 George W. Bush, “NSS” 2006. Total indicators: 37 Liberal indicators: 16 Realist indicators: 21
Total liberal indicators: 47 Total realist indicators: 56
Findings: Assessing adherence to Ideology through Intervention
Content analysis has demonstrated the existence of an ideological structure that underlies each President’s rhetoric in their respective NSSs. While Bush’s NSSs are clearly illustrative of a liberal ideology, Obama adheres more to a realist ideology, despite higher concentrations of liberal indicators. However, when decisions regarding intervention are analyzed as a
performance of each ideology, data collection illustrates that adherence to these ideologies is not quite as simple as the determination of an overarching normative foundation. Despite the overt liberal values presented in Bush’s NSSs, his
administration has undertaken many interventions that are illustrative of the realist tradition, indicating that his espoused
ideology may be insufficient to capture the totality of his actions. Obama, on the other hands, largely conforms to the realist tradition, as the interventions (and noninterventions) undertaken by his administration adhere to realist recommendations, particularly in the case of national interest.
Conclusions: Ideology as a Spectrum
Although specific ideologies are discernable in the rhetoric of leaders, the espousal of particular values does not
necessarily mean that an actor’s actions will conform to that ideology’s recommendations. Actions, in addition to rhetoric, must both be analyzed in order to properly understand how ideology influences intervention. This sentiment is evidenced by Bush’s lack of adherence to the recommendations of the liberal tradition, despite its pronounced presence in his NSSs. Obama, however, largely conforms to the ideology espoused in his NSSs, illustrating that understanding ideology can
provide invaluable insights into a leader’s foreign policy agenda.
Bibliography:
Barack Obama. United States. 2010, 2015.. National security strategy. [Washington]: President of the U.S.
Berg, Bruce, and Lune, Howard. Qualitative Research methods for the Social Sciences (8th ed.). United States of America: Pearson Education Inc.,
2012.
George W. Bush. United States. 2002, 2004. The national security strategy of the United States of America. [Washington]: President of the U.S. Kant, Immanuel. Perpetual Peace and Other Essays. Translated by Ted Humphrey. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 1983.
Scrunton, Roger. “Ideology.” In the Palgrave Macmillian Dictionary of Political Thought, 3rd ed. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007. Walt, Stephen. The Origins of Alliances. London: Cornell University Press, 1987.
Acknowledgements:
I would like to sincerely thank my supervisor, Dr. Scott Watson, for all his insights and help on this project. I would also like to thank the University of Victoria and the Department of
Political Science for all its support.
This research was
supported by the Jamie Cassells Undergraduate Research Award,
University of Victoria
Intervention and Nonintervention on the Ideological Spectrum:
Every decision regarding intervention between 2002 and 2016 in the Middle East was analyzed through the consultation of quantitative data to discern the normative structure underlying each decision. This data was collected from various
sources, and illustrated American aid and trade between the sample cases, in addition to detailing human rights violations in each Middle Eastern state.
Quantitative Data:
Realist Indicators: Objectivity, national interests, pluralism, amorality, autonomy
Liberal Indicators: Duty, human rights (freedom, equality, independence), universalism, universal principles
