The Shape of Elite Opinion on U.S. Foreign Policy, 1992 to 2004

Abstract

Research has demonstrated considerable diversity in the evolution of foreign policy beliefs of elite opinion leaders. Holsti and Rosenau's three‐headed eagle, Wittkopf's four‐headed eagle, and Rosati and Creed's six‐headed eagle produced a number of categories that help to explain the significance of this diversity since the collapse of the Cold War consensus. This article expands upon this research by observing even greater complexity and diversity in the shape of foreign policy beliefs of elite opinion leaders since the end of the Cold War. Using a content analysis of national opinion and foreign policy journals between 1992 and 2004, it identifies and details nine foreign policy orientations (missionaries, hegemonists, globalizers, global capitalists, narrow realists, progressive internationalists, anti‐imperialists, neighbors, and disengagers) held by elite opinion leaders. It also suggests that elites are altering their foreign policy orientations by absorbing profound global changes into their belief systems.

A Test of the “News Diversity” Standard

“…Scholars have used many different schemes to organize foreign policy values, including a two-orientation scale comprising hierarchy and community (Rathbun 2007), a three-orientation scale comprising militarism, anticommunism, and isolationism (Hurwitz and Peffley 1987), a four-orientation scale on the two dimensions of militant versus cooperative internationalism (Holsti and Rosenau 1990), and six- (Rosati and Creed 1997), seven- (Baum and Groeling 2009), and nine-orientation scales (Dolan 2008). For simplicity's sake, we avoided using the scales with higher numbers of orientations, but we also wanted to avoid over-simplification: Even on purely domestic issues, general Left-Right orientations differ on the dimension of social versus economic policy (Uhlmann et al 2009).…”