Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-nwzlb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-28T08:31:34.652Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Free Hand Abroad, Divide and Rule at Home

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 December 2008

Jack Snyder
Affiliation:
Columbia University, Email: jls6@columbia.edu.
Robert Y. Shapiro
Affiliation:
Columbia University, Email: rys3@columbia.edu.
Yaeli Bloch-Elkon
Affiliation:
Columbia University, Email: blochy@mail.biu.ac.il and ybe1@columbia.edu.
Get access

Extract

Under unipolarity, the immediate costs and risks of war are more likely to seem manageable for a militarily dominant power like the U.S. This does not necessarily make the use of force cheap or wise, but it means that the costs and risks attendant on its use are comparatively indirect, long term, and thus highly subject to interpretation. Unipolarity, combined with the opportunity created by September 11, opened a space for interpretation that tempted a highly ideological foreign policy cohort to seize on international terrorism as an issue to transform the balance of power both in the international system and in American party politics. This cohort's response to the terrorist attack was grounded in ideological sincerity but also in the routine practice of wedge issue politics, which had been honed on domestic issues during three decades of partisan ideological polarization and then extended into foreign policy.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Trustees of Princeton University 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)